HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 03/20/1990 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 199D CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7:30 PM
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCILMEMBERS: 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, 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 Jan Nelson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. MINUTES
A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, February s 199D Page 617
B. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, February 20, 1990 Page 640
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List Page 659
B. SCHROERS PUD by Burl Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. Page 660
40-89-PUD89, Planned Unit Development District Review and
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5; Approval
of Developer's Agreement for Schroers PUD and Owners' Supplement ;
to Developer's Agreement; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-69,
Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 40-89-PUD-8-B9 and
Ordering Publication of Said Summary. (Ordinance No.
40-89-PUD-8-89 - PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No.90-69 -
Authorizing Summary and Publication)
C. Set Date for Workshop for Board of Review Process for Tuesday,
i s 1990 at 6:00 PM
D. Award Bid for Cushman Turf Truck star Page 673
E. Continuance of Bids for Two Rotary Mowers Page 674
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1
A. BOULDER POINTE TOWNHOMES by David Carlson Companies, Inc. Request Page 676
for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 13.65 acres,
Site Plan Review on 13.65 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13.65
acres into 53 lots for construction of a 52 unit multi-family
residential development. Location: South and west of Twin Lakes
Crossing, northwest of Staring lake Parkway. (Ordinance No.
14-90 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-68 - Preliminary Plat)
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,March 20, 1990
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) YEAR XVI (Resolution No. Page 6B4
90-67)
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 697
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Hearing to Appeal Board of Appeals & Adjustments Decision on Page 69B
Variance Request 670-a4
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Councilmembers
B. Report of City Manager
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
•
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 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, ttE
Assistant City Attorney Joe Nilan,
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: All members present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Agenda as
published and amended.
ADDITIONS:
ADD Item IV.L, Eden Service Center. ADD Item X.A.1, Study
Committee for Location of Daycare Facilities.
Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List
B. CHURCH OF THE JUBILEE 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. Location: 6500 Baker Road.
(Resolution No. 90-19 - Site Plan Review)
C. SUPERAMERICA CAR WASH by Crosstown Investors. 2nd Reading
of Ordinance No. 45-89, Zoning District Change from Rural
to Neighborhood Commercial on 0.05 acre and Zoning
District Amendment within the Neighborhood Commercial
City Council Minutes 2 February 6, 1990
District on 1.2 acres; Approval of Supplement to
Developer's Agreement for SuperAmerica; Adoption of
Resolution No. 90-34, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No.
45-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; and
Adoption of Resolution No. 90-35, Site Plan Review.
Construction of a car wash addition to existing service
station. Location: West of Shady Oak Road at City West
Parkway. (Ordinance No. 45-89 - Rezoning & Zoning
District Amendment; Resolution No. 90-34 - Authorizing
Summary; Resolution No. 90-35 - Site Plan Review)
D. FAIRFIELD PHASES 1 THROUGH 6 by Tandem Properties. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 59-88-PUD-15-88, Planned Unit
Development District Review, with waivers, and underlying
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 92.7 acres
and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres; Approval of
Developer's Agreement for Fairfield Phase 2 - 6; and
Adoption of Resolution No. 90-29 - Authorizing Summary of
Ordinance No. 59-88-PUD-15-88 amd Ordering Publication of
Said Summary. 148.2 acres into 299 single family lots, 28
outlots and road right-of-way. Location: West of County
Road 4, south of Scenic Heights Road, east of Chicago and
Northwestern Railroad. (Ordinance No. 59-88-PUD-15-88 -
PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-29 -
Authorizing Summary and Publication)
{ E. Approval of a Joint (Minnetonka. Hennepin County, & Eden
Prairie) Traffic Analysis and Impact Study for Townline
Road
F. Resolution Proclaiming March 4 - 11 as Volunteers of
America Week (Resolution No. 90-28)
G. Award Bid for Remodeling of Police 911 Communications
Center
H. Approve Contract Supplement to I-494 EIS Agreement
(Resolution No. 90-32)
I. Final Plat Approval of Chase Point 2nd Addition (located
east of Old Shady Oak Road and south of Crosstown Freeway)
Resolution No. 90-33
J. Resolution Calling 514.850.000 of General Obligation Tax
Increment Refunding Bonds of 1983 (Resolution No. 90-36) •
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve Item A
through Item J on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried
unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1
City Council Minutes 3 February 6, 1990
A. 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 4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 15 acres
into 1 lot for construction of an indoor football practice
and training complex. Location: 9520 Viking Drive.
City Manager Jullie reported that this item was continued
from the November 21, 1989 City Council meeting and upon
the request of the proponent recommended a further
continuance to the May 1, 1990 City Council meeting.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue this item
to the May 1, 1990 City Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
B. PUBLIC STORAGE by Public Storage, Inc. Request for Guide
Plan 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-
( 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 54,137 square feet of office, commercial,
and industrial land uses. Location: West of County Road
18, south of the Preserve Village Mall.
Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had
been mailed to 83 surrounding property owners and properly
published in the Eden Prairie News.
Peter Beck, representing the proponent, presented a letter
to the City Council from the City of Golden Valley
regarding the compatibility of the Public Storage facility
with residential areas, and a draft of a protective
covenant.
Don Jensen, architect for the proponent, presented aerial
photos depicting the location of the Public Storage
facility in Golden Valley in relation to residential
areas. Jensen presented the plans for the project and
noted that the northern driveway access had been removed
as recommended by the Planning Commission, the exterior
building materials had been changed to comply with City
standards, and the tree replacement calculations had been
adjusted. Jensen noted that the only recommendation of
the Planning Commission and Staff which could not be
accommodated was to adjust the base area ratio from the
/c
•
City Council Minutes 4 February 6, 1990
0.3 proposed to the 0.2 maximum allowed by City Code. He
added that the landscaping and greenspace represented 40%
of the area, the blacktop 30%, and the building coverage
30%. Jensen believed that the project would not disturb
the existing neighborhood. Setback variances would be
required for the office and daycare facilities. Jensen
stated that all activities for the mini-storage facility
would be directed toward the interior of the project, the
lighting had been designed to project inward, and the
amount of traffic generated would be low. He added that
there would be a minimal impact on the intersection at
Anderson Lakes Parkway and County Road 18.
Beck presented a brief history of the Public Storage
Company and emphasized its desire to maintain high-quality
projects in both design and building material. Beck
stated that this was an infill area and this proposal
would provide a unified development for the 5 existing
lots. He noted that the majority of variances had been
eliminated from the original proposal and the setback
distances had been increased between the mini-storage and
the residential areas. Beck stated that the proponent had
met with the neighbors and was aware of their concerns.
He added that the plan had been revised to address as many
of the neighbors concerns as was conceivably possible.
Beck noted that Eden Prairie required Industrial Zoning
for the Public Storage facility, which was not the case in
other cities. He proposed a restrictive covenant which
would guarantee that only the Public Storage and no other
form of industrial use would be allowed on this site. The
covenant would be good for 30 years. Beck believed that
removing the covenant would be more difficult than
changing the Zoning requirements because a court hearing
would be required.
Beck stated that Public Storage would be making a
substantial investment in the building and, therefore,
were designed to be permanent, long-term businesses. He
stated that the proponent agreed with all of the Staff
recommendations with the exception of building coverage.
He noted that originally the S.A.R. was 38% and the plan
had been reduced to 30%, but could not be reduced further.
Beck stated that the parking requirements were low and,
therefore, the parking area required was minimal. Beck
also believed that the permanent drainage easement should
be taken into consideration.
Beck said that the Planning Commission had stated that
compelling reasons for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change
had not been presented; however, he believed that the
following reasons justified the change:
1. The 5 single-family residential lots would be a
non-conforming use. The Comprehensive Guide Plan
aCNv
City Council Minutes 5 February 6, 1990
does not specifically address these 5 lots, and it
is not site-specific.
2. The property was not currently served by water or
sewer.
3. County Road 18, which was originally designed as a
minor arterial road, had significantly changed in
a manner that directly impacted these lots. The
Comprehensive Guide Plan was not a rigid document
and was designed to be flexible based on changing
circumstances.
Beck believed that this site was not appropriate for low-
density residential and further believed that self-storage
facilities should not be zoned as industrial uses. He
added that self-storage was frequently developed in
residential areas because it served residential needs.
Beck noted that the Prairie Green Center in Eden Prairie
was developed much closer to residential homes than this
project would be. Beck believed that the mixed use for
these lots was worthy of the Council's consideration and
presented an opportunity to solve several problems related
to the development of these 5 lots.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this
item at its September 25, 1989 meeting and recommended
denial of the project with a 6-0-0 vote based on the
{ rationale presented in the Planning Commission minutes and
subject to the Staff recommendations outlined in the Staff
Report dated September 22, 1989. Enger noted that the
proponent had revised the plans to eliminate 1 access and
other changes to bring the project into compliance with
City Code. He added that the proponent had recommended
use of brick for the exterior of the mini-storage which
was not required by City Code. Enger noted that this item
was not reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission.
Pidcock asked what types of zoning surrounded the facility
in Golden Valley. Jensen replied that there was park and
open space to the south, duplexes and single-family to the
west, and light industrial to the north. Pidcock then
asked how old its existing facilities were. Jensen
replied that the business had started in 1972 and projects
were currently located in 40 states. Jensen added that
only 1 facility had been taken back by the company and
this was due to a freeway condemnation.
Pidcock asked Dietz what the City's experience had been
with the Prairie Green Center. Dietz replied that Staff
had not received any formal complaints. He added that the
facility was a low traffic generator.
Peterson asked if this would increase traffic problems at
Anderson Lakes Parkway and the entrance to the Preserve
i1
City Council Minutes 6 February 6, 1990
Village Mall. Enger replied that this was a difficult
intersection currently; however, this project would need
minimal site distances. Enger added that this project
would only increase the traffic at this intersection
approximately 8 to 10%. Dietz noted that 2 alternatives
were being considered presently for the arterial design of
County Road 18.
Pidcock asked what the proponent had done since the denial
by the Planning Commission to mitigate the reasons for
denial. Enger replied that the proponent had made changes
to the site plan; however, the Planning Commission had
stated that the land use was inappropriate, which the
proponent could not change.
Norm Ziesman, 9425 Garrison Way, stated the following
concerns:
1. Why change the zoning?
2. Why change the zoning now?
3. Will residential use ever be appropriate?
4. What will be the effect on the existing residents?
Ziesman believed that because the current owners of the
property wanted to move and the proponent wanted to
develop the property in the manner presented, it did not
justify a need for a zoning change. He added that because
the 5 existing homes were in non-conformance did not mean
that the zoning needed to be changed to industrial.
Ziesman believed that the argument that residential use
could never be developed on this site because of the
change in use for County Road 18 was not valid and stated
that there were other areas in the Twin Cities where
residential homes were located on frontage roads. Ziesman
did not believe that placing a covenant on the property
was sufficient because covenants were frequently changed
or violated. Ziesman believed that it was too soon to
make a determination that this property could not be
developed as residential and needed to be developed as
commercial or industrial.
Jane Laskowski, 9445 Garrison Way, stated that her home
was designed such that her family area would look out over
the roof lines of this site. She believed that to change
the zoning at this time would be premature. Laskowski
agreed that there was a need for this type of business,
but believed that other areas were still available in Eden
Prairie which would be more appropriate.
Roy Torgenson, an Eden Prairie resident living along
County Road 18, asked that the City Council consider the
existing residents. He added that traffic had increased
significantly in this area over the years due to the
increase in businesses in the area.
! n?
City Council Minutes 7 February 6, 1990
Linda Sicheneder, 9360 County Road 18, asked the Council
to consider the public needs.
Carol Oliver, 9661 Clark Circle, stated that in the 5
years that she had lived in Eden Prairie the residents
were constantly dealing with proposed development of this
site. She noted that the Planning Commission had
supported the neighbors, their concerns, and supported the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Terry Osland, 9545 Garrison Way, believed that property
values would go down for existing homes. She added that
she would not have purchased in this location had she
known that the zoning could be changed.
Anderson stated that the residents were correct in that
this was the third proposal for this parcel in a short
period of time. Anderson did not believed that it was
appropriate to place industrial use next to residential
homes. He added that he could support the office and
daycare use, but could not support the Public Storage
facility. Anderson questioned how far the City wanted to
extend commercial use in this area.
Pidcock stated that she had difficulty with the City's
requirement for an industrial designation for the self-
storage when the use was very passive. Pidcock empathized
with those residents which were attempting to sell this
property and concurred that the cost to develop single-
family would not be cost-efficient at this time for this
area.
Enger noted that to develop single-family would be a
break-even situation or possibly a development at a loss.
Harris asked if multiple-family could be developed. Enger
replied this would not be a prime location for either
single-family or multiple-family.
Peterson stated that he could not make this decision based
on the existing property owners' desire to sell the
property and added that he could not support industrial
use for this site.
Tenpas believed that the office and daycare use would be
appropriate uses for this site. Tenpas added that he did
not foresee this site developing as residential for either
single-family or multiple-family. He believed that some
type of light commercial development was appropriate.
Anderson stated that the Council needed to protect the
rights of the existing residents and was concerned because
some of the homes would be looking directly down into this
site. Anderson said that if the zoning had originally
L.v
City Council Minutes 8 February 6, 1990
been industrial or commercial he would not have a problem;
however, the site was zoned Rural.
Pidcock noted that the Council had approved the CPT
project with residential homes directly across from that
site. She added that the public storage use was passive
and would generate less traffic than some light commercial
uses.
Harris stated that she had difficulty supporting the
entire project. Harris believed that the expectations of
the existing homeowners needed to be considered. Harris
stated that even through the Public Storage project was a
nicely designed project and the use was passive,
compelling reasons to change the zoning were not present.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Peterson to close the Public
Hearing and direct Staff to prepare a Resolution for
Denial with Findings. The rationale noted for denial of
the project was support of the Planning Commission's
findings. Motion carried 2-2-1. Tenpas and Pidcock voted
"NO", Harris abstained.
C. JAMESTOWN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT by Tandem Properties.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan AmenOPMENT by Tandem
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
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. Location: South of Highway #5, east of West
184th Avenue. (Resolution No. 90-20 - Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 90-21 - PUD Concept Review;
Resolution No. 90-22 - Preliminary Plat; Resolution No. 6
90-23 - Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review;
Ordinance No. 3-90-PUD-1-90 - PUD District Review and
Rezoning from Rural to R-22 and RM-6.5 on 12.16 acres, and
Rural to R1-22 on 37.65 acres.) Continued from January
16, 1990
Jullie reported that the City Council had been given the
main presentation for this item at the last meeting and
would be updated this evening on the changes which
occurred since that meeting.
•
City Council Minutes 9 February 6, 1990 a
Ostenson stated that an agreement had been reached with US
Homes regarding the location of the frontage road.
Enger reported that at the last meeting a question had
been raised regarding the placement of Dell Road and the
potential tree loss. It was confirmed that 605 caliper
inches of tree loss would occur if Dell Road were located
as presently planned, with the primary loss being oak
trees. Enger noted that Staff had looked at moving Dell
Road to the west, which would be physically possible. He
added that this move could result in the saving of between
150 and 200 caliper inches of trees.
Dietz reported that Staff had looked at moving Dell Road
50 feet to the west; however, this would be devastating to
the BDD development. An alternative would be to shift the
road 15 feet; however, a significant berm had been planned
by BDD. Dietz added that if the berm were redesigned the
affect to the BDD parcel would be approximately 10 feet
with an additional 5fect to the BDD parcel would be approx
with an additional 5-foot reduction to take place in the
median. The approximate savings for the trees would be
300 ca]iper inches.
Pidcock asked if Staff had discussed a possible shift in
the road to the other direction with the City of
Chanhassen. Dietz replied that Staff had not talked with
the City of Chanhassen at this time.
Ostenson stated that all of the trees were located on the
Eden Prairie side of the road.
Feerick stated that BDD had been informed of this possible
change in road alignment yesterday and added that a 50
foot shift to the west would result in the loss of 15
lots. Feerick stated BDD's willingness to continue to
work with Staff regarding a possible realignment; however,
at this time it could not support a proposal of even a 15-
foot shift in the road alignment.
Peterson believed that the realignment was under
consideration and was not officially part of any proposal
at this time.
Anderson stated that he had brought up the issue at the
last meeting and had suggested consideration of a
realignment to mitigate the significant tree loss.
Anderson added that his intent was to ask the proponent to
work with the City to save additional trees. Feerick
replied that the proponent was willing to work with the
City Staff and respected the City's concern regarding
saving the trees.
Peterson asked if approval of the motions for this project
would bind the City to a specific alignment of the road or
•
City Council Minutes 10 February 6, 1990
could negotiations between the 2 developers and the City
continue. Enger replied that the developer relied on
approval of the preliminary plat to make more specific
plans and every step taken would lessen the amount of
flexibility allowed.
Enger stated that Staff was not talking about saving the
entire 600 caliper inches. He added that with careful
placement of the bike path 150 caliper inches could be
saved and the realignment of the road would make this Jj
savings easier to accomplish.
Peterson stated that the information being presented did
not have a direct effect on this project, but rather on a
previously approved project. He added that Staff was
responding to a request for additional information from
the Council. Enger replied that the issue regarding the
trees loss was part of this proposal; however, it was
determined that nothing could be done on this proposal to
save the trees and a recommendation was made to consider
realignment of the road. Enger added that the result was
an affect on the BDD proposal for which a preliminary plat
had already been approved. Enger noted that it was
possible to look at alternatives for the BDD proposal
prior to the final plat approval. Enger added that at
this time the realignment of the road would not affect the
proposal under discussion at this time.
Ostenson stated that he would be willing to be part of the
discussions referring to the location of the bike path.
Feerick stated that BDD Development would continue to work
with Staff on this issue.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-20 for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No.
90-21 for PUD Concept Review. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No.
90-22 for Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously.
i
7,1u�
•
City Council Minutes 11 February 6, 1990
d MOTION:
^^66 Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No.
90-23 for Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance No. 3-90-PUD-1-90 for PUD District Review and
Rezoning and direct Staff to prepare a Development
Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff
recommendations and the following conditions: Prior to
2nd Reading for this item a report be presented to the
City Council regarding the discussions between BDD,
Jamestown, and Staff regarding possible methods to save
the trees. Motion carried unanimously.
1
D. ORDER IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND 1
SPECIFICATIONS, I.C. 52-156 (Extension of Mitchell Road
through Boulder Pointe to C.S.A.H. #1) Resolution No. 90-
30
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was
properly published.
Dietz reported that feasibility reports were presented to
the affected property owners. The road would be 32 feet
wide to County Road 1. The cost of the project for
sidewalks, streets, and sewer would be approximately
$517,000. Having the road shifted to the south would
benefit the Boulder Pointe project and, therefore, the
entire project could be assessed. The storm sewer would
be located in the 40 acre parcel at the northwest corner
of Boulder Pointe. A pond would be developed in Outlot C,
which would result in the reduction of the pipe size. The
sidewalks would be a continuation of the existing
sidewalks and would be included in the street costs.
Dietz reported that the sanitary sewer would cost
approximately $191,000. The City's portion of the cost
would be approximately $105,000 and the assessable amount
would be $86,000. The assessment would be calculated at
$27.83 per front foot. The City would absorb the cost of
the oversized pipe which could be reimbursed to the City
when the southwest area was developed. Dietz stated that
the watermain cost would be approximately $ 116,000.
Dietz reported that a spring start was anticipated with
substantial completion by Fall 1990. The project
assessment roll would be provided for the Special
Assessment Hearing in the Fall 1991. Dietz presented a
letter from Ron Krueger and Associates regarding a method
of assessment.
�1
City Council Minutes 12 February 6, 1990
Bob Nelson, 9041 North Sunrise Circle, was concerned that
his property would not have access from Mitchell Road.
Nelson stated that he had talked about developing his
property; however, this would not be possible if access
were not provided. Dietz replied that Mitchell Road was a
collector and driveways onto Mitchell Road would not be
considered good planning.
Peterson asked if Nelson would have access from either
Mitchell Road or Sunrise Circle. Dietz replied that
Nelson would probably have access from Sunrise Circle in
the event that he wished to subdivide the property.
Pidcock asked why Mitchell Road was only 32 feet wide if
it was considered a collector. Dietz replied that 32 feet
wide was the City standard and because no state aid would
be used for its construction, this width would be allowed.
Dietz added that if state funds were used the road would
be required to be 36 feet wide. Pidcock then asked if it
would be possible to get state aid for construction.
Dietz replied that he did not believe that would be
feasible.
Anderson asked if there would be enough width available
for this road to become a 4-lane roadway. Dietz replied
no. Anderson stated that other suburbs were constructing
4-lane roads, where Eden Prairie was still developing 2-
lane roads. Anderson was concerned if the roads would be
able to handle the traffic in the future, especially with
the southwest area developing. Dietz replied that the 2-
lane road would be able to handle the traffic.
Peterson stated that he would not like to see traffic
attracted into residential areas with a 4-lane road.
Dietz replied that the 2-lane system had been investigated
extensively.
Pidcock believed that the traffic volume would be
significant in this area. Dietz replied that the arterial
system available would be able to handle the traffic
volume.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-30 ordering the
improvement and preparation of plans and specifications.
Motion carried unanimously.
E. EDEN PLACE CENTER (Frank's Nursery & Crafts) by Prairie
Entertainment Associates. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 15.2 acres, Planned Unit
•
City Council Minutes 13 February 6, 1990
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. (Resolution No. 90-24 - PUD
Concept Amendment; Resolution No. 90-25 - Preliminary
Plat; Ordinance No. 5-90-PUD-2-90 - PUD District Review
and Zoning District Amendment)
Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had
been sent to owners of 24 surrounding properties and
published int he January 24, 1990 issue of the Eden
Prairie News.
John Winston, attorney for the proponent, stated that the
proponent's desire was to construct a first-class
facility.
Paul Strother, architect for the proponent, stated that 3
main issues were considered when developing the plan for
this project:
1. The site was visible from 3 sides.
2. The need for Frank's Nursery to operate its type
of business adequately.
3. To have the architecture design of Ciatti's
continued.
Strother stated that the berm would be continued to screen
the back of Ciatti's, the trash areas would be enclosed
for both Ciatti's and the retail center, all electric and
gas meters would be enclosed to the best of their ability,
and the loading areas for Frank's Nursery would be
enclosed and screened. He added that a masonry wall would
be constructed along the back side of the facility and to
the north side to screen the view of the storage area.
Strother noted that the national prototype architecture
for Frank's Nursery had been significantly modified to be
compatible with Ciatti's.
Winston stated that the proponent had been 100% responsive
to all of the City's requests.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this
item at its November 13 and December 11, 1989 and January
8, 1990 meetings. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the project at the January 8, 1990 meeting
based on the Staff recommendations outlined in the January
5, 1990 Staff Report.
Harris stated that the enclosure of the refuse areas would .
be a significant improvement. She then asked how high the
masonry wall would be. Strother replied that the wall
ay t
City Council Minutes 14 February 6, 1990
would be 14 feet high. He added that this had been
discussed with Mr. Teman.
Peterson asked what the view would be from the opposite
side of Eden Road. Strother replied that only the top of
the wall would be seen and added that the sight lines
would be good from all areas.
Anderson asked what type of plantings would be placed on
the back berm area. Strother replied pines and Black Hill
Spruce.
Peterson asked if the berm would be irrigated. Strother
replied yes.
Pidcock asked how the employees would get to the trash
enclosure. Strother stated that because of the location
of the kitchen, the employees would need to go outside of
the building to get to the trash enclosures.
Harris was concerned that because the employees had to go
outside the building to reach the trash enclosures, the
trash would not get into the enclosed area.
Winston believed that the trash issue would be difficult
for the proponent to police.
Peterson believed that it was important that the developer I
solve an existing problem before further development was
approved.
Peterson did not believed that this was an acceptable
resolution to the present problem and requested that this
issue be resolved prior to 2nd Reading.
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission recommended approval 6-0-0.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-24 for PUD Concept
Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to adopt Resolution No.
90-25 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried
unanimously.
aJ
City Council Minutes 15 February 6, 1990
(, MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve 1st Reading of
Ordinance No. 5-9O-PUD-2-90 for PUD District Review and
Zoning and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement
incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and
Council conditions as related to the trash enclosure.
Anderson stated that he was concerned with the upkeep and
maintenance of the project. He added that he did not want
to see pallets or old, dead shrubs to be visible. Winston
replied that Frank's Nursery believed that this would be
its finest store to date. Anderson emphasized that it was
important that the Council not be bothered with
maintenance issues and complaints from neighbors.
Peterson believed that the screening proposed would
adequately address Councilmember Anderson's concerns.
Tenpas stated that there would actually be two walls, one
inside the other, which would adequately screen the
operations.
Motion carried unanimously.
Harris requested that further discussion regarding outside j
trash storage in Eden Prairie take place at a special
meeting. Peterson recommended that Staff look into this
issue and report back to the Council.
F. MERMAID CAR WASH, Esberg Corporation. Request for Zoning
District Change and Site Plan Review. Location: Prairie
View Center (Ordinance No. 6-90 - Zoning District
Amendment)
Jullie reported that the proponent was requesting a
continuance to the March 13, 1990 City Council meeting.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue this item
the March 13, 1990 City Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
G. R.G. READ & COMPANY. INC. by R.G. Read & Company, Inc.
Request for Zoning District Amendment within the I-2
Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 1.82 acres for
construction of a 39,080 square foot office/warehouse.
Location: Northeast quadrant of Corporate Way and Martin
Drive. (Ordinance No. 7-90 - Zoning District Amendment)
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been
mailed to owners of 17 surrounding properties and
City Council Minutes 16 February 6, 1990
published in the January 24, 1990 issue of the Eden
Prairie News.
Bruce Schmidt, representing the proponent, was available
to answer questions.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this
item at its January 8, 1990 meeting and recommended
approval with a 4-0-0 vote.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to close the Public
Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 7-90 for
Zoning District Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission
and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
H. CENTURY BANK BUILDING by KKE Architects, Inc. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 109.68
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with
waivers, Zoning District Change from C-Reg to C-Reg-Ser,
and Site Plan Review on 2.48 acres for construction of a
33,653 foot building. Location: Southeast corner of
Viking Drive West and Highway #169. (Resolution No. 90-26
- PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance No. 8-90-PUD-3-90 - PUD
District Review and Zoning District Amendment)
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was
mailed to 8 surrounding property owners and published in
the January 24, 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Ron Erickson, representing the proponent, presented the
plans for a bank building. The proponent was requesting a
right-in only access from Highway 169. The parking would
be enclosed under the building. The exterior material
would be brick, stone and accent material of rockface
brick.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this
item at its January 8, 1990 and recommended approval 4-0-
0. Enger noted that the traffic would need to be balanced
throughout the remainder of the PUD.
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission recommended approval of the project.
There were no comments from the audience.
•l
City Council Minutes 17 February 6, 1990
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No 90-26 for PUD Concept
Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance No. 8-90-PUD-3-90 for PUD District Review and j
Zoning District Amendment and direct Staff to prepare a
Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff
recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
I. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL. PHASE II by International School of
Minnesota, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment
with the Public Zoning District on approximately 38 acres, 1
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)
Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing was
mailed to 54 surrounding property owners and published in
the January 24, 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Tracy Whitehead, representing the proponent, stated that
the school was presently operating at full capacity. The
design of the addition would be that which was originally
approved.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this
item at its November 27 and December 11, 1989 meetings and
approved the proposal with a 7-0-0 vote.
Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission reviewed this item on December 18,
1989 and the main issue of discussion was focused on the
trail. Lambert wanted both the school and the City to be
on record as to their intent regarding the trail issue.
The school had gone on record stating that it did not
support the trail and the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission went on record supporting the trail
system.
Peterson understood that originally Hennepin County was to
buy the land for the trail. Lambert replied that Hennepin
County had decided not to go forward with the project and
if the trail were to proceed it would become a City
project.
C:
City Council Minutes 18 February 6, 1990
Peterson asked the purpose of going on record for support.
Lambert replied that it was important to establish the
intent of the City if condemnation were to be necessary.
Whitehead noted that Hennepin County had started
condemnation proceedings at one point and later decided to
reconsider.
Tenpas asked why the school was against the trail.
Whitehead replied that vandalism was a concern. Whitehead
believed that the trail should be considered as a separate
issue.
Harris believed that the trail would be an important
contribution to the City and would like to see the issue
of the trail investigated further.
Anderson noted that it had always been the intent to have
a connection of the pedestrian trail system at this
location which would provide access to a county park.
Enger stated there was a requirement to file a Final Plat
which was one year over due. Whitehead stated that she
was not aware of all the details which were involved in
filing a Final Plat; however, it was in the process now.
Whitehead wanted the Final Plat due before an occupancy
permit could be issued.
Peterson stated that the City appreciated the presence of
the school; however, he asked if the City could place a
legal condition on this proposal regarding the trail.
Milan believed that this would be possible. Whitehead
stated that the school's attorney had had several
discussions with City Attorney Pauly and did not believe
that such a condition would be possible. Whitehead added
that the owners were firm in their position of not wanting
a trail through the property. She added that this was a
cultural difference for the Lebanon-based owners.
Whitehead encouraged Staff to discuss this further with
the owners.
Pidcock stated that the City's position was also firm,
that the City wanted the trail developed as originally
proposed.
Anderson stated that the City had been led to believe that
the County's intent was to construct a trail and now this
may not be true.
Tenpas believed that the trail issue should be discussed
further with the owners.
{ Gerald Duffy, attorney representing a Mr. Don Poupard,
owner of land to the west at 6251 Beach Road, stated that
•
City Council Minutes 19 February 6, 1990
he could not believe that the City had allowed this
proponent to go over one year and not file a Final Plat.
Duffy stated that his clients property was lower in
elevation than that of the school's. He noted that the
plan had been altered regarding the access, landscaping
and visual screening which had been agreed after the
Council had approved the plan. Duffy added that drainage
problems were present because of the changes which
occurred from the school's original grading plan. Duffy
believed that Phase II should not be allowed until Phase I
was completed as agreed. Duffy believed that any other
developer in the City would be required to meet City
regulations, yet the school had been allowed to be over a
year past due to file a Final Plat.
Peterson asked Staff if it was aware of these problems.
Dietz believed that the drainage issue had been resolved.
Enger replied that landscaping was to replace a berm; !!
because of the grade at the entrance, it was determined
that a berm was not possible. Enger added that Assistant
Planner Kipp had a meeting with the proponent and the
property owner, and at that meeting the proponent had
agreed to relocate 4 trees. Enger stated that the
landscaping was in place; however, it did not screen the
property owner from the headlights.
Peterson stated that there were several unresolved issues:
landscaping, grading, and screening, all of which needed
to be addressed.
Whitehead stated that she had no idea there was a problem.
She added that she had not heard from Mr. Poupard for over
a year and believed the issues to be resolved. Whitehead
stated that the proponent had added 4 additional trees in
lieu of moving them and the sign had been angled. She
added that the driveway design had been changed based on a
recommendation from the BRW and the City.
Duffy stated that during the normal course of development
his client should have been informed of any changes from
the original plan. Duffy questioned what the final grades
would be and if the City actually knew since a Final Plat
had not been filed. He stated that the City should decide
what can be done today, since what was originally proposed
had not solved the problems for his client. Duffy believed
strongly that Phase I should be completed before Phase II
could proceed.
Anderson and Peterson concurred that major issues were yet
unresolved.
{
There were no further comments from the audience.
City Council Minutes 20 February 6, 1990
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue this item to
the February 20, 1990 City Council meeting to provide time
to resolve the issues. Motion carried unanimously.
Peterson noted that the trail issue should be dealt with
separately.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue this meeting
until 11:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
J. EDEN SQUARE (TOWER BANK SQUARE) by Robert Larsen
Partnership, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on 9.58 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review and Zoning District Amendment within the
C-Reg-Ser Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 9.58 1
acres for construction of a 7,800 square foot building.
Location: Highway #169 and Prairie Center Drive.
(Resolution No. 90-27 - PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance
No. 9-90-PUD-4-90 - PUD District Review and Zoning
District Change)
Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had
been mailed to 31 adjacent property owners and published
in the January 24, 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Kelly Doran, representing the proponent, presented the
plans for an 8,000 square foot, two-story office bank and
office building. He added that the architecture would be
compatible with the adjacent buildings.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed
this item at its January 8, 1990 meeting and recommended
approval with a 4-0-0 vote.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-27 for PUD Concept
Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD-4-90 for PUD District Review and
Zoning District Change and direct Staff to prepare a
f Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff
( recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
•
City Council Minutes 21 February 6, 1990
irK. 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 j
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.
(Ordinance No. 47-89-PUD-10-89 - PUD District Review and
Zoning).
Jullie reported that the proponent had requested a
continuance to the February 20, 1990 City Council meeting.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to continue this item to
the February 20, 1990 City Council meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
L. 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.
Jullie reported that the proponent had requested a
continuance to the February 20, 1990 City Council meeting.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to continue this item to
the February 20, 1990 City Council meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve Payment of Claims
No. 57064 through No. 57489.
Harris asked what Claim No. 57232 to Carlson & Carlson Company
related to. Jullie replied that this was part of the employee
assistance program.
Peterson asked what kind of waste Buckingham Disposal dealt
with, Claim No. 57228. Jullie replied that this was for
garbage pickup at City facilities.
Peterson requested a detailed explanation of the legal
services provided. Jullie replied that he would provide the
Council with this information.
I,:1
City Council Minutes 22 February 6, 1990
j
AP
IL ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas, and
Peterson all voting "AYE".
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
A. Appointment of seven members to the Landfill Advisory
Committee
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to continue this item to
the February 20, 1990 City Council meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. Appointment of seven members to the Earth Week Committee
(1 Councilmember, 1 member of the Parks, Recreations &
Natural Resources Commission, 1 member of the Waste
Management Commission, 1 member from Eden Prairie ISD No.
272, and 4 at-large members)
Anderson recommended the following individuals for the
Earth Week Committee:
1. Bud Baker
2. Bonnie Swaim
3. Howard Peterson
4. John Lyngdal
5. Stu Fox
6. Craig Dawson
7. Richard Anderson
8. Cindy Adalbert
9. Barbara Westmoreland
10.Lynne Forster
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve the members of
the Earth Week Committee as presented. Motion carried
unanimously. -(
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Councilmembers
Pidcock requested that the Human Services Commission be
directed to study the locations for daycare centers.
Enger stated that this had been directed previously.
Jullie added that the conclusion had been that sufficient
i
V J�
i
City Council Minutes 23 February 6, 1990
( data was not available; however, a report would be
resubmitted.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Set Tuesday. March 13. 6:30 PM for General Orientation
with Board and Commission members
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to schedule a special
meeting for General Orientation with Board and Commission
members for Tuesday March 13, at 6:30 PM. Motion carried
unanimously.
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
f
XII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 PM. '
f
I
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
1
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive 1
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 Anderson absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MOTION:
t
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as
published and amended.
ADDITIONS;
Add Item X.A.1, Information Request.
•
Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A. City Council Meetina held Tuesday, January 16. 1990
MOTION: .
Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve the minutes
of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, January 16, 1990
as published and amended.
Page 11, correct the printing error.
Motion carried 3-0-1. Harris abstained.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
Ar
IL A. Clerk's License List '. '
•
s .-
City Council Minutes 2 February 20, 1990
B. Award Bid for Staring Lake Park Amphitheater Sound System
C. Receive Recommendation from Historical & Cultural
Commission reaarding Graffiti Bridge
D. Final Plat Approval of Bell Oaks Third Addition located
north of Riverview Road and east of Homeward Hills Road
(Resolution No. 90-37)
E. Final Plat Approval of Wyndham Nob 3rd Addition located
south of Townline Road and east of Dell Road (Resolution
No. 90-38)
F. Receive Feasibility Study for Summit/Meadowvale/Red Oak
Drive Neighborhood Sanitary Sewer. Watermain and Street
Improvements and Set Public Hearing. I.C. 52-166
(Resolution No. 90-39)
G. PUBLIC STORAGE by Public Storage, Inc. Request for Guide
Plan 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)
H. Riley Lake Park Acquisition
I. Approval of Amended Arbitrage Agreement for Preserve Place
Apartments
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve Items A
through I on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried
unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 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. 90-17 -
Preliminary Plat) Continued from January 16, 1990
•
I
City Council Minutes 3 February 20, 1990
Jullie reported that this item was continued to consider
an appeal for the Board of Appeals and Adjustments
decision regarding front footage variances for 2 lots.
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments denied the request
with a 3-3 vote. The Planning Commission and the Parks, 4
Recreation and Natural Resources Commission both
recommended approval of the project.
Tenpas asked if the Planning Commission was aware of the IJ
variance requirement. Enger replied that the Planning
Commission did not offer a specific recommendation to
approve the variances; however, if the Planning Commission
had had reservations regarding this issue it would have
been mentioned in the motions and the minutes.
Peterson noted that the Council should first consider the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision before making
the motions regarding the proposal.
Harris asked if it would have been possible to replat this
differently with only 1 driveway. Enger replied that it
would be possible to have 1 necklot with frontage on
Rowland Road and the 2nd lots would not have any frontage
on Rowland Road. He added that another alternative would
be for 2 lots with 20 feet of frontage on Rowland Road
with a shared driveway.
Cardarelle stated that to redesign the driveway would be
difficult because of the grades and additional tree loss
would result.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to overturn the Board of
Appeals decision and approve the variances. Motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the public
hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 2-90 for
Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No.
90-19 approving the Preliminary Plat and direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission
and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
B. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL. PHASE II by International School of
Minnesota, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment
City Council Minutes 4 February 20, 1990
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
Jullie reported that the proponent had requested a
continuance to the March 13, 1990 City Council meeting.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to continue this item to
the March 13, 1990 City Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
C. 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
Jullie reported that this item was continued from the
February 6, 1990 Council meeting.
Peter Hilger, representing the proponent, presented the
plans for a 3300 square foot auto service center as a
neighborhood commercial center. The potential tenants
wished to locate in this area of the city. Hilger stated
that the parcel was located on the southeast corner of the
Gonyea PUD. A large portion of the property was wetland.
Fuller Road had recently been extended. Approximately 70%
of the property was undevelopable because of the wetlands,
an NSP easement, and poor soil conditions. Hilger
believed that the auto service center would enhance the
Prairie Lawn & Garden Store and other businesses in the
area. Hilger also believed that the balance of office and
commercial development proposed in the original PUD would
be created with the approval of this proposal. He noted
that the proponent was only requesting a concept approval
at this time and would return through the development
process with additional detailing. The building would be
constructed of brick and extensive landscaping would be
proposed. Hilger believed that this site had excellent
commercial value and was far enough away form other auto
service centers.
Enger reported that this item was reviewed by the Planning
Commission at its January 8, 1990 meeting and recommended
denial of the proposal with a 4-0-1 vote based on the
rationale that this proposal did not represent the highest
and best use of the land. Enger noted that if the Council
'
•U�
City Council Minutes 5 February 20, 1990 1
47 approved a Comprehensive Guide Plan change a further
review by the Metropolitan Council would be required. He
added that if the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation
were changed and this plan did not proceed, another type
of commercial business could develop on this parcel.
Dan McGraw, 16044 Sheldon Avenue, was concerned about the
wildlife and wetland preservation. MacRae concurred with
the Planning Commission that this was not the best use of
the land.
Tenpas asked McGraw what he would prefer to see developed
on this parcel. MacRae replied that a single-story office
building would fit much better with the existing
neighborhood.
Gary Goeman, 16008 Sheldon Avenue, concurred with MacRae
regarding the concern for wildlife in the area. Goeman
was also concerned about the potential change in the
integrity of the neighborhood. Goeman stated that he
understood that progress was inevitable; however, he
believed that there were other properties within the city
currently zoned for commercial use which would be more
appropriate for this type of development. Goeman
preferred to see a single-level office building; he
believed that it would not be as disruptive to the
neighborhood.
Harris stated that the property did have several
constraints; however, without further detail she believed
that there were more appropriate sites within the city for
this type of development.
Peterson concurred with the Planning Commission that this
proposal did not represent the highest and best use of the
land.
Pidcock stated that there were other auto service centers
within a reasonable distance and did not believe this to
be an appropriate location for this type of business.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and direct Staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial
with Findings. Motion carried unanimously.
D. ALPINE CENTER by Lariat Companies. Request for Planned
Unit 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.
„c1
City Council Minutes 6 February 20, 1990
IL Location: Northeast corner of Prairie Center Drive and
Commonwealth Drive. (Ordinance No. 47-89-PUD-10-89 - PUD
District Review and Zoning)
Richard Woldorsky, representing the proponent, stated that
both the Alpine Center and Chi-Chi's would be controlled
by the Lariat Companies. The proposal was for an upscale
retail development with a unique and distinct character.
The 3.5 acres would be developed as retail and restaurant
use with a floor area ratio of .2. An agreement had not
been reached at this time between the property owner to
the north and the proponent regarding a means to adjust
the grade between the properties. At this time a
retaining wall was proposed. The 192 parking spaces
provided was based on a seating capacity of 150 seats;
however, the proponent would like an additional request
for an outdoor patio with 26 seats.
Tim Wydel, architect for the proponent, presented that
plans for the Alpine Center. A tree-lined street edge was
proposed. The architecture would be a prairie style.
Wydel believed that the covered walkway would add
character to the facility. The landscaping proposed was
generous and historical lighting fixtures would be used
throughout. A hedge would be planted on top of the berm
for additional screening. The exterior would be a
burgundy brick. The building would be a one-story design,
varying in height from 18 to 20 feet. Wydel noted that
several annual plantings would be placed throughout the
center. The outdoor patio would seat 26 in the beginning
and the seating would be increased as proof-of-parking was
approved. The patio would be surrounded by a low-
structured wall with heavy plantings.
Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed
this item on November 24, 1989 and approved the project
with a 6-0-0 vote; however, because of significant changes
an additional review was heard at the February 12, 1990
Planning Commission meeting. A 5-foot to 18-foot
retaining wall would be needed between this building and
the property to the north. Enger noted that another issue
which was discussed extensively was the parking
requirements. Enger believed that the City's parking
requirements were very lenient at this time. He added
that this restaurant as well as Chi-Chi's, which was
proposed in the same area, would both have parking
problems. Enger noted that parking at Applebee's was a +'
good example of what to expect for this restaurant, there R.
was an overflow parking situation at this time. Enger
stated that at Ciatti's the required parking area was
filled to capacity most of the time and parking was
occurring outside of the paved area at this time. Enger j
stated that the Planning Commission was reluctant to
approve the plan with the additional patio because of the
City Council Minutes 7 February 20, 1990
' potential parking problems and added that the 26 outdoor
seats was a compromise reached by the Planning Commission.
Enger said that the proponent was still trying to obtain
additional proof-of-parking; however, he believed that
even with the additional parking, co-operative parking
would be necessary. Enger pointed out that as all of the
land in this area was not developed yet, there would be
further parking issues. Staff recommended that the
parking be monitored very closely. Enger believed that
there would be a parking problem and recommended that a
contingency plan be taken into consideration now. Enger
stated that other issues to consider were that the service
drive as proposed would require a semi-truck to back out
onto Prairie Center Drive and the retaining wall was not
the best possible solution for the change in grade between j
the properties. Enger believed that the proponent should
continue to work on an agreement with the property owner
to the north regarding the grading. Enger recommended
that the entrance to the service area be signed such that
semi-trucks would not use this area.
Julie Skarda, representing the Lariat Companies, stated
that the patio was recommended for a maximum of 56 seats.
The proponent had tried to negotiate the proof-of-parking
for approximately 8 months to no avail. The proponent
would construct the patio in full but would only provide
seating for 26 until the proof-of-parking was provided.
Harris asked if enough parking space would be provided to
accommodate both this restaurant and Chi-Chi's. Skarda
replied that at this time the proponent was not willing to
commit other property for parking requirements. Harris
then asked if the parking congestion would lessen as more
eating establishments were available in the city. Enger
replied that he believed there would be parking problem.
He added that the patio was still scaled at 3500 square
feet and the City would have very little control of how
many seats were provided at any given time.
Peterson asked if Commonwealth Drive was posted for no
parking on the street. Dietz replied that the signs
should be posted concurrent with this development; at this
time only one side of Commonwealth Drive is posted for no
parking. Peterson stated that there would probably be
cross-parking with or without permission.
Pidcock stated that the patio would only be used during
the summer months. Skarda added that the owner of the
restaurant had indicated from past experience that the
patio would only be used approximately 91 days out of the
year.
Peterson stated that the restaurants would have the same
peak hours which could cause a problem.
•
City Council Minutes 8 February 20, 1990
Tenpas asked if the City could provide any assistance to
the proponent in acquiring the necessary proof-of-parking.
Tenpas believed the parking issue to be a safety concern.
Pauly replied that the City could not do anything to force
the property owner to allow the proof-of-parking short of
acquiring the land. Tenpas then asked how this
development would affect the remainder of the downtown
area. Enger replied that Flaherty owned much of the
property in this area; however, a power retail center was
in the concept stages for the Bermel property.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public
Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 47-89-
PUD-10-89 for PUD District Review and Zoning. Motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission
and Staff recommendations and Council conditions that the
entrance to the service area be signed or redesigned.
Motion carried unanimously.
E. CHI-CHI'S RESTAURANT by Consul Restaurant Corporation.
Request 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)
Bill Etter, representing the proponent, stated that Chi-
Chi's was rated the #1 family restaurant in the Twin
Cities and worked to be a good community neighbor.
Lee Madden, architect for the proponent, presented the 4
Tans for the 7400 sq
uare-foot quare-foot restaurant with a seating
capacity of 320. A common setback had been worked out
with the Lariat Companies for Commonwealth Road. The
landscaping plan had been revised and improved since the
Planning Commission meeting. The parking issue was a
concern, with 119 parking spaces being provided. A cross-
easement parking agreement with Lariat Center was being
negotiated. Madden noted that the peak of business for
Chi-Chi's was Friday and Saturday evenings.
City Council Minutes 9 February 20, 1990
Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed
this item at its January 22, 1990 meeting and recommended
approval on a 4-0-0 vote, subject to the recommendations
outlined in the January 19, 1990 Staff Report. Enger
presented samples of the exterior building material, which
would be compatible with the other buildings in the area.
A landscape irrigation system would be installed. Enger
noted that, as with the previous proposal, parking
problems were anticipated.
Harris asked if the trash area would be enclosed. Madden
replied that the trash container area would be enclosed.
Pidcock asked if there would be access to the trash area
from the interior of the building. Madden replied yes.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-46 for PUD Concept
Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve 1st Reading •
of Ordinance No. 12-90-PUD-6-90 for PUD District and
Zoning Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No.
90-47 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct Staff
to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating
Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried
unanimously.
F. 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 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 No. 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 Minutes 10 February 20, 1990
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been
mailed to 86 surrounding property owners and published in
the February 7, 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Wallace Hustad presented the plans for the 7.5-acre site.
He noted that 50 acres of open space had been provided
throughout the Creek Knolls project, which represented 28%
of the PUD. The overall density for the PUD was 1.7 units
per acre. The PUD consisted of 192 single-family homes
and this proposal would add 25 twinhome units to the 26
units which currently existed. Hustad stated that the
development of Highway 18 had influenced the change in
this proposed site. He added that the City had requested
an additional 60 feet for right-of-way and the County had
requested 30 feet for right-of-way on the eastern border.
Hustad stated that he was requesting a Comprehensive Guide
Plan Change to accommodate the development of the twinhome
units. Hustad believed that this would provide a
transition from the more expensive home and the single-
family units. He added that this proposal would be
compatible with the area to the north of the pond. The
intent of these units was to provide an alternative life-
style for Eden Prairie residents. Hustad believed that
the previously approved twinhome units had enhanced the
market value of the single-family units. The lots would
average 10,200 square feet per twinhome site. The density
would be 3.3 units per acre. The main issue raised by the
Planning Commission was transition to the property south
of Bluff Road. Hustad stated that the plans had been
revised to internalize the streets, which meant that no
direct access to Bluff Road would be provided. The
twinhome units had been repositioned and heavy landscaping
provided to the west to provide a better transition to the
single-family units. Three-unit buildings would be
constructed along the northern section of the parcel,
adjacent to the pond.
Steve Schweiters, builder, presented the plans for the
exterior design. The brick and trim colors would be
different for each building. The square footage of these
units would be smaller than the original 26 units.
Tenpas asked the price range for these units. Schweiters
replied the price would range between $200,000 and
$225,000.
Hustad stated that these units would be marketed for
empty-nesters and would not be rented units.
Enger reported that this item had been reviewed at the
November 21, 1989 and January 22, 1990 Planning Commission
meetings. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the project at the January 22, 1990 meeting with a 4-0-0
vote. The recommendation of the Planning Commission was
yy
City Council Minutes 11 February 20, 1990
(
that the landscaping along Bluff Road and the western
boundary be revised prior to the Council's review. The
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission 1
approved the plan unanimously.
Peterson asked if any discussion took place at the
Planning Commission regarding the cul-de-sac. Enger
replied that the recommendation for the cul-de-sac came
from Staff after the proposal had been denied in October
1989. The recommendation resulted from the concern
regarding driveways onto Bluff Road and the twinhome units
facing the single-family homes to the south and,
therefore, the recommendation made to internalize the
street. Enger stated that the length of the cul-de-sac
resulted from the number of units proposed. Peterson
asked if a loop road had been considered coming back onto
Bluff Road. Enger replied this was not considered.
Scott Gensmer, 9599 Bluff Road, stated that on October 23,
1989 the Planning Commission recommended denial of a
previously proposed Hustad project on a 6-0-0 vote because
of a poor transition and because compelling reasons for a
Comprehensive Guide Plan change had not been provided.
Gensmer believed that nothing had changed since that time.
He added that since 1986 the neighborhood had voiced its
opposition to the density of the PUD. Gensmer believed
that the only reason for the request was market demand and
economics. Gensmer noted some of the key items from the
Planning Commission minutes of October 23, 1989 and asked
that the Council review what had been presented carefully
before reaching a decision. Gensmer believed that the
transition should be based on the homes to the south of
Bluff Road.
Barry Bain, 9845 Bluff Road, stated that he was also
concerned about an adequate transition. The original plan
had been for 28 to 29 single-family units. The plan as it }
now stands would provide the highest density for the
entire project, which was directly across the road from
single-family residents which were located on 6 to 8
acres of property or more. Bain stated that he would like
to the single-family units originally proposed and on the
1/3- acre lots which had been agreed to. Bain believed
that a single-family proposal would help hold the value of
the existing homes.
Earl Houghton, 9795 Bluff Road, concurred with Gensmer and
the other neighbors regarding the density of the project.
Houghton stated that he would prefer the single-family
units on 1/3 acre lots as originally agreed to.
Jeff Norgren, 9745 Bluff Road, stated opposition to the
proposal because of the lack of transition and the
City Council Minutes 12 February 20, 1990
increase in traffic which would threaten the safety of the
children in the existing neighborhood.
Julie Norgren, 9745 Bluff Road, believed that the existing
residents concerns should be taken into consideration and }
did not believe that the berm was adequate screening.
Delores Williams, 9599 Bluff Road, presented the Council
with a map made by a professional Forester in 1968 when 1
4000 seedlings were planted on their property under a ti
forest management plan to preserve wildlife, maintain soil
conditions, and watershed area. Williams believed that
the proposal being presented by the proponent would not be
consistent with the existing neighborhood. She further 9,
believed that the transition concern should be for the I
existing residents and not the area to the west and the i
north.
Martin Diestler, 9905 Bluff Road, stated opposition to the
project. He noted that the Council had heard opposition
from every resident on Bluff Road adjacent to this
project.
Diane Luke, 10450 Whitetail Crossing, stated that she had I
seen many changes in this area. The twinhomes currently I
existing were beautifully designed and she believed would
fill a need in the community. Luke believed that the 26
existing units blended nicely with the neighborhood and
because of the proposed homeowners association would be
properly maintained. Luke believed that the berming
proposed would provide adequate screening for the Bluff
Road residents.
Pidcock asked Luke where she lived in relation to this ,
project. Luke replied approximately 1/2-mile away.
1
Gensmer noted that the Lukes had an equity interest in
this project.
Mrs. Carriers, 10407 Fawns Way, stated that she had S
purchased on the existing twinhome units and believed the i
quality of construction to be excellent. She noted that
this proposal would directly impact the area in which she
lived; however, she would prefer to see twinhome
development, which would leave more area for planting
material.
Beth Simenstad, 10396 Bluff Road, stated that she lived in 1
the Creek Knolls subdivision and believed the twinhomes to
be a positive addition to the neighborhood. She noted
that if single-family units were to be developed, a
minimum of 4 to 5 driveways would access onto Bluff Road, !
which would be a hazard. Simenstad noted that the only
property directly across from this project would be the i
(5I
City Council Minutes 13 February 20, 1990 1
Gensmer property, which could not see the project because
of the trees and the location of their home.
Wayne Brown, 10200 Wild Duck Pass, stated that he was an
equity partner in this project and believed that the
revised plan was a better plan than that originally
proposed and was sensitive to what was happening in the
area.
Dean Luke, 10450 Whitetail Crossing, stated that he too
was an equity partner in the project. Luke believed that
it would be more prudent to build what would sell. He
believed that the twinhome units would mean less traffic
for the area.
Terri Jenstad, marketer for the project, stated that these
would not be rental units. She added that the twinhomes
would in fact enhance the neighborhood.
Prentice Hill, ERA marketer for the project, stated that
these type of homes were typically sold to empty-nesters
and because of the homeowners association would be a
quieter neighborhood than single-family.
Williams believed that single-family homes could be
developed nicely in this area. She added that this area
would be the entrance to the Creek Knolls addition.
Williams did not believe that the presence of a homeowners
association should be taken into consideration.
Hustad stated that he had not promised to develop single-
family homes in the area. He added that he was pleased to
have Steve Schweiters as the builder of these units
because of the high quality.
Pidcock stated that she was familiar with the quality of
the Schweiters units; however, she did not believe that
was relevant to the issue.
Harris asked what was the average cost of a unit in Creek
Knolls subdivision. Hustad replied that the single-family
units ranged from $250,000 to $750,000 and the double
units approximately $265,000. Harris then asked what the
price range would be for the homes to the north. Hustad
replied that he did not know at this time because only 7
acres was developable out of 14 acres. Hustad added that
the higher density projects were to the north. Harris
stated that it appeared that the cost of these units would
not be markedly different from the existing homes. Harris
asked why 3-unit homes were necessary. Hustad replied
that because of the value of the land in Eden Prairie it
was difficult to reduce the price of the homes without
increasing the density.
City Council Minutes 14 February 20, 1990
Pidcock asked Hustad if he would allow rentals in this
project. Hustad replied no.
Peterson asked Hustad to clarify the statement that these
lots would be larger than R1-9.5 zoning. Hustad replied
that the original proposal called for 20 units. The
twinhomes would not have as much structure on the lots as
with 13.5 lots and added that because of the additional
right-of-way requirements it would be difficult to achieve
R1-13.5 zoning.
Pidcock asked if there were any trees on these lots.
Hustad replied very few trees existed presently and added
that the twinhome units would preserve more trees than a
single-family development because of the reduction in
grading required.
Tenpas asked how many driveways would be needed if this
were developed as single-family. Hustad replied 4 to 5
driveways.
Enger stated that the Planning Commission did not like the
plan with 26 units with the lack in transition to the
south and no compelling reasons being provided for a
Comprehensive Guide Plan change at the meeting in October,
it recommended denial of the project. The plan was
reworked by the proponent and the Planning Commission was
persuaded that the revised plan was better. Enger noted
that Staff had recommended a further reduction in the
number of units.
Peterson asked what the visual impact would be from the
south and the entry from Highway 18. Enger replied that
the triplexes would not be visible from Highway 18 on
Bluff Road; however, the back of the units could be seen
on Bluff Road. Two of the units were corner units and
would not look uniform. Enger stated that because of the
dense forest coverage across the road, the units would not
be visible at this time; however, if the Gensmer property
was subdivided and developed the views would change
significantly.
Peterson asked if all of the units would have brick
fronts. Schweiters replied that the units would be stucco
with brick fronts, and no wood would be used for exterior
material.
Peterson asked why the cul-de-sac was not challenged
because of its length and what alternatives could be
utilized. Mary McCawley, the proponent's engineer for
this project, replied that because of the grade changes
from an engineering standpoint another road system design
1 would not be possible.
City Council Minutes 15 February 20, 1990
Tenpas asked the Gensmers for clarification on their
concerns: were the issues visual or financial. Williams
replied that there were too many units developed in the
amount of space provided. Gensmer replied that the issues
were both visual and financial. He added that he was
requesting that an adequate transition be provided.
Williams added that she did not understand why it was
being presented that if single-family units were developed
that they would require driveways on Bluff Road.
Harris believed that the development was attractive and an
adequate transition had been provided. Harris added that
she was concerned about the density and the long cul-de-
sac.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public
Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-42 for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment.
Peterson stated that he was concerned about the transition
because of the questions raised by the neighbors.
Peterson stated that he would not be persuaded to vote for
or against this issue based on economic issues. Peterson
believed that because of the substantial plantings, the
berming being provided, the drop in elevation of the
property, and the absence of additional driveways on Bluff
Road gave the project merit. He added that he was
concerned about the density of the project and could
support the project more favorably if the triple units
were reduced to double units.
Hustad stated that the number of units was an economic
issue. The proposal had already been reduced by 1 unit
and if further reductions were required the project would
not be done. Hustad added that he believed this proposal
to be in the best interest of Creek Knolls as a whole.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No.
90-43 for PUD Concept Amendment and approve 1st Reading of
Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD-5-90 for PUD District and
Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously.
ice,,-
•
City Council Minutes 16 February 20, 1990
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No.
90-44 approving the Preliminary Plat and direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission
and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
G. PHILLIPS 66 by Phillips 66 Company. Request for Zoning
District 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)
Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was
mailed to 20 surrounding property owners and published in
the February 7, 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
A
John Bacus, representing the proponent, presented that
plans for a state-of-the-art gas station, car wash, and
convenience store. He provided the Council with pictures
of existing facilities. The landscaping would be
extensive, with a 4-foot-high landscaped berm along
Highway 169. Bacus stated that all Staff recommendations
had been incorporated into the plan with the exception of 1
enclosing the canopy support columns with same stone
material as the exterior of the building. He added that
hundreds of stations had been constructed throughout the
country and the proponent had yet to be required to
enclose the columns. Bacus believed that the columns as
designed were a better architectural blend than covering
them with the stone material. Bacus stated that he
understood the precedent-setting issue; however, he
believed the present design to architecturally sound and
that a greater importance should be given to the
integrated design.
Enger reported that this item had been reviewed at the
January 22, 1990 Planning Commission meeting and was
recommended for approval on a 4-0-0 vote.
Pidcock asked what precautions would be taken to assure
the safety of the gasoline tanks so that a leak would not 1
occur and pollute the area. Al Mitel, a representative
from Phillips 66, replied that EPA regulations required
that an air test be performed and Phillips 66 performs
additional test on all the lines, etc. Mitel noted that 1
Phillips 66 was responsible for the tanks when they were
installed in the ground.
j
iJ`i�
City Council Minutes 17 February 20, 1990
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue the meeting
until 11:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
Jack Grier, 9848 Crestwood Terrace and owner of the Flying
Red Horse Mobil Station, stated that he was concerned
about the traffic flow on this corner and the potential
for accidents. He added that he was particularly
concerned about making a right turn onto 78th Street
because of the lack of sight distance. He noted that
across the street where his business was located the #.
businesses were connected by a common drive. Grier stated
that during the time the traffic survey was conducted no
cars entered or exited the site; however, the nature of
the site would change once the station was developed.
Dietz stated that the BRW traffic study believed that the
fewer accesses onto Highway 169 the better. The BRW study
stated that this road design should work.
Pidcock stated that it was difficult to merge onto Highway
169 at this location.
{
Peterson asked if MnDOT had seen the plan. Dietz replied
that it would be necessary for MnDOT to see the plans in
order to obtain the necessary permits.
Enger stated that it was because of Staff's concern about
traffic that the study was requested.
Tenpas asked if a traffic signal was planned at the
Hardee's location. Dietz replied that some time in the
future it could be possible. Tenpas then asked if signs
had ever been posted to restrict turns. Dietz replied not
in the commercial area.
There were no further comments from the audience.
MOTION: .
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the public
hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 11-90 for
Zoning District Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No.
90-45 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct Staff
to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating
Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried
unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
•
City Council Minutes 18 February 20, 1990
MOTION:
Tenpas moved, seconded by Harris to approve Payment of Claims
No. 57490 through No. 57781. ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson,
Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas, and Peterson all voting "AYE".
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. RAVEN WOOD 3RD ADDITION by The Cambridge Group.
Preliminary Plat of 2.7 acres into 2 lots. Location:
East of Edenvale Boulevard, south of Hipp's Cedar Point
1st Addition. (Resolution No. 90-48 - Preliminary Plat)
Jullie reported that notice of this item had been sent to j.
102 surrounding property owners and published in the
February 7, 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No.
90-48 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried
unanimously.
VII. PETITIONS, REOUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
A. Appointment of five members to the Landfill Advisory
Committee (Continued from February 6, 1990 Council
meeting)
This item was continued until after March 26, 1990.
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Councilmembers
1. Information Reauest
Pidcock requested that Staff provide the Council with a
periodic report on cases of pending litigation or
settelement.
Harris requested an update on all legal issues.
B. Report of City Manager
✓/1
City Council Minutes 19 February 20, 1990
1. Employee Vacation Accrual
Harris believed that the City Manager's proposal was a
reasonable way to handle the issue.
N+IOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to
proceed as presented in the memorandum. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. Community Survey
Peterson asked if the Chamber of Commerce was paying for
its cluster of questions. Jullie replied yes. Peterson
believed that the survey would serve the community well.
Dawson noted that the survey would be done in the latter
part of April.
MOTION:
Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to recommend that the
services of Decision Resources, Limited be obtained to
conduct a survey of the residence and businesses at a cost
not to exceed $15,000. Motion carried unanimously.
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
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 PM.
!,)2
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
March 20, 1990
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) HEATING & VENTILATING
Ohman Corporation Air Comfort, Inc.
Check Refrigeration, Inc.
Diversified Mechanical Services
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Ferrellgas, Inc.
LSV Metals, Inc.
Dahle Bros., Inc. Market Mechanical, Inc.
Daystar Builders Midland Heating & Air Conditioning
Durabilt Associates,Inc. TEK Mechanical Service, Inc.
John M. Miller & Associates
David Modrow Homes, Inc. GAS FITTER
M. C. Petty Corporation Air Comfort, Inc.
T. R. Construction Advanced Plumbing & Heating
Diversified Mechanical Services
PLUMBING Ferrell gas, Inc.
Bill Londer Plumbing Co., Inc.
Advanced Plumbing & Heating Loop Belden Porter, Inc.
Burkhardt Plumbing Company Market Mechanical, Inc.
Heins Plumbing Midland Heating & Air Conditioning
Bill Londer Plumbing Co., Inc. Tom Motzko Plumbing & Heating Company
Loop Belden Porter,Inc. Pride Mechanical, Inc.
Marsh Plumbing & Heating TEK Mechanical Service, Inc.
Tom Motzko Plumbing & Heating
Prairie Plumbing Company TYPE B FOOD
Pride Mechanical, Inc.
TEK Mechanical Service, Inc. y1r. Movies #26
Snyder Bros., Inc.
SEPTIC SYSTEMS Snyder's Drug Store
Bohn Well Drilling, Inc. TYPE C FOOD
3.2 BEER OFF SALE Brooks Superette #51
Brooks Superette #51 CIGARETTE
Gateway Foods, Inc.
PDQ Food Store Brooks Superette #51
Gateway Foods (formerly Rainbow)
REFUSE HAULER Griswold Vending
PDQ Food Store
Waste Management Savage Snyder Bros., Inc.
Admiral Waste Snyders Drug Store
Twin City Vending
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
licen`s,�gd activity.
Pat Solie
Licensing
1
Schroers PUD
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 40-89-PUD-8-89
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND
FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS
THE CIYT COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINENSOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing tha tthe land
be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Planned Unit
Development 8-89-R1-13.5 District and the Planned Unit Development 8-89-R1-
9.5 District (hereinafter "PUD 8-89-R1-13.5/R1-9.5").
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of March 20, 1990, entered into
between Burl Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden
Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement") and that cretain supplement to
the Developer's Agreement, dated as of March 20, 1990, entered into between
George and Jeanne Schroers, husband and wife, and the City of Eden Prairie
(hereinafter "Supplement"). The Developer's Agreement and Supplement contain
the terms and conditions of PUD 8-89-R1-13.5/R1-9.5, and are hereby made a
part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD 8-89-R1-13.5/R1-9.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City.
B. PUD 8-89-R1-13.5/R1-9.5 is designed in such a manner to form a
desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12
of the City Code that are contained in PUD 8-89-R1-13.5/R1-9.5 are
justified by the design of the development described therein.
D. PUD 8-89-R1-13.5/R1-9.5 is of sufficient size, composition, and
arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is
feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent
unit.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the lnad shall be, and
hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in
the Planned Unit Development 8-89-R1-13.5/R1-9.5 District, and the legal
descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03,
subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly.
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for
Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby
adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 3rd day of October, 1989, and finally read and adopted and
ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on
the 20th day of March, 1990.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1990.
•
t
Exhibit R
SSi ' 2 w° Z TO j..
•c«z■ . sc.u.e2• "!e y.^.°.ohgm w• a ; o1n _ 7!'k
{ _ P.-a Spna pn J L.4S
1 ^ wwr nY .11 Omn n vss�n� :» : �' ••
1 2^:22°n��wY'r awY+ �b ^ 'fit:H M N N_ 2N'�w•Mnwn2n� y n &
OrGOupn2 Aui^1 r�2«n�rwn p On Na C .�
..O n^Y M•A D" i a P Ma
A h n O p n ¢ O S^ y
�-O �Crw :n22J2p2c.::.:•n =0w y AAJ[[�1Jf• YO C^^1;
•.P2nr'MS« » wr •in�• wS 00 i`nnnnnG. f n •CD2 v
;•r wOliw••."1" n n A On7.n • f• .
c s
si-- : �'S_ - S•" � =F �i o^"o�.n.'eo�`.0 n^ : "Dci 'si
n:.^lio2;Np p=g.•n•MSpo2" :2 iFF. • u O•^ci •
o
.N. »o2r.".SSS�v2" � e^o"r"a.20 w� zN $*3.444n'n. ° s : •'a
o_•s Su 2..$w2 -w• a v:
• •
an �:: -^v3T:�VIE i . is
w�2 .ca S. aoN n z oNvv•vo p n .a
F.
• c • on
^go » we:�2 ." ��:�2� :oJ s2 g.o°o Ob�[p• i • 1a =
$•yni: i' >i^n>SSn a°o �P anon>• ^ F. n!.111m
wf••OrnJ•.Pi»• "pn.Nn�w2yPwn� • Ow
O S^ • n n
n s Cr
«A s r D 6
n D
a •
• •' i
f
J
NM
f
11
=
.Ny2/�.-N1n jL)nwON/1n N•T.!.1,t/+.Cnie i O]0
r .. N ° AJn •a d Orn 111
�Oa
a"P:O"Aw u"pw "P:u"pru OGn +r
2 OSOO np �^p niA-r2;'-rn "lOi M;J
+Jn o>z
ow••nne."i"n an n,".Sann+nn °a,So•• r.-o ,°
Yo•••o•J •. 2 St.!./1 worm on
S_Co >Sn boa not oo an uo�ruoa o
:wo w � r « .. Leo 00
t7tql:li.ili::1:11i;iriiiiiit:HiPtiiiiii!"t Ii.
•2"talem..•r' iP::: •Ns01�:Ow°a 2•" nc UH
ega ' On p
"o
"• n• .-2 P" np A � • r
•a. _U o n�
-.•..:nrt 7 r ^s22� 2� rain " :.
FiSaS ""n• 2^GSS:C62 "2 .t
`wun.�nian`an+.•r•ao NnonCanon:� nr:o: �'
2
Schroers PUD
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1990, by BURL
CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer,"
and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred
to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 129.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on
32.6 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on
13.8 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 18.8 acres, Preliminary Plat of 129.8
acres into 80 single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way, and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet review on 129.8 acres as part of a Phased
Action Environmental Assessment Worksheet, for construction of a single
family residential development, all said 129.8 acres, situated in Hennepin
County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, all said acreage hereinafter referred to as
the Property";
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #40-89-
PUD-8-89, Developer agrees to construction upon and maintenance of the
Property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated September 25, 1989, reviewed and
approved by the City Council on October 3, 1989, and attached
hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as
provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance
by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein
of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set
forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Developer acknowledges that the development of the Property is
subject to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study, Summary
Report, dated December, 1988, hereinafter "the Study." Developer
acknowledges that there are capital improvements, i.e., sanitary
sewer, watermain, streets, etc., required in conjunction with
development of the Property and other lands included in the Study.
Developer, therefore, agrees and acknowledges that the City, in its
sole discretion, shall determine the capital improvements necessary
for development within the Study area, the timing of such
improvements, and the amount of land which shall be subsequently
serviced by such improvements. The Developer will be allowed to
submit, and the City will consider, comments regarding such
determinations that affect the Property. Developer shall abide by
the City's determinations.
Specific phased capital improvements and utility extensions
applicable to the Property, excerpted from the Study, are attached
hereto as Exhibit D, and made a part hereof.
Developer acknowledges that, from time to time, City may determine
that it is necessary to review and amend the contents and
conclusions of the Study. The Developer may submit, and the City
will consider, comments regarding such determinations that affect
the Property. Developer shall abide by the City's determination
of Study revisions.
Developer further acknowledges that capital improvements described
in the Study and depicted in Exhibit D, attached hereto, will
Lenefit the Property. Prior to release by the City of any final
plat for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City and
obtain the City's approval of an executed special assessment
agreement for Developer's fair share of costs for such capital
improvements which shall include at least the following:
A. Construction of Dell Road between Highway #5 and County Road
#1, with related drainage and utility improvements and
sidewalk and trail improvements.
B. Construction of Scenic Heights Road between Riley Lake Road
and County Road #4, with related drainage and utility
improvements.
C. Lateral benefit from trunk water main constructed through the
Property.
4. Prior to release of any final plat for the Property, Developer
agrees to submit to the City , and to obtain the City Manager's
approval of a written covenant, restriction, or other document to
be recorded on the Property, which includes the following
provisions:
A. Prior to release by City of any final plat, and prior to
release by City of any permit for grading or construction on
the Property, Developer agrees to accept the special
assessment policy of the City for construction of Dell Road
in Southwest Eden Prairie.
B. Developer agrees that Developer shall not, on its own behalf,
nor on the behalf of others, request any more than thirty-two
(32) building permits on the Property until such time as the
City has ordered the public improvement project for the
extension of Dell Road from Highway #5 to Scenic Heights Road
`.J.f
and the public improvement project for the extension of Scenic
1' Heights Road east to County Road #4, to service the entire
Southwest Area as referred to in the Study, in item #3, above.
Upon approval by the City Manager of said written covenant,
restriction, or other document, Developer agrees to file said
written covenant, restriction, or document on the Property at
Hennepin County concurrent with filing of the final plat for the
Property.
Developer shall provide proof of filing of said written covenant,
restriciton, or document, to the City, prior to release by City of
any grading permit for the Property.
If, prior to release of the final plat by City, Developer is able
to provide to the City Manager assurance that provisions A., and
B., above, can be met, without the need for filing of a written
covenant, restriction, or other document on the Property, the City
Manager may, in his sole discretion, approve such assurance and
waive the requirement for filing of a written covenant,
restriction, or other document to cover such provisions.
5. Developer has designated Outlot B as depicted in Sheet 3 of 6 of
Exhibit B, attached hereto, for dedication to the City.
Developer agrees that dedication of all of said Outlot B shall be
accomplished by Developer at the time any lots abutting said Outlot
B are platted. Developer further agrees that said outlot will be
dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens, mortgages, or
encumbrances.
Upon receipt by City, and approval by the City Attorney of, a free
and clear title for said Outlot B, City will pay Developer the
reimbursement of $100 per lot for up to 221 lots within the
Property.
Developer is hereby required to construct an eight-foot wide
bituminous pathway within said Outlot B, to be located along the
north shore of Rice Marsh Lake. Prior to construction of said
bituminous pathway, Developer shall submit to the Director of
Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources, and shall obtain the
Director's approval of plans for the exact location and design of
said pathway. It shall be the responsibility of the City to obtain
necessary gradin gpermits for said bituminous pathway.
Concurrent with grading and street construction for any lot
adjacent to said Outlot B, Developer agrees to construct, or cause
to be constructed, the entire length of said bituminous pathway
throughout said Outlot B, as approved by the Director of Parks,
Recreation, and Natural Resources, in accordance with the terms and
conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
6. Developer acknowledges that the Property is dependent upon street
access and utilities which will be provided to the Property by
City's public improvement project for Dell Road. Developer further
acknowledges that City cannot make any specific commitment as to
scheduled completion of said improvement project.
Therefore, Developer, and future owners to whom Developer may sell
part, or all of the Property, agree and acknowledge the following:
A. Developer and/or owners of the Property shall not, on their
own behalf, nor on the behalf of others:
1) Make a request for any building permit for construction
until such time as the contracts are awarded for
upgrading of Highway #5 and for extension of Dell Road
to West 82nd Street, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached
hereto.
2) Make a request for any more than ten (10) building
permits, nor a request for any occupancy permits on the
Property until such time as the intersection of Highway
#5 and Dell Road and the extension of Dell Road to West
82nd Street are substantially completed and public
streets and utilities are available to each lot for which
a permit is requested.
Substantially completed shall mean that the paved
surface, with turn lanes for access to Highway #5 are
constructed for the intersection of Highway #5 and Dell
Road and that concrete curb and gutter, along with the
bituminous surface, have been constructed for the
extension of Dell Road to West 82nd Street.
is
C. Developer and/or owners of the Property shall not, on their
own behalf, nor on behalf of others, make a request for, and
City will not issue, any more than a total of 80 building and
occupancy permits for the Property until such time as Dell
Road has been connected to County Road #4 via Scenic Heights
Road in accordance with the Study discussed in item #3, above.
D. Developer and/or owners of the Property, agree to waive their
rights to claim any damages and to hold City harmless for any
delay resulting from the timing of the Dell Road public
improvement project to service the Property.
7. Prior to release by City of any grading permit for the Property,
Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to
obtain the Director's approval of an amended Planned Unit
Development Concept Plan which accomplishes the following:
A. A physical transition between the single family lots along the
north border of the Property and the adjacent industrial area
in Chanhassen through use of greater lot depth for such lots
as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, berming along the
north border of the Property which provides an effective
screening height of ten (10) feet. An effective screening
v�L)
height of ten (10) feet may be accomplished by use of a
411
combination of berming, fencing, and heavy plantings using an
equal amount of six (6), eight (8) and ten (10) ft. high
evergreen trees along the entire length of the top of the
berm.
B. Inclusion of sidewalks along each road, except for cul-de-
sacs, and an eight-foot wide bituminous trail within Outlot
B, generally along Rice Marsh Lake.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed
above, as approved by the Director, concurrent with grading and
street construction on the Property, prior to issuance of any
building permit on the Property, and in accordance with the terms
and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
8. Prior to release by the City of any final plat for the Property,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City
Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water,
interim irrigation systems, storm sewer, and erosion control for
the Property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or
cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit
C, attached hereto.
Developer agrees that construction of streets and utilities on the
Property by Developer shall not interfere with the public
improvement project for construction and extension of utilities
through the Property for Dell Road improvements.
9. In lieu of the obligations imposed by item #8, above, Developer may
submit a 100% petition signed by all owners of the Property, which
requests the City to install all street, sidewalk, trail, and •
.utility improvements for the Property, including the extension of
. Dell Road south of Highway #5 to service the Property, as discussed
above. If Developer chooses to execute the 100% petition,
Developer shall enter into an Assessment agreement which includes
a waiver of all rights it has by virtue of Minnesota State Statutes
Section 429.081, or otherwise to challenge the amount, or validity
of amounts, of such assessments, or the procedure used by City in
levying the assessments therefor. Developer shall, in said
assessment agreement, release City, its officers, agents, and
employees from any and all liability related to, or arising out of,
the levying of the assessments.
Upon approval by the City Council, the City may cause said .
improvements to be made and special assessments for all costs for
said improvements will be levied on the Property, except any
portion of the Property which is, or shall be, dedicated to the
public. The payment period for said special assessment(s) shall
4 be five years.
Prior to the award of any contract by the City for the construction
of any such improvements, Developer shall have entered into a
contract for rough grading of the streets included in the
improvements for the Property to a finished subgrade elevation.
Such rough grading work shall be completed by Developer in a timely
manner so as to be coordinated with construction of the City's Dell
Road public improvements project for street and utility work.
Developer's obligation with respect to the rough grading work shall
be secured by a bond, or letter of credit, which shall guarantee
completion and payment for all labor and materials expended in
connection with the rough grading. The amount of the bond, or
letter of credit, shall be 125% of the cost of such rough grading
and shall be in such form and contain such further terms as may be
required by the City Engineer.
10. Prior to any construction or development on the Property, Developer
agrees to apply to the City Engineer, and obtain the City
Engineer's approval of a land alteration permit for the Property,
which shall include a requirement for tree replacement of 70
caliper inches, among other terms and conditions.
11. Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or building on
the Property, Developer agrees to submit to the Chief Building
Official and obtain the Chief Building Official's approval of plans
for demolition and/or removal of existing structures, septic
systems, and wells which are not to remain in use on the Property.
Prior to demolition, or removal, Developer shall provide to the
City a certified check in the amount of $1,000.00 to guarantee the
restoration of the Property to grade.
City agrees to return said certified check to Developer after the
demolition or removal on the Property is completed and after it is
verified by City that such structures, septic systems and/or wells
have been properly demolished or removed and that the Property has
been restored to grade.
12. Prior to issuance of any building permit in the R1-9.5 area of the
Property, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, Developer
agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the
Director's approval of a plan for architectural diversity within
said R1-9.5 area which indicates the housing types to be
constructed that portion of the Property. Said plan shall provide
that no two substantially similar housing units shall be located
directly across from each other, diagonally across from each other,
or within two lots of each other.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning of said architectural
diversity plan for the R1-9.5 area, Developer agrees to implement,
or cause to be implemented, said plan, as approved by the Director
of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit
C, attached hereto.
(.79/ /
4 13. Developer acknowledges that Outlots C, D, and E of the Property,
as depicted on Sheet 3 of 6 of Exhibit S, attached hereto, do not
meet City Code requirements for lot size in order to be buildable
lots within the R1-13.5 Zoning District. Developer further
acknowledges that it is intended that said outlots be added to
other lands in the future to create buildable lots which meet City
Code requirements. 1
14. Developer acknowledges that a portion of the Property remains
outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line.
Developer shall, therefore, be required to return to the City, and
the Metropolitan Council, for review and action regarding any
future amendment to said MUSA Line for the Property.
Developer further acknowledges that Ordinance #40-89-PUD-8-89
provides for zoning of the first phase of the Property, only and
that platting for the Property includes 80 single family lots, only
at this time. Developer shall, therefore, be required to return
to the City for review and action regarding any future rezoning and
platting for the Property.
I
Schroers PUD
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
BURL CORPORATION
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1990, by and
between GEORGE AND JEANNE SCHROERS, husband and wife hereinafter referred
to as "Owners," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, hereinafter referred to as
"City":
For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance 1140-
89-PUD-8-89, changing the zoning of the property owned by Owners from the
Rural District to the R1-13.5 District and R1-9.5 District, as more fully
described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of
, 1990, by and between Burl Corporation, a Minnesota corporation,
and City, Owners agree with City as follows:
1. If Burl Corporation fails to proceed in accordance with the
Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owners
shall not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against
Owners, their successors, and assigns of the property.
3. If Owners transfer such property, Owners shall obtain an agreement
from the transferee requiring that such transferee agree to the
terms of the Developer's Agreement.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
4
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #90-69
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE #40-89-PUD-8-89 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance #40-89-PUD-8-89 was adopted and ordered published at
a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th
day of March, 1990;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance #40-89-PUD-8-89, which
is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text
clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in
a body type no smaller than non-pareil, or six-point type, as defined in
Minnesota Statute, Section 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the
City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in
'he City Hall.
D. That Ordinance #40-89-PUD-8-89 shall be recorded in the ordinance
book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within
20 days after publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on March 20, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
•
t��r
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
f HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
1 ORDINANCE NO. 40-89-PUD-8-89
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND
FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFRERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located west of
Dell Road, north and northeast of Rice Marsh Lake, east of the Eden Prairie
and Chanhassen border from the Rural District to the PUD-8-89-R1-13.5/R1-9.5
District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement.
Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of
this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
l /s/ John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1990.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.)
•
G1d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources
FROM: Stuart A. Fox Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
DATE: March 14, 1990
SUBJECT: Bid Summary for Cushman Turf Truckster
The 1990 park maintenance budget included $9,900 in capital outlay
money for the purchase of a Cushman Turf Truckster.
The staff prepared bid specifications for this vehicle, advertised
in the Eden Prairie News, and opened bids on March 14, 1990. The
City received only one bid on this particular vehicle and the bid
was as follows:
Bidder Bid Price
Cushman Motor Company, Inc.
1990 Cushman Turf Truckster $9,895
The particular vehicle that was bid does meet the published spec-
ifications, and the staff would recommend that the City Council
award the bid to Cushman Motor Co. in the amount of $9,895.
SAF:mdd
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Cam,G
FROM: Stuart A. Fox,Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
DATE: March 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Bid Summary for Two Rotary Mowers
The 1990 park maintenance budget included capital outlay money for
the purchase of two 72" rotary mowers.
The staff prepared bid specifications for these two rotary mowers,
advertised in the Eden Prairie News, and opened bids on March 8,
1990. The bids called for purchase of two 72" mowers; one with an
accessory package to allow winter usage of the mower, and the other
setup for summer use only. In addition, the bidders were given the
option of taking two older 72" rotary mowers in trade to discount
the total bid price, as a well as a third piece of mowing equipment
that was replaced with the purchase of our large capacity rotary
mower last year.
The bid summaries are as follows:
M. T. I. Distributing 72" mower with accessories $14,623
mower without accessories 9,862
trade-in 7,490
Total Bid for 2 Mowers $16,995
McQueen Equipment 72" mower with accessories $16,975
mower without assessories 11,510
trade-in 12,152
Total for 2 Mowers $16,333
The apparent low bidder is McQueen Equipment, whose bid is based
on a Turf Blazer Model 530. According to the literature submitted
with the bid proposal, this machine does meet the specifications;
however, since this is a new machine the staff would like to see
a field demonstration of the mower before making a recommendation
to the City Council related to purchase. The reason for having a
field demonstration is based on past experiences with this type of
mower that may have met the desired specifications; however, a
field trial for operator comfort, ease of operation, quality of
cut, and ease of daily/weekly preventative maintenance resulted in
a different recommendation. The staff feels that operator comfort,
. -
quality of cut obtained by the machine, service ease and machine
4: dependability are major factors in making a selection. The staff
would recommend that we delay the bid award for these two mowers
until the April 3rd Council meeting, at which time we would have
completed our field testing of the two proposed mowers.
SAF:mdd
4
6 I'J
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA •
RESOLUTION #90-68
• RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BOULDER POINTE TOWNHOMES
FOR DAVID CARLSON COMPANIES, INC. •
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Boulder Pointe Townhomes for David
Carlson Companies, Inc., dated March 1, 1990, consisting of 13.65
acres for construction of a multi-family residential development,
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
March, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
0J
.
4
STAFF REPORT
(
zg: Planning Commission
FROH: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THRU: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: February 23, 1990
SUBJECT: Boulder Pointe Townhomes
LOCATION: South and west of Twin Lakes Crossing and northwest
of Staring Lake Parkway
APPLICANT!
FEE OWNER: David Carlson
REOUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on
13.65 acres.
2. Site Plan Review on 13.65 acres.
3. Preliminary Plat of 13.65 acres into 51 lots
for construction of a 50 unit multiple family
residential development.
( BACKGROUND �l //�
This site is part of the RedI i Pr1-*11/1pF4 _.'4
'�
Rock Ranch PUD which was ., -..i.
amended in 1988. The original � I �
Red Rock Ranch P.U.D. approved i f � 5
in 1983 depicted 525 housing � // .:::,. ,',,:,
units on 150 acres at an �- ,/r
overall density of 3.5 units i
per acre. The amended P.U.D. \• F?
depicts 250 units which PROPOSED SITE :�'
91-13.5
includes 88 units designated as y *�•�•�•�•�� I
medium density. ,••�•••••••• _
•♦•♦•••4
The 13.65 acre tract is ••••,• -4
pug
recorded as Outlot G, Boulder • r -r�- -,.
Pointe. This property is . , ,•r': Il
currently guided Medium Density
Residential and is zoned Rural.
The proponent is requesting a r i-_
Zoning District Change from i` 1 'r
Rural to RM-6.5 to allow for 1•,2t-: k it ''1'-
the construction of 25 duplex w I `
buildings. � ' \ , A RP.
AREA LOCATION MAP -
Ii) I
( ( +
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
This proposal is Phase IV of the Red Rock Ranch P.U.D. The Red
Rock Ranch Developer's Agreement dated December 13, 1988, stated
that Phase IV is established for development as Medium Density
Residential containing from 42 to 92 units. Any units beyond 42
may be possible subject to a detailed review of the site and
architectural plans and based on the following performance
criteria:
A. Sensitivity shown to the existing land forms and vegetation.
B. Heavy use of landscaping to decrease the scale of the
buildings.
C. The buildings shall be designed to be residential in
character. The mass of the buildings shall be reduced through
specific architectural treatment such as varied roof heights
and building jogs.
The proposed plan takes these performance criteria into
consideration.
SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT
Legally described as Outlot G, Boulder Pointe, this property will
be subdivided into 51 lots for the construction of 25 duplex
buildings. The proponent is requesting a Zoning District Change
from Rural to RM-6.5 which would allow up to 6.7 units per acre.
The plans depict 50 units at a density of 3.66 units per acre. The
proposal meets the minimum requirements of the RM-6.5 Zoning
District.
Access to the site would be provided by the extension of a private
loop road built to City standards from Twin Lakes Crossing.
Because the street is private, the buildings may be placed closer
to the street than 30 feet which is allowed within the RM-6.5
Zoning District. However, in order to allow driveway parking, a
minimum of 25 feet behind each garage stall to the curb is
required. All buildings must be placed a minimum of 25 feet from
the curb. Based upon a unit count of 50, 100 parking stalls are
required. Each unit has a 2 stall garage and driveway parking.
There are 12 other spaces scattered throughout the project site.
GRADING
In order to take advantage of the natural site features including
Staring Lake to the south and the slope of the site, the majority
of the homes in this development are designed as walkouts. Natural
elevations range from a high point of 887 in the southwest corner
of the site and 888 along the west property line to a low point of
828 in the southeast corner near the intersection of Twin Lakes
Crossing and Staring Lake Parkway. Cut and fill amounts include
,7
C
a maximum cut of approximately 28 feet on Lot 5 and fill ranging
from 6 to 10 feet at various locations throughout the project. In
order to reduce the amount of grading along the western property
line from between 5 to 9 feet, a change in unit types from
lookouts/walkouts to ramblers is necessary. This would reduce the
amount of grading required off-site and help the transition to the
single family homes anticipated to the north and west.
The plans indicate 3 boulder retaining walls required to save trees
and to allow for building pads. These walls are less than 4 feet
in height and landscaped.
UTILITIES
Utilities are available to this site by connections made to
existing utilities within Twin Lakes Crossing.
Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected through an
extensive catch basin system located throughout the project site.
All site drainage is proposed to be directed to a holding pond at
the intersection of Twin Lakes Crossing and Starring Lakes Parkway
with ultimate discharge into Starring Lake. Permits will be
required from the Watershed District, the City of Eden Prairie,
and the Department of Natural Resources to allow for the
construction of the storm sewer discharge pipe.
ARCHITECTURE
The proponent has submitted an architectural plan for review which
indicates three building types. The units measure 44 to 52 feet
in width and are approximately 82 feet in depth. Overall, each
unit would contain approximately 3,000 square feet on the first
floor. All of the unit types are single story and designed as
walkouts, lookouts, or rambler style. Proposed building materials
include cedar siding, Timberline shingles, and face brick along the
front elevations which is consistent with the homes being built in
the area.
PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS
There is an 8 foot bituminous path along Twin Lakes Crossing and
an extensive trail system within Starring Lake Parkway which
service this area.
TREE REPLACEMENT/LANDSCAPE PLAN
Based upon the submitted tree inventory which depicts a total of
354 caliper inches of significant trees, 120 caliper inches would
be removed due to grading. This is a 33.8% tree loss which is
consistent with other projects within the City of Eden Prairie.
Originally, a 50% tree loss was calculated. In order to reduce the
amount of tree loss to 33.8%, two units were elminated and the road
connection to Twin Lakes Crossing was Adjusted.
6/79
C C
The proponent has provided a tree replacement and landscape plan
for review. The landscape plan depicts a total of 674 caliper
inches of plant material which meets the City Code requirment for
landscaping and for tree replacement. The landscape plan is
designed to provide for a transition to the single family
properties located to the west and south and to provide a buffer
from Twin Lakes Crossing and Starring Lake Parkway. The plant
material adjacent the proposed single family homes and the roads
shall be installed immediately to begin the transition. An
irrigation system shall be installed to help ensure the survival
of the plant material.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural
to RM-6.5 on 13.65 acres, Site Plan Review on 13.65 acres,
Preliminary Plat of 13.65 acres into 51 lots for construction of
a 50 unit multiple family residential development based on revised
plans dated February 14, 1990, subject to the recommendations in
the Staff Report dated February 23, 1990, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
a. Submit samples of building materials and colors for
review by City Staff.
b. Revise the plans to depict a minimum 25 foot setback from
the curb to all buildings.
c. Submit an irrigation system plan.
2. Prior to final plat, the proponent shall:
a. Submit detailed storm water and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
b. Submit detailed storm water, utility and erosion control
plans for review by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to grading permit the 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 the limits shall be
replaced on
b. Stake the construction limits with erosion control
fencing.
4. Submit Homeowners Association Documents for review.
5. Receive all necessary permits for the construction of the
storm sewer discharge pipe into Staring Lake.
G`E�
B. BOULDER POINTE TONNE:MEE, by David Carlson
Companies, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change
( from Rural to RM-6.5 on 13.65 acres, Site Plan
Review on 13.65 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
13.65 acres into 51 lots for construction of a 50
unit multi-family residential development.
Location: South and west of Twin Lakes Crossing,
northwest of Starring Lake Parkway. A public
hearing.
David Carlson presented the plans for a 50
unit townhouse project. Three different floor
plans would be available. The architecture
would be a prairie design. Carlson stated
that it was important from a marketing
standpoint to position the homes to provide as
many views of Staring Lake as possible. He
noted that aesthetically, the duplexes gave an
appearance of being single-family homes. The
target market would be residents 45 years or
older. All of the units would have master
bedrooms located on the main floor. The
majority of the units would have walkouts.
Carlson stated that he would like to have a
model ready for the Parade of Homes in
September.
Hallett asked if the adjacent
property owners have had the
( opportunity to view these plans.
Carlson replied that Mason Homes and
David Kramer had seen the plans.
Uram reported that the plan proposed
presented a low range of density
compared to what had originally been
approved. One lot had been
eliminated to save additional trees.
Uram stated that Staff recommended
approval of the project based on the
recommendations outlined in the
Staff Report.
Bauer asked if the proponent had
specific comments to the Staff
recommendations. Carlson stated
that he concurred with the Staff
recommendations. Carlson presented
the exterior color selections and
added that an irrigation system
would be in place.
Uram noted that an addition should
be made to the Staff recommendations
that the landscaping materials
CO
around the perimeter of the project
should be planted at the beginning
of the project. Carlson concurred
with the recommendation.
Hallett asked what the price range
would be for the homes. Carlson
replied that the units were being
advertised between $219,000 and
$225,000. Hallett then asked were
the market was coming from. Carlson
replied from Eden Prairie,
Bloomington, and Minnetonka.
MOTION 1:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bauer to close the
public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
MOTION 2:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend
to the City Council approval of the request of
David Carlson Companies, Inc., for Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 13.65
acres for Boulder Pointe Townhomes, based on
r plans dated February 20, 1990, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated
February 23, 1990, with the addition of Item
6 'to the Staff recommendations to read:
Install all perimeter landscaping material at
the beginning of the project. Motion carried
5-0-0.
MOTION 3:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend
to the City Council approval of the request of
David Carlson Companies, Inc., for Site Plan
Review on 13.65 acres for 50 multi-family
units to be known as Boulder Pointe Townhomes,
based on plans dated February 20, 1990,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated February 23, 1990, with the
addition of Item 6 to the Staff
recommendations to read: Install all
perimeter landscaping material at the
beginning of the project. Motion carried 5-0-
0.
MOTION 4:
Sandstad moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend
to the City Council approval of the request of
rvta
David Carlson Companies, Inc., for Preliminary
Plat of 13.65 acres into 51 lots for
construction of a 50-unit multi-family
residential development to be known as Boulder
Pointe Townhomes, based on plans dated
February 20, 1990, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated
February 23, 1990, with the addition of Item
6 to the Staff recommendations to read:
Install all perimeter landscaping material at
the beginning of the project. Motion carried
5-0-0.
•
V. OLD BUSINESS
Hallett asked if anything was being done regarding the
screening along Highway 5 for the Water Products Company.
Kipp replied that he was looking into sight line
distances on the opposite side of the road and would
address this issue at the same time.
Bye asked that the Planning Commission be advised of any
progress.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Hallett moved, seconded by Ruebling to adjourn the
meeting at 8:20 PM. Motion carried 5-0-0.c:
i?�;{
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: David Lindahl, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: March 15, 1990
RE: YEAR XVI (1990-91) PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
Eden Prairie is eligible to apply for $71,065 in Community
Development Block Grant funds for the Year XVI (1990-91) funding
year, which is a 5.3% increase from 1989. The national objective
of the CDBG program is to provide housing and service opportunities
for low and moderate income families, elderly, and handicapped
individuals.
This year staff directed all public service agencies requesting
CDBG funds from Eden Prairie to present their requests to the Human
Rights and Services Commission. The Human Rights and Services
Commission reviewed requests made by public service providers at
the March 12, 1990 meeting and recommended to the City Council that
the Year XVI CDBG funds be applied toward the following programs:
$15.000 to the Greater Minneapolis Dav Care Association, which
administers the State and County child care sliding fee subsidy
program. GMDCA requested $15,000 to continue assisting lower income
Eden Prairie residents with day care services.
$5.000 to Senior Community Services Aoencv, which administers the
Household and Outside Maintenance for the Elderly Program (HOME) .
Senior Community Services requested $5,000 to continue providing
maintenance and chore services to Eden Prairie's elderly
population.
$5.040 to the Adaptive Recreation Program. The Adaptive Recreation
Program provides recreation programs and related service to
disabled persons in Eden Prairie. They are requesting funds to
provide sign language interpreters for hearing impaired individuals
who are participating in adaptive recreation programs. There are
currently 16 students in the Eden Prairie school system who are
hearing impaired. The $5,040 in CDBG funding would allow each of
these students to participate in one six week session with a sign
language interpreter.
The Human Rights and Services Commission approved the $5,040
request contingent upon Hennepin County not exceeding the 15%
County-wide cap on public service funding. If the County exceeds
the 15% threshold the City will be required to maintain its 1989
public service funding percentage of 30%. This will only allow
$1,319 to be designated to the adaptive recreation program, and
will free-up an additional $3,721 for the Scattered Site program.
LJl-"r
i
Staff is recommending that the balance of the Year XVI CDBG
allocation of $51,065 be applied toward the existing Year XV
housing programs in the following way:
$25,000 for the Housing Rehabilitation Program. The Housing Rehab
Program provides interest free deferred loans of up to $10,000 to
eligible residents for home improvements. The loans are recovered
by the City in full if the recipients sell theirr homes within 10
years of receiving the loans. All recovered funds are rolled back
into the program. The City assisted seven home owners with $47,000
in Rehab loans in 1989. This was a significant increase in the use
of the Program from previous years due primarily to the City
convincing the County to increase the income limits for Eden
Prairie that in past were very restrictive. The City also improved
its outreach methods by mailing notices to areas occupied by older
homes.
Staff recommends that the balance of $21.025 be placed in a
contingency fund pending HUD approval of the Scattered Site Housing
Assistance Program. The program has been inactive since early this
year when Hennepin County officials were notified by the local HUD
office that the Scattered Site Program was determined ineligible
and that Eden Prairie would be required to repay all funds expended
toward the Program ($105,883.79) .
Each year since the program began in 1986, Hennepin County has
included the Eden Prairie Scattered Site Program in its "Grantee
Performance Report," which the County is required to submit to HUD.
The annual Grantee Performance Report prepared by Hennepin County
details the various programs within the County that are funded by
CDBG funds. The Scattered Site Program has not been questioned by
HUD in the past. However, following the County's submission of its
most recent Grantee Performance Report, HUD determined that the
program was not eligible to receive CDBG funds. Further, HUD has
directed Hennepin County and Eden Prairie return all CDBG funds
that have been previously used in the program.
The City Attorney was immediately notified by staff of the
situation. Roger Pauly assigned Joe Nilan to assist staff in
investigating HUD's finding. Hennepin County, who is responsible
for reviewing and approving all CDBG programs developed by local
communities, was taken by complete surprise by HUD's finding. The
County submitted a letter of intent to contest the validity of the
finding of ineligibility of the program in late December. An
official letter of appeal has been drafted by the Assistant County
Attorney with the help of Joe Nilan and City Staff. The letter of
appeal will be signed by the Hennepin County Attorney and submitted
to HUD's local office in the near future. A copy of this letter has
been attached to this memo for your review.
Joe Nilan has also written State Representative Sydney Pauly
requesting that she assist the City by enlisting Minnesota's U.S.
Senators and U.S. Congressmen from Hennepin County to lend their
assistance in contesting this finding.
HUD is not questioning whether the program benefits low and
moderate income families, which has been clearly documented by the
City and County, it instead claims that the method in which the
program is implemented constitutes an income payment, instead of
an acquisition.
2
The City can only speculate that in light of recent problems within
HUD nationally, that HUD's attack on the Scattered Site program is
an over-reaction by lower level employees.
Placing $21,025 of the Year XVI allocation in a contingency
account, designated for the Scattered Site program, will allow the
City to assess the funds through an additional public hearing
whenever the HUD situation is resolved. The City also could decide
to use the funds for another purpose later, as long as a public
hearing is involved.
See page four for the number of households served by exsiting CDBG
programs.
PROPOSED YEAR XVI CDBG PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS:
• CURRENT 1989 TOTAL
YEAR XV HOMES HOMES
PROGRAM NAME&DESCRIPTION BALANCE SERVED SERVED
1) HOUSEHOLD&OUTSIDE MAINTENANCE FOR ELDERLY(HOME): $2,514.07 23 82
Provides household and light maintenance sevices to seniors
60 and older.Services include heavy house cleaning,laundry,
snow removal,small appliance repair,grocery shopping,and
light carpentry work.
2) CHILD CARE SUBSIDY PROGRAM: $14,817.32 5 14
Provides subsidized day car for low income families.Program
administered by Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association. •
Of the 5 families served in 1989,4 were single parent
households.There are currently 20 Eden Prairie families
on the waiting list for child care assistance.
3) HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM: $9,489.01 7 20
Provides deferred loans of up to$10,000 to low income home
owners for home repairs and improvements.Loans are repayed ,'a
to the City if homes are sold within 10 years of receiving
loans.
4) SCATTERED SITE HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: $26,983.96 2 6
Provides assistance to low and moderate income families for
purchasing homes in Eden Prairie.The City provides$10,000
deferred loans which reduces the cost of homes in order to
make them affordable.
This program creates opportunities for lower income families
z to purchase homes of their own,it promotes ownership,and
increases the supply of affordable,habitable dwellings
in Eden Prairie.
3
(t
CO „ I.
c j i ! i N
`CC 1_ 1'.'.�////�///�� ig. W
CD 1 1 1 I I ti
O I I W
CC N ( CO N
LL. + NI » CO
a
� I - j
ico
1
0 i
F- I //////%%%///CO IN m
U a •
i
I U
`` ! ; ( 1 o
t •
o
CC 77
v' 1 . to }
? o) 1%
CC W r- W
W o7
CO W _
J Co
0 a v 1 0
J
O o , ; co a
I -' _
W = I� rn w
CO W
D S N
O = co
r- 1
I 1 •
o (0 0 Un 0 10 0
C.)/ N N .- .-
1.
,;f7
4
LANG,PAULY&GREGERSON.LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4400 IDS CENTER
80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE:(612)338-0755
FAX:(612)349-67181
ROBERT I.LANG EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE ROGER A PAULY
DAVID H.OREGERSON• SUITE 370
RICHAEO F.ROSOW 250 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
MARK J.JOHNSON EDEN PRAIRIE.MINNESOTA SSJN
JOSEPH A.NILAN (61214247353
JOHN W.LANG.CPA j
REPLY TO MINNEAPOLIS OMCE
LEA M.D.SOUZA
JEFFREY C APPELOUIST•
JUDITH K.DUTCHER
BARBARA M.ROSS
WILUAM R.MILLER
•AI-...surd 10
Pm,..L. wimw.
March 13, 1990
Mr. Leonard D. Brod
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the Hennepin County Attorney
2000 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
RE: Eden Prairie Scattered Site Housing Program
Dear Mr. Brod:
Enclosed please find a letter which I suggest that you send
to Mr. Feeney. This letter was prepared with input from the City
of Eden Prairie from Mark Hendrickson and from my office. Please
send a copy of the letter to me once you have forwarded it onto
Mr. Feeney. Also, please send copies to the following:
David Lindahl
Assistant Planner
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677
Senator Dave Durenberger
Attention: Bert McKasy (main man)
154 Russel Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
Senator Rudy Boschwitz
506 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-5641
LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD.
Mr. Leonard D. Brod
l March 13, 1990
Page 2
Congressman Bill Frenzel
1026 Longworth Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2871
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD.
l
Joseph A. Nilan
JAN/ds ///
Enclosure
cc: David Lindahl (w/enc.)
l N-M13O0
669
March 13, 1990
Thomas Feeney, Manager
U.S. Department of HUD
Minneapolis-St. Paul Office, Region V
220 Second Street South
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2195
RE: Determination of Ineligibility of the
Eden Prairie Scattered Site Housing
Assistance Program Funded by
CDBG Funds Through Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Feeney:
On December 8, 1989, you sent a letter to Mr. Dale A.
Ackmann, the Hennepin County Administrator in which you
determined that the Eden Prairie Scattered Site Housing
Assistance Program (the "Program") was ineligible to receive
Community Development Block Grant Funds through Hennepin County.
The letter further stated that Hennepin County will be required
to repay Community Development Block Grant Funds previously used
in connection with the Program. The letter concluded by
providing Hennepin County with 15 days during which it could
contest your finding.
On December 21, 1989, Mr. Ackmann provided a letter to
you contesting the validity of your finding of ineligibility.
The purpose of this letter is two fold. First, Hennepin
County, in cooperation with the City of Eden Prairie, wishes to
reassert its objection to your finding of ineligibility. The ;.
second purpose of this letter is to request that you reconsider
your finding in light of this letter.
POO
N
Thomas Feeney, Manager
March 13, 1990
Page 2
I. EDEN PRAIRIE SCATTERED SITE HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. •
Beginning in the fall of 1986, the City of Eden Prairie
developed and implemented the Program. The purpose of the
Program is to assist low and moderate income families in
purchasing homes in various areas throughout Eden Prairie. The
Program is funded entirely through Community Development Block
Grant Funds made available to Eden Prairie by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development through Hennepin County. The
Program originally based the amount of assistance provided to
each family on the appraised lot value of the property. It was
later revised when a $10,000.00 limit on assistance to each
family was established in order to serve more families. In each
case, the assistance provided was in the form of funds paid to
the seller of the property to bring down the cost of the property
in order to make it affordable for low and moderate income
families. The buyer then secured repayment of the funds by a
promissory note and mortgage, filed against the property and
subordinated to a first mortgage acquired by the buyer. The
assistance was not used as a down payment on the property nor was
it used to subsidize the first mortgage. The buyers were
required to provide a down payment from their own resources
necessary to qualify for FHA financing.
This approach to securing CDBG funds is identical to the
Hennepin County Housing Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program,
except that funds secured are repaid to the City of Eden Prairie
when the properties are sold, or when the first mortgage is
satisfied. The City of Eden Prairie will also recover a
percentage of equity when the properties are sold. All funds
recovered by the City will be rolled back into the Program. This
activity should clearly constitute an acquisition of real
property since the City of Eden Prairie is securing a part of
each property purchased through the Program with a promissory
note, second mortgage and security agreement.
The Program involves the sale of both new and existing
townhouses, duplexes, and single-family homes throughout Eden
Prairie. Eden Prairie will work with builders on new
construction and homeowners and real estate brokers on existing
housing units. The market price on the units must be less than
$80,000.00 which is the affordability threshold for families
within the income guidelines. �.
l 1
Thomas Feeney, Manager
March 13, 1990
Page 3
Each year since the Program began in 1986, Hennepin County
has included the Program in its Grantee Performance Report, which
Hennepin County is required to submit. The annual Grantee
Performance Report prepared by Hennepin County details the
various programs within the county which are funded by the
Community Development Block Grant Funds. The Program has not
been questioned by HUD in any of the previous years.
II. THE REGULATIONS.
As you know, the regulations governing the use of Community
Development Block Grant Funds are codified at 24 CFR S 570 et
seq. The Community Development Block Grant Funds are to be used
primarily for "the development of viable urban communities, by
providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and
expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low
and moderate income." 24 CFR S 570.2. Clearly the Program in
Eden Prairie squarely meets this primary objective.
Section 570.201 identifies the basic eligible activities.
The Program meets the requirements of S 570.201(a) in that the
funds are used to acquire an interest in real property. As
stated above, the funds are used to acquire a second mortgage
interest in the real property. Clearly, this constitutes an
"acquisition" activity.
Further, the Program falls squarely under the intent to
establish for meeting national objectives such as activities
benefiting low and moderate income persons which is found at 24
CFR S 270.208(a), (b), (c) and (d). Eden Prairie and Hennepin
County have maintained evidence which clearly verifies compliance
with both local and national objectives. The eligibility
criteria for this activity require persons to have incomes within
the Section 8 limits as determined by HUD, have a family size of
three or more, or two or more for single-parent households, and
be a first time home buyer. The Program also provides an
economical approach to affordable housing and is ideally suited
for suburban communities such as Eden Prairie. It provides
ownership opportunities to low an3 moderate income families and
requires minimal staff time to administer. Further, it provides
a return of funds to the Program upon resale or satisfaction of
the first mortgage. By structuring the acquisition of the
property in this manner, numerous families can participate. A
j f
on
,
Thomas Feeney, Manager
March 13, 1990
Page 4
1
complete acquisition of property would be difficult if not
impossible for communities like Eden Prairie where the
acquisition costs themselves would exceed the funds available in
the City's total annual CDBG allocation.
III. FINDING OF INELIGIBILITY.
Your December 8, 1989, letter finding the Program to be an
ineligible activity fails to identify a specific factual basis
for its determination. The finding itself is based on 24 CFR
§ 570.207(b)(4) which states that "the general rule is that CDBG
funds shall not be used for income payments for housing or other
purpose. Examples of ineligible income payments include:
payments for income maintenance, housing allowances, down
payments, and mortgage subsidies." Your letter does not indicate
how this definition of income to the
payments applies Program.
The Program does not provide for income maintenance, housing
allowances, down payments or mortgage subsidies. The funds are
used to purchase the property and are paid directly to the
seller. The buyer receives the benefit of the funds in the form
of a reduced purchase price on the property thus enabling the
buyer to qualify for the first mortgage. In exchange for this
benefit, the buyer executes a promissory note, mortgage and
security agreement pledging to repay the funds when the property
is sold or the first mortgage is satisfied. This arrangement
complies not only with the spirit of the national objectives but
with the letter of the regulations.
If the determination of ineligibility is not reversed, the
Program will suffer an undue and unjustified hardship. The
Program has resulted in the acquisition of numerous homes for
needy families in the City of Eden Prairie. If Eden Prairie is
required to repay any or all of the funds previously advanced, it
will create a substantial burden on their housing program and may
result in an additional tax assessment to be born by the needy
families who benefitted from the Program.
It is our sincerest hope that you will reconsider your
position and allow the Program to continue successfully to avail
itself of the letter of credit which has been so useful thus far.
In the event that you decide to affirm your previously finding,
please be advised that we will have no alternative other than to
fully contest your decision, require that you comply with the
k
«�
Thomas Feeney, Manager
March 13, 1990
Page 5
.formal proceedings required by 24 U.S.C. S 570.913(c) and, if
necessary, seek judicial review pursuant to S 570.913(c)(10).
I look forward to your prompt response.
Very truly yours, 1
Thomas L. Johnson
Hennepin County Attorney
By Leonard D. Brod
Assistant County Attorney
JAN/ds
cc: Joseph A. Milan
David Lindahl
David Durenberger
Rudy Boschwitz
Bill Frenzel
N-M1201
( BOULDER POINTE TOWNHOMES, by David Carlson Companies, Inc. Request
for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 13.65 acres, Site
Plan Review on 13.65 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13.65 acres into 53
lots for a 52-unit multi-family residential development. Location:
South and West of Twin Lakes Crossing, northwest of Starring Lake Park-
way (Ordinance #14-90, Rezoning; Resolution #90-68, Preliminary Plat)
(Published in the Eden Prairie News on March 6, 1990--sent to 24 surround-
ing property owners.)
CDBG Year XVI esolution #90-67
If Schroers goes, it would read like this:
SCHROERS PUD, by Burl Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #40-89-PUD-
8-89, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5; Approval of Developer's Agreement for
Schroers PUD and Owners' Supplement to Developer's Agreement; Adoption of
Resolution #90-69, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #40-89-PUD-8-89 and
Ordering Publication of Said Summary. (Ordinance #40-89-PUD-8-89, PUD
District and Rezoning; Resolution #90-69, Authorizing Summary and Publi-
cation)
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 90-67
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XVI
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL
•
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, through execution of a
Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is a cooperating
unit in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has developed a proposal for
the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it,
following a public hearing on March 20, 1990 to obtain the views
of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and
community development needs and the City's following proposed use
of $ 71,065 from the Year XVI Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant and $ -0- in program related income.
proiects Budget
Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association's $ 15,000
Child Care Subsidy Program
Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly $ 5,000
Adoptive Recreation Program - $ 5,040
Sign Language Interpreters
Housing Rehabilitation Program $ 25,000
Contingency Fund For Scattered Site Housing $ 21.025
$ 71,065
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eden Prairie approves
the proposed use of Year XVI Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant funds and program related income and
authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review
by the Urban Hennepin County Citizens Advisory Committee and for
inclusion in the Year XVI Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant Program Statement of Objectives and
Projected Use of Funds.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on
March 20, 1990
ATTEST: •
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
"V
MARCH L0,1990 !
58123 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-SPRING BROCHURE-COMt1UNITY CENTER 936.00
58124 MUNICI-PALS DUES-MUNICI-PALS ASSOCIATION 5.00
25 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY CONFERENCE-PARK MAINTENANCE 240.00
26 THE JAILHOUSE INN -50/50 OUTING DEPOSIT-ADULT PROGRAMS/FEES 290.00 I
PAIDti
5B127 FIFTH GENERATION SYSTEM COMPUTER SOFTWARE-PLANNING DEPT 60.00
58128 SCANLON HOUSE -50/50 OUTING DEPOSIT-ADULT PROGRAMS/FEES 275.00
PAID
58129 SAFETY SYSTEMS INC CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 45.00
58130 BIRTCHER WELSH MARCH '90 RENT-CITY HALL 22689.68
58131 ROSS SATTER SERVICE-ENTERTAINMENT-SENIOR PROGRAMS 75.00
58132 ROBERT ANDERSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00
58133 VICKI BREAULT REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00
58134 KAREN BROWN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 22.00
58135 RISHU CHOJAR REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00
58136 GEORGANN IMMORDINO REFUND DEPOSIT-OUTDOOR CENTER RENTAL 50.00
58137 RONALD LENCE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00
58138 PATRICIA MORRIS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00
58139 VICTORIA 0 HARE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00
58I40 JACQUELINE SMITH REFUND-CROSS COUNTRY SKI TRIP 115.00
58141 SUPPLEE'S 7 HI ENTERPRISES INC MARCH '90 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 4739.97
58142 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 16374.27
58143 U S POSTMASTER POSTAGE-VALUATION NOTICES-ASSESSING DEPT 2882.67
58144 P & M MANUFACTURING COMPANY PLUMBING SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 173.58
58145 FOX MCCUE & MURPHY 1989 AUDIT SERVICE 12000.00
58146 THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE DUES-PLANNING DEPT 100.00
58147 AT&T SERVICE 540.91
58148 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 35402.31
( 149 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 76.05
1, i50 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 195.8I
58151 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO -SERVICE-MITCHELL/RESEARCH ROAD/WEST 76TH 71069.89
-ST IMPROVEMENTS/GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE
IMPROVEMENTS/COUNTY ROAD 1 WATER MAIN
58152 STATE TREASURER STATE OF MINNESOT LICENSE-WATER DEPT 20.00
58153 KAREN BROWN REFUND-EXERCISE CLASS 22.00
58154 TERRY FIEITZ REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00
58155 LYNN LEONARD REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 15.37
58156 DANIEL NIMTZ REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 24.00
58I57 MICHELLE ROSS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 2.00
58158 JANET WEPLER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 18.00
58159 HENNEPIN CO TREASURER PRINTING-ENGINEERING DEPT 144.00
58160 U S POSTMASTER STAMPS-CITY HALL 40.00
58161 RONALD JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 1704.00 1
58162 ALL AMERICAN BOTTLING CORP MIX 40.05 gg
58163 BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER 2147.00 k1k
58164 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 5550.70 1.
58165 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER 13635.95 ,
58166 HOME JUICE PRODUCTS MIX 48.78
58167 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 418.I5
5816B MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 11879.38
58169 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 360.74
58170 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MIX 468.0
58171 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
=9172 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 14310.50
173 NATIONAL POLICE INSTITUTE CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 665.00
72000082
' 1
A
MARCH 20.1990
58174 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
'75 MINNESOTA A P C 0 FREQUENCY COORDINATION STUDY-POLICE DEPT 875.00
i 76 NORTH STAR OUTDOOR EOUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS FOR WEED WHIP-PARK MAINT 42.98
58177 GINA MARIA EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL 33.91
58178 WARNING LITES OF MN INC CONFERENCE-STREET DEPT 120.00
58179 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENC CONFERENCE-SEWER DEPT 420.00
58180 STATE TREASURER STATE OF MINNESOT LICENSE FEE-SEWER DEPT 90.00
58181 NCSAWWA SCHOOL-WATER DEPT 980.00
58182 STATE TREASURER STATE OF MINNESOT LICENSE FEE-WATER DEPT 150.00
58183 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE FEBRUARY '90 SALES TAX 15889.22
58184 JAMES SCHLOSSMACHER CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 208.00
58185 NODLAND CONSTRUCTION CO -SERVICE-COUNTRY GLEN UTILITY & STREET 6639.26
IMPROVEMENTS
58186 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-FRANLO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 12264.03
58187 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO -SERVICE-MITCHELL/RESEARCH ROAD/WEST 76TH 15141.51
-ST IMPROVEMNTS/GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE
IMPROVEMNTS/COUNTY ROAD 1 WATER MAIN
58188 A & H WELDING & MFG CO TUBE WELDING-SEWER DEPT 55.50
58189 ABBOTT PAINT & CARPET CO PAINT BRUSHES/PAINT-WATER DEPT 314.36
58190 ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC REBUILT VALVE-WATER DEPT 38.73
58191 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT 715.27
58192 ACE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 147.60
58193 HERBERT S ADOLPHSON EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 15.00
58194 AIRSIGNAL INC PAGER SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 124.00
58195 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO -UNIFORMS-WATER DEPT/SEWER DEPT/STREET 1701.74
-DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE/FACILITIES DEPT/
-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT/POLICE DEPT/
-ANIMAL CONTROL/COMMUNITY CENTER/LIQUOR
STORE
58196 AMERICAN STEEL & INDUSTRIAL SUPPL STEEL TUBING/STEEL PLATE-EQUIPMENT MAINT 294.16 f
58197 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC PUBLICATIONS-WATER DEPT 403.66
58198 AMEX TIRE INC TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 183.00
58199 DON ANDERSON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 92.00
58200 ASTLEFORD INTL INC CLAMPS/MUFFLERS/GAUGE-EQUIPMENT MAINT 25B.91
58201 AT&T TELEPHONE STAND/CORD-WATER DEPT 18.70
58202 AUDIO VISUAL WHOLESALERS PROJECTOR BULBS-FIRE DEPT 51.22
58203 B & S TOOLS -SANDPAPER/SCRAPERS/COUPLINGS/VISE GRIPS/ 1344.90
-PLIERS/SCREWDRIVERS/AIR CHISEL/BATTERY
-PACK/AIR CHISEL REPAIR/CHISEL HOLDER/
-GOGGLES/DIE GRINDER/WRENCHES/GREASE GUN/
-PUNCHES/BATTERIES/SOCKET SETS-WATER DEPT/
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
58204 BACHMAN'S EXPENSES-CITY HALL 54.00
58205 BACON'S ELECTRIC CO -INSTALL OUTLETS FOR CRANE/REPAIR HEATER/ 4202.45
-REPLACE BALLASTS/REVISE GARAGE RECEPTACLE
CIRCUIT/PUMP REPAIR-WATER DEPT
58206 BALDWIN SUPPLY COMPANY INC 4 MOTORS-WATER DEPT 868.55
58207 PATRICIA BARKER SCHOOL-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 46.00
58208 BATTERY CITY BATTERY-POLICE DEPT 55.00
58209 AUTOMOBILE SERVICE CO WHEEL ALIGNMENT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 128.50
58210 KEN BERG BROOMBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 345.00
58211 ARIK BERGLUND BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 39.00
7 '212 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY SERVICE 610.00
.13 BIG A AUTO PARTS - CHANHASSEN -FLARES/CALIPER KITS/PISTONS/STARTER/ 1861.13
-FILTERS/BRAKE PADS/BRAKE LINE/STARTER
-FLUID/SEAT CUSHIONS/CAR WAX/TESTER/MASTER
6682229
-CYLINDER/BRAKE SHOES/TAIL PIPES/MUFFLER/
-POWER STEERING HOSE/SPEAKER-EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE
( -'14 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY -FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT/WATER 69.79
DEPT/FIRE DEPT/PLANNING DEPT
58215 BLEVINS CONCESSION SUPPLY COMPANY CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 428.64
58216 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON JANUARY '90 ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICE 357.00
58217 BMB SERVICES WEIGHT ROOM EQUIPMENT REPAIR-FITNESS CTR 25.00
58218 LOIS BOETTCHER -MINUTES-PARK RECREATION & NATURAL 112.84
RESOURCES COMMISSION
58219 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC -GEARS/GASKETS/SWITCH/FUEL PUMPS/PULLEY- 122.66
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
58220 LEE M BRANDT HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 109.00
58221 THE BREHM GROUP -1990 HEALTH/LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM-CITY 63.75
COUNCIL
58222 BROOKS FOOD MARKET EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 19.11
58223 BRO-TEX INC PAPER TOWELS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 250.12
58224 NATHAN BUCK -SOFTBALL/VOLLEYBALL/BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/ 595.50
FEES PAID
58225 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION INVESTIGATION-POLICE DEPT 120.00
58226 BUSINESS CREDIT LEASING INC APRIL '90 COPIER RENTAL-FIRE DEPT 182.75
58227 CARDOX CORPORATION CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 861.72
58228 JOHN E CARLON III SCHOOL-SEWER DEPT 115.75
58229 CENTRAIRE INC -REPLACED AIR FILTERS FOR HEAT PUMP-POLICE 210.16
BUILDING
58230 CERTIFIED HYDRAULIC SPECI FLOAT DETENTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 121.30
58231 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS STEEL BAR/BAR COVERS-FORESTRY DEPT 52.00
58232 CLEVELAND COTTON PRODUCTS PAPER TOWELS-WATER DEPT 175.58
58233 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC -BRAKE DRUMS/BRAKE SHOES/SEALS/CLUTCH 1258.39
-PACKS/BEARINGS/FLYWHEEL/FITTINGS/HOSES-
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
58234 COLORPROOF PRINTING INC PRINTING-PARK BROCHURES-PARK PLANNING 4293.00
58235 SPENCER CONRAD EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 17.00
58236 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR-WATER DEPT 121.00
58237 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC SAFETY VESTS-SAFETY DEPT 277.84
58238 COUNTRY VILLAGE MINNESOTA FABRICS -FABRICS FOR ICE SHOW COSTUMES-COMMUNITY 90.39
CENTER
58239 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 127.90
58240 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC -DRILL BITS/SILICONE-WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT 256.37 I
MAINTENANCE
58241 CUSTOM AUTOBODY REPAIR & PAINT VEHICLE-EQUIPMENT MAINT 595.36
58242 CUTLER MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 10810.53
58243 WARD F DAHLBERG FEBRUARY '90 EXPENSES-LIQUOR STORES 80.00
58244 DALCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/FACILITIES 2558.43
DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER
58245 DAN & DAN'S MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 81.10
58246 MITCHELL DEAN MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE 10.00
58247 DELEGARD TOOL CO -TAPE/KNIFE/PARTS FOR IMPACT GUN/VOLTMETER- 1330.66
-5444.45/PORTABLE CHARGER-$201.45/P0RTABLE
POWER-$214.13-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
58248 DECORATIVE DESIGNS MARCH '90 SERVICE-CITY HALL 49.50
58249 DEVOE & RAYNOLDS CO PAINT/ROLLER COVERS-PARK MAINTENANCE 20.81
58250 EUGENE DIETZ FEBRUARY EXPENSES/DUES-ENGINEERING DEPT 229.00
58251 DPC INDUSTRIES INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 16499.34
69929
(P.
MARCH 20.1990
58252 PAULA DUNNUPI AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 225.00
58253 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY JANUARY '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HAL 647.43
l 'T54 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE -EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER/ADMINISTRATION/ 75.00
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT
58255 E P PHOTO FILM PROCESSING-WATER DEPT 10.22
58256 EDEN PRAIRIE SNOWDRIFTERS REIMBURSEMENT FROM STATE OF MINNESOTA 514.38
58257 CITY OF EDINA JANUARY '90 WATER TESTS-WATER DEPT 202.00
58258 EDINA HIGH SCHOOL SHARE OF HOCKEY GATE RECEIPTS 845.00
58259 DEB EDLUND MINUTES-PLANNING COMMISSION 250.00
58260 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC -JACKET/MARKING TAPE/GLOVES/MASKS/SAFETY 485.75
-CAPS/CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT/SAFETY DEPT/
FIRE DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER
58261 ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL SERVICES IN 2 MOTORS-WATER DEPT 312.00
58262 EMPRO CORPORATION TUBES-FACILITIES DEPT 56.00
58263 EXIDE CORPORATION BATTERIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 376.80
58264 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE-PLANNING DEPT/PARK PLANNING DEPT 40.10
58265 FAIRVIEW BLOOD TESTS-POLICE DEPT 54.88
58266 FIDELITY PRODUCTS MURAL/GARBAGE BAGS-WATER DEPT 170.15
58267 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES -SERVICE-CARMEL & RED ROCK LAKE PARKS 58985.67
GRADING
58268 FMAM - TREASURER FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 93.75
58269 FIVE STAR CONSTRUCTION INC REMODELING OF POLICE BUILDING 12625.00
58270 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPANY LOWER MANHOLE HOSE GUIDE-SEWER DEPT B7.27 !!
58271 FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO -APRIL '90 COPIER INSTALLMENT PAYMENT- 300.00
POLICE DEPT
58272 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 555.21
58273 FOX VALLEY SYSTEMS INC PAINT-WATER DEPT 59.58
58274 MICHAEL D FRANZEN MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT 15.50
\( '75 LYNDELL FREY VOLLEYBALL & BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 679.50
..276 G & K SERVICES COVERALLS/TOWELS-WATER DEPT/PARK MAINT 1067.38
58277 GINA MARIA'S PIZZA EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 37.54
58278 GNERER WELDING INC -PLOW SHOES/MARKERS/SNOW SHIELD/BLADES/ 44 1.25
PLOW CABLES-WATER DEPT
58279 W W GOETSCH ASSOCIATES INC -GASKETS/O-RINGS/WASHER/SCREW/PACKING 705.94
58280 CHARLES A GOBLE EMERGENCY TECHNICIAN BAGS-FIRE DEPT 165.0D
58281 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC FEBRUARY '90 SERVICE-SOLID WASTE MGMT 1923.00
58282 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SERVIC TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1499.26
58283 GOPHER OIL COMPANY HYDRAULIC OIL-WATER PERT 105.45
58284 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC DECEMBER '89 & JANUARY '90 SERVICE 253.50
58285 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT 290.00
58286 W W GRAINGER INC -STEP STAND/WHEELS/CASTERS/BRAKE KIT/SAW 2094.24
-BLADES/BAND SAW-$1659.00-EQUIPMENT MAINT/
WATER DEPT
58287 GRANT MERRITT & ASSOCIATES LTD -FEBRUARY '90 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 12000.40
LANDFILL
53288 ALAN GRAY FEBRUARY EXPENSES/DUES-ENGINEERING DEPT 225.00
582B9 GRINNELL CORPORATION COUPLINGS/TUBING/CLAMPS/FLANGE-WATER DEPT 1I8.82
58290 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC LENS/CORD-WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 65.30
58291 RANDY GUYER VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 175.50
58292 FEIST BLANCHARD CO -OIL SEALS/BEARINGS/BRAKE SHOES/LAMP/PLUGS/ 1269.85
-CONNECTORS/BATTERY HOLDER/THERMOSTAT/
-STARTER SWITCH/BELTS/CIRCUIT BREAKERS/
-ROTORS/RADIATOR HOSES/HOSE CLAMPS/CABLE
-TIES/MIRROR HEADS/REFLECTORS-EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE
10010362
1
•
58293 HACH CO LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 359.49
58294 HARMON GLASS SHADED WINDSHIELD-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 154.26
58295 S R HARRIS INDUSTRIES INC FABRIC-ICE SHOW COSTUMES-COMMUNITY CENTER 87.D0
'96 HAZARD CONTROL INC SAFETY CANS/SAFETY GLASSES-SAFETY DEPT 328.10
97 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 77.75
58298 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE FUNDS 127.20
58299 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE FUNDS 13.50
58300 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER TUNNEL VISORS-TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE 78.99
58301 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE-PLANNING DEPT 359.00
58302 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 454.00
58303 D C HEY COMPANY INC -MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/TONER/DEVELOPER- 196.19
FIRE DEPT/WATER DEPT
58304 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC -PUMP REPAIR/FLOAT SWITCH HEAD-COMMUNITY 380.49
CENTER
58305 HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERVICES -2ND QUARTER '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 79.50
SENIOR CENTER
58306 HONEYWELL INC -SECURITY SYSTEM REPAIR/SECURITY SYSTEM 9242.01
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-WATER DEPT
58307 HOPKINS PARTS CO ANTENNA-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 18.44
58308 HUDSON MAP COMPANY MAPS/STREET ATLASES-WATER DEPT 134.35
58309 IBM CORPORATION APRIL '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 424.32
58310 IBM CORPORATION 1990 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-COMMUNITY CTR 143.00
58311 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST K272 BUS SERVICE-NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM 77.80
58312 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT 192.47
58313 INSTY-PRINTS COPIER REPAIR/CARTRIDGES-WATER DEPT 316.34
58314 MICHAEL W JACQUES MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE 12.50
58315 JERRY'S NEWMARKET EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 151.75
58316 MARTY JESSEN BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 390.00
58317 PENNY JESSEN BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 132.00
'18 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC -OFFICE SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT/WATER DEPT/3 2625.95
FILE CABINETS-8777.00-WATER DEPT
58319 JOHNSON CONTROLS MOTOR/BELT-COMMUNITY CENTER MAINTENANCE 237.26
58320 KAMAN BEARING & SUPPLY GEAR ASSEMBLY-WATER DEPT 578.24
58321 DAN N KANTAR SMALL TOOLS-WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINT 44.05
58322 KLING & ASSOCIATES INC PAINT-WATER DEPT 18.95
58323 KOSS PAINT & WALLPAPER INC PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE 77.45
58324 L & L WELDING INC WELDER RENTAL-WATER DEPT 130.00
58325 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY -SAFETY CORDS/LANTERN/BATTERY/FLOOR SIGNS- 376.27
WATER DEPT
58326 CINDY LANENBERG MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT 51.00
58327 LANG PAULY & GREGEPSON LTD -OCTOBER 89 LEGAL SERVICE/JANUARY '90 31912.34
FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL
58328 LEEF BROS INC -COVERALLS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/MATS- 146.35
LIQUOR STORE
58329 LIBERTY ENVELOPE CORP ENVELOPES-CITY HALL 290.80
58330 LINHOFF CORPORATE COLOR PRINTS-FORESTRY DEPT 6.40
58331 LION'S TAP EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 95.40
58332 LONDON'S FURNITURE TABLE-$459.00/6 CHAIRS-I1182.00-FIRE DEPT 1641.00
58333 RICHARD LUGEANBEAE DIVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 89.13
58334 LUND S INC EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 61.75
58335 LUTHERN SOCIAL SERVICE OF MN -DONATION FOR PRINTING NEWSLETTER-HUMAN 500.00
SERVICES DEPT
58336 M-V GAS CO GAS-OUTDOOR CENTER 284.40
58337 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC -ROLLER BEARING COVER'ROLLER & BALL 869.04
-BEARINJGS/SEAL RINGS/DRIVE CHAIN/BEARING
5396623
i�t :?B
-END CAPS/INSULATION KIT-$450.91-EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE
58338 MASYS CORPORATION -APRIL '90 COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 1295.00 4
AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT .
39 MBA DESKTOP PUBLISHING PLUS -TYPESETTING & LAYOUT-SPRING BROCHURE- 855.00
RECREATION ADMINISTRATION
5B340 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 58.80
58341 MEDICINE LAKE LINES BUS SERVICE-SKI TRIP-SPORTS & OUTDOOR 229.00 i
58342 MERLINS HARDWARE HANK -BRACKETS/VARNISH/BRUSH/HINGES/OUTLET CAPS/ 84.67
-ROLLER COVERS/BOLTS/BLADES/COVER PLATE!
-BROOM HANDLES-FACILITIES DEPT/FIRE DEPT/
STREET DEPT/PARK MAINT/COMMUNITY CENTER
58343 MESSERLI & KRAMER FEBRUARY '90 SERVICE 13500.00
58344 METRO PRINTING INC ENVELOPES-UTILITY BILLING 993.00
58345 METROPOLITAN AREA MGMT ASSN EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION 22.00
58346 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS FEBRUARY '90 SAC CHARGES 14899.50
58347 KAREN MICHAEL MILEAGE/EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 116.05
58348 MID-00 SECURITY SYSTEMS -FEBRUARY '90 SECURITY MAINTENANCE 329.17 1
AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT
58349 MIDWEST A/V CENTER INC REPLACE RADIO SWITCH-COMMUNITY CENTER 38.50
58350 MINNCOMM PAGING FEBRUARY '90 PAGER SERVICE-WATER DEPT 51.50
58351 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY -EXTINOUISHER RECHARGING & MAINTENANCE/ 3773.15
-O-RINGS/VALVES/20 FAN SADDLES-$2220.00/
-STABLIZING LEGS-$$280.00-FIRE DEPT/
-FACILITIES DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/ 1
COMMUNITY CENTER
58352 MINNESOTA MEDICAL FOUNDATION SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 880.00
58353 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS LEGAL ADS-CITY COUNCIL 160.00
58354 R E MOONEY & ASSOCIATES INC PAINT-WATER DEPT 361.69
( 55 WILLIAM L MOORE BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 315.00
56 BERNADINE MORGAN KIDS KORNER INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 546.75
58357 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIRS-FIRE DEPT 676.34
58358 MOUNTAIN PHOTO/33 MINUTE PHOTO OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 25.95
58359 GREGORY J MUELLER VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 67.50
58360 MUNICILITE CO -RESPONDER/POWER PACK/MICRO EDGE KIT- 525.25
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT
58361 COMMERCE NOAA NCDC SUBSCRIPTION-WATER DEPT 15.00
58362 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 213.15
58363 NOBLE & ASSOCIATES INC -FEBRUARY '90 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 3051.50
LANDFILL
58364 JP NOREX INC -ASPHALT/CONCRETE CURB/SURFACE REPAIR- 770.00
WESTWIND CIRCLE-WATER DEPT
58365 NORTH CENTRAL CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY PROTECTIVE COATING-WATER DEPT 1342.32
58366 NORTHERN JACK-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 66.99
58367 NORTHERN AUTOMOTIVE CORP -FLOOR MATS/LITTER BASKETS-WATER DEPT/ 175.05
POLICE DEPT
5B368 NORTHWEST POWER PRODUCTS INC -OIL SEALS/BALL BEARINGS/ROLLER BEARTNGS/ 1590.11
-GASKET/FRICTION RING/MIxER DRIVE MOTOR-
WATER DEPT
58369 NORTHWESTERN SERVICE INC FURNACE REPAIR-SENIOR CENTER 119.85
58370 NOTT COMPANY MOTOR-WATER DEPT 109.07
5837t OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC PRINTER CARTRIDGE-ASSESSING DEPT 10.95
58372 CHAD D OISTAD BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 60.00
58373 JENNIFER PAYNE MILEAGE-SPECIAL EVENTS 95.25
A2106
MARCH 20.1990
58374 PEDERSON SELLS EQUIPMENT CO INC VALVES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 108.84
58375 PENNZOIL COMPANY OIL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 360.09
18376 PERFORMANCE COMPUTER FORMS COPY PAPER-CITY HALL 520.00
8377 PERSONNEL POOL SERVICE-ADMINISTRATION DEPT/FINANCE DEPT 156.80
58378 CONNIE L PETERS MILEAGE-COMMUITY CENTER 18.00
58379 MARK PETERSON PAINT SUPPLIES-CUMMINS GRILL HOMESTEAD 35.12
58380 NANCE LEE PETERSON AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 441.50
58381 THE PINK COMPANIES -CHAIR-8281.0O/DESK-8946.5O/CREDENZA- 2704.50
-$711.5O/DESK-$765.6O-SENIOR CENTER/
RECREATION SUPERVISOR
58382 PITNEY BOWES INC -2ND QUARTER '90 POSTAGE METER RENTAL-CITY 109.50
HALL
58383 PLYMOUTH SUPPLY COMPANY MASTER LOCK-PARK MAINTENANCE 96.34
58384 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -HOSE COUPLING/HOSE REPAIR KITS/KEYS/DRILL 101.79
-BITS/HOOKS/SCRAPERS/SCREWS/DUCT TAPE/
CLOCK/BATTERIES-COMMUNITY CENTER
58385 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -ANCHORS/WASHERS/PAINT/DUST MASKS/VARNISH/ 185.36
-PAINT BRUSHES/MASKING TAPE/BOLTS/BRACKETS/
-DRILL BITS/SCREWS/UTILITY KNIVES/TOGGLE
-BOLTS/JOINT COMPOUND/BATTERIES/ROPE-PARK
MAINTENANCE
58386 PRAIRIE HARDWARE SUGAR SHAKER/BRUSH/SANDPAPER-POLICE DEPT 4.88
58387 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -NUTS/SCREWS/PIPE/EMERY CLOTH/MASKING TAPE/ 17.03
STEEL WOOL-SEWER DEPT
58388 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -DETERGENT/PAPER TOWELS/PAINT/PAPER PLATES/ 82.09
-WRENCHES/TAIL PIPE/WASHERS/PLUMBING PUTTY/
-COMPRESSION SLEEVES & NUTS/FUSES-STREET
DEPT
9389 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -KEYS/AIRPOT/WALLPAPER PASTE/BRUSHES/RAZOR/ 358.46
-SPONGES/PAINT ROLLERS/TRAY/DEGREASER/
-BLADES/FITTINGS/SCREWS/FUNNELS/LUBRICANT/
-PLEXIGLASS/SHELF/SHELF SUPPORT/TARP/BUNGI
-CORDS/HINGES/STRAPS/BATTERIES/ROPE/BUCKET-
WATER DEPT
58390 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING PRINTING-UTILITY BILLING/PLANNING DEPT 550.30
58391 PSO BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS INC TELEPHONE SERVICE-CITY HALL 120.00
58392 PSQ LEASING & MAINTENANCE -DECEMBER '89 THRU MAY '90 MAINTENANCE 2931.00
AGREEMENT-FACILITIES DEPT
58393 PULSAFEEDER -VALVE ASSEMBLY/GASKET SCREW/TUBING-WATER 186.73
DEPT
58394 R & R SPECIALTIES INC -ENGINE MOUNTS/HYDRAULIC HOSE-ICE ARENA- 111.00
COMMUNITY CENTER
58395 RAINBOW FOODS EXPENSES-OUTDOOR CENTER/SENIOR PROGRAMS 45.8t
58396 RFG PET & SUPPLY CO CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 150.05
58397 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO PLOW LIFT CYLINDER-STREET DEPT 253.60
58398 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT 49.85
58399 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 464.67
58400 SEARS 2 SAW CASES-FIRE DEPT 39.56
58401 SETON NAME PLATE COMPANY LABELS-WATER DEPT 30.89
58402 SHAKOPEE FORD INC CARBURETOR/GRILL/SHIELD-EQUIPMENT MAINT 134.99
58403 SHERMAN WILLIAMS PAINT/PAINT THINNER-PARK MAINTENANCE 186.94
58404 SHRINERS HOSPITAL FOR CRIPPLED CH FIRE PREVENTION BROCHURES-FIRE DEPT 66.00
58405 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS INC SWEATSHIRTS-FIRE DEPT 240.00
'8406 W GORDON SMITH CO FUSES/OIL/GAS-FIRE DEPT/WATER DEPT 30.20
14 d4O7 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP -WRENCHES/GREASE GUN/HOSE/PLIERS/SOLDERING 347.80
IRON/PRY BARS-WATER DEPT
112 3Y69
. /
58408 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER 45.00
58409 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC -LEGAL ADS-PLANNING DEPT/ADVERTISING- 1192.76
LIQUOR STORES
'14I0 SPORTS WORLD USA -AWARDS/STOPWATCH-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS/POOL 147.45
LESSONS
58411 STANDARD SPRING CO NUTS & BOLTS/WASHERS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 36.80
58412 STAR TRIBUNE SUBSCRIPTION-POLICE DEPT 70.20
58413 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE FUNDS 63.60
58414 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE FUNDS 50.00
58415 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE FUNDS 6.75
5B416 STATE SUPPLY COMPANY -WATER CLOSET REPAIRS/LAUNDRY TUB LEGS- 341.40
WATER DEPT/FACILITIES DEPT
58417 STATE TREASURER FEBRUARY '90 BUILDING SURCHARGES 3054.67
58418 ANN STIGMAN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 135.00
5B419 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET -GASKETS/MANIFOLDS/COVER/PEDAL/BOLTS/PAN 2301.BB
-ASSEMBLY/SWITCHES/HUB CAPS/OIL SEALS/
-MASTER CYLINDER/PIPE/VALVES/GEARS/
-BUSHINGS/WIRE SET/DISTRIBUTOR CAP/PIPE
-ASSEMBLIES/SPRINGS/HOSES/SOLENOID/O-RINGS/
-SENSOR/LAMP/BEARINGS/WHEEL ASSEMBLY/
MIRROR/GOVERNOR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
58420 MICHELE SUNDBERG & JIM SUNDBERG CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 314.15
58421 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
58422 SYNDISTAR INC FIRE PREVENTION VIDEO-FIRE DEPT 348.00
58423 SYSTEM CONTROL SERVICES REPAIR OF WELL TELEMETRY SYSTEM-WATER DEPT 514.00
58424 TEAM LABORATORY CHEMICAL CORP DEGREASER-SEWER DEPT 1476.00
58425 TEENER'S THEATRICAL -FABRICS FOR ICE SHOW COSTUMES-COMMUNITY 81.91
CENTER
58426 THERMAX CORP REFUND-MECHANICAL PERMIT 78.50
427 LOWELL THONE EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 15.00 '
3428 TNEMEC COMPANY INC PROTECTIVE COATING-WATER DEPT 137.49
58429 TOWER ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 159.50
58430 TRAVEL PROFESSIONALS-EDEN PRAIRIE CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 1290.00
58431 VALERIE TRADER AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 150.00
58432 TURF SUPPLY CO FERTILIZER-PARK MAINTENANCE 13338.00
58433 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO -OXYGEN/ACETYLENE-WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT 106.39
MAINTENANCE
58434 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC -WRITING JOB SPECIFICATIONS FOR SURFACE 450.00
-PREPARATION & PAINTING OF WELL BASINS &
RAPID MIX EQUIPMENT-WATER DEPT
58435 UNITED LABORATORIES INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 453.11
58436 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC LOCK WASHER-SIGNS-STREET DEPT 6.75
58437 US WEST MARKETING RESOURCES DIRECTORY-POLICE DEPT 164.95
58438 VAN WATERS & ROGERS CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 1862.50 I'
58439 VESSCO INC -0-RINGS/SHEAR PINS/CLUTCHES/SPROCKETS/ 1931.18
SLEEVE/GASKETS/SEAT/RELAYS-WATER DEPT
58440 VF INDUSTRIAL FINISHING PAINT TRUCK BOX-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 550.00
58441 VICOM INC MARCH 90 WIRE MAINTENANCE-COMMUNITY CTR 7.00
58442 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS-POOL OPERATIONS 37.60
58443 VIKING SPECIALTY OF ROCHESTER 3 BATTERS BOX MATS-PARK MAINTENANCE 479.85
58444 VWR SCIENTIFIC INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 90.25
58445 KEITH WALL EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 18.00
58446 WATER PRODUCTS CO -FLOAT VALVE-$587.00/FITTINGS/COUPLINGS/ 2746.85
-WRENCHES/BUSHINGS/VALVE EXTENSION STEMS/
-GASKETS/CURB STOP/GENERATORS/O-RINGS/
3425249
•
REMOTE READER/SWIVEL-WATER DEPT
58447 WATERITE INC EQUIPMENT PART-POOL OPERATIONS 21.52
58448 RAY N WELTER HEATING CO MOVE & CHANGE DUCTS-POLICE BUILDING 120.00
1449 SANDRA F WERTS MILEAGE-RECREATION SUPERVISOR 71.76
450 WEST WELD -NOZZLE INSULATORS/CLEANING TOOLS- 81.33
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
58451 WILLIAMS MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS I -WATER CLOSET PARTS/VACUUM REPAIP KITS/ 52.70
SEALS-WATER DEPT
58452 TOM WILSON CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 144.40
58453 YOUNGSTEDTS INC WHEEL ALIGNMENT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 34.95
58454 ZACK'S INC CAR WASH SOAP-FIRE DEPT 115.00
58455 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE -1ST AID SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT MAINT/CITY 149.50
HALL/WATER DEPT
58456 FRED ZIEBOL VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 24.00
58457 KAREN ZIMMERMAN PRINTING-INVITATIONS-FIRE DEPT 25.00
52901 VOID OUT CHECK 50.00
56920 VOID OUT CHECK 573.23
57993 VOID OUT CHECK 8500.00
58066 VOID OUT CHECK 174.42
-8457L9
$569048.00
DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS
10 GENERAL 208510.33
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 17588.24
15 LIQUDR STORE-P V M 40330.99
17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 28268.22
31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 59885.67
33 UTILITY BOND FUND 3913.91
51 IMPRDVEMENT CDNST FD 101358.28
73 WATER FUND 75139.46
77 SEWER FUND 19561.93
80 POLICE CONFISCATED FDS 211.05
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 702.12
86 PARK PROG-CONTRIBUTIONS 77.80
88 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE 13500.00
$56904B.00
•
t
VARIANCE REQUEST
90-04
REVIEW PACKET CONTENTS
1. Staff memo dated March 2, 1990.
2. Petition letter from Nelsons.
3. Public Hearing Notice.
4. Final Order #90-04.
5. Application for 90-04.
6. Application letter dated January 10, 1990.
7. Staff Report dated February 2, 1990.
8. Approved minutes dated February 8, 1990.
9. Copy of building permit.
10. Survey dated August 17, 1988.
•
(.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Peterson And City Council Members
FROM: Steve Durham, Assistant Planner
DATE: March 7, 1990
RE: Variance Request #90-04
HISTORY - In 1988, a building permit was issued to Zachman Brothers
for construction of a single family home on Lot 13, Block 2, Apple
Groves, 2nd Addition. The lot has frontages on Valley View Road
and Bren Lane. In essence the lot has three frontages on public
roads and one side lot line. A 30' front yard setback is required
by Code on all front yards. City Staff noted on the survey
submitted that all decks and structures must meet a 30' front yard
setback. The builder placed sliding glass doors on the home which
will permit a 2' deck addition. (Note attachment A). The home is
a split entry with sliding glass doors on upper level.
VARIANCE REQUEST - The owners of the home requested a variance to
permit a deck addition 20' from Bren Lane versus 30'. (Note
attachment A). Alternatives cited in the February 1990 Board of
Appeals Staff Report, included the following:
1. Permit a deck addition less than 12', for example, a deck
addition at 10', 8', or 6' in width.
2. Permit a deck addition wide enough to support a stairwell
to the ground level.
The uniqueness of the site is the placement of the home and siding
glass doors in relation to the front yard. A home with a deck
could have been constructed to meet Code.
DECISION OF THE BOARD - The Board of Appeals reviewed the request
at length. Alternatives were discussed with the Nelsons for a deck
addition less than 12'. The Nelsons were uncomfortable with a deck
addition at or less than 10'. The Board was hesitant to approve
a 10' deck addition. The Nelsons requested a decision from the
Board. The Board denied the Variance Request on the grounds that
the original owner (Zachman Brothers) were informed through
documents that any proposed deck addition was not possible base on
a 30' front yard setback. A lot having more than one front yard
is not a unique situation and there were options if the home had
been placed on the lot correctly. The Board is concerned with
granting variances for setbacks when it is the builders
responsibility to correctly place homes and provide for future
additions if they are planned. The Board felt confident the City
staff followed through on informing the builder of the setback.
9004.scd
•
. l,(JQ. WatAJd -LLD Cii&.Qi.e J m aci-e a-70
90-01/ &Ai&
ad aff_ecoto 'n, -e_4i4.c.ac. g, /WO.
_-- OWL) Nett- a.ru.-A..) ,-12 4.c ..t.a* /00/ - D Goo L (44..cj- a. de
--. cpu c%LA LpitfirecitAi, of /774a yaitty. V 3)cad•
_attAcht- d (.4 a—eR-49-. 49/ (Mt yeaelx-Lul,:
O .��- d am,
a ' q
E �� a`� a_to .
3- -vu—auw4:54,_,A(A-
cmcif
• • .
_ . .
•
'3oo
C
Cf
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING VARIANCE REQUEST •
#90-04 .
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments
will meet at the following time and places:
7:30 PM
Thursday, February 8. 1990
At the Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden
Prairie City Hall, Eden Prairie, MN 55344
to review and consider the variance request #90-04, submitted by
Terry and Gwen Nelson for property located at 17799 Valley View
Road. Eden Prairie. Minnesota. legally described as Lot 13. Block
2. Apple Groves 2nd Addition. The request is for a variance from
City Code. Chapter 11. Section 11.03. Subdivision 2B. to permit
construction of a deck addition 20' from the front lot line
adjacent to Bren Lane. City Code requires a 30' front yard
setback.
Written or oral comments relating to this variance request will be
heard at this meeting. Said variance application is on file for
public review at the Planning Department at Eden Prairie City Hall.
Published in the Eden Prairie News City of Eden Prairie
January 24. 1990
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PH9004a.SD
to(
l l .•
,
i
C i ,
(( !
.., .-
) I - '''''' -:7'kft.t, ail--z!_---z.-;,-t-..; "---7-t. • "
27.i , , f uddam"1 r7-1- Eno j
,._.k.. -,...,...t-
-ik
• .r , .)._ _ ,
• -i .,„:,•,-;!=-..:--c. V 2 :11 • - • 1 , • 915 1 I i
1-----
,...1 1 -rrr-i _ -1 7.--"?-ri-r I I, Iti i
. . ••7.-..--je .
t ‘,.°E141•13t5;-.. , • P i ,
:1 . • •!•-• -• o, :t . i
PUB
, -- N• ,,,,, ..,. .
I .. • ,,,,,
+1 --. '..7V•":,,-,-....--;,,,41 . 1
c . ... ..., ___....,..... ..
1 (
i. •
i : !
d 1 PyE,
• --t ".." !. ij/ ''-'
. 1!
-7t-i-\''" • •'..)". -...)..'" : 's-1 fr41.(el Viet4-1 1 !
., , '
. .„el seSt - ,R1 .1 z. 5 f
...--- ...., .
RM.-6.S.
--"`" I F.t. . ?i. i 1 7 \•f°44F p.
\ .40 t p
. ..., ..,,., 1---- ----- ,1
• ,
1
,...( 1
• ,
?0^
A i
VARIANCE #90-04
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
FINAL ORDER
RE: Petition of Terry and Gwen Nelson
ADDRESS: 17799 Valley View Road. Eden Prairie. Minnesota
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 13. Block 2, Apple Groves 2nd Addition
VARIANCE REQUEST: The request is for a variance from City Code. Chapter 11.
Section 11.03, Subdivision 2B, to permit construction of
a deck addition 20' from the front lot line adiacent to
Bren Lane. City Code requires a 30' front yard setback.
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the City of Eden Prairie at a
regular (special) meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and
after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file
therein dopes hereby find and order as follow:
1. All procedural requirement necessary for the review of said
Cvariance have been met. (Yes x No _) .
2. There are circumstances unique to the property under consideration,
and granting such variances does not violate the spirit and intent
of the City's Zoning and Platting Code.
3. Variance Request #90-04 is herein Granted n/a Denied x
4. Conditions to the granting n/a denial n/a , of said variance are
as follows:
5. This variance shall be revoked within 15 days after notice of
failure to meet the required conditions has been given.
6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the
City Clerk.
7. This order shall be effective February 8. 1990; however, this
variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or
alternatives permitted shall occur within one (1) year of the
effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to
the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from
the effective date hereof.
8. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals action are subject to City
Council review.
N/A - Not Apply BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
BY: . A4NIA) C . V.AJA,LIA4i
F09004.SD DATE: February 8, 1990
�v�
C ( iance N
Receipt #
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
VARIANCE REQUEST APPLICATION
/-1 -98
APPLICANT'S NAME: leir/ C Gwen flleIson
ADDRESS: (1-?9q Vaii 1 11...,a
SS3,(y
PHONES: Work 1 rr �13Y-QCiy Ewc.J 41361' Home t13'1-0 q
ZIP
REQUEST FOR
VARIANCE AT: 1-1-1(1c, v&i/ r.��
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: •
FEE: A) S75.00 - Residential - (includes building additions, decks, and Code interpretations)
B) $125.OD - Other - (includes variances associated with office, industrial, commercial
property and variances associated with new development/construction)
REASON FOR VARIANCE: •
Submission Requirements:
residential - B 1/2" x 11" survey showing lot lines and setbacks of existing and proposed
ures and location of buildings on adjoining properties. Also show building elevations,
arc,.,cectural floor plans, and pertinent topographical features such as trees, fences, berms,
steep slopes, ponds, roads, and existing and proposed elevations, which have bearing on the
variance request.
2) Other - 8 1/2" x 11" survey showing lot lines and setbacks of existing and proposed
structures. Where surveys are larger than 8 1/2" x 11", 11 copies of site plan folded to 8 1/2"
x 11" will be required. Also include landscape plan, pertinent topographical features such as
trees, fences, berms, steep slopes, ponds, roads, and exitingand
have bearing on the request. proposed elevations, which
•
3) Letter addressed to Board of Adjustments and Appeals, explaining nature of variance request
and reason(s) why conformance to the literal provisions of the City's code would cause hardship.
Applicant's Signature Fee Owner's Signature (Land Owner)
Notes to Applicant:
1. ' The Board meets on the 2nd Thursday of the month, 7:30
7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers,
2. Applications must be filled, no later than 2nd Thursday of the month previous to the
meeting date.
3. Notices are published in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to property owners within 500
( feet. Applicants are encouraged to personally contact adjacent
property ownersrir
to the hearing, in order to explain the variance and to be prepared toaddress,
their
concerns at the hearing.
**NOTE: SUBMIT 9 COPIES OF ANY SITE PLANS OVER 8 1/2" X 11"
7011
�
�
�
" -
/
^
./
�
Lla
/ c@lug,�Jccit
LZ
i ^
!
_3S
)
14. STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Appeals and Adjustments
FROM: Steve Durham, Assistant Planner
DATE: February 2, 1990
RE: February 8, 1990, Board of Appeals Meeting
A. Request #90-04, submitted by Terry and Gwen Nelson for
property located at 17799 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie,
Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code.
Chapter 11. Section 11.03, Subdivision 2B. to permit
construction of a deck addition 20' from the front lot line
adjacent to Bren Lane. City Code requires a 30' front yard
setback.
Background - The property under variance request consideration
is located within the Apple Groves 2nd Addition. The property
was platted and zoned R1-9.5 in 1983. The lot is surrounded
on three sides by the public roads of Valley View Road and
Bren Lane. (Note Exhibit A). In the case of corner lots with
two or more street frontages the 30' front yard setback is
required. No variances were granted at the time of platting
and zoning.
A residential building was constructed on the site in 1988.
The home is a single family split-entry structure. It was
noted on the building survey at the time of building permit
issuance that a 30' front yard setback would need to be
maintained from the public street right-of-way. The builder
installed sliding glass doors on the upper level of the home
on the southeast side of the home. (Note Exhibit B). The home
was constructed 32' from Bren Road which will for a allow a
2' deck/building addition.
Variance Request - The owners of the property plan to add a
12' x 18' deck addition to the southeast side of the home.
(Note exhibit B) . The owners bought the home after
construction was completed. The deck addition will be located
in an area serviced by the existing sliding glass doors. The
width of the deck is 12' and will create a front yard setback
of 20' from Bren Lane.
Alternatives - Alternatives for a deck addition are limited
due to the location of the existing sliding glass doors and the location of the existing home in relationship to the side
yard setback and drainage/utility easements. (Note Exhibit C).
One alternative if the Board is uncomfortable with the amount
of variance requested would be to review an addition less than
Page 2
12'. A 10' deck addition would create a 22' front yard
r setback and an 8' deck addition would create a 24' front yard
setback. Smaller deck additions may also be an option.
Another alternative would be to approve a deck addition large
enough to support a landing for stairs leading to the ground.
The minimum width of a landing deck is related to the width
of stairs leading to the ground.
Conclusion - In review of this variance request, the Board
will need to determine if unique circumstances or hardship can
be identified to this site. A unique circumstance may include
three frontages on a public road. However, the site was large
enough to accommodate a home and deck if positioned correctly
by the builder. _ The hardship may be that the builder
positioned the home incorrectly on the lot, thereby, not
allowing enough room to accommodate a deck addition. Should
the Board believe a hardship exists and that alternatives are
limited, a variance may be appropriate. Specific criteria
identifying this lot as unique would be appropriate to include
in any approval motion so as not to set a precedent for
similar variance request.
The Board may choose one of the following options:
1. Approve Variance Request #90-04 as submitted identifying
a specific hardship related to this site.
2. Approve Variance Request #90-04 with amendments
identifying a specific hardship or unique circumstance
related to the site.
3. Deny Variance Request #90-04.
9004.SD:bs
•
VLI
.t •q ,.,. � 9, ,. rbk , ,ram tt 4 �i r
• a
/ _ ��a Nl�e/•�'i I +.j n �CJ'�rt, t`� ; 1'2r• ,'7•.�,s8 r
111 /tea P _ ,ir: ` - ...,�«p,. t•.'y . / , _''°,,'✓�1;;A 1
.!,..;?..,..,,. 7... -:,..,,.:.:...,...,,..;!1::•...,.it..4"-•=4:::!:,:;.,,i,, .
' I i jam. ;, H7 '1.
•
•-- a,, note .,.:_,, ,-a :....•w° . i`rerr ':` i,
•
K .. a i..E c t Ste• i. ,, / ✓ `
a n _.S
a K t q - a /
� � EJ
v?1 ti _•I .1♦ "_ :fit. yY F•w ., ..,. i F ,,.c
K •A S � ."
•,. 1..•. ...emu • , ., G y: •I.
!
•� .p _\ '. 'r,_,,.. A - _• --�ryryry... -a R Y. •
1 7 •t ��.r\c -• - �
r t u' : ' _ 4 •y -r..,,� = '1 y ,a.. 1 r, •
Ot 1.
•
!, f -a• i i !. y.1'— .,. u•�'e ^ .Ps a
e1 P, ` ��
�t .t Rr M. `•i
. I/ •r`)k00IFyn N Ol • r �_•_. 1 r
i d,« tI I � e�
.� S.U3i i '^'T�lr31 'Ai q, rly` 2,, .,.. •�
F I' I i .- M.] y r -1 , •
a F . ,� M1 ' t
--day ,.,. a - .3:. /
(
'l/. ti Icon t
7 a " s1Y�r \ , ,- Exhibit A Z�— ,
i
/ 2
S,Tun.,,vo✓) 2wV0 Q ..,.
NJ
v ei (aiq • 101.42, .0,' I
N
S�i,�` v.7
• ...Tr
• DRAtNA6E AND trctlr r
• `` �Q/G FUSE M4NT'J�
a � 99s��
,v - ,
b°M V"/" / ? 4' s
v o o O VI? /
/ • 16(99.0
o Peoll,SED
/
899.0� P7 , � y Li
5 \ SWIM" 5.5 6) Q
D DW0.5
��ti46,_ 42via
4, Pao 17 1
464170 �� lz'xi6
. / / .
•
• - . 1 Cyril) ) TY 'Cl. :7156,7 No „\
P / A tO + `►
A.
0 e,0 ct • rvc;"yin `"i/ d til. ,
EXHIBIT B
'lij)
•
l ./
dZ
�.2
C.
PI*" 4p„"`4(`c.�b
t 1
v\ 8. A/4We
(C�N�g 1 O1.4 �d1 .
I $. , `• N
44;I;y. N.,/ M \\\\
` y sQ • �DRa,NA6E AJD UT,l11Y /
"P?/1, E MmOr3�
.,� E 99s�
a
a!, t,: e ,4e / ��
$°� 11 g994 it % g }
/'14 -do ryq o ALTtRun�IVC /
Nye •i f�,?OfbSED Der-K. i
899.0`� (97 ) \ .ii f/OUSE yZ.y, Dtrlik.S 074
�/ /
S'/ ` y60 C, , , 6• /l
/ \ / se /
/
a w/ 9� r
/ M yy N/ �go 'Q' J.
.YY •
/ O \° '!` kM
PJG ,�y 0����� y
(. F.9 Lo7 'II . 6 L
EXHIBIT C
•
•
APPROVED MINO=
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUMENTS
THURSDAY, February 8, 1990 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council
Chamoers, 7600 Executive Dr.,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS Steve Longman, Bill Arockiasamy, Dwight
Harvey (Acting Chairman), Scott Anderson,
John Freemyer, Neil Akemann
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Durham-Planning,Sharon Swenson-Seer.
BOARD ME:f® ERS ABSENT: Steve Longman, Bill Arockiasamy
I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Acting Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:30. All present recited the
Pledge of Allegiance and roll call was taken as noted above.
II. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 11, 1990 MEETING
Harvey noted that regarding Variance Request 90-01, he would like it made
clear that there would he potential for three curb cuts within 206' frontage
on Roland Road.
MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board approve the minutes of the January 11
meeting with the addition mentioned by Harvey. Freemyer seconded the
motion and it passed 3-0 with Bozonie abstaining.
III. VARIANCES
A. Request #90-04, submitted by Terry and Gwen Nelson for
property located at 17799 Valley View Road. Eden Prairie.
Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code.
Chapter 11. Section 11.03. Subdivision 2B, to permit
construction of a deck addition 20' from the front lot
line adiacent to Bren Lane. City Code requires a 30'
front yard setback.
Terry & Gwen Nelson appeared to present their variance request. He explained that
they were asking for a variance to construct a 12' by 18' deck. They had the home
built in October of 1988 and were unaware of any zoning restrictions until October
of 1989 when they were planting trees on the lot. At that time they had asked for
a building permit for the deck and Durham had informed them of the set back re-
quirements.
Durham said that this restriction had been noted on the survey when the builder
came in. A possihle hardship may be the three front yards on Valley View, Bren
Road, and the cul de sac. Drainage and utility easements also prohibit building
in some areas. The lot is large enough, if the home had been placed in the right
{J spot. Modifications could be made to reduce the amount of the variance.
Akemann noted that the builder had placed the structure improperly. Now, the Board
is called upon to correct the situation. He said that he would have difficulty with
a deck addition of this size, but could possibly vote for a smaller deck.
111
•
•
Bozonie said he agreed with Akemann and had nothing additional to add at this time.
Anderson noted that the home was put on the most inexpensive location on the lot.
He asked the Nelsons who the builder had been.
Nelson answered that is was Zachman Brothers.
Harvey asked the Nelsons if they had contracted for the home or picked the spot.
Nelson answered that they had contracted for the home, but had not picked the exact
location on the lot. The design was furnished by Zachman Brothers and Nelsons had
selected only the interior items.
Akemann felt the Building Department should catch problems like this.
Nelson said the deck had been optional, and they had decided to wait to construct it
until a later time.
Harvey asked Nelson if he had inquired if he could put a deck in the area in the future.
Nelson noted the the house plans noted "future deck, optional." They had signed the
purchase agreement about September 1, 1988. The builder had said he just acquired the lot.
Durham said that after the possible problem area had been noted on the survey, it should
C have gone back to the builder via'Building Dept. The Builder would have been made aware
of the problem.
Anderson felt he would deny the request so that the Nelsons would be inclined to go
back to Zachman for compensation.
Freemyer said he had felt there was a hardship here until he noted the survey where
the notation had been made regarding possible problems. A possible hardship could be
that Zachman did not represent the home location accurately, however, he would have
difficulty in using this as a hardship.
Harvey said he sympathized with the Nelson's problem, but the Board needs a hardship.
A hardship is defined as a situation that prevents utilization of the property for the
use it was intended. A deck is not critical. A 30' set back is required for safety
reasons. Although this is not a self inflicted wound, he noted that he could not find
justification for granting the variance. He felt that possibly the Nelsons have grounds
for compensation from the builder.
Nelson said the Board was going against the builder, but being unfair to him. The value
of the home will go down. It is difficult to get recourse from the builder. On the
plan they have a 10' by 14' deck represented.
Bozonie noted that the Council sometimes makes judgements for reasons other than code.
The Nelsons have the option of going to the Council.
Freemyer said this council seems to feel they have a wider criteria to decide variance
requests than the Board of Appeals.
Harvey told Nelsons that they are not the first one for a deck variance, and most have
been rejected. Such situations are precedent setting. There must be other hardships
demonstrated than economic.
tt
3
Harvey continued to say that there are options:
1. Nelsons can ask for a decision this evening.
2. A continuance can be requested and a redesign of the deck submitted.
3. If this request is denied this evening, Nelsons can go to the City Council.
4. The request can be withdrawn.
Mrs Nelson asked where the Building Inspector for Eden Prairie came into the situation.
Anderson said the possible problem had been noted on the survey.
Mrs Nelson . asked if there were any responsibility to the buyer.
Anderson answered that the builder has a responsibility to the buyer. At the point
of this notation on the survey, the City of Eden Prairie was dealing with the builder.
Freemyer asked about the back yard set back.
Durham answered that it was 20'.
Freemyer felt this was a unique situation with the streets bordering this lot. Possibly
the City Council could look into this.
Akemann said he would like to see Nelsons have their deck, but does not want to establish
a precedent. He asked how high free standing decks could go.
` Durham answered that anything above ground is considered a structure. •
Nelson asked about the possibility of a smaller deck, maybe 10' instead of 12:
Harvey asked Nelson how he felt about a wrap around deck.
Nelson said the deck would then be on Valley View, a busy street. The rear of the home
is a private area with little traffic.
Anderson said if the deck were to be redesigned, he could possibly consider it.
Anderson said he would like a letter of explanation from Zachman Brothers presented
with the redesigned deck proposal.
Harvey answered that he felt this was asking a lot of the Nelsons.
Freemyer said that although Nelson had proposed a 10' deck instead, he felt he
would have problems with that too.
Harvey explained the process of appealing and reappealing to the Board and City
Council and the fees that would be involved.
Mrs Nelson said someone had noted that this was the third such situation. What is
the responsibility to the people?
Anderson suggested that Nelsons approach the City Council on that question.
Nelson suggested that the Board go ahead and vote on the request.
p✓
4
MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board deny Variance Request 90-04 on the grounds
that the original owner (Zachman Brothers) was well informed through
documents that the proposed deck was not possible. This is not a unique
lot/situation and there were options if the home had been placed on the
lot correctly. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Harvey noted to the Nelsons that they can appeal the decision.
B. Building moving reauest #90-05 submitted by Leo Hoffmann.
The residential building is to be moved to 12000
Sunnvbrook Road. Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally
described as: Lot 3. Block 3, Meadow Park 2nd Addition.
The building's present location is at 6101 Northwood
Ridge, Bloomington. Minnesota. The type of building to
he moved is a single family residential structure.
Dale Hoffman appeared to present the variance request. He explained that the proposal
was to move a home from Bloomington to Eden Prairie.He would like to add a fifth
level also and have a rear walk out. He submitted pictures of the home.
Durham said the Building Inspector reviewed the home and found it to be structurally
sound.
Harvey asked how long it would take to move the home.
C Hoffman answered one night. Possibly, if necessary, it would be left one night in
Edina and then continue on the next evening.It depends on the power lines, etc.
Durham said that the age and style of the homes in the area is a consideration.
Anderson asked if this home would be sold.
Hoffman answered that it would be sold.
Anderson asked if Hoffman had closed on the lot he was buying.
Hoffman said he will close on it if this request is approved tonight.The seller will
guarantee the soil, or Hoffman can get his money back.
Freemyer asked if there were plans for remodeling the outside of the home.
Hoffman answered that the bedroom windows need replacing because of code. The siding
m the home is good. It is O.K. in all other areas. Hopefully, the chimney will stay
intact, or else it will need to be rebuilt.
Harvey asked if the neighbors on Sunny Brook had been contacted.
Durham said there had been some inquiries and he had suggested they come in or write
a letter in opposition if that was their desire. He had heard nothing.
Anderson asked if Hoffman would object to sodding the lawn.
Hoffman said that would be O.K.
11(1
0 00 I 00 0 0 , yy c
o N to o o o o r ('l L y G u I.
co m N O O I o O 0 �, a o C w a 7 07 N ri�"1 to O O.-I V' I•
a O7 l`1 N to d' N.$ X. O 3 C)tll
3 6 i i N _ V 4, 61 Y in
i i m • 3 m a .4:YA
Z G Or,?
o 2 u O y Wye
_ �3 v c4
Q c c Q1 Cc7,
a m t7 4 a 3 02 0 N"
a 0 -3{ w
3 m ON a r N U ¢ Wz W U .,� Z 2 2 w i t) «T.U O U
> . !II 7 ri W 3 V Cu r. w 4 r o . W 0 • < I' D O b J Q
t ft.W m 5 F ¢ 3 y Y O yr gi * omat ¢ 3Jdm VV 6� ay to rCre0u'izz 95t < a ,io 3 y QGW 6 z U VUaWO Wtl W m 3 e 1 ; E. W at V a 4
3 d �i
o w w a
a ez
R z n3 3 . 0 a o "i
a 7xN I
a 0 Q o O o O ;<
N e e N ".
~▪ W m t to t i z w i
LI g
. .... 3
z : % - ; S a •� t�W r
W u 0 ro Z 1 ,!
Q „ n 1 3 < 14 n
+, z >
C W. i 5'0
z o � �
O v1 ¢ < .o Y"
�/<p ..m c o O :42
g 30 �
Z4W W 7 1V t %c
z
yy
W U VI W pi" i7. r0.1 4-w
O Xlia Oi ',''•10 : 8
�f u2 C1n 0 o ¢ z .%
m5 ` •N - � '� 2 - �+ 'Q u0i yy
S b t tON
1 O g .0 s 51
_ id
ro ; z L 0 €E
;C� s a � a 'E if < rn Wci
LIIil 5 0o c n a C) LI N ° ¢ M Ql :$
Oa m S io y j� t ro rho s`
�7 k' i� Z 2 = s E
rna ¢ al0 .44
ido i co I-
z a7 I' Ft
�31 W
.i W 1 O N 4 ri 0 ~.
> C) O m N � �1 ' i
c
o g L1 2 \• a $
.i N �" OR o a2QppQ
7 ` w �WO Z 1 g
` 1
a O Gl ZfA 5 •.i W O ch H 0 y0�� 5 W 7.3
G W 2 = a C ¢ n wi m li R7 r 'e' �o
1 NN 2 U 1 a o t p 'O < V 0
w r^ii N N N F i N Ma t0¢ S ' _ U ro o Cn
g I a S 8 s < Ysa
+i 6
1 1 i
tty..,1:ci ..... ......... a_ I = :-et,'• .i. - )
. W f t:3lU !; l7 q Q'k �_
C� ,.i r' g�$ t o y W'
tll Y �5$s8 } WpZ2 c
r4 x l„
' -aa3? my =pc Ny'0� O
u yZn � �hK. Z`
CA
as a3 �w aW oo. °
Z
p
2 7 ti. al
~3m ': Q
cp ? N V
Y .� `•- „ a tl 2 m
g} dm' n
t. b 3 o
��� VQW APO
.y.. Ob mg�? N
4g'> •
a v
oZ ; ,� CO
oQ ;�
m y {n
a
p Nn1 i \v2 sa. —J
Q // J 4N s
e `/ \
e \ ayp R F�,r. T\ �--
1r
,yP- i —..e„ 1 p.,.o k,rC
•
•-t‘\3,11 — A.Z 41.44 ,\P‘D _ii_.4-;1. 1
a�
M�`c l
'`,, / `\\`„ 3�,mo O�OI
<S � p i r ry 2
.' ,f
AP 1
,- \ ' *,:(^". :
N c6r��'�� P
to t
8
APRIL