HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 07/16/1991 -----------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The Council will meet at 7:15 PM to interview candidate Pg. 1338
to fill a vacancy on the Historical & Cultural
Commission.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A G E N D A
DEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1991 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard
Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin
Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock
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 JUNE 18 1991 Pg. 1349
(Continued from July 2, 1991)
B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY DULY 2 1991 Pg. 1362
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST Pg. 1374
B. Award Contract for Staring Lane/Ridge Road and Pg. 1375
Sunrise Circle Utility and Street improvements
I.C. 52-203/52-205 (Resolution No. 91-156)
Continued from Tuesday, July 2, 1991
City Council Agenda
July 16, 1991
Page Two
C. ANAGRAM INTERNATIONAL by Ryan Construction Company. Pg. 1378
2nd Reading of Ordinance 13-91-PUD-3-91, Zoning
District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District
on 15.67 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement;
Adoption of Resolution 91-130 , Authorizing Summary
and Ordering Publication of Ordinance 13-91-PUD-3-
91; Adoption of Resolution 91-101 , Site Plan
Review on 15.67 acres into 4 lots for construction
of a 199,210 square foot office/warehouse building
in three phases to be known as Anagram
International, Inc. Location: southeast corner of
Valley View Road and Executive Drive. (Ordinance
13-91-PUD-3-91 - Zoning District Amendment;
Resolution 91-130 - Summary and Publication;
Resolution 91-101 - Site Plan Review).
D. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF ANAGRAM PARR (located at the Pg. 1388
southwest quadrant of Valley View Road and
Equitable Drive) Resolution No. 91-155
E. RIVERSEDGE by Tushie Montgomery Associates. 2nd Pg. 1389
Reading of Ordinance 19-91-PUD-5-91; Zoning
District Amendment within the Rural District;
Approval of Developer's Agreement; Adoption of
Resolution 91-152, Authorizing Summary and Ordering
Publication of ordinance 19-91-PUD-5-91; 55.5 acres
into 4 single family lots, one outlot and road
right-of-way to be known as Riversedge Addition.
Location: 9901 Riverview Road. (Ordinance 19-91-
PUD-5-91 - Zoning District Amendment; Resolution
91-152 - Summary and Publication).
F. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF RIVERSEDGE ADDITION (located Pg. 1393
south of Riverview Road and west of CSAH 18)
Resolution No. 91-164
G. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES RED Pg. 1395
ADDITION (located north of Pioneer Trail and south
of Cedar Ridge School) Resolution No. 91-163
H. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF CROSSTOWN RACQUET CLUB Pg. 1398
(situated at the southeast corner of Baker Road and
W. 62nd Street) Resolution No. 91-165
I. APPROVE COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH Pg. 1400
HENNEPIN PARRS FOR ROWLAND ROAD
City Council Agenda
July 16, 1991
Page Three
J. APPROVAL TO RETAIN IIRBAN DESIGN 9ERVICE9 FOR THE Pg. 1409
MCA
X. 1ST READING OF ORDINANCE NO 22 91 AMENDMENT OF Pg. 1413
PARR USE RULES RELATIN- To HORSES
L. RECEIVE PETITION FOR PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE MEDIAN Pg. 1416
OPENING Al JOINER WAY I C 52 229 (Resolution
No. 91-168)
!t. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FQR CEDAR RIDGE Pg. 1418
2ND ADDITION. I C 52-225 (Resolution No. 91-170)
IV. PIIBLIC HEARINGS
A. TECH 10 by Hoyt Development Company. Adoption of Pg. 1305
Resolution 91-147, Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment On 45 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review within the I-2 Zoning District with
waivers on 5.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 5.6 acres
for approval of additional parking spaces on the
Technology Park 7th Addition site. Location:
southwest corner of West 74th Street and Golden
Triangle Drive. (Ordinance 20-91-PUD-6-91 - PUD
District Review within the I-2 District; Resolution
91-147 - PUD Concept Amendment) Continued from
July 2, 1991
B. VACATION 91-07 VACATION OF BLUFF ROAD BETWEEN Pg. 1419
WHITETAIL CROSSING AND WILD DUCK PASS (Resolution
No. 91-166
C. VACATION 91-08 VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY Pg. 1421
EASEMENTS ON LOTS 6 & 7 BLOCK 2 EDENVALE 15TH
ADDITION (Resolution No. 91-167)
D. ZONING CODE SIGN REGIILATION AMENDM NTS by the City Pg. 1423
of Eden Prairie. Request to amend definition of
area identification, new definitions for menu and
readerboards, increasing the sign area allowed for
on-site directional and address signs, setback
requirements between free-standing signs, and
reorganization Of existing sign regulations.
(Ordinance 18-91 - Amending Zoning Code Sign
Regulations).
E. JAMESTOWN VILLAS by the ROttlund Company, Inc. Pg. 1453
Adoption of Resolution 91-128, Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 60.8 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 8.5
acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment
within the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 8.5 acres,
Site Plan Review on 8.5 acres, and adoption of
Resolution 91-129, Preliminary Plat Of 8.5 acres
into 12 lots for construction of 96 townhouse units
to be known as Jamestown Villas. Location: South
of Highway 5, north Of George Moran Drive.
(Resolution 91-128 PUD Concept Amendment;
Ordinance 21-91-PUD-7-91 - Zoning District
Amendment; Resolution 91-129 - Preliminary Plat)
City Council Agenda
July 16, 1991
Page Four
F. CARPENTER NORTH PUD by Donald G. Brauer. Adoption Pg. 1465
of Resolution 91-113, request for Comprehensive —
Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density
Residential to Regional Commercial on 4.5 acres,
Adoption of Resolution 91-114, Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 27.2 acres for future
development of commercial and multiple residential
land uses to be known as Carpenter North PUD.
Location: North of the intersection of Valley View
Road and Prairie Center Drive. (Resolution 91-113
- Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution
91-114 - PUD Concept Review).
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Pg. 1507
VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. TECH 10 by Hoyt Development Company. 2nd Reading Pg. 1508
of Ordinance 20-91-PUD-6-91, Planned Unit
Development District Review within the I-2 Zoning
District with waivers on 5.6 acres, Approval of
Developer's Agreement; Adoption of Resolution 91-
160, Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication
of Ordinance 20-91-PUD-6-91; Adoption of Resolution
91-148, Site Plan Review on 5.6 acres for approval
of additional parking spaces on the Technology Park
7th Addition site. Location: southwest corner of
West 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive.
(Ordinance 20-91-PUD-6-91 - PUD District Review;
Resolution 91-160 - Summary and Publication of
Ordinance 20-91-PUD-6-91; Resolution 91-148 - Site
Plan Review).
VII. PETITIONS REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. REQUEST OF ENGINEERING DIVISION FOR AUTHORIZATION Pg. 1517
TO ACQUIRE SLOPE EASEMENTS ADJACENT TO MITCHELL
ROAD (Resolution No. 91-134) Continued from June
is, 1991
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES
A. South Hennepin Human Services Council - Pg. 1525
Reorganization Proposal
IX. APPOINTMENTS
A. Historical & Cultural Commission - Appointment of
a member to the Historical & Cultural Commission to
fill a vacate term to 2/28/92
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. Reports of Councilmembers
City Council Agenda
July 16, 1991
Page Five
B. Report of City Manager
1. Revision of Employee Severance Sick Leave Pg• 1526
Prom
C. Report of Director of Parks. Recreation S Natural
Resources
1. Request from Westover Homeowners Association Pg. 1531
2. Petition to Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Pg. 1538
Watershed District for Construction of the
Staring Lake/Purgatory Creek Recreation Area
Basic Water Management Project
II. OTHER BUSINESS
YII. ADJOURNMENT
1) Hy,n Claud &*y0 t
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 2.1 Nj al'CRI 7041W
30 January 1991 (601.
C
Mayor and City Council, Attention Joyce Provo
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Fellow Citizens of Eden Prairie:
I have a keen desire to serve as a volunteer on several City boards and commissions.
My first choice is the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission as I have considerable experience
with aviation, air trafic control and air trafic management. As a fourth generation
resident of this area, my second and/or choice is the Historical and Cultural Commision.
As a third choice, I would consider serving on any of the other City boards or commissions.
I am currently serving as a volunteer on the Community Resource Pool and give
travel shows and lectures on foreign countries to our school children.
Attached to this memo is a copy of DIGS DOMINICK'S INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
SERVICES CAPABILITIES 1990, which will give you an idea of what l do.
Given below is a short biographical sketch. Please call me at Phone 612 941-8223
if you wish any further information. My wife and I live at 8675 Westwind Circle in
The Preserve.
BIOGRAPHICAL INFO ON LEE DOMINICK
( Born 1919, a 4th generation Minnesotan, in Minnetonka Minnesota.
Schooling at Glen Lake Elementary, Hopkins High School and University of
Minnesota.
An airplane pilot and electronics engineer, served 14 years with U.S. Military
with numerious foreign assignments, followed by 30 years as a electronics engineer and
executive with a major defence computer systems company.
A major part of the 30 years was spent in foreign countries, usually about a year
in each country, setting up business operations involving defence computer systems.
Lived in or spent significant time in Paris, Munich, Frankfort, Bonn, West Berlin,
Zurich, Madrid, Rome, Vienna, Moscow, Warsaw, Tel Aviv, Beruit, Tehran, Pretoria,
Reo', Mexico City, Tokyo, Singapore, Bancock, Manila and Sydney Australia.
Visited nearly every country in the world with the exception of Antartica and
several countries in Central Africa.
Retired in 1980 and set up DOMINICK'S INTERNATIONAL. BUSINESS SERVICES,
a consultant firm which helps American firms do business in foreign countries and vice-
versa.
Now an int'l business consultant, author and publisher.
Sincere y,
i
DIBS
DOMINICK'S INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SERVICES
CAPABILITIES
1990
1�3L�
C
DIGS WORLD WIDE EXPERIENCE
Publishers of International Business Guides,
Handbooks and Directories
Consultants To International Business on:
International Technology Transfer
Intercultural Training
Foreign Business Differences
Staffing Your Foreign Operations
CExpetriot Predeparture Briefings
Repatriation Briefings
Foreign Taxes
DOMINICK'S INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SERVICES
8675 Westwind Circle
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-5325, U.S.A.
Telephone (612) 941-8223
i
���rtU
DIBS WORLD WME EXPERIENCE
COUNTRIES OF PERFORMANCE
Experienced at CONSULTING and MANAGEMENT services relating to the set up of
United States based businesses in the following foreign countries:
ARGENTINA HOLLAND SAUDI ARABIA
AUSTRALIA HONG KONG SCOTLAND
AUSTRIA INDIA SINGAPORE
BELGIUM IRAN SOUTH AFRICA
BRAZIL IRELAND SOUTH KOREA
CANADA ISRAEL SPAIN
CANARY ISLANDS ITALY SWITZERLAND
CARIBBIAN AREA JAPAN THAILAND
COLU MBIA JORDAN TIAWAN
DENMARK LEBANON TURKEY
ENGLAND NEW ZEALAND USSR (several locations)
FINLAND NORWAY WEST GERMANY
FRANCE PORTUGAL YUGOSLAVIA
GREECE
BUSINESS IDENTITIES
Experienced at establishing businesses in foriegn countries with the following in-country
Cbusiness identities:
1. Marketing office of a U. S. Company - staffed with U. S. expatriates, foreign
nationals or both.
2. Branch office of a U. S. Company - staffed with U. S. expatriates, foreign
nationals or both.
3. National individual owner/entrepreneur -subcontracting from a U. S. Company.
4. National partnership.
5. National Corporation - limited ►iability Corp., stock corp., closed Corp. etc..
6. Foreign subsidiary of a U. S. Corporation.
7. Division of a foreign subsidiary of a U. S. Corporation.
8. National and multi-national joint ventures.
9. National and international consortiums.
Note: business identities 5 thru 9 above have been staffed with nationals, 3rd
country nationals, U. S. expatriates or a mixture of all three.
i.E,•
l;
IN-COUNTRY BUSINESS
Experienced at implimenting in-country businesses:
FEASABILIPY STUDIES of future foreign operations in sales, engineering,systems
engineering, high technology manufacturing, technical assistance agreements and
licensed production.
IN-COUNTRY BUSINESS IDENTITY - work with customer management and in-
country legal staff to establish business identity.
IN-COUNTRY ORGANIZATION - work with in-country external audit firm to set
up operations that subscribe to national business laws,emigration laws and business
customs and practices. (Particular reference to national Government Procurement
Practices).
FACILITY ACQUISITIONS.
ENGINEERING/SYSTEMS ENGINEERING/FIELD ENGINEERING OPERATIONS.
MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS.
QUALITY CONTROL
GENERAL MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS.
CORPORATE/IIOME OFFICE REPORTING.
CFUNCTIONAL REPORTING (report card)
BUDGETING - FINANCIAL. PLANNING.
ACCOUNTING.
ASSET MANAGEMENT.
FINANCE AND BANKING.
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT REPORTING AND AUDIT - labor, taxes, social
security programs etc..
NATIONAL SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS.
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT/STAFFING.
U. S. EXPATRIATE POLICIES do PROCEDURES - coordinate/develop
policies and procedures for U. S. expatriates that are consistent with U. S.
and foreign country rules and procedures.
IN-COUNTRY POLICIES do PROCEDURES - coordinate/develop in-country
policies and procedures to include nationals, 3rd country nationals and U.
( S. expatriates.
/��fa
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT/STAFFING (continued).
NATIONAL PERSONAL TARES - income tax, social taxes, net worth tax,
property tax etc..
INTERCULTURAL TRAINING.
EXPATRIATE PREDEPARTURE BRIEFINGS.
REPATRIATION BRIEFINGS.
Experienced at auditing existing in-country businesses for:
CONFORMANCE TO NATIONAL BUSINESS/LEGAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
CONFORMANCE TO NATIONAL LABOR, TAR, EMIGRATION, CUSTOMS ETC.
LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
CONFORMANCE TO HOME OFFICE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES.
Experienced at investigation through implementation of:
INTERNATIONAL JOINT VENTURES,CONSORTIUMS, AQULSITIONS AND LICENSED
MANUFACTURING.
RATES
f Rates for consulting and management services effective through calander year 1990:
L. D. Dominick personal consulting services:
Full time - $600 per day or $11,000 per month plus actual out of town
travel and communications expenses. .
Short term specific consulting tasks - $85 per hour.
Staff consulting and management services contracts:
By negotiated contract.
DIBS iS ALSO A PUBLISHER OF INTERNATIONAL
BUSINFSS GUIDES, HANDBOOKS AND DIRECTORYS
Code 81.o fA*
N vo,i T.anptn_ and City
j v 0
E r, t "E' Drive
Edc") Prlirlc', PIN 55,744
Dear M,:,YOr Teripas and Cit,,
This is in regarrs to the request for- VCOUnteel'S to
serve or, city
ty boards and commjL,,ic;nS_ -rh-
illt-PI-eSt to Meare; first, th'? Building C--.,JL, OF AppealL.
thL, Hi,tct,�lcal a-ld CUlt Ccj:TlfAjssjor-'.
And inf-a,,-es-c=
'ollowjnq:
'en t he 7:4 i.31t
"D
FI
T7 3 1
jlj C_
'Dj,-. lm
It
t
IT,
-01
V.
9965 Friar Dr.
Eden Prairie,MN 55347
Gerald K.Hoppe (612)943-8756
February 11,1991
Ms.Joyce Prouo
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Eeecutlue Dnue
Eden Prairie,MN 55344
Bear Joyce Prouo;
Thank you for your time on the phone to discuss the Eden Prairie
Historical Cultural Commission.This letter is to acknowledge my interest
in seruing on this commission should a vacancy occur.
My backgrounds that makes me suitable for this position includes
the following:
-MR in Rmerican history from the Unluersity of Dayton,Dayton
Ohio.
-Fine years of high school teaching.i taught Honors Rmerican
History,6ouernment,and World History.
-fine years of Public Relations.Managed public relations and
advertising for a$130 million computer company.
-Ellperienced in house and furniture restoration.My house hos
elfamples of Rmerican and Norwegian antiques dating from
1760.
-Minnesota native.
Finally, I am also uery interested in preseruing and restoring our
historical heritage. The value of placing ourselves in an historical
framework can glue us a better feeling of how we fit into our world.
I look forward to the possibility of working with you.
Sincere, /
Herald K.Hoppe
PATRICK J LUECK y)P%q.(°cd? of dK
6381 Duck Lake Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55346
Joyce Provo 15 Jan 91
City of Eden Prairie,
7600 Executive Dr
Eden Prairie,MN 55344
Ms.Provo,
I am submitting a resume for consideration of service on an Eden Prairie
board or commission. I have been an Eden Prairie resident for over 10 years
and am now a business owner(Custom Travel,Tonka Bay). All three
children are still Minnesota residents,with my last(Marc,age 20)attending
Hamiline Univesity in St.Paul.
While my interests are open,and I feel I can be of benefit in several areas, I
do have preferences(not in any order):
Parks.Recreation,Natural Resources
Planning Commission
Historical and Cultural Commission
Building Code of Appeals/Zoning(I have experience in building
trades)
I have a highly technical background,with an appreciation for detail. But I
have wide outside interests(gardening,remodeling,photography,etc.),and
enjoy any new challenge. My success in my commercial life has come from
the ability to relate to people and to synthesize systems that solve problems.
My resume stops in early 1990;since that time I have joined my wife full-
time at our travel agency and also have a small manufacturing rep firm(T-1
Access Systems)that sells advanced telecommunications equipment.
fih n, a k you for consideration;I will call you next week.
Patrck J Lueck
Custom travel i
Patrick J.Lueck 1
PRESIDENT
Xmwffi,ke Plaza$639.Nwam eor •. +►t
OJ� lbda A".«laanon 55331 W1471 aNl
..i
Resume of - - - Potr;ck J.lueck
6'E1 Duck Lake Rd
Eden Prairie,MN 55346
` Seeking - - -- - High level ;ales%marketing management 'oosition in data
communications, teleeomm.or data processing industry.
Management - -District Sales flanager employed by$500f1 network Experience
communications firm.Responsible for 8 salespeople,
manager;over$15M in sales per year.in four states
Experience- -- -Twenty years participation in the data communications industry.
Experience in all aspects:vendor(service,sales,marketing,
systems analysis,and sales management),user(corporate data-
coinm supervisor,network control manager)and production
(manufacture of custom network control systems).
Employment Summary - -
1988-90 MCI Communications,'Mashington,DC) Second largest telecommun-
ications network vendor in US. Provider of tong distance,data comm,
1-80G, facsimile and other related products.
1989-1990 Data Communications Sales, Commercial Group (Mpis)
Responsible for direct sale of data communications services(DSO,T-1,DDN.
Analog,etc) to business throughout Minnesota,and North Dakota. Assisted other
salespeople with data opportunities.
1990-Present Major Account Sales Representative, Commercial Group
(Minneapolis) Responsible for entire product line of MCI,calling on fortune
1000 accounts in Minnesota and North Dakota. Trained in all aspects
of MCI network:VNET,1-800, 1-900, DNIS,ANI,T-I access,etc,in addition to
data-comm products.
1977-88 Codex Corporation,(canton,Massachusetts', Manufacturer of high speed,
systems oriented data communications products: modems,multiple;;ers,
s—itches.
1902 to 1988 District sales manager i.Minneapolis,MN)
Fes -iw ? tt,i;dl.ND,and'=;D'!,area.
r S.ipernsed gro,;,th of district from 2 direct salespeople($4.r 11) to
papa 2 Patrick J luec}:
Eden Prairie,HN
6 1 2-Q734-65517
6-ale3peorde•one manager, three analysts;with T licri quota. Sold
systemc, to Forttiije 500 companies: Super Vali.t.Target Stores,Clailton
Hudson.Burlington Northern, I'M Inc,NorWest fnc.Citibank,etc Chosen
vendor of hiah speed systerns in t%.-vo state governments: North Dakota
and Wi-,Consin Averaged over 125rS of quota during six years as
rnanager. "District Manager of the Year," 1905Ui- President's Club. 1936.
1980-1981 Territory Sales (Minneapolis,MN)Over$42M ^,,orth of systems
sales in Minnesota and Dakotas. Developed proficiency in technical
"systems"proposals and selling methods. Awarded"Rookie of the Year,
1961,with 1901-0 of quota and 15 new customers.
1977-1980 Senior Applications Analyst (Chicago, 10 Supported Codex Mid-
West sales region with technical pre-sales activities. Designed systems,
delivered sales presentations,wrote and illustrated proposals,configured
and programmed complex systems,trained customers. Assisted in
high-level system debugging and problem solving after sale. Traveled
extensively in Hid-West in cupport of nine salespeople.
1975-77 Motorola, Inc- (5-chaurnburg, 10
Employed to assist in establishment of Corporate DP Center. Supervised
data cornrourn cat ions center with over 500 active ports/lines. Designed.
ordered and supervised installation of all support systerns, data and voice
Budge
t responsibility.
1969-75 Sperry Univac Elk Grove Village, 10
19717-1975 National Technical Specialist Supported Univac's Uniscope
300"(reservations terminal) product line.
197 1-1973 Network Contra] Manager Supervised United Airlines/Univac
'Network Control Center,"staffed with 6-12 Univac personnel.
The center dispatched Univac repair personnel nationalltl.
1969-197 1 Customer Service Assisted in planning and implementation of
United Airlines/Univac world-wide reservations nPt%yorl".
1962-1965
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
TIME: 7:30 PM Tuesday, June 18, 1991
LOCATION: City Hall Council Chambers,
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris,
H. Martin Jessen and Patricia Pidcock
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 Roberta Wick
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL All Councilmembers present.
RESOLUTION NO. 91-145 COMMENDING AL LANGE FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO
THE EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY
Mayor Tenpas presented a Resolution to Al Lange commending him for his
contribution to the Eden Prairie Community.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MOTION
Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the agenda.
Harris requested the addition of Item XI.A., Discussion on League of
Minnesota Cities Meeting. Jessen requested the addition of Item XI.B.,
Capital Facilities.
Jullie requested the addition of Item III.L. to the Consent Calendar,
Resolution No. 91-149 Approving Participation Agreement with Hennepin
County for Traffic Control Signal System at County State Aid Highway
No. 1 and County State Aid Highway No. 4.
Jullie requested that Item VII.A., Request of Engineering Division for
Authorization to Acquire Slope Easements Adjacent to Mitchell Road
(Resolution No. 91-134), be continued until such time as a meeting with
property owners could be held.
Jullic asked that Item VII.➢., Request from Darlene Miller to Speak to
Dell Road Extension South of Twilight Trail, be removed from the agenda
at. Ms. Miller's request. He added that a feasibility study report for Dell
Laden Prairie 2 June 18, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
Road project would be coming to the Council on July 2, 1991, with a
public bearing scheduled for August 6, 1991. He suggested neighborhood
meetings be held to review the feasibility study.
Motion to approve the agenda as amended approved 5-0.
II. MINUTES
A. Workshop on Community Development meeting held Tuesday, May 21,
1991
MOTION
Harris moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve the minutes of the
Workshop on Community Development meeting held Tuesday, May 21,
1991.
Motion approved 5-0,
B. City_Council meeting held Tuesday, May 21, 1991
MQT ION
i
Jessen moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of the
City Council meeting of May 21, 1991.
Motion approved 5-0.
C. Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting held Tuesday, June 41
1991
MOTION
Jessen moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the minutes of the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting of June 4, 1991.
Motion approved 5-0.
D. City—Comncil meetin held Tuesday, .June 4, 1991
MOTION
Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to approve minutes of the Council
meeting of June 4, 1991.
Anderson requested that the first sentence in paragraph four on
Page 10 of the minutes read "Anderson said he was concerned that
rezoning was not, fair to the surrounding landowners
/�Sj
Eden Prairie 3 June 18, 1991
Unapproved
City Council Minutes
Jessen said that because Item %.C.1, Consideration for a 2nd Ice Rink
at the Community Center, had been moved to the point in the
meeting following Item VII.A. and the discussion had taken place
before 11:00 PM, he would like the minutes to be corrected to reflect
this change in the agenda order.
Minutes approved as amended 5-0.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLFRK'S LICENSE LIST
B. FIELD IMPROVEMENT FUND
C. POLICY_FOR ALLOWING PRIVATELY SUPERVISED HORSE ACTIVITIES IN
PARK PROPERTY
D. RESOLUTION NO. 91-137 STATE GRAND_IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL
E. RESOLUTION NO. 91-141 REGARDING USE OF RECYCLED MATERIALS IN
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
F. APPROVB SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION
AGREEMENT FOR T.H.-5 CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN CSAH 4 AND DELL
ROAD (Resolution No. 9I-112}
G. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF BLUFFS WEST_9TH ADDITION (located west
of Bennett_Ptjce and north Bluestem Lance (Resolution No. 91-138)
ti. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF WFI TERS PURGATORY ACRES 6TH ADDITION
(located east of Homeward Hills Rogd and south of Sunnybrook Road)
(Resolution No. 91-139)
I. PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONNECTION OF MWCC, SUNRISE CIRCLE
IMPROVEMENT (Resolution No. 91-141)
J. CUB FOODS by Super Valu Stores. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 6-
91 Zoning District Change from R1-22 and PUB to C-Reg-Ser on 9.81
acres with variances approved by the Board of Appeals; Approval of
Developer's Agreement; Adoption of Resolution No. 91-143, Authorizing
Summary and Ordering Publication of Ordinance; Adoption of
Resolution No. 91-41, Site Plan Review on 9.81 acres; 1 lot, 1 outlot
and road right-of-way for construction of a 73,000 square foot
building to be known as Cub Foods. location: Northwest corner of
78th Street. and Prairie Center Drive, south of Leona Road.
(Ordinance No. 6-91 - Zoning District Change; Resolution No. 91-
143 - Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 91-41 - Site Plan
Review)
��vl
Eden Prairie 4 June 18, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
K. COOLPEfIATIVE ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN PARKS FOR
ROWLAND KOAD
L. RESOLUTION APPROVING PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN
COUNTY FOK_Tlt"'FIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AT COUNTY STATE
AID HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO 4
(Resolution No. 91-149)
MOTION
Pideock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the Consent Calendar as
amended.
Tenpas requested information on Item J as it pertained to the request
from Minnesota Protective Life for a traffic signal at West 78th Street or
Leona Road at Highway #169. Dietz said that MnDOT had commitment to
make some traffic counts at the intersection of Leona Road, Highway
#169 and West 78th Street, and the information should be available in
one to two weeks. He said the City had an agreement with Benshoof and
Associates to make a study of the intersections as soon as the traffic
counts were available.
Tenpas said he was cautious about approving the project without
knowing for certain that a signal would be installed at the intersection.
Dietz said that traffic counts done three years ago by the City showed
that warrants were met. He believed it was quite certain that MnDOT
would approve the signal.
Anderson said lie would like to see the signal installed before the Cub
store opened. He asked if the City had authority to delay the opening
of Cub until such time. Pauly said the City would be required to prove
that the opening of the store would create an unreasonable traffic
hazard without the traffic signal.
After further discussion Tenpas requested staff to advise Council if
there were anything that could be done to pressure MnDOT to approve
the signal. Dietz said the City would attempt to obtain MnDOT
participation in funding of the traffic signal, but that the City could
proceed whether or not MnDOT had funds for the signal. The only
question remaining was where MnDOT would allow the signal.
Tenpas requested staff to draft a letter that he could send to Minnesota
Protective Life outlining the progress which was being made on the
installation of the traffic signal at this location.
Motion to approve the Consent Calendar as amended approved 5-0.
�3sa
Eden Prairie 5 June 18, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON LOT 4 BLOCK 4
COUNTRY GLEN (Resolution No. 91-140)
Jullie said this was a hearing to vacate drainage and utility easement
so that a the property could be replatted with proper easements.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing
and adopt Resolution No. 91-140 to vacate the easements on Lot 4,
Block 4, Country Glen.
Motion approved 5-0.
V. PAY ENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve payment of claims.
Payment of claims approved with Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Jessen, and
Tenpas all voting "AYE".
Motion approved 5-0.
VI. ORQINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIONS. REQUESTS do COMMUNICATIONS
A. REQUEST OF ENGINEERING DIVISION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE
SLOPE EASEMENTS ADJACENT TO MITCHELL ROAD (Resolution No. 91-
134) Continued from June 4, 1991 (Continued to future date after a
meeting with property owners could be scheduled.)
B. REQUEST FROM DARLENE MILLER TO SPEAK TO DELL ROAD
EXTENSION SOUTH OF TWILIGHT TRAIL (Continued to July 2, 1991)
Eden Prairie 6 June 18, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES
A. HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES COMMISSION - Presentation of Draft of
"Rental Housing Code" by Subcommittee of Human Rights & Services
Commission
Jullie said the Commission wished to address Council about its
progress to date in the development of the Rental Housing Code
which would eventually take the form of an ordinance.
Natalie Swaggert, staff liaison to the Human Rights and Services
Commission, said that the Commission had worked on the issue for
the past nine months and it would be asking Council permission to
proceed with the communication plan which would be outlined.
Kent Barker, Commission Member, stated that the objectives were
health and safety issues alone. He pointed out there was no current
code or applicable rules which would allow the City to become
involved in potentially troublesome rental issues. He said the Metro
Council had predicted that those cities which did not have a code
pertaining to rental issues would face troublesome issues in the
future. He pointed out that 25% of the building units in the City
were apartments, which meant there were about 3900 apartments in
the City. He said the Commission believed, and other cities had
advised, that the time to adopt a rental code was when the buildings
were new, as was the case in Eden Prairie.
Bill Jackson, Commission Member, emphasized that the code was
intended to be a health and safety code only with no licenses and
charges associated with it. It would not concern aesthetics and
would be implemented on a complaint-only basis. The plan called for
the code to be enforced by current City staff.
Bette Anderson, Commission Member, recommended that the draft
document be made available to interested persons by mailing notices,
posting notices in apartment buildings and rental units, and working
with the newspapers to publicize the code. She said the
Commission's plan was to hold three community meetings in July and
August: two designed for tenants and one designed for property
owners. Copies of the code would be available at the meetings and
copies would be available in advance of the meetings.
Jessen asked if the City Attorney had had an opportunity to review
the draft. Pauly said he had not made a thorough review of the
plan. He suggested that some of the verbiage might be reduced by
checking if certain requirements were already covered in the City
Code by something such as the building code. He also noted some
other wording that needed to be clarified and would work on the
document in this regard.
13SU
Eden Prairie 7 June 18, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
Harris and Jessen commended the Commission for addressing the
issue as a preventive measure in the rental housing market. Harris
asked if inspections at the time of change of ownership had been
considered rather than having inspections on a complaint-only basis.
Barker said this was intended to be a first-step document, so
inspections at the time of change of ownership had not been
included. He said the Commission wished to keep resistance to the
code as low as possible while addressing the health and safety
issues connected with rental property.
Pidcock said she favored the Code and agreed it was a good idea to
begin on a complaint-only basis because otherwise it could be used
as something that it was not intended to be. She said she would
favor the public hearings be held as soon as Pauly had reviewed the
document.
The Council was in favor of the City having such a code and it was
the consensus that the public meetings should proceed after legal
counsel had an opportunity to review the document and make
appropriate corrections and/or changes.
B. WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION - Report on Commercial Recycling
Jullie said the Waste Management Commission had been concerned
with the amount of commercial recycling which had been occurring
within the City, and whether it would be appropriate for the City to
be more active in this area. After some research, it had been
determined that the County was not making data widely known about
the large amount of commercial recycling that had been occurring.
Therefore, the Commission had requested that the City continue to
focus its efforts on residential recycling and recommended that
Hennepin County retain its responsibility to coordinate commercial
recycling.
Jessen encouraged the City to be pro-active in encouraging more
commercial recycling in the City. Earlier in the day he had visited
the BFI Recyclery in Inver Grove Heights. He thought this was a
good system for separating and recycling commercial waste.
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to receive the report of the
Waste Management Commission. Motion approved 5-0.
IX. APPOINTMENTS
I�S�
Eden Prairie 8 June 18, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. Report of City Manager
1. Update on Firefighters Relief Association
Spencer Conrad, Fire Department Chief, reviewed statistics
relating to number of calls and the work done by the volunteer
fire department of the City. He said that the department now
had 80 members and constant recruiting was necessary to
maintain this membership. He said that the retirement benefits
provided by the Firefighters Relief Association was an important
recruiting tool for the City's Fire Department.
Douglas Andrews, President of the Firefighters Relief Association,
proposed that Council approve an increase to $30.00 per month
per year of service in retirement benefits from the present
$22.50 per month. He explained that the $30.00 per month per
year of service figure was the maximum now allowed by present
State statute. He said the immediate need was to bring the City's
benefit plan in line with such neighboring cities as Minnetonka
and Bloomington. In addition, a long-range plan for the benefit
package was also needed, with the possibility of requesting
special legislation to allow a greater maximum benefit. He
stressed the need for a good benefits package in recruiting and
in rewarding the firefighters. He said that firefighters were
partially vested in the retirement plan at ten years and fully
vested at 20 years.
Jessen asked how the Association was funded. Andrews
explained that the City received money from the from the State
for the Relief Association and the City made up the difference
between the money received from the state and the amount of
the unfunded liability. He said the Firefighters Relief
Association managed the money through money managers. He said
the current request would increase the City's obligation by
approximately $100,000 per year. However, because of the
increase in population and the increase in market value of the
real estate in the City, it was possible there would be more State
money received in 1992. He said he would like to see the
requested benefit increase become effective October 1, 1991.
After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to
support the request of the Firefighters Relief Association.
Eden Prairie 9 June 18, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
TION
Harris moved that the City honor the request from the
Firefighters Relief Association and increase the retirement benefit
from $22.50 to $30.00 per month per year of service beginning
October 1, 1991 and have staff work with the Relief Association
in reviewing the total benefit package for the City's firefighters.
Seconded by Jessen. Motion approve 5-0.
2. Discussion on 1!2% Increase in Sales Tax (Resolution No. 91-150)
Jullie explained that County was asking the City to respond on
the 1/2% increase in sales tax. He said the question was whether
or not to indicate to the County what was the preference of the
City in this matter.
Council was in agreement that a statement of protest should be
made to the State because the City would be forced to support
implementation of the tax regardless of the County's decision in
the matter.
Harris said she understood that the County could not afford to
lose the State aid money and maintain the present level of human
services.
Jessen said that because no one understood the calculations and
formula, he would not favor making a decision on the matter at
the present time.
Tenpas said he would vote no on the question because the City
would not control the money collected. He said he believed this
would make a better statement against the tax.
Harris said she would vote yes under protest.
Pidcock said she would prefer to do nothing, but said she could
not vote no when it would hurt the City.
Harris said she would not be comfortable with a No vote if the
City were to be put in a position of jeopardy in terms of its
relationship with the County.
Tenpas suggested a letter be sent to the County stating that the
Council recognized the hardships that would be created by the
loss of revenue, but giving the reasons for not voting for the
tax.
Anderson asked for Jullie's recommendation in the matter.
I�S�
Eden Prairie 10 June 18, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
Jullie recommended that the City go along with the County in the
matter. The City could say by letter that it was forced to
cooperate and communicate the reasons for the objections. He
added that a formula for distribution of funds was in place for
1992 and 1993. He said that if the figures were correct the tax
rate in the City could go up 4% in 1992 and 6.4% in 1993, which
was a huge increase. This could possibly happen if the City did
not support the County in the sales tax increase.
MOTION
Anderson moved to adopt Resolution No. 91-150 to support and
encourage the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to adopt
the 1/2% sales tax increase, with the objection that the City was
forced into a situation where there was no other alternative than
to accept the tax. Seconded by Harris.
Motion approved 3-1-1 with Tenpas voting Nay, and Jessen
abstaining.
3. Schedule Workshop on Land Development Rights for City and
Property Owners
Jullie said he and Pauly had discussed the subject and were in
the process of getting information from the Popham Haik law firm
which had put on a seminar on the issue. Jullie said he would
be ready for a meeting in 30 to 60 days and would come back to
Council to set a date.
B. Report of Director of Parks Recreation do Natural Resource_
1. Eurasian Water Milfoil in Eden Prairie Lakes
Lambert requested Council to consider directing the City
Attorney to draft an ordinance prohibiting boating through areas
containing Eurasian water milfoil which were marked by buoys.
He also requested $3,000 to pay for chemical treatment this year
at two sites in Bryant Lake. Lambert said the treatment would
be only a temporary control and in years to come, it would
probably be more costly to get rid of the milfoil.
Anderson pointed out that there was a state law against
transporting Eurasian milfoil on a boat. Violation was considered
a misdemeanor and a $700 fine. He said he would like to install
signs at the lakes which stated this law would be enforced in
I�Sg
Eden Prairie 11 June 18, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
the City. Lambert said the State had signs, but he believed
that the most effective thing that could be done in this regard
was to begin a public education program at the public access
points to the lakes.
Jessen encouraged Lambert to have Parks, Recreation and
Natural Resources staff on site to remind people of the
importance of cleaning the weeds off the boats, and to also
encourage police and DNR to enforce violations with tickets as
appropriate and possible.
Tenpas suggested that the City make large signs at the public
access points warning about milfoil.
MOTION
Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to authorize the expenditure
of $3,000 for chemical treatment of Eurasian water milfoil on Eden
Prairie lakes, direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance
prohibiting boating in the areas containing milfoil marked by
buoys, authorize the installation of large signs at all public
access points warning of the danger of milfoil and stating the
law in the matter, and urge Park, Recreation and Natural
Resources staff to take whatever action possible to remind people
to comply with the law.
Motion approved 5-0.
Z. Consumption of Alcohol in Riley Lake Park
Lambert said there had been an ongoing problem at Riley Lake
Park with people consuming alcohol and behaving in such a way
that interfered with the enjoyment of the park by others. The
Police Department, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Department, and the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources
Commission recommended prohibiting the consumption and
possession of alcohol in Riley Lake Park.
Anderson said in the past the State had been specific that rules
may not be made for people who have property on the lake
which differed from the rules for those who used the public
access. He agreed with the recommendations except that he did
not believe the City should or could restrict alcohol possession
by those using the public access when it had no jurisdiction to
restrict alcohol by those living on the lake.
Jessen said he was in favor of controlling inappropriate behavior
in the parks; however, he did not believe the elimination of
alcohol in the park addressed the problem. He suggested
increasing police patrol to control the rules of good conduct. He
12 June 18, 1991
Eden Prairie Unapproved
City Council Minutes
said also that if enforcement was done in one park it should be
done in all parks.
Pidcock said she saw a contradiction in the City selling liquor
and then saying that a few people could not bring alcohol into
the parks.
Tenpas asked Pauly what could be done through City ordinances
regarding behavior. Pauly said there were ordinances against
assaults and noisy parties which could serve as the basis to
address the situation. Tenpas said he agreed with Jessen to
have the Police Department patrol the area more often.
Anderson questioned whether the Police Department could afford
to patrol the area. Tenpas said he didn't think it was necessary
for the police to patrol the park permanently and the directed
patrol request was not an unreasonable one.
Pidcock said she would favor more police patrol of the area.
Harris said she would favor trying the additional patrol and
monitoring the results for a time before moving to prohibition of
consumption.
Council agreed with this approach.
3. Request from Historical & Cultural Commission to Sell Graffiti
Bridge Souvenir. Time Capsules at the 1991 4th of July
Celebration
Lambert said that the City had been approached to sell capsules
containing pieces of Graffiti Bridge souvenir items. There was
concern about. liability because the pieces of concrete contained
860 parts per million of lead, with 5 parts per million being
considered a health hazard. He explained that ordinarily
construction debris would not be considered hazardous waste but
when it was sold as a product, the chemical content had to be
considered.
Pauly said he would be able to investigate the situation further.
The promoter of the project explained the details of the project
and believed it to be a good idea to put a warning on the item.
He said that the product would be marketed not to toddlers but
to older children, teenagers, and adults.
I a(�
Eden Prairie 13 June 18, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
MOTIO
Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, moved to accept Pauly's
recommendation whether or not to proceed on the project.
Motion approved 5-0.
XI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. League of Minnesota Cities Convention Report
Harris reviewed information she had received at the League of
Minnesota Cities Convention in Rochester, Minnesota, regarding
government financing in the 1990's. Some of the factors considered
in the report were the rising number of senior citizens, and the
expected upsurge in public school enrollments. Also covered was
Minnesota property taxes. The presenter stated that sales tax income
and property taxes should be approximately equal and no more than
30% of the total. Currently property taxes were 35% of the total
Minnesota taxes which were roughly 12-13% above the U. S. average.
B. Letter from State Department of Revenue Regarding Revenue Bonds
Jessen requested that staff send a letter to the State Revenue
Department to obtain an opinion with respect to the City's ability to
use revenue bonds outside of levy limits as recommended by
Springsted, Inc. He further requested staff to address the things
that need to be done in order to proceed with capital improvements
as outlined in the report.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn at 10:15 PM.
Motion approved 5-0.
;JIU
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
TIME: 7:30 PM Tuesday, July 2, 1991
LOCATION: City Hall Council Chambers,
7600 Executive Drive
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris,
H. Martin Jessen and Patricia Pidcock
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 Roberta Wick
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL All Councilmembers present.
PRESENTATION OF DONATION FROM EDEN PRAIRIE ROTARY CLUB
Past President Gary Bergren and current Rotary President George Sandell
presented the City with a check for $1,000 for purchasing nursery stock trees
for the park system. The Rotary Club will be donating $1,000 a year to the
City for the next five years for this purpose.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MOTION
Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the agenda.
Under X.A. Reports of Councilmembers, Pidcock requested the addition
of: (I) Discussion of Quality Management Session of ,June 24, 1991.
Anderson requested the addition of (2) Recycling of Telephone
Directories. Harris requested the addition of (3) Update on MUSA Line
Expansion.
,Jullie requested that Item III.B. from the Consent Calendar be continued
until July 16, 191 in order to allow staff more time to review the bids.
He also requested the addition of Item III. J. to the Consent Calendar:
Development Agreement and Second Reading of Ordinance 28-90 for
Rezoning of Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition.
Motion to approve the agenda as amended approved 5-0.
1��oa
Eden Prairie 2 July 2, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
11. MINUTES
A. SPECIAL. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1991
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the minutes of the
Special City Council meeting held Tuesday, June 18, 1991.
Motion approved 5-0.
B. City Council meeting held Tuesday, June 18, 1991
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the minutes of the
City Council meeting of June 18, 1991.
Pidcock requested that her statement regarding the draft of the
rental h0t.1sing code be included on Page 7 of the Minutes as follows:
"Pidcock said she favored the Code and agreed it was a good idea to
begin on a complaint-only basis because otherwise it could be used
as something that it was not intended to be. She said she would be
in favor the public hearings being held as soon as the City Attorney
had reviewed the document."
Anderson requested that on Page 11 of the minutes, the first
sentence of the last paragraph read, "Anderson said in the past the
State had been specific that rules may not be made for people who
owned property on the lake which differed from the rules for those
who used the public access." He also requested that the next
sentence read as follows: He agreed with the recommendations
except that he did not believe the City should or could restrict
alcohol possession...."
Tenpas requested that the corrected minutes be approved at the
July 16, 1991 Council meeting.
Motion approved 5-0.
1I1. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
B. Award Contract for_Staring bane/Ridge Road and Sunrise Circle
Utility_and Street Improvements, I.C. 52-103/52-105 (Resolution No.
91-156) (Continued to July 16, 1991)
1, "3
Eden Prairie 3 Judy 2, 1991
¢ City Council i`linutes Unapproved
C. ROUND LAKE VIEW 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS by Zachman Development
Company. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 14-91, Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-9.5 on approximately 10 acres; Approval of
Developer's Agreement; adoption of Resolution 91-151, Authorizing
Summary and Ordering Publication of Ordinance 14-91; approximately
10 acres into 29 single-family lots to be known as Round Lake View
2nd and 3rd Additions. Location: North of Valley View Road, north
and west of Duck Lake Road. (Ordinance 14-91 - Zoning District
Change; Resolution 91-151 - Summary and Publication)
D. RIWAY 494 RACQUET CLUB by Northwest Racquet Swim and Health
Club. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 12-91, Zoning District Change from
Rural to C-Com on 2.7 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement;
Adoption of Resolution 91-142, Authorizing Summary and Ordering
Publication of Ordinance 12-91; Adoption of Resolution 91-80, Site
Plan Review; 19.53 acres into 1 rot and 3 outlot.s for construction of
a parking lot and tennis court structures on the south side of the
property to be known as Hiway 494/Crosstown Racquet, Swim and
Health Club. Location: east of Baker Road, north of Holasek Lane.
(Ordinance 12-91 - Zoning District Change; Resolution 91-142 -
Summary and Publication; Resolution 91-80 - Site Plan Review)
E. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF BLUESTEM RIDGE (located west of Bennett
Place and north of Biuestem Lane) Resolution No. 91-153
F. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF GU_ILLE 2ND ADDITION (located at the
south corner of Twin Lakes Crossing and Starrwood Circle)
Resolution No. 91-1.54
G. GRADING PERMIT FOR FRATTALONE EXCAVATING FOR OFFICE RIDGE
CIRCLE SITE
11. RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR DELL ROAD IMPROVEMENT'S. I.C. 52-
126 (Resolution No. 91-157)
I. APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDER
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR BLUFFS FAST 8TH STORM SEWER
IMPROVEMNNTS,_I.C._52223, AAND BLUFFS WEST 9TH UTILITY AND
STREET_1MPROVEMENTS�LQ. -224 (Resolution No. 91-159)
J. DEVE_LOPMENT_AGREEMENT AND 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE 28-90
FOR REZONING OF CEDAR RIDGE 2ND ADDITION. (Resolution No. 91-146)
MOTION
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Consent Calendar as
amended. Motion approved 5-0.
13c�a
Eden prairie 4 July 2, 1991
City Council Minut.es Unapproved
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. TECH 10 by Hoyt Development Company. Adoption of Resolution 91-
147, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 45 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review within the I-2 Zoning
District with waivers on 5.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 5.6 acres for
approval of additional parking spaces on the Technology Park 7th
Addition site. Location: southwest corner of west 74th Street and
Golden Triangle Drive. (Ordinance 20-9I-PUD-6-91 - PUD District
Review within the 1-2 District; Resolution 91-147 - PUD Concept
Amendment)
Jullie said notice for the public hearing had been property published
in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to property owners in the area.
Brad Hoyt., representing Hoyt. Development Company, said the request
was for relocation of proof-of-parking spaces on the Tech 10
Development, site. He said the reason for the request was that the
property was under a purchase agreement and during the "due-
diligence" process the purchaser's counsel had uncovered the
condition in the developer's agreement which stated that the City
could unilaterally require the addition of pat-king spaces at any time.
The project had been originally approved with somewhat less than
50% of what could be required for parking by City Code. That
decision had been based on a statement of the tenant stating that. it
had only 45 employees. Therefore, 90 parking stalls were installed,
whereas the highest use of the building might require 210 Spaces.
He said that the changes occurring in the wetlands area adjacent to
the parking area, and recent restrictions on wetlands use, might
make it. impossible to construct additional parking in the present
area designated for parking. The purchaser was concerned that if
the present tenant did not renew its lease, and the purchaser was
not, able to install additional parking spaces, it would adversely
:effect the marketability of the property. Therefore, the purchaser
had asked the developer to pursue the relocation of the proof-of-
parking. Hoyt then explained the relocation plans by the use of
maps and charts.
Enger said the Planning Commission had recommended approval of
the request for PUD Concept Review and District Review as well as
the Site Plan Amendment subject to the staff report of June 21, 1991
on a 6-0 vote at its June 24, 1991 meeting. He pointed out that the
original reason for the request was to satisfy the request of a
potential buyer, and during the review of the request, the effect of
the raising of Smetana Lake on the property became apparent. If
the ordinance were waived to allow parking to cross a lot Iine and
parking within a front-yard setback, Hoyt Development should
convey to the City the drainage and utility easement to accommodate
the rrcising of the water level in the proof-of-parking area. He said
there was also an area of unfinished grading on the property which
13��
5 Eden Prairie July 2, 1991Unapproved
City Council Minutes
was not currently covered by a grading permit, and tie suggested
that Council require Hoyt to complete plans and submit application
for a grading permit. for proper review by the Engineering
Department.
Lambert said the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources
Commission recommended approval of the project on a 5-0 vote at its
July 1, 1991 meeting subject to receiving a drainage easement to the
841 contour.
Jessen asked why grading had been done without a grading permit.
Hoyt said he believed that the grading plan which was in place for
the 1986 PUD for Tech 4, 5, 6, and 7 applied to this property as
well. However, he would be willing to apply for another grading
permit for Tech 10 if it was required.
Jessen asked Hoyt about the letter dated June 21, 1991 which the
City had received from Steven B. Hoyt stating that the Hoyt
Properties, Inc. partnership would not consent to any encumbering
of the Tech 9 site for the Tech 10 site. Hoyt explained that since
that letter had been written, he had received the authority to act
for the partnership in this regard.
Jessen asked why the City's perspective on the grading plan issue
differed from that. of Hoyt. City Engineer Alan Gray explained that
none of the grading plans approved by the Engineering Department
had contemplated the temporary relocation of material from one site
to another. Gray added that there had been a problem with erosion
of the material. He said that Hoyt Development had done some clean-
up of material that had eroded across the sidewalks and the trails,
but that he believed improvements could be made in order to retain
the material on the site at a reasonable cost to the developer. Gray
suggested continuing the item until the July 16, 1991 meeting so that
the Engineering Department could receive a proposal from Hoyt on
erosion control and temporary restoration.
Anderson said the erosion had spread over the road as well as the
sidewalk and trail, which resulted in the public not being able to
use these facilities. He also expressed concern that the hill in the
area had been destroyed by this development.
Hoyt stated that the site had been developed according to the
original plans and he did not believe the plans had been destructive
to the environment. On the issue of the spread of erosion, he said
he had been having a problem with people stealing the dirt from the
dirt pile which was causing the erosion on to the street and
sidewalks. He said he would be willing to come back to Council with
the proposal at, the July 16, 1991 meeting after he had had the
opportunity to work out, agreeable solutions with the City
Engineering Department.
Eden Prairie 6 July 2, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to continue the item until the
July 16, 1991 meeting. Motion approved 5-0.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve payment of claims.
Payment of claims approved with Jessen, Pidcock, Harris, Anderson, and
Tenpas all voting "AYE".
Motion approved 5-0.
VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Deanna S. Funk and Donna M. Boller resarding Police
Reserve Officer resignations
Jullie said that two former members of the Police Reserve had
requested an opportunity to explain their reasons for resigning their
positions with the Eden Prairie Police Reserve unit.
Deanna Funk read a letter written by herself and by Donna M.
Holler, formerly Lieutenant and Sergeant respectively in the
disbanded Police Reserve unit, which outlined the reasons for their
resignations. She cited the thousands of hours of service the
Reserve unit had contributed to the City over the past several
years. She had been told that there would be extensive training for
all Reserve members; however, the members had not received this
training. As the duties and responsibilities of the reserve unit had
dwindled, low morale developed in the unit. She had been informed
later of the changes that would be implemented in the Reserve unit
which would include abolishing rank and changing uniforms in order
to limit. exposure and liability to the reserve officers and the City.
She questioned whether the cost of additional liability insurance for
the Reserve unit's exposure had been compared to the dollars saved
by the unit's volunteer time.
She pointed out that up until the time females took on the roles of
Lieutenant and Sergeant there had always been ranked positions in
the Reserve units. She claimed that the police administration had
Eden Prairie 7 July 2, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
expressed disapproval of women working in the Reserve unit and
particularly of women being given the higher ranks. Funk believed
that discrimination had been behind many of the changes made.
She said at the last Reserve meeting on June 6, 1991, six reserve
officers made the decision to resign because they believed they were
not wanted or needed by the City. She believed that more Police
Reserves would resign for similar reasons. She thought these
resignations would be costly to the City in terms of money needed to
hire extra police officers, and would be costly to the City in term of
bad publicity and potential law suits.
Funk believed many of the City's regular police officers were not
supportive of the decisions made by the Police Department's
management regarding changes in the Reserve unit. In order to
prevent frustration and apathy from affecting all members of the
department, she urged Council and staff to hire skilled managers.
Funk believed this was not the case with the City's Police
Department.
Pidcock thanked the Reserve officers for their outstanding
contributions to the City over the years. Harris said she
recommended that Council receive Ms. Funk's information and take
the concerns under advisement. Anderson and Pidcock said they
concurred with Harris's suggestion.
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS. COMMISSIONS. & COMMITTEES
IX. APPOINTMENTS
A. Historical & Cultural Commission - Appointment of a member to the
Historical & Cultural Commission to fill a vacate term to 2/28/92
Jullie said because of Mr. McCluskey's resignation, there was a
vacant term which would end in February, 1992.
Jessen suggested that Council interview potential candidates at 7:15
PM on July 16, 1991, just prior to the regular meeting of the
Council. Council concurred with this suggestion.
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. Reports of Councilmembers
I. gwkhty Mana ement Session, June 24, 1991
Pidcock said that she was disappointed with the session with Dr.
Tveite, in part because it covered only one item on the
questionnaire that had been sent to participants.
1��o
Eden Prairie 8 July 2, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
Anderson said he was in favor of quality management, but he did
not believe time should be taken to cover materials that were
covered two years ago. He also said he believed there was need
for a yearly review of the goals set by Council. He said he did
not believe the meeting on June 24 was a good one.
Harris said she believed there was universal disappointment in
the meeting and suggested that in the future, the expected
conclusion be defined before the session in order to avoid being
sidetracked. She also said that she believed quality management
was basically a staff function, with Council setting policy and
staff implementing the policy.
Tenpas said he was also disappointed in the organization of the
meeting. He believed Council needed a better understanding of
quality management and the processes that needed to be
followed.
Jessen believed Council needed to spend time on defining the
parameters within which the City would pursue the quality
management purpose. Jessen suggested that Council hold a work
session on the subject using all available reports. He believed a
good time for review would be before the budget sessions were
held.
2. Recycling of Telephone Rooks
Anderson reported on a meeting he had attended with the
Environmental Cities Coalition tECCI. The discussion had
centered around ways of recycling telephone directories
uniformly among the cities in the metropolitan area. For winter
1991, Target Stores had agreed to collect the old directories.
However, after collection, Target was not able to find a way to
recycle. them. Now U. S. West had agreed to work with cities to
find a way to recycle the directories by January 1, 1992.
Jessen suggested that ways to replace telephone directories
should be investigated.
3. Update on MUSA Line Expansion
Harris asked what the status was on the communication with the
Metropolitan Council on the expansion of the MUSA Line.
Enger said that the City had submitted an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet on the southerly Dell Road extension to
r�'{p
Eden Prairie 9 July 2, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
various agencies including the Metropolitan Council. Special
attention had not been shown to stormwater management in the
EAW. He said that in April, when the MUSA Line extension
approval was given by the Metropolitan Council, there were five
points of concern. These issues were not addressed specifically
in the EAW, which raised an alarm for the Metropolitan Council
staff. This was the reason for the letter from the Metropolitan
Council which stated that it was considering rescinding the
MUSA Line. Enger, Gray, and Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, the
consultant who had prepared the EAW, had reviewed the points
of concern with the Metropolitan Council. Enger said he believed
the City had now satisfied the Metropolitan Council's concern.
B. Report of City Manager
C. Report of Director of Parks Recreation 8. Natural Resources
1. Request from Windham Knoll 8. Hidden Glen Residents to
Reconsider the Use of Wyndham Knoll Park for Athletic
Association League Play
Lambert. reviewed the situation outlined in his memo of June 26,
199I. He said that the residents in the Hidden Glen Subdivision
were concerned that the Wyndham Knoll Park was being used for
baseball games four to five nights a week and on Saturday
mornings, and that the noise from this relatively small park was
disturbing to the neighborhood. The limitations of the parking
lot were also a concern. The residents of the neighborhood
believed that the park was too small for the increased use for
Athletic Association baseball games over the past several years.
Duane Bez, 18887 Broadmoore Drive, said the major concern was
that the park was being used for more than the design allowed.
He believed the baseball diamond was originally designed for
casual family use and not for organized games. He encouraged
Council to publicize a referendum so that larger parks designed
for organized baseball could be built.
Ken Foote, 19085 Homestead Circle, representing the Baseball
Association, spoke about the Association's concerns. The
Baseball Association was concerned about the short-term problem
of park usage as well as the long-term problem of the programs
outgrowing the community's facilities. He presented figures on
estimated growth in the baseball program for coming years. He
said at the present time there were 1.,705 children participating
in the program with 55 on a waiting list. He pointed out that
the parks were being used to capacity and with the increase in
population, the situation would become worse. He encouraged the
Council and staff to support a referendum for building more
fields at Miller Park.
Eden Prairie 10 July 2, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
In the meantime, he encouraged the City to put a barrier
between the parking and the baseball field and playground at
Wyndam Knoll Park as he believed the present situation was
extremely dangerous.
Anderson said he believed recreational facilities for children
were very important. He pointed out that Wyndham Knoll Park
was not a private park and he believed it should be used as
often as needed.
Pidcock agreed that children should not be denied the
opportunity to play sports and the City should make every
possible effort to provide space for this purpose.
Jessen agreed that the opportunity for children to participate in
organized sports was important. He believed the design of the
parks could be improved to alleviate some of the problems. He
pointed out that even if a bond referendum were to be
successful, there would be at least two more years with the
present situation at Wyndham Knoll Park. Therefore, he would
favor some redesign of present facilities, and the cost for doing
this should be included in the budget.
Lambert said he believed it would be approximately four years
after approval of a referendum before additional facilities could
be in place. He also pointed out that with the increase in
population, more parks would probably be needed again five
years after these additional facilities were completed.
Regarding short-term solutions, Lambert also said that the
parking lot at Wyndham Knoll Park could be expanded with the
children's playground moved onto the soccer field, which would
be a safer location. He also said that the ballfield and parking
lot at Willow Park could be improved for use by the Baseball
Association.
Harris said she strongly supported the staff recommendation in
the memo of June 16, 1991, but that it should be looked upon as
an interim step to a better solution. She said she also believed
it was important that the community face the fact that a park
referendum would be needed. She said the Council, staff, and
users of the parks should think of ways to publicize the needs
of the parks to the community so the next referendum would be
successful. She added that she was concerned about piecemeal
solutions and would like to review all the recreational needs in
the community. She suggested that Council and staff schedule a
work session prior to starting another referendum effort to
decide what it should include as it related to all recreational
needs in the community.
IJ� j
Eden Prairie 11 July 2, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
Tenpas said he would like the staff to review what could be
done in the budget next year to allocate funds for some
additional ballfields before a referendum. He said he would like
a recommendation from the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission and staff on the timing of a park bond
referendum and what should be included in such a referendum.
Pidcock asked why ballfields could not be put in Miller Park.
Lambert replied that grading problems in that park would make
constructing a ballfield very difficult.
Jessen said a plan should be in place for all the recreational
needs in the community including an alternative plans in the
event another parks referendum failed. He encouraged
satisfying short-term needs which were within the budget that
would allow all children who wished to play baseball to do so,
even if the facilities were not ideal.
OTION
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to authorize staff to spend
up to $4,000 to expand the parking lot at Willow Park and make
necessary improvements in order to use the existing ballfield for
Athletic Association League play. Motion approved 5-0
MOTION
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, that the Wyndham Knoll
Park be used six days a week for the remainder of the season.
Motion approved 5-0.
MOTION
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to authorize staff to proceed
with current process of evaluating the recreational needs in the
community, including the material received from Springsted in
terms of financing certain aspects of the recreational facilities,
and timing for a proposed referendum. Motion approved 5-0.
2. Request from Joni Strathy rertardinu Trail Outlot on Welters Wav
Jullie said this was a request to deed a 20-foot-wide outlot for
trail purposes to owners on one or both sides of the outlot. He
said the staff and Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources
Commission recommended that the outlot be sold for the cost of
the administrative and legal fees as the City no longer needed
the outlot for a trail connection.
Eden Prairie 12 July 2, 1991
City Council Minutes Unapproved
MOTION
Jessen moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the staff
recommendation. Motion approved 5-0.
3. H C R.R.A Rail Corridor Hopkins to Chaska
Jullie said communities along the Hennepin County Rail Authority
Corridor had agreed that the use of this corridor be similar to
that of the Luce Line trail. The major differences from
community to community had been the types of uses that would
be permitted. Staff recommended that the trail through Eden
Prairie be developed to encourage pedestrian, bike, and cross-
country ski activities, and that further consideration be given to
a parallel multi-use trail for snowmobiles and horses.
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to support the staff
recommendation. Motion approved 5-0.
XI. OTHER BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn at 10.20 PM.
Motion approved 5-0.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
July 16, 1991
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) PLUMBING
Dolphin Construction, Inc. A & J Plumbing
Eaton Corporation Doody Mechanical, Inc. DBA United Sheet
Magnetic Data, Inc. Metal
Sorenson Gross Construction P & D Mechanical Contracting Co.
Earl Weikle & Sons, Inc. Roseville Plumbing & Heating
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) HEATING & VENTILATING
Chris Construction Doody Mechanical, Inc. DBA United Sheet
Coulter Residential Remodeling Metal
Designer Pools
Metro Homes
Quality Construction Company PEDDLER
Waldenwood Ltd.
Robert John Bergstrom (Discount Books)
Jay Patrick McNamara "
MECHANICAL GAMES Joshua Michael Sebasky
Wayne Woodford (Chi-Chi's Restaurant) Peter Voigtsberger (Blue Bell Ice Cream)
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
9
0,�
Pat Sol ie
Licensing
13'l� ti
i
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MMINVNEESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.91-156
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID
WHEREAS,pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvement:
I.C. 52-203 and 52-205, Staring Lane and Sunrise Circle, Street and Utility
Improvements
bids were received,opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on
the attached Summary of Bids;and
WHEREAS,the City Engineer recommends award of Contract to
Richard Knutson, Inc.
as the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter in a Contract
with Richard Knutson, Inc. in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of
$1,200,050.00 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the
Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 16, 1991.
Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
13�5
July 2, 1991
Mr.Rod Rue,P.E.
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie,MN 55344
Re: Award of Contract
Staring Lane and Sunrise Circle
Street and Utility Improvements
City Improvement Project Nos.52-203 and 52-205
RCM Project No. 10092.02
Dear Mr.Rue:
Seven(7)bids were opened on June 27, 1991 for the above referenced project.
Five (5) of the bidders made mistakes in extending unit prices and adding
extension totals. Paragraph 7 of the Instructions to bidders requires the
correction of extension and summations prior to determining the lowest
bidder. As a result, the apparent low bidder at the bid opening,was not the
^���� lowest bidder after review of each submitted proposal form. Richard
�1U\j Knutson,Inc.of Salvage,Minnesota submitted the lowest corrected bid.
Knutson's Inc. bid was approximately two (2) percent below the engineer's
deke estimate based on final quantities and 13 percent above the estimates stated
earroll in the feasibility study. A breakdown of these estimates are attached to this
muller
associates,Inc. letter.
veers
Ite::ts Major costs differences between the feasibility study estimates and the final
w a surveyors project bid are as follows:
equal opportunity
employer 1. Additional Grading $58,8()0
2. Sodding $73,550
3. Retaining Walls $58,000
$190,350
The significant cost increases are due to the additional grading and retaining
wall construction associated with the street construction. The additional sod
installation is due to deeper utility construction in casement areas.
A summary of the seven bids received is attached. The number of bids and
grouping of the lowest four bids indicate that the bidding process was
competitive and that rebidding this work would not likely result in lower bid
prices.
We, therefore, recommend that the City award the project to Richard
Knutson,Inc.in accordance with their corrected proposal form,
Sincercly,
RISK CARROLL. )1_ R ASSOCIATES,INC.
40
/cam
r liam H.C8ok.1T.E.
—.01 red circle drive
box 130 \Y13C,na
mnnetonka rn,nnescta b34(3nclosures
612 93-6401
,3'7 w
ESTIMATE VS.BID SUMMARY
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
IC 52-203 AND 52-205
STARING LANE AND SUNRISE CIRCLE
Feasibility Final Bid
Project(1) Study Estimate Amount
Starring Lane
Streets $315,300 $471,200 $424,100
San.Scwcr 152,300 139,100 152,600
Water 118,200 110,300 86,400
Sunrise Circic
Streets 203,300 254,500 284,700
San.Scwcr 179,900 164,500 191,700
Water 76,500 81,300 60,500
Total $1,045,500 $1,220,900 $1,200,000
(1) All estimates and bids rounded to nearest hundred dollars.
Anagram International
r
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 13-91-PUD-5-91
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 I AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS,CONTAIN
PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA,ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance(hereinafter, the"land")is legally
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the I-2 and be
placed in the Planned Unit Development 5-91-1-2 (hereinafter"PUD-5-91-1-2).
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's
;reement dated as of July 16, 1991 entered into between Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation and Anagram International,Inc.,a Minnesota corporation,and the City of Eden Prairie
(hereinafter"Developer's Agreement")and that certain supplement to the Developer's Agreement,dated as of
July 16, 1991 entered into between The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States,a New York
corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Supplement"). The Developer's Agreement and
Supplement contain the terms and conditions of are hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD-5-91-I-2 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City.
B. PUD-5-91-1-2 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-5-91-1-2 are justified by the design of the development described therein.
D. PUD-5-91-1-2 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.
I��l
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the
I-2 and shall be included hereafter in the PUD-5-91-I-2, and the legal descriptions of land in-each distric
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 21st day of
May, I99I,and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said
City on the 16th day of July, 1991.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane,City Clerk Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1991.
13�q
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Outlot E,EDENVALE 9TH ADDITION,Hennepin County, Minnesota,to be plated as Lots 1,2,3, and 4,
Block 1,ANAGRAM PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Anagram International
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,DIINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.91-130
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE 13-91-PUD-5-91 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 13-91-PUD-5-91 was adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 16th day of July, 1991.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 13-91-PUD-5-91, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly
informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no
smaller than non-pareil or six-point type,as defined in Minn. State.sec.331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by
any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy
of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 13-91-PUD-5-91 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days
after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on the 16th day of July, 1991.
ATTEST: Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
John D. Frane, City Clerk
/3
Anagram International,Inc.
i
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 13-91-PUD-3-91
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,NfIN SOTA,AMENDING
THE ZONING OF CERTAIN LAND WITHIN THE I-2 DISTRICT AND ADOPTING
BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER I AND SECTION 11.9,WHICH,AMONG
OTHER THINGS,CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance amends the zoning of land within the I-2 Zoning District
located at the southeast corner of Valley View Road and Executive Drive subject to the terms
and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A,included with this Ordinance,gives the
full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/ John D. Frane,City Clerk /s/Douglas B.Tenpas,Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the_day of 1991.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
t;
Anagram International,Inc.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 91-101
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, INC.
FOR ANAGRAM INTERNATIONAL,INC.
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. has applied for site plan
approval of Anagram International,Inc.on 15.67 acres for construction of a 199,210 square foot
office/warehouse building to be known as Anagram International,Inc.on property located at the
southeast corner of Valley View Road and Executive Drive zoned I-2 District by Ordinance 13-
91-PUD-3-91 adopted by the City Council on July 16, 1991;and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at
its May 13, 1991 Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans;
and,
WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its May
21, 1991 meeting;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Ryan Construction
Company of Minnesota, Inc. for Anagram International, Inc. for construction of a 199,210
square foot office/warehouse building based on plans dated May 21, 1991,subject to the terms
and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement between Ryan Construction Company of
Minnesota,Inc.a Minnesota corporation,Anagram International,Inc.,a Minnesota corporation
and the City of Eden Prairie,dated July 16, 1991,and that certain supplement to the Developer's
Agreement, dated as of July 16, 1991, entered into between The Equitable Life Assurance
Society of the United States, a New York corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie for said
construction.
ADOPTED by the City Council on July 16, 1991.
ATTEST: Douglas B. Tenpas,Mayor
John D. Franc, City Clerk
0
N
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
Anagram International
THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of 1991,by RYAN CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY OFMINNESOTA,INC.,a Minnesota corporation,and ANAGRAM INTERNATIONAL,INC.,
a Minnesota corporation, both hereinafter jointly referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:"
W ITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the
overall Edenvale Industrial Park 9th Addition Planned Unit Development Concept of 100 acres,Planned Unit
Development District Review,with waivers,overlain upon a Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning
District and Site Plan Review on 12.50 acres and Preliminary Plat of 15.67 acres into four lots,all on 15.67
acres, situated in Hennepin County,State of Minnesota,and as legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto
and made a part hereof;
NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance#13-91-PUD-5-91,Developer
covenants and agrees as follows regarding construction upon,development,and maintenance of the previously
described 12.50 acres,also described as proposed Lots I,2,and 4,Block 1,in said Exhibit A,and hereinafter
referred to as "the Property":
I. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials reviewed and
approved by the City Council on May 21, 1991, on file at the City offices, subject to such
changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer and City agree that said materials
include those plans attached hereto as Exhibit B, and as listed in Sheet 1 of said Exhibit B,all
hereby made a part hereof, and hereinafter referred to as"the plans."
2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer
at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms,covenants,agreements,
and conditions set forth in Exhibit C,attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. STREET,UTILITY, EROSION CONTROL, PLANS: Prior to release by the City of any
final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer,and obtain the City
Engineer's approval of construction drawings 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 described above in this item N3,as approved by the City Engineer,in accordance
with Exhibit C. attached hereto.
4. CORNER PARK AREA: Developer has agreed to construct a plaza on the Property,intended
to provide for passive uses of picnicking, walking,and sitting, to be located at the southwest
portion of proposed Lot 1, Block 1,of the Property, and depicted in the plans attached hereto
as the "Corner Park Area." Developer further agrees to be responsible for all costs for
construction of and equipment for the Corner Park Area for public use.
Prior to issuance of any building permit by the City,Developer agrees to submit to the Director
of Planning,and to obtain the Director's approval of necessary easements for said Corner Park
Area which are to be granted to the City for public use.
S. LAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND TREE REPLACEMENT: 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 will include
mitigation of tree loss, among other conditions and requirements. City and Developer
acknowledge that the requirement for tree replacement is 88 caliper inches, and that said 88
inches shall be replaced as part of the landscaping requirements for the Property.
6. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: City and Developer acknowledge that Developer has submitted
samples of exterior materials to be implemented on the structure on the Property and that City
has approved said materials and has a materials board on file in the City offices. Developer
further acknowledges that, as part of Phase 1I and Phase III construction on the Property, the
exterior walls on the east and north sides of the structure constructed as part of Phase I will be
faced with brick as an exterior material,the same as depicted on the south and west elevations
of the structure within said Phase 1.
Developer acknowledges that any changes to such materials shall require the approval of the
City,including,but not limited to,any change to style,pattern,texture,color, location,or siz
of such materials.
7. MANUFACTURING AIR VENTS: In addition to conventional heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning vents on the structure,Developer has shown on the plans air vents on the structure
which are associated with the manufacturing process inside the structure. Prior to issuance by
City of any permit for building,or construction, on the Property, Developer agrees to submit
to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of detailed plans for the
manufacturing air vents which direct the air vents away from the residential areas to the north,
across Valley View Road. Said plans shall also provide that the screening materials used for
such air vents shall be the same as those approved by the City and used for other exterior air
vents.
Upon approval of the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be
constructed, those improvements listed above, as approved by the Director of Planning, in
accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C,attached hereto.
8. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer has submitted to City,and obtained
City's approval of a plan and materials to be implemented for screening of mechanical equipment
on the Property. Security to guarantee said screening shall be included with that provided for
landscaping on the Property,per City Code Chapter l 1,Section 11.03, Subd. 3G.
9. PUD DISTRICT WAIVERS: City hereby grants the following waivers to City Coc
l D..
requirements within the I-2 District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for
I the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD 5-91:
A. Allowance for a Base Area Ratio in the I-2 District of 0.34, instead of 0.30.
B. Allowance for a front yard setback to parking in the I-2 District of 37.5 feet,instead of
50 feet adjacent to Executive Drive.
10. FUTURE PHASES OF PROPERTY: Developer acknowledges that, with respect to future
development,the following shall apply:
A. If Developer proceeds with construction of Phases II and III, replatting to eliminate lot
lines will be required.
B. If Developer does not proceed with construction of Phases 11 and III,zoning and site plan
review by the Planning Commission and City Council will be required for each individual
lot,as well as possible vacations for any utility easement.
C. Prior to issuance of any building permit on proposed Lot 3, Block 1, ANAGRAM
PARK, as depicted in Exhibit B,attached hereto, Developer shall return to the City for
zoning and site plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Anagram International
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, INC.
AND ANAGRAM INTERNATIONAL,INC.
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of 1991, by and between THE
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, a New York corporation,
hereinafter referred to as"Owner," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,hereinafter referred to as"City":
For,and in consideration of,and to induce City to adopt Ordinance 1113-91-PUD-5-91,amending the
zoning of the Property owned by Owner within the 1-2 District to the PUD#13-91-I-2 District,as more fully
described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1991,by and between
Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc.,a Minnesota corporation,and Anagram International, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation,jointly referred to as"Developer,"and City,Owner agrees with City as follows:
1. If the Developer fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24
months of the date hereof,Owner shall not oppose the rezoning of the Property to the underlying
previously approved I-2 District.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner,its successors,and assigns
of the Property.
3. If Owner transfers such Property,Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring
that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement,
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
Carl J. Jullie,City Manager
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.91-155
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
ANAGRAM PARK
WHEREAS,the plat of ANAGRAM PARK has been submitted in a manner required for platting
Land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes
and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder,and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
A. Plat approval request for ANAGRAM PARK is approved upon compliance with
the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated JULY I I,
199I.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this
Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing
provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on JULY 16, 1991
Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THROUGH: Alan D. Gray,City Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician
DATE: July 11, 1991
SUBJECT: Anagram Park-(Resolution No. 91-155)
PROPOSAL: The Developers, Ryan Construction Company and Anagram International, Inc., have
requested City Council approval of the final plat of Anagram Park. Located at the southeast corner
of Valley View Road and Executive Drive, the plat contains 15.67 acres to be divided into four
industrial use lots. This proposal is a replat of.Outlot E, Edenvale 9th Addition.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council May 21, 1991,per Resolution No.
91-102.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 13-91-PUD-5-91,PUD Review, is scheduled for final approval
at the City Council meeting to be held July 16, 1991.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution July 16, 1991.
VARIANCES: All variances not granted with the Planned Unit Development District Review must be
processed through the Board of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, roadways and walkways are currently in place and
available to serve this project. A municipal watermain loop from Executive Drive to Equitable
Drive is proposed to be constructed with this project. Detailed plans and specifications,as well as
financial surety for the construction of this municipal watermain,must be provided prior to release
of the final plat.
PARK DEDICATION: The requirements of park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement.
BONDING: Bonding shall conform to City Code and the Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Anagram Park subject to the
requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement, and the following:
1. Receipt of Street Lighting Fee in the amount of$3,456.
2. Receipt of Engineer Fee in the amount of$1,567.
3. Satisfaction of bonding requirements.
JJ:ssa
cc: Kent Carlson, Ryan Construction
Westwood Fngineering
i
Riversedge
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 19-91-PUD-5-9I
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,AMENDING
THE ZONING OF CERTAIN LAND WITHIN THE RURAL AND ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH,AMONG
OTHER THINGS,CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MUJNESOTA,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 duty initiated proposing that the zoning for the land be
amended within the Rural Zoning District.
SECTION 3.That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,and hereby is,
amended within the Rural Zoning District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District
referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are,
amended accordingly.
SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99,
"Violation a Misdemeanor"are hereby adopted in their entirety,by reference,as though repeated
verbatim herein.
SECTION 5.The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain
Developer's Agreement dated as of July 16, 1991 entered into between Larry and Luann
Fransen,husband and wife and the City of Eden Prairie,which Agreement is hereby made a part
hereof.
SECTION 6.This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and
publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on
the 21st day of May 1991, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of said City on the 16th day of July, 1991.
Douglas B.Tenpas,Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, Clerk
PUBI.ISIIED in the Fden Prairie News on the_dav of 1991.
Riversedge
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.91-152
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE 19-91-PUD-5-91 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 19-91-PUD-5-91 was adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 16th day of July, 1991.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 19-91-PUD-5-91, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly
informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no
smaller than non-pareil or six-point type,as defined in Minn.State.sec.331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by
any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy
of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 19-91-PUD-5-91 shalt be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,within 20 days
after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on the 16th day of July, 1991.
Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
Riversedge
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 19-91-PUD-5-91
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,AMENDING
THE ZONING OF CERTAIN LAND WITHIN THE RURAL DISTRICT AND
AWH CH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ONTAIN-PENALTY PROVISIONS NG BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9�THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance amends the zoning of land within the Rural Zoning District
located at 9901 Riverview Road subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement.
Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance,gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/ John D. Franc,City Clerk /s/ Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the_day of 1991.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
."U(;ltion
EXHIBIT A
Parcel I
That part of Government Lot Three (3), in See-
tiun Tt,irt)-six, Township One Hundred Sixteen
(116), North Range 1venty-two (22), west of the
Sth Principal MericfZan,,: lying east of a line
dr4w.j parallel'wit `and•distant 620 feet east of.
Lhe vest line of said Government Lot 3.
Parcel 11
That part of the NdlShWalt 1/4 (HH1/4) of the
Southeast 1/4 (SE1/4) of Section 36, Township
216. er
line ofnge 22,County roadgasonowe iy of laid outhandetraveled
across said Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4,
and Best of a line drawn parallel with and 620
feet east, measured at a right angle, from the
vest line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast
1/4 of said Section 36.
Pareel ?IT
The heat Two Hundred Ninety-four (294) feet of
that part of the Northeast 1/4 (HE1/4) of the
Southeast 1/4 (SE1/4) of Section 36, Township
126, 11orth Range 22, west of the, Sth Principal
Meridian, lying southerly of the center line of
the County Road as now laid out and traveled
r,:ross said Northeast 1/4 (NE1/4) of the South-
east 1/4• (SE1/4) of said Section 36.
Parcel IV
The west Two Hundred Ninety-four (294) feet of
he
the Soutast 1/4 (SE1/4) of the Southeast 1/4
(SEl/4), Section 36, Township 116, Range 22,
West of the Sth Principal Meridian.
Parcel V
That part of Government Lot One (1), in Section
One (1), Township Cne Hundred Fiftten (115),
North Range Twenty-two (22). west of the Sth
Principal Meridian, lying westerly of the south-
erly extension of a line draw parallel with and
294 feet east of the west line of the Southeast
1/4 (S81/4) of the Southeast 1/4 (SE1/4) of
Section 36, Township 116, Range 22.
Parcel v1
That part of the East 1/2 of the Southeast IA
of Section 36, Township 116, Range 22, lying
Southt of the County Road Number 37, and west of
the East 660 feet thereof, and East of a line
parallel with and distant 294 feet East from the
west line of said East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4
and also that part of Lot 1, Section 1, Township
11S, Range 22, hest of the East 660 feet thereof
and East of a line parallel with and distant 294
Net East from the what line of the East 1/2 of
the Southeast 2/4 of said Section 36, extended
South across said Lot 1 to Minnesota River, all
according to the United States Goverrunent survey
thereof.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 91-164
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
RIVERSEDGE ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of RIVERSEDGE ADDITION has been submitted in a manner required
for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the
Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder,and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
A. Plat approval request for RIVERSEDGE ADDITION is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat
dated JULY 11, 1991.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this
Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing
provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on JULY 16, 1991.
Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THROUGH: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician
DATE: July 11, 1991
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT OF RIVERSEDGE ADDITION
(Resolution No.91-164)
PROPOSAL: The owners, Larry and Luann Fransen, are requesting City Council approval of the final
plat of Riversedge Addition,a single family residential subdivision located south of Riverview Road
and west of County Road 18. The plat contains 55 acres to be divided into three single family
homesites, two outlots,road right-of--way for existing Riverview Road. Outlots A and B contain
28.87 and 1.03 acres respectively. Outlot A is intended for a possible sale to the Minnesota River
Wildlife Refuge, and Outlot B is intended for dedication to the City for trail purposes.
HISTORY: A preliminary plat was approved at the City Council meeting held June 4, 1991 per
Resolution No. 91-116.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 19-91-PUD-5-91,Zoning District Amendment and PUD Review,
is scheduled for final approval July 16, 1991.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution July 16, 1991.
VARIANCES: All variance requests not originally granted through the Planned Unit Development District
Review must be processed through the Board of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities are not available to serve this project;therefore,each
of the proposed homesites will have their own privately owned and maintained well and septic
system.
As defined in Item No. 4 of the Developer's Agreement, the owners shall provide the City with
cross-access easements to allow driveway access to individual lots.
PARK DEDICATION: Prior to release of the final plat the Developer shall provide the City with
conservation and scenic easements as defined in Item No. 3 of the Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Riversedge Addition subject to the
requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement, and the following:
1. Receipt of Street Lighting Fee in the amount of$1,566.
2. Receipt of Engineering Fee in the amount of$250.
3. Receipt of cross-access easement.
4. Receipt of scenic and conservation easements.
JJ:ssa
cc: Larry and Luann Fransen / t
11TP0
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 91-163
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION has been submitted in a
manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462
of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder,and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
A. Plat approval request for CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION is
approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report
on this plat dated JULY 10, 1991.
B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six-
month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat
and filing of the final plat as described in said engineer's report.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this
Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat.
D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing
provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on JULY 16, 1991.
Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
j
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THROUGH: Alan D. Gray,City Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician q`J�
DATE: July 10, 1991
SUBJECT: Cedar Ridge Estates 2nd Addition
PROPOSAL: West Star Properties have requested City Council approval of the final plat of
Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition, a single family residential subdivision located north of
Pioneer Trail and south of the Cedar Ridge Elementary School. The plat contains 23.37
acres to be divided into 54 single family lots and road right-of-way for street purposes.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council August 21, 1990 per
Resolution No.90-210.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 28-90, changing zoning from Rural to R1-13.5, is
scheduled for final approval at the City Council meeting to be held July 16, 1991. The
Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution July 16,
1991.
VARIANCES:A variance will be necessary from City Code 12.20 Subd.2.A.waiving the six-
month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing
of the final plat. All other variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: The Developers have submitted a 100%petition requesting that
the City install all municipal utilities and roadways within this subdivision under an
improvement contract.
In addition to the developer requesting City installation of all streets and utilities within
this subdivision, the developer and the School District have also petitioned the City for
the construction of the school road on the west end of this property to the north serving
this property and the Cedar Ridge Elementary School. As described in the Developer's
Agreement, prior to release of the final plat, the developer shall enter into a Special
Assessment Agreement with the City for the developer's fair share of costs for
construction of the school road,the extension of a segment of trunk watermain within the
school road, and construction of an outfall storm sewer to an existing wetland area.
Final Plat-Cedar Ridge Estates 2nd Addition
Resolution No.91-163
July 10, 1991
Page 2 of 2
PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedicatiori are covered in the Developer's
Agreement.
BONDING: Bonding shall conform to the requirements of City Code and the Developer's
Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Cedar Ridge Estates 2nd
Addition subject to the requirements of this report,the Developer's Agreement,and the
following:
1. Receipt of Street Sign Fee in the amount of$1,642.
2. Receipt of Street Lighting Fee in the amount of$8,046.
3. Receipt of Engineering Fee in the amount of$2,160.
4. Receipt of Special Assessment Agreement.
JJ:ssa
cc: Lee Johnson, Orrin Thompson Homes
Ron Krueger and Associates
F.
of
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
{ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.91-91-165
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
CROSSTOWN RACQUET CLUB
WHEREAS, the plat of CROSSTOWN RACQUET CLUB has been submitted in a manner
required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the
Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder,and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
A. Plat approval request for CROSSTOWN RACQUET CLUB is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat
dated JULY 11, 1991.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this
Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing
provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on JULY 16, 1991.
Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THROUGH: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician
DATE: July 11, 1991
SUBJECT: CROSSTOWN RACQUET CLUB
(Resolution No. 91-165)
PROPOSAL: Northwest Racquet,Swim and Health Club has requested City Council approval of
the final plat of Crosstown Racquet Club. Located at the southeast comer of County Road
No. 62 and Baker Road, the plat contains 19.53 acres to be divided into one lot, three
outlots, and right-of-way dedication for street purposes. The City is a party to this plat
because of city-owned property within the plat and the proposed land exchanges to take place
between the City and Northwest Racquet Club. Outlot A is the property surrounding the
Baker Road water reservoir,ownership of which will remain with the City of Eden Prairie.
Outlot B is excess right-of-way area for old Baker Road, ownership of which will transfer
from the City to the Crosstown Racquet Club. Outlot C is owned by the Crosstown Racquet
Club and is intended for dedication to the City for park purposes.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the.City Council May 21, 1991 per Resolution
No.91-81.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed July 15, 1986,with
a supplement to that document executed July 17, 1990.
VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, roadways and walkways are currently in
place and servicing this project.
PARK DEDICATION: Outlot C is intended to be dedicated to the City as park space. All other
requirements for park dedication are in the Developer's Agreement.
BONDING: Bonding shall conform to City Code and the Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Crosstown Racquet Club subject
to the requirements of this report,the Developer's Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of Street Lighting Fee in the amount of$918.
2. Receipt of Engineering Fee in the amount of$1,614.
3. Receipt of warranty deed for Outlot C.
JJ:ssa
cc: Alan Kimixil, KMR Architects
Paul Thorp, HTPO
ASSESSMENT AND COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
THIS ASSESSMENT AND COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT(Agreement')made and
entered into this_day of ,1991,by and between the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,a municipal
corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota ('City") and SUBURBAN HENNEPIN
REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT, a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota
("Hennepin Parks').
RECITALS:
WHEREAS,Hennepin Parks is the owner in fee simple of certain real property located in Hennepin
County,Minnesota,more fully described In Exhibit 7T attached hereto('Premises')pursuant to a certain
Agreement Between the City of Eden Prairie and the Hennepin County Park Reserve District to Transfer
Implementing Agency Authority for Anderson Lake Park and Bryant Lake Park from the City of Eden Prairie
to the Hennepin County Park Reserve DistricC executed on February 28,1981 and April 2,1981('Transfer
Agreement');and
WHEREAS, the Brunt take Regional Park adjoins and Is served by Rowland Road, a publicly
dedicated road of the City;and
WHEREAS,the Transfer Agreement governs some but not all aspects of future development of Bryant
Lake Regional Park and special assessments;and
WHEREAS,the parties wish to enter Into this assessment and cooperative construction agreement
in order to supersede those particular terms of the Transfer Agreement regarding the improvements to
Rowland Road and other Improvements;and
WHEREAS,the City intends to improve Rowland Road and to make certain other Improvements as
outlined on Exhibit'B'attached hereto(the"Improvements')and assess Hennepin Paris for a portion of
the costs thereof pursuant to the Transfer Agreement;and
WHEREAS,Hennepin Parks disputes the City§assessment of Hennepin Parks for the Improvements;
and
WHEREAS,the City and Hennepin Parks are entering Into this Agreement in order to settle the dispute
and agree upon an assessment against the Premises for the Rowland Road Improvements.
NOW THEREFORE,the City and Hennepin Parks agree as follows:
i. The City shall prepare detailed design and construction plans for the Improvements and shall
allow Hennepin Parks to review and comment on the Improvements and the City shall engage
a contractor to perform the Improvements.
2. Within sixty(60)days of the award of a construction contract for the Improvements,Hennepin
Parks will deposit with the City the sum of S388,684.65, constituting its share of street and
lateral utility construction costs.
3. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,Hennepin Parks'share of trunk utilities in the
amount of$42,005.00 will not be due and owing until such time as Hennepin Parks develops
a pedestrian park on the Premises.
I�140 I
4. In the event Hennepin Parks makes the deposit as referenced in paragraph 2,but construction
of the improvements does not go forward,the City will return to Hennepin Parks Its deposit,
plus interest at a rate of not less than 5.5%per annum. During such periods, the sums
deposited with the City shall be deposited In an IMerest4maring account of a domestic bank
whose accounts are Insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
S. Al such construction of Improvements shall be constnicted by the City and a contractor of its
choosing and Hennepin Parks shall have no responsibility or obligation to pay therefor other
than as set forth herein, the above sums constituting Hennepin Parkd total obligation.
Hennepin Parks shall not be further assessed for the Improvements or for the cost of any work
on or Improvements to Rolland Road regardless of any time delay in commencement of the
Improvements or other work or constriction.
S. Should the City fat to commence the Imprurements within two(2)year:from the date hereof
and complete the Improvements within three(3)yeam from the date hereof,this Agreement
shall,at the option of either the City or Hennepin Parks,be null and void.
7. Hennepin Parks shall provide such reasonable temporary and permanent easements for street
and storm drainage Improvements at no cost to the City provided that should Hennepin Parks
over deem it necessary for its use of the Premises to after the location of the easements and
the utlifties benefiting therefrom,Hennepin Parks may do so at its own cost and expense as
long as such alteration does not Interfere with the C"use thereof.
6. Any, notice given under this Agreement shall be deemed ghee on the date the same is
deposited in the United States mail(Registered or Certified),postage prepaid,addressed as
follows:
If to the City: City of Eden Prairie
City Hall
7600 Executive Onus
Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344
Attn: Director of Public Works
If to Hennepin Parks: Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District
P 0 Box 47320
12615 County Road 9
Plymouth,Minnesota 55447-0320
Attn: Douglas F.Bryant,Superintendent
With a copy to: Jeffrey Brauchle
Oppenheimer Wolff&Donnelly
3400 Plaza VII
45 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402
9. This Agreement shall be govemed by the laws of the State of Minnesota and shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and each of their representatives,
successors and assigns.
.2_
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be entered into as of the date
and year first above-written.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,a municipal corporation
and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK
DISTRICT a public corporation and political
subdivision of the State of Minnesota
1t n er n
It Chair
B
D uglas Bryant
Its Superin ndent and Secr tarn to
the Board
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this_day of 1991,by
and ,the Mayor and City Manager;respectively
of the City of Eden Prairie,a municipal corporation and poutkal subdivision of the State of Minnesota,on
behalf of the municipal corporation.
Notary Public
i
I ,
-3-
f Uva
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
a&
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument vas acknowledged before me this 3��of 1991. by
Judith Anderson and Douglas F. Bryant , the Chai and
Secretary to Board,respectly*of the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District,a public corporation
and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota,on behalf of the orporation.
Notary Public
fl61 M H.DES
NOtalMtr ALL•W%.'%
ttF�EPIN COUNT`.
W o�rlee opM fir►+a.+aa►
THIS DOCUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY.
OPPENHEIMER WOLFF&DONNELLY(JJS)
45 South Seventh Street
3400 Plaza VII
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402
-4-
03
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description
The Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter lying southerly of Rowland Road
and westerly of the plat of Golden Ridge Hills. Section 2, Township 116,
Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Also:
All that part of Government Lots 2, 3 and the Southwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter that lie southerly of Rowland Road and the Northeast Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter lying westerly of said Rowland Road. All in Section
2, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
11
P
` cRDSS IS.0 A
-6 NO. 52 06
N RCM NO. 84 1026_2
�� cNAOAn ■ ? `�`w Ep�NNF
LAWE
lq
T
4
o
NARD MILL
0
EXIST. PARK +�
ENTRANCE TO c
REMAIN
+O
s
0
• o'
0 o6c
of
+o s
EXIST. PARK
ENTRANCE TO BE
CLOSED IN THE FUT RE 4�
Y c
r err
9Z0 v�
a Cj'
eRY FUTURE M41N PARK
4Nj ENTRANCE tiNl` '
y -4KF +aD M
F4,411-1.
' q�0/04, e� r
H CO 4C A CNEFO'F'E 2
&4,
R
D4D
8
L I
LEGEND
PROPOSED EXHIBIT B _ 1 ��
STREET IMPROVEMENTS U10>iO4 STREET IMPROVEMENTS
I.
SCALE. 1' = 500'
/ P cROSSlOW,y RCM O. 8411026-2
� J � hi�HW4y
/ `F4// cAorA g F
I LANE �� Yp�'�l., p����� �• I
EXISTING F
WALKWAY
wNo Neu S
i
p FUTURE'
f WALKWAY n
EXISTING
WALKWAY
1 "O
( ,O e,`— Crt sr O
1 / PROPOSED \v EXISTING
/ WALKWAY WALKWAY
\ / r
q PROPOSED°
a° WALKWAY
6 ,iyT MAIN N#u r
I t4K ENTRANCE—�� • 4a,o .t
fHh fp'� q fG'Ohq
` CNE Jl' O
O =
FUTURE
N
8 TRAILS
E G E N D EXHIBIT B - 2 PROPOSED .....
EXISTING TRAILS 81 WALKWAYS `
FUTURE
SCALE: 1" = 500'
P C�OSSTOwN RCMN O. 8411026-2
c P-M . 7,0
LA r, „o�l� a �R'Dq,9 Ak'q �•
b p��•
(� NMD NIu ! r
1 r+000, � `o r •
o ems• e e., oN.
D ♦o �
2
O ♦ �
• �f
f v OGy ° ♦� 6
° � e
4a �/ cap.
� o
SANITARY SEWER : c
STUB FOR PARK USE ' d a Q�
4NT NIL e M w•0007 W
4kE P ` 3
HFtipF AFG' 4°�' a o w
2
A,N co OH4t A `»clo j o Z Z
Z H
8x
d! W
8 PROPOSED
L SANITARY
/ SEWER °
LEGEND EXHIBIT B - 3
PROPOSED
EXISTING —> _ PROPOSED �.
FUTURE —>— _,> _ SANITARY SEWER'n so'
SCALE: 1" = 500'
P .� CROSSTOWN O. 52-067
RCM NO.O. 8411026-2
tc
�O f{
6•
NI �
s•
f l
N �
0
2 er b
O
p L<
`v
PROPOSED
WATERMAIN ,
\� rt*
EXISTING W E IN Sr
iZ
WATERMAIN STUB
FOR PARK USE j c Q
eq :.'. "� L� R
YgNT
rou � a 3
kF
hFNN(qRFGT - `�� b
p'N O
4 CHER�+"�� o
CO&NTY .04
419jr o
�.� Q
EXIST.
WM.
8
lq PROPOSED
WATERMAIN o�
G: 14D N
SED wM._, , EXHIBIT B - 4
wM WATERMAINS \\
r ��qE wu. _
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
SUBJECT: Urban Design Services
DATE: July 12, 1991
The City Council received a preliminary memo from the staff regarding urban design framework
for the Major Center Area on March 22, 1991. A copy of the memo is attached. With the
Singletree Plaza project affecting major concepts for the downtown area, working on urban
design details has not become timely until the last week. At this point the Wal-Mart proposal
is before the Planning Commission and will return to their July 22 meeting. In order for the
Planning Commission to give an informed recommendation to the City Council, the Wal-Mart
proposal must contain design elements which tie into an overall urban design framework for the
downtown area. To that end and in line with the Council considerations to date, we have
solicited two proposals from local urban designers and architects for phase one of the urban
design framework.
Cluts,O'Brien and Strother is a local Eden Prairie architectural firm with experience in design
of the Frank's Nursery&Crafts center,the Flagship Athletic Club,the Lariat I Shopping Center
and the Anderson Ickes Parkway/169 shopping center. Their proposal is attached.
BRW Architectural and Urban Design, Inc. has also provided an urban design framework
proposal. This firm was selected because of their work and experience with Centennial Lakes,
Edinborough,50th and France and current work on the Nicollet Mall. Many additional examples
of their work are included in their proposal.
The City has worked with both design firms before, and both firms have worked in both the
private and public sectors. Both firms would provide services for approximately the same
amount, and the award of contract would be for phase one only at this time and would not
exceed $10,000. The City staff recommends BRW, Inc. because of the depth of experience
represented by their proposed design team and the numerous successful design examples they've
had constructed in this area locally and throughout the country. Work with this firm at this time
would not preclude work with any other firm for urban design beyond phase one. Engagement
of an urban design professional for phase one is very important at this time; and with the
Council's concurrence, we would like them to start on Wednesday, July 17 in order to be able
to work with Wal-Mart in accomplishing proper urban design for their project in a timely
fashion.
ICI f�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Carl J. Jullie,City Manager
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation,&Natural Resources
Gene Dietz, Director of Public Works
Craig Dawson, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Urban Design Framework for Major Center Area
DATE: March 22, 1991
Recommendation: A unique and timely opportunity now exists to make the Major Center Area
a coherent and identifiable area. Services of urban design professionals should be retained to
develop a framework for public and private improvements currently planned in this area.
Background: The Major Center Area has long been identified as an area of special importance
to Eden Prairie and one which is not common for suburban areas. In fact,in the late 1960's the
Metropolitan Council designated this area to be a "constellation center". It is approximately
1,000 acres in which a variety of urban activities occur--retail, office, high-density housing,
transportation,and parks and public spaces. The City has demonstrated its commitment to the
successful development of this area by establishing of one of the largest area tax-increment
financing projects in Minnesota, which helped provide the initial road improvements.
The MCA has also benefitted from a number of private investments which have occurred during
the last 15 years. It has reached a critical mass where the remaining development(both public
and private)can make the MCA a vibrant market place,or,a hodge-podge of buildings on either
side of Flying Cloud Drive.
Cub Foods has offered to incorporate a gateway feature in its proposed development in the
northeast part of the MCA. It is an opportunity to announce the retail core of the MCA to traffic
along I-494 and Prairie Center Drive. Such a gateway is an important urban design element.
Further thought suggests that the whole area encompassed within the Prairie Center
Drive/Highway 5 ring should be viewed as a whole,and that a strong urban design framework
can integrate land uses in a manner which will be inviting to the public and attractive for further
development.
Results from the Decision Resources,Ltd.community survey indicate that a majority of residents
would like to see a"downtown" Eden Prairie. They cited a desire for "a sense of community"
or "a central place" in supporting this concept. Visual, urban design features can bring this
about.
I
Memo
Urban Design Framework for Major Center Area
March 22, 1991
What Is In Urban Design: In his address on the State of the urban Environment,Minneapolis
Mayor Don Fraser identified the many elements of urban design.
"...It sets the stage for public life,defining how well our buildings, streets, and parks
meet the needs of our citizens... It creates an identity... it can affect our pocketbooks by
shaping the environment in which investment decisions will be made by individuals and
businesses..."
"...How we relate to(the connection between our citizens and the land)symbolizes and
sends a message about who we are and what is important to us... Urban design must be
concerned with creating a cohesive whole. It must look to the integration of the City's
policy planning and its physical environment:our streets,sidewalks,buildings,fixtures,
and landscape treatment... How comfortable we feel in our environment is tied directly
to(how urban design)invite(s)activity and impart(s)a sense of human scale."
Urban design frameworks in cities are not uncommon. Many are recognized by their special
appeal. In Minneapolis are the Nicollet Mall, the new Convention Center, Orchestra
Hall/Peavey Plaza,and the Sculpture Garden. Suburban examples include downtown Wayzata,
50th and France and Edinborough/Centennial Lakes in Edina.
What Do We Have To Do: Eden Prairie has a number of public improvements in the MCA
which will be needed regardless of the existence of a design framework. If we look at these
facilities in an integrated manner, and plan for a number of well-designed enhancements, the
MCA can become a unique and exciting focus for the community.
Among the public facilities identified for the MCA are a two-million-gallon water tower(perhaps
200 feet tall), a major entrance to the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, a City Hall,
streetlighting, sidewalks,and a number of intersection improvements. What could be done?:
*The water tower could be a major focal point for a downtown plaza or a traffic circle,
if carefully designed.
*Street architecture--signs, streetlights, sidewalks, benches, kiosks, trash containers,
planters, bus stops, mini-plazas, fountains, banners--can be done as part of public
improvement projects or in conjunction with public and private developments.
*Gateway features--one with Cub Foods, and three to five others placed strategically
around the roadway entrances to the MCA.
2
loge
Memo
Urban Design Framework for Major Center Area
March 22, 1991
*A pedestrian overpass from development on the Teman/Bermel parcels(perhaps from
a downtown water tower plaza?) to the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area.
*A trail linking the PCRA through the Rosemount property to Lake Idlewild to take
advantage of its function as an urban lake.
*A design framework for the balance of the development in the MCA.
Design elements would be able to bring visual coherence, continuity, a sense of human scale,
an invitation to leave one's car,and a sense of place in the largeness of the MCA and of Eden
Prairie.
Retainine Design Services: Urban design professionals should be retained to develop a
framework for the MCA. They can bring their experience, access to resources, and fresh
perspective to the opportunities of this project. Whether one firm or a design team is selected,
we will be able to work synergistically to blend the preferences and expectations of the
community with the ideas developed by our consultant.
We can benefit from the concepts and approaches of several firms in the selection process.
Proposals can call for firms to submit designs as the basis of the work they would perform for
the City. From non-successful entries,staff could identify a number of interesting elements and
direct that they be further evaluated by the design firm selected.
The American Institute of Architects has developed a number of guidelines for this approach for
services. According to a number of criteria identified by the AIA, appropriate conditions exist
for the City to use this technique:
*The project has a wide degree of design exploration.
*The project is on an important site...it may be unusual in its visual impact.
*The project has features...that deserve a fresh examination by the design community.
*The project will benefit from this additional public interest.
To be successful with this approach,the guidelines suggest that evaluation of design concepts be
done by a qualified jury, that the projects be sufficiently financed, and that the design program
be soundly and adequately developed. Staff can work with a number of interested parties in the
design and development field in Eden Prairie(and perhaps with the University of Minnesota)to
undertake the planning of this process.
3
Memo
Urban Design Framework for Major Center Area
March 22, 1991
Given the amount of work which will be involved with the submission,the City should consider
some sort of stipend to some(perhaps the top three entries)or all of the participating firms.
Finaneine the Services: This important component needs further examination. It appears that
these services would be eligible for some type of funding from the$9+million in tax increment
receipts during the next three years. Presumably,the City's administration expense would be
the eligible funding activity. Many of the design elements for physical improvements could be
included in the TIF program. The list of eligible improvements is scheduled to be amended in
order to include the recommendations of the TIF Capital Improvements Committee. These
design features could also be identified in the plan amendments.
Some of the design elements can be included in the architecture or landscaping of private
developments. As the City requires meeting performance standards in these areas anyway,
substituting these special features can be accomplished at little or no extra costs to developers
or the City.
Summaries: Development of the MCA is at a critical juncture. Action can be taken which will
make it a unique activity center or a fairly typical suburban agglomeration. The City has a
number of improvements to make in the MCA;it can take advantage of the visibility of these
facilities with sensitive urban design instead of utilitarian considerations. In partnership with
private interests in the area,the City can assemble a design framework which can accentuate the
advantages of the area and spur private economic development. As the City's in-house resources
are limited,obtaining the services of a professional urban design firm or team will allow the City
to pursue the opportunities now presented in the MCA to develop a special community identity.
With endorsement of the concepts included in this memorandum,we will begin the process of
developing a well-thought-out program to which urban design firms can respond. Prior to
advertising for design services,we will develop a design selection process and cost estimates for
the selection process,as well as for the entire project,and review this proposal with the Council.
MEM0322.CE:bs
'i
4
July 10, 1991 ClutS
(515rien
Chris Enger
(Strother
City of Eden Prairie ADCiITEC5
Eden Prairie City Hall
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Chris:
Thank you for the opportunity to remain involved in the design
process for downtown Eden Prairie. We are pleased to submit our
proposal for Stage 1 design framework development and its
incorporation in the Walmart proposal. Our work shall include the
following:
1. WALMART BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN
A. Exterior building design;
B. Building signage and markings;
C. Rooftop structures and equipment screening;
D. Visual access to and from the site;
E. Topographic change/open space;
F. Parking and Interior Road System;
G. Conceptual landscaping and screening;
H. Phase 2 development concepts.
2. EXTERIOR DESIGN FRAMEWORK
A. Criteria for exterior design of future buildings;
B. Design of exterior furnishings and landscaping:
1) Retaining walls, railings, stairs, fences, screens;
2) Grates, covers; drains, curbs, pavements, drainage
structures;
3) Exterior space lighting, parking, paths;
4) Building lighting, signage, displays, directory
information;
5) Walks, paths, patio-plaza, pavements;
6) Turf and landscaping;
7) Antennas, flagpoles, towers.
We expect our fees for this phase of the work to be between $5,000
and $10,000. We are willing to work with the City on any contract
arrangement you may desire. Our current hourly rates are attached.
1
7520 Market Place Drive • Eden Prairie • Minnesota 55344 • Phone: 6/2/941 4822•- .
lu,to
We understand further work in Stage 1 will include graphic design
for the Major Center Area, gateway and entry features; schematic
design for the water tower; and overall context development for the
downtown area.
Proposed by: Accepted by:
CLUTS, O'BRIEN, STROTHER ARCHITECTS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Brian Cluts
President title
date date
2
PI
CIA
Ob(yen CURRENT HOURLY RATES
6trother JANUARY 1991
ARCI1fIECiS
ARCHITECTURAL
Principals $85 per hour
Registered Architects $45 to $60 per hour
Designers $35 to $45 per hour
Students & Clerical $25 to 35 per hour
C.A.D. $25 per hour
ENGINEERING EXPENSE
1.25 times the expense incurred by the Architect
i
PRINTING EXPENSE*
24x36 Blueline $1.00 each
30x42 Blueline $1.50 each
24x36 Paper Sepia $3.00 each
30x42 Paper Sepia $5.00 each
24x36 Film Sepia $10.00 each
30x42 Film Sepia $16.00 each
Replotted Computer
Generated Backgrounds $125.00
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Cost Plus 15%
Rates subject to change.
•$15.00 handling and postage for orders shipped.
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources
DATE: July 10, 1991
SUBJECT: Amendment of Park Use Rules Related to Horses
On July 2nd,the City Council approved the recommended policy of restricting the use of horses
and pony rides to designated areas. The City Attorney recommended a small change in the Park
Use Ordinance that would clarify this policy change.
Attached to this memo is a draft of Ordinance No.22-91 that would accommodate these policy
changes.
City staff recommend the first reading of Ordinance No. 22-91.
BL:mdd
ord22-91
E
LANG,PAULY&GREGERSON,LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
370 SUBURBAN PLACE BUILDING
250 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE.MINNESOTA 55344
TELEPHONE:(612)829-7355
RORFRT i PANG FAX:(612)829.0713 MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE
.
ROGER A PAULY a)SOUTH ENTER
DAVID N F KO SO SON• a)SOUTH LIS.MI STREET
RICHARD P.ROSOW MINNEAYOLIS.MINNk30TA 55107
MARK 1.IONNSON LA12)33tlLR3
IOSEPN A.NILAN FA%(617)NW671tl
IOHN W.LANQ CPA
REPLY TO EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE
LEA De AP AP SPEETER
IEfFREY C PELAUIST•
IUDITH K.DUTCHER
WILLIAM N.MILLER July 8, 1991
•AY MibwN a
Ira1a/w a Wemaa
Bob Lambert
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Amendment of Park Use Rules Relating to Horses
Dear Bob:
Enclosed is a draft ordinance amending City Code Section
9.04, Subd. 4.P. to authorize you to permit certain horse
activity in City parks. The matter in parentheses is new and
that through which the lines are drawn is old.
/ �5ipcer ly',
Nog r Pauly
RAP:ss J/
Enc.
�� u
ORDINANCE NO. �A -91
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 9, SECTION 9.04, SUBD. 4.P. RELATING TO THE
RIDING OR PERMITTING OF EQUINES IN PARKS, AND ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 9, Section 9.04, Subd. 4.P.
shall be and is amended to read as follows:
"Subd. 4. It is a petty misdemeanor for any person in a
park to:
P. Ride or permit a—horse (an equine) under such
person's control on or in any park, except on
or in any street, shoulder or ditch thereof,
trail, or other area designated by the
Director, (or as otherwise permitted by the
Director), provided, however, whenever a
trail through a park for riding horses (equines)
has been designated by the Director, the riding
of a—horse (an equine) in such park or the
bringing into such park of a—horse (an equine)
shall be limited to such trail,"
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 entitled "Violation A
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference,
as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1991,
and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of
1991.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
Published in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
1991. f
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 91-168
RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND
ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT
WHEREAS, a petition has been received and it is proposed to make the following
improvements:
I.C. 52-229-(Prairie Center Drive Median Opening at Joiner Way)
and assess the benefrtted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements,pursuant
to M.S.A. 429.011 to 429.111.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study,and that a
feasibility report shall be prepared and presented to the City Council with all convenient
speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment and
feasibility of the proposed improvements.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 16, 1991.
Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
yC
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
To The Eden Prairie City Council:
The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City Council
to consider making the followng described improvement(s):
(General Location)
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Storm Sewer
Street Paving
XX Other Median Opening at Prairie Center Drive & Joiner Way
Street Address of Other
Legal Description of Names of Petitioners
Property tD be Served Must Be Propert Owner
8421 Joiner Way
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 F.rd Flahert
455 Flying Cloud rive Edward
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Me�tHsb"ist a t -Cale Associa? -�
595 Prairie Center Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 DYS rop roes tX ,c..r Q�
(For City Use)
Date Received
Project No.
Council Consideration
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 91-170
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
WHEREAS,the City Engineer through H.T.P.O.has prepared plans and specifications for the
following improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-225-(Cedar Ridge Estates 2nd Addition,Street and Utility Improvements)
and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
1. Such plans and specifications,a copy of which is on file for public inspection in
the City Engineer's office,are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in
the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such
improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement
shall be published for 3 weeks,shall specify the work to be done,shall state that
bids shall be received until 10:00 a.m.,August 15, 1991,at City Hall after which
time they will be publicly opened by the Deputy City Clerk and Engineer, will
then be tabulated,and will be considered by the Council at 7:30 P.M.,Tuesday,
August 20, 1991, at the Eden Prairie City Hall,Eden Prairie. No bids will be
considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash
deposit,cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5%
(percent)of the amount of such bid.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 16, 1991.
Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
lyi�
VAC 91-07 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNES/OTA
RESOLUTION NO.9I-1(pip
VACATION OF BLUFF ROAD BETWEEN
WHITE TAIL CROSSING AND WILD DUCK PASS
WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has certain riohtof--way described therein as follows:
That part of Bluff Road,as dedicated in Bluffs East Fourth Addition,embraced within the Northwest Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of Section 36, and that part of Bluff Road recorded as an easement for public roadway,
Quit Claim Deed Document Number 3121595, Township 116, Range 22, and that part of Bluff Road, as
dedicated in Creek Knolls,embraced within the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 36,
all lying easterly of a line drawn northeasterly from the most easterly corner of Lot 3,Block 1,Creek Knolls to
the most southerly corner of Lot 1,Block 5,Bluffs East Fourth Addition;
Those portions of Oudots C(Wild Duck Pass),F(Trotters Path)and H(White Tail Crossing),Creek Knolls lying
northeasterly of the following described line;
Beginning at the most easterly corner of Lot 3,Block 1,Creek Knolls;thence southeasterly along the
northerly line of Outlot H,in said Creek Knolls to the intersection with a line drawn concentric with,and
50 feet southerly from, the southwesterly line of Lot I,Block 5,Bluffs East Fourth Addition;thence
easterly concentric with said southwesterly line and its continuation 162.62 feet;thence easterly 167.55
feet along a reverse curve, concave to the south,having a radius of 300 feet and a central angle of 32
degrees;thence southeasterly along the tangent of the last described curve a distance of 242 feet;thence
southerly 153.95 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest,having a radius of 205 feet and
a central angle of 43 degrees;thence southeasterly along the tangent of the last described curve a distance
of 134.13 feet;thence southeasterly 170.17 feet along a tangential curve concave to the east,having a
radius of 250 feet and a central angle of 39 degrees;thence along the tangent of the last described curve
a distance of 213.36 feet and there terminating.
WHEREAS,a public hearing was held on July 16, 1991 after due notice was published and posted as required
by law;
WHEREAS,it has been determined that the said right-of-way is not necessary and has no interest to the public,
therefore,should be vacated.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
I. Said right-of-way as above described is hereby vacated.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare a Notice of Completion of Proceedings in accordance with M.S.A.
412.851.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 16, 1991.
Douglas B.Tenpas,Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
_ _
John D. Frane,City Clerk '(�i 1
/I1 �
all
it •
PFA
= .-
`' rig
BLUFFS EAST 8TH ADDITION
`\ �I tr\T•- f�Lll
I t t
i1'• 1
1
n. t •.
.._.-
J
.l•PPPpp15��6mm'�i
4 ''SG .Mf•W'SY
♦ O
.' •r ii�• ���aar< � 6 a ol'�
14
Noizvi
Lei •r„n.� � `"\" �
r• I
0`�.. �♦i rig.+�f:.! `''(J �\
AP VH � 9Rl
R,c,MT - oF Y to
16E VACATED
h �IGNT - oF-WA7 To
BE DE•DleATBD IN
PLAT OF $TUFFS Y,4G. l --07 I
EAS T 8T w Ana►Tt elv ►Yao .. 3
VAC 91-08 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.91-167
VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS ON LOTS 6 AND 7,BLOCK 2
EDENVALE 15TH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain drainage and utility easements described therein as
follows:
All drainage and utility easements on Lots 6 and 7,Block 2,Edenvale 15th Addition,according
to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles,Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
WHEREAS,a public hearing was held on July 16, 1991 after due notice was published and posted as
required by law;
WHEREAS,it has been determined that the said drainage and utility easements are not necessary and has
no interest to the public,therefore,should be vacated.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
1. Said drainage and utility easements as above described is hereby vacated.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare a Notice of Completion of Proceedings in accordance with
M.S.A.412.851.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 16, 1991.
Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D.Frane, City Clerk
i
ISLANQ- RD
SITE
Y,
Ile
L9
R.
NO%L-f H
do
ut4s
10
MAP
FeEC Av
LLEYMpN� lEwI tea VAC- q1-08
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: July 2, 1991
SUBJECT: REDRAFTED SIGN CODE REGULATIONS
(Does not include advertising signs(billboards))
BACKGROUND
The City's first sign code was adopted in 1976. Seven years later in 1982, the sign code was
codified along with all other City ordinances.
Since 1982,the sign code has been modified in minor ways via Planning Commission review and
City Council approval.
REDRAFTED SIGN CODE
The Planning Staff has kept an inventory of items in the Code which appear confusing, lack
coordinated structure, or needed additions or deletions to reflect market changes or new State
Statutes.
In the redrafted sign code the following has been accomplished:
The definitions section has been placed in alphabetical order.
The zoning districts have been restructured so ground signs,wall signs,setbacks,
etc... are in the same order in each district.
Consolidated items which were duplicated in different parts of the Code.
- Included new definitions to reflect market trends.
Inserted new items to reflect the actual sign criteria being required for commercial
centers in the review process (i.e. planned sign locations, consistent sign area
size ...)
Corrections made where necessary to reflect changes in State Statute.
The Planning Staff believes the redrafted sign code will be easier to read, understand and
administer. Although it is still quite liberal and allows more square footage of signs in shopping
centers it will also reduce the number of signs on small lots and control sign clutter at street
comers.
1
Memo
Redrafted Sign Code Regulations
July 2, 1991 Page Two
In reviewing the attached redrafted sign code,the BOLD items are additions, and the eressed
eat words are deletions.
To further assist you in your review a "letter" has been placed in the right column next to a
change. The letter codes are as follows:
"R" Item has been restructured.
"N" Word or item is a new addition.
"E" Word or item has been eliminated.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments and Appeals found the redrafted sign code
acceptable, and made minor corrections.
Changes suggested in the June 12, 1991 letter from the City Attomey's office have been made.
signcode.cc
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-MAY 28 1991
A. ZONING CODE SIGN REGULATIONS by the City of Eden
Prairie. Request to change Zoning Code sign regulations.
Changes proposed include: amended definition of area
identification, new definitions for menu and readerboards,
increasing the sign area allowed for on-site directional and address
signs, setback requirements between free-standing signs, and
reorganization of existing sign regulations.
Johnson discussed the proposed sign changes. She stated that
revisions were made by the entire Planning staff and will simplify
certain areas. She indicated that every district has been
restructured and better organized for readability. Johnson reported
that new State statutes have been added which indicate that
campaign sign's size and shape can no longer be regulated at the
local level. The commercial district has been restructured to
indicate that one frontage can no longer have more than one free-
standing sign. A maximum size for the American Flag has been
included where there was no restriction before. The maximum size
of a residential identification sign has also been increased.
Sanstad questioned whether grand openings are handled by permit
or on the honor system. Johnson responded that permits are not
necessary; business owners usually will call and state what they
will be doing. Sandstad asked whether air-inflated devices were
allowed on buildings. Johnson replied that building owners have
had damage to their buildings from such devices. Hawkins
suggested that the reading be changed to state not attached or
placed on the building. Sandstad further suggested that they be
tethered or anchored to the ground. Ruebling asked if there was
a maximum height for these devices. Johnson replied that it
depends on the maximum height allowed in the zoning district they
are in.
Hawkins asked where the campaign sign information was crossed
out in the handout. Johnson indicated on page six. Norman asked
why it was changed. Johnson responded that it was lobbied for by
several Districts in the state and passed as law.
Hawkins asked if campaign signs could refer to a political issue
tied to a referendum. He was concerned about a perpetual sign for
a certain issue. Sandstad believed that it would fall under free
Planning Commission
May 28, 1991 Page Two
speech. Hawkins questioned whether the City could further define
a political issue to be tied to a referendum. Norman indicated that
the current definition states signs are placed prior to an election.
Ruebling suggested that all references to gender be replaced with
"a",such as on page 7, item 3 which refers to"his"designee. He
also stated that some wording has been left off on that page.
Hallett asked if off-site residential signs are permitted. Johnson
replied that they are not. Hallett asked about signs on apartment
buildings advertising apartments for rent. Johnson replied that they
are permitted but permits are not required.
Ruebling indicated that "area identification signs" are not in the
definition section of the sign ordinance. He also asked if one wall
sign per accessory use meant that each building tenant could have
a wall sign. Johnson responded that it is allowed now but is at the
discretion of the building owner.
i
MOTION
Motion by Sandstad, seconded by Norman to recommend to the
City Council that the proposed amendments to the sign ordinance
be approved as amended. Motion carried 6-0-0.
Ruebling discussed instances where Commissioners have felt that
they should abstain from voting but did comment during the
discussion of the item. He believed that no comments should be
made. Hallett believed that a Commissioner abstaining should be
able to make comments. Hawkins stated that you have to look at
the underlying reasons why you are abstaining. Norman suggested
that staff find out when and if a Commissioner should abstain.
'i
11
Q r d1 11
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Beach Road House
Durham noted that pressure may need to be applied per the
attorney.
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board send a notice
to the owner stating that a certified survey
will have to be in City Hall offices by June
20th and the structure should be on the
foundation by June 30th or the variance may
be recinded. Akemann seconded the motion and
it passed unanimously.
B. Funcoland
Durham noted that'the sign in question at Funcoland is down.
C. Touch of Class Variance
Durham noted that the variance for this property will
expire in December of 1991. He can send a reminder if the
Board wishes.
D. Joint Meeting
Durham said he had heard no further information on a
possible joint meeting between the Board and the City
Council.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Amended Sign Code
Durham explained that the intent of the amending is to
put the definitions in alphabetical order, restructure
the districts so all signs are in the same order, consolidate
items that have been duplicated, include new definitions,
insert new items to reflect sign criteria for commercial
centers, and make corrections to reflect changes in State
Statute.
Freemyer suggested that consideration be given to changes
on requirements for double faced signs and the base on free
standing signs.
Durham noted that a change has already been made on one
of these items.
B. Revised City Code Chapter 11
Durham noted that this was basically the same code as in
the book. It is now on computer. Additions have been made
�ua�
JIF-)ATED juLY 9, 1991
I ITS.
The purpose of this Section is to protect and promote the
°.alth, safety, and order within the City through the
)mprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations
ming the erection, use and/or display of devices, signs or
sual communicative media to persons situated within or upon
)r private properties. The provisions of this Section are
e creativity, a reasonable degree of freedom of choice, an
five communication, and a sense of concern for the visual
of those designing,displaying or otherwise utilizing needed
L of the types regulated by this Section; while at the same
public is not endangered, annoyed or distracted by the
Ldiscriminate or unnecessary use of such communicative
wing terms,as used in this Section,shall have the meanings
n" identification sign relating in its subject matter to
cts auention to, a business or profession, or to the
,vice or entertainment sold or offered upon the premises
-1 is located,or to which it is attached.
- Postal identification numbers and/or name, whether
:meric form.
cation Sign" - A free-standing sign located at an ti=
a residential development identifying such development
on identity when said sign is located upon the premises
ies.
,nnants"-Attention-getting devices which resemble flags.
fib
rquee"-A rooflike structure projecting over the entrance
or irtdttst60--building.
I" - A sign which is erected on private property by the
)perty for the purpose of guiding vehicular and pedestrian
ns bear no advertising information.
DRAFT #4 UPDATED DULY 99 1991
SEC. 11.70. SIGN PERMITS.
Subd. 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Section is to protect and promote the
general welfare, health, safety, and order within the City through the
establishment of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations
and procedures governing the erection, use and/or display of devices, signs or
symbols serving as visual communicative media to persons situated within or upon
public right-of-way or private properties. The provisions of this Section are
intended to encourage creativity, a reasonable degree of freedom of choice, an
opportunity for effective communication,and a sense of concern for the visual
amenities on the part of those designing,displaying or otherwise utilizing needed
communicative media of the types regulated by this Section; while at the same
time assuring that the public is not endangered, annoyed or distracted by the
unsafe, disorderly, indiscriminate or unnecessary use of such communicative
facilities.
Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms,as used in this Section,shall have the meanings
stated:
1. "Accessory Sign"-An identification sign relating in its subject matter to
or which directs attention to, a business or profession, or to the
commodity, service or entertainment sold or offered upon the premises
where such sign is located,or to which it is attached.
2. "Address Sign" - Postal identification numbers and/or name, whether
written or in numeric form.
3. "Area Identification Sign" - A free-standing sign located at an
entranceway to a residential development identifying such development
having a common identity when said sign is located upon the premises
which it identifies.
4. "Banners and"Pennants"-Attention-getting devices which resemble flags.
5. "Canopy and Marquee"-A rooflike structure projecting over the entrance
to a eemmereial or indwwiai-building.
6. "Directional Sign" - A sign which is erected on private property by the
owner of such property for the purpose of guiding vehicular and pedestrian
traffic. Such signs bear no advertising information.
E�'��
7. "Directional Signs for Churches, Schools, or Publicly Owned Land or
Buildings" - A sign which bears the address and/or name of a church,
school, or publicly owned land or building and a directional arrow
pointing to said location.
Source:Ordinance No. 37-83
Effective Date: 9-30-83
8. "Free-standing Sign"-A pylon or monument sign which is placed in the
ground and not affixed to any part of any structure.
9. "Height"-The distance between the uppermost portion of the sign and the
average natural grade of the ground immediately below the sign.
10. "Illuminated Sign" -Any sign which is illuminated by an artificial light
source.
11. "Institutional Sign" -Any accessory sign which identifies the name and
other characteristics of a public or private institution,such as convalescent,
nursing, rest, boarding care home or day care center.
12. "Menu Board Sign"- Any sign which has a message related to the
site's food service and the copy is manually changed.
13. "Motion Sign"-Any sign which revolves,rotates or has any moving parts
or message.
14. "Multi-tenant" - Structures containing two or more businesses, uses or
occupants.
15. "Nameplace or Identification Sign"-An accessory sign which bear;only
a name and/or address.
16. "Neighborhood/Sector Sign" - A free standing sign which identifies by
name, the section of the City designated on the official sector map.
17. "Newspaper Receptacle"-A box or container intended for the temporary
storage of newspapers or magazines prior to delivery.
18. "Newspaper Vending Machines" - A coin-operated machine from which
newspapers are sold to the general public.
19. "Non-Accessory Sign" or "Advertising Sign" - A sign relating in its
subject matter to,or which directs attention to, a business or profession,
2
or to the commodity,service or entertainment not sold or offered upon the
premises where such sign is located,or to which it is attached.
20. "Non-conforming Sign"-A sign which lawfully existed immediately prior
to the adoption of this Section,but does not conform to the newly enacted
requirements of this Section.
21. "Parapet Wall"-An architecturally,structurally and aesthetically integral
wall extending above the roof level,continuously around the perimeter of
the building which has the primary purpose of screening mechanical
equipment.
22. "Permanent Sign"-Any sign which is not a temporary sign.
23. "Planned Unit Development Area Identification Sign"-A free-standing
sign typieally located at an entrance way to a Planned Unit Development
identifying a Planned Unit Development land development epedvrtm
having a common identity when said sign is located upon the premises
which it identifies. A PUD area identification sign may not identify a
tenant or tenants.
Source:Ordinance No. 261
Effective Date: 10-25-74
24. "Portable Sign"-A sign so designed as to be movable from one location
to another which is not permanently attached to the ground or any
structure.
25. "Projecting Sign" -Any sign attached to a building, all or part of which
extends more than 12 inches over public property,easements, or private
pedestrian space,or which extends more than 12 inches beyond the surface
of the portion of the building to which it is attached or beyond the
building line.
26. "Readerboard Sign" - Any sign having a message not permanently
affixed to the sign face, and the copy is manually changed.
27. "Religious Symbols"-Pictures,designs,sculptures,or similar objects that
stand for or suggest religious faith, ideas,or qualities.
Source:Ordinance No. 37-83
Effective Date:9-30-83
3
iy�b
28. "Roof Sign" - Any sign erected upon or projecting above the roof of a
structure to which it is affixed except signs erected below the top(the cap)
of a parapet wall.
Source: Ordinance No. 114-84
Effective Date: 10-31-84
29. "Shielded Light Source"-Means that all light elements will be diffused
or directed to eliminate glare and housed to prevent damage or danger.
Direct illuminated signs must be shielded with a translucent material of
sufficient opacity to prevent the visibility of the light source. Indirect light
sources must be equipped with a housing and directional vanes. The lights
must not be permitted to interfere with traffic signalization.
30. "Sign" - Any letter, word or symbol, device, poster, picture, statuary,
reading matter or representation in the nature of advertisement,
announcement,message or visual communication,whether painted,posted,
printed,affixed or constructed, including all associated brackets,braces,
supports, wires and structures which is displayed for informational or
communicative purposes.
31. "Sign Area" -That area which is included in the smallest rectangle which
can be made to circumscribe the sign. The stipulated maximum sign area
for a free-standing sign refers to a single facing and does not include
vertical structural members below the sign face.
32. "Sign Base" - The sign base of a sign shall be any supportive structure
below or surrounding the sign area which has location on the ground. The
sign base shall not exceed one half the maximum sign size permitted in the
zoning district.
Source: Ordinance No. 9-87
Effective Date: 5-06-87
33. "Signage Program" - Any application for approval of construction or
display of one or more signs under this Section.
34. "Sitting Facility Sign" -A sign which is affixed to a seating facility or
enclosure at a transit facility stop.
Source: Ordinance No. 261
Effective Date: 10-25-74
35. "Street Frontage"-The abutting of a parcel of land to one or more streets,
4
e*pfesswey. An interior lot has one street frontage,and a comer lot has
two such frontages. Each allowed sign must relate to the street frontage
generating the allowance.
37. "Traffic Sign" - A sign which is erected by a governmental unit for the
purpose of regulating,directing or guiding traffic.
38. "Wall Area" -Is computed by multiplying the distance from the floor to
the roof times the visible continuous width including windows and doors
of the space occupied by the sign owner.
Source: Ordinance No. 114-84
Effective Date: 10-31-84
39. "Wall Sign" -Any sign which is affixed to a wall of any building.
Subd. 3. General Provisions Applicable to All Districts.
A. Prohibitions.
1. Non-accessory signs are prohibited in all districts,except in areas where Section
11.71 permits advertising signs, subject to the conditions imposed by Section
11.71 upon advertising signs,(and except as otherwise expressly permitted in this
Section 11.70).
Source: Ordinance No. 105-84
Effective Date: 09-19-84
2. Accessory signs are prohibited in all districts, except as authorized by this
Section.
B. All signs shall be constructed in such a manager and of such material that they shall be
safe and substantial, provided that nothing in this Section shall be interpreted as
authorizing the erection or construction of any sign not now permissible under the zoning
or building provisions of the City Code. All signs must be maintained in a safe non-
deteriorating manner. Cracked,broken or bent,glass,plastic, wood or metal and burnt-
out light bulbs and peeling, faded, or cracked paint must be repaired, replaced, or
removed.
C. No illuminated sign which changes in either color or intensity of light, flashes, scrolls,
or is animated shall be permitted except one giving time, date, temperature, weather or
5
similar public service information. The City Manager,or the City Manager's designee,
in granting permits for such signs shall specify the hours during which same may be kept
lighted when necessary to prevent the creation of a nuisance. Such signs shall have a
shielded light source and concealed wiring and conduit and shall not interfere with traffic
signals. Said signs shall not exceed 50 square feet in size. Only one such sign shall be
permitted per lot. Said signs shall conform to the district regulations contained herein.
(Ordinance 1-90)
D. No sign other than governmental signs shall be erected or temporarily placed within any
street right-of-way, or upon any public easement.
E. A permit for a sign to be located within 50 feet of any street or highway regulatory or
warning sign,or of any traffic sign or signal, or of any crossroad or crosswalk,will be
issued only if:
1. The sign will not interfere with the ability of drivers and pedestrians to see any
street or highway sign, or any traffic sign or signal, or any crossroad or
crosswalk,and,
2. The sign will not distract drivers, nor offer any confusion to any street or
highway sign,or any traffic sign or signal,and,
3. The sign will not obstruct the clear visibility for sign of traffic and/or pedestrian
movement.
F. Roof signs are prohibited in all districts.
G. Air inflated devices, banners, pennants and whirling devices, or any such sign
resembling the same, are prohibited from use within the City except when used in
conjunction with grand openings(the initial commencement of business). In the case of
grand openings,air inflated devices,banners and pennants shall be allowed for the week
or part thereof, of said grand openings. Air inflated devices may not be attached to
or placed on the building and may not exceed the building height permitted by
Code. On the Monday following such opening,all such displays shall be removed. This
flag, of any iteeessofy e
b.
H. Campaign signs posted by a bona fide candidate for political office or by a person or
group promoting a political issue, or a political candidate, may be placed in any
resideetia!district provided that only one sign per political issue,political candidate,per
housing unit is allowed. .tea
ffHieigM
^`o�R—Signs may be placed in any district. �i���
tistFial
. These signs may be
6
1u3�
placed ,and shall be removed within ten
(10)days after the election.
I. One temporary identification sign may be installed upon any construction site in any
district denoting the name of the project, architect, engineer, contractor,subcontractor
and suppliers,provided such sign does not exceed 32 square feet in area and ten feet in
height. Such signs shall be removed upon completion of construction,or the occupancy
of the building, whichever occurs first.
J. Temporary real estate signs may be erected on the project site for the purpose of selling
or promoting a residential project of 15 or more buildings with a gross floor area in
excess of 300,000 square feet provided:
I. Such signs shall not exceed 100 square feet in area.
2. Only one such sign shall be permitted per street frontage upon which the property
abuts.
3. Such signs shall be removed when the project is 80%completed,sold or leased,
but not to exceed two years from the date of issuance of a permit,and,
4. Such signs shall be located no closer than 100 feet to any pre-existing residence.
K. Temporary real estate signs for the purpose of selling or leasing individual lots or
buildings shall be permitted on the site being sold or leased provided:
i. Such signs shall not exceed six square feet for residential property,32 square feet
for undeveloped non-residential property, or structures with less than 90%
occupancy (as measured by floor area).,
2. One sign per lot, parcel or structure is permitted.
3. Such sign shall be removed within seven days following lease or sale.
4. Such signs shall not exceed ten feet in height.
ay-eff&e
be of a site and eenfigufation so as net faffie
L. One United States flag, one Minnesota flag, one educational,civic or religious flag
may be displayed upon a lot. Each flag may not exceed 100 square feet in size.
7
J1U�u
Flagpole height must comply with height regulations contained in Section 11.03,
Subdivision IF of the City Code.
f
M. The total sign area of any multi-faced free-standing sign shall not exceed twice the
permitted area of a single faced sign.
N. A directional signs shall not exceed 3-2 6 square feet in area. The total of all directional
signs upon a site shall not exceed 36 square feet.
O. Motion signs are prohibited in all districts.
P. No portable signs shall be permitted.
Q. Projecting signs are prohibited in all districts.
R. Address signs shall not exceed twe six square feet for residential and forty square feet
for non-residential. One sign shall be required per building. One additional sign is
allowed per street frontage in excess of one street frontage.
S. Sitting facility signs noting the transit operator or service shall be permitted only at
transit stops.
Source: Ordinance No. 261
Effective Date: 10-25-74
T. Directional signs for churches, schools, or publicly owned land or buildings shall be
allowed as permitted by Subdivision 4 hereof.
Source: Ordinance No. 37-83
Effective Date: 9-30-83
U. Canopies, marquees and parapet walls shall be considered to be an integral part of the
structure to which they are accessory. Signs,if accessory,may be attached to a canopy,
marquee or parapet wall, but such structures shall not be considered as part of the wall
area,and thus shall not warrant additional sign area.
V. Signs which are located on the interior of a building and are not visible from outside of
said building shall be exempt from the provisions of this Section, and shall not require
permits or payment of fees.
W. No sign shall be attached to any tree or vegetation or utility pole.
8
I 3s
X. Double faced signs shall be placed back to back with not more than 18"between facings.
(Ord. 1-90)
Y. One temporary garage sale sign, not to exceed six square feet shall be allowed in the
residential district five days prior to the sale,and shall be removed one day after the sale.
Z. Sign Removal. When any sign or the message portion of any sign was or shall be caused
to be removed by the Building-Of€ieiel-City Manager or his designee,sign owner or
property owner,all structural and electrical elements, members, including all brackets,
braces, supports, wires, etc., shall also be removed. The permittee, or owner of
premises,or possessor of premises,or the owner of the sign shall be jointly and severally
responsible for sign removal.
AA. Sign permits will not be issued for any sign bearing misleading or false information, or
information inconsistent with zoning and/or land use.
BB. Newspaper receptacles shall not display advertising legends or be obtrusive in color.
CC. A Planned Unit Development must be 5 15 or more acres and contain at least 3
contiguous lots to support an Area Identification Sign.
DD. The sign base shall not exceed one half the maximum sign size permitted in the zoning
district.
Source: Ordinance No. 9-87
Effective Date: 5-06-87
EE. Temporary Help Wanted Sign. One temporary help wanted sign per lot for the purpose
of hiring persons to work on the property shall be permitted on the property provided
such signs do not exceed 32 square feet and is removed within 14 days.
FF. Readerboard Sign. Such signs may be used within a District's permitted sign area.
GG. Menu Board Sign. One menu board sign per restaurant use with a drive-thru
facility. Such sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in size nor greater than eight feet
in height. Such sign is in addition to the free-standing or wall sign in the District.
Subd. 4. District Regulations. In addition to those signs permitted in all districts, the
following signs are permitted in each specific district, and shall be regulated as
to size, location and character according to the requirements herein set forth.
Source: Ordinance No. 261
Effective Date: 10-25-74
9
i��ln
A. Residential Districts R,R-1,RM:
Source: Ordinance No. 72-84
Effective Date: 4-05-84
1. Identification Signs. One identification sign or symbol per building not greater
than six square feet in area,provided such sign is attached flat against a wall of
a building.
2. Area Identification Signs. One area identification sign per development,per street
entrance, providing such sign does not exceed 24 32 square feet in area.
way line.
3. Sign Setback. Signs shall be placed no closer than ten feet to any street
right-of-way line.
4. Maximum Height of Free-Standing Signs: Six feet.
S. Sign Base. (Refer to Subdivision 3, Subparagraph DD).
Source: Ordinance No.9-87
Effective Date: 5-06-87
6. Institutional Signs. One sign per street frontage identifying an institution or an
institutional complex shall be permitted within a multiple residential district Such
sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in area
feet to any stfeet right ef way line.
4. Aeeessery Use Signs. Signs identifyiRg uses aeeessery to a multiple fesidential
7. Temporary Signs. Shall be permitted only as permitted in Subdivision 3.
8. Directional Signs: (Refer to Subdivision 3).
Source: Ordinance No. 261
Effective Date: 10-25-74
9. Review Process: The signage program will be reviewed and approved by the City
Manager, or the City Manager's designee.
10
W1
Source: Ordinance No. 72-84
Effective Date: 4-05-84
,6 lll..11 .. i The• W n of nli wall_signs a any ..all of a building shall fie
havingemeeed 15%of!he weAl am of that wall when said wall efea dees net emeeed 50
squefe feet. Wheft said suffaee afea emeeeds 500 squefe feet, then the tewA ef—ee
of seeh wail sign shall net exeeed :75 squefe feet phis 5% of the wall weft in
exeess of 500 squafe feet,pFeVided that the mmimum sigR am fef any well sign
in a multi tenam building based on the exiefief wall afea of the spaee that tenaft
2. Free stmding Sips! Gfie ffee standing sign peF street Wmage is peffnitted. The
fightshall not exeeed 80 squar-e feet. Whem a building site has two ef fnefe stfee
peffnitted ffee standing sign in emeess of afte,shall haye a sign afea fiat to exeeed
36 square feet. The maximum height of free standing signs shall be 20 feet. Ne
sign shali be piaeed eleser than 20 feet to afty street Whefe b
sign,pr-eyided!he tetal afea of all permanent and iempe"signs 9MI fie!e3teeed
eiesef-than 15 feet to afty sifeet right of way. Tempe"pfeduet sMe,stamp and
wta! area of any sign shall net emeeed 80 square fee!and a maximem height a
29 feet. (Refer to Saw;visieR 3, FlafamT GQ.
gasoline pump afld fiet mounied aboye the pump bodyt shall be pefmiffe�-.
O
11
f�LJ
entire sign pfegmm must be feviewed and appfeyed by the Gify Manager,or ih
City Manager's designee.
E n nrr_Dist.:,..
signs largef thm these neffmally allewed within this Seefiefl.
(e) Size Feseafeh data must be pfeyided to pfe%-e to the Gity the Reed fe
the struetefe.
Mamagef, or the.Gly Manager's designee.
B. OF12 Dist�[
i. identifleation Signs,. One sign pef building itet te emeeed 50 squafe feet iR aFea.
12
to the feeing of the building at the gFeURd Reef is peffnitled. The wea of the
E€feeti%emote: `0687
feet in am.
$`„eetiveD-.-�74
7. Sign Base! (Refef to Subdivision 3, St'1313 1>�-
City Manager's designee.
E ffeetiYe Date-. c 06 81
B. Commercial Districts: N-Com, C-Cam, C-13wy, C-Reg-Ser,C-Reg.
t. Free-standing Signs:
a. A building site having one street frontage may have one free-standing
sign not to exceed 80 square feet.
b. Where a building site has two or more frontages,one free-standing 80
square foot sign shall be permitted along one frontage. Additional
frontages may each be permitted a free-standing sign not to exceed 36
square feet. Furthermore,in no case shall any free-standing sign be
13
�uuo
closer than 300 feet to any other free-standing sign upon a building
site. The distance between signs is to be measured from the edge of
a sign face via a straight line. Menuboards and directional signs are
exempt from this requirement.
C. A Planed Unit Development Area Identification Sign shall be
permitted according to Subdivision 3, Paragraph CC. One sign per
street frontage is allowed provided the total area of such sign shall not
exceed 80 square feet. In no case shall a frontage have more than one
sign,either a free-standing sign or PUD identification sign.
d. Readerboard Signs: Readerboard signs may occupy the sign area
permitted for free-standing signs.
e. Setback: No sign shall be placed closer than 20 feet to any street
right-of-way. Where parking occurs within ih the required front yard
setback,no sign shall be placed closer than 15 feet to any street right-
of-way.
f. Height: Maximum height of free-standing signs shall not exceed 20
feet.
g. Sign Base: (Refer to Subdivision 3, Subparagraph DD).
2. Wall Signs:
a. The total area of a wall sign on any wall of a single tenant building
shall not exceed 15%of the wall area of that wall when said wall area
does not exceed 500 square feet. When said surface area exceeds 500
square feet,then the total area of such wall sign shall not exceed 75
square feet plus 5%.of the wall area in excess of 500 square feet,
provided that the maximum sign area for any wall sign shall be 300
square feet.
b. Wall area shall be computed individually for each tenant in a multi-
tenant building based on the exterior wall area of the space that
tenant occupies. The total area of a tenant wall sign on any wall of
a muiti-tenant building shall not exceed 15%of the wall area of that
wall when said wall area does not exceed 500 square feet. When said
surface area exceeds 500 square feet,then the total area of such wall
sign shall not exceed 75 square feet plus 5%of the wall area in excess
of 500 square feet.
14
C. Readerboard Signs: Readerboard signs may occupy the sign area
permitted for wall signs.
3. Sign Design: Signs for a multi-tenant building shall be located on the
building in an uniform manner or within an architectural sign band area.
4. Temporary product sale,stamp and game signs: These signs may occupy the
remainder of the area not utilized for the permanent sign,provided the total
area of all permanent and temporary signs shall not exceed eight square feet
for one sign and fifty square feet for each sign in excess of one.
S. Pump Signs: Lettering or symbols which are an integral part of the design
of a gasoline pump and not mounted above the pump body shall be
permitted.
6. Restroom Signs: Signs indicating the location of restrooms and containing
no advertising information shall be permitted. Sign shall not exceed three
square feet.
7. Temporary Signs: (Refer to Subdivision 3).
8. Directional Signs: (Refer to Subdivision 3, Subparagraph l).
9. Menu Board: (Refer to Subdivision 3,Subparagraph CC).
10. Review Process: In addition to specific requirements set forth for each
district,the entire sign program must be reviewed and approved by the City
Manager or the City Manager's designee.
C. Office District
1. Free-standing Signs:
a. A building site having one street frontage may have one free-standing
sign not to exceed 50 square feet.
b. Where a building site has two or more frontages,one free-standing 50
square foot sign shall be permitted,and the additional frontages may
each be permitted a free-standing sign not to exceed 36 square feet.
C. A Planned Unit Development Area Identification Sign shall be
permitted according to Subdivision 3, Paragraph CC. One sign per
street frontage is allowed provided the total area of such sign shall not
15
��t
exceed 50 square feet. In no case shall a frontage have more than one
sign,either a free-standing sign or PUD identification sign.
d. Readerboard Signs: Readerboard signs may occupy the sign area
permitted for free-standing signs.
e. Setback: No sign shall be placed closer than 10 feet to any street
right-of-way.
f. Height: Maximum height of free-standing signs shall not exceed 8
feet.
g. Sign Base: (Refer to Subdivision 3,Subparagraph DD).
2. Wall Signs:
a. One building identification sign per wall per street frontage not to
exceed 50 square feet is permitted.
b. One identification wall sign per accessory use attached to the exterior
wall of the building at the ground floor not to exceed 30 square feet
is permitted.
C. Readerboard Signs: Readerboard signs may occupy the sign area
permitted for wall signs.
3. Temporary Signs: (Refer to Subdivision 3).
4. Directional Signs: (Refer to Subdivision 3,Subparagraph N).
5. Review Process: In addition to specific requirements set forth for each
district,the entire sign program must be reviewed and approved by the City
Manager or a designee.
D. Industrial District: I-2. I-5. I-GEN:
1. Free-standing Signs:
a. A building site having one street frontage may have one free-standing
sign not to exceed 80 square feet.
b. Where a building site has two or more frontages,one free-standing 80
square foot sign shall be permitted,and the additional frontages may
each be permitted a free-standing sign not to exceed 50 square feet.
16
C. A Planned Unit Development Area Identification Sign shall be
permitted according to Subdivision 3,Paragraph CC. One sign per
street frontage is allowed provided the total area of such sign shall not
exceed 80 square feet. In no case shall a frontage have more than one
sign,either a free-standing sign or PUD identification sign.
d. Readerboard Signs: Readerboard signs may occupy the sign area
permitted for free-standing signs.
e. Setback: No sign shall be placed closer than 10 feet to any street
right-of-way.
f. Height: Maximum height of free-standing signs shall not exceed 8
feet.
g. Sign Base: (Refer to Subdivision 3,Subparagraph DD).
2. Wall Signs:
a. One building identification sign per wall per street frontage not to
exceed 80 square feet is permitted.
b. One identification wall sign per accessory use attached to the exterior
wall of the building at the ground floor not to exceed 10%of the wall
area that tenant occupies of the wall to which it is affixed, or a
maximum of 50 square feet.
C. Readerboard Signs: Readerboard signs may occupy the sign area
permitted for wall signs.
3. Temporary Signs: (Refer to Subdivision 3).
4. Directional Signs: (Refer to Subdivision 3,Subparagraph N).
5. Sign Design: All signs shall be uniform in design and color and placement.
6. Address: Address signs may be placed on rear door with three inch high
numerals.
7. Review Process: In addition to specific requirements set forth for each
district,the entire sign program must be reviewed and approved by the City
Manager or a designee.
17
lu��!
feet in afea. One addifienal wall identifleatien sign feF eaeh tenant having
Fttfy te a nitilti tenant building, stieh sign being disp;ayed at e
eeeupies of the wall to whieh it is affixed,er a maximum eF 50 squafe feet. Ne
sign shall be plaeed ele5er.than 10 feet to any stfeet right of way line.
2. Afea ideftfifiewien Signs! One sign per deyelopfftent fie!ie emeeed 80 squefe fee!
in area.
4. Maximum Height ef Ffee Stmdiftg Signs., Eight Feet.
B ffe.tiye date! A Af 84
b
8 )iddres^'^^iftay be r1. h 1 high
b
l f€eetive Bate:: `T 6 8;
E.
1. Stieh sign design shall be submitted as preyi--- ... - ---,PafagFftph
E. Planned Unit Development(PUD): With multiple uses and 15 acre minimum.
1. That the developer submit after approval of the P.U.D., a schematic plan for
informational, directional and advertising signage, explaining and illustrating:
18
IBIS
(a) Purpose of signage program and each sign.
(b) Location -rezoning for plan.
(c) Size- research data must be provided to prove to the City the need for
signs larger than those normally allowed within this Section.
(d) Design.
(e) Material-color, texture, durability, type.
(f) Information Needed -during sales programs.
(g) Final use or removal of signs.
(h) Maintenance responsibilities and legal commitments.
(i) Site and landscape plans which depict the design of the area surrounding
the structure.
2. The signage program may include, but shall not be limited to:
(a) Sector identification signs if approved by the Council.
(b) Neighborhood markers which appear at the entrance to established
neighborhood developments.
(c) Area/project identification signs marking housing, commercial,
institutional and public mini-neighborhoods or clusters.
(d) Individualized building name or number signs shall be allowed in accord
with this Section,or as an approved element of architectural design.
Source: Ordinance 261
Effective Date: 10-25-74
F. Public District.
1. Free-standing Signs:
(a) One free-standing sign foreach building,lot,parcel,or tract of land may
be erected on the lot parcel, or tract of land it applies or on which an such building is situated. y
19
(b) The maximum height ef a fme stmding sign she4l be 8 feet and . The
total area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed 80 square feet4eW
feet. Religious symbols shall not be
considered part of the free-standing sign area.
(c) A Planned Unit Development Area Identification Sign shall be
permitted according to Subdivision 3,Paragraph CC. One sign per
street frontage is allowed provided the total area of such sign shall not
exceed 80 square feet. In no case shall a frontage have more than one
sign, either a free-standing sign or an area identification sign.
(d) Readerboard Signs: Readerboard signs may occupy the sign area
permitted for free-standing signs.
(e) Setback: No sign shall be placed closer than 10 feet to any street
right-of-way.
(f) Height: Maximum height of free-standing signs shall not exceed 8
feet.
(g) Sign Base: (Refer to Subdivision 3,Subparagraph DD).
2. Wall Signs: One sign per building not to exceed 24 square feet in area. Where
a building is located on a comer lot,one sign may be located on each wall facing
a street provided one does not exceed 24 square feet and the other does not exceed
18 square feet. All wall signs shall be uniform in design. Religious symbols
shall not be considered part of the wall sign area.
3. Off-site Directional Signs: Two additional church,school,or publicly owned land
or building directional signs shall be permitted in locations other than the lot,
parcel,or tract of land which it applies. Said signs shall be erected on non-public
land,or if the sign is one owned by a public body, such directional sign may be
erected upon publicly owned property provided:
a. The maximum size of the sign shall not exceed 3 square feet.
b. The owner's permission must be obtained.
C. The sign shall be a minimum height of 4 feet, maximum height of 6 feet.
d. Signs shall be uniform in design.
4. Sign Program: The signage program will be reviewed by the Director of
Planning.
20
lit 1/!
S. Temporary Signs: Temporary special event signs shall be permitted for a period
not to exceed ten days. Such signs shall be not higher than 8 feet and not larger
than 32 square feet.
6. Directional Signs: Directional signs to churches,schools,or publicly owned land
or buildings in existence on the effective date of this Section or amendments
thereto, which do not conform to these regulations, shall be allowed to continue
in use as provided in Section 11.75.
Source: Ordinance 37-83
Effective Date: 9-30-83
7. Sign Base: (Refer to Subdivision 3, Subparagraph DD).
Source: Ordinance 9-87
Effective Date: 5-06-87
I. Airport District.
1. Wall signs are only permitted on buildings operated by persons,organizations,or
businesses that are commercially licensed by the Metropolitan Airport
Commission.
(a) Walls not facing runway: The total area of all wall signs on any wall of
a building shall not exceed 15% of the wall area when the wall area does
not exceed 500 square feet. When the wall areas exceeds 500 square feet,
the total area of a wall sign shall not exceed 75 square feet, plus 5% of
the wall area in excess of 500 square feet,provided that the maximum sign
area for any wall sign shall be 300 square feet. Wall area shall be
computed individually for each tenant in a multi-tenant building based on
the exterior wall area of the space the tenant occupies.
(b) Walls facing runway: The total area of all wall signs shall not exceed
30% of the wall area. The maximum total sign area shall be 400 square
feet. Wall area shall be computed individually for each tenant in a multi-
tenant building based on the exterior wall area of the space the tenant
occupies.
2. Free-standing Signs: Are permitted only on sites of buildings operated by
persons, organizations, or businesses that are commercially licensed by the
Metropolitan Airport Commission. Two free-standing accessory signs shall be
permitted for each building site, provided one of the signs is on the side of the
building facing the runway. The total area of each sign shall not exceed 80
square feet. The maximum height of free-standing signs shall not be 20 feet.
21
14,4
3. Area Identification Signs: Only the Metropolitan Airport Commission may erect
such signs. One sign per street frontage is allowed. Area Identification signs
shall not exceed 80 square feet and shall not exceed a maximum height of 20 feet.
4. Gate Identification Signs: Only the Metropolitan Airport Commission may erect
such signs. One sign at each gate is allowed. Gate identification signs shall not
exceed 32 square feet and shall not exceed a height of 10 feet.
5. Building Identification Signs: Only the Metropolitan Airport Commission may
erect such signs. One such sign per building is allowed. Building identification
signs shall not exceed 6 square feet and must be attached flat against the wall of
the building.
6. No other sign is permitted.
Source: Ordinance 114-84
Effective Date: 10-31-84
Subd. 5. Administration and Enforcement.
A. Permits. Except as provided in Subparagraph D below, the owner or occupant of the
premises on which a sign is to be displayed,or the owner or installer of such sign,shall
file application with the City for permission to display such sign. Permits must be
acquired for all existing, new, relocated, modified or redesigned signs except those
specifically excepted below. The applicant shall submit with the application,a complete
description of the sign and a sketch showing its size,location,manner of construction and
such other information as shall be necessary to inform the Building Official of the kind,
size, material, construction and location of the sign. The applicant shall also submit at
the time of application, the application fee required under Subparagraph B below. If a
sign authorized by permit has not been installed within three months after the date of
issuance of said permit, the permit shall become null and void.
B. Fees. Fees shall be set by the Council by resolution.
C. Sign Identification Tag. For any sign for which a permit is required under the provisions
of this Section, the permittee shall acquire from the City a tag which shall be
conspicuously attached to the lower left front surface of the sign. Such tag shall indicate
the number of the sign permit and the date of issuance. Permits and tags must be
acquired, and application fees paid for all non-exempt signs existing at the time of
adoption of this Section.
D. Exemptions: The exemptions permitted by this Subdivision shall apply only to the
requirement of a permit,and shall not be construed as excusing the installer of the sign,
or the owner of the property upon which the sign is located, from conforming with the
22
I�y�
other provisions of this Section. No permit is required under this Subdivision for the
following signs:
1. A window sign placed within a building and not exceeding 10%of the window
area.
2. Signs erected by a governmental unit or public school district, or non-profit
organization.
3. Temporary signs as listed in Subdivision 3,Subparagraph H,I,J,K,and Y.Area
Identification Signs and Neighborhood Markets.
4. Memorial signs or tablets containing the name of the building,its use and date of
erection when cut or built into the walls of the building and constructed of bronze,
stone,or marble.
5. Signs which are completely within a building and are not visible from the outside
of the building.
Source: Ordinance 261
Effective Date: 10-25-74
E. Violations and Fines. If the Chief Building Official or a deputy shall find any sign
regulated by this Section is prohibited as to size,location,content,type,number,height
or method of construction, or is unsafe, insecure,or a menace to the public,or if any
sign (for which a permit is required)has been constructed or erected without a permit
(having)first(been)granted to the installer of said sign,or to the owner of the property
upon which said sign has been erected,or is improperly maintained,or is in violation of
any other provisions of this Section,he shall give written notice of such violation to the
owner(of such property)or(the)permittee. If the permittee or owner(of such property)
fails to remove or alter the sign so as to comply with the provisions set forth in this
Section within (3)days following receipt of said notice.
Source:Ordinance 185-84
Effective Date: 9-19-84
1. Such sign shall be deemed to be a nuisance, and may be abated by the City by
proceedings taken under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and the cost of
abatement, including administration expenses, may be levied as a special
assessment against the property upon which the sign is located;and/or,
2. It is unlawful for any permittee or owner to violate the provisions of this Section.
Each period of(3)days within which the sign is not removed or altered shall be
deemed to constitute another violation of this Section. No additional licenses shall
23
1�50
be granted to anyone in violation of the terms of this Section, or to anyone
responsible for the continuance of the violation, until such violation is either
corrected or satisfactory arrangements, in the opinion of the Chief Building
Inspector,have been made towards the correction of said violation. The Inspector
may also withhold building permits for any construction related to a sign
maintained in violation of this Section. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Annotated
160.27, the Chief Building Official, or his deputy, shall have the power to
remove and destroy signs placed on street right-of-way with no such notice of
violation required.
Source: Ordinance I05-84
Effective Date: 9-19-84
3. Appeals and Variances. A permit applicant or permit holder may appeal any
order or determination made by the Chief Building Official or a deputy pursuant
to this section or a permit applicant or permit holder may request a variance from
the literal terms of this variance with the City Clerk-Treasurer requesting a
hearing before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. The Board shall hear and
decide appeals and applications for variances in the following cases:
(a) Appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order,
requirement,decision or determination made by the administrative officer
in the enforcement of this Section.
(b) Requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Section shall be
granted only in instances where their strict enforcement would cause
unique hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property
or proposal under consideration.
Source: Ordinance 78-13
Effective Date: 5-26-78
4. With respect to campaign signs, as defined in Subd. 3.H. herein, the written
notice of violation required by Subd. 5.E, herein may be given to the person or
committee who prepares,disseminates,issues,posts,installs or owns the sign,or
the persons or committee who causes the preparation, dissemination, issuance,
posting or installation of the sign, or the owner or occupant of the premises on
which such sign is displayed. If such person,committee,owner or occupant fails
to remove or alter the sign so as to comply with the provision set forth in this
Section within 3 days following receipt of-said notice,then such failure is deemed
unlawful and such persons,committee,owner,or occupant shall be subject to the
same liabilities and penalties as are permittees and owners under Subd. S.E. 1.
and 2.
24
►uS l
Source: Ordinance 105-85
Effective Date: 9-19-84
Subd.6. Non-Conforming Signs
A. Any non-conforming temporary or portable sign existing on the effective date of this
Section shall be made to comply with the requirements set forth herein, or shall be
removed within 60 days after the effective date of this Section.
B. A lawful sign on the effective date of this Section or of amendments thereto that does not
conform to these provisions shall be regarded as a non-conforming sign. Except for
directional signs for churches, schools, or publicly owned land or buildings, non-
conforming use of which is governed by Section 11.70,Subdivision 4,Subparagraph 1,
Item 5,such signs may be continued in use when properly and safely maintained for a
period of six years from the date of enactment of this Section or from the date of any
amendments thereto which cause a sign to become non-conforming. At the end of the
six years they shall be made to conform with the provisions of this Section or they shall
be removed by the owner.
25
1�S2
Jamestown Villas
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 91-129
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JAMESTOWN VILLAS
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT
TO THE OVERALL JAMESTOWN PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the
Planned Unit Development(PUD)of certain areas located within the City;and,
WHEREAS,the Jamestown Villas development is considered a proper amendment to the
overall Jamestown Planned Unit Development Concept;and,
WHEREAS,the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the request
of The Rottlund Company,Inc. for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Jamestown
Planned Unit Development Concept for the Jamestown Villas development and recommended
approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City Council;and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on July 16, 1991;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota,as follows:
1. The Jamestown Villas development PUD Concept Amendment, being in
Hennepin County, Minnesota,and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A,is
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment approval to the
overall Jamestown Planned Unit Development Concept as outlined in the
application materials for the Rottlund Company, Inc..
3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the Planning
Commission dated June 24, 1991.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 16th day of July, 1991.
Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
N3
Jamestown Villas
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MiINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 91-129
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF JAMESTOWN VILLAS
FOR THE ROTTLUND COMPANY,INC.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Jamestown Villas for Rottlund Company,Inc.dated July 10,1991,
consisting of 8.5 acres,a copy of which is on file at the City Hall,is found to be in conformance
with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances,and amendments thereto,
and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 16th day of July, 1991.
Douglas B. Tenpas,Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
��su
C.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Planner
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger,Director of Planning
DATE: June 21, 1991
SUBJECT: Jamestown Villas
LOCATION: South of Highway 5, North of George Moran Drive
APPLICANT: The Rottlund Company
FEE OWNER: Tandem Properties
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit �.
Development•� r ' .
Concept
Amendment
-GEN ,
on 60.8 acres. j -<tN
VC
2. Planned Unit,,.,. . RI'22
Development
District' LIS
Review on 8.6 E--PROPOSED SITE t
acres with
waivers.
3. Z o n i n g
Ri-13.5' 873
District '
Amendment Ryas' ---
within the
R M - 6 . 5 _
Z o n i n g Rt•ias'
District on 8.6
acres. I
i
4. Site Plan j\
Review on 8.6
acres. -
AREA LOCATION MAP
iuSS _
C �
Jamestown Villas Staff Report
June 21, 1991
5. Preliminary Plat of 8.6 acres into 12 lots for construction of 96
townhouse units.
BACKGROUND
This site is part of the Jamestown PUD which was reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council in 1990. The original Jamestown PUD approval included a 5.6
acre Neighborhood Commercial development, a 12.2 acre multiple family development and a
37.65 acre single family residential development.
This property is currently guided Medium Density Residential and zoned RM-6.5 which was
zoned as part of the original approval for 88 units. This approval included a combination of 15,
four and eight unit buildings. The current proposal is to construct a total of 96 units within nine
buildings on an 8.6 acre site. The construction of multiple family residences in this location is
consistent with the overall PUD for the project(see Attachment A).
SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT
The site plan depicts a total of 96 units on 8.6 acres at a density of 11.16 units per acre. The
previously approved PUD depicted 88 units at a density of 10.23 units per acre. The RM-6.5
zoning district allows a density of up to 6.7 units per acre. A PUD waiver was granted with the
original approval to allow a higher density in the RM-6.5 zoning district. A PUD waiver is
required for this project to allow an increase in density up to 11.16 units per acre.
The current proposal depicts 96 units within three, 8-unit buildings,and six, 12-unit buildings.
The buildings maintain minimum setbacks of 38 feet along Frontage Road"A"and Highway 5,
and 25 feet along the east and west property lines. Building setbacks include a minimum of 50
feet along the east property line and a minimum of 60 feet along the west property line. There
is approximately 65 feet between the buildings. These setbacks are consistent with the originally
approved plan. All the buildings meet the minimum setbacks requirements of the RM-6.5
Zoning District.
In the RM-6.5 Zoning District, two parking spaces per unit with one enclosed are required.
Based on 96 units, 192 parking spaces are required. The buildings are designed so that the end
units have double car garages,while the interior units have single car garages for a total of 132
interior parking spaces. In multiple family zoning districts where there is enough room for
parking behind the garages,the City has given credit for 25%of the exterior spaces for driveway
2
/ 6
C C
Jamestown Villas Staff Report
June 21, 1991
parking. With the 25% credit, a total of 45 exterior parking spaces are required and depicted
on the site plan.
Access to the project will be provided from Dell Road and Frontage Road"A"by a private loop
road system that runs through the interior of the project. The loop road is 28 feet in width and
designed to meet City standards. Homeowners association documents are required to insure the
maintenance of the private street.
GRADING
Elevations on this site range from a high point of 942 in the northwest corner of the site to a low
point of 914 along the south property line. To allow for the construction of building pads at
elevations ranging from 918 to 926.5,the entire project site will be graded. Maximum cut and
fill quantities for the project include a 20 foot cut in the northwest comer of the site to a
maximum fill of approximately 4 feet along the south property line.
A series of berms are proposed along Frontage Road"A";however,due to the buildings finished
floor elevations, the berms will not provide any type of buffer. Because of this,the transition
to the single family homes to the east and south must rely exclusively on landscaping.
UTILITIES
Utilities are available to this site by connections made to the existing utilities within Frontage
Road "A". An 8" sanitary sewer and a 6" water line will be looped through the project to
service the proposed buildings.
A catch basin system is proposed within the private loop street with the outfall to the existing
storm sewer pipe within Frontage Road "A". Detailed utility and storm water runoff plans and
calculations must be submitted for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District.
LANDSCAPING/TREE REPLACEMENT
Based on a building square footage of 138,684 square feet,433 caliper inches of plant materials
is required. In addition,the tree replacement requirement for this portion of the Jamestown PUD
is 185 caliper inches for a total of 618 caliper inches.
The proposed landscape plan depicts 163,21h caliper inch shade trees and 71,214 caliper inch
ornamental trees. Technically, City code does not grant landscape credit for ornamental trees;
3
� iJ /
c c
Jamestown Villas Staff Report
June 21, 1991
however, the City has given credit in the past for up to 5% of the total. For this project, 30
caliper inches of ornamental trees have been given credit.
Because all of the trees for this project have been planted at 21h caliper inches, the landscape
plan does not meet City Code in regard to tree sizes. For two story structures, City Code
requires that the trees be 60%21h caliper inch in size and 10%of the remaining trees up to 41k
caliper inches. The landscape plan must be revised to reflect the appropriate tree numbers and
sizes.The landscape plan also depicts trees within the Highway 5 right-of-way. These trees shall
be relocated on the project site.
Because the site plan relies on landscaping for transition purposes,additional large caliper inch
deciduous and coniferous trees above the code requirement are necessary along the east and south
property lines(see Attachment B). These trees shall range in size from 4 to 6 caliper inches for
deciduous and from 10 to 12 in height for conifers.
ARCHITECTURE
The proponent has submitted architectural plans for review which depict two building types,an
8 and 12-unit condominium building. The 8-unit building measures approximately 120 feet in
length and is 65 feet wide,while the 12-unit building measures approximately 170 feet in length.
Both the 8 and 12-unit buildings will be the same architectural design which includes a
combination of single and double car garages with pitched and gabled roofs. The maximum
building height proposed is approximately 33 feet. Primary building materials include lap siding
and face brick. Building material colors and samples shall be submitted prior to the Council
review. In order to add variety to the buildings, the developer should submit alternative color
schemes.
The Jamestown PUD developer's agreement required that three different architectural elevations,
materials,colors and locations of materials on the structures be submitted. The Commission may
wish to consider whether a single building elevation is acceptable for this project.
PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
A 5' concrete sidewalk will be constructed along the north side of Frontage Road"A". No
internal pedestrian system is being provided.
4
IYSB
C C
Jamestown Villas Staff Report
t
June 21, 1991
SIGNAGElL1GHTING
Site lighting is limited to individual garage and porch lights.
The project is proposing two entrance signs located at the access drives of 96 square feet each.
City code in the RM-6.5 district allows a maximum sign size of 24 square feet and a maximum
height of 6 feet. A 96 square foot temporary sales sign is also proposed. City code allows a
maximum sign size of 32 square feet. Signage plans shall be revised to reflect City code.
CONCLUSION
One of the reasons the City approved the original Jamestown Guide Plan change from Low
Density Residential was the effectiveness of the site plan in providing a transition to the single
family areas to the east and south. The approved site plan relied on setbacks,berming,building
size,building orientation and landscaping to create transition.
The current proposal,though increasing the density by eight units,maintains equal to or greater
setbacks,similar berm heights and building orientation. The 12-unit buildings are similar in size
to the approved 8-unit buildings;however,there is less green space between the buildings,and
more parking is visible to the future single family areas to the south. The 8 and 12-unit
buildings proposed on the east end facing the future single family homes of the Shores of
Mitchell Lake project are larger than the approved 4 and 8-unit buildings. To make the
transition work as well as the approved plan,additional and larger landscaping is required where
shown on attachment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
If the Planning Commission feels that the project with an increased density is acceptable,staff
recommend approval of Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 60.8 acres;Planned
Unit Development District Review on 8.6 acres with waivers;Zoning District Amendment within
the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 8.6 acres;Site Plan Review on 8.6 acres; and Preliminary Plat
of 8.6 acres into 12 lots for construction of 96 townhouse units,based on revised plans dated
June 7, 1991,subject to the recommendations in the staff report dated June 21, 1991,and subject
to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, the proponent shall:
5
C �
Jamestown Villas Staff Report
June 21, 1991
A. Revise the landscape plan to reflect City code requirement for plant sites and
caliper inches. Additional large caliper inch plant materials shall be planted along
the east and south property lines for screening and transition purposes where
shown on Attachment B.
B. Submit an irrigation plan.
C. Revise the sign program to reflect the code requirement of 24 square feet for the
entrance monument signs and 32 square feet for the temporary sales sign.
D. Submit exterior building materials and color samples for review. Alternative
colors shall be used to add variety to the project.
E. Submit two new architectural elevations as required per the previous developer's
agreement.
2. Prior to final plat approval,the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for review by the
Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review
by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading.
Stake all grading alignments with a snow fence.
B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing.
4. Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall pay the appropriate cash park fee.
5. Submit Homeowners Association documents for review.
6
�uw
i ��_;: 1'I it _� r_.__ � � � ���) i�� •-• � ��
c ( I I I I I I I I I]�
i -
�
I -
x
1 1 II
r '
P
' J T
N
- I'• f - v ° r T Q
ti I� :n• - S �Z
a (� e $ i• s m�
rA O
y S n
_ a F � R
T 8 UNIT MANOR MOMS 9 F Y Z
Z 10, N I- ~ L'.'
a y
1
v d02 1 g to
R I�, F
a
r a
T
ATTACHMEN
\ >i�OREB OF MITCHELL LAKEI LAND.PINO
=Arm s � � ..� � ■ ■ �;�'- '�3 � .�
l #A%A I � `yi� lit .
td3 � •`a - _
NQ
'AGE ' • /,' ai1�e �^ � .i.
,A� �• � � .1_rim__, ��� ��� \i-,� �.
•
aa►N�or, �4innesota Department of Transportt'°on
Metropolitan District
Transportation Building
St. Paul,Minnesota 55155
OF To Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North,Oakdale, Minnesota 55128
Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Reply to
Telephone No. �93-8753
July 1, 1991
Mr.Chris Enger
Director of Planning
City of Eden Prairie
7000 Executive Dr.
Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344
In Reply Refer to:TH 5
C.S.2701
Jamestown Villas
East of 184th Ave.
Eden Prairie
Dear Mr.Enger:
We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find this plat acceptable for further
development with consideration of the following comments:
- The segment of TH 5 adjacent proposed development is currently under construction
and is scheduled to be finished by the summer of 1992.Please note that no work will
be allowed on the R/W as is indicated by the developers contours. It is
recommended the developer coordinate this local action with the Mn/DOT project
engineer.
There is access control along the R/W in this area and the developer should be
aware that there is a temporary easement that exists until 12-I-95 for the TH 5
construction project.This easement affects parcels 3-7 of this development.
It is recommended this local action be reviewed by the Corp of Engineers and Riley-
Purgatory Creek Watershed District.
� C�nrkrry�i
MINNFSOfA
N2 An Equal Opportunity Employer
Carpenter North PUD
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,bIINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.91-113
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive
Municipal Plan("Plan");and,
WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and
comment;and
WHEREAS, the proposal of Donald G. Brauer for Carpenter North PUD requires the
amendment of the Plan;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie,Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: 4.5 acres north of
the intersection of Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th of July, 1991.
Douglas B.Tenpas,Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane,City Clerk
'�IOJ
Carpenter North PUD
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 91-114
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT OF CARPENTER NORTH PUD
FOR DONALD G. BRAUER
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the
Planned Unit Development(PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City;and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the
Carpenter North PUD Concept by Donald G.Brauer and considered the requests for approval
for development(and waivers)and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council;
and,
WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on July 16, 1991;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota,as follows:
1. Carpenter North PUD by Donald G. Brauer, being in Hennepin County,
Minnesota,legally described as outlined in Exhibit A,is attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans
(as revised)dated July 11, 1991.
3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission
dated July 8, 1991.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th of July, 1991,
ATTEST: Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
John D. Frane,City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Carl Jullie,City Manager
SUBJECT: Carpenter North Planned Unit Development and Comprehensive Guide Plan
Change
DATE: July 12, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
At the July 8 meeting,the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to approve the Carpenter North PUD
according to the staff alternative plan which limits densities to provide transition to the residential
antes to the north,and limits phase one grading to achieve the 35%tree loss. The plans in your
packet have been revised according to the Planning Commission's recommendations.
! BACKGROUND
The first proposal presented to the Planning Commission on May 28, 1991 contained 161
housing units and 139,200 square feet of commercial use. Tree loss was 64%. A guide plan
change was requested from Medium to High Density Residential and Medium Density to
Commercial. Based upon input from two neighborhood meetings and two Planning Commission
meetings, the plans were revised to reflect the current proposal. The current proposal has 117
housing units and 104,000 commercial square feet. Tree loss is 35%. The request to change
the Guide Plan to High Density is withdrawn,and the commercial Guide Plan change is reduced
in size from 6.1 to 4.5 acres.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning staff recommends approval subject to recommendations in the July 5 staff report.
1 1 G�
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resourcea-Okci
DATE: July 109 1991
SUBJECT: Supplementary Staff Report to the July 5th Planning Staff Report on the Carpenter
North PUD
The Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Staff recommend approval of the Carpenter North
PUD subject to the July 5th Planning Staff recommendations with the following addition:
1. The PUD plan should also provide for a 20'wide trail easement from the end of the cul-
de-sac northwest to Willow Park.
Upon development of the public road, the developer will be required to construct a sidewalk
along the east side of the public road from Valley View Road northwest to Willow Park, at
which point the City will construct the sidewalk through Willow Park to the sidewalk along the
west side of Butterscotch Road. The developer will also be required to construct a sidewalk
along the north side of Valley View Road the entire length of his property.
BL:mdd
pud/bob
c �
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
TRROUGII: Chris Enger,Director of Planning
DATE: July 5, 1991
SUBJECT: Carpenter North PUD
LOCATION: Northeast Quadrant of the Intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Valley
View Road
APPLICANT: Donald G.Brauer
FEE OWNER: Walter S. Carpenter
REQUEST: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change on approximately 4.5 acres from
Medium Density Residential to Regional Commercial.
BACKGROUNDCT
This project was first reviewed by the Y
Planning Commission on May 28, 1991.
The Planning Commission voted to continue ` _
the item to allow the developer time to hold
a neighborhood meeting and to address the ,
following concerns identified by the PUB
neighborhood and the Planning Commission:
1. Changing the Guide Plan from PROPOSED
Medium Density Residential to High SITE
Density Residential. C-REG:
Wa.5
2. Changing the Comprehensive Guide
Plan from Medium Density G
-RE -SER,, �
Residential to Commercial. ` r
1 1 C-R�G- i
3. Not enough time for residents to
understand the proposal.
C-RE +
4. Speculative grading.
5. Negative impact of tree loss.
�u�� AREA LOCATION MAP
C C
6. Not enough buffering to the adjoining neighborhoods.
7. Gas station along Valley View Road.
The developer held two neighborhood meetings, one on June 18 and one on June 24.
REVISED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The Carpenter North proposal has been revised in the following ways:
1. Withdrawn Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Medium Density to High Density
Residential.
2. Reduced the amount of Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Medium Density
Residential to Commercial from 6.1 acres to 4.5 acres.
3. Withdrawn PUD concept approval for a specific plan for housing type, commercial
buildings and a gas station.
4. The number of potential housing units has been reduced from 161 to 117(10 units per
acre).
5. The amount of commercial square footage possible according to the Guide Plan has been
reduced from 139,200 to 104,000.
The similarities to the first proposal are as follows:
1. Grading is proposed on the hill to provide a pad for future development. The hill would
be reduced in height approximately 36 feet.
2. Tree loss is 64%.
The changes in the plan from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential provides
a better transition to the residential areas to the north. Since the PUD concept request has been
withdrawn, it is not possible to allocate densities in a manner suggested on the revised site plan.
Retaining the PUD concept request would allow the city to provide assurances to the
neighborhood that any future development would be limited to the densities in the location as
shown on the revised plan.
GRADING AND TREE LOSS
The grading plan is revised as follows:
1. Grading in the northwest and northeast corners of the site has been eliminated as part of
phase one. Grading within these areas would occur when specific plans are available in
Iggo
C �
the future.
2. More of the existing natural vegetation on the property is retained as a natural buffer to
provide transition to the residential areas to the north.
3. The majority of the existing conifers(planted by the owner)would not be removed with
phase one grading.
The grading plan is similar in the following ways:
1. 36'of cut is proposed off the hill.
2. Fill must be imported for the low areas adjacent to Valley View Road.
3. 64%of the significant oak trees would be lost due to phase one grading.
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
It is possible to provide a better transition to the residential areas to the north and reduce tree
loss with phase one grading. An alternative development for the property is recommended by
City staff as follows:
1. Recommend that the PUD concept plan request be retained by the developer. This would
allow the city to allocate densities along the northern portion of the property to provide
a better transition to the residential areas to the north (See Attachment A).
2. Limit phase one grading to reduce tree loss to 35%. This is the average for development
in the city. (See Attachment B.
A PUD concept approval on the property can provide assurances to the City and to the
neighborhood that the site in the future can he developed in a way that provides a transition to
the areas to the north. The altemative development plan as depicted on Attachment A shows 20
units at 4.4 units per acre in the northwest corner of the property. (This would be comparable
to townhouse densities.) The northeast corner of the site would be designated for 17 housing
units at a density of 7.4 units per acre. (This would be comparable to the manor home
development on Valley View Road.) The north central portion of the project on the hill would
be for 80 units. By benching a lower pad area in the hill,it would be possible to construct a
building which would not be visible from the residential areas to the north. (See Attachment Q
Tree loss can be reduced from 64% to 35%. It is physically possible to accommodate 80 units
on the hill and limit tree loss to 35% if the site is developed according to Attachment C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan change based
on the following conditions:
lye i
1. Prior to review by the City Council, the proponent shall:
A. Retain and revise the PUD concept as shown on Attachment A.
B. Revise the grading plan to limit phase one grading as shown on Attachment B.
C. Tree loss is 35%;tree replacement would be 199". The tree replacement plan and
bonding amount will be a requirement of any future zoning or subdivision of the
property. Attachment D indicates where tree replacement should be located to
buffer residential areas to the north.
D. Any grading subsequent to phase one will require further review of the Planning
Commission and City Council.
E. PUD concept approval is granted for a maximum of 117 units and 104,000 square
feet of commercial. The amount and type of housing units and the amount and
square footage commercial uses shall be based on a specific site plan submitted
with future rezoning and subdivision requests predicated upon providing a
transition to the residential areas to the north. Transition shall include future
buildings to be residential in character designed to reduce building mass with
varying roof lines and building jogs. Heavy landscaping and berming shall be
required to offset the building mass and to minimize visibility of commercial and
housing to the residential areas to the north. Preserve large areas of natural
vegetation. No access to Stewart Drive shall be permitted.
F. Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the property,the grading area shall be
staked with a snow fence. All disturbed areas shall be restored and seeded.
G. The filling of any wetland areas along Valley View Road shall require approval
by the Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and the
Purgatory Creek Watershed District.
i' cr
pz
PO E CO
O03
.o
, A
_ IN � � �, ., • 1,:
1U�3
In
-v+v_y
a �
� _. Q
tt —err
LNLj a:
LU
u vj<
41
—aLij i
t
- .-. ................ _.�--_ _--
I ,,cif__ ..--.:.—.:-----•---. ..--�T—
iu�u
\ i
0
ov
i
ba
If
•\ rn N �. /4 N I
\ _ro
�\ n! o NY.Am 9
y- 0 -y
\ \ NI II
\ �\� •N_ N ——————— —
,� HIS
C C
mm ta,
N
i• D i� fit
�t D DT \ ��
(A � ,',•/ter �.� —
V NO
ji
1
f
rt
_ � ��� 77 : . .
ADDITIONAL
Supportir.g Docurnentatior,
For The REVISED
Applicatior, Of Walter S. Carpenter: "Carpenter North Site,,
for approval of:
A. Guide PIar, BOUNDARY Charge; and,
Br Pus, Eoncept; and,—
C. phase I Grad i r,g Play..
Docurner,tatior, Submitted June 28, 1991
SITE
7.
Prcpm=by:
he Brauer Croup,lac. Clues,O'Brien,Strother Krueger do A1sociams
Owner's Represenuuve Arc!uu:= Surveyors/Fagineers
Donald C.Brauer.P.E. Brian Curs,AIA Ron Knugcr.RLS
Phone: 720-•4888 Phone: 94 I-•t8= Phone: 931-.:212
FAX: 922-3966 FAX: 941-5492 F.iX: 934-6642
I r,�
Carpenter Noe-th PUD.....,Supporting Document 6r' S:'91.... ...Page 2.
SECOND. Approval of ar, INTERIM SITE GRADING PLAN so that the owner
can begin the long pr-ocess Of cOrrecting bad subsoils jr, the
law (commercial) sites, utilize the fill available from the
top of the hill and clearly delineate the developable part
of the hill for prospective buyers, and be ready to take
advantage Of surplus soils from Other projects that will be
necessary to complete the filIir,g of the low areas.
I'n order to prc•perly evaluate either proposal, a "conceptual
developraer,t plan" was prepared. There roust be a "plausible" basis
for the definition Of grades, access, preservation areas,
relationships of uses, and so forth. Both owner, and City Staff felt
that the PUD process would be the most appropriate approach. The
PUD process provides adequate documentation, arid a basis upon which
the final, approved "concept plan" could be recorded or formalized
if, the public record.
From-the reactions Of the Plan Commission and the neighbors, it is
clear that the usual PUD CONCEPT FLAN approach and action will r,Ot
be acceptable. The owner's ir,vestraer,t in extensive PUD plan
doc'"ner,tatior, has Met the requirements Of the City process to
demonstrate a "plausible plan" basis for grading plan evaillati0'r,.
The process and docurne'ntatiOr, has also provided the neighbors with
a clear picture of development constraints and future options as
well as the intrerim, land alterations proposed. But the request
to have the "plausible plan" approved as a PUD CONCEPT is
unacceptaable and roust be withdrawn.
The following table shows a cornparisor, of the proposal presented
t0 the Plan Cornrnissior, or, May 2Sth, and the revised proposal, with
all Of the previous guide plar, designations as wells
PLAN INTERNAL REGIONAL MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
DESCRIPTION STREETS COMMERCIAL MEDIUM DENSITY
area area bldgs area units density,
ac ac 1000sf ac no u/ac
--- -----
1968 GUIDE PLAN 0.0 2 ^�0, 1 ^ 7.0 1217-y--
1982 GUIDE PLAN 0.0 is.,.) ^ 9. 1 1-18 17.4
"MCA PLAN" 6.0 27. 1 ^ 0.'i 0
1990 GUIDE PLAN 0,
0 1 Q.6 C 94 16.S 16r
-----------------------------------^-
CARPENTER 0,9 16.9 C 105 9.3 161
17.4
MAY 2Sth PLAN
----------_.------
REV I SED 0.9 15.4 C 104 4,5 ?O
CARPENTER 4.4
O 0 4.9 SO 16.3
JULY Sth PLAN 2.3 17
.4
----------------------------------------------------------------
. C C
• I
1 I 1
2.3 ACRES
4.4 ACRES I RM
4.9 ACRES
I RM ; RM ( I
I �
10.8 ACRES i
w! RC
I 3.8 ACRES I U I ��
RC
ZONING DISTRICTS
ALL LAND NOT 0TN!TWISE DtSIGNATED IN TNt JOLLDWING ZONING DISTAIC-3 SNAIL St DESIGNATED AURAL YAC Y•AYa11O)3=
N,-•• On•Jt�t11+A•tlp•nlNl-••,000 A.IT,Tr rN N•COY N•rtnp n•tA CANN•Krtl
A,-!! Dn•s r A•t•p•nua!- 13.000 •a.IL N r C-COY C•rnN r17 COInT•I[I•I 1-414 G•ptr•1 Inpwlr�Y
4I-+3,1 Ont:-Ill A•t+p•YNI- 13.S.0 •O.1I C-Nw♦ Nrtn� N . OJC OIIIc•
A!-•.1 Dnt:• N A•t rA•nu•1- 3.100 •A.It.illnrnrure C-AtD Attrp TI CANNtKNI •US JUONe
AY-[,! urll-J•TII�A�t K•n1IA1- e.7 U/p1A T C-AEG-3[A A•tKn•1 St[+�ct CONNtrcl•1 •UA uA1K......l
AY-1.1.Y +Awtrernlnl-r).• U111A n i-1 InANtIKtI lAr• „c•n'•1 TI
MWh-FamM+7rs10emu1•10•a0 U/P/A ma:Arnmr I-e ,n.,,•uw aan
�L'te-s EXHI8IT TITLE EXHIBIT NO.
I c�r�'1 PROPOSED
GUIDE PLAN E
i r (=21T�C
r="`p""".MN=" ICHANGE REVISED 6/25/91
��y
� r
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen,Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: May 23, 1991
SUBJECT: Carpenter North PUD
LOCATION: Northeast quadrant of the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Valley
View Road
APPLICANT: Donald G. Brauer
FEE OWNER: Walter S. Carpenter
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change on approximately 6.2 acres
from a Medium density residential area to a Regional commercial
area.
2. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from a Medium density
residential area to a High density residential area on approximately
9.3 acres. y
3. Planned Unit
Development
Concept Review
on approximately
27 acres. '--+t
?` •� + r PUBS-
COMPREHENSIVE TIDE PLAN C 1
C G r
PROPOSED
This site is planned both Medium Density SITE
Residential land use for up to 10 units per C-RE(
acre and Regional Commercial land use. The
purpose of the Guide Plan analysis review is: f
1. Define a specific division line between 1
the land areas on the Carpenter site for 4,�;� I C-R�Ca-
Regional Commercial uses and multiple
family housing. f-
OREG-s .
I L ,
�. 1-2
» � AREA LOCATION MAP
C �
Carpenter North PUD Staff Report
May 24, 1991
2. Determine how much commercial development and housing units the site can support.
The site is guided for medium density residential land use on 16.5 acres, or a total of 165
housing units. The number of proposed housing units is at 161. The density is transferred to
a smaller area making the net density 17.4 units per acre on the 9.3 acres proposed for high
density guiding. The site is guided for approximately 10.5 acres of commercial or 91,476 square
feet at a.2 BAR. The amount of proposed commercial is 139,200 square feet which includes
33,400 square feet of office. This is an increase of 47,424 square feet of commercial(or 6 acres
of land). The amount of commercial and high density housing proposed will not affect the Guide
Plan balance for commercial and housing. The Guide Plan change is a site specific question of
how the type and intensity of land uses proposed fit in with the surrounding neighborhood and
the impact on the site's natural features.
The use of the property for multiple family housing and commercial land uses will have some
impact on surrounding uses. Medium density housing needs a transition on the northern portion
of the property. This could be accomplished with setback, grade change, and existing trees
retained as a buffer. Medium density housing on the northern portion of the property provides
a transition between the commercial areas along Valley View Road and the lower density areas
to the north.
The Comprehensive Guide Plan change will impact natural features. The site is steeply sloped
with heavy tree cover. Any development of the site will disturb the site's natural character.
Multi-story buildings with small footprints are appropriate on steep wooded slopes since less land
area would be disturbed than if the same density is proposed with more buildings. With this
proposal,the 165 units depicted on the Guide Plan are consolidated in a smaller area. 85 of the
units are located on the oak forested hill requiring 36 feet of cut and a 64% tree loss. The
commercial areas are proposed in the low level areas adjacent to Valley View Road,and some
significant trees will be lost due to proposed grading.
PLANNED UNIT DEVEIARMENT CONCEPT
The Planned Unit Development concept depicts 161 multiple family housing units in two
buildings, 99,800 square feet of commercial, 33,400 square feet of office,and a 6,000 square
foot gas station. The site plan shows building and parking areas meeting setback requirement
for the apartment buildings. Parking requirements for one enclosed per unit and one on-grade
per unit are shown on the site plan.
The proposed commercial and office areas are shown consistent with commercial zoning
regulations for a .20 Base Area Ratio maximum. The buildings proposed meet the setback
requirements for commercial zoning. Parking is provided according to City code.
C ("
Carpenter North PUD Staff Report
May 24, 1991
ACCESS
Prairie Center Drive was initially contemplated to connect Valley View Road and Roberts Drive.
There are signs on the property which indicate future streets. The City park to the northwest is
designed to allow the road to be extended. After reviewing access in the area,connecting Prairie
Center Drive to Roberts Drive along Butterscotch Drive would provide a shortcut through a
residential area. Butterscotch Drive has homes with direct driveway access. While making this
road connection would improve emergency vehicle access to the area to the north,Butterscotch
Drive is a local residential street. Due to the differences in land use and increased traffic on a
residential street, it is not recommended that the street connection be made. A public street is
necessary to serve the commercial development and multiple family housing units on this site.
This is shown on the PUD plan.
GRADING
An overall grading plan for the property has been submitted. The grading plan in general depicts
the location of the proposed cut and fill(See Attachment A). The grading plan consists of a first
phase area and the final grading area. Only Phase I grading area is requested for approval at this
time.
The overall grading plan proposed is not the plan the developer will build. It is a general
indication of how the site might be final graded if the property is developed for multiple family
and commercial land use as proposed by the PUD concept.
The grading plan indicates the following:
1. 36'of cut is proposed off the top of the hill. This cut area is used to fill the low areas
for the gas station and small retail building sites.
2. Fill must be imported for the other commercial and office sites.
3. 64%of the significant trees(mostly 20-30")would be lost with phase one grading.
4. The overall grading plan removes the majority of the existing conifers (planted by
owner).
5. The overall grading plan removes natural vegetation which could be used as a buffer to
transition to the lower density residential areas to the north.
C �
Carpenter North PUD Staff Report
May 24, 1991
TREE LOSS
The tree inventory indicates a total of 1359 inches of significant trees which are mostly oak trees
between 20-30" in diameter located on the hill on the property. A total of 872 inches of trees
would be lost due to construction as part of grading for phase one,or 64%of the total significant
trees. Of the 872" of trees lost due to construction,75%of these trees are located where the
east apartment building is shown on the site plan.
In order to provide a pad area for the east apartment building and the required on-grade parking,
36'of cut is proposed off the top of the hill. In order to save the majority of significant trees
on the top of the hill,no grading should occur. This would require that the developer obtain all
fill from off-site.
TRAILS
An easement for a sidewalk connection from the cul-de-sac to the City park should be provided
in a location to be determined by the Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources.
CONCLUSION
The PUD Concept plan and proposed general grading allows the City to evaluate the impact of
the development on the site's natural features. Because of this steeply sloped forested nature of
the property, any development of the property would result in an alteration of the hilt and loss
of significant trees. Since the concept plan represents one way of developing the site.and is not
the final plan that the developer intends to build, the amount of site alteration and tree loss
should be kept to a minimum until detailed plans are available with a rezoning request. It should
be determined if the type and intensity of housing and commercial land uses proposed retain
enough of the site's natural character to be considered a reasonable development of the property.
Although the hill is cut 36'and tree loss is 64%,the grading plan preserves the slope of the hill
and leaves undisturbed tree areas around the base.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the Guide Plan change and PUD based on the
following conditions:
A. Approval of the grading plan is limited to the phase one areas of cut and fill as shown
as shown on Attachment A.
c �
Carpenter North PUD Staff Report
May 24, 1991
B. Tree loss on the property is 64%, and tree replacement would be 744". A tree
replacement plan and bonding amount will be a requirement of any future zoning or
subdivision of the property.
C. Any grading subsequent to phase one will require further review by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
D. PUD Concept approval is granted for 161 multiple dwelling units,a 6000 square foot gas
station,99,800 square feet of commercial,and 33,400 square feet of office.
E. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit,the grading limit area shall be staked with a
snow fence. All disturbed areas shall be restored and seeded.
F. The filling of the wetland areas will require approval by the Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and the Purgatory Creek Watershed District.
G. Phase II grading should retain a natural buffer along the north property line.
,a
d
`O
r.
lit
t
It-
IL
& P �
('innesote Department of Transpo(''on
Metropolitan District
Transportation Building
St.Paul,Minnesota 55155
of TP Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128
Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
May 3, 1991 Reply to
Telephone No. _ 593-8753
Mr.Chris Enger
Director of Planning
City of Eden Prairie
7000 Executive Dr.
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
In Reply Refer to:TH 5
Carpenter North Site
Valley View Rd/Prairie Center Dr.
Eden Prairie
Dear Mr.Enger:
We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find the plat acceptable for further
development with consideration of the following comments:
- Although this development is not adjacent to any Mn/DOT highway,the effects of
the additional volumes it my generate could be significant to the TH 5/212 and I-494
corridors. We recommend coordinating this local action with the county, city and
Mn/DOT during development.
- This project could impact downstream drainage on the Th 212 project. We
recommend coordinating with the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District to
review these possible impacts.
If you have any questions in regard to our review of the plat please call me at 593-8753.
Sincerely,
Tim Henkel
Transportation Planner
cc: Steve Keefe,Metropolitan Council
Les Weigelt,Hennepin County DOT
Mike Reiter,Hennepin County Surveyor
1 \
MIMNIS(IfA
7990
An Equal Opportunity Employer
- ( C
City of Eden Prairie
City'"ces
760t,_.cecutive Drive • Eden Prairie,MN 55344-3677• Telephone(612)937-2262
May 1, 1991
Mr. Walter S. Carpenter
4724 Emerson Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55409
RE: Carpenter North PUD
Dear Mr. Carpenter:
We wish to apologize if our letter of April 22, 1991 caused you any concern
about the Eden Prairie's planning staff's commitment to assist you on plans for
preparation of your property for development. We want to assure you that we
will assist you with the City review process and support your efforts for
development of the property. After talking with you and Don Brauer further
about the proposed request, we clearly understand that the concept plan was
submitted only to illustrate how the site might be developed to help us evaluate
the proposed grading plan.
Developing the property consistent with the Guide Plan as you propose lessens the
impacts on roads and natural features.on the property due to a less intense site
plan. This will allow for transition to the adjoining properties and preservation
of prominent features such as the hill and trees which can be a feature in your
final design.
The staff report to the Planning Commission will clarify the Comprehensive Guide
Plan, evaluate the proposed grading plan,and identify site planning concepts to
be explored further when actual projects are proposed for the property.
If you need more time to revise the concept plan,this project could be continued
until the May 28 Planning Commission meeting. Thank you for taking time to
help us clearly understand the development request. We will continue to work
, C C
Mr.Walter S. Carpenter
May 1, 1991 Page Two
with you to assure the review of the project moves forward in a timely manner.
Piease let me know as soon as possible which Planning Commission meeting you
wish to proceed to.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Franzen
Senior Planner
MDF:ctk
cc: Carl Jullie,City Manager
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Don Brauer, 6116 Parnell Avenue, Edina, MN 55424
I��
C �
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
320 Washington Avenue South
HENNEPIN Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
PHONE: (642)930-2500
LFUFAX (612)930-2543
TDD: (612)930-2696
April 24, 1991
Chris Enger
Planning Director
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Enger:
RE: Proposed Plat -Carpenter North PUD
CSAH 39, north side at Prairie Center Drive
Section 1D, Township 116, Range 22
Hennepin County Plat No. 1920
Review and Recommendations
Minnesota Statutes 5D5.02 and 505.03. Plats and Surveys, require County review of
proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and have the
following comments:
- The Department of Public Works is very concerned with the proposed drainage
shown on the proposed plat. From the limited information provided, it appears
there is potential for considerable adverse impact to CSAH 39 during periods of
heavy run-off. The proposed storm water storage does not appear adequate for
the amount of proposed development on the site. The developer and City should
contact our Hydraulics Engineer, Jim Ault, P.E. at 930-2536 in order to develop
an acceptable drainage plan.
The existing right of way is adequate. At this time Hennepin County does not
require additional right of way along CSAH 39.
- The proposed access located approximately 290 feet west of Prairie Center Drive
is acceptable.
Access via Prairie Center Drive is acceptable.
The proposed access located approximately 570 feet east of Prairie Center Drive
is acceptable. The developer should construct a right turn lane between this
access and Prairie Center Drive.
The proposed access located in the plat's southeast corner must be constructed
as a right turn in only.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
i
� c �
Chris Enger
April 24, 1991
Page 2
- The developer must acquire an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before
beginning any access construction to CSAH 39. Contact Dave Zetterstrom at
930-2548 for additional access information and for entrance permit forms.
- All proposed construction within County right of way requires either an approved
utility permit or entrance permit prior to beginning construction. The utility
permit includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail
development, and landscaping. Contact our Permits Office, 930-2549, for utility
permit forms.
- The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed
during plat construction.
Please direct any response or questions to Doug Mattson at 930-2675.
Sincerely,
Dennis L. Hansen, P.E.
Transportation Planning Engineer
DLH/OBM:gk
Iy�1(
City of Eden Prairie
City r"ces
760i, ...ecutive Drive • Eden Prairie,MN 55344.3677• Telephone(612)937-2262
April22, 1991
Mr. Walter S.Carpenter
4724 Emerson Avenue South
Minneapolis,MN 55409
RE: Carpenter North PUD
Dear Mr. Carpenter:
The Staff Development Review Committee met on Thursday, April 18, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. to
discuss the Carpenter North PUD. Following are comments identified at that meeting regarding
plan changes or a need for additional information. Please understand that the comments
identified at this meeting are preliminary in nature,and more detailed review of the project will
occur as part of the final Staff Report to the Planning Commission.
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE
The request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change is more than just a graphic clarification of
where housing and commercial should be located on this site. The PUD is a substantive change
for the following reasons:
1. The site is guided mostly Medium Density Residential(10 units/acre). The concept plan
identifies a High Density Zoning District for up to 40 units per acre. In addition, a
portion of the site which is guided Medium Density is proposed for a Guide Plan change
to Commercial. This occurs primarily in the southwest corner of the site.
2. There are significant site features including a hill (with a high point at elevation 936),
steep slopes between 30% to 60%,oak trees, a pine grove area and wetlands adjacent to
Valley View Road. The proposed grading plan significantly impacts all site features. 36'
of cut is proposed from the top of the hill to the low areas adjacent to Valley View Road.
72%of significant trees (mostly oak) will be removed due to the proposed grading.
Wgc•0 oaow
.J
C �
Mr. Walter S. Carpenter
April 22, 1991 Page Two
3. The impact on the single family and twinhome residential areas to the north are high.
Seven and eight story apartment buildings are proposed at the top of the slope. The
effect of taller and massive apartment buildings adjacent to lower density residential areas
is difficult to mitigate.
4. There will be significant traffic impacts based on the proposed Guide Plan change.
Traffic assignment zone#41 of the Northeast Eden Prairie Traffic Study depicts a total
of 298 housing units and 78,400 square feet of general commercial. The change in the
Comprehensive Guide Plan to 376 housing units, 104,000 square feet of commercial,
32,400 square feet of office and 6,000 square feet of gas station will increase daily traffic
by 30% and P.M.peak hour traffic by 32%.
5. The concept PUP would rely upon a number of future zoning variances. These would
include a height variance from 45' to seven and eight story apartment buildings, a 15'
side yard setback variance for the westernmost commercial building and a density
variance for the apartment units from 17.4 to 40 units per acre if the property were to
be zoned RH in the future.
6. The concept plan results in a poor visual relationship of the apartment buildings facing
the backside of the loading areas of the commercial buildings and looking down on the
mechanical equipment on the roofs.
7. It is difficult to ascertain the impact on adjoining utilities. Please provide utility plans
showing sanitary sewer,watermain and storm sewer extensions and layout. Storm sewer
design computations and drainage area maps are necessary. Storm sewer should be
designed for a ten year storm event. Please supply verification from the DNR and Army
Corps of Engineers that filling of the wetlands is permitted.
8. The natural features of this site and the adjoining land uses dictate what type and how
much development the site can support. The flat areas near Valley View Road are
conducive to commercial development and reflect a similar land use on the south side of
Valley View Road. The sloped and wooded areas are conducive to multiple story
buildings as smaller building footprints have less land coverage, and more site features
could be retained. The concept plan, as proposed, removes most of the natural site
features and does not provide a transition to the planned areas to the north.
Mr. Walter S. Carpenter
April 22, 1991 Page Three
There are several alternative development scenarios which could work on this site.
1. Comply with the Comprehensive Guide Plan for medium density housing and less
commercial and office. This would save more of the existing site features, transition
better to the residential areas to the north, and meet the traffic projections of the
Northeast Eden Prairie Traffic Study.
2. Develop an alternative plan for all medium density housing not to exceed 10 units per
acre.
3. Develop an alternative plan which is commercial but saves site features leaving more
open space.
At this time we are not persuaded that there are compelling reasons for recommending approval
of the Comprehensive Guide Plan change request and PUD. We would suggest that after
reviewing the recommendations as identified in this letter,that a meeting with City staff would
be appropriate to discuss alternative site plans. It would also be helpful for you to hold a
neighborhood meeting prior to scheduling of this project for a public hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Franzen
Senior Planner
MDF:ctk
cc: Donald Brauer, 6116 Parnell Avenue,Edina, MN 55424
'�y
C �
-MEAIO RAN DUM-
TO: Development Review Committee Members
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson,Engineering Technician
DATE: April 16, 1991
SUBJECT: Carpenter North PUD
ENGINEERING COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MEETING
1. Provide utility plans showing sanitary sewer,watermain,and storm sewer
extensions and layout.
2. Provide storm sewer design computations and drainage area maps. Storm
sewer should be designed for a 10-year storm event. It appears as though
storm water holding ponds are not of sufficient size and capacity.
3. Contact Hennepin County for proposed drive entrances to Valley View
Road.
1
4. Does the City want to initiate a feasibility study of the extension of future
street? If so, do we want right-of-way dedication?-Developer to grade
future road?-or even to build road to property line?
5. Retail Building 3 is within 15'of future road right-of-way.
6. Comment on Note p4•residents on Butterscotch Road have complained
of traffic, , volume and noise generated by users of the
park/ballfield. Should the park access be routed through this project?
7. Slopes north and south of east apartment building to be temporarily seeded
after Phase 1 grading.
lu�S
C C
MEN1O
r
TO: Development Review Committee Meeting
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
DATE: April 16, 1991
SUBJECT: Carpenter North PUD
The narrative states that the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change is not substantive. It is a
drafting change which would delineate more clearly where the housing and commercial
components should be on this site. After reviewing the concept in more detail, the guide plan
change is substantive for the following reasons:
1. The site is guided mostly medium density residential. The concept plan identifies a high
density housing zoning district for up to 40 units per acre. This will increase the number
of units four-fold and have an impact on the guide plan balance.
2. There are significant site features including a hill (with a high point at elevation 936),
steep slopes between(30%to 60%),oak trees,a pine grove area,and wetlands adjacent
to Valley View Road. All natural features will be removed. Thirty-six feet of cut is
proposed from the top of the hill to fill the low areas adjacent to Valley View Road.
Seventy-two percent of the significant trees(mostly oak)will be removed due to proposed
grading.
3. The impact on the adjoining residential areas to the north are high. Seven and eight story
apartment buildings are proposed at the top of the slope. Taller and massive apartment
buildings adjacent to lower density residential areas can not be mitigated.
4. The concept plan has poor visual relationships to the apartment buildings which face the
backside or loading areas of commercial buildings.
5. There will be a significant traffic impact based upon the proposed guide plan change.
Traffic assignment zone 41 depicts a total of 298 housing units and 78,400 square feet
of general commercial. The change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan to 376 housing
units, 104,000 square feet of commercial,33,400 square feet of office,and 6,000 square
feet of gas station will increase traffic by approximately 28%.
6. There are a number of zoning variances that would be necessary through the PUD.
These would include a height variance from 45 to seven and eight story apartment
buildings,a 15 foot sideyard setback variance for the western most commercial building,
and a density variance for the apartment units from 17.4 to 40 units per acre.
��v1�
Memo
Carpenter North PUD
April 16, 1991
The natural features of the property and adjoining land uses dictate to a what type and how much
development the site can support. The flat areas near Valley View Road are conducive to
commercial development and reflect the similar land use on the south side of Valley View Road.
The sloped and wooded areas are conducive to multiple story buildings as smaller building
footprints have less land coverage and more site features could be retained.
There are alternative development scenarios which would work better on this site.
1. Comply with the Comprehensive Guide Plan for a medium density housing and less
commercial and office to meet the traffic projections of the northeast Eden Prairie traffic
study.
2. Develop an alternative site plan that preserves the majority of the site features and
provides a transition to the residential areas to the north. This would require the lowering
the height on the multiple story buildings, and less density in the multiple story area..
3. The site could be developed as all medium density to save natural features.
MOCRPNTR.MDF:bs
2
ml
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- AY 28, 1991
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CARPENTER NORTH PUD (91-11-PUD) by Donald G. Brauer.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density
Residential to Regional Commercial on 6.2 acres and from Medium
Density Residential to High Density Residential on 9.3 acres;Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 27.2 acres for future development of
commercial and multiple residential land uses to be known as Carpenter
North PUD. Location: North of the intersection of Valley View Road
and Prairie Center Drive.
Walter Carpenter, the proponent,gave a background on the history of the
proposal. His business,Minnesota Tree Incorporated, moved to this site
following the condemnation of Highway 169. The property is part of the
Major Center Area. Carpenter stated that the initial concept for the parcel
was to have the entire parcel zoned commercial. After the bisection of the
property by Prairie Center Drive,only the southerly portion has developed
as commercial property. Carpenter indicated that a service
station/convenience store was proposed for the northwest comer across the
street from this proposal, but because of the poor soil conditions, it has
been deleted and may be replaced with something else at a later date.
Carpenter stated that he is requesting permission to do some grading in the
area which is why a plan is being presented. He reported that he is unsure
of what development plans are for the site because of the way the market
is today.
Don Brauer,representing the proponent,stated that he has been involved
with Eden Prairie planning since 1964. He indicated the location of the
Carpenter North PUD as shown on a 1989 aerial photograph. Brauer
reviewed the 1968 Guide Plan and the fact that the "ring road" was
planned to go further to the north of the Carpenter site. He indicated that
the roadway location was changed in 1986, and the"ring road" split the
Carpenter parcel into two pieces on either side of Valley View Road.
Brauer stated that the current City Guide Plan shows the site to be split on
a diagonal line and is guided for Medium Density Residential.
Brauer reported that the site has a high hill of approximately 90'. At the
northerly end of the site,it slopes down 30' to the abutting duplex home
sites. The southerly end of the site abutting Valley View Road is 8'below
the grade of the street.
il�g�
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28,1991
Brauer reviewed the drainage on the site. He indicated that the southwest
comer will drain into the park pond. The remainder of the site will drain
into the Ford Pond just west of Menard's. Drainage structures are already
in place. A small part of the hill drains to the north but will drain to the
south with development. Brauer reviewed what could be built on the site
which included a service station and convenience store on the west side.
Plans also include commercial development to the east and a two-story
office building to the north. A driveway between the two commercial
buildings will allow drainage to leave the site. Two multiple dwellings are
also a possibility on the site for a total of 161 units.
Brauer reported that the grading is proposed to take down the top of the
hill so that it slopes up 25' and down 25'. The proposed building
elevations would be the same as the height of the hill as it is now. Access
to the site would be off of Valley View Road.
Hawkins asked if the drawings showed existing contours for grading.
Brauer replied that they did,and reviewed the drawings. The low area is
proposed to be filled,and 21%of the site will be undisturbed. Plans are
to shape the ridge so that it will look as if it is part of the hill. Brauer
reviewed two cross-sections through the site as they relate to existing
homes to the north.
Hawkins questioned whether sight lines from Valley View Road were
indicated on the cross-sections. Brauer responded that Valley View Road
would be 2'below the site.
Franzen reported that the site has always been guided for Medium Density
Residential and Commercial. The developer came to City Hall to request
permission to cut down the hill. He was informed that it couldn't be done
until a plan was presented. Intensity on the property was also discussed
at that time. The proponent is making the residential area smaller to allow
for more commercial area. Franzen believed that the commercial area
along Valley View Road makes sense because of the changes in grade and
distance from residential areas. Franzen stated that the multiple makes
sense on the wooded sites, because more trees can be saved. Franzen
reported that the developer is not proposing to build this plan. He stated
that till will have to be brought on the site. Franzen indicated that 64%
of the significant trees will be lost during phase one grading. He stated
that the significant trees on the site are taken into consideration for tree
replacement and reported that the trees at the northwest comer would not
1qV"
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1991
be removed with phase one grading but would be removed as part of phase
two. Franzen believed that there should be a transition to the residential
area to the north. He stated that the proposal has more intense uses than
the Guide Plan depicts. He reviewed the staff recommendations for
approval of the request. Dirt from the hill will be used to fill the low
area,and dirt will be brought in to fill the commercial areas. Staff is not
recommending that the entire site be graded at this time. Franzen
indicated that the City ordinance requires that trees removed during
construction be replaced which means that 744" of trees will have to be
replaced. The proponent must return to the Planning Commission and
City Council when they request phase two grading. The proponent must
fence the area to be graded before the permit is issued to insure that the
correct areas are graded. Franzen also indicated that permits from the
DNR, Corps of Engineers, and Purgatory Creek Watershed District are
needed before grading can begin. Franzen indicated that phase two
grading must retain a natural buffer along the north property line.
Sandstad asked if there is a time limit on the agreement as far as tree
replacement is concerned. Franzen replied that tree replacement is part of
a legally binding agreement with the City which runs with the land Hallett
questioned if money is set aside in escrow for tree replacement. Franzen
replied that a decision hasn't been made as far as partial or total guarantee
is concerned with phase one grading; however,before a building permit
is issued,a guarantee must be given at 150%of the cost of improvements.
Hallett asked what would happen if the property is sold and the new owner
goes bankrupt as far as tree replacement. Franzen responded that the
developer's agreement goes with the land, and the next owner is
responsible for tree replacement.
Norman asked what the history has been on developers requesting only
permission to grade rather than develop. Franzen replied that it is not a
commonplace occurrence, but it has happened in the past. He indicated
that the site the City Hall is on was graded on the basis of a concept plan
in preparation for future development. Trees were cut down,but there is
a condition in the developer's agreement that a prorated share of tree
replacement will take place as each lot develops. He again noted that the
City does not issue grading permits unless there is a plan to review.
Hawkins asked how tree sizes are determined in the tree ordinance.
Franzen replied that trees replaced have to be a minimum of 3" in
diameter.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1991
Hallett asked how many units/units per acre were on this site. Franzen
replied that the Guide Plan shows 16.5 acres or 165 units. He also
indicated that since the proposed multiple family area is reduced to 9.3
acres, the density goes up to 17 units per acre. Franzen further stated that
the amount of commercial will increase along Valley View Road since the
existing multiple acreage is proposed to be reduced.
Pamela Bacon 7222 Divinity Lane and i• a M lquist 15433 Ke=Lan
were unable to attend the meeting. They indicated in writing their
opposition to the project.
Kevin Blohm.7465 Scot Terrace asked why the staff report wasn't mailed
to residents of the area. He felt that the plans presented weren't very
informative. They don't show where existing homes or trees are located.
He stated that the hearing should be stopped,because residents have not
been given enough time to review the proposal. Franzen explained the
public notice process and stated that staff reports are available on request.
Blohm was concerned with the presentation made by the proponent and the
fact that no one in the audience understands it. He suggested that fill be
brought in to the site rather than tearing down the hill. He asked if soil
tests have been done to which Brauer replied that they have.
Blohm indicated that his main concern is that the plans shown didn't
indicate the locations of any of the surrounding houses. Ruebling asked
Brauer to indicate on the map where surrounding houses are located.
Brauer reviewed the locations of housing on the north end of the site.
Blohm was also concerned about the percentage of trees being removed.
Franzen explained that the developer is responsible for replacing any
significant trees of 12 inches or greater in size which are removed or die
because of grading. Franzen also discussed the public hearing process for
Roger Brooks.7370 Butterscotch Drive stated that when he moved in four
years ago,he asked what the Guide Plan for that area was. He was told
it was Medium Density, which to him mean duplexes or single family
homes. He opposes the apartment building in the proposed location,
because it is a family neighborhood to the north, and the plan he had
reviewed indicated 400 units. Franzen stated that the number of units has
been reduced to 161. Hawkins asked what would happen if a 161-unit
building is constructed. Franzen replied that it would need to be seven
stories high. Brooks stated that 161 units would generate approximately
300-400 additional people in the neighborhood. He was considered about
5o I
Planning Commission Minutes
6, May 28, 1991
additional people in the area and believed that owner-occupied housing
would fit in better with the neighborhood. He was also concerned that
land values in the neighborhood would go down if apartment buildings are
built. He asked what the neighborhood could do to change the Guide Plan
to single family homes. Franzen responded that neighborhood groups have
come to the Planning Commission and City Council questioning the Guide
Hawkins asked the developer if there was some sort of demarcation line
where the location of the Medium Density and commercial are better
defined. Brauer indicated that the proposal is to define the line to follow
the hill rather than cut through it. He also stated that if single family
homes are built, the hill will be entirely removed, and there will be no
access to the north. For the benefit of those present, Franzen reviewed
the City's Guide Plan map and indicated where the existing division
between multiple and commercial was on the site.
Stephen Hanson,7289 Butterscotch Road was concerned about what would
happen to the scotch pine trees located next to Willow Park. He was not
against the commercial development. He asked if there was a builder in
mind for the apartment buildings.
Paul Swidewski.7393 Butterscotch Road indicated that he was assured by
the City four years ago that the area was guided Medium Density
Residential. He was concerned about the fact that there doesn't have to
be a zoning change to begin grading and trees will be lost. He had a
problem with the Medium Density designation because of all the vacancies
in the area apartment buildings already. He was concerned with an
apartment building being built and the fact that Willow Park could not
accommodate them. He was also worried about his property values going
down. He believed that the residents need more time for this proposal.
Hawkins asked what the property was zoned. Franzen replied that it was
zoned Rural. He indicated that the City does not zoned property until a
development is proposed. Hallett asked what percentage is guided
commercial and residential on the 27 acres. Franzen responded that it is
2/3 Medium Density and 1/3 commercial. Swidewski stated that his house
would be a stone's throw away from the apartment building.
Valerie Flint,7390 Butterscotch Road didn't like the apartment buildings
being so close to her home and was concerned that Butterscotch Road
doesn't go all the way through to Valley View Road.
15�
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1991
Leslie Otten.7310 Butterscotch Road indicated that his major concern is
the grading which could begin before a decision is made about what will
be built there. He didn't want the stand of oaks on the top of the hill
taken down. He was worried about the runoff from the top of the hill and
asked where the water would go once the hill is removed. He was
concerned about the 86% rental rate of apartments in the area. He didn't
think that a gas station should be built on a slough because of water table
contamination by gas tanks. He reported that an attorney will be in
attendance at the next meeting to represent the neighbors. Otten believed
that an apartment building would depreciate his home 30-40%.
Anton Waldner. 7340 Butterscotch Road asked who residents should
contact to voice their opposition to this being guided High Density
Residential. Ruebling responded that this item will be taken to the City
Council in the future, and residents are encouraged to attend and voice
their concerns.
Ruebling asked if the insignificant trees would need to be replaced.
Franzen responded that they would not, but the City is requesting that
many of the trees remain. Ruebling stated that the Planning Commission
has often suggested that insignificant trees not be removed.
Roper Enfield 7350 Butterscotch Road was concerned about replacing
large oak trees with 3-inch replacement trees, having an apartment
building next to his house, disturbing the natural environment and
overcrowding the neighborhood park.
Reverend James McCracken, 12655 Roberts Drive stated that he is the
pastor of the New Victory Church. He was surprised about the lack of
information that he received on this proposal. He urged the Planning
Commission to stick with the original Medium Density Residential and
Commercial designations.
Ellen Maloney,13364 Zenith Circle was concerned about the proposed gas
station and the proximity to her home and believed that the entire area
should be guided Medium Density Residential.
Steve Funk,7485 Scot Terrace did not want this neighborhood to become
transient again with this proposal. Hawkins asked him what has changed
the neighborhood. Funk replied that residents have moved there who want
to grow with the City.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1991
Allen Moore 7400 Butterscotch Road discussed what attracted him to this
area. A second apartment building would be within sight of his home.
Moore indicated that the park was developed to support a single family
area. He questioned whether the apartments would be adults only. He
was concerned with grading for a speculative development. He believed
that the property on the south side of Valley View should be developed as
commercial first.
Ruebling summarized the concerns of those present, which included:
Guide Plan change request to higher density and more commercial,
speculative grading,not enough detail on plans presented,not enough time
for residents to understand the proposal,negative impact of tree loss,loss
of property values, not enough buffering between neighborhoods and
noise.
Neil Ackerman 7345 Butterscotch Road stated that this is the only
commercial development on the north side of Valley View Road.
A person in the audience asked for clarification of what 10 units per acre
meant. Ruebling indicated that it meant ten units per acre of land on the
average. Franzen stated that it is a maximum cap.
Brauer stated that it will take 3-9 months to get all the permits needed for
grading. A grading permit cannot be obtained until the demarkation line
is defined. Carpenter stated that it was obvious that the residents haven't
had enough time to discuss this proposal and suggested that a
neighborhood meeting be held. He indicated that he is willing to continue.
TI N
Motion by Sandstad to continue the public hearing in order to provide time
for the developer to provide more detailed plans. Motion died for lack of
a second.
Norman believed that the developer should come back with a more
detailed plan.
Hallett believed the developer should hear the Commission's thoughts on
the proposal.
Sandstad's major concern was about tree loss.
A
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1991
Hallett asked how many acres are guided Medium Density. Franzen
replied that 16.5 acres are Medium Density. Hallett believed that a
developer should have the right to develop their property, but a plan that
makes sense to the residents is necessary. Hallett was nervous about the
speculative nature of the request, not knowing what's going in and trees
not being replaced for a long period of time. Hallett stated that he would
not support a High Density request. Hallett believed that the residents
need more time to review this proposal.
Kardell stated that she would be opposed to the High Density request
based on the plans she saw. She was concerned about tree loss. Kardell
also commended the property owner for suggesting that a neighborhood
meeting be held.
Hawkins was concerned that the gas station would be built and no further
development would take place,slow rental in the City and tree removal of
significant and insignificant trees based on a speculative plan. He
indicated that he was leaning towards voting against the request.
Ruebling believed that the Guide Plan should be changed when there is a
compelling reason to do so. He was concerned about the amount of
grading that is being done without a real plan of what will be going there.
He believed that given the character of the site, the City needs some
protection against this happening. He suggested that the public hearing be
continued.
Hawkins asked if the proponent could be given a certain time period to
come back with the same plan should this plan be denied. Franzen replied
that if this plan is denied by the Planning Commission and City Council,
the proponent cannot come back with the same plan for a one year period.
If the developer wishes to proceed to the Council and the request is
denied, the project will be closed. Franzen stated that if the Planning
Commission denies the request, the City Council could still approve it.
Hallett stated that he is leaning towards a continuance,because he has seen
some significant changes when a proposal is continued.
Hawkins believed that even with a delay,there is such an abrupt change
from the Guide Plan and zoning, and denial might be the best route.
15�5
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1991
Norman believed that if the proponent submits a significantly different
plan, they should get the benefit of a continuance.
Hawkins asked if renotification would be necessary if there is a
continuance. Franzen replied that republication would not be necessary if
the plan remains the same. Franzen indicated that after a neighborhood
meeting,the proponent could submit a different plan. If approved by the
Planning Commission, it could be republished correctly since notices of
Council meetings are mailed to residents also. Hawkins stated that he
thought such republication would be appropriate.
Sandstad believed the proponent has reasonable opportunities to rework the
plan and take care of many of the problems. The general consensus was
that this item be continued to the June 10 meeting. Hawkins indicated that
he and Norman would not be able to attend the meeting. Hawkins was
concerned that there would not be a quorum and to hold a neighborhood
meeting and make plan changes would take more than two weeks to
complete. He still believed that the request should be denied based on tree
loss, a speculative grading plan and impacts on the neighborhood.
Hallett stated that he would rather continue the item to the June 24
meeting in order to have a full quorum. Carpenter was concerned with the
delay of an entire month and would prefer a continuance of two weeks or
a denial.
MOTION
Motion by,seconded by to continue the request for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Regional
Commercial on 6.2 acres and from Medium Density Residential to High
Density Residential on 9.3 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 27.2 acres for future development of commercial and multiple
residential land uses to be known as Carpenter North PUD to the June 24
Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. Ruebling suggested
that notices of the continuance with minutes of this meeting be mailed to
those who spoke.
- MEMORANDUM -
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician
DATE: July 12, 1991
SUBJECT: Technology Park Grading
This memo is to inform Council of the status of property adjacent
to the Tech 10 site owned by Hoyt Development.
T'he City staff met with Mr. Brad Hoyt this morning to discuss
completion of a grading operation at Technology Park. Mr. Hoyt
has committed to the following items taking place:
1. Mr.Hoyt is in the process of making repairs to all erosion
control measures on the site. This work is scheduled for
Friday and Saturday,with completion by Monday,July 15,
1991.
2. Dirt and sediment have been removed from Golden
Triangle Drive; however, this work was done prior to the
rains of Thursday evening,July 11, 1991.
3. Mr. Hoyt will be providing the City with a land alteration
permit application,showing completion of the grading and
site restoration. As part of the land alteration permit,Mr.
Hoyt will provide financial surety for site grading,
restoration, and tree replacement. Staff would expect to
receive this information prior to the Council meeting of
July 16, 1991.
4. Mr. Hoyt proposes to install a temporary cyclone-style
fence around the perimeter of the property to prevent
unauthorized access.
JJ:ssa
n'� 4
a
Tech 10
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.20-91-PUD-6-91
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,REMOVING CERTAIN LAND
FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT,AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance(hereinafter, the"land") is
legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the I-2
District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development 20-91-1-2 (hereinafter"PUD 20-91-I-2).
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's
Agreement dated as of July 16, 1991, entered into between Hoyt Development Company, a Minnesota
corporation,and the City of Eden Prairie(hereinafter"Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement
contains the terms and conditions of PUD 20-91-I-2 and is hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD 20-91-I-2 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City.
B. PUD 20-91-I-2 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 20-91-1-2 are justified by the design of the development described therein.
D. PUD 20-91-1-2 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.
lJup�!
Section S. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,and hereby is removed from
1-2 District and shall be included hereafter in the PUD 20-91-1-2 and the legal descriptions of land in each
_.strict 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 2nd day of
July, 1991,and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said
City on the 16th day of July, 1991.
ATTEST:
John D.Frane, City Clerk Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor
t"'IBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1991.
ff
��I7
TECH 10
P[m CONCEPT AMENDMENT
Lot 1,Block 1,Outlots A and B, TECHNOLOGY PARK 5TH ADDITION; Lot 1, Block 1,
TECHNOLOGY PARK TTH ADDITION
Ptm DISTRICT REVIEW AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
Lot 1,Block 1,TECHNOLOGY PARK TTH ADDITION
�5r�.
SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS SUPPLEMENT TO AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of ,1991,by HOYT
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,a municipal corporation,hereinafter refereed to as"City";
WHEREAS,Developer and City made and entered into a Developer's Agreement,dated November 7,
1989,for Tech X,(the"Developer's Agreement")and Developer has succeeded to all of the rights and interests
in the lands included within Tech X.previously owned by Developer and BBS Partners,a Minnesota general
partnership;and,
WHEREAS,the parties desire to amend the Developer's Agreement for the Property refereed to therein;
NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance#20-91-PUD-6-91,Developer
covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows:
1. The Developer's Agreement shall be and hereby is supplemented and amended in the following
respects:
A. Paragraph 1. shall be amended to read as follows:
"Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and
dated September 27, 1989, reviewed and approved by the City Council on October 3,
1989, and in conformance with the materials revised and dated June 28, 1991,
reviewed and approved by the City Council on July 16, 1991,and attached hereto
as Exhibit B,subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein.
B. The following paragraphs shall be added:
"8. Prior to issuance of any permit for grading, building, or construction on the
Property, Developer agrees to submit to the City, and to obtain the City's
approval of:
A. Cross-parking and cross-access easements for the proposed driveway and
parking spaces on the southern boundary line of the Property,as depicted
in Exhibit B,attached hereto.
B. A written drainage easement for all the Property located below the 841
contour elevation as depicted in Exhibit B,attached hereto.
Upon approval by the City,Developer agrees to execute said cross-parking,cross-
access, and conservation easements, file said easements on the Property, and
i
;s
provide proof of filing to the City, prior to release by City of any permit as
described above.
"9. Developer agrees to limit the use(s) within the building such that no more than
193 parking spaces shall be needed for the Property.
"10. Developer agrees that prior to construction of any of the parking spaces along the
south boundary line,as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, Developer shall
submit a rezoning application to the City Planning Commission and City Council
for review and approval.
"11. The City hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within
the I-2 District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the
Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD following waivers to PUD
6-91
A. A waiver to allow a 31 ft. setback to parking in from the front yard,
instead of the required 50 ft.
B. A waiver to allow parking across the south boundary line of the Property,
instead of the required setback."
2. Developer agrees to all the terms and conditions and accepts the obligations of"Developer"
under the Developer's Agreement,as amended and supplemented herein.
'E
r5}a
Tech 10
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.91-160
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE 20-91-PUD-6-91 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 20-91-PUD-6-91 was adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 16th day of July, 1991.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 20-91-PUD-6-91 which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly
informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no
smaller than non-pareil or six-point type,as defined in Minn.State.sec.331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by
any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy
of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 20-91-PUD-6-91 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,within 20 days
after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on the 16th day of July, 1991.
Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane,City Clerk
I
t513
Tech 10
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.20-91-PUD-&91
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,REMOVING
CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN
ANOTHER,AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND IN EACH
DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND
SECTION 11.9,WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS,CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located at the southwest comer of
West 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive from the I-2 District to the PUD 20-91-1-2 District,
subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A,included with this
Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/ John D. Frane,City Clerk /s/ Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the_day of 1991.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
��ru
Tech 10
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNUOTA
RESOLUTION 91-148
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR HOYT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR TECH 10
WHEREAS,Hoyt Development Company has applied for site plan approval of Tech 10
on 5.6 acres for construction of additional parking spaces on property located at the southwest
corner of West 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive zoned I-2 District by Ordinance 20-91-
PUD-6-91 adopted by the City Council on July 16, 1991; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at
its June 24, 1991 Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans;
and,
WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its July
16, 1991 meeting;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Hoyt Development
Company for Tech 10 for construction of additional parking spaces based on plans dated June
28, 1991, subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement between
a and the City of Eden Prairie,dated July 16, 1991, for said construction.
ADOPTED by the City Council on July 16, 199I.
Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
Tech 10
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION#91-147
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TECH 10
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT
TO THE OVERALL TECHNOLOGY PARK 7TH ADDITION PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the
Planned Unit Development(PUD)of certain areas located within the City;and,
WHEREAS,the Tech 10 development is considered a proper amendment to the overall
Technology Park 7th Addition Planned Unit Development Concept;and,
WHEREAS,the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the request
of Hoyt Development Company for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall
Technology Park 7th Addition Planned Unit Development Concept for the Tech 10 development
and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on July 16, 1991;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota,as follows:
1. The Tech 10 development PUD Concept Amendment,being in
Hennepin County,Minnesota,and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A,is
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment approval to the
overall Technology Park 7th Addition Planned Unit Development Concept as
outlined in the application materials for Hoyt Development Company.
3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the Planning
Commission dated June 24, 1991.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 16th day of July, 1991.
Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
d
f
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 91-134
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF
EASEMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT 52-156
(MITCHELL ROAD EXTENSION)
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie City Council previously approved the plans and specifications for
the utility and street improvements for I.C. 52-156,Mitchell Road Improvements;
WHEREAS, easements are required to construct Mitchell Road extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that the City
Engineer and City Attorney are hereby authorized to acquire the necessary easements, by
negotiation or condemnation,on the following properties:
( Parcel 21-116-22-31-0029
Parcel 21-116-22-31-0005
Parcel 21-116-22-31-0009
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 16, 1991.
Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
i
i
s
- MEMORANDUM -
TO: Mayor and City Council
T1IROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer
DATE: May 30, 1991
SUBJECT: Mitchell Road Improvements
I.C.52-156
Easement Requirements
The completion of Mitchell Road through the Boulder Pointe subdivision requires either the
construction of a 16'high tierred retaining wall or the acquisition of slope easements from two
property owners lying south of the Boulder Pointe subdivision. At this location the elevation
of Mitchell Road is approximately 16'below the original ground elevation.
A retaining wall at this location would be constructed of segmental concrete block. For a
retaining wall of this height, a tie-back system using geotextile fabrics would be required and
would extend into the adjoining properties approximately 15'. A permanent easement would be
required to protect the tie-back system for the retaining wall. The estimated cost to construct
the retaining wall system is$65,000.
The alternative to the retaining wall system is a slope extending into the adjoining properties.
Three separate parcels of property owned by two property owners would be involved. Exhibits
showing the easements required are attached to this memo. The slope would be restored with
top soil and seed to develop a vegetative cover not requiring frequent mowing. A wood fiber
blanket would be used to protect the slope from erosion while turf was being established. The
estimated cost for the sloped construction is$15,000. Permanent slope easements would be
required from the adjoining parcels.
The Engineering Division recommends acquisition of the slope easements and construction of
the back-slope system for the following reasons:
1. The cost of the back-slope system will be significantly less than the retaining wall
system, including easement acquisition costs.
2. The cost to maintain the back-slope system will be significantly less in the long run that
the retaining wall.
3. The reliability of the slope is higher than the reliability of the retaining wall system.
4. Acquisition of the slope easements over the three identified parcels will not significantly
reduce their development potential.
ADG:ssa �51
NORTH LINE OF THE N.E. 114 OF N.E.cor.cF 1he
THE S.W. 114 OF SEC.21 S.W% Scc.211
Ed•.anant I
'T
N
N
PARCEL NO.
NO SCALE
s
21-116-22-31-0029
0
til W
(29) =°
r O
N
LL
M
n
0
LL, Prop• Line
.J 1
3 \C'E CIRCLE, CL
J�
EXHIBIT A
151�
PERMANENT SLOPE EASEINM T
PROPERTY 21-116-22-31-0029
A permanent easement over, under and across a property in the
Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, Township 116,
Range 22, in the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota bounded by the
following described line:
Beginning at the Northeast comer of said property,a point in the North
line of said Southwest 1/4, distant 814.45 feet West of the Northeast
corner thereof;thence South 00 degrees 16 minutes Fast to the Northerly
right-of--way line of the town road; thence Westerly and Southerly along
said right-of-way line to the west line of the East 1013.73 feet of said
Northeast 1/4 of said Southwest 1/4; thence Northerly along said West
line to said North line of said Northeast 1/4 of said Southwest 1/4;thence
Easterly along said North line to the point of beginning.
Said permanent easement being bounded by the following described
line:
Commencing at a point in the East line of the above described property
line, lying 20.00 feet South of said Northeast comer of said property;
thence Westerly and parallel with the North line of said property, a
distance of 20.00 feet;thence Northwesterly to a point lying 15.00 feet
South of a point on said North line, lying 70.00 feet West of said
Northeast comer;thence Northwesterly to a point on said North line lying
120.00 feet West of said Northeast corner, thence East along said North
line,a distance of 120.00 feet to said Northeast comer; thence South 00
degrees 16 minutes to the point of commencement,and there terminating.
Dsk.EF.MTTCHELL.DES
15av
a
fI
NORTH LINE OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF
THE S.W. 114 OF SEC.21 N.E.ccr.cF
S.W.%y Sec
s.zx'
20'
Pu�wnnent
Eucemcn}
J
SCALE
1.
PARCEL NO.
21-116-22-31-0005
5 a
>n ( ) ,
o °0
V1 ? Z
Frop.Line
W. SUNRISE CIRCLE M
N 86'00 F
EXHIBIT A
�5a
PERMANENT SLOPE EASEMENT
PROPERTY 21-116-22-31-0005
A permanent easement over,under and across a property lying in the
Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, Township 116,
Range 22 in the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and bounded by the
following described line;
Beginning at the Northwest corner of said property,a point in the North
line of said Northeast 1/4 of said Southwest 1/4 lying 814.49 feet West of
the Northeast corner thereof. thence South 00 degrees 16 minutes East,
a distance of 415.3 feet,to the centerline of the town road;thence North
88 degrees 00 minutes Fast along said centerline a distance of 210.00 feet;
the North 00 degrees 10 minutes West to said North line; thence West
along said North line to the point of beginning and there terminating.
Except road.
Said permanent easement being bounded by the following described
line:
Commencing at a point in the West line of the above described property,
a distance of 20.00 feet South of the said Northwest comer thereof;thence
Easterly on a line parallel with the North line of said property a distance
of 80.00 feet; thence Northeasterly to a point in the East line of said
property lying 5.22 feet south of the Northeast comer thereof; thence
North 00 degrees 10 minutes West to said Northeast comer, thence
Westerly to the point of commencement and there terminating.
Dsk.EF.MITCHELL.DES
�5aa
N.E.tor.cF t
NORTH LINE OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF S.W.'/y
THE S.W. 1/4 OF SEC. 21
-'� 44.22 ► - V- —�
5.22' Pu�.o•.cn�
E...—t
N
PARCEL NO.
SCALE
21-116-22-31-0009 i`•60'
W 3 u
19 9
o � o
o 10
111 Z cn
P,op.
P+.a
Beg - , y ssal-O ' W
W. SUNRISE CIRCLE 0
�N 83'-00'E —�—
EXHIBIT A
PERMANENT SLOPE EASEMENT
PROPERTY 21-116-22-31-0009
A permanent easement over,under and across,a property lying in the
Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 114 of Section 21, Township 116,
Range 22, in the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, bounded by the
following described line:
Beginning at a point in the North line of said Southwest 1/4, distant
814.49 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof;thence South 00 degrees•
16 minutes East, a distance of 413.3 feet, to the centerline of the town
road,thence North 88 degrees 00 minutes Fast,a distance of 210.00 feet;
thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes West to a point in the North right-of-
way line of stud town road and the'actual point of beginning; thence
continuing along the last bearing to said North line of said Southwest 1/4,
said point being the Northwest comer of said property; thence East along
said North line to a point 453.76 feet West of said Northeast comer of
said Southwest 1/4; thence South 00 degrees 10 minutes East to said
North right-of-way line,thence South 88 degrees 00 minutes West along
said right-of-way line to the point of beginning and there temunating.
Except road.
Said permanent easement being that part of the above described
property bounded by the following described line:
Commencing at a point in the West line of said property,lying 5.22 feet
South of the said Northwest corner thereof; thence Northeasterly to a
point on the North line of said property lying 44.22 feet East of said
Northwest corner of said property;thence West to said Northwest corner;
thence South 00 degrees 10 minutes East a distance of 5.22 feet to the
point of beginning and there terminating.
Dsk.EF.MITCHELL.DES
,l
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
FROM: Natalie J. Swaggert, Director
DATE: June 28, 1991
SUBJECT: Proposed revision to Sick Leave/Severance Pay Program
After careful review of the employee sick leave and severance pay programs,the
Human Resource Department is recommending that the programs be modified to
accomplish the following:
• to support and reward attendance
• to remove disincentives in the current system
• to educate employees on the importance of accruing sick time to provide
for income continuation during periods of absence
• to provide retiring employees with a source of funding for their health
insurance
An analysis of our sick leave and severance pay programs reveals outdated practices,
overlapping benefits,inconsistent messages and a lack of uniformity between
employee groups.
Our current sick leave program provides employees with income protection for
illness/disability at four levels and serves as the basis for severance pay. Listed below
are the current practices and some of the major problems associated with them.
EMERGENCY SICK LEAVE BANK
At the time of hire,employees are covered for short periods of illness or
disability by an emergency sick leave bank of 240 hours. Time may be drawn
from the bank to cover absences for serious illness only.
NOTE: Time borrowed from this bank must be repaid before the employee
resumes sick leave accrual.
SICK LEAVE ACCRUAL
Employees accrue eight hours per month sick leave beginning their
first month of full-time employment. After six months of service they may draw
upon their sick leave bank to cover absences from work. Sick leave may be
accrued to a maximum of 800 hours.
EXTENDED ILLNESS LEAVE BANK
Sick leave time accrued beyond 800 hours is split:
• Fours hours per month to personal leave
• Fours hours per month to an extended illness bank
The extended illness bank is drawn upon once the employee exhausts his/her
sick leave bank. Its original purpose was to provide income protection until the
start of long-term disability payments.
Problem#1: Time designated to the extended illness bank is NOT
available to the employee to use to cover missed time until the employee has
exhausted his/her 800 hours of banked sick time. The result is a natural
disincentive to accrue time beyond 800 hours.
Problem#2: Time banked in the extended illness bank is
unnecessary and duplicates the benefit already provided by the City
through the 240-hour emergency sick leave bank.
LONG-TERM DISABILITY
Employees are covered for long periods of illness or disability through a city
paid insurance policy. Benefits begin following six months of absence
(1040 hours).
SEVERANCE PAY
{• The City's severance pay plan provides employees who complete five or more
years of service with severance pay at the time of termination. Payment is
based on a portion of the balance in their 800 hour sick leave bank. Time
accrued in the extended illness bank is NOT credited to the employee for use
In calculating severance. Currently severance pay is based on the following
schedule:
22% unused sick leave after 5 years
25% 6 years
28% • " " " 7 years
31% 8 years
34% 9 years
37% 10 years
40% 11 years
43% 12 years
46% 13 years
49% • 14 years
52% 15 years
In addition to the above, police officers hired in the past have been provided
with termination pay based on the following:
"...upon termination after age forty(police only),disability or death while
i employed,such employees shall receive one day's pay for each full year of
service to the City. in the event of death,payment shall be made to the
survivor."
Problem: The practice is inconsistent with the City's unified benefit
program and is most likely in conflict with current law in two areas:
• it is based on age discrimination
• it conveys additional compensation to a male-dominated job
classification and the practice is inconsistent with the City's
unified benefit program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
At this time Human Resources is recommending the following changes to the sick
leave/severance pay program:
I. Remove the 800-hour cap on the employee sick bank and discontinue use of
the extended sick bank.
Advantages:
• Simplifies accounting and record keeping
• Allows employee use of all sick time accrued
• Reduces employee dependence on the City funded 240-hour
emergency sick bank
II. Redefine the sick leave program as a Wellness Program and institute the
practice of accruing and banking"wellness time".
Advantage:
• Reinforces the value of work attendance rather than absence.
111. Include all accumulated sick leave in the severance pay calculation and
extend the severance pay schedule as shown.
Proposed Current
22% 22% unused sick leave after 5 years
25% 25% 6 years
28% 28% 7 years
31% 31% 8 years
34% 34% 9 years
37% 37% 10 years
40% 40% 11 years
43% 43% 12 years
46% 46% 13 years
49% 49% 14 years
52% 52% 15 years
55% 16 years
58% " 17 years
61% 18 years
63% 19 years
65% 20 years
67% 21 years
69% 22 years
71% 23 years
73% " " 24 years
75% 25 years
Advantages:
• Provides incentive to employees to minimize their absence from work
(encourages wellness)
• Provides retiring employees with a source of income to pay for health
care insurance costs(reduces the need for the City to implement an
expensive retiree health insurance plan)
• Provides a unified severance pay program that all employees can
participate in equally. (Note the increased benefit level in most
situations will exceed the severance payment a police officer would
receive using the past formula.)
The changes recommended are consistent with the practices of other metro area
communities. A comparison to the Bloomington severance pay program indicates that
the severance schedule being proposed for Eden Prairie employees is quite
conservative. Bloomington's program,which has been in place since 1984,provides
employees with severance pay based on 100%of their total accrued leave.
Your advance review of the proposed changes is appreciated. If you need additional
information or have questions, please contact me at 937-7403.
A formal request to act on these recommendations will be included on the July 16th
Council agenda.
WESTOVER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
8760 Knollwood Drive • Eden Prairie,MN 55347
June 12, 1991
Mayor Doug Tenpas and
Eden Prairie City Council.
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
At a town meeting in March 1991, Julie Hughes, a Westover representative,
addressed the Mayor stating Westover had two parks to donate to the City.
Mayor Tenpas looked on this idea favorably.
At this time, we want to initiate the process of donating these two parks
to the City of Eden Prairie.
CThe largest park is located on Cumberland Road and is in the process of
being reseeded. It contains a volleyball pit with net, a one—half asphalt
basketball court and a sanded children's play area with playground
equipment. There is room for a softball diamond. The second (and
smaller) park is located at the corner of Knollwood Drive and Pine Bluff
Court. This park contains a sanded children's play area complete with
playground equipment.
These parks are frequented by more than just Westover residents.
Neighbors from Anderson Lakes Parkway to Mitchell and from Carmody to
Staring Lake Parkway also use these park facilities, although the Westover
Homeowners Association dues support these parks.
We are, therefore, requesting Mayor Tenpas and the Eden Prairie City
Council to accept ownership, maintenance and liability of these parks.
Please advise us of the necessary steps to follow.
Thanking you in advance.
Sincerely,
Joy Jorgenson and Kathy Fisher✓
Westover Park Committee
8843 Knollwood Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
/531
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Lambert, Director Dire'ctor of Parks, Recreation&Natural Resources
FROM: Stuart A. Foir Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
DATE: June 28, 1991
SUBJECT: Westover Totlot
The following is the summary of the Westover Totlot as per your request to evaluate the existing
structures and condition of this area.
PLAYSTRUCTURE:
The playstructure that exists on this totlot is an older Landscape Structure unit that would be
limited to play by older kids approximately 8 year and older. The structure itself is in good
condition; however, there are some concerns regarding the landing surface area underneath,
which should have some sand added to it. In addition,with the age of the structure it is starting
to show signs of slivering and a thorough and complete inspection of the structure would be
necessary to ascertain any additional problems that may be present.
VOLLEYBALL COURT:
There is a sand base volleyball court in the northwest comer of this outlot. It is located fairly
close to three homes, which back up to the court. The court appears to be in good shape with
metal standards. The sand base is subcut into the ground and does not have any form of edging.
BASKETBALLIMULTI-PURPOSE AREA:
In the center adjacent to the playstructure there is a large asphalt area approximately 35x35'that
contains a basketball hoop. This basketball standard is similar to what most people would put
in their yards and would most likely need to be replaced in the near future, if it experienced
heavy usage.
TURFIGRASS AREA
The current condition of the turf is very poor. At the present time, it appears that overseeding
was attempted this spring; however,at this date there is no indication that any of that seeding
has germinated or is growing. The majority of the lawn area is inundated with crab grass and
other weeds and contains numerous fist sized rocks that were brought to the surface during the
overseeding activity.
15��
Westover Totlot }`
June 29, 1991
Page 2
GENERAL COMMENTS:
This particular mini-park is approximately 1.8 acres in size and is fronted on three sides by _
homes and one side by Cumberland Road. There is no on site parking and the primary access
to this particular area is by walking. The City has similar totlots in other areas of the City where
we face constant problems of maintaining and providing access to non adjacent users via trails
or corridors between homes. This particular mini-park has the same orientation and would more
than likely be used by adjacent property owners before it would become available to the general
public.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is my recommendation that we do not accept the Westover proposal to turn this into a City
operated mini-park. My primary concerns are the amount of labor and materials that would be
necessary to reclaim this particular area in condition that would be equal to the standard that we
have set for other park areas. In addition, the neighborhood park at Pheasant Woods is located
less than one-half mile away from this neighborhood, which provides more usage in terms of
ballfields and open space areas,as well as having a playground. The third concern would be the
availability of this area to be used by people outside the Westover area since it is essentially a
backyard park that is most accessible by adjacent property owners since there is no parking lot.
SAF:mdd
westover/stu
f5�3
k[` 1� ►t+�Y+t� �"-{v r��� �y; !'' p 'f� ! tj�f�•' � 'fit.`'*.
S4:ryt
ti ` ''j`�iw"dR w•" �Stsi. A `4 � ���'� ���'»r,�!-F^r.. ;�tT►��d�M� "�•
F"i *,:{a,�y' `.oi:.2 4
���l 4 � � _Ye tr�.��',y � r-'At a • ,� �v j} 1 V.o ..
'�. e:i7� ��p�:�.{-v✓.,��•y�'.`. 111F�l."I��7Y `ly,,,i ter_ L,,r� L.�rr k}• a� y:
� � F �1L;��y� � tkrt+•�' �r�t`r'� �"f t,��'+' ti - � i�f`jrt' �:� � �ti
rT• � �S'A.. � �r.; ;'i+t ltr.'!- , a`."t ,a4�,y�A" r y `.I
��y• r t' �1�l� J�f AW��11}
1~�e � {'r���_('��w] ,• "t r' "�. •,x' •;�r' �:r`�R'�.s.° �F,'V,�l.,,ff''tiL-('D�_'
�:c�y�`- J"� t � ',C Y •, fir^1' � . i �.
-''•''1"'l` S�.>-r- 1. � „p�cT1��. i� t"."e.ill ",�„'S r •Li•o4p�2� ''• �•..' r F'..,.. '*'�;!
14
,,a: rn ra,,�'� � µt r r^w� � „'i-"ra.�-_ wt�``�'" ' i ��,:"4E._'� t►S�
r �' ) ti. � f , � ["fit.•t�J '��t�'� �••�Ci( '��s !.Rig.+, '\
t (Y, r �t✓•'P' � tt`.1 °M 'lt l,t F', .•. �'�p k�7k"� i^T�i v
r r. X� t•���,���' t � N.Y� N�h- "�(� F:�2 t, 1�'yt/1�• Ei>. ��..r',��
.��+ r"'r'rl�t � �s t , ?r f {w .,` jiwi 'R+�/C, ,� t�. �. ,(1�•'sc
,.y:' �• ait:Y.�, ti3t1^�•' N\�~� rf..sa•. D�..�4
s+ti,rt
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE; PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Monday, July 1, 1991 7:30 p.m., City Hall
7600 Executive Drive
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Richard, chairperson; Karon
Joyer, David Kuechenmeister,
Diane Popovich Lynch, Del
Vanderploeg
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Bruce Bowman, Paul Karpinko
COMMISSION STAFF: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks,
Recreation and Natural Resources,
Laurie Helling, Manager of
Recreation Services, Dave Black,
Operations Supervisor
I. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by chairperson,
Pat Richard.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Vanderploeg moved to approve the agenda as printed.
Kuechenmeister seconded the motion and it passed 4-0.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 1991 AND JUNE 17, 1991
MOTION: Kuechenmeister moved to approve the minutes of
June 3 as printed. Richard seconded the motion and it
passed 5.0.
Several typos were noted in the June 17 minutes.
MOTION: Lynch moved to approve the minutes of June 17 as
amended. Vanderploeg seconded the motion and it passed
4-0. Joyer abstained.
IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Westover Homeowner's Association
Refer to memo dated June 28, 1991 from Stu Fox, Manager
of Parks and Natural Resources.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. July 1, 1991
-a-
Lambert said that the City received a request from
the Westover Homeowners Association that the City take
over the two parks located in their neighborhood.
Kathy Fisher was not present at the meeting. A final
decision will be made by the City Council at their
July 16 meeting.
The totlot on this site was proposed in the original
plan because there was to be multi-family housing located
in this area. The homeowners association does not
want to maintain the totlot any longer and is asking
that the City do so. There is not enough top soil
in the park and fist sized rocks were brought to the
surface during overseeding.
The cost per acre for maintenance of the park would
be higher than for a regular sized park and it has
limited recreational potential for the community.
Most homeowners associations have high expectations
of how their park should be kept, and staff is concerned
that City crews would not have enough time to maintain
these parks. For these reasons, staff recommends denial
of the request at this time.
Kuechenmeister said that in order to eliminate similar
problems in the future, could this type of totlot be
upgraded so that they are more attractive and can be
maintained by the City in the future.
Lambert said that totlots are only recommended when
there is a high density residential area that has a
homeowners association to maintain it or when it is
more than one-half mile to a neighborhood park.
Kuechenmeister said he was referring to providing
specifications to the developer when these totlots
are constructed.
Lambert feels that this is a good suggestion although
there are limited areas in Eden Prairie where this
type of totlot will be constructed in the future.
Joyer asked who built the playstructure in the totlot.
Lambert said it was built by the developer.
15��
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. July 1, 1991
-3-
Joyer asked if the City has any liability issues with
these totlots. Lambert said they are located on private
property and owned by the homeowners association;
therefore, the City should have no liability on their
park.
Kuechenmeister suggested that when developers are provided
with certain standards for these totlots, can maintenance
standards also be included. Lambert said this would
be difficult to enforce because the developer turns
the totlot over to the homeowners association.
MOTION: Lynch moved to recommend not accepting the
ownership, maintenance and liability of the Westover
parks as requested by the Westover Parks Committee
per staff recommendation based on issues such as
liability, inconsistency with park plans, standards,
etc. Kuechenmeister seconded the motion and it passed
5-0.
V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. Tech 10 by Hoyt Development Company
Refer to memo dated June 27, 1991 from Bob Lambert,
Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
and staff report dated June 21, 1991.
Lambert said that the only parks, recreation and natural
resources issue is the drainage easement as discussed
cn Page 2 of the planning staff report.
The developer is requesting a change in the parking
space recommended by the City which requires proof
of parking. This was to be located in the back of
the building near the floodplain area. The developer
wants to change the location to the side of the building
and is asking for a variance.
There is a possibility that the water level of Smetana
Lake will be raised approximately 5' to the 838 contour
level. Based on a lake level of 838 and a 3' bounce
to the 841 for the 100 year flood elevation, the current
proof of parking area would be approximately 50% under
water and that is why the developer is requesting that
this area be relocated.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resourceslr�
DATE: July 11, 1991
SUBJECT: Petition of the City of Eden Prairie for Construction of the Staring
Lake/Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Basic Water Management Project
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommend the City Council petition the Watershed District to prepare a feasibility
study that would allow proceeding with the project as proposed in the City Comprehensive Park
Plan, which anticipates initiating the project at the same time the Prairie Center Drive overpass
is initiated in 1993.
BACKGROUND:
In August of 1990, the City staff requested authorization to hire Don Brauer to provide
consulting services to secure property rights or easements required for pertinent construction of
the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. Staff was confident that due to Mr. Brauer's history on
this project, and with many of the property owners, he would be able to ensure the property
owners of the viability of the project and obtain easement agreements for a trail,and for the City
to raise the water elevation within the flood plain. Unfortunately, Mr. Brauer was unable to
obtain any easements from property owners for this project.
In the past,I have recommended that the City delay the Watershed District Feasibility Study until
we had received appropriate easements. Since 1983 it has been a criteria stated to property
owners that the City would not initiate development of this park until the City had ownership of
the property. The only way the City could afford to provide these park improvements was under
the condition that the property owners donate the floodplain property to the City of Eden Prairie.
Since the first concept plan that depicted development of a major portion of the floodplain,the
plan has changed significantly to the one approved in 1989 by the City Council. This plan
depicts the majority of the improvements on land owned by the City of Eden Prairie or the State
of Minnesota. Other property within the floodplain would only be affected by the proposed hard
surface trail around the perimeter of the floodplain and by the proposal to construct a water
control structure that would raise and lower water elevations in order to manage that area for
waterfowl habitat. Although the City would prefer to obtain ownership of the floodplain in order
�53�
Petition
July 11, 1991
PAge 2
to ensure long term management control of this floodplain, the proposed park plan could be
developed with simply a drainage easement below the 824(100 year floodpWn)contour,and a
trail easement around the perimeter of the floodplain. The feasibility study anticipates obtaining
a drainage easement,as well as a trail easement from all property owners prior to initiating the
project.
If property owners are unwilling to either donate property or provide easements to accommodate
this project the City would be forced to either abandon the project(and pay for the full cost of
the feasibility study)or condemn the drainage and trail easements.
The following outline summarizes the proposed time line, preliminary cost estimates, funding
sources, facilities to be completed, future management, normal and flood elevation:
TIME LINE:
1991-1992-Provide fill for entry,and petition for feasibility study for the project.
1991-1992-Obtain deeds and/or easements for drainage to the 824 contour and for a trail around
the perimeter of the floodplain from all property owners.
1991-1992 - Surcharge entry,complete plans and specifications for dredging and construction
of entry and trails.
1993 - Begin construction of Staring Lake outlet and dredging of ponds and dike, and install
water control structures.
1994-First phase development of entry and trail construction.
1995 -Final phase construction of entry and completion of satellite parking lots.
COST ESTIMATES:
The estimated total project cost ranges from 3 million to 3.8 million dollars depending on the
amount of dredging determined by the final plan. The final cost estimates will be determined
in the feasibility study.
FUNDING SOURCES:
The estimated City share is$1.4 toi1.8 million funded through tax increment financing. The
Watershed District's share is estimated to range from$1.5 to$2.5 million, depending on what
portion qualifies for funding under the Basic Water Management Plan. Once the plan is
completed the City will be seeking grants and donations from other sources such as the US Fish
and Wildlife Service (already committed $25,000 for the water control structure), the Eden
Prairie Foundation, Corp of Engineers, LAWCON Grant,etc.
�539
Petition
July 11, 1991
Page 3
FACILITIES TO BE COMPLETED:
The existing plan depicts parking for approximately 145 cars at the major entry,a year-round
park building,a small marina and concession stand,a large plaza,several floral display areas,
some limited picnic facilities, two small auxiliary parking areas-one on the east and one the
west, two to three water control structures, five to ten acres of ponding area with dikes,
approximately four miles of hard surfaced trails,two wildlife observation blinds,one water
fountain and two ponding areas with water sprays. There will also be some additional outlet
improvements to Staring Lake that could include piping and creek dredging.
FUTURE MANAGEMENT:
The City of Eden Prairie will manage this facility with the assistance from the Department of
Natural Resources and the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding managing water levels within the
major flood storage area. The majority of the floodplain will be managed for waterfowl habitat.
NORMAL AND FLOOD ELEVATIONS:
The proposal is to the raise the normal elevation of water within the floodplain from the current
approximate 818 to 819.6 or 820. The exact levels will be determined through the feasibility
study that will outline impacts on adjacent property and on Staring Lake. The one controlling
factor is that the 100 year flood elevation will be maintained at the 824 contour.
The City has already invested$595,000 for acquisition of the 48 acres presently owned by the
City and nearly$100,000 in planning costs to date. This process has been going on since 1983
when the City first approved the concept plan for developing the Purgatory Creek Recreation
Area. It is imperative for the City to petition for this project at this time in order to allow the
Watershed District to budget for this feasibility study in their 1992 budget process; furthermore,
the longer the City delays initiating the feasibility study the longer the delays will be regarding
the Watershed District's ability to begin levying for this project, if it is approved.
BL:mdd
petition/bob
��p
PETITION OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STARING LAKE/PURGATORY CREEK
RECREATION AREA BASIC WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT, NO 1991-I
1. Authority: This petition for the Staring Lake/Purgatory Creek Area Basic Water
Management Project is submitted by the City(or "Petitioner") in accordance with the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 103D.701, Section 103D.605 and 103D.905.
The project affects lands exclusively within the City and will benefit the owners of land
abutting the area proposed to be improved.
2. Description of the Project Area. The location of the project area is shown on the maps
of the District's Overall Plan and revised plan prepared pursuant to Laws 1982 Chapter
509. It encompasses Staring Lake and the tributary marsh and open space areas which
Petitioner generally describes as the Staring Lake/Purgatory Creek Recreation Area.
3. Purpose. Management of surface water is a primary goal and objective of the Staring
Lake/Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Basic Water Management Project. Another
project objective is the protection and enhancement of the tributary marsh and wetlands
as water storage recreation wildlife and open space areas. The project will provide
facilities for water quality protection and enhancement, and park and recreation uses.
The Petitioner submits this petition for a priority project of the District on the basis that
it is eligible for project financing in accord with the attached Watershed District policy
which is part of this petition. The concept and objectives of the project are discussed in
the District's Overall Plan and the updated 509 Water Management Plan. The area and
impacted flood water storage objectives of the project are shown on the 100 year
frequency flood zone profile for Purgatory Creek, the map of the 100 year zone profile
floodplain, and the project map attached to this petition.
4. General Description of Work Proposed. Staring Lake and the tributary marsh areas are
the last major water storage sites leading to the Minnesota River. A water management
structure at the outlet of Staring Lake is required to limit water discharges flowing
through the steep areas in order to control erosion and minimize the potential for damage
to the valley. The water control structure and ponds in the marsh areas tributary to
Staring Lake will have water storage,recreational and water quality objectives designed
to protect and enhance the water quality of Staring Lake which is a major recreational
lake of the District. The trail system will provide public access to this natural resource
for jogging, biking and nature observation.
S. Need and Necessity_ The urbanization of the Watershed District and this portion of the
District continues at a rapid pace. The protection of the critical water storage,floodpWn,
open space and recreational water areas of the District requires prompt initiation and
completion of this priority Basic Water Management Project.
6. Public Health Convenience and Welfare The completion of the project will enhance the
value of property adjacent to the area, provide protection against the damage of
uncontrolled flood waters,preserve important marsh and wetland areas,provide a means
to protect the water quality of Staring Lake, protect wildlife habitat and provide for
public uses of the area. The area to be served by the water management features includes
all lands adjacent to and controlled and managed by the project facilities. The City
Council on the basis of staff and consultant reports and recommendations of State and
federal agencies has determined that the proposed project will be conducive to the public
health convenience and welfare.
7. Abutting Landowners. The existence of this project has been acknowledged by the
abutting landowners that have developed their property as a benefit to their property. The
City will continue to seek to acquire easements and floodplain dedication or conveyance
from all future developments adjacent to this floodplain. The cost associated with
acquisition of lands or easements required for the trait that will serve abutting lands,will
be assessed to the benefitted properties. The project area and property owners are shown
on the attached map,which is a part of this petition.
8. Financing. The basic water management features of this project are a first priority
project of the Watershed District eligible for 100% financing except for acquisition of
land for trail easements that may be assessed to abutting property owners. The project
is of common benefit to the entire District and the entire area and recreational facilities
will be open to and available to the general public. The Petitioner City of Eden Prairie
requests that the basic water management cost of the project be financed in the manner
provided by Minnesota Statutes 103D.905. The Petitioner requests the Watershed District
to provide funds for the recreation and land acquisition portion of the project in
accordance with existing policy. The Petitioner states it will pay all appropriately related
costs and expenses which may be incurred by the District in case the proceedings are
dismissed if for any reason no contract for construction thereof is let.
Dated 1991
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By
Mayor
r5�1ell
� N
l�l
LU
>�
L U
a ,. I
a
0
cci
rn
0
r —•
vp
is
U O p 7
l�� j
PURGATORY CREEK RECREATION AREA
Property Owners - July 10, 1991
Parcel Owner Total Assessed Flood-
Description Acres Taxes plain
Acreage
iS-14-0003 City of Eden Prairie 48+ 45+
iS-14-0004 7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
iS-41-0001 Bruce Bermel 40 40
Bermel Smaby
5309 Lyndell Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55419
14-23-0010
outlot B William Naegele 6+ 6+
14-23-0011 1 Water Tower Place 1+ 1+
Outlot A 4300 Baker Road
(SW part of Minnetonka, MN 55343
Outlot A)
14-32-0004 Participation Dev Corp 17+
c/o S.B. McLaughlin, Ltd
Suite 1204
One University Ave.
Toronto, Ontario Canada
M5J2P1
15-44-0005 Lloyd Cherne 18.35 18.5
Outlot A 5704 view Lane 2.94 3+
14-33-0019 Edina, MN 55436
outlot B
15-12-0001 State of MN 20.7
15-13-0001 MTS Systems Corporation 52.78
15-42-0028 Box 24012
Outlot E Minneapolis, MN 55424
15-42-0029 Koosman-Rice
outlot F 2330 East Highway 12
Wilmar, MN 56201
15-43-0002 Thomas Carmody 41.9
8595 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
22-12-0003 Metropolitan Life Ins.
Outlot A United Properties
3500 W 80th Street
Suite 100
Bloomington, MN SS431
Parcel Owner Total Assessed Flood-
Acres plain
Acreage
15-31-0001 Richard Miller 39.97 (total)
3045 Estero Blvd
Fort Meyers, F1 33931
purgown/10
II
i
,
i
B
15�lS