Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/06/1991AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1991 COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER 7600 Executive Drive Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, 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 COMMENDATION RECOGNIZING THE OUTSTANDING EFFORTS OF SAFETY CAMP Pg. 1548 STAFF AND SPONSORS COMMENDATION FOR JULY 4 CELEBRATION Pg. 1549 I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES A. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday. July 30, 1991 Pg. 1550 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TECH 10 by Hoyt Development Company. 2nd Reading of Pg. 1553 Ordinance 20-91-PUD-6-91, Planned Unit Development District Review within the 1-2 Zoning District with waivers on 5.6 acres; Adoption of Resolution 91-160, Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication of Ordinance 20-91-PUD-6-91; 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) B. ZONING CODE SIGN REGULATION AMENDMENTS by the City of Pg. 1559 Eden Prairie. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 18-91, Amending Zoning Code Sign Regulations; Adoption of Resolution 91- 172, Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication. (Ordinance 18-91 - Amending Zoning Code Sign Regulations; Resolution 91-172 - Summary and Publication). C. 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 17-91, CONTROLLING WEEPS AND Pg. 1054 GRASS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, AMENDING CITY CODE, CHAPTER 9. SEC, 9.71. SM. 1 City Council Agenda August 6, 1991 Page Three C. BOULDER POINTE 2ND ADDITION by Robert H. Mason, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 43.7 acres; Adoption of Resolution 91-179, Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 75 single family lots, two outlots and road right-of-way to be known as Boulder Pointe 2nd Addition. Location: south of Mitchell Road, west of Twin Lakes Crossing and north of Victoria Drive. (Ordinance 23-91 - Zoning District Change; Resolution 91-179 - Preliminary Plat) PAYMENT OF CLAIMS ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS PETITIONS. REOUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES IX. APPOINTMENTS X. .EPORTS OF OFFICERS A. Reports of Councilmembers B. Report of City Manager 1. Relief Agreement Extension for Paragon Cable 2. Presentation of 1990 Audit Report C. Report of Director of Parks. Recreation & Natural Resources Pg. 1676 Pg. 1687 Pg. 1688 Pg. 1694 1. Recommendations for Community Center Expansion Pg. 1695 Program D. Report of Director of Public Works 1. Award Contract for Bluffs West 9th Addition. Bluestem Ridge. and Bluffs East 8th Addition. I.C. 52-199, 52-223, and 5Z-224 (Resolution No. 91-182) 2. Review Alternatives for Parks/Public Works Pg. 1697 Maintenance Facility REPORTS OF OFFICERS OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT City Council Agenda August 6, 1991 Page Two D. RECEIVE FEASIBILITY FOR ROWLAND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. Pg. 1582 .I.C.52-067 (Resolution Bo. 91-169) E. RELEASE OF LAND FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN Pg. 1583 CITY. MR . 6 MRS. UHERKA. AND AMOCO OIL COMPANY F. FINAL PLAT OF PARSER ADDITION (LOCATED NORTH OF ROWLAND Pg. 1587 ROAD AND WEST OF RASPBERRY HILL ROAD) Resolution No. 91- 175 G. FINAL PLAT OF DONNAY'S EDENVALE SECOND ADDITION (LOCATED Pg. 1589 7i.T THE N.E. CORNER OF EOENVALE BOULEVARD AND LESLEY LANE) Resolution No. 91-176 H. RAW RECORD OF DECISION FOR DELL ROAD AND SCENIC HEIGHTS Pg. 1592 ROAD. I.C. 52-160 (Resolution No. 91-177) I. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR TM 5 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, Pg. 1603 I.C. 52-177 J. RECEIVE 100% PETITION FOR PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE MEDIAN Pg. 1605 OPENING AT JOINER WAY, I.C. 52-229 (Resolution No. 91- 180) K. APPROVE PLANS FOR PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE MEDIAN OPENING AT Pg. 1606 JOINER WAY. I.C. 52-22t (Resolution No. 91-181) L. REOUEST FOR LAND ALTERATION PERMIT BY BRAD HOYT FOR AREA SOUTH OF TECH 10 M. 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 22-91. AMENDMENT Of PARK USE Pg. 1413 RULES RELATING TO HORSES N. EXTENSION OF HEALTH BENEFITS TO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS Pg. 1607 0. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST Pg. 1611 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DELL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. I.C. 52-126 (Resolution No. 91- Pg. 1612 178) B. SINGLETREE PLAZA by The Robert Larsen Partners. Request Pg. 1613 for Zoning District Change from Rural to Community Commercial on approximately 19 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Site Plan Review on approximately 19 acres for construction of 114,000 square feet of commercial uses to be known as Singletree Plaza. Location: South of Singletree Lane, east of Prairie Center Drive, west of Eden Road. (Ordinance 16-91 - Zoning District Change). A COMMENDATION FOR THE EDEN PRAIRIE SAFETY CAMP STAFF AND CONTRIBUTORS WHEREAS, the second annual Eden Prairie Safety Camp took place in July 1991 and was again a highly successful program as the number of participants grew from 107 last year to 150 this year; and WHEREAS, this program is a major investment in the City's youth and in safety education; and WHEREAS, this innovative program has brought and continues to bring regional and national recognition; and WHEREAS, the success of this program depends on the motivation and commitment of the energies of the City staff and the financial and in-kind donations of corporate sponsors and civic organizations, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Eden Prairie, that it commend the EDEN PRAIRIE POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFF EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFF EDEN PRAIRIE PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT STAFF AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP, Sponsor EDEN PRAIRIE LIONESS CLUB, Sponsor - their superb effort in this fine investment in the community's h,lan resources, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council express its appreciation to Officer Curt Oberlander for his exemplary and professional service in coordinating the 1991 Safety Camp. This public appreciation given August 6, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor Councilmembers: Richard Anderson Jean Harris H. Martin Jessen Patricia Pidcock SEAL Attest: John D. Frane, City Clerk A COMMENDATION FOR EDEN PRAIRIE'S JULY 4 CELEBRATION WHEREAS. one of the attributes which makes a community unique is the way its people celebrate life; and WHEREAS. of the many community events which occur during the year, the Fourth of July is one which is largely coordinated by the City of Eden Prairie; and WHEREAS. this Independence Day tradition has become one of the most popular and well-attended summer festivals which truly shows the spirit of cooperation by all who participate in booths and events as well as those who enjoy the sights, sounds smells, and fireworks during the day; and NOW. THEREFORE. the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie does hereby commend all of the individuals, groups, and organizations who contributed their time, resources, and talents to make the 1991 Fourth of July celebration a great success, AND. FURTHER the Council hereby specially recognizes • NORWEST BANE for its sole sponsorship of the fireworks display, and • LAURIE HELL/NG, Manager of Recreation Services, for coordinating the festivities and staffing of the events throughout the day. The gratitude of the City Council on behalf of the entire Eden Prairie community expressed this 6th day of August 1991. seal Attest: Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor Councilmembers: Richard T. Anderson H. Martin Jessen Jean L. Harris Patricia Pidcock John D. Frane, City Clerk NINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 30, 1991 COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 5:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER 7600 Executive Drive Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, & Finance Director John D. Frane ROLL CALL Councilmembers Harris, Jessen, and Pidcock were present. I. CALL TO ORDER Councilmember Pidcock presided over the meeting. She called the meeting to order at 5:36 PM. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Jessen moved and Harris seconded to approve the agenda as presented. Motion approved 3 - O. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Joint Powers Aqreement No. 67724 for Consultant Engineeringeervices for TM 5 from CSAH 17 to TM 41 (I.C. 52-238) Resolution No. 91-173 Jessen moved and Harris seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion approved 3 - O. IV. OTHER BUSINESS A. Resolution No. 91-174 Authorizing the Issuance of General Obliaatiou Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness. Series 1991A: General Obligat'on Improvement Bonds, Series 19915: and General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. Series 1991C Dave MacGillivray of Springsted, Inc., the City's financial advisor, spoke to the Council about matters relating to the desirability of issuing several series of bonds in the near term. City Council Minutes July 30, 1991 Page Two Specifically, the staff was recommending that the Council set August 20, 1991 as the date of sale for three series of bonds. Recently-adopted Federal regulations required that these bonds be settled by September 7, 1991 in order to retain their tax- exempt status. Within a few months, staff would speak with the Council about the possibility to refund approximately $10 million of existing bonds in order to achieve a substantially reduced interest rate. The new Federal regulations did not affect the tax-exempt status of these latter bonds. General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 1991A, $1,800,000: These bonds would be used to pay the accumulated debt of capital outlays from 1989 through 1991 which are eligible for this type of financing. By State Statute, the maximum term on these bonds is five years. General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1991D, $6,050,000: The $6,050,000 figure is a net amount of financing needed to cover costs already incurred on a number of projects in recent years. Issuance of these bonds would result in a new property tax requirement of $85,000-$90,000 per year. This amount was necessary in order to accommodate the deferment of special assessments and the State requirement that 105% of the principal and interest due be available every year. If the cash balance were sufficient going into the following year, then the levy may be reduced or eliminated for that year. General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1991C, $9,500,000: At year-end 1990, an $8,500,000 negative cash balance existed in the water and sewer construction fund. Issuance of $9,500,000 in bonds would bring this fund back to zero. Staff would work to change the cash flow and debt structure in this fund in order not to continue the pattern of bond issuance to fund large accumulated deficits. The structure would also preserve cash balances in order that they would be available to fund expansion of the water treatment plant in the future. 1,2'2 ) City Council Minutes July 30, 1991 Page Three Jessen asked how Federal arbitrage rules would affect the bonds the City would issue. MacGillivray replied that the Federal government has a regulation in place that when a City issues more than $5 million of bonds in a year, the interest it earns from the bond proceeds cannot be greater than the interest it pays on the bonds. The difference would need to be remitted to the Federal government. Generally speaking, some payment will be made to the Federal government five years from now because the interest the City would expect to earn at this time should be greater than the anticipated interest rate to pay on the bonds it would issue. MacGillivray also mentioned that there were six outstanding bond issues which are candidates for refunding. The outstanding principal on these bonds is $9,150,000. The lower rate to be expected from refunding the bonds would result in a net savings of approximately $1.2 million (or approximately $880,000 in 1991 dollars). Jessen moved and Harris seconded to approve Resolution No. 91-174 authorizing the issuance of General Obligation Debt, Series 1991A-C. Motion approved 3 - O. V. ADJOURNMENT Harris moved and Jessen seconded to adjourn the meeting at 6:00 PM. Motion passed unanimously. " Tech 10 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDNANCE 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 1-2 District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development 20-91-1-2 (hereinafter "PUD 20-91-1-2). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of August 6, 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 20-91-1-2 and is hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD 20-91-1-2 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of thd City. B. PUD 20-91-1-2 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 20-91-1-2 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PhD 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. 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 Arid 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 6th day of August, 1991. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor —"ED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1991. TECH 10 FUD CONCEPT AMENDMENT Lot I, Block 1, Outlots A and B, TECHNOLOGY PARK 5TH ADDITION; Lot I, Block 1, TECHNOLOGY PARK 7TH ADDITION IUD DISTRICT REVIEW AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Lot 1, Block 1, TECHNOLOGY PARK 7TH ADDITION 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. 20-9I-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-6-9I 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 6th day of August, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor All John D. Franc, City Clerk ' /C.\ ,n () Tech 10 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 20-91-PUD-6-9I 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 corner of West 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive from the 1-2 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. 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.) Tech 10 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 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 1-2 District by Ordinance 20-91- PUD-6-91 adopted by the City Council on August 6, 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 August 6, 1991 meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF , 11E 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 August 6, 1991, for said construction. ADOPTED by the City Council on August 6, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Franc, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIEI HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 18-91 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.70, ENTITLED "SIGN PERMITS" RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF CERTAIN SIGNS 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. City Code Section 11.70 is amended to read as follows: 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. I 5. "Canopy and Marquee" - A rootlike structure projecting over t h e e n t r a n c e t o a b u i l d i n g . 6. "Directional Sign" - A sign which is erected on private prope r t y b y t h e o w n e r o f s u c h property for the purpose of guiding vehicular and pedestrian tr a f f i c . S u c h s i g n s b e a r n o advertising information. 7. "Directional Signs for Churches, Schools, or Publicly Owned L a n d o r B u i l d i n g s " - A sign which bears the address and/or name of a church, school, o r p u b l i c l y o w n e d l a n d 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 plac e d i n t h e g r o u n d a n d n o t affixed to any part of any structure. 9. "Height" - The distance between the uppermost portion of th e s i g n a n d t h e a v e r a g e natural grade of the ground immediately below the sign. 10. "Illuminated Sign" - Any sign which is illuminated by an artific i a l l i g h t s o u r c e . 11. "Institutional Sign" - Any accessory sign which identif i e s t h e n a m e a n d o t h e r characteristics of a public or private institution, such as con v a l e s c e n t , n u r s i n g , r e s t , boarding care home or day care center. 12. "Menu Board Sign" - Any sign which has a message related to t h e s i t e ' s f o o d s e r v i c e a n d the copy is manually changed. 13. "Motion Sign" - Any sign which revolves, rotates or has any m o v i n g p a r t s o r m e s s a g e . 14. "Multi-tenant" - Structures containing two or more businesses, u s e s o r o c c u p a n t s . 15. "Nameplace or Identification Sign" - An accessory sign which b e a r s o n l y a n a m e a n d / o r . address. 16. "Neighborhood/Sector Sign" - A free standing sign which identi f i e s b y n a m e , t h e s e c t i o n of the City designated on the official sector map. 17. "Newspaper Receptacle" - A box or container intended for th e t e m p o r a r y s t o r a g e o f newspapers or magazines prior to delivery. 18. "Newspaper Vending Machines" - A coin-operated machine fro m w h i c h n e w s p a p e r s a r e sold to the general public. 2 19. "Non-Accessory Sign" or "Advertising Sign" - A sign relating in its subject matter to, or which directs attention to, a business or profession, 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 located at an entrance way to a Planned Unit Development identifying a Planned Unit Development land development 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 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: 10-31-84 166 i 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 "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, An interior lot has one street frontage, and a corner lot has two such frontages. Each allowed sign must relate to the street frontage generating the allowance. 36. "Temporary Sign" - A sign which is erected or displayed for a limited period of time. 37. "Traffic Sign" - A sign which is erected by a governmental unit for the purpose of regulating, directing or guiding traffic. 4 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 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. 5 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. 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 district provided that only one sign per political issue, political candidate, per housing unit is allowed. Signs may be placed in any district. These signs may be placed from August I and shall be removed within ten (10) days after the election. 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: 1. Such signs shall not exceed 100 square feet in area. 6 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: 1. 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. 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. Flagpole height must comply with height regulations contained in Section 11.03, Subdivision 3.F of the City Code. 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 sign shall not exceed 6 square feet in area. The total of all directional signs upon a site shall not exceed 36 square feet. 0. 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 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. 7 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. K. 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 City Manager or a designee, sign owner or property owner, all structural and electrical elements, members, including all brackets, braces, supports, wires, etc., shall also be removed. The perrnittee, 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 15 or more acres and contain at least 3 contiguous lots to support an Area Identification Sign. 8 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 A. Residential Districts R, R-1, RM: Source: Ordinance No. 72-84 Effective Date: 4-05-84 I. 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 32 square feet in area. 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. 5. Sign Base. (Refer to Subdivision 3, Subparagraph DD). Source: Ordinance No. 9-87 Effective Date: 5-06-87 9 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. 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. Source: Ordinance No. 72-84 Effective Date: 4-05-84 B. Commercial Districts: N-Corn, C-Corn, C-Hwy, C-Reg-Ser, C-Reg. I. 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 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 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. 1 0 e. Setback: No sign shall be placed closer than 20 feet to any street right-of- way. Where parking occurs within 1/2 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 multi-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. 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. 5. 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. II 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. 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. Source: Ordinance No. 72-84 Effective Date: 4-05-84 B. Commercial Districts: N-Corn, C-Corn, C-Hwy, C-Reg-Ser, C-Reg. 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 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 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 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. 10 7. Temporary Signs: (Refer to Subdivision 3). 8. Directional Signs: (Refer to Subdivision 3, Subparagraph N). 9. Menu Board: (Refer to Subdivision 3, Subparagraph G(i). 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 exceed 50 square feet. In no case shall a frontage have more than one sign, either a free- standing sign or FUD 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. 12 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: 1-2, 1-5, 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. 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: 13 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. Planned Unit Development (PUD): With multiple uses and 15 acre minimum. That the developer submit after approval of the P.U.D., a schematic plan for informational, directional and advertising signage, explaining and illustrating: (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. 14 (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 siens 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 for each building, lot, parcel, or tract of land may be erected on the lot parcel, or tract of land it applies or on which any such building is situated. (b) The total area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed 80 square 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. 15 (0 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 corner 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. 5. 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 16 611 I. Airport District. 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 thelenant 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. 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. 17 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 other provisions of this Section. No permit is required under this Subdivision for the following signs: I. 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, 1, 1, K, and Y, Area Identification Signs and Neighborhood Markets. 18 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 permitte,e 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 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 105-84 Effective Date: 9-19-84 19 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. 5.E. 1. and 2. 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, 20 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. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 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 16th 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 6th day of August, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Franc, Clerk PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1991. 21 Zoning Code Sign Regulations CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 91-172 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 18-91 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 18-91 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 6th day of August, 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. 18-91 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. 18-91 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 6th day of August, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Zoning Code Sign Regulations CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPLN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 18-91 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.70, ENTITLED "SIGN PERMITS" RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF CERTAIN SIGNS 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: Summary: This Ordinance amends the definition of area identification, new definitions for menu and readerboards, increases the sign area allowed for on-site directional and address signs, setback requirements between free-standing signs, and reorganizes existing sign regulations. 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.) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 91-169 RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer, through RCM, Inc. recommending the following improvements to wit: I.C. 52-067 (Rowland Road and Old shady Oak Road Street and Utility Improvements) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: 1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements in accordance with the report and the assessment of property abutting or within said boundaries for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to M.S.A. Section 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated total cost of the improvements as shown. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the August 20 -, 1991 at 7:30 P.M. at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600 Executive Drive. The City Clerk shall give published and mailed notice of such hearing on the improvements as required by law. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 6, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk /-7;‘) RELEASE OF LAND This Release of Land is executed by the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and is dated as of August 6, 1991. FACTS 1. A certain Agreement Regarding Special Assessments ("Agreement") dated August 16, 1983, was executed by and between the City, Leonard F. Uherka and Bessie V. Uherka, husband and wife, and AMOCO Oil Company, a Maryland Corporation, which Agreement was filed as Document No. 1535860 with the Registrar of Titles on September 16, 1983. The Agreement related to the property described therein as: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED 2. The special assessments contemplated by the Agreement have been levied and the time for appeal has expired. 3. To evidence the fact that the special assessments have been levied and the time for appeal has expired, the City is executing this Release of Land. THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereby releases the - Property described above from all obligations and conditions set forth in the Agreement Regarding Special Assessments dated August 16, 1983 filed with the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No. 1535860 on September 16, 1983. This Release of Land shall not release or discharge the Property from the lien of any special assessments levied by the City pursuant to the Agreement. Page -2- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Eden Prairie has executed the foregoing instrument. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, A Municipal Corporation BY: Douglas B. Tenpas Its Mayor BY: Carl J. Jullie Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. JUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1991, by Douglas B. Tenpas and Carl J. Jullie, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 #7-- RELEASE.0 RFR/01-14-88 EXHIBIT "A" That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 2, Township 116, Range 22, described as beginning at a point on the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant 171.2 feet West from the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East to said Northeast corner; thence South to the Southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence West along the South line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 425.75 feet; thence North, parallel with the East line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to a point 100 feet South along said parallel line from its intersection with the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East parallel with said North line 103.09 feet more or less to the center line of County Road No. 61; thence Southerly along said center line 101.17 feet more or less to a line drawn West, parallel with said North line from a point on the East line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant 200 feet South from the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East along the last described parallel line 137.7 feet, more or less to a line drawn South parallel with said East line from the point of beginning; thence North parallel with said East line 200 feet to the point of beginning, except that part thereof which lies within 40 feet on each side of the following described "Line A"; Said property has been platted as: Chase Point - Lot 2, Block 1; Chase Point 2nd Addition - Lot 1, Block 1 and Oudot A; Registered Land Survey No. 1581, Parcel A, and Parcel I. Line "A": Beginning at a point on the South line of Section 36, Township 117, Range 22 distant 488.84 feet Easterly of the Southwest corner of said Section 36; thence run Southerly from said line at an angle of 95°40'48" as measured from West to South for a distance of 1638.23 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect to the right 180° for a distance of 840 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point "A"; thence continue Northerly for a distance of 200 feet and there terminating. Also except that part of the above described tract which lies between the following described Line "B" and Line "C". Line "B": Beginning at Point "A" on the above described Line "A"; thence run Easterly at right angles to said Line "A" for a distance of 40 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line • to be described; thence deflect to the left 88°34'04" for a distance of 600 feet and there terminating. Line "C": Beginning at Point "A" on the above described Line "A"; thence run Westerly at right angles to said Line "A" for a distance of 40 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect to the right 88°34'04" for a distance of 600 feet and there terminating. Also except that part of the above described tract which lies Northerly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 40 feet Southerly of the following described line, hereinafter referred to as Line "D": Beginning at a point on the North line of Section 1, Township 116, Range 22, distant 577.37 feet Easterly of the Northwest comer of said Section 1; thence run Southwesterly along a curve tangent to said North line having a radius of 409.26 feet (delta angle 47°57'23") for a distance of 342.55 feet; thence tangent to said curve for a distance of 63.05 feet; thence deflect to the right along a tangential curve having a radius of 286.48 feet (delta angle 42°15'00") for a distance of 211.25 feet; thence tangent to said curve for a distance of 326.31 feet and there terminating. Parcel 1, Tract A: Registered Land Survey No. 1346, together with all right of access being the right of ingress to and egress from the above described tracts not acquired herein to County State Air Highway Nos. 61 and 62 except in that the abutting owner shall have the right of access to the frontage road to be constructed and to that part of said Road No. 61 lying South of the intersection of said frontage road with said Road No. 61 as shown in deed Document No. 970391, Files of the Register of Titles, and Parcel 2: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 2, Township 116, Range 22, described as beginning at a point of the North line of said Northeast Quarter distant 171.2 feet West from the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South, parallel with the East line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 200 feet; thence West, parallel with said North line, 137.7 feet, more or less, to the center line of County Road No. 61, thence Northerly along said center line 32.34 feet, more or less, to the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; ,hence East along said North line 165 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcels 1 and 2 have since become acquired right-of-way for State Highway No. 62 per Document No. 4951533. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 91-175 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF FARBER ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Farber 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 Farber Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated July 31, 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 August 6, 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 31, 1991 SUBJECT: Farber Addition PROPOSAL: Roger and Abigail Farber, the owners, have requested City Council approval of the final plat of Farber Addition, a single family residential subdivision located north of Rowland Road and west of Raspberry Hill Road. The plat contains 7.6 acres to be divided into three lots, and one outlot. Outlot A contains 3.6 acres and is intended to be subdivided at a future date. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council February 20, 1990, per Resolution No. 90-17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2-90, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1- 22, was finally read and approved at City Council meeting held August 21, 1990. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed August 21, 1990. 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: Access to municipal utilities will be provided for in this project with the upgrading of Rowland Road. The City Council is scheduled to receive a feasibility study for the upgrading of Rowland Road at their August 6, 1991 meeting. As described in the Developer's Agreement, the owners shall enter into a special assessment agreement with the City that will describe their portion of the construction costs for Rowland Road upgrading. PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: Bonding must conform to City Code and the Developer's Agreement requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Farber 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 $162.00. 2. Receipt of Engineering Fee in the amount of $250.00. 3. Execution of Special Assessment Agreement for Rowland Road upgrading. JJ:ssa CC: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 91-176 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF DONNAYS EDENVALE SECOND ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Donnays Edenvale Second Addition as 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 Donnays Edenvale Second Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated August 1, 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 August 6, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor Al !EST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Tenpas and Councilmembers THROUGH: Alan Gray, P.E., City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician DATE: August 1, 1991 SUBJECT: Final Plat of Donnays Edenvale Second Addition (Resolution No. 91-176) PROPOSAL: The Developer, Sunset Homes Corporation, has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Donnays Edenvale Second Addition. Located north of Edenvale Boulevard, and east of Leslie Lane, the plat contains 2.97 acres to be divided into 16 townhouse units and two lots consisting of common area. This proposal is a replat of Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, Edenvale 15th Addition. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council September 18, 1990, per Resolution No. 90-239. Second reading by the City Council of Ordinance No. 36-90, Zoning District Amendment within the RM-6.5 District, was finally read and approved November 13, 1990. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed November 13, 1990. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities, streets, and walkways currently exist around the perimeter of this site, and are available to be extended to the interior of this project. It is the intention of the developer to have the watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within the plat owned and maintained by the City. Prior to release of final plat the developer shall provide the City Engineer with detailed plans and specifications for sanitary sewer and watermain and storm sewer intended for public ownership. Additionally, the developer shall provide the City with financial surety to insure the installation of these public utilities. PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. Donnays Edenvale Second Addition August 1, 1991 Page 2 of 2 BONDING: Bonding shall conform to the requirements of the Developer's Agreement and City Code. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Donnays Edenvale Second Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement, and the . following: 1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $640.00. 2. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. 3. Receipt of plans for public utilities. JJ:ssa cc: Paul Donnay, Sunset Homes, Inc. Ray Prasch, Lots Surveys, Inc. EAW RECORD OF DECISION DELL ROAD AND SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE CITY PROJECT NO. 52-160 Prepared For The City of Eden Prairie Prepared By Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. August 1, 1991 SRF No. 0901464 EAW RECORD OF DECISION DELL ROAD AND SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE CITY PROJECT NO. 52-160 BACKGROUND The city of Eden Prairie is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this project. The city of Eden Prairie has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) in accordance with the environmental review requirements of the Environmental Review Program of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB). A press release was sent to the Eden Prairie News to inform the public that an EAW had been prepared for the project and that written comments were being received by the City of Eden Prairie. The EAW was filed with the EQB and circulated for review and comment to the required agencies on the distribution list. The Notice of EAW Availability was published in the EQB Monitor on May 27, 1991. The thirty day EAW comment period ended June 27, 1991. Dell Road is proposed to be constructed as a 74-foot wide, four- lane divided bituminous roadway with an 18-foot wide median. It is classified as a minor arterial and is proposed to extend from the T.H. 5 South Frontage Road south to County Highway 1. Scenic Heights Road is proposed to be a 36-foot wide, two lane bituminous collector facility from Dell Road to the Hennepin County Light Rail Corridor (abandoned C&NW Railroad), and a 50- foot wide, two-lane divided bituminous roadway with an 18-foot median from the Rail Corridor to C.S.A.H. 4. Storm sewer improvements are proposed for both Dell Road and Scenic Heights Road. The proposed system would follow existing drainage patterns and use both storm sewers and open channels to convey storm water. Sedimentation basins designed using NURP standards will be provided at each outfall to provide primary treatment prior to discharge of water to wetlands and lakes. Also proposed are sanitary sewer and watermain facilities required to support planned future development in the area. Construction methods planned for this project include excavation of organic soils and backfilling with suitable soils; excavation and backfilling for installation of storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and watermain; excavation as required for wetland mitigation and habitat enhancement; bituminous paving and concrete curb and gutter installation; and erosion control and turf establishment measures. 1 FINDINGS OF FACT Following are the findings of the EAW regarding potential environmental impacts due to the proposed project. 1. Water Ouality Eden Prairie is in the process of developing a comprehensive surface water management plan. The City will utilize guidelines established by Hennepin County for erosion control and water quality during the Dell Road project. The Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District is also drafting a storm water management plan. These plans will address the effects of urbanization on the water resources of the area along with providing a framework for meeting water quality criteria consistent with the Metropolitan Council and the Board of Water and Soil Resources. Sedimentation basins designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards will be provided at each outfall for primary treatment of water prior to discharge (by overflow) into wetlands and then to area lakes. Routing of runoff through the sedimentation basins and wetlands will help minimize any negative impacts to the water quality of area lakes. Water quality impacts due to planned development will be addressed through the City's surface water management plan. 2. Wetlands Several wetlands lie along the Dell Road and Scenic Heights Road alignments. A corridor study was completed to identify roadway alignments that would avoid or minimize wetland impacts. However, some wetlands will be impacted by the final alignments. Avoidance alternatives have been considered and mitigation measures will be determined in coordination with the appropriate agencies during the permit process. 3. Rare or Significant Plant or Animal Communities The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage database has identified a Maple-Basswood forest community (Big Woods) within the project area. The alignment of Scenic Heights Road minimizes impacts on the "Big Woods" as much as possible. 4. Archaeological. Historical, or Architectural Resources The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has determined that several sites exist near the project area that could potentially be disturbed. An archaeological 2 survey has been completed to determine whether any sites would be impacted. Further evaluation will be needed for three sites that were found to determine whether the sites are significant and what type of mitigation will be required. 5. Erosion and Sedimentation Two areas within the project corridor have slopes greater than 12 percent. During construction erosion control measures such as ditches, dikes, siltation fences, and balechecks will 'be used until vegetative cover can be established. 6. Dust and Noise Dust: Dust created by construction operations will be controlled by watering when necessary. Noise: Predicted noise levels at a few existing homes along Dell Road will exceed state standards. As the area develops, it is the city's policy to require developers to provide heavily landscaped berms between roads and residential areas to reduce noise impacts on homes that are built after roads are constructed. Predicted levels for Scenic Heights Road and County Road 4 will exceed standards. However, the major source of traffic noise will be County Road 4 and T.H. 212. Therefore, mitigation in this area would be difficult and only marginally effective. 7. Hazardous Waste An underground fuel storage tank exists within the project area. Although no impacts are anticipated, soil testing may be necessary prior to right-of-way acquisition. 8. Floodolains A portion of the project corridor is within 1,000 feet of the designated Shoreland Zoning District for Riley Creek, but does not encroach on the floodplain. 9. Water Use Wells: Several abandoned wells may lie within the project area. If any are impacted by the final alignment, they will be sealed according to the appropriate regulations. Dewatering: Sanitary sewer and watermain installation may require some dewatering. No long term effects are anticipated. 3 10. Farmland The Hennepin Conservation District (HCD) has determined that prime farmland soils exist within the project area and would be impacted by the project. Five parcels would be divided to minimize wetland impacts. This area has been planned for urban development, therefore preservation of agricultural land does not have long term significance. 11. Designated Parks. Recreation Areas. and Trails Scenic Heights Road will provide access to Miller Park. A bike trail is proposed to he constructed along the proposed roadway. 12. Related Developments It is anticipated that land adjacent to the project area will be developed in accordance with city plans, ordinances, and codes. This area is currently planned for low density residential development. This project provides necessary access to the area to support the anticipated development consistent with the City's plans. COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Copies of letters are attached) 1. Minnesota Pollution Control Aaency, Paul Hoff, June 19, 1991. Comment: Staff review concluded that significant environmental effects are not likely to occur as a result of the project. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement does not appear warranted. Response: None required. Comment: A sewer extension permit may be needed. Response: If it is determined that a sewer extension permit will be required for this project, it will be applied for at the appropriate time. Comment: The EAW indicated that a 404 permit will be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A 401 Water Quality certification from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) must also be obtained as part of that permit process. 4 Response: As stated in the EAW, the Section 404 permit process will be followed. This process includes the MPCA water quality certification under Section 401 for all projects requiring an individual Section 404 permit. Comment: The EAW indicates that wetland avoidance and minimization alternatives were evaluated in the "Corridor Study and Report for Southwest Area". It was further stated that mitigation by wetland replacement and/or habitat enhancement will be decided based on input from the appropriate agencies during the 404 permit process. This information is not available as part of this EAW, therefore any concerns the MPCA may have regarding these items and the Governors Executive order 91-3 for no-net loss of wetlands on this project cannot be developed until the 404 process is undertaken. Response: Wetland mitigation is part of the 404 permit process and will be addressed in the final design process. Concerns regarding mitigation plans will be addressed during the permit process with the agencies involved. Comment: It should be noted that if work is still proceeding after November 1991, the project will need a Storm Water Permit from the MPCA water quality division. Response: Section 402 of the Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (more specifically a construction related storm water permit) for point source discharge of pollutants into all waters of the state be acquired. These permits are regulated through the MPCA and will be applied for at the appropriate time. 2. Department of Natural Resources, Thomas W. Saloom, June 24, 1991. Comment: If any work is to take place in state protected wetlands or waters, a DNR protected waters permit will be required. Response: The proposed project alignment does not impact any DNR protected waters due to avoidance of these particular basins. Comment: After avoidance and impact reduction options are exhausted, the primary mitigation strategy should be restoration of drained or diminished wetlands. Wetland enhancement or creation should be pursued only if restoration is not possible. 5 Response: Mitigation plans are part of the permit process and will be addressed in the final design process. Mitigation strategies will be planned, designed, and carried out in cooperation with the appropriate agencies. Comment: The EAW includes a brief discussion of balancing wetland and hardwood forest resource values. Considering the inevitable development in the area, it may be that the Maple Basswood community is not salvageable. It is very likely, even if many trees are left standing, that the community will not be viable. It is our view that the city should further evaluate the trade-off of wetlands for uplands. It may be that, in the long term, an alignment favoring greater wetland protection may have fewer negative impacts. Response: The Maple Basswood forest is considered endangered by the Natural Heritage Program. This particular tract has been disturbed by intensive selective cutting of the mature trees, but as recently as 1988 was judged to have good recovery potential if the cutting were to cease. There are very few tracts of this size and type left in the area. The City of Eden Prairie considers the woods a unique resource that should be preserved if possible. The wetlands proposed to be impacted are not DNR protected waters. The wetlands in question occur along the proposed Scenic Heights Road and are classified as Type 2 wetlands and are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed alignment and the corresponding construction limits for T.H. 212 impact a large percentage of each wetland and the proposed Scenic Heights Road construction limits impact the small acreage that would remain. Both projects will be required to mitigate for impacts to these wetlands according to agency guidelines. Based on a meeting with DNR staff, the Maple Basswood forest should be given higher priority for preservation due to the anticipated impacts of T.H. 212 on wetlands. Comment: Wetland losses continue at a rapid pace, the DNR does not consider five acres of wetland fill to be minor. Response: It is agreed that impacts to wetlands are not favorable. Care was taken during the design of roadway alignment to avoid particularly sensitive wetlands, i.e. waters protected by the DNR. Minimization and mitigation measures will be part of the final design process. As stated in the EAW, impacts to these wetlands are proposed to be mitigated based on input from the appropriate agencies during the permit process. 6 Comment: Although the EAW indicates that sedimentation basins will be used to clarify stormwater, the DNR is aware of an earlier feasibility report showing stormwater runoff directly into wetlands. This would be unacceptable to the Department and it is hoped that the city still plans to construct appropriate sedimentation basins. Response: Sedimentation basins will be constructed at all outfalls according to National Urban Runoff Plan (NURP) standards. Water will be routed through these basins before overflow into wetlands. Comment: After construction all disturbed areas should be seeded with native vegetation. Response: The city will consider seeding with native vegetation in areas that would be appropriate. Comment: The DNR nOtes that the 1.7 miles of new four-lane alignment for Dell Road comes very close to the mandatory Environmental Impact Statement threshold. Response: The threshold has been noted and an EAW prepared. Comment: A DNR appropriation permit would be required if construction dewatering were to exceed 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year. Response: It is not expected that dewatering would be in excess of 10,000 gallons per day. If it is determined that the threshold would be exceeded, a DNR appropriation permit would be pursued. 3. Metropol .tan Council, Steven Schwanke, June 12, 1991. Comment: Dell Road and Scenic Heights Road are within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Response: The Metropolitan Council has approved a 317 acre MUSA extension which when adopted by the City of Eden Prairie would encompass all of proposed Dell Road and Scenic Heights Road. The City of Eden Prairie agrees not to approve the MUSA extension until the following items are addressed: evaluate the impact of increased phosphorus loading on Riley Lake and Mitchell Lake; identify the location of detention ponds and evaluate their effectiveness in removing phosphorus; 7 • indicate how the functional value of f i l l e d w e t l a n d s w i l l be replaced, and; • classify Dell Road as a minor arteria l n o r t h a n d s o u t h o f new T.H. 212. Comment: The Metropolitan Council ha s r e v i e w e d s e v e r a l documents in the past two years fo r l a n d d e v e l o p m e n t proposals in the southwest area of Ede n P r a i r i e . T h e m a j o r concern in each of these reviews is t h a t t h e c u m u l a t i v e effects of urbanization will negativ e l y a f f e c t t h e w a t e r quality of Lake Riley, Lake Mitchell, t h e M i n n e s o t a R i v e r and area wetlands. Response: A meeting was held with Me t r o p o l i t a n C o u n c i l staff to review their concerns. Ed e n P r a i r i e s t a f f explained that the city is in the proc e s s o f d e v e l o p i n g a comprehensive surface water manage m e n t p l a n . I n t h e meantime, the City will utilize guidel i n e s e s t a b l i s h e d b y Hennepin County for erosion control and w a t e r q u a l i t y d u r i n g the Dell Road project. The city is al s o w o r k i n g w i t h t h e Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed Di s t r i c t i n a d o p t i n g a surface water management plan. The ado p t i o n o f t h e s e p l a n s will address the effects of urbaniz a t i o n o n t h e w a t e r resources of the area along with provi d i n g a f r a m e w o r k f o r meeting water quality criteria co n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e Metropolitan Council and the Board o f W a t e r a n d S o i l Resources. Metropolitan Council staff i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e s e efforts would satisfy their concerns. Comment: The EAW is inaccurate because i t s t a t e s t h a t w a t e r quality will not be adversely affected . T h e w a t e r q u a l i t y in several lakes, wetlands, and the Mi n n e s o t a R i v e r m a y b e adversely affected due to increased p h o s p h o r u s l o a d i n g caused by the conversion of land to impe r v i o u s s u r f a c e s . Response: At the meeting with Metropol i t a n C o u n c i l s t a f f , this issue was clarified. The EAW sta t e d t h a t s u m p c a t c h basins would be provided at each exit t o t h e s t o r m s e w e r system to provide initial sedimentation . D i s c h a r g e f r o m t h e storm sewer system would subsequently e n t e r s e d i m e n t a t i o n basins for primary treatment and r u n o f f w o u l d t h e n b e conveyed to surrounding wetlands by o v e r f l o w . T h e E A W further stated that this type of treat m e n t w o u l d m i n i m i z e water quality impacts to area wetlands a n d l a k e s b y r e d u c i n g sediment loads and water level surges . T h e D e l l R o a d a n d Scenic Heights Road project will use sed i m e n t a t i o n b a s i n s a t every outfall designed with NURP s t a n d a r d s , t h e b e s t management practice currently available . O p e n c h a n n e l s w i l l be used to convey water from these ba s i n s t o w e t l a n d s a n d eventually area lakes. According to t h e E P A , 4 0 t o 7 0 % o f the total phosphorus can be removed i n a N U R P d e s i g n e d 8 k:J,1 basin. Wetlands are also known to act as sediment and nutrient traps. Given the measures that will be used in this project, water quality impacts will be minimized to the extent possible. Metropolitan Council staff indicated that the city's strategy for treating roadway runoff would be acceptable. Comment: The EAW is incomplete because the location of ponds is not identified in the EAW, nor does it indicate how the filled wetlands will be mitigated. Response: The issue was also clarified at the meeting with Metropolitan Council staff. The location of sedimentation ponds and wetland mitigation sites are normally considered final design issues. A sedimentation basin designed to NURP standards, the best management practice, will be provided at every outfall to treat 100 percent of the roadway drainage. Mitigation of wetland impacts will be determined in coordination with the appropriate agencies during the permit process. Metropolitan Council staff indicated that they like to see these details as early as possible in the design process and that our approach would be acceptable. Comment: The Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District plan is currently considered deficient by the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Response: Refer to the response to comment 2 of the Metropolitan Council. Additionally, a water quality study will be initiated in 1992 by the Watershed District to assess the cumulative effects of development on water resources, including the Minnesota River. Comment: Metropolitan Council transportation policy requires metropolitan highway interchanges to intersect with roadways classified as minor arterials. Dell Road is proposed to intersect with new T.H. 212 and is classified as a minor arterial north of new T.H. 212 and as a collector south of new T.H. 212. Response: Dell Road will be classified as a minor arterial south of T.H. 212. Comment: The traffic forecasts in the EAW are higher than those in the T.H. 212 EIS. The difference is not sufficient to warrant change in the design of Dell Road. Response: None required. 9 CONCLUSIONS The corridor study and the EAW have generated sufficient information to determine if the project has a potential for significant environmental impacts. While there is potential for environmental impacts due to the project, these impacts can be addressed through permits and mitigated through final design. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, this project does not require an Environmental Impact Statement. 1 0 SRF No. 0301315 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 52-177 T.H. 5 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA July 1991 Contractor: Nodland Construction Co., Inc. P.O. Box 338 Alexandria, MN 56308 Engineer: Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. Suite 150 One Carlson Parkway North Plymouth, MN 55447 The following work shall be added by Contract to this project: ADDITIONS Unit Item No. Description Unit Price Qty. Amount 0041.604 Storm Water Basin L.S. $3,500 1 $ 3,500.00 Total Additions, Contract Amendment No. 2 $ 3,500.00 Necessity for Amendment Grading by the developer in the Shores of Mitchell Lake area has been delayed. Due to this delay, it has become necessary to construct an additional sedimentation basin for the control and treatment of storm water runoff. The basin shall be constructed in accordance with the attached plan sheet No. 78. ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT TOTAL PREVIOUS CONTRACT AMENDMENT ADDITIONS TOTAL PREVIOUS CONTRACT AMENDMENT DEDUCTIONS SUBTOTAL TOTAL ADDITIONS CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2 CONTRACT AMOUNT TO DATE PAGE 1 OF 2 $ 386,973.10 $ 94,896.10 0.0 0 $ 481,869.20 $ 3.500.00 $ 485,369.20 I CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2 I.C. 52-177 CONTRACTOR Nodland Construction Co., Inc. Title: ENGINEER Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. Title: SEAM7At e 'litc-/A/E-Eie PAGE 2 OF 2 Date: 07/10/91 Date: "1 /•n•/- CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE City Engineer Date: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 91-180 RESOLUTION RECEIVING 100% PETITION, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR I.C. 52-229 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE MEDIAN OPENING AT JOINER WAY BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: 1. The owners of 100% of the real property abutting upon and to be benefitted from the proposed improvement have petitioned the City Council to construct said improvements and to assess the entire cost against their property. 2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, and upon recommendation of the City Engineer, said improvements are hereby ordered and the City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for said improvements in accordance with City Standards and advertise for bids thereon. 3. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish a copy of this resolution once in the official newspaper, and further a contract for construction of said improvements shall not be approved by the City Council prior to 30 days following publication of this Resolution in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on August 6, 1991 Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Franc, Clerk /LAX; CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 91-181 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 52-229 - Prairie Center Drive Median Opening at Joiner Way 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 2 weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be received until 10:00 a.m., August 29, 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, September 3, 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 August 6, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Carl J. Jullie, City Manager July 19, 1991 Health Care Benefits for Councilmembers Recently Councilmembers inquired about the availability of health care insurance through the City's benefit program. The attached memo from Ms. Swaggert explains that such insurance coverage can be made available to Councilmembers if the Council so chooses. Coverage for Councilmembers could begin on January 1, 1992, or sooner (i.e. September 1), if the Council chooses to amend the 1991 budget to so accommodate. Assuming a September 1 start date, the added City cost for the balance of 1991 would be $990.00 per each Councilmember who chooses to participate. The required open enrollment period could be accomplished during the month of August. I will contact each Councilmember to determine your interest level and then we can schedule Council action at the August 6 Council meeting. CJJ:jdp Attachment Single (city paid) Dependent (city contribution) $152.05 $185.50 $374.97 $457.46 $247.60 (66%) $297.60 (65%) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Carl Jullie, Manager City of Eden Prairie Natalie Swaggert, Director Human Resources & Community Services July 18, 1991 1992 Budget consideration: Health care benefits for councilmembers Beginning January 1, 1992, City councilmembers may elect to participate in the employee health insurance program if the Council chooses to include themselves on the health care plan. A one-time open enrollment period for current councilmembers will be held in December 1991. Thereafter newly elected officials, at the time they take office, will be given the option of enrolling in the health care plan. Coverage will begin on January 1st and proof of eligibility will not be required. Specific information on the health care plan options will be provided along with the enrollment forms in December. Councilmembers electing dependent insurance will have the option of paying their premium through payroll deduction or by personal check. To extend the health insurance benefit to councilmembers, the additional costs must be included in the 1992 budget. Currently the City pays the full premium for single coverage ($152.05/mo.) and approximately two-thirds ($247.60/mo.) of the premium for dependent coverage. We anticipate a premium increase of 20 to 25% in 1992. The projected increase in the City's contribution is noted below. 1991 1992 The additional cost to the City to extend health care insurance to councilmembers in 1992 would be $17,856.00 ($297.60 x 12 x 5). Assumptions: All members participate and elect dependent coverage. Attached is a copy of the City Attorney's findings regarding the extension of benefits to councilmembers. Because it does not involve an increase in direct compensation to councilmembers, no change in the City Code is required. Attachment m-benecc ROBERT I. LANG ROGER A. PAULY OMNI") H GREGERSON 4 RICHAIILNE ROSOW MARK E JOHNSON JOSEPH A. NILAN JOHN W. LANG. CPA LEAD. SOUZA SPEETER JEFFREY C. APPELOUIST . JUDITH K. DUTCHER BARBARA M. ROSS WILLIAM R. MILLER • AM Awlerual io Prorw I,. *mama LANG, PAUL? & GREGERSON, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 370 SUBURBAN PLACE BUILDING 250 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 TELEPHONE: (612) 829-7355 FAX: (612) 829-11713 May 28, 1991 MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE 4418111)s FEWER 1111 SOU -I11 1.1G111H STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 714411 0121 311 -0755 FAX 18121 1440718 REPt TO EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE. Natalie Swaggert Human Resources City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Medical Insurance Coverage for Council Members Dear Natalie: You have inquired whether Council members may be provided with the City's group health insurance and if so, does M.S. S415.11 preclude providing coverage immediately. 1. Can the City provide health insurance for the Council members. M.S. S471.61 expressly authorizes municipal corporations to insure their "officers and employees, and their dependents" for life, health, and accident in the case of employees and medical and surgical benefits and hospitalization insurance for both employees and dependents. The Attorney General, A.G. Op. 249b-8, dated December 9, 1957, said that officers and employees as used in the statute includes village mayors, clerks, trustees, and treasurers. Based upon the foregoing it is concluded that the term officers includes the mayor and members of the council and therefore may be insured under the statute. 2. Does M.S. S415.11 preclude the insurance from becoming effective immediately. M.S. S415.11, Subd. 2 states that no change in salary shall take effect until after the next succeeding municipal election. While no opinion of the Attorney General has been found which has addressed this question the Attorney General has given opinions to the effect that insurance benefits provided under M.S. S471.61 are permissible in addition to statutory provisions which set a maximum salary for village or county officials. See A.G. Op. Pauly Natalie Swaggert May 28, 1991 Page 2 249b-8, dated December 9, 1957: A.G. Op. 249B9A, dated August 31,1955, and an opinion of the A.G. dated January 5, 1956 which does not appear to contain a number addressed to James F. Lynch, Ramsey County Attorney. I discussed this matter with Michael — Gallagher of the Attorney General's office and he is of the opinion that S415.11 is limited to salaries and not to other compensation and that therefore it does not apply to insurance benefits provided under the authority of M.S. S471.61. I concur in this Condlusion. RAP:ss CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST August 6, 1991 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) AHL, Incorporated Gene Becker & Sons Builders Buffets, Inc. Dorpinghaus Construction Garvey Construction National T.I. Northwest Racquet Club State Construction Tyler-Holberg, Inc. CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) All Remodeling Bennis Construction Custom Craft Builders, Inc. Damon Homes Elko Construction First Choice Exteriors Ms. Fixit, Inc. Greg Frazee Homes, Inc. Keyland Homes Landstyle Design & Construction Light & Sound Homes Project For Pride In Living, Inc. Sontowski Enterpirses, Inc. PLUMBING Hanson-Kleven Plumbing Jos. E. Peters Plumbing Plumb Right R. C. Plumbing & Heating Richie's Plumbing & Sewer Service Sutherlund Plumbing & Heating TEK Mechanical Service, Inc. GAS FITTER Dependable Indoor Air Quality, Inc. R.C. Plumbing & Heating TEK Mechanical Service, Inc. HEATING & VENTILATING Dependable Indoor Air Quality, Inc, R.C. Plumbing & Heating TEK Mechanical Service, Inc. CLASS A GAMBLING Hockey Association of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Legion (Bingo Hall) These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. 7Th -MEMORANDUM- TO: Mayor Tenpas and Councilmembers FROM: Alan Gray, P.E., City Engineer0)- DATE: August 2, 1991 SUBJECT: Dell Road between Twilight Trail and TH 5 At the request of residents, the Engineering Division hosted an informational meeting for the Twilight Trail/Paulson Drive neighborhood to review the proposed extension of Dell Road southerly from Twilight Trail crossing the Soo Line Railroad tracks and connecting to TH 5. The projected traffic volume for Dell Road at the railroad crossing, based on full development of the southwest sector of Eden Prairie, is 5,000 vehicles per day. Several residents questioned the present and future need for the extension of Dell Road across the railroad tracks. When a road segment serves 5,000 vehicles per day, we can assume that for each of those trips the road segment represents the most convenient route between its origin and destination. If the road segment is non-existent other routes will be selected between the origin and destination of each for the 5,000 trips. In the case of the Dell Road segment, at the railroad tracks, no one single route would serve as the primary alternate for each of the projected 5,000 trips. Trips will shift to other segments of trunk highway, collector roadway, and residential streets. The community can anticipate the following benefits from construction of Dell Road across the railroad tracks connecting to TH 5: o Reduce congestion on Valley View Road and CSAH 4, and reduce congestion at the intersections of Valley View Road with CSAH 4 and CSAH 4 with 'TH 5. o Reduce through traffic on minor residential streets in the northwest sector. o Reduce response time for emergency vehicles moving between the northwest and southwest sectors of the community. o Enhance school bus routing between the northwest segment of the community and the Middle School on Scenic Heights Road. o Provide convenient access for the northwest sector of the community to future neighborhood commercial at Dell Road and TH 5. From a perspective of providing convenient collector roadway connection between the northwest and southwest segments of the community, Dell Road is a desired facility. TH 101 or CSAH 4 as alternative north/south collectors will add significant length to each of the projected 5,000 daily trips that will utilize Dell Road. ADG:ssa CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 91-178 RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 2nd day of July, 1991, fixed the 6th day of August, 1991, as the date for public hearing on the following proposed improvements: I.C. 52-126 (Dell Road between Twilight Trail and TH 5) WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for the making of this improvement were given ten days published notice of the Council hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice and the hearing was held and property owners heard on the 6th day of August, 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: 1. Such improvement as above indicated is hereby ordered. 2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement with the assistance of BRW. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 6, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk MICHAEL R LINDGREN 18583 Twilight Trail Eden Prairie, MN 55346 July 22 1991 City Manager City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 Dear Sir I'm not sure my schedule will allow me to attend the public hearing on August 6,1991, so I would like to pass on my comments ahead of time. lam confused by: a) Why is the city spending dollars to parallel Highway 101 with another major road only a mile apart at T.H.#5 ? b) Why a 1968 zoning study cannot be reviewed with more input from today's conditions and public wishes, and not just install a road because the "Plan" calls for a road to be there? c) Why, when it appears to me, so many people living in the Eden Prairie area are against the project, the city is pushing to proceed ? lam appalled at: a) The city would move on a project that appears to be of more benefit to the industrial area (Park One 3rd Addition) of Chanhassen with "Chanhassen may or may not participate in cost' of the roadway in Segment 2" and "depending on Chanhassen's participation in the rail crossing" their in or no project. b) The city lets a railroad that appears to have no direct stops or business in the city call the shots on what the city does or does not do. (The track in this project only serves Chanhassen businesses.) c) The city would build or even consider a "grade crossing" with the railroad at a residential area that (1) has children so close to the tracks and (2) will not have the clear visability each way at the crossing that is seen at the Valley View crossing. I would request: a) You look seriously at this project, which in my mind does very little for the residents that have been assessed and maybe for all the citizens of Eden Prairie who pay high taxes to a city that should be very concerned on how these monies are spent and not build arced because a 1968 plan calls for it or to help the city of Chanhassen industrial areas. b) You look deep at the rail crossing. "Grade crossings are a thing of the past. They have caused deaths, and I would believe that in the future you would be replacing a grade crossing with an underpass. c) And finally, I would request you direct the review of property taxes to all home owners in the areas directly affected by this project. Those who had safe access to the park without a truck route to cross, those that had a quiet residential neighborhood now to be interrupted with the screaming whistle of a train at a "grade crossing" and the fear of their children riding bikes to cross over the tracks, and those that must now put up with Chanhassen industrial traffic moving thru their neighborhood to get to a business that brings no revenue or responsibility to Eden Prairie. Sincerely, cJ P 40a Michael R. Lindgren MRLjal cc: City Council July 30, 1991 iuglas Tempas, Mayor /600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 Dear Mayor Tempas: I live on Paulsen Drive. I recently heard about Dell Road being considered for my backyard. I am asking you to terminate the Dell road oroiect. I would not have moved in to my new house 1/12 years ago if I had known Dell road would be completed to go through my small backyard. Before I purchased my home, there was no sign on Dell road about completion of the road, my builder Trumpy, and my Real Estate Agent Timm Bobbler, told me Dell road probably would not be completed, or if it was it would be 10 years from now, and if it was, the construction would have to remain at least 50 feet away from my property line so I would never see the road. I then called the Eden Prairie city hall and asked about Dell road. They told me there was nothing on file for that road being completed. Due to the above I purchased my home. Now I find out that Dell road is being considered again. I object to Dell road going through the middle of my backyard. I have a very small backyard. The plans for the at grade" crossing puts Dell road into my backyard! I object to Dell road as an Eden Prairie resident for the following reasons: 1. My yard is so small that Dell road will be in my backyard and too close to my house. 2. I moved into this neighborhood because it was a quiet and safe area. If Dell road is completed it will be an unsafe and loud neighborhood with all the additional cars and trucks going through it. It will also be louder if the train has to blow it's whistle for the new railroad crossing. 3. The Autumn Woods area adds beauty to the neighborhood with the serenity of the birds and animals who live there compared to cutting down all the trees and destroying this natural beauty. 4. I also bought my new home as an investment. With Dell road, my brand new property value and house will decline so much more than I can afford to lose. If Dell road goes through I will be forced to move, but cannot afford to. Before completing Dell road I ask you to complete Highway 101. Dell road and 101 are so close together it makes no sense to put money into Dell road. I object to my tax money being used for Dell road when it is not necessary. Please write back telling me your feelings on Dell road and how you are going to vote. Sincerely, David A. Copp 7647 Paulsen Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55346 THE C. CHASE COMPANY in 1,11 "AMC HI(intl1,111111g August 2, 1991 R1114 t' C '401: lain, I' Benson, 55)1< /obit '405 `,11t•rtnan I'. I..1.111,rrum Stcvell I..Fttl.smin I), id ! Itrutc,',101: Mayor Doug Tenpas Members of the City Council City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: Re: Construction of Columbine Road through Bermel-Smaby Parcel The purpose of this letter is to request that the City of Eden Prairie, in conjunction with the approval of the currently purposed Wal-Mart project, acquire from the land owners, that right-of-way of approximately 60 feet by 650 feet or 39,000 square feet, required to construct the proposed new road known as Columbine Road. We request that the City purchase the land from the owners this fall based on the same amount per square foot that Wal-Mart is paying for the site. This amount is approximately $4.50 per square foot, plus special assessments. We also request the City pay for and construct the road with the use of its tax increment fund. Our reasons for requesting the City acquire this right-of-way and build the road at its expense are are follows: A recent traffic study conducted by Strgar-Roscoe-Faush (SRF) indicates the need for such a road extension and is considered a "collector street". Presumably, Columbine Road extending to the North from Anderson Lake Parkway would be considered a public road and therefore it should be a public road extending from Prairie Center Drive to T1-1169. The SRF study on page 9, Paragraph 4, says "The Columbine Road connection to Regional Center Road would also place emphasis on, and increase traffic volume at, the TH 169/Regional Center Road intersection. It is likely that this intersection would warrant a traffic signal in the future. The improvement of this intersection would probably cause more visitors to use this intersection as their primarily access to Eden Prairie Center. This would help to spread trips out on the internal ring road and reduce congestion at the existing main access point at Singletree Lane." On page 10 of the SRF report, the study continues and says in the last paragraph, "Trips generated within the local trip travel shed that would use the proposed extensions of Columbine Road and Commonwealth Drive can be characterized as short trips to and from the Major Center Area for shopping, (..111 11 ,1, lodrs ititt.11 '4.1,1% 01 littlt,t1i.t1.111111 1 )thcl:, 11Inswdroil., NItno, I It ierhOlit• 1112 .n :'n 101111 NI,•11114.1 Nation.11 V..., no. n ,) /On I .o.s.itlit11 , 012 I August 2, 1991 Mayor Doug Tenpas Members of the City Council Page Two business, or work." Lastly, on page 12, Paragraph 1, the study continues, "... it is estimated that 3,000 local daily trips would be diverted from TI-I169 and Prairie Center Drive to the proposed Columbine Road and Commonwealth Drive roadways. Clearly, the proposed Columbine Road extension would be an area-wide road used by the public with many benefits to the community including diverting traffic from TH169 and thereby lessening congestion on that highway. 2. The property owners granted easements to the City for the construction of Prairie Center Drive and later Singletree Lane and have and are continuing to pay special assessments for both of those roadways. In fact, the property owners, together with Mr. John Teman to the North, are paying approximately 90% of the cost of constructing Singletrec Lane. This in itself has been an extremely high burden for the two property owners considering Singletree Lane is really a regional road. As property owners, we feel we have paid our share of the roadways in the area. 3. In the long run, it makes the best sense for the City to construct the road as a public road because it then can maintain the road during all seasons of year, consistent with the same manner which it maintains its other roads. The site plan for Wal-Mart, both pre and post expansion can be made to meet the requirements of the City of 5.5 parking spaces per thousand even if a 60 foot right-of-way is taken. I would like the City to consider this letter as a part of the entire package being submitted for the Wal-Mart proposal. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Yours Very Tnily, 7/;414"- Bruce C. Berme!, S1OR Partner cc: Kelly Doran Carl Jullie Chris Enger Mike Franzen Gene Dietz Allan Gray STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner Chris Eager, Director of Planning August 2, 1991 Singlet= Plaza LOCATION: Southeast Quadrant of the Intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Singletree Lane APPLICANT: The Robert Larsen Partners FEE OWNER: Bruce Bermel REQUEST: Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on 20 Acres. LAND USE Two sites are being considered as potential locations for a Wal-Mart store. One is on Single t r e e Lane (Bermel property only) and one on the east part of the Bermel property and additional l a n d on Highway 169. (See Attachment A) A Wal-Mart store is a regional use which require s a relatively level site, good visibility off regional roads and highways, and located near ot h e r regional uses. Both of these sites can be acceptable for regional uses. The 169 site has direct exposure t o Highway 169 and is located immediately adjacent to large regional uses such as Target and t h e Eden Prairie Center. Development of a Wal-Mart store in this location would leave the weste r n • portion of the Berme] site for future potential development of a "downtown" area. A Wal-Mart store on the Bermel site can be part of the City's "downtown" area by incorpo r a t i n g urban design elements which would provide a visual link to the streetscape using similar ele m e n t s such as lighting, landscaping, signs, street furniture and other special architectural features . T h e extension of Columbine Road to Regional Center Road, and a north/south extens i o n o f Commonwealth Drive through the property would provide good access for a regional us e . tio The site plan has been revised since the initial submittal in June. The original proposal for 177,000 square feet of building (including Wal-Mart) has been modified to include a 119,000 square foot Wal-Mart store only, with expansion plans for 30,000 additional square feet. The site plan provides for Columbine Road and Commonwealth Drive as private roads. The property is proposed for C-Regional-Service zoning. The building, with or without expansion, meets the setback requirements for this zoning district. Parking meets the setback requirements on all street frontages. The amount of parking required for a 119,000 square foot Wal-Mart store at 5.5 spaces per 1,000 is 654 spaces. The site plan shows 715 spaces for phase one. If the building is expanded by 30,000 square feet in the future, an additional 165 spaces will be required or a total of 810 spaces. With building expansion, the site plan shows 751 spaces. The site plan should be revised to provide a proof of parking location for 69 spaces. There is room to provide more parking on the western portion of the site. ACCESS AND ROADS There are two driveways off Singletree Lane located opposite existing median cuts on Singletree Lane. These driveways have acceptable site vision distance in both directions. There is one driveway access point off an extension of Columbine Road from Prairie Center Drive to Regional Center Road. Site vision distance is acceptable. Columbine Road is proposed to be built as a 30' wide private road. To build Columbine Road will require that the intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Regional Center Road be reconfigured to a "T" intersection and raised approximately 6'. The private road will also require grading and removal of a portion of the retaining wall on the Alpine Center site south of this property. The private road, as proposed, functions more like a private driveway than a private road built to city standards. Grades are steep with several high and low points. The road grade will have to be lowered to meet city standards. This road must also provide access to the Alpine Center loading area since the Alpine driveway and Columbine Road intersections at Prairie Center Drive are too close together. The intersection of Columbine Road with Prairie Center Drive must be examined in greater detail to see how it aligns with Columbine Road on the west side of Prairie Center Drive near the Flagship Athletic Club. To accommodate the volume of traffic expected, Columbine Road may need to be wider to accommodate left turns at intersections. If Columbine Road is built as a public street, it would require approximately 60' of right-of-way from the south property line of the Bermel property. The parking areas to the north may need to be readjusted to accommodate grade, and the retaining wall on the Alpine Center must be removed. 2 Singletree Plaza August 1, 1991 Commonwealth Drive has been envisioned as a public road extension from Regional center Road to Singletree Lane under the power easement for many years. The extension of Commonwealth Drive through the site in a direct north/south manner would preclude the development of the Wal-Mart store. A private road extension of Commonwealth Drive through the property on a more indirect route is proposed. The concept of allowing a private road through parking with strong urban design features in exchange for a public street is being weighed. Urban design features such as lights, flags, landscaping, street furniture, etc., would define this area as a private road to clearly identify how people would travel from Regional Center Road to Singletree Lane. SCREENING OF PARKING. LOADING SERVICE, UTILITY AND OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS The parking lot can be screened from Prairie Center Drive by grade change and existing vegetation. Parking is screened from Singletree Lane by berms and landscaping. Parking along Regional Center Road and Commonwealth Drive is screened by grade. Loading areas must be screened from public roads and from the district boundary line. The height and depth of the screening shall be consistent with the height and size of the area for which screening is required. If plant materials are used exclusively, they must achieve 75% opacity year round. The loading area is screened by berms, plantings and a 6' high solid fence along the eastern property line. The fence should be 2" thick construction with brick columns. Screen walls should be constructed out of face brick to match the building. The garden center is considered an outdoor storage and display area in a commercial district. The code would allow up to 10% of the floor area of the store to be used for these purposes, or a total of 11,900 square feet. The plan, as proposed, depicts 6800 square feet. City code requires the screening of outdoor storage areas. A berm and conifers along the north side of the garden center screens most of the view of the garden center. This is based on materials stored inside of the area not exceeding the height of the berm and fence. LANDSCAPING The caliper inch requirement for a 119,000 square foot building is 748 caliper inches. When the building is expanded by 30,000 square feet, an additional 187 caliper inches will be required. Tree loss is calculated at 35% which translates into a 42 caliper inch tree replacement. The landscape plan should provide a total of 790 total inches. The landscape plan depicts a total of 907 inches. To help screen the parking areas and to break up the view of large parking areas, 3 it.„,nnn Singletree Plaza August 1, 1991 honeylocust trees should not be used. The landscape plan should be revised to use ash, maple or linden trees. TXTERIOR MATERIALS The building is proposed to be constructed out of face brick and glass which meets the exterior material requirements for the C-Reg-Service zoning district. The City's urban design consultant will be reviewing the exterior building elevation and making recommendations with regard to architectural compatibility within the area. TRASH AND RECYCLING Separate areas should be provided for trash and recycling and be accessible for a trash vehicle. The plans, as proposed, do not indicate the location of trash and recycling areas and only indicates the location of a trash compactor. A study by City staff regarding trash and recycling suggests that an area of approximately 3000 square feet is needed for trash and recycling. RETAINING WALLS All proposed retaining walls on the property should be constructed of a masonry construction (keystone is suggested) of a color to complement the building. Since these retaining walls are in excess of 4' in height, a building permit will be required. SIGNS The City code would permit one 80 square foot 20 foot high pylon sign, one 36 square foot 20 foot high pylon sign and wall signs not to exceed 300 square feet per wall. Directional signs are also permitted on the property with no limit in number, but each individual sign must not exceed 32 square feet. The plan, as proposed, does not indicate the location of the pylon signs nor detail on the type of materials and construction. Wall signs are shown on building elevations that meet City code. Entry features located at the driveway entrance could be used for directional signs. The urban design consultant will be establishing criteria for the design of all free-standing signs and directional signs. All signs shall be internally lighted. FIRE ACCESS 4 Singletree Plaza August 1, 1991 Fire access to this site is acceptable. There will be additional fire code requirements determined at the time of the building permit issuance with regards to sprinkling, location of hydrants, watermains, etc. SIDEWALKS Sidewalks should be constructed along Singletree Lane and Regional Center Road. These are shown on the site plan. In addition, a sidewalk should be constructed between Regional Center Road and Singletree Lane. This is shown on the site plan. The sidewalk from Wal-Mart to Regional Center Road, because of the steep grade will require steps. LIGHTING The lighting plan shows the location of lights within the parking lot. Lighting should be limited to a maximum of 30' high which is consistent with lights on adjoining properties. The parking lot lighting should be a downcast cutoff luminar. The exact color and type of light fixture should be determined by the urban design consultant. Within the plaza in front of the building and within the protected islands along the extension of Commonwealth Drive, there will be additional lights. These lights will be the same as the proposed street lighting along other streets within the area. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT The mechanical equipment screening plan depicts the location of rooftop mechanical units. The units are proposed to be screened with a metal panel consistent with City code. TRAFFIC STUDY The traffic study for the Wal-Mart proposal has been completed by Strgar Roscoe Fausch traffic engineers. The conclusion of the report indicates that the extension of Columbine Road would provide a valuable connection between the Major Center Area and other parts of Eden Prairie. The extension of Columbine Road reduces traffic volumes on Highway 169 and improves the level of service at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and 169. It is important to note that even if the Wal-Mart proposal is not constructed, a normal increase in traffic at Prairie Center Drive and Singletree Lane intersections with 169 would reach level of service "E" within three years for Prairie Center Drive and Singletree Line intersection within five years. The Columbine Road extension would delay level of service "E" at both intersections for about five years. 5 Singletree Plaza August 1, 1991 Although future traffic volumes on 169 are projected to decrease from existing levels, the future volumes were projected assuming the construction of County Road 18, Highway 212, the Shakopee Bypass and other improvements to 494/18 interchange. Trip diversion of traffic to Columbine Road would provide relief of congestion on 169 in the interim until all improvements have been built. The extension of Columbine Road from Anderson Lakes Parkway across Prairie Center Drive to Highway 169 will also alleviate congestion at the Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection with Highway 169. Columbine Road extension is a benefit to Wal-Mart. This road provides better access and visibility. Columbine Road will also carry local traffic directly from the community to Wal-Mart without having to use Highway 169. INTERNAL CIRCULATION Internal circulation and access has been reviewed by the traffic consultant. No congestion problems are anticipated at any of the driveway intersections with adjoining roads. Stacking distances at the driveway entrances within the parking lot have been evaluated for normal Wal- Mart traffic, P.M. peak hour traffic, and traffic at full development. All of these intersections have an appropriate stacking distance. Some of the internal traffic will travel in front of the building. Due to the amount of traffic anticipated in front of the building, the driveway is 30' wide with provisions for dropoff traffic. The sidewalk in front of the entrance is 30' wide. This will allow for the safe movement of pedestrians from the building into the parking lot. STORM WATER RUNOFF The N.U.R.P. pond located in the southwest corner of the site must be designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event. The pond is currently designed for a 25 year storm event. PARK DEDICATION Since the site is not proposed for a land subdivision, a park dedication fee cannot be required. UTILITIES 6 Singletree Plaza August 1, 1991 Sewer and water and storm sewer systems exist within Regional Center Road and Singletree Lane. SATELLITE MR Wal-Mart stores have a satellite dish mounted on the rooftop. This dish should be ground mounted and located in the rear of the building and not visible from roads. This would be similar to the screening solution for ICMSP. CART CORRALS Wal-Mart stores have cart corrals located in the parking lots. The cart corrals should be shown on the site plan adjacent to planting islands. This is similar to Cub Foods and is shown on Attachment B. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The planning staff would recommend approval of the zoning district change from Rural to C- Reg-Service based on plans dated August 1, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated July 31, 1991, and subject to the following items to be done and agreed upon as part of First Reading: I. The final exterior building elevations will be subject to a review by the urban design consultant with revisions made to exterior building elevations as recommended by the urban design consultant. 2. The final site and landscape plans shall be subject to a review by the urban design consultant with revisions made to the plans for lighting, landscaping, street furniture, etc., for the private road, entrances and plaza area as recommended by the urban design consultant. 3. The final sign plan shall be reviewed by the urban design consultant with recommendations for location, exterior materials, colors and design to be incorporated as part of the approval. 4. The site plan should be revised to denote areas for trash, recycling, ground based satellite dish and cart corrals. 7 iLi R Singletree Plaza August 1, 1991 5. The Planning and Engineering departments recommend th a t t h e s i t e p l a n b e r e v i s e d t o show Columbine Road (Regional Center Road) extended thro u g h t h e s i t e a s a p u b l i c s t r e e t with a minimum of 60' of right-of-way. The geometries (i n c l u d i n g a d d i t i o n a l right-of-way requirements, street widths, intersection detail s , s t r e e t g r a d e s a n d p r o f i l e s ) will be determined based on recommendations from the traffic cons u l t a n t . 6. The proponent will be required to return to the Planning Commission prior to Sec o n d Reading to review the final building elevations, site plan, s i g n p l a n a n d u r b a n d e s i g n features. 7. Prior to Second Reading, the proponent and Wal-Mart m u s t e n t e r i n t o a n a g r e e m e n t which would provide for a six month "hold still" period for c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e W a l - M a r t as currently requested. The time would run for six m o n t h s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e agreement to allow the City time to assemble property on U . S . 1 6 9 u p o n w h i c h W a l - Mart would construct a store facing east as the alternative f o r t h e a p p r o v e d s t o r e . W a l - Mart would exchange eleven acres of the west portion of t h e B e r m e l p r o p e r t y f o r 6 . 5 5 acres acquired by the City on U. S. 169. (1/ 22420.2611 I )1 .411• (S) Oft fitAlltli arms ,;, f 2;1 47,1 222.121 /-1!, - / 4.• I ,.', TIlE 2 e PRISERVt COMERCIAL 0.11 (al PAK NORM / 101 24) Berme! Property 11011(AG( Attachment A Iran Bermel and 169 Property ze-not,4 Na. wee:, "rYI. L°^10,4'4'619 -- RAY LING Cr 9-rde..06.0 1•c: TN. Cart Corral Detail :on , R.O.W. Attachment B Lap c.8 /../ 5.428 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: July 19, 1991 SUBJECT: Singletree Plaza LOCATION: Southeast Quadrant of Intersection of Prairie Center Drive, Singletree Lane APPLICANT: Robert Larsen Partners FEE OWNER: Bruce Bermel REQUEST: Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional-Service on 20 acres. STATUS OF WAL-MART PROPOSAL The Planning staff has been working closely with the proponent over the past two weeks to revise the site plan so that the Planning Commission could take action at the July 22 meeting. Staff received a set of revised site plans on Thursday, July 18 at 10 a.m. Due to the timing of the revised site plan, staff is unable to complete a detailed staff report at this time. The July 22 meeting should be used to update the Planning Commission on the progress that has been made on the site plan. Staff anticipates that a report for approval would be completed by the August 12 meeting. This project has also been scheduled for a Council review on August 6. Given the size and complexity of the proposal and its location in "Downtown" Eden Prairie, it is important for the Council to have the opportunity to review and comment so that significant issues could be Singletree Plaza Staff Report July 19, 1991 Page Two identified and plan changes incorporated into the site plan prior to recommendation by the Planning Commission on August 12. After a recommendation by the Planning Commission on August 12, the proponent would appear before the City Council on August 20. SITE PLAN REVISIONS The site plan has been revised in the following ways: 1. The site plan incorporates Commonwealth Drive and Columbine Road as private roads. There is sufficient green area, planting islands and protected lanes so that these roadways could operate as clearly identifiable ways of access. Within these areas, urban design features such as plantings, street lighting, signs, benches and other architectural features can be incorporated. 2. A 50 wide plaza has been provided in front of the building with sidewalk connections to Singletree and Regional Center Road. This will allow for safe entry from the building into the parking area and provide an area to incorporate urban design features. 3. A NURP pond has been provided in the southwest corner of the site which is sized to handle the anticipated amount of storm water runoff. 4. The landscape plan meets City code for phase one of the project. 5. The site plan meets required setbacks to building and parking. 6. The outdoor garden center is screened by a berm and plantings. ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED WHICH MAY RESULT IN SITE PLAN REVISIONS The Planning staff has identified the following areas which need to be addressed in greater detail: 1. Screening of loading areas for phase one and phase two. Based upon a preliminary review, it appears that the loading areas will be visible from public roads and adjacent uses in both phase one and phase two. We are also concerned that the size of the loading area in phase two is limited and question where the staging areas would be for the trucks. 2. Since the parking area sits at a higher elevation than Regional Center Road, it is not possible to physically screen the parking area with a berm. Shrub plantings alone will not be adequate enough to screen the parking areas. I J. Singletree Plaza Staff Report July 19, 1991 Page Three OTHER ITEMS TO BE REVIEWED AS PART OF THE DETAILED STAFF REPORT The following items will be reviewed as part of the final staff report to the Planning Commission. 1. Mechanical equipment screening. 2. Size, location and screening of trash areas. 3. Signs. 4. Building architecture and exterior materials. 5. Pedestrian systems. 6. Lighting. 7. Grading, drainage and storm water runoff. 8. Fire protection. 9. Screening of loading areas and parking areas. 10. Tree loss and replacement 11. Driveway intersection geometrics 12. Retaining walls. 13. Street grades on private roads and site vision distance. 14. Internal circulation. URBAN DESIGN CONSULTANT The City Council at the July 16 meeting selected Waters, Cluts and O'Brien to be the urban design consultant to develop ideas for a downtown area. The staff will continue to provide the Planning Commission with information as to how the development of the downtown area is proceeding. Singletree Plaza Staff Report July 19, 1991 Page Four PRELIMINARY WAL-MART TRAFFIC STUDY The preliminary traffic study for the Wal-Mart proposal has been completed by Strgar, Roscoe Fausch traffic engineers. The conclusion section of the report on page 18 indicates that the extension of Columbine Road would provide a valuable connection between the Major Center Area and other parts of Eden Prairie. The extension of Columbine Road reduces traffic volumes on Highway 169 and improves the level of service at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Highway 169. It is important to note that even if the Wal-Mart proposal is not constructed, a normal increase in traffic at Prairie Center Drive and Singletree Lane intersections with 169 would reach level of service "E" within three years for Prairie Center Drive and Singletree intersection within five years. The Columbine Road extension would delay level of service "E" for both intersections for about five years. Although future traffic volumes on 169 are projected to decrease from existing levels, the future volumes were projected assuming the construction of County Road 18, Highway 212, the Shakopee Bypass and other improvements to 494/18 interchange. Trip diversion of traffic to Columbine Road would provide relief for congestion on 169 in the interim until all improvements have been built. In addition, the extension of Columbine Road from Anderson Lakes Parkway across Prairie Center Drive to Highway 169 will also alleviate congestion at Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection with Highway 169. I , Ill\ .)tA SP Ecterr wain City of Eden Prairie City Offices 7600 Executive Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 • Telephone (612) 937-2262 July 9, 1991 Mr. Kelly Doran The Robert Larsen Partners 700 2nd Avenue South, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 RE: Wal-Mart Proposal Dear Mr. Doran: The Planning Commission's decision to continue discussion on this item until the July 22 meeting was predicated on all site planning issues being resolved, incorporation of urban design elements which would clearly identify a private road system through the property, and provide pedestrian scale elements along the building's front. Since I was unable to reach you by phone on Tuesday, and since Dale Beckman is on vacation until next week, I thought it would be important to indicate that we are concerned that the site plan may not be in a form which the Planning Commission could act on at the July 22 meeting because: I. Complete agreement has not been reached on the site plan for the property, access, and treatment of private roads. 2. Neither you nor Wal-Mart have indicated concurrence with the site plan changes and recommendations incorporating urban design elements along private roads and across the building front. (We understand that many of these recommendations are new, and you have not had an opportunity to review them in detail.) 3. Submitting a complete set of revised plans a minimum of one week prior to the Planning Commission leaves minimal time to complete a detailed review. The City has not abandoned the idea of Commonwealth Drive or Columbine Road extension as public roads. We would be willing to consider the use of private roads if they provide a clear, and easy way of getting from one point to another on the property. These roads can be defined a". Recycles NSW .) Mr. Kelly Doran July 9, 1991 Page TwO can be defined by large planting islands, protected lanes, landscaping, lighting, sidewalks, pavement textures and other architectural features. The developer is responsible for providing a successful private substitute for a public road. The Planning Commission has reviewed this project on two previous occasions and will be expecting a plan in a form that they are able to act on. The Planning Commission will not pass this item on to the City Council without a recommendation. We will continue to work with you to resolve these issues prior to the next meeting. However, if you are unable to complete the recommended changes, a continuance should be requested to the August 11 meeting. I would be willing to publish this item for the August 20 City Council meeting. Sincerely, 00-49AlyV Michael D. Franzen Senior Planner MDF:ctk cc: Carl Jullie, City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Planning Planning Commission MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Singletree Plaza Plan Revisions DATE: June 7, 1991 The June 7 staff report is based upon plans that were submitted to the City staff with the initial application approximately thirty days ago. On Friday, June 7, 1991 at 10 a.m., the developer submitted a revised set of site plans. The Planning staff has not completed a detailed review of the revised plans; however, the developer indicates that he has responded to the following issues identified in the detailed staff report: 1. Providing the required minimum caliper inches based on building square footage and tree replacement. Planting islands have been added to the parking lot; however, the developer indicates landscaping meets 5%. Staff has not had time to confirm this. Additional plant materials have been added around the site perimeter along Singletree Lane; however, a determination of whether the materials meet the 75% opacity test has not been reached. 2. Parking setback to building behind retail building A has been revised to meet City code. Length of parking stalls has been corrected from 18' to 19' required by City code. 3. Commonwealth Drive is proposed to be extended as a private road between Regional Center Road and Singletree Lane. The traffic consultant must analyze the location of the proposed private road, design, intersection geometries, and the impacts it has on internal circulation and traffic congestion. 4. The building elevations have been revised to include some additional construction detailing to respond to architectural compatibility on site and to other buildings in the area. Staff has not reviewed these plans in detail and cannot comment whether or not this would meet the City code requirements. • 1 Singletree Plaza June 7, 1991 5. A rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan has been submitted which shows the location of the proposed units to be individually screened with a metal panel. 6. The retail anchor building has been moved 271/2' to the north in response to concerns from the Fire Marshal for a drive access. The additional dimension was needed to allow a 20' wide fire lane to be constructed 7.5 feet from the building. The plan does not yet allow construction of the lane because of grade. The Fire Marshal has not had the opportunity to review this for compliance with Uniform Fire Code requirements. 7. Two pylon signs are shown on the site plan meeting setback requirements. 8. Developer has provided new information showing 3 additional wall signs on the Walmart of 300 square feet each. Time permitting, City staff will try to provide an update to the Planning Commission on the status of the above listed items. There are other technical isslies which still need to be examined in more detail such as: lightin g , location of handicapped stalls, maneuvering area for loading facilities, size and location o f enclosure areas for trash and recycling, pedestrian canopy width, etc. Major areas still needing resolution are: 1. BAR variance. 2. Storm water treatment. 3. Extension of Columbine and Commonwealth Roads. 4. Loading facilities within a front yard. 2 t‘-) STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: June 7, 1991 SUBJECT: Singletree Plaza LOCATION: Northeast Quadrant of Intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Singletree Lane APPLICANT: Kelly Doran, Larsen Partners Group FEE OWNER: Bruce Bermel REQUEST: BACKGROUND Zoning District Change from Rural to Community Commercial on 19.173 acres. I /1/ This site is currently guided Regional Commercial. Surrounding land uses are guided Regional Commercial. The site is currently zoned Rural. The proponent originally requested a Community Commercial Zoning District. The purpose of the Community Commercial Zoning District is to provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area. Since the proposal is mostly one large retail tenant of 119,131 square feet, which requires a relatively large site and is not typically found in shopping C-REG- ER - . '''t:.::i"0..i'L:- n AREA LOCATION MAP Singletree Plaza - Staff Report June 6, 1991 center structures, the C-Regional-Service Zoning District would be the appropriate Zoning District for this proposal. The proponent is aware of this and has agreed to modify the zoning application to change the zoning requested from Community Commercial to C-Regional-Service. This will require republication. SITE PLAN The site plan depicts the construction of a total of 177,131 square feet in three retail buildings. Most of the square footage is contained within one large retail anchor of 119,131 square feet. The site is proposed to be developed at a Base Area Ratio of .212. This will require a variance through the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. In consideration of other areas where the site plan does not meet Code (which will be described in subsequent sections), there may not be justification for the Base Area Ratio variance. (The proponent indicates no hardship and does not wish to apply for a PUD.) The site plan shows buildings meeting the minimum setback requirements of the C-Regional- Service Zoning District. Parking meets the minimum setback requirements to street frontage. Parking at the rear of Building A does not meet the minimum five foot setback requirement from the building. The Code requires parking for 177,131 square feet of building to be based on a ratio of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, or a total of 974 parking spaces. A 6800 square foot garden center is proposed. Parking required for the garden center is 36 additional parking spaces. The total Code requirement for parking is 1,010 parking spaces. The site plan depicts a total of 999 parking spaces. Parking adjacent to Singletree Lane does not meet the minimum 19' length dimension required . by Code. The site plan depicts an 18' dimension. FIRE ACC SS The attached memo from Allen Nelson, Fire Marshal, indicates that a fire access road must be provided along the south side of the building according to Section 10.207 of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. This would require that the building be shifted approximately 30 feet to the north. LOADING AREAS 2 Singletree Plaza Staff Report June 6, 1991 The City Code indicates that no loading facility should be located on a street frontage nor within the required side or rear yard requirements. A loading facility is defined as the dock, the berth for the vehicle, maneuvering areas, and the necessary screening walls. Loading facilities are located on a street frontage. (Regional Center Road and Commonwealth Drive) This includes the loading facilities for the retail anchor and Building A. This would require a variance from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. If the loading facility is completely enclosed (Cub Foods), a variance would not be necessary. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING The landscape plan does not meet the minimum caliper inch requirement according to City Code. The caliper inch requirement is 927" plus 22" for tree replacement or a total of 949". The landscape plan depicts a total of 727" which includes ornamental trees. Credit can only be given for shade trees and conifers which are a minimum of 21/2" caliper or conifers which are a minimum of 6' in height. No credit is permitted by Code for ornamental trees. The actual amount of credited caliper inches on the plan is 630". The landscape plan should be revised to provide a minimum of 297 additional caliper inches. The City Code requires that parking areas be screened from all public roads and adjacent differing land uses. The berms are not high enough to screen parking areas along Singletree Lane. Therefore, the landscape plan relies solely on plant materials to meet the screening requirement. City Code requires that when trees or hedges are used to meet the screening requirements, density and species of plantings shall be such to achieve 75% opacity year round. The plan does not meet this requirement. Raising the berm along Singletree Lane and additional mass plantings of trees could meet this screening requirement. The landscape plan does not meet the required minimum 5% planting islands within the parking lot. The plan is 3% planting islands. ARCHITECTURE Three buildings are proposed on site to be constructed of brick, glass and metal. The exterior elevations indicate that the materials are in compliance with the City requirement for a minimum of 75% brick, glass or better material. The building architecture is not in compliance with the site plan and architectural design review section of the City Code which requires compatibility of materials, textures, colors, and other 3 Singletree Plaza Staff Report June 6, 1991 construction details with other structures and uses within the vicinity. Although the brick and colors are repeated on the buildings, the construction details are not compatible from building to building. Architectural compatibility is possible if the construction details, for example, of Building A are repeated on the large anchor tenant and Building B. Architectural compatibility is also required with other structures and uses within the vicinity. The nearest buildings which this project could relate to would be the Flagship Athletic Club to the west, and the Alpine Center and T.J.H. office buildings to the south. The proposed architecture is not compatible with these buildings. There should be a canopy along the entire length of retail building A and along the retail anchor. The width of the canopy should be a minimum inside dimension of 8 feet for retail building A and 12 feet for the large retail anchor. MECHANICAL EOUIPKENT SCREENING City Code requires that all mechanical equipment mounted on the exterior of a building shall be physically screened from all public roads and adjacent differing land uses. A rooftop mechanical screening plan with prototypical screening and site sections is needed for review. STORM DRAINAGE The City has recently adopted a policy which requires that storm water runoff quality plans be prepared for commercial sites which are five acres or greater in size and residential projects which are fifteen acres or greater. In order to provide for water quality before it is discharged into lakes, creeks and wetland areas, ponding areas are required. These ponding areas must meet the NURP standards (National Urban Runoff Policy). It is likely that a 1-2 acre minimum size pond would be required for a project of this size. Storm water runoff calculations and a water quality plan should be submitted for review by the City Engineer. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS The site plan and architectural review sections of the City Code require safe and convenient pedestrian access and separation of pedestrian and vehicle access. The site plai . should be revised to provide a 5' wide concrete sidewalk between buildings on site and to the proposed sidewalk on Singletree Lane. To provide for safe access between the buildings and parking lots, 4 Singletree Plaza Staff Report June 6, 1991 the sidewalks in front of retail building A and the retail anchor should be a minimum of 20' in width. SIGNS The sign plan proposes tenant signs within a sign band on retail building A. In order to minimize sign clutter, there needs to be an architecturally dermal area. An example of this would be Tower Square and City West retail. The proposed pylon sign meets the maximum 20' height requirement, however, the sign exceeds the 80 square foot maximum requirement. The sign measures 100 square feet. In addition, the site plan does not indicate the location of the pylon sign. This is important in order to determine if the pylon sign would meet the setback requirement. A detailed sign for the large retail anchor has not been submitted. The Code would permit up to a 300 square foot sign. JNFORMATION NEEDED TO COMPLETE REVIEW OF PROPOSAL 1. Traffic study. 2. Storm water runoff calculations and size of ponding area needed for NURP pond. 3. Site sections which show how the landscaping plan meets the screening requirements of parking area. 4. Mechanical equipment screening plan with site sections. 5. Grading balance worksheet indicating cut and fill calculations. 6. Location of sidewalks and trails 7. Retaining wall details, construction and type of materials. 8. Verification from the Army Corps of Engineers that a .35 acre wetland in the southeast corner of the property can be filled under a nationwide permit. 5 Singletree Plaza Staff Report June 6, 1991 9. Erosion control plans. 10. Location of pylon sign. ROAD ACCESS Strgar, Roscoe Fausch, traffic engineers, are in the process of preparing a traffic analysis which will evaluate: 1. The impact of the proposed development on roads and intersections. 2. The internal access and circulation within the parking lot. 3. The need for the extension of Commonwealth Drive from Regional Center Road to Singletree Lane and an extension of Columbine Road from Prairie Center Drive on the south side of the property from Prairie Center Drive. Although the traffic study is not completed, we do know from preliminary conversations with the traffic consultant that it is important to provide road connections for Columbine Road and Commonwealth Drive where shown on Attachment A. These road connections provide an overall benefit to traffic movement within the Major Center Area and relieves congestion from Highway 169 by providing an alternative way of getting to the Major Center Area by following Columbine Road. The staff has analyzed the feasibility of the extension of Columbine Road and Commonwealth Drive adjacent to this property. It is technically possible to provide these road connections, but it will require changes in building elevations and grading for the property. To provide for Commonwealth Drive extension, the retail anchor and Building A would be moved farther apart. Columbine Road will have a greater impact on the site plan since right-of-way would be taken entirely from the retail anchor building site. The retail anchor building would be moved approximately 90 feet to the north. SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVES This staff report indicates areas where the project is not in compliance with City Code including parking, setbacks, loading, screening, architectural compatibility, separation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic and signs. In addition, the traffic study has indicated a need to extend Columbine 6 Singletree Plaza Staff Report June 6, 1991 Road and Commonwealth Drive to provide for overall circulation within the Major Center Area and to relieve traffic on Highway 169, thereby improving the capacity of intersections and making the roadways and intersections safer. Code requirements, NURP ponds and road systems will have an impact on how the site plan is prepared. The following are alternative ways in which the site plan could be developed: 1. The current site plan could be modified to meet all City Code requirements, provide for the recommended roads adjacent to the property and NURP ponding requirements. 2. The site plan could be modified to shift the large retail anchor tenant to the eastern portion of the property with the building front perpendicular to Singletree Lane. Shift retail building A to the western portion of the property with the building front perpendicular to Singletree Lane. This site plan would work better with the natural topography, allow for easy road accessibility, provide more efficient parking and result in better exposure for the large retail tenant since it would sit at a higher elevation. Pedestrian access would be enhanced with direct access to buildings from the street than across parking. The parking lot would be internalized and easier to screen. 3. The site plan could be modified to incorporate a parking deck. This would allow for more green area on site which helps break up the parking area which also could be used for ponding requirements. The deck would leave more potential land for greater intensity development of the site in the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning staff would recommend that the development plans be returned to the proponent' for revision to be developed in accordance with City Code, provision for roads adjacent to the property and NURP ponding. 7 %) PRELIMINARY WAL-MART TRAFFIC STUDY INTRODUCTION A retail development is proposed on Singletree Lane between Prairie Center Drive and Eden Road (see Figure 1). The Wal-Mart development consists of a 159,000 square foot building housing a discount store. The purpose of this study is to: o Review the transportation system needs in the vicinity of the project, particularly the need to extend Columbine Road and Commonwealth Drive. o Evaluate the operation of Prairie Center Drive in view of potential new intersection at Columbine Road. o Examine the peaking characteristics of site-generated traffic and related impacts. o Evaluate the operation of key intersections upon project completion. General study area boundaries were Technology Drive to the north, Prairie Center Drive to the southwest and T.H. 169 to the east. Roadway system considerations, however, took a somewhat larger area into consideration, particularly in the definition of travel sheds for the study area. EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES The proposed Wal-Mart store is located south of Singletree Lane. Singletree Lane is a four-lane, divided, city collector street connecting Prairie Center Drive and T.H. 169. The proposed project would have access at two locations on Singletree Lane. There are no turn lanes on Singletree Lane between Eden Road and Prairie Center Drive. The project site is bordered on the west by Prairie Center Drive, a four-lane, divided minor arterial. Prairie Center Drive currently has median breaks at Commonwealth Drive, Singletree Lane and Technology Drive. There are traffic signals at T.H. 169 and at T.H. 5. 1 4000 2000 2000 L. SRF #0911548 PROJECT LOCATION 1 WALMART TRAFFIC STUDY / CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE The project is bordered on the east by two single family homes and an existing office building, all of which have access on Eden Road to the east. Eden Road is a four lane, local street. The functional classification of these and other streets in the study area are shown in Figure 2. 1989 daily traffic volumes on streets in the vicinity of the project are shown in Figure 3. PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS There are several roadway improvements planned in the study area. The T.H. 5/Prairie Center Drive intersection is planned to be improved to a folded diamond interchange with the construction of new T.H. 212. This improvement would require the relocation of Technology Drive, west of Prairie Center Drive, approximately 700 feet to the south. The City of Eden Prairie is constructing Columbine Road, a new collector street between Anderson Lakes Parkway and Prairie Center Drive. Columbine Road has already been constructed from Anderson Lakes Parkway to just north of Fountain Place. The extension of Columbine to the north will intersect Prairie Center Drive along the south edge of the Flagship Athletic Club property. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has recently completed the improvement of T.H. 169 to a four-lane section south of Prairie Center Drive. HISTORY OF THE ROADWAY NETWORK Several previous studies have considered traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project. These studies have identified roadway system needs which affect the proposed project. Major Center Area Studies The "Eden Prairie Major Center Area" study, conducted in 1972 and 1973, evaluated environmental constraints, transportation needs, financing strategies, and land use in the Major Center Area. The Planned Unit Development recommended by the study was adopted by the City Council in 1973. Although the plan does not present much detail on property access, it does show an internal road system which provides for the extension of Commonwealth Drive to the north from Prairie Center Drive to Technology Drive. It also shows connections southwest of Prairie Center Drive at Commonwealth Drive, Singletree Lane, Technology Drive and one additional connection between Technology and Singletree. The 165 foot NSP easement, which runs through the Wal-Mart site, was seen as a constraint on development, but appropriate for parking and road uses. 3 flying Cloud Airport M. A. C. PLANNED I EXTENSION Principal Arterial MI MI IN Intermediate Arterial nnn•• Minor Arterial 2000 4000 ratmunsta Collector SRF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 2 2000 00911548 WALMART TRAFFIC STUDY / CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE t PROJECT SITE -4.- -4 SRF 1989 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES it 091154 WALMART TRAFFIC STUDY / CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE :3! "The Preserve Commercial Plans", dated November 11, 1974, also o show concept plans for the part of the study area south of the proposed project site. The concept which most closely represents the way the area has developed also shows an extension from the intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Regional Center Road to the north. o A 1985 study titled "County Road 18/Prairie Center Drive Area Traffic Study" used a year 2000 traffic forecast to identify areas of congestion. The study recommended intersection improvements and a reduction in trip generation/land use to mitigate projected congestion. o A study called "Major Center Area Traffic Study", completed in December 1988, again evaluated the ability of the Major Center Area street system to accommodate projected traffic levels. This study assumed the improvements recommended in the 1985 study were implemented. One of the improvements assumed to be completed in the forecasting done for this study was the connection of Commonwealth Drive to Singletree Lane. The 1988 study identified many areas of projected congestion, given the levels of development expected by 2010. One of the major factors contributing to projected congestion was identified as the limited number of access points to the Major Center Area. The study recommended a combination of roadway improvements and land use/trip generation reductions to reduce future congestion. The improvements included reconstruction of several interchanges to improve access to the Major Center Area. Even with these actions, several intersections were projected to be over capacity. The range of daily traffic volumes projected by this study are shown in Figure 4. Proposed Development Traffic Studies o In 1985, a series of two traffic studies were prepared to consider development proposals for the Northrup King site located south of Anderson Lakes Parkway and west of T.H. 169, These studies assumed the critical year for traffic analysis would be 1990 because traffic volumes on T.H. 169 were projected to begin to drop because of completion of regional highway improvements. Given the existing (1991) configuration of the T.H. 169/Anderson Lakes Parkway intersection, the study indicates the intersection would be over capacity if the Northrup King site were completely developed as approved. Another traffic study completed in 1987 reviewed the impact of development of the Fountain Place Apartments located north of Anderson Lakes Parkway and west of T.H. 169. In view of both the Fountain Place and Northrup King developments, the study recommended the construction of Columbine Road between Anderson Lakes Parkway and Prairie Center Drive to alleviate congestion at the Anderson Lakes Parkway and Prairie Center Drive intersections with T.H. 169. 6 4 Data Source: "Major Center Area Traffic Study", 1988 SRF 10911548 2010 DAILY TRAFFIC FORECASTS WALMART TRAFFIC STUDY / CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 11;000 -17,000 tfy. PROJECT SITE---A - - 07' o Another traffic study completed in October 1989 reviewed the proposed Alpine Center development. This center has been constructed and renamed Lariat Center. This study also considered the extension of Columbine Road. Study Resu ts Which Affect the Study Area Street Network The Commonwealth Drive connection to Singletree has continued to be included in the plans for the Major Center Area transportation system. As a result the city currently owns a small section of right-of-way to accommodate this connection to the north from the existing Commonwealth Drive/Regional Center Road intersection. The need to extend Commonwealth Drive to the north should continue to be evaluated as the area develops. The opportunity to construct many of the planned connections from Prairie Center Drive to the southwest have been lost because development has occurred without preservation of right-of-way for the connections. The extension of Commonwealth Drive is precluded because of the Castleridge Care Center; the extension of Singletree Lane is precluded by the Flagship Athletic Club. Technology Drive has been connected to the west to Mitchell Road. The connection between Singletree and Technology Drive may be constructed to provide access to a future recreation area, but soil conditions in the Purgatory Creek floodplain do not allow the road to connect through to the west. The only other opportunity remaining for a southwesterly connection is at Columbine Road. The extension of Columbine Road must also continue to be evaluated as the area develops. STREET NETWORK ANALYSIS The Major Center Area has a well defined arterial system consisting primarily of the regional highways and the Prairie Center Drive ring road. Since much of the area around the proposed project site is undeveloped, the local and collector street systems, designed to provide property access and circulation, are relatively undefined. The only existing collector street in the area is Singletree Lane, a discontinuous street which is less than a half-mile long. It connects the two minor arterials, Prairie Center Drive and T.H. 169. 8 If 41 ik.14 A Additional local and collector streets will have to be constructed to provide access and circulation as the area develops. One aspect of this study is to evaluate the need to enhance the local street system by constructing Commonwealth Drive from Regional Center Road to Technology Drive and Columbine Road from its current terminus to Regional Center Road to provide these functions. Columbine Road Extension A previous study reviewing the traffic impact of development of the proposed Alpine Center (existing Lariat Center) considered three alternatives for the Prairie Center Drive/Columbine Road intersection. The extension of Columbine to Regional Center Road was found to be desirable because it would provide an alternate connection between the Major Center Area and the residential areas to the southwest. This would reduce congestion on T.H. 169, particularly at the T.H. 169/Prairie Center Drive intersection. This was also one of the preferred alternatives based on its impact on the operation of Prairie Center Drive. Columbine Road would be designated as a collector street. As a collector, it would have equal emphasis placed on mobility and property access, with driveways provided at major developments. Collectors typically carry trips up to two miles in length; although when the density of collector streets is low, trip lengths may be longer. Collectors are typically spaced at approximately one-half to one mile. Primarily because of environmental constraints, Columbine Road would be the only collector street in the area until it becomes parallel with Singletree Lane. Singletree Lane and Columbine are separated by only about one-eighth mile. The Columbine Road connection to Regional Center Road would also place emphasis on, and increase traffic volumes at, the T.H. 169/Regional Center Road intersection. It is likely that this intersection would warrant a traffic signal in the future. The improvement of this intersection would probably cause more visitors to use this intersection as their primary access to Eden Prairie Center. This would help to spread trips out on the internal ring road and reduce congestion at the existing main access point at Singletree Lane. Commonwealth Drive Extension Commonwealth Drive would be extended as a local street from its terminus at Regional Center Road to the north to Singletree Lane and potentially further north to Technology Drive. The primary function of local streets is to provide property access and connectivity between developments. They are spaced as frequently 9 as necessary to provide these functions. A mixed-use area such as the Major Center Area can have a large number of multi-purpose trips. The promotion of multi-purpose trips and of bicycle and pedestrian trips can help to reduce congestion, especially on the arterial street system. A well-designed local street system is critical for improving the level of pedestrian, bicycle and multi-purpose trips and reducing traffic volumes. The area along T.H. 169 currently has a system of local streets providing property access and circulation and defining a suburban-style block system. There is no local street system west of Eden Road and north of Regional Center Road. The extension of Commonwealth would serve to provide property access for future development. It would also provide a public street connection between developments, connecting retail, industrial, office and other uses. These are local trips which would otherwise have to be made on the arterial street system. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Potential Trip Diversion An estimate was made of the number of vehicles which would use the extensions of Columbine and Commonwealth between the Major Center Area and the residential area to the southwest given different roadway scenarios. This provided a conservative estimate, consisting of local trips and trips made to connect to the regional highway system. The estimate did not include trips made within the Major Center Area between developments. In order to develop traffic forecasts for the proposed roadway extensions, a travel shed was identified for both local and regional trips which would be served by these future roadways (see Figure 5). The local trip travel shed is approximately 1,000 acres in area, substantially developed and consists primarily of single and multiple family residential land use. Based on data contained in the "1990 Eden Prairie Community Profile" it is estimated that this local trip travel shed contains 2,000 housing units. Trips generated within the local trip travel shed that would use the proposed extensions of Columbine Road and Commonwealth Drive can be characterized as short trips to and from the Major Center Area for shopping, business, or work. 10 _ AAA.1 A ISIS POP. Znnn • LOCAL TRIP TRAVEL SHED IL AMR IR t "1" •-• ! .00,„,,w__,„ • , i, ft55) ,1B i fTl fa FR wil PROPOSED ROADWAY i eXTENSIONS 1114 KV/ I VOCATIONAL SCHOOL ..i2g...,,,, i U0011111 11.1710.10/11,*, a. ..... g •4 !,....:......T... 7,,,, t" REGIONAL TRIP TRAVEL SHED ... Ya MMUS CIL d nR i P.. 4 11.1•01•INR Cll Flying Cloud Airport M. A. C. IL ONMPIII CA 34.9001113101 P. UM R. MRS IR 311.01n0 •• MIRO CR 6.111a/IMI MOM MON R No) 2000 4000 SRF *0911548 TRAVEL SHEDS SERVED BY PROPOSED ROADWAY EXTENSIONS WALMART TRAFFIC STUDY / CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE L IS Based on the estimated number of households and typical trip generation rates, the total daily trips generated within the local trip travel shed is estimated at 20,000. Assuming 15 percent of these total daily trips would be local trips to and from the Major Center Area, it is estimated that 3,000 local daily trips would be diverted from T.H. 169 and Prairie Center Drive to the proposed Columbine Road and Commonwealth Drive roadways. This trip reduction factor was found to be typical for retail developments by a study conducted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The regional trip travel shed, a sub-area of the local trip travel shed, is approximately 200 acres in area and consists primarily of multiple family residential land use. It is estimated that this smaller travel shed will contain 1200 of the 2000 housing units in the larger local trip travel shed. Trips generated within the regional trip travel shed that would use the proposed roadway cytnnsions can be characterized as longer trips to and from the greater metropolitan area. These trips are primarily work related trips which would use the proposed roadway extensions to access the area arterial highway system. Based on the estimated number of households and typical trip generation rates, the total daily trips generated within the regional trip travel shed is estimated at 12,000. Assuming trip distribution used in the 1988 Major Center Area Study, 54 percent of these total daily trips would be regional trips which would divert to the proposed roadway extensions, it is estimated that 6,500 daily regional trips would divert from T.H. 169 and Prairie Center Drive to the proposed roadways. The total number of daily diverted trips generated within the local and regional trip travel sheds is estimated at 9500. These diverted trips were assigned to the proposed Columbine Road and Commonwealth Drive roadways. Figure 6 shows the change in traffic volumes on T.H. 169 based on the diversion to Columbine Road and existing T.H. 169 traffic volumes. Figure 7 shows the impact of the diversion on 2010 projected volumes. SITE TRIP GENERATION The proposed land use for the subject site consists of 159,000 S.F. of free-standing discount store. Based on trip rates contained in the 1991 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trio Generation Report, 5th Edition, this proposed land use would generate about 11,150 daily trips and 545 afternoon street peak hour trips. Applying a 15 percent trip reduction factor to account for multiple purpose trips and other trip reduction factors, results in 9,480 daily trips and 465 afternoon street peak hour trips. 12 0 o 0 PROJECT Slit -0- 0 _ - • (3000 -.- Qo • 0•- 10_5 '700 - exisiltac: t V01-014.- OW= PaJIY516/2 t6 VOU3bAe, 6t02a, DIY CF wu idtAs. TEAT-PIC C.00 n416 SRF 1989 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ADJUSTED FOR DIVERSION TO COLUMBINE/COMMONWEALTH 6 #0911548 WALMART TRAFFIC STUDY / CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE •••-•-.-- K‘N•"/ 03- 4.% rk_ ; • ..••••••n,_ fte.C.Cier VOW. A (X9 , AZIYIEJJ tflog Vttat, • SRF s 09 1 15 48 2010 DAILY TRAFFIC FORECASTS ADJUSTED FOR DIVERSION TO COLUMBINE/COMMONWEALTH SINGLETREE PLAZA TRAFFIC STUDY! CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ) I:I) 7 7 A Based on the Trip Generation Report, the directional distribution of the afternoon street peak hour trips would be 52 percent entering and 48 percent exiting, resulting in about 240 inbound and 225 outbound site-generated, afternoon street peak hour trips. SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND ANALYSIS Intersection Operation Afternoon peak period turning movement counts were taken by Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. on Thursday, June 27, 1991 at the T.H. 169/Prairie Center Drive intersection. Counts taken by Benshoof and Associates on Tuesday, June 4, 1991 at the T.H. 169/Singletree Lane intersection were also used in this analysis. The afternoon peak-hour site-generated traffic was assigned to these key intersections. These site-generated trips were added to the existing traffic volumes at the key intersections based on a directional trip distribution developed for the 1988 Major Center Area Traffic Study (see attached intersection worksheets). In order to determine the impact of adding the proposed site generated traffic to the existing background traffic volumes, a planning-level capacity analysis was completed for each of the key intersections. Analyses were completed for the existing condition and existing plus site-generated traffic for alternatives with and without the extension of Columbine Road (see attached intersection worksheets). The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS T.H. 169/PRAIRIE CENTER DR. T.H. 169/SINGLETREE LANE ANALYSIS CONDITION CRITICAL LANE L.O.S. CRITICAL LANE L.O.S. VOLUME VOLUME EXISTING 1255 1035 EXISTING PLUS WAL-MART WITH COLUMBINE EXISTING PLUS WAL-MART WITHOUT COLUMBINE 1040 C 1060 1270 D 1175 15 The T.H. 169/Singletree Lane intersection is expected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) C under all scenarios. This is considered an acceptable level of service. The T.H. 169/Prairie Center Drive intersection is currently operating at LOS D. LOS D indicates that traffic is approaching unstable flow; drivers are unable to maneuver freely. The intersection would continue to operate at LOS D with existing traffic levels and the additional Wal-Mart traffic. The extension of Columbine Road, however, would improve intersection operations to LOS C. Traffic volumes on T.H. 169 increased an average of four percent per year between 1978 and 1988. Traffic volumes are expected to continue to increase until major regional highway improvements are completed. The timeframe for completion of all of these projects is indefinite, but may not be within the next ten years. If traffic at the T.H. 169/Prairie Center Drive and T.H. 169/ Singletree intersections continues to grow at four percent per year, the operation of the Prairie Center Drive intersection would reach LOS E within the next three years and the Singletree Lane intersection would reach LOS E within five years, without the Columbine Road extension. The Columbine Road extension would delay LOS E operations by about five years. Development of the Northrup King site alone would reduce the Prairie Center Drive intersection to LOS E, without any other traffic growth and without the Columbine Road extension. Peaking Characteristics of Shopping vs. Office Land Use Based on data contained in the 1991 Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation Report", 5th Edition, the hourly variation in the amount of traffic generated by office and shopping land use, for a typical weekday, is graphically shown on Figure 8. The office land use volume profile has sharp morning, noon and afternoon/evening peaks. The shopping land use, however, lacks these sharp hourly volume peaks. Generally, office land use generates significant traffic impacts during both the morning and afternoon/evening street peak periods. Shopping land use does not, however, generate a significant traffic impact during the morning street peak period, and a significant traffic impact only during the afternoon/ evening street peak period. Office land use also generates a significant directional split with morning street peak period volumes preuominantly inbound and afternoon/evening street peak period volumes predominantly outbound. Shopping land use on the other hand, generates traffic volumes during the afternoon/evening street peak period that are directionally well balanced. 16 7AM 8 9 10 11 12 1PM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 PERCENT OF WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUME WEEKDAY HOURLY VOLUME PROFILE SHOPPING / OFFICE COMPARISON HOUR OF DAY (BEGINNING) 0 SHOPPING + OFFICE SRF WEEKDAY HOURLY VOLUME PROFILE SHOPPING / OFFICE COMPARISON 8 WALMART TRAFFIC $Tt I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Roadway System The extension of Columbine Road would provide a valuable connection between the Major Center Area and other parts of Eden Prairie. The limited number of these outside connections has been cited as a major factor in the levels of congestion projected for major intersections in the Major Center Area. By serving this purpose, the extension would allow for the diversion of a significant number of trips from T.H. 169 south of Regional Center Road. Although future traffic volumes on T.H. 169 are projected to decrease from existing levels, the future volumes were projected assuming the construction of regional highway improvements to C.S.A.H. 18, the construction of T.H. 212, the Shakopee Bypass and other roadway improvements. Until improvements are complete, traffic volumes on T.H. 169 will probably continue to increase. Some of the regional highway projects have been programmed. Others, such as the 1-494/ C.S.A.H. 18 interchange improvement are not likely to be completed in the next ten years. The trip diversion to Columbine Road would provide relief for congestion on T.H. 169 in the interim. If Columbine were not extended across Prairie Center Drive to Regional Center Road, most of the diverted trips would still go through the Prairie Center Drive/T.H. 169 intersection. Because of the diversion they would become left turns on the west approach and right turns on the north approach instead of through movements on the south and north approaches. Left turns generally cause more congestion at intersections than through traffic. It is recommended that Columbine Road be extended as a collector street with full access at Prairie Center Drive to Regional Center Road. Since Columbine would then provide greater continuity and connectivity, it would replace the collector function of Singletree Lane. Singletree would serve more of a local access function. The extension of Commonwealth to Singletree Lane would provide a good connection for local trips between the proposed and existing developments. Without this connection, many of these trips would be made on the minor arterial streets. The extension of Commonwealth between Singletree Lane and West 78th Street would help fill a void in the street network. It would provide access for future development and also connect the area to other parts of the Major Center Area. It is recommended that as the area develops, right-of-way be reserved for this street. 18 Oar. Om. IM Imm I arklg- Le - 1'1 STRCAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCII, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 611.14412--re.v. RAT_A OulAnerts fOq PIA 1-1111e. 1,-)1 I i-La CO110111 (Shl PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET Imersocim. -21L11-49-jell'iLfill2L-2L Dm. 62, - Ze7 ..- 91 An ._..-L_Lf_PA__ry_...2__.4,-.., Tom Period Analyzed• 144 • a rft,K. P....N. 1‘..4 h ows,.. -',/t,41 P.A.,w_i 9 101AI B z.51 N S STREET {.7 L 1 I -R s 1 11 47 „ 50101A 1. 4-J IL Li T.— ., g--- --). ...C- 3). ..1, 1 J 16- 5-7t7— 28e) (1 lOila --..\ f)tio it'Al? IP. COM rt 117:74. kia-, I (-1-46 111-L2'Si NOMA EN LI - -7() WITH .• MI LI . 11 ER III n _If 1 f-., OR ICAP_I NO LT .. 50TH . b--1.. SILT NB TN .. AM ''M ES MAXIMUM SUM OF CIUTICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL 1201 A.. LEW >1,100 • __W4 STATUS, 1-) 12 CRITICAL PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET b.,..51.,,, 111 1111 i, 411tal-Erf77.- Likt 12.,,, LI - 7 PI -- 1 1 A„,, J. llAV„. /. -.,-..K P. r.... p...,A.1„.1 ?IA "I_J'P.At I4E V4 c.,,s,.. ..,20' 1,1 erf,tv...le., 11-1_1(.11 i 'al -2- snow ikz.._si N $ STREET a L loc., -)1L21, a — NrA 13 ,---, N. t..— <-- .9 4.-- *----) --.4, j 124; I KOMI _7/7 P -'-(-' m I (-16- 111112151. 1 .6.,.?... 1 %6 I M MAY OLT n .12- W0T11 .. OS 44f51.0 WILT .. - (b Ill ..• ..11.l.6 7ca CSI NE LT n•• --e0. $0 111 . 0)0 45I SILT ... —.1...i... ND III .. 4 i 0 c* 1601.1 MAXIMUM SUM Of CRITICAL CAPACITY %RUMS IEEE'. 0101.100 CP 1.101 o./ I.400 N. A > IMO OVER _ sums? • E W CRIIICAI NSCRITICAl VW CROW-Ai STRCAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCII, INC. COW. MO U4„ "JIW/ „J. Seth COWUSVRWISEØR 4. •;rfectei- Wry v._ 041014 0.444 c., + i.vrf. c'tJz VJ ot...e.);•ie,It.le, et) r_,,c-retAt,101...1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET ft-11(A i A nalpt• .-J . E. PiXinkr-... 1 44....P. Two Period Amlywa. rpi. 4,1, ft.P.e... PAWo NA 64 b CM/SMe f2I2P4A ??•J'11C-I -ft-k V.,941 I2.12 SI 10151 NS STREET (0) IE.., gA i 4...) Li L, 21"‘ r WIEDIAI ..r.-. -4 0.- --, sr -- 1 c..) 110 (5) (s.) e ffAte,,,,cfAra., 115.f.1(...146 (6) I t.,.16 I — tit) --) 1.1101AL 1.-70 I CVOCI j 701010. LILT ... -__ILL WO TO •• 1-0-1 - -l. 4 WELT . ER 711 .141: c* r‘1/73711 MILT SETH .. 41 ‹). Se LT n NB TH - (OR L_/,0_1 MAXIMUM SUM Of CRITICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL 0 101,707 UNDER 1.101101,010 NEAR > 1.400 OVER STATUS, I Ail- C E 1-71CRIIICA1 N 5 CRITIC 51. ON) I PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET 1.4m....:ILI I1A k eb.lcst.F;Te..e.P. 1-04.1e- D., 6, - Z, -11 Amlyo -/1n FIPPKIA1,/e•-• / f-X-P rum &OM Analyzed 114. .;1. MALI-IF , hymo Nu 1 E.-,4 51.7 ows,. evrA tilKAIr- I II-LICA/ Z17_ 62°) !IAA 50 10141 fio.-6-1 N 5 5TREET :IL L 1 (1=1 ZIS — r4 L'..] I 4•J i i l_ La r WI 1010. V T 1- , c "---) -1, 1 j SS ,..\ T 1, r3 (I 1 0) (15) I ,,,,v,L.Giut,.LA I IV 50E0 (pis 1-65-m Ira (16) Kip 1-194 -.) Le 70151 16 16651 MI 10141. / ER LT .. 2?.,6 WO 711 ... Z [PA We LT . AUL ER TO /.. 216 C* 131.01 HILT n - 0- SETH .. 666 Eula se a - ._96_ NB 711 - 2,41$ c* l 4-331 MAXIMUM SUM OE CRITICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL 0 101.3013 421!) 1.701 Is 1.400 NIAR >445) OVER STOW L WCRIIICAL N/SCRITICAL ; P3. 'ff.!. I fi rr PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET T1-I u"..9 i fR.A.1¢_if- eP)11P9.. 17? ,Dy.. 7- I - 91 A-4,, J. ff-01,V•f_ J se_ P r... Petiod Analysed ik- A fa A .1-1.fekra. PRAAL1 No 1'746 c.,,s.... W144 rUk1E-1P. Se TOM -1 . 1cA / v2 NS STREET 86 L 1 CIO ( le) d IL g a 4 (In 17S. L —ihi6 I 5....,, r W111171Al ---) 4-- ---a, 1 <_01r, e N,1 tie, Clan 11e, ENSTRIO J2 (s) 116 (1°)1 14 1691-6 7 I -.:... 290 TB WN. I I ,I, A 4,29 (10) I 128 1 NORMAL EbL7 A 1° W1711 .. 116 riCON WILT n ..-1;46> ES 111 ... 146 c* V/"1 NB LT_la 5101 .. LAO 511 LT . ._13....._ bl NI III . I4CICI CA l(piq . MAXIMUM SUM OF CRCAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL 0 70 1.200 ,....,...) 41) > 1.400 Ova _MO1Z:10— STATUS, LA I WCRITICAI N S CRITICAL CtX) ['LAZA 1,1,-,11.t1461 IT STRGAR-ROSCOE•FAUSCII, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS PROLICI RNA _..6..wciagt.en" caw.. cm., •4 tun EN 10. ILI& -5 ILleaLLTRa. riAZA MINc4-)1" CoLoinf)(1.1e- g..,41e414-tal. PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET wi . 111. la! k 14(.LF;Itf..f , LAI-V., 0,,, 7- I - cit „„,,,,, J. tahlAr_ /f.--K-P 7..... ftrioe ...tr.& (It et Pile 14f._ -11-1. )(01 / zia N 55111(1 WINN. I It016 1 ci_ 0 10)11 L ( 15 ty_k — Emi _/ 1.4.. r WS TOTAL T- *-- .0 ../' --) -40 . j Z_3_ if-i TI s' Cho-) (I,,) (to) . fv5,ftief; .22.12 1-L'-m I rh-4 1616 I — 116 ---1 FS TOTAL I be (Z6) I'M 1 NI TOTAL ES LT .. ?;(:). WITH •• 116 R-2-0 WILT . NrGa El TO . 11-fd-.. Cli itill MILT . 10 SS T/I . (allt..4. • SILT A, _ NiTN A Al& °6 E.6-1 MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVU 010 1.00 1(7/70E11 1.101 Am 141W HEAR > 1E00 OVER 42_ 6 I CRETICAl N CRITICAL x') = fLAzi... It 1:114.1.if b east 3 w_a__ " tAilthf 7-1-91 co._ 10. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1991 B. EINGLEIRELELAZA (91-16-Z-SPR) by The Robert Larsen Partners. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Community Commercial on approximately 19 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Site Plan Review on approximately 19 acres for construction of 177,131 square feet of commercial uses to be known as Singletree Plaza. I oration: South of Singletree Lane, east of Prairie Center Drive, west of Eden Road. Kelly Doran, representing the proponent, presented a slide presentation to emphasize the topography of the site and its relation to surrounding facilities. Doran presented the plans for a 185,000 square foot shopping center to consist of an anchor tenant of approximately 119,000 square feet, approximately 50,000 square feet of miscellaneous retail space, a second anchor tenant with approximately 23,000 square feet, and a free-standing building of approximately 6,000 square feet. Doran noted constraints on the property to be several significant grade changes, the location of the NSP tower, and the need to purchase two single family homes. Doran stated that the grade change from the site to Prairie Center Drive was approximately 50 feet, and another grade change of 70-80 feet was present from Regional Center Road to Singletree Lane. Doran stated that the proponent had been working with Staff for approximately 12 months on this site, had looked at every aspect of this site and had tried several different approaches to its development. He added that significant discussions had taken place regarding the extension of Commonwealth Drive through the site. The proponent believed that the extension of Commonwealth Drive would dramatically change the site plan and stated a preference for Commonwealth Drive to be designated as a private road in lieu of a public road. The proponent would agree to maintain the road as a private road. Doran noted that retaining walls and significant grading would be required on this site to allow for the extension of Commonwealth Drive. Norman arrived at 7:50 PM. Doran believed that the revised plan conformed with all the City zoning requirements. He added that the parking and zoning requirements had 1 ..^ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 10. 1991. been met, the setback requirements had been met or exceeded, and 9.2% landscaping was proposed for the parking area. Doran stated that Staff had convinced the proponent to pursue a C-Reg- Service zoning; however, the proponent had preferred a Community Service zoning. Doran noted that a C-Reg-Service designation would not be pedestrian orientated and; therefore, the proponent had not provided for sidewalk connections. Doran stated that based on the Staff Report, he believed that four issues needed to be addressed. The first item was the Base Area Ratio variance request. Doran noted that City Code required a .2 BAR and the proponent was requesting a .212 BAR, which would be reviewed by the Board of Appeals on Thursday, June 13th. The primary reason for the request would be to accommodate the 23,000 square footage requirement of the second major tenant. Doran stated that if the variance request were denied, it would simply result in the loss of approximately 100 feet from the 23,000 square foot facility. He added that it would not add or subtract from any parking. The main reason for the request was to attract a particular tenant which wanted to locate in Eden Prairie. Doran stated that the property owners have owned and paid taxes on this property for over 30 years. During that time, they have dedicated approximately 120,000 square feet of roads immediately to the City. He noted that if that 120,000 square feet could be added back into the site, the project would meet the BAR requirements by the City. The proponent, along with Mr. Teman, would also be paying approximately 90% of the assessments for the improvement of Singletree Lane which the proponent believed to be more of a regional road. Doran believed that the proponents had done more than their fair share. Doran believed that it was ironic that according to the City zoning, if the additional 10,000 square feet were put in a basement or developed as a second story, a BAR variance would not be required. Doran stated that the second issue related to storm water treatment had only been brought to the proponent's attention on May 28th. Doran stated that while the proponent concurred with the recommendations related to the NURP ponds, they had not had time to adjust the plans to accommodate the 1-to-2 acre pond area. Doran believed this issue to be a regional problem and not a plan specific issue. Doran encouraged Staff a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 10. 1991 to address this as a regional issue. Doran did not believe that it would be logical to have several little ponds scattered throughout these last few remaining parcels in the Major Center Area. Doran did not believe it to be practical to require water quality standards in this small area of the Major Center Area when the streets and other areas were already dumping into the wetlands. Doran believed that possibly this would be an assessment to all property owners in the Major Center Area. Doran stated that if a pond were to be developed on this particular site, it would need to be located at Prairie Center Drive and Singletree Lane. Doran questioned the liability issue with a pond in close proximity to a sidewalk and had been advised that the pond would need to be fenced in. Doran stated that the proponent did not wish to build a pond area with a fence around it. Doran added that this issue would also apply to other Major Center Area sites. Doran stated that the proponent was not opposed to the connection of Commonwealth Drive; however, this solution would significantly alter the topography of the site. Doran stated that until last week, the extension of Columbine Road had not been brought up by Staff. Doran believed that the construction of the streets should not be the responsibility of the proponent but should be constructed at City expense. Doran did not believe the road to be of direct benefit to this site. Doran noted that the property was completely surrounded by roadways and did not believe it to be possible to have every building located without fronting a roadway. Doran added that the building would back up to the least traveled roadway, and a screen wall would be constructed high enough to adequately screen the building from traffic. Doran showed slides of Target, Lunds, and Tower Square, all of which had loading areas facing main roadways and which he believed to be adequately screened. Doran added that the proposal was not for actual loading dock areas, but rather man-sized doors. Doran believed that the proponent had tried to mitigate the above major issues addressed in the Staff Report. Doran stated that the proponent would like to continue to work with Staff after receiving direction on these issues from the Planning Commission and return in two weeks. Doran 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 10. 1991 believed this proposal to be a viable use for the property with viable tenants. Doran presented brick color samples. He stated that the anchor tenant would have a multiple colored brick not unlike that of Frank's Nursery. Doran said that he did not understand the Staff Report comment related to the compatibility with surrounding facilities. Doran stated that the proponent had tried to use the same architecture and coloring as the new Tower Square and the Eden Prairie Shopping Center. Doran noted that signage would be consistent with the City Code requirements, and all tenants would be required to meet these standards. Doran noted that the anchor tenant would like signage on three sides of the building but would comply with size requirements. Franzen reported that a main object of Staff was to look at how projects fit in with the overall community. The main issue on this project was how the road system would fit in with the overall City Plan. Columbine Road provides relief for Highway 169 and reduces traffic at already congested intersections and helps distribute traffic better. Franzen stated that greater emphasis was being placed on water quality and new regulations require the construction of NURP ponds and limit the dumping of anything into the wetland area. Franzen noted that a final conclusion had not been reached as to whether the pond would be constructed on this site or off-site. Franzen stated that Staff did not disagree with the proponent on this issue. Franzen reported that a major site specific issue was the loading area on a street frontage. He noted that a variance would be required. Franzen stated that the Staff Report was based on plans submitted by the proponent 30 days ago. Revised plans had been submitted which addressed some of the issues; however, Staff had not been given enough time to review the new plans and rewrite the Staff Report. Franzen believed that several of the issues appeared to be resolved with the revised plan. Franzen stated that Staff had been looking at plans for this property for approximately 12 months and had reviewed several uses for the property. Franzen noted that this specific plan had only been available for 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 10. 1991 review within the last 45 days. Franzen reviewed specific points in the Staff Report on Pages 5, 6, and 7. Franzen believed that there were four major issues to be addressed: BAR Variance request, City Code compliance, road extensions, and NURP ponds. Franzen recommended that the plans be returned to the proponent for further work. Franzen also noted that it was important to provide fire access with emphasis on access to the back of the buildings. To accomplish this, Franzen recommended that the plan be revised to move the buildings further to the north. Ruebling asked Staff to comment further on the BAR Variance request. Franzen replied that the proposal as presented would exceed the City Code requirements by 10,000 square feet. As a result, the corresponding parking area would increase, and the hard surface area would be calculated at approximately 35,000 square feet above City Code, meaning less green space. Doran asked why this project required a variance related to the loading areas when a variance had not been required at Tower Square. Enger replied that a variance should have been required, and Tower Square could actually be in violation of the City Code. Enger added that this issue would need to be addressed by the City Attorney. Doran noted that there may be issues which may not be resolvable. He stated that the proponent did not wish to drag this on forever and, therefore, requested that a time limit be set. Doran stated that the proponent was not in control of the location of the streets. He showed slides of the proposed location for Columbine Road and noted a 25-foot grade separation. Doran believed that the City needed to advise the proponent of what would be needed related to street and slope requirements. Doran found it ironic that a parking deck was being recommended as an alternative when the landscaping requirements were being exceeded in the present proposal. Doran believed there was a major gap between the proponent and Staff. Enge* stated that this plan came before Staff as a formal application approximately 30 days ago. He added that Staff had looked at general plans for the Major Center Area and had developed conceptual ideas for 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 10. 1991 the downtown area. Enger noted that Staff had looked at 3-4 site plans for this site over the past year, all of which had different tenant mixes. This proposal has large planning related issues. Enger stated that the proponent and Staff had had one meeting on this specific plan. The proponent did not meet with staff on the current plan prior to submission. Enger believed that if this were to be developed successfully with the current tenants, it would take more time to resolve major issues. Enger did not believe that any one was dragging their feet related to this proposal. He noted that the traffic study would be completed in approximately 2 weeks. Enger believed that the road system needed to be developed and then develop the site plan to match the road system. Enger stated that the parking deck was a suggestion because of discussions which occurred at the City Council level. Enger stated that this proposal was addressing a different type of intensity and could possibly develop in two phases. Enger believed that due to the size of the project, it would take longer to resolve some of the issues. Enger noted that this was only the first of several large parcels left in Eden Prairie and believed that extreme care was needed to assure a successful project. Doran stated that the proponent had met with all the surrounding property owners and all expressed favor for this project. Dick Ferrick, 7365 Howard Lane, stated that this project was important for Eden Prairie. He believed that Walmart would be a tremendous draw. Ferrick believed that the draw potential would be similar to that which the City has seen from Rainbow Foods. Ferrick believed that there would be the possibility of a parking deck on the Teman site. Ferrick saw this proposal as a chance for development in a slow economy. Ferrick noted that the property owners are in extreme duress. Ferrick believed this to be a quality project. He added some issues remained unresolved, but the project had come a long way. Doran questioned what a parking ramp would do to the site and if the City was willing to put money into a ramp. Doran stated that no concrete proposal for the roadways or a parking ramp had been presented by Staff. Doran estimated the cost of a parking ramp to be approximately 5 million dollars. Doran believed that the resolution of some of the issues would be more than the current market could absorb. Doran stated that this property needed to be developed. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 10. 1991 Bauer stated that it would difficult for him to give direction when changes were being proposed on the fly. Bauer found it difficult to get a proper perspective on what was actually being proposed. Bauer believed that screening of the loading and trash areas was very important. He concurred that this was a very important project and added that sometimes very important projects need to move slowly. Bauer believed that it was important to see the traffic study before any recommendations were made. He questioned how the traffic would be handled if this project were to be the significant draw for Eden Prairie as being presented. Bauer stated that he would like to hear from an expert related to the issue of the NURP ponds and the storm water treatment. He added that he would like alternatives presented. Hallett stated that he trusted Stafrs opinion on what will be best for the overall City plan. He added that Eden Prairie had high standards, and it takes time to work through the details. Hallett believed that it was important to make sure the project would fit in with surrounding facilities and adequate screening were provided. Hallett believed that it would be closer to 30 days before the project would be ready for review again. Bauer asked if there were another deadline which was driving this project that had not been discussed. Doran replied that the proponent would like to be under construction so that the parking lots could be constructed this fall to allow tenants to open next spring. Doran added that the taxes alone on this property were approximately $150,000 per year, and the owners needed to develop the property. Sandstad was concerned that too many issues were not even close to being resolved. Doran stated that this proposal was submitted on May 10th and noted that the traffic study was not ordered until May 28th. Doran added that the proponent had not received comments from Staff until June 6th and the proponent resubmitted the revised plans on June 7th. Doran believed that Staff was dragging its feet in hopes that another proposal would come up. Doran found it hard to believe that this site had been under consideration for over a year and a traffic study was just now being ordered. Enger replied that Staff had not been dragging its feet. He added that staff has reviewed several concepts with the prornent over the last year; however, 7 I ; g I ciok"‘ PLANNING COMMISSION 1nHNUTES - JUNE 10. 1991 the current plan which was submitted just thirty days ago was the first proposed with a 120,000 s.f. anchor tenant. Enger added that there were significant issues which needed to be resolved. Norman questioned if the tenant mix proposed would not affect the need for different street proposals. Doran did not believe that whether the tenant was Walmart or someone else should make a difference related to the need for streets in this area. Doran did not believe that the streets would service this site. He believed that the streets were designed to distribute traffic around the area. Norman asked if the project had always been this large. Bruce Bermel replied that the size of the center had been the same since day one. Doran stated that the proponent would work with Staff until it was determined that resolutions to the issues could not be obtained. Sandstad believed that the traffic, ponding, and loading area screening were all significant issues. He added that the plan was not ready for approval. Enger stated that it was not true that Staff was hoping to delay the project for any reason. Enger stated that the project was being handled on a time schedule the same as any other project of this size. Enger believed that Staff was on track with a review of a project of this size. Enger noted that this project had already been discussed at a City Council level. He added that the BAR ratio was discussed with the City Council. Enger believed that this project had already gotten a lot of City involvement. • Kardell stated that because this project was of such significance, she did not believe it in good judgement to make an expeditious decision. Kardell concurred that it was difficult to comment on a plan which had only been submitted to Staff on the Friday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Norman believed that if the proponent was looking for direction, it appeared that the Planning Commission was in concurrence with the Staff recommendations. Norman believed that the traffic study needed to be completed prior to further recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 10. 1991 Bauer believed that the screening of the loading dock on the street frontage was a significant issue. Doran replied that approximately 75% of the site was surrounded by major roads and a variance would be required. Enger stated that the proponent did not want to be involved in a PUD process. He added that the merits of a request for a variance would be decided by the Board of Appeals, and the proponent would need to demonstrate a hardship. Ruebling believed that since the BAR ratio variance between the ordinance and the proposal was such a few square feet, alternatives to resolve the issue should be available. Ruebling questioned why the removal of the 10,000 square feet had to be on the building of the second anchor tenant. Ruebling believed that aesthetics, green space, and landscaping were particularly important on this piece of property. Ruebling noted that Staff and the Planning Commission had worked with developers in the past where the proponent and Staff seemed to be far apart in their view; and after several discussions and compromises, the final results were a much better plan. Ruebling believed that it was important to take the necessary time to be sure that this project was right for Eden Prairie. Doran stated that it was vital that the proponent know the status of the roads as soon as possible. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Sandstad to continue this item to the July 8, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. 2 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE UNAPPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 22, 1991 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairperson Charles Ruebling, Tim Bauer, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Doug Sandstad, James Hawkins and Katherine !Carden STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Clare T. Kearney, Acting Recording Secretary Pledge of Allegiance -- Roll Call Roll Call: Norman and Sandstad absent I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Bauer, seconded by Kardell to approve the agenda of the July 22, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. H. MEMBERS REPORTS This item was moved to the end of the meeting. 1DMIT.0 Minutes for the July 8, 1991, Planning Commission meeting were unavailable for review. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. BLUFFS E. 10TH ADDITION (91-18-Z-P-PUD) by Hustad Development. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review within the overall Bluff Country Planned Unit Development on 12.3 acres with waivers; Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 12.3 acres; Preliminary Plat of 12.3 acres into 20 single family lots, six outlots and road right-of-way to be known as Bluffs East 10th Addition. Location: southwest of Bluff Road between White Tail Crossing and Wild Duck Pass. A public hearing. Franzen stated that this proposal is another phase of the Bluff Country PUD approved in 1985 for 180 ± acres and 350 housing units. The 1 proponent had contemplated going to R1-13.5 lot sizes when approved at that time. Wally Hustad. Hustad Development reported that the area is located west of County Road 18 and east of Purgatory Creek adjacent to the bluff area. The areas were previously platted out as outlots. The current proposal is to upgrade the streets to City standards and change some lot configurations from those approved in 1985. Hustad indicated that sewer problems are occurring in the area now. The lots proposed are larger than those on the previous plat. Hustad stated that the plan is to get a more contemporary layout for the plat with house pads lined up. Elevations will be raised to allow for more walkout basements. The replotting will also correct minor property line discrepancies. Homes will range from $250,000- $400,000. Hawkins asked if utilities would be buried. Hustad replied that they would. Hawkins asked about the existing houses. Hustad responded that all utilities will be underground. Franzen reviewed the conditions of the staff report which included the elimination of Outlots B-F to be included within the City right-of-way, revision of the grading plan to correct an elevation error in Outlot A, providing detailed storm water runoff, erosion control and utility plans for review by the City Engineer, providing detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District, submission of details for the proposed retaining wall next to the tennis court, payment of a cash park fee, and petitioning the City to vacate unused portions of street right-of-way. Hallett noted that 19 lots are to be approved, and only 17 building pads are shown on the plat. Hustad indicated where the changes will take place on two of the older lots to make a total of 19 lots. Ruebling asked the proponent if there were any issues with the staff report. Hustad replied that there are not. Bauer suggested that the minutes of Planning Commission meetings be provided to the Commissioners for developments that have been previously approved. Hawkins questioned the condition for storm water runoff review and suggested that approval be included in the condition. Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1991 MOTION I: Moved by Bauer, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 2: Moved by Bauer, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers, and Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 12.3 acres for construction of 20 single family lots, six outlots, and road right-of-way, to be known as Bluffs East 10th Addition, based on plans dated July 11, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 19, 1991. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 3: Moved by Bauer, seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Preliminary Plat of 12.3 acres into 20 single family lots, six outlots, and road right-of-way to be known as Bluffs East 10th Addition, based on plans dated July 11, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 19, 1991. Motion carried 5-0. B. HAMILTON ADDITION (91-19-2-P) by Bernard Y. Hamilton. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.98 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 0.98 acres into 2 single family lots and road right-of- way to be known as Bernard Hamilton Addition. Location: 14380 Staring Lake Parkway. A public hearing. Frank Cardarelle. representing the proponent stated that this is a two lot plat on the remaining piece of unplatted property between Twin Lakes Crossing and Staring Lake Parkway. The lots are 17,000 and 22,000 square feet, and the proponent agrees to the conditions in the staff report. 3 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1991 Hawkins asked if there is a sidewalk along the area. Cardarelle replied that there is a sidewalk on Staring Lakes Parkway on the east and west sides of the road. MOTION 1: Moved by 1Cardell, seconded by Hallett to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 2: Moved by Kardell, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bernard Y. Hamilton for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.98 acre for construction of two single family lots and road right-of-way, to be known as the Hamilton Addition, based on plans dated July 16, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 19, 1991. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 3: Moved by Kardell, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bernard Y. Hamilton for Preliminary Plat of 0.98 acre into two single family lots and road right-of-way, to be known as the Hamilton Addition, based on plans dated July 16, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 19, 1991. Motion carried 5-0. C. fOULDER POINTE 2ND ADDITION (91-20-Z-P) by Robert H. Mason, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 43.7 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 75 single family lots, two outlots and road right-of-way to be known as Boulder Pointe 2nd Addition. Location: south of Mitchell Road, west of Twin Lakes Crossing and north of Victoria Drive. A public hearing. Franzen indicated that the plat of Boulder Pointe was approved in 1988 with the number of lots reduced to 250. This proposal is a phase of the project adjacent to the twin homes in the area. 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1991 Randy Trevalia. representing Robert H. Mason. Inc. indicated that the plan is to continue with the plan established with the approval of the PUD in 1988. The single family first phase will have 21 homes. A total of 75 homes are proposed for the development. Trevalia indicated that they are agreeable to staff report conditions for approval. They do, however, wish to lower the size of the retaining wall by 2-3' and still accomplish appropriate grading for the housing pads while saving the significant cottonwood trees in the area. Trevalia stated that the proponent wishes to begin construction as soon as possible and would like to have a model home during the Parade of Homes in September. He highlighted the area to be developed on the site plan and indicated that the same kinds of landscape treatments as in the first addition will be used in this development. Trevalia reviewed the grading work that will need to be done stating that natural contours will be followed as much as possible. Hallett asked where the cottonwood trees were located. Trevalia noted the location. Hawkins asked where the pond that will be filled is located and if any other ponds will remain in the development. Trevalia responded that there are two ponds in the original Boulder Pointe development, and there are two more in the new development. Hallett questioned who the proponent was working with to preserve the chain of lakes in the area. Franzen indicated that the development was reviewed by Bob Obermeyer of the Purgatory Creek Watershed District. Trevalia indicated that the system is actually in place now. The inlet which is currently buried will be opened up with construction. Franzen reviewed the approval conditions in the staff report. He called the Planning Commission's attention to the two attachments to the report. Attachment #1 showed ways that the trees could be saved during the grading process. Attachment #2 showed the overall sidewalk system proposed within the project. Victoria Drive will be extended to connect to Mitchell Road with additional right-of-way in the southwest corner to allow the opportunity for a parcel of land in the south to develop in the future. 5 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1991 Ruebling questioned tree loss in the staff report and asked if tree replacement would be needed. Franzen responded that the developer is proposing additional trees beyond what is required by City ordinance. Hawkins questioned Item 3A on page 5 and suggested that 48 hours advance notice of grading be amended to read two full business days. Franzen took the suggestion under advisement and indicated that it may be a part of the grading permit already. MOTION Moved by Hawkins, seconded by Bauer that the proponent advise the City two business days prior to the commencement of grading. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 2: Moved by Hallett, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 3: Moved by Hallett, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Robert H. Mason, Inc., for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 43.7 acres for construction of 75 single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way, to be known as the Boulder Pointe 2nd Addition, based on plans dated July 17, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 19, 1991. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 4: Moved by Hallett, seconded by Hawkins to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Robert H. Mason, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 75 single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of- way, to be known as the Boulder Pointe 2nd Addition, based on plans dated July 17, 1991, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 19, 1991. Motion carried 5-0. 6 - Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1991 D. SINGLETREE PLAZA (91-16-Z-SPR) by The Robert Larsen Partners. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on approximately 19 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Site Plan Review on approximately 19 acres for construction of 114,000 square feet of commercial uses to be known as Singletree Plaza. Location: South of Singletree Lane, east of Prairie Center Drive, west of Eden Road. A continued public hearing. Franzen indicated that Kelly Doran (Robert Larsen Partners), Bruce Bermel (property owner), and Dale Beckman (BRW) were in attendance to discuss the Singletree Plaza plan changes. Kelly Doran. Robert Larsen Partners indicated that significant modifications have been made to the site plan including internal parking lot circulation, drive lanes, location of the private road and some significant modifications to landscaping and parking area circulation. He stated that landscaping is now at 15-20% in the parking lot where the City's ordinance requires 5%. Doran believed that issues have been dealt with which are in the staff report. Doran stated that the City's urban design consultant has not provided ideas for the downtown area as of yet. Doran believed that an agreement with staff has been reached as far as what the project should look like. He indicated that he will continue to work with staff but does not want to slow down the progress of the project. He stated that the plan is to go forward to the August 6 City Council meeting and return to the August 12 Planning Commission meeting with the exact details of how the project will look. Doran hoped that the urban design report would be available at that time. Bauer asked if there have been enough meetings with the urban design team to even have enough ideas of what they are planning. Franzen indicated that the first meeting will be on July 23. Franzen indicated there will be clear idea of what is planned by the next Planning Commission meeting. Bauer was concerned about another expert coming in that will put this project even further behind. Kardell asked if the urban design team would have a report available prior to the City Council meeting on August 6. Franzen replied that there would be. He stated that the shape 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1991 of the Wal-Mart building will not be changed; however, there is enough room in the front to add plaza features which is what staff is hoping the urban design team will be recommending. It was important to get the site plan to a point where the urban design team would have room to work with. Franzen discussed the grading of the property. He stated that staff's main concern is the screening of the parking lot and views of the loading area. Doran reviewed the proposed expansion and adjacent drive areas. Doran indicated that the expansion may occur or may not. Franzen indicated that it is important to plan the site as if the expansion will occur. It must be taken into consideration now so there will not be any problems later. Bauer was concerned with the site and how the building will sit on the site. Dale Beckmann suggested meeting on the site to review the project. Franzen believed that it would be easier to visualize once the grading is completed. Beckmann indicated that the base of the highline tower will be close in elevation to the first floor elevation of the Wal-Mart building. Doran believed that walking the site would make all the difference in understanding the project and the difficulties in developing the site. Ruebling questioned the slope of the parking lot from the building. Beckmann replied that there is a steady 3% slope from the front door to the west or three feet for every 100 feet, sloping 15 feet from the front door to the edge of the property. Ruebling questioned the north/south slopes. Beckman indicated that the elevations of the northwest and southwest corners are close to each other. Doran stated that there will be an 8-9' retaining wall on the east end of the parking lot. Franzen indicated that a bird's eye view perspective of the site at the next meeting would be helpful for the Planning Commission. Kardell asked how high the site is in comparison with the Flagship Athletic Club. Doran responded that at street level, you wouldn't be able to see the Wal-Mart site from the Flagship. Beckman indicated that the 8 - Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1991 entrance at the access road and entrance off Singletree (?) would be the same elevation when completed. Doran reported that Chris Enger visited the Wal-Mart corporate headquarters last week. He believed that the meeting was successful. Franzen reported that staff is concerned about the size of the loading area and screening in the back of the building. The southeast corner of the loading area will be visible from 169. Doran stated that the Wal-Mart products will come from their own distribution center, and truck traffic would be minimal because of this. Hawkins stated that it appeared that the loading area would be open with the expansion and asked why it wasn't being required to be closed like Dataserv. Franzen stated that it might be possible that roofing, screening and berming will be required. He further stated that staff has not discussed the total solution with the proponent, but there will be a solution for the next Planning Commission meeting. Doran indicated that the loading dock will not be fronting onto a public street as is the case in other areas of the city. Franzen stated that staff did not want the loading area to be so small that they can't operate the store efficiently. Hawkins suggested that the building line be extended in the expansion area and the loading area be roofed to provide a uniform appearance from Singletree Lane. Doran stated that with the changes in grade, the building will not be visible from Singletree Lane and didn't believe that a roof was necessary. Beckmann discussed the grade change from the road to the loading dock stating that it was 10'. He indicated that they are close to a solution to the problem with staff. Franzen stated that staff will not rely on plant materials to solve the screening issue. Doran discussed the cost of roofing the loading dock indicating that it was cost prohibitive. Hallett believed that it is very important for the proponent and staff to work together on this issue so that the best interests of the City are considered. Doran stated that they have exceeded for the most part all the City's requirements to date. 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1991 Kardell asked for an update on progress on the other tract of land. Franzen reported that a consultant has been hired to talk to the property owners along Highway 169 to ask them if they will be willing to sell their property. There is no final recommendation yet. Franzen indicated that construction on the Wal-Mart site will not begin until six months after City approval to allow the City time to study sites for a Wal-Mart on Highway 169. Ruebling asked if Wal-Mart is agreeable with this. Doran responded that they are. ICardell asked if the traffic study would be incorporated into the staff report recommendations. Franzen replied that the traffic consultant is being used as part of the design team. The consultant is concerned about internal circulation on the site. Hallett questioned park dedication requirements. Doran responded that a cash park dedication is not required, because the subdivision of the property is not taking place. Hallett asked if the PR&NR Commission would be reviewing this proposal. Franzen indicated that they would in the near future. Ruebling asked how the stand of trees along Prairie Center Drive would be maintained. Doran replied that it will be maintained by Wal-Mart. Much of it will remain in its natural state. Ruebling questioned the perception of Wal-Mart as far as product quality and building design are concerned. He asked if the building proposed will be a "cut above other communities. Doran replied that the building will be all brick and is a step up from a typical Wal-Mart. Franzen indicated that staff will still be looking at the building in accordance with the City's guidelines for building. Franzen discussed the options that the City Council will have at their meeting on August 6 and their desire to review the project as it is progressing. Ruebling suggested that members of the Planning Commission attend the City Council meeting. Franzen stated that a formal report will be written next week on this proposal. 1 0 Planning Commission Meeting July 22, 1991 V. VI. VII. MOTIONJi Moved by Hawkins, seconded by Bauer to continue the public hearing to the August 12, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS MEMBERS iL5_LEIXIBLi Kardell reported on the City Council's consideration of the Carpenter North PUD proposal. Hawkins complimented the staff on the amount of work done on the Carpenter North PhD proposal. PLANNER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Moved by Hawkins, seconded by Kardell to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. 11 ko'lS Boulder Pointe 2nd Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 91-179 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BOULDER POINTE 2ND ADDITION FOR ROBERT MASON, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Boulder Pointe 2nd Addition for Robert Mason, Inc. dated July 26, 1991, consisting of 68 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 6th day of August, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Franc, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Planner THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Boulder Pointe 2nd Addition DATE: August 2, 1991 On July 22, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Boulder Pointe 2nd Addition project subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated July 19, 1991. The revised plans dated July 26, 1991 have incorporated these recommendations and have also been modified in the following ways: 1. Cut and fill calculations have now been determined. To balance the site, the grading plan has been revised indicating additional cut along the south property line with more fill in the northeast corner. This revision will create the need for a three foot high retaining wall along the south property line of three lots and will reduce the berm transition to the townhouse units located to the southeast. Staff has suggested to the proponent installation of additional trees beyond the townhouse plantings to compensate for the reduced berming. The proponent said they will take this suggestion under advisement. 2. The outlot proposed for the monument sign for the development has been removed and will now be placed within an easement for maintenance purposes. The neighborhoods located to the south of this project were part of the Sunrise Circle feasibility. report recently completed for the installation of City sewer and water. The report indicates the connection of city sewer to the Red Rock Interceptor through the outlot lying north of Mitchell Road. Because the current proposal can also provide the necessary connection, a revision to the sewer alignment will take place through this property. The proponent has indicated the extension of the sanitary sewer line to the south property line for connection to the Sunrise Circle neighborhood. This sewer line will need to be established at a depth necessary to work with the Sunrise Circle area. The City requests that the proponent petition for the extension of this sewer concurrent with the development of phase I construction, and provide the necessary temporary easements for construction. It will be necessary for the proponent to enter into a Special Assessment Agreement for this sanitary sewer extension. In order to commence construction of this proposal so home construction can be underway by the start of the Parade of Homes in September, the proponent is requesting that a grading permit be issued at this time and that the Building Department review architectural plans for the models prior to receipt of the final survey documents. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 43.6 acres and Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 75 single family lots, one outlot and road right-of-way based on the staff report of July 19, 1991, this memo and revised plans dated July 26, 1991, subject to the following: 1. Prior to grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Petition the City for the extension of a sanitary sewer line from the Red Rock Interceptor located along Mitchell Road to the south property line between Lots 11 and 12, Block 3, including submission of temporary construction easements for this extension. B. Submit detailed plans for review by the Building Department for any boulder wall in excess of four feet in height, and receive the necessary permits for such walls. C. Notify the City and Watershed District at least two business days in advance of grading. D. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing, and install snow fencing at the drip line around the significant cottonwoods to be saved. E. Submit surety for the replacement of 34 caliper inches of trees. 2. Prior to final plat, the proponent shall: A. Enter into a Special Assessment Agreement for the construction of the sanitary sewer line from the Red Rock Interceptor located along Mitchell Road to the south property line between Lots 11 and 12, Block 3. B. Submit detailed storm water and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. C. Submit detailed storm water, street, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineering, including the relocation of the watermain between Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 3 of the preliminary plat so that it lines up with the existing Staring Lane East right-of-way. 3. Concurrent with site grading, the proponent shall construct the retaining walls as depicted on the plans and around the south side of the cottonwood trees to be saved. 4. Concurrent with street and utility construction, the proponent shall install the 5' wide, 5" thick concrete sidewalks along the east side of Victoria Drive to Mitchell Road and along the south and west sides of the other through road as depicted on the plans. 5. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall pay the cash park fee. a:scott \91-20 1342 R M-6.5 I if 141-134 AREA LOCATION MAP • • nn••• STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Planner THROUGH: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: July 19, 1991 SUBJECT: Boulder Pointe 2nd Addition LOCATION: South of Mitchell Road, west of Twin Lakes Crossing, and north of Victoria Drive APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: REQUEST: Robert H. Mason, Inc. 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 o n 4 3 . 7 a c r e s 2. Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 75 single family l o t s , t w o o u t l o t s , and road right-of-way. BACKGROUND This site is part of the 150 acre Red Rock Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD) which was revised in 1988. The first three phases of the PUD have been constructed, including 61 single family units, 50 twinhome units, and 30 twinhome units respectively. The 1988 PUD depicted 86 single family lots in the area proposed for rezoning to R1-13.5. The property lies south of Mitchell Road and abuts existing R I -22 and R I -13.5 developments to the south. This property consists of moderate slopes from a high point of 895 along the south property to a low point of 830 near an existing pond. The vegetation consists of a few large cottonwood trees near the center of the project with more willows and cottonwood trees surrounding the existing pond. 1 Boulder Pointe 2nd Addition - Staff Report July 19, 1991 SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT The 68 acre site is proposed to be platted into 75 single family lots, two outlots and road right- of-way. Outlot C will be zoned and subdivided into single family lots at a later date : The site density is proposed at 1.7 units per acre which is consistent with the PUD approval. All lots meet the minimum requirements for size and dimensions for the R1-13.5 Zoning District. The minimum lot size is 13,500 square feet with an average lot size of 20,300 square feet. Staff and the proponent have evaluated different design options to reduce the number of cul-de- sacs within this project, but an inefficient lotting pattern occurs if the two central cul-de-sacs are joined. The use of cul-de-sacs in this area allows greater setbacks and reduces the number of double frontage lots along Mitchell Road. The maximum cul-de-sac length is 500 feet consistent with City Code. The PUD provides an area for future right-of-way along Mitchell Road to provide access to existing R1-22 property to be subdivided in the future. The preliminary platting should be revised to include this area as right-of-way and dedicated with the phase one final plat. (See attachment 1) All lots will access the internal roadway system of the development with no direct access to Mitchell Road. GRADING PLAN The grading plan includes the filling of the approximately 3/4 acre pond and removal of significant cottonwood trees located in the northeast corner of the property. Due to the centralized location of this pond, it is not possible to save the pond and trees without creating inefficient lotting patterns on steep slopes, setback variances, and an excessive amount of retaining walls. The use of a private road with flag lots could save the pond and trees but grading would remove the natural berm transition to the twinhomes located to the southeast. The drainage plan creates four new ponding areas on site to compensate for the loss of the pond. The DNR or the Corps of Engineers will permit the filling of the wetland. Some boulder retaining walls are proposed for the property. Any retaining wall in excess of four feet in height will require review and a permit from the Building Department. Prior to City Council, detailed plans for these retaining walls need to be submitted for review. 2 /VI Boulder Pointe 2nd Addition - Staff Report July 19, 1991 DRAINAGE Storm water will be collected through a series of catch basins within the roadways and in some rear yard areas and piped to storm water collector ponds located along Mitchell Road. These ponds have their outlets directed to the DNR protected wetland located north of this site. TREE LOSS AND LANDSCAPING A total of 454 caliper inches of significant trees occupy the property with the majority being lost as part of site development. The developer indicates that all attempts will be made to save the 135 caliper inches of cottonwood trees near the center of the property, which includes an 84 inch cottonwood. The grading plan indicates filling around these trees from four to seven feet. Although cottonwoods can handle some filling, Staff recommends that a retaining wall be constructed around the south side of the trees to eliminate the need for any fill. (See attachment 2) Cottonwoods are considered significant trees within the tree preservation ordinance but were not considered significant when the 1988 PUD was approved. Total PUD tree loss was recalculated including all cottonwoods at 31%. Based on this review, a total of 34 caliper inches of tree replacement will be necessary if the 135 caliper inches of trees in question are saved, and 146 caliper inches of replacement if they are lost. The landscaping plan provides 206 caliper inches of trees proposed along the Mitchell Road frontage. The plan also calls for the planting of two 3-inch caliper trees for each lot. The landscaping plan for the Boulder Pointe Townhomes to the southeast provides for transitional plantings between the townhomes and this property. Staff recommends that many of the additional trees proposed for lots abutting the townhouse project be planted along the southeast property line to aid in the buffering between land uses. UTILITIES City sewer and water service is available to the site with connections taldng place at the terminus of Victoria Drive within the Kingston Ridge development and along Mitchell Road. As part of the City's upgrading project for Starring Lane located to the south, a water line is proposed to be looped to this development to provide maximum water pressure for the neighborhood. 3 Boulder Pointe 2nd Addition - Staff Report July 19, 1991 PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS A sidewalk exists along the east side of Victoria Drive within the Kingston Ridge development and a sidewalk and trail along Mitchell Road. As part of this development, a five foot wide, five inch thick concrete sidewalk will be required along the east side of Victoria Drive to Mitchell Road, and along the south and west sides of the other through street to Mitchell Road (See Attachment 1). RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 43.6 acres and Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 75 single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way based on revised plans dated July 17, 1991, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council, the proponent shall: A. Revise the preliminary plat to depict right-of-way for access to property to the south. B. Revise the preliminary plat to show a 5 foot wide, 5 inch thick concrete sidewalk along the east side of Victoria Drive from the Kingston Ridge property to Mitchell Road, and along the south and west sides of the other through road to Mitchell Road. C. Revise the grading plan to a retaining wall around the south side of the cluster of cottonwood trees near the center of the property so that no fill will need to be placed over the base of these trees. In addition, submit detailed plans for these retaining walls for review. 2. Prior to final plat, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water, street, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 4 Boulder Pointe 2nd Addition - Staff Report July 19, 1991 3. Prior to grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing, and install snow fencing at the drip line around the significant cottonwoods to be saved. 4. Concurrent with site grading, the proponent shall construct the retaining walls as depicted on the plans and around the south side of the cottonwood trees to be saved as indicated in Item 1.c. above. 5. Concurrent with street and utility construction, proponent shall install the 5 foot wide, 5 inch thick concrete sidewalks along the east side of Victoria Drive to Mitchell Road and along the south and west sides of the other through road to Mitchell Road. 6. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall pay the Cash Park Fee. BLDRPT2.SAK:bs 5 4,7 _ attachment 1 "c-TY"rA-e-k. ---1-.7z._--. -------) ,./// `•,..: " .,-) ' _ /,.::, _-..---------'----'---* ) -5-::--:".".-----.\ «7''' -- - \--"' )1)11 117 1 \ ,c-,,,C:_-.-(--\., --(--,_.-7T i . — ' `:-- --,F7- ...--, ...------,,,, \ • beve.'..y,2:. r .9. ::e. r---cfr-.....;:;- c.,)_, :- 5- , ;‘• •-•:( 1 kfr-' — , 101 - - pq,J- •-• 17,1 \/ /)) ,, ,t,:477pc-J(1/71 ,((\ \4--7.-,. ( \ I ADDITIONAL R.O.W. ‘..alve4. 61\1 _ - , • 4.• , •.,,,,i', FUTURE ROAD.,..,: ..1">)., q))))) ,„ I. t:,, e\ ,\.0 a'''' \‘'ll.'.I\-- 1 ///'-#:-;+Zi,ilifix ! Nf =1400\ ',::."' " 11%:, (.4- *I ' V9.' attachment 21.:_,s,-,:.p,,,„.„ r-7'.3.1kriAc•—?-;-1 ,1 •-.1 te C. WV' AUGUST 6,1991 16761 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 29708.77 16762 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 18.50 16763 STREET OF DREAMS -STREET OF DREAMS TRIP-SENIOR PROGRAMS/ 31.0n FEES PAID 16764 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT BUS SERVICE-AFTERNOON ADVENTURE PROGRAM 16765 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY COLORED COPY PAPER-COMMUNITY CENTER 448.86 16766 MN DEPT OF REVENUE JUNE 91 FUEL TAX 249.00 16767 CYRIL L PAUL -ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LAKE CONCERT 500.00 SERIES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 16768 RICHARD ALAN PRODUCTIONS -ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LAKE CONCERT 565.00 SERIES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 16769 JIM KLINE CONFERENCE ADVANCE-POLICE DEPT 225.00 16770 MINNESOTA CLE CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 185.00 16771 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONFERENCE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 28.00 16772 BARBARA ASTRY REFUND-T-BALL LEAGUE 13.00 16773 JACKIE BEYER REFUND-RACQUETBALL LESSONS 18.00 16774 CLARA BLECK -REFUND-50/50 CLUB CANOE TRIP-OUTDOOR 55.00 CENTER PROGRAM 16775 BOB BROWN -REFUND-WRITE YOUR OWN STORY-SENIOR 7.00 CITIZENS PROGRAM 16776 NANCY CROES REFUND-ARCHERY LESSONS 2.80 16777 DENNIS GAYNOR REFUND-MIXED DOUBLES TENNIS LEAGUE 20.00 16778 ETHEL HOFFHINES -REFUND-WRITE YOUR OWN STORY-SENIOR 7.00 CITIZENS PROGRAM 16779 LATHA IYER REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 19.00 16780 BEN JOHN REFUND-WEIGHT TRAINING CLASS 24.00 16781 LINDA KRUSE REFUND-ARCHERY LESSONS 11.00 16782 LISA KUFFEL REFUND-CPR CLASS 6.00 16783 DEBORAH LARSON REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 15.0^ 16784 JULIE LARSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19. 16785 SUSAN NIEMI REFUND-RACQUETBALL LESSONS 16.00 16786 MARY OSTLUND REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 38.00 16787 JOAN PALMQUIST REFUND-SAILING LESSONS 8.00 16788 PRAVIN PANDYA REFUND-MIXED DOUBLES TENNIS LEAGUE 20.00 16789 PATRICIA PHILLIPS REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND PROGRAM 19.00 16790 GREGORY PROVENCE REFUND-LIFEGUARD TRAINING CLASS 67.00 16791 DONNA SCHULTZ REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 22.00 16792 LINDA WAUDON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 16793 PETTY CASH -MOVIES OF EDEN PRAIRIE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM/ 24.50 FEES PAID 16794 PETTY CASH -MOVIES OF EDEN PRAIRIE-TEEN WORK PROGRAM/ 52.50 FEES PAID 16795 STATE OF MINNESOTA BIKE REGISTRATIONS 190.00 16796 SUPERIOR SHORES LODGE CONFERENCE-POLICE DEFT 36.00 16797 VALLEYFAIR FAMILY AMUSEMENT PARK SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS PROGRAM/FEES PAID 637.00 16798 HELM INC SERVICE MANUALS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 167.50 16799 S I R MILES INC CONFERENCE-COMMUNITY CENTER 150.00 16800 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 7-12 & 7-15 77527.71 16801 GUARANTEE MUTUAL LIFE COMPANY JULY 91 INSURANCE 2777.54 16802 MN DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 7-12 & 7-15 15168.75 16803 MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE JULY 91 INSURANCE 3012.53 16804 PETTY CASH CHANGE FUND 100.00 16805 DAVE BLACK MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 51.25 16806 DUSTCOATING INC OIL-DUST CONTROL-STREET DEPT 9440.72 16807 JIM LINDGREN CONFERENCE-POLICE DEFT 75. 14182693 AUGUST 6.1991 16808 KIDSONG & COMPANY INC 16809 GARTH if ) MINNESOTA SHAKEPEARE COMPANY 16811 HOPKINS SCHOOL DIST it270 16812 PETTY CASH 16813 ZIEGLER INC 16814 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMM 16815 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV 16816 AT&T 16817 AT&T CREDIT CORPORATION 16818 AT&T 16819 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP 16820 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 16821 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO 16822 U S WEST CELLULAR INC 16823 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS 16824 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK 16825 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO 16826 HEWN CIT SUPPORT & COLLECTION SER 16827 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 16828 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 16829 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM 16830 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION 16831 MINNESOTA UC FUND 16832 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS 1 1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA 1(...-4 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA 16835 UNITED WAY 16836 EAGLE WINE CO 16837 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC 16838 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 16839 ED PHILLIPS & SONS 16840 PRIOR WINE CO 16841 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO 16842 THE WINE COMPANY 16843 SUZANNE ABBOTT 16844 NICOLE ARNFELT 16845 MARK BRADSETH 16846 PATRICIA CARLSON 16647 DONNA FANS 16648 CARL W CANS DMOA 16849 LORIE GLAROS 16850 JILL MACORE 16851 CAROLYN MONSRUD 16852 DARELYN OVERLINE 16853 BARBARA PEDERSCN 16854 KAREN RICHARDSON 6,443 -ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LAKE CONCERT SERIES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION -ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LAKE CONCERT SERIES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION -ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LAKE CONCERT SERIES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION CONFERENCE-ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROGRAM -EXPENSES-PLAYGROUND PROGRAMS/SUMMER SKILL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM CONFERENCE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BUS SERVICE-YOUTH TENNIS TRIP SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLL 7/12/91-SAVINGS BOND PAYROLL 7/12/91 CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION PAYROLL 7/12/91 PAYROLL 7/12/91 PAYROLL 7/12/91 PAYROLL 7/12/91 2ND QTR 91 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PAYROLLS 6/28/91 & 7/12/91 PAYROLL 7/12/91 PAYROLL 7/12/91 PAYROLL 7/12/91 WINE LIQUOR LIQUOR LIQUOR WINE LIQUOR WINE -REFUND-VALLEYFAIR TRIP-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS PROGRAM REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP REFUND-CANOE TRIP-OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAM REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS -REFUND-STARING TAKE PARK BUILDING & PICNIC KIT RENTAL REFUND-ACTIVITY CAMP REFUND-TEAM TENNIS LESSONS -REFUND-NATURAL GARDEN FLORAL CLASS- OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAM REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 225.00 430.00 350.00 100.00 51.51 139.00 35.00 159.80 500.24 93.67 369.88 63.00 23652.71 24552.03 534.29 6475.07 50.00 6564.00 194.76 2148.72 32.00 50.00 25.00 3879.32 1140.00 195.00 39742.83 218.25 964.84 22369.24 26617.39 23252.79 4282.99 19322.65 30.48 • 14.00 19.00 90.00 165.00 72.00 35.00 55.00 22.67 15.00 16.50 30.00 19.00 ori A AUGUST 6.1991 16855 BETSY STEWERT 16856 GRANT THORNTON 16857 WENDY WILDFEUER 16858 JOHNNY WILSON 16859 VALLEYFAIR FAMILY AMUSEMENT PARK 16860 HOPKINS POSTMASTER 16861 BIRTCHER WELSH 16862 MINNEGASCO 16863 BOB WALSER 16864 THE TRONES FAMILY 16865 THOMAS PONTIAC BUICK GMC 16866 JIM DEMANN 16867 JIM LINDGREN 16868 BOB OLSON 16869 MOLLY KOIVUMAKI 16870 MOORHEAD DAYS INN CONFERENCE CENT 16871 FRANCES ANVIDSON 16872 MARGARET ASBY 16873 DEBBIE FEIST 16874 CARL W GANS DMOA 16875 MONA KOEBELE 16876 JEANNE KOMISS 16877 NANCY LAGERMEIER 16878 KARLA MILLER 16879 DIXIE QUINN 16880 DIANE REITZ 16881 JOCELYN RIGGS 16882 CAROL RUTTEN 16883 MARY TJENSTROM 16884 LINDA WALTON 16885 LORI WELU 16886 KELLY WOODS 16887 HEIDI ZOGHI 16888 SPRI PRODUCTS INC 16889 JASON-NORTHCO PROP LP#1 16890 CAPITOL MUTUAL AID ASSN 16891 VOID OUT CHECK 16892 LOUISE STONE 16393 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE 16894 WAGNER 16895 HOPKINS POSTMASTER 16896 SUMMER HILL TREE FARM 16897 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING 16898 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE 16899 BEAVER MT WATER SLIDE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-ROUND LAKE PARK BUILDING RENTAL -REFUND-NATURAL GARDEN FLORAL CLASS- OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAM REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS TEEN WORK PROGRAM/FEES PAID POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING AUGUST 91 RENT-CITY HALL SERVICE -ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LAKE CONCERT SERIES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION -ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LAKE CONCERT SERIES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION VAN-ANIMAL CONTROL DEFT EXPENSES-CANINE FIELD TRIALS-POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-CANINE FIELD TRIALS-POLICE DEPT CONFERENCE ADVANCE-POLICE DEPT CONFERENCE ADVANCE-POLICE DEPT CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT -REFUND-55 ALIVE CLASS-SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM REFUND-SKATING LESSONS -REFUND-BEAVER MT WATER SLIDE-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS PROGRAM -REFUND-COST OF REPLACEMENT BAT FOR PICNIC KIT REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-SUMMER SPORTS CAMP -REFUND-BEAVER MT WATER SLIDE-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS PROGRAM REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS -REFUND-BEAVER MT WATER SLIDE-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS PROGRAM REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND PROGRAM REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS -EXERCISE BANDS-FITNESS CLASSES-COMMUNITY CENTER AUGUST 91 RENT-LIQUOR STORE CONFERENCE-FIRE DEFT DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE FUNDS SCHOOL-FIRE DEFT SPRAY GUN REPAIR PART-EQUIPMENT MAINT POSTAGE-CITY HALL POSTAGE METER -TREE REPLACEMENT-CEDAR RIDGE & CORRAL LANE IMPROVEMENTS DEFENSIVE DRIVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID SO-100L-FIRE DEFT TEEN WORK PROGRAM/FEES PAID 19.00 42.00 15.00 15.6 312.50 744.04 21876.74 1912.58 400.00 350.00 17604.00 115.00 80.00 55.00 130.00 50.00 8.00 54.50 9.50 30.00 28.00 36.00 22.0n 45! 9.5u 10.75 19.00 19.00 9.50 20.00 13.00 9.00 30.00 21.25 6842.83 50.00 '040 1191.73 30.00 46.30 8000.00 1170.00 200.00 30.00 45.- 6172122 AUGUST 6,1991 16900 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER 16901 AARCEE PARTY RENTAL 16P" ABBOTT PAINT & CARPET CO 16E DENICE ABELN 16904 ACE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS INC 16905 ACT ELECTRONICS INC 16906 ACTION RADIO & COMMUNICATIONS 16907 ACTION RENTAL CENTERS 16908 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS 16909 AIRLIFT DOORS INC 16910 AIRSIGNAL INC 16911 ALEXANDER BATTERY NORTH 16912 RAY ALLEN MFG CO INC 16913 ANDREA ALTO 16914 AMERICAN EXCELSIOR COMPANY 16915 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO 16916 AMERICAN RED CROSS 16917 AMERICAN TEXT CENTER 16918 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC 16 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC 16920 KEN ANDERSEN TRUCKING 16921 ANDERSONS GARDEN 16922 ANDON INC 16923 ANDROC PRODUCTS INC 16924 WENDY ANSLEY 16925 AQUA ENGINEERING INC 16926 AQUA SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC 16927 ARDEN SHOREVIEW ANIMAL HOSPITAL 16928 ARMOR SECURITY INC 16929 ASAP OF MN 16930 B & S TOOLS 16931 BACONS ELECTRIC CO 16932 BAILEY NURSERIES INC 16933 S H BARTLETT COMPANY INC 1616592 TRAILER RENTAL-FACILITIES DEPT 18.00 -STAGE & STEPS/BAND SHELL-JULY 4TH 940.00 CELEBRATION PAINT-WATER DEPT 168.24 -GYMNASTICS INSTRUCTOR-SUMMER SKILL 255.00 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM/FEES PAID DEGREASER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 314.25 BATTERIES/RADIO REPAIR-ENGINEERING DEPT 85.00 ANTENNA/ADAPTERS-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 113.60 TENT RENTAL/HELIUM TANK RENTAL-POLICE DEPT 118.45 -ANNUAL SECURITY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 645.56 AGREEMENTS-FIRE STATIONS -DOORS REPAIRED-PUBLIC WORKS BLDG/POLICE 320.85 BUILDING/COMMUNITY CENTER -PAGER SERVICE-FACILITIES DEPT/POLICE DEPT 520.00 FIRE DEFT/COMMUNITY CENTER BATTERIES-POLICE DEFT 51.84 CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 222.82 PERFORMING ARTS CAMP INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 120.00 EROSION CONTROL MATS-PARK MAINTENANCE 168.80 -UNIFORMS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT/ 268.68 FACILITIES DEPT/ANIMAL CONTROL DEPT -TEXTBOOKS/RESCUE MANIKIN RENTALS/VIDEO 789.45 -TAPE RENTALS/VALVES-POOL LESSONS/RILEY LAKE BEACH -TEST & INSPECTION OF 29 GROUND LADDERS- 1276.00 FIRE DEPT -WRITTEN REGULATIONS/NOTIFICATIONS/ 838.36 EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS-WATER DEPT -WARNING SIGNS/STREET SIGNS/POSTS-STREET 3509.39 DEPT WASTE DISPOSAL-ANIMAL CONTROL DEPT 25.00 DIRT/FLOWERS-PARK MAINT/EXPENSES-FIRE DEFT 203.50 -STRING/HELIUM TANKS/VALVE RENTAL-POLICE 186.00 DEFT/JULY 4TH CELEBRATION WEED CONTROL SPRAY-STREET MAINTENANCE 163.75 PERFORMING ARTS CAMP INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 120.00 BUSHINGS/PVC PIPE/ADAPTERS-PARK MAINT 101.47 -12 FLOTATION VESTS-$510/ROPE BAGS/RINGS 1299.55 -WITH SNAP LINKS/MARKERS/ROPE SEALER-FIRE DEPT CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 20.96 -REKEYED MASTER CYLINDER LOCK/REPAIRED 206.75 DOOR LOCKS-FACILITIES DEPT SAFETY VESTS-STREET MAINTENANCE 151.79 -CUTTERS/SOCKET/VALVE TOOL/SCREWDRIVERS/ 350.11 -ADAPTOR/HAMMERS/SOCKET SETS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/UTILITIES DIVISION PUMP REPAIR-WATER DEFT 70.10 TREES-FORESTRY DEPT 1639.70 -CARTRIDGE/VALVE STEM/REPAIR KIT-COMMUNITY 84.45 CENTER BATTERIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 440.02 -AUGUST 91 COPIER LEASE AGREEMENT-POLICE 358.68 DEPT 16934 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC 16935 BELL ATLANTIC TRICON LEASING CORP l yn C. AUGUST 6.1991 16936 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-HIGHWAY 169 TRAFFIC STUDY 736.50 16937 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 2549.98 16938 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY -FILM/FILM PROCESSING-ENGINEERING DEPT/ 298.25 -POLICE DEFT/FORESTRY DEFT/EQUIPMENT MINT! PLANNING DEPT/RECREATION SUPERVISOR 16939 BLACK PROGRESS REVIEW EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEFT 295.00 16940 BLEVINS CONCESSION SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES-ROUND LAKE CONCESSION 1455.47 16941 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON -JUNE 91 ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICE-ANIMAL 982.00 CONTROL DEFT 16942 BLUE BELL ICE CREAM INC -ICE CREAM SUPPLIES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL 485.90 COMMISSION 16943 LOIS DOETTOIER -MINUTES-PARK RECREATION & NATURAL 105.57 -RESOURCES COMMISSION/HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 16944 GREG BONGAARTS EXPENSES/CONFERENCE-WATER DEPT ' 8.45 16945 LEE M BRANDT -SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID/SERVICE-UNCLE 561.00 SAM-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 16946 LES BRIDGER EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 67.84 16947 BRO-THX INC TOWELS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 221.78 16948 BROADWAY AWARDS TROPHIES-ROUND LAKE MARINA 30.00 16949 BROCK WHITE CO ANCHOR BOLTS-PARK MAINTENANCE 43.13 16950 ANTHONY BROUGH MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEPT 144.75 16951 MAXINE BRUECK MILEAGE/OFFICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE DEPT 75.11 16952 BRUNSON INSTRUMENT-MPLS CAMERA CABLE REPAIR-ENGINEERING DEPT 25.00 16953 BIN INC -SERVICE-DELL RD & EVENER WAY FEASIBILITY 26629.77 STUDY/VALLEY VIEW RD 16954 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC GRAVEL-PARK MAINTENANCE 50.94 16955 BSN SPORTS -BOW STRING-SUMMER SKILL DEVELOPMENT 13.86 PROGRAM 16956 THOMAS BUCHNER -CONFERENCE-IN-HOUSE CONSULTING FEE FOR 1300.0 QUALITY MANAGEMENT TRAINING 16957 BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL INC JULY 91 WASTE DISPOSAL 1435.15 16958 BURNETT REALTY REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 22.95 16959 WES BYRON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 280.00 16960 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO REPAIRS-POLICE DEPT 252.20 16961 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC -JUNE 91 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-HUMAN 318.75 RESOURCES DEFT 16962 JAY CARLSON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 16.00 16963 JIM CARLSON LEASING CO CAR RENTAL-POLICE DEPT 2200.00 16964 KEVIN CARLSON CONFERENCE EXPENSES-WATER DEPT 11.00 16965 CARLSON REFRIGERATION CO INC A/C BELT REPLACED-LIQUOR STORE 124.79 16966 CENTRAIRE INC -A/C REPAIR-CITY HALL/POLICE BLDG/SENIOR 3710.57 -CENTER/ROUND LAKE WARMING HOUSE/BOYCE HOUSE 16967 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS GASKETS/FUEL FILTERS-WATER DEPT 61.85 16968 CHAPIN PUBLISHING CCMPANY -LEGAL ADS-STARING LN & RIDGE RD & SUNRISE 154.00 CIRCLE STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 16969 CHEMLAWN LAWN CARE SERVICE-SENIOR CENTER 115.00 16970 CHEMTREX INDUSTRIES CORP CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 69.95 16971 BILL CLARK OIL CO INC GREASE-WATER DEFT 121.20 16972 JAMES CLARK JULY 91 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 200.00 16973 NATTY CLARK PERFORMING ARTS CAMP INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 120.00 16974 COMM CENTER -RADIO REPAIRS-ENGINEERING DEPT/EQUIPMENT 225.44 MAINTENANCE 16975 COMI1ERCIAL ASPHALT CO BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 1099.:* 4661825 Vti l AUGUST 6.1991 , 16976 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION -CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUALS/MATERIAL -TESTING & INSPECTION-ENGINEERING DEPT/ VALLEY VIEW RD EXTENSION I.( / CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN SUBSCRIPTION-ENGINEERING DEPT 94.00 16973 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC -GLOVES/GOGGLES/COOLER/TRUCK RACK-SAFETY 186.74 DEPT 16979 COPIER ALTERNATIVES COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 93.19 16980 COPIES NOW -LAMINATING/BANNERS LAMINATED-CITY HALL/ 37.20 POLICE DEPT 16981 COPY EQUIPMENT INC -OFFICE SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING DEPT/ 126.55 HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION PROGRAM 16982 CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC JULY 91 INSURANCE CONSULTANT SERVICE 610.00 16983 CLIFF CRACAUER SCHOOL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 131.75 16984 CROWN MARKING INC ENGRAVED INSERT-CITY HALL 9.00 16985 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC MASTER LOCKS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94.14 16986 CUTLER MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 15085.17 16987 CYS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS-ANIMAL CONTROL DEPT 310.25 16988 DALCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES/MOTOR-CITY HALL/WATER 815.24 DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER 16989 DAN & DANS MINUTEMAN PRESS -PLUMBING & HEATING STICKERS-BUILDING 135.95 INSPECTIONS DEPT 16990 MITCHELL DEAN MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE 19.75 16991 DECORATIVE DESIGNS JULY & AUGUST 91 SERVICE-CITY HALL 99.00 16992 DEN CON LANDFILL INC -JUNE 91 WASTE DIPOSAL-STREET MAINT/ 232.00 DRAINAGE CONTROL DEFT 16993 SUSAN DENNISON -WATERCOLOR FAINTING INSTRUCTOR-OUTDOOR 192.00 CENTER PROGRAM/FEES PAID 1e°04 HILLARY DE PANDE PERFORMING ARTS CAMP DIRECTOR/FEES PAID 300.00 1 i DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY CED AIR TANK LICENSE-FACILITIES DEPT 10.00 1696 TIM DEPREY PERFORMING ARTS CAMP INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 120.00 16997 DAN DESAULNIERS SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 320.00 16998 DONNAY HOMES REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 185.08 16999 DORADUS CORPORATION -3RD QTR 91 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR 720.00 WARNING SIREN DECODERS-CIVIL DEFENSE DEPT 17000 DPC INDUSTRIES INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 1113.70 17001 E P PHOTO FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT 96.84 17002 E Z GO TEXTRON GOLF CAR RENTALS-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 180.00 17003 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 906.98 17004 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATION DIVISION PEST CONTROL SERVICE-FIRE STATIONS 140.95 17005 EDEN PRAIRIE APPLIANCE WATER INLET VALVE-FACILITIES DEPT 75.90 17006 EDEN PRAIRIE TIRE & AUTO SERVICE -TIRES/TUBES/WHEEL ALIGNMENTS-EQUIPMENT 1491.44 MAINTENANCE 17007 CITY OF EDINA JUNE 91 WATER TESTS-WATER DEPT 250.00 17008 E M PRODUCTS INC BAG SHAKER LINKAGES-WATER DEPT 728.00 17009 JOHN H EKLUND JUNE 91 WASTE DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT 140.00 17010 ELSMORE AQUATIC -SWIMMING SUITS-POOL OPERATIONS/ROUND LAKE 231.35 BEACH/RILEY LAKE BEACH 17011 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC -OVERSHOES/EAR PLUGS/CARBON MONOXIDE/TUBES 201.94 -EAR PROTECTION MUFF-SAFETY DEPT/COMUNITY CENTER/WATER DEFT 17012 CHRIS ENGFR JULY 91 EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 200.00 17013 FACILITY SYSTEMS INC -CORNER CONNECTOR/WALL RANGER STRIP/PANEL 203.20 END CAP-FACILITIES DEPT/FIRE DEPT V- .4 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 8770.59 t 5 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES TIE WRAPS-PARK MAINTENANCE 100.00 3548188 723.98 E AUGUST 6.1991 BASEBALLS-YOUTH ATHLETICS PROGRAM 92.40 -FILM PROCESSING-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT/ 42.41 ASSESSING DEFT SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 1943.7' -1990 AUDIT SERVICE-$4000-FINANCE DEPT/ $1100-MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION JUNE & JULY 91 EXPENSES-FINANCE DEFT 400.00 LIABILITY INSURANCE 655.74 GOLF INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 1449.00 REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT 133.50 WATER CUPS-FITNESS CENTER 57.60 SERVICE 40.00 -FIXTURE/DOLLIES/CASTERS-FACILITIES DEPT/ 349.66 FIRE DEFT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE WIRED UNDERCOUNTER LIGHT-POLICE BUILDING 76.75 LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 174.40 -SERVICE-BRAXTON DR/WHITE TAIL CROSSING 56007.45 -CUL-DE-SAC/BLUFFS E 7TH ADDITION/EDEN -HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD/BLUFFS EAST 8TH -ADDITION STORM SEWER/BLUFFS W 9TH -ADDITION STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS/ -CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WINDOW GLASS REPLACED-SENIOR CENTER 456.60 -SAFETY CANS/RAIN SUITS-FACILITIES DEPT/ 204.00 STREET MAINTENANCE -EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT/COMMUNITY 150.04 SERVICES DEFT MILEAGE-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 93.7 DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE FUNDS JUNE 91 BOOKING FEE-POLICE DEPT 286.29 FILING FEE-PLANNING DEPT 285.00 FILING FEE-ENGINEERING DEPT 367.00 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FIRE DEPT 33.00 SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 332.00 BADGES-POOL OPERATIONS 62.10 FIELD MARKING PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE 570.00 WATER TANK TESTED-ICE ARENA 45.00 SECURITY SYSTEM REPAIR-WATER DEPT 138.01 PRINTING-COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER • 2208.89 -2ND QUARTER 91 FAMILY CENTER GRANT-$2500- 13880.39 -COMMUNITY SERVIES DEPT/WASTE DISPOSAL- -SENIOR CENTER/BUS SERVICE-SPECIAL TRIPS & -EVENTS PROGRAM/CUSTODIAL SERVICE-WATER DEPT LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT 143.77 PRINTING-CARDS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 15.30 THERMOSTATS/GASKETS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 74.02 SOFTBALL& BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 51.00 -SOFTBALL/BASKETBALL OFFICIAL & OFFICIALS 1362.00 COORDINATOR/FEES PAID REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT 3211.50 -GAS MONITOR REPAIRED/OXYGEN SENSOR 110.75 ASSEMBLY-WATER 0E11 -CATCH BASIN & CURB REPAIR-PRAIRIE CENTER 10442 DRIVE/STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS-OXBOW DRIVE 17016 FLAGHOUSE INC 17017 FOCUS ONE HOUR PHOTO 17018 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY 17019 FOX MCCUE & MURPHY 17020 JOHN FRANE 17021 GAB BUSINESS SERVICES INC 17022 LISA GANNON 17023 GENE RYAN PLUMBING 17024 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD 17025 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC 17026 W W GRAINGER INC 17027 GUNNAR ELECrRIC CO INC 17028 HACH CO 17029 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC 17030 HARMON GLASS 17031 HAZARD CONTROL INC 17032 HEAVENLY HAM 17033 LAURIE MELLING 17034 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE 17035 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT 17036 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 17037 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS 17038 D C HEY COMPANY INC 17039 STEVE HIGLEY 17040 HODGES BADGE COMPANY INC 17041 HOFFERS INC 17042 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC 17043 HONEYWELL INC 17044 HORIZON GRAPHICS INC 17045 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIET #272 17046 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC 17047 INSTY-PRINTS 17048 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL INC 17049 BRUCE ISAACS 17050 GARY ISAACS 17051 JABUSHOT 17052 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORP 17053 F F JEDLICKI 10606262 17054 JERRYS NEWMARKET 17055 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC 17056 SARA JOHNSON 17057 JUSTUS LUMBER CO r LYNN KALFSBEEK 17059 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 17060 ELYCE KASTIGAR 17061 KAY PARK -REC CORP 17062 KEY DESIGN 17063 PAUL KAESE 17064 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC 17065 TIM KOWALIK 17066 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER 17067 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 17068 LAKELAND ENGR EQUIP CO 17069 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD 17070 BEVERLY LARSON 17071 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 17072 LMCIT 17073 LEEF BROS INC 1,,i4 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 17075 LORI LEMKE 17076 LIETZ COMPANY 17077 LIONS TAP 17078 LIQUID CARBONIC 17079 THE LOFT 17080 DOGIS 17081 LOGOS PRODUCTIONS INC 17082 TIM LUNDAHL 17083 LUNDS 17084 JOHN LUTTER 17085 MACHO PRODUCTS INC 17086 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC 17087 MARSHALL & SWIFT 17088 GEORGE MARSHALL 17089 MARTIN-MCALLISTER 17090 MASTER CRAFT LABELS INC 17091 MASYS CORPORATION 17092 MCFARLANES INC 17093 CARLSTN B MCKENZIE 17094 A MEAT ..7,H0FPF °73836 EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT DEPT 61.38 OFFICE SUPPLIES-UTILITIES DIVISION 170.10 VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 300.00 LUMBER-WATER DEFT 15.74 -SERVICE-FAMILY POTLUCK-OUTDOOR CENTER 35:00 PROGRAM/FEES PAID BALL BEARING PILLOW BLOCK-WATER DEFT 98.40 MILEAGE -ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROGRAM 112.00 22 PICNIC TABLES-PARK MAINTENANCE 6999.96 -BANNERS FOR ICE CREAM BOOTH-HISTORICAL & 58.75 CULTURAL COMMISSION REFUND-SUMMER TENNIS LEAGUE FEE 10.00 BASES-PARK MAINTENANCE 155.90 REFUND-SUMMER TENNIS LEAGUE FEE 10.00 -PITCH FORK/BUNGEE CORDS/SHOVEL/SCREWS/ 435.74 -FITTINGS/PVC PIPES/SPRAY PAINTER/TUBING/ -ROPE/FLASHLIGHT/BATTERIES/TAPE/BRUSHES/ -RUST REMOVER/UTILITY KNIVES/BRACKET- STREET MAINT/EQUIPMENT MAINT/UTILITIES DIV -GLOVES/CONTAINERS/CLEANING SUPPLIES- 432.95 FACILITIES DEPT/WATER DEPT -SOLENOIDS & VALVES FOR HIGH SERVICE PUMPS- 537.79 WATER DEFT -MARCH 91 LEGAL SERVICE/JUNE 91 SERVICE- 11816.10 -PROSECUTION/JUNE 91 SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 65.49 DUES-MUNICIPAL AMICUS PROGRAM 686.00 LIABILITY INSURANCE 44503.75 -COVERALLS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/MATS - 127.48 LIQUOR STORE JUNE 91 SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 7905,47 GAMES & CRAFTS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 71.50 KEYBOARD RPEPAIR -ENGINEERING DEPT 79.83 EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 151.58 CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 475.88 T-SHIRTS-PARK MAINTENANCE 384.40 JUNE 91 SERVICE 15744.42 ARTWORK-HUMAN RESOURCES DEFT 25.25 -OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAM INSTRUCTOR/FEES 100.00 PAID EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 104.97 COPYWRITING SERVICE-FIRE DEFT 90.00 6 PROTECTIVE SUITS-POLICE DEPT 2720.50 DIRT SHOE RUNNERS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 158.76 BOOK-ASSESSING DEFT 59.95 SERVICE-PLEASANT HILLS CEMETERY 50.00 STRESS TESTS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEFT 550.00 JUNIOR FIREFIGHTER BADGES-FIRE DEPT 150.00 -AUGUST 91 COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 1282.00 AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT CEMENT-STREET MAINTENANCE 382.00 SOFTBALL OFFICIAL,FEES PAID 576.00 EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 43.32 AUGUST 6.1991 17101 MINNCOMM PAGING 17102 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY INC 17103 MINNESOTA BOOKSTORE 17104 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS 17105 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY 17106 MN ICE ARENA MGRS ASSN 17107 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSN 17108 MN SAFETY COUNCIL INC 17109 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER 17110 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS 17111 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO 17112 MMBA 17113 WILLIAM 0 NAEGLE 17114 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE 17115 NATL FIRE PROTECTION ASSN 17116 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN 17117 JAN NELSON 17118 BETH NILSSON 17119 MICHAEL D NORMAN & ASSOCIATES 17120 NORTH STAR TURF INC 17121 NORTHERN DOOR COMPANY INC 17122 NORWEST INVESTMENT SERVICES INC 17123 PAPER WAREHOUSE 17124 JERRY PARNHAM 17125 PC EXPRESS/PC TRONICS 17126 PEDERSON SELLS EQUIPMENT CO INC 17127 J C PENNEY 17128 PEPSI COLA COMPANY 17129 DANIEL PERNULA 17130 PERSONNEL POOL OF EDINA 17131 PIONEER MIDWEST INC 17132 PITNEY BOWES INC 17133 TOPLER ENTERPRISES 17134 DOMMER COMPANY INC 17135 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC 22251772 OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT AUGUST 91 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES JUNE 91 SAC CHARGES EXPENSES/MILEAGE -HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT -BLACKTOP-STREET MAINT/WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE -OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT/ COMMUNITY CENTER JULY 91 PAGER SERVICE-WATER DEPT SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE STATE CODE BOOK-SAFETY DEPT -PRINTING FORMS/BUSINESS CARDS-SAFETY DEFT/ PLANNING DEPT/ADAPTIVE RECREATION -HELMET PATCHES/SMOKE GRENADES/BRACKETS/ -FIRE EXTINGUISHER RECHARGING-FIRE DEFT/ COMMUNITY CENTER/WATER DEPT DUES-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CENTER DUES-ADAPTIVE RECREATION CONFERENCE-SAFETY DEPT JUNE 91 BUILDING SURCHARGES ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES -SPR1NGS/GASKETS/THERMOSTATS/CASTOR WHEELS -SWITCH/WASHERS/SEALS/RETAINING RINGS/ BEARING-PARK MAINT/EQUIPMENT MAINT DUES-LIQUOR STORES -DEPOSIT REFUND-TRAFFIC STUDY IN MAJOR CENTER AREA CAMERA/BATTERY/CASE-ASSESSING DEFT DUES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEFT/FIRE DEPT EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES-HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES COMMISSION SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID CONFERENCE-CITY HALL BEARINGS/SPINDLES/PULLEY-PARK MAINTENANCE -DOOR COUPLING REPAIR/CALBES/TENSION SPRING-COMMUNITY CENTER EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT -TABLE SKIRTING/TAPE/PAPER CUPS/PLATES/ PLASTIC FORKS-POLICE DEFT/COMMUNITY CENTER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID COMPUTER/PRINTER-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS HYDRAULIC HOSES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT SUPPLIES-ROUND LAKE CONCESSION GOLF INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID -SERVICE-COMMUNITY SERVICES DEFT/STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT SPRINKLER HEADS-FACILITIES DEPT -3RD QUARTER 91 COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-COMMUNITY CENTER -GRAFFITI BRIDGE T-SHIRTS-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION AWARD MEDALS-ROUND LAKE BEACH -WIRED FLUORIDE FEEDER & LOSS OF WEIGHT -RECORDER-%617-WATER DEPT/BATTING MACHINE REWIRED-PARK MAINTENANCE 17095 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO 17096 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM 17097 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM 17098 KAREN MICHAEL 17099 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP 17100 MINEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS 76.50 156146.00 42471.On 75.1 1473.r, 1511.13 16.74 732.38 14.00 234.17 499.43 75.00 28.50 245.00 5280.04 267.00 258.27 425.00 280.38 123.85 225,^^ 279 150:Uu 12.00 2275.00 114.50 150.00 22.00 66.10 80.00 1083.00 360.00 751.34 158.00 391.00 2179.60 40.00 141.00 2994.99 120.00 690.90 l t 17136 PRAIRIE HARDWARE 17137 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 17138 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC 17139 PRENTICE HALL INC 17140 PSQ BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS INC 17141 PUMP & METERS SERVICE INC 17142 R & R SPECIALTIES INC 17143 J & F REDDY RENTS INC 17144 AAGE REFFSGAARD 17145 RESPOND SYSTEMS 17146 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MN 17147 REUTER RECYCLING INC 17148 JOE RICHARDSON 17149 RIEKE -CARROLL -MULLER ASSOC INC 17150 ROAD RESCUE INC 17151 THE S T ROBB CO 17152 TOM ROBERTSON 17153 ROLLINS OIL CO 17154 LYLE ROSETTEN 17155 MARC RUEGEMER 17156 RUFF-CUT 1 7 RYANS RUBBER STAMPS 1. ,8 SAFETY & TRAINING SERVICES 17159 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS INC 17160 SANCO INC 17161 SCANNER WORLD USA 17162 TAMMY SCHINDELDECKER 17163 KEVIN SCHMIEG 17164 SCHMITT MUSIC CENTERS 17165 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION 17166 WILBUR W SCHULTZ 17167 SEARS 17168 SEELYE PLASTIC INC 17169 TIMOTHY A SEILTZ 17170 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 17171 SETON NAME PLATE COMPANY 17172 SHAKOPEE FORD INC 17173 SHAPE 17174 J L SHIELY COMPANY "7 7526 -SCREWS/NOZZLES/SHOVEL/WEATHER STRIPPING/ 45.97 -MEASURING CUPS/INSECT REPELLANT- ENGINEERING DEPT/FACILITIES DEPT -OIL/WEED TRIMMER LINE/BLADE/MOWER REPAIR- 217.90 -FACILITIES DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE BLADES SHARPENED-COMMUNITY CENTER DICTAPHONE REPAIR-PARK & RECREATION DEFT 61.00 BOOK-PARK PLANNING DEPT 65.90 TELEPHONE REPAIR-FIRE STATION/CITY HALL 160.00 FLOOR HOIST VALVE REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINT 54.00 -ZAMBONI ENGINE EXHAUST ANALYZED/IMPEI1AR/ 235.35 STORES MEGAPHONES-ROUND LAKE BEACH 18.00 EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 15.00 SAFETY GLOVES/VESTS/MASKS-FIRE DEFT 102.90 -CASH REGISTERS TAX RATE CHANGED-LIQUOR 80.00 STORES WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 846.60 SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 16.00 -SERVICE-ROWLAND RD/MITCHELL RD/STARING LN & 59917.91 SUNRISE CIRCLE STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS LIGHT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 47.03 CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 196.74 -DEPOSIT REFUND-TRAFFIC STUDY FOR SHOPPING 119.98 CENTER ON MITCHELL RD GAS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 13758.15 HANDLES-OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAM 36.00 MILEAGE-PARK MAINTENANCE 9.25 MOWING SERVICE-WEED REMOVAL DEPT 200.00 NOTARY STAMP-FINANCE DEPT 12.50 SAFETY VIDEO-WATER DEFT 124.00 -TOYS & GAMES/FLAGS/PENNANTS-AFTERNOON 309.55 PLAYGROUND PROGRAM/JULY 4TH CELEBRATION -CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT/ 737.49 COMMUNITY CENTER -BATTERY CHARGER/RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES- 42.98 CIVIL DEFENSE DEPT SUMMER SAFETY CAMP INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 150.00 JUNE 91 EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 221.04 PIANO RENTAL-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMM 350.00 LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 51.65 SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 600.00 ICE MAKER FOR REFRIGERATOR-WATER DEPT 105.50 PVC PIPE-WATER DEPT 19.00 MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEFT 119.50 -2ND QTR 91 SENIOR OUTREACH PROGRAM- 1107.25 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEFT WARNING SIGNS-WATER DEPT 95.02 -HANDLES/MOULDING/BRACKETS/KNORS-EQUIPMENT 225.69 MAINTENANCE -HEALTH PATH PROFILE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES- 167.00 HUMAN RESOURCES DEFT GRAVEL-STREET MAINT/DRAINAGE CONTROL DEPT 135.41 AUGUST 6.1991 17175 SIGN A RAMA USA 17176 SILK SCREEN INK LTD 17177 THE SKETCH PAD 17178 RANDY SLICK 17179 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP 17180 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC 17181 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC 17182 SOUTHDALE YMCA 17183 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC 17184 ERIC SIT 17185 STANDARD REGISTER 17186 DONNA STANLEY 17187 STAR TRIBUNE 17188 THE STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO 17189 STATE OF MINNESOTA 17190 DOUGLAS D STEEN 17191 THE STOCK HOUSE INC 17192 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE 17193 STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH INC 17194 ANDREW SULLIVAN 17195 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTER INC 17196 SUPRA COLOR LABS INC 17197 NATALIE SWAGGERT 17198 JAN & SUEY SWANDA 17199 SWEDLUND SEPTIC SERVICE 17200 SYNDISTAR INC 17201 TARGET STORES 17202 TEAM LABORATORY CHEMICAL CORP 17203 TELEDYNE TOTAL POWER 17204 VALERIE TRADER 17205 E JOHN TROMBLEY 17206 TRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO 17207 TWIN CITY FILTER SERVICE INC 17208 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO 17209 UNITED LABORATORIES INC 17210 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC 17211 USFSA 17212 VIKING LABORATORIES INC 17213 VISION ENERGY 17214 VOSS LIGHTING 17215 VWR SCIENTIFIC INC 17216 LESA WAGNER 2742230 VAN STRIPES & LETTERING -EQUIPMENT MAINT T-SHIRTS-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND PROGRAM PRINTING FORMS-FINANCE DEFT SCHOOL-ENGINEERING DEFT WRENCH/PLIERS-WATER DEPT -CARDS/FILM/FILM PROCESSING/BATTERIES/ -VIDEO CLEANING SUPPLIES/SCISSOR/PAPER PUNCH-COMMUNITY CENTER EXPENSES-POLICE DEFT -2ND QTR 91 YMCA YOUTH OUTREACH PROGRAM - COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES KARATE INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID RIBBON-FINANCE MILEAGE-SENIOR CENTER -ADVERTISING-AUCTION-POLICE DEFT/ SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE FUNDS SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID VIDEO TAPES-POLICE DEPT EQ -TRAFFIC WANDS/RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES/ -REVOLVER GRIPS/BATONS/BATON BAGS/GRILL -LIGHT ASSEMBLY/AMMUNITION/LIGHT BAR/BRAKE -LIGHT FLASHER/FLASHLIGHTS-POLICE DEPT/ EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE -SERVICE-DELL RD & SCENIC HGTS RD/FRONTAGE RD/MITCHELL LAKE SANITARY SEWER CONFERENCE-UTILITIES DIVISION -CLEANING SUPPLIES/PADDLE LOCKS/LIGHTS- LIQUOR STORE FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEFT JULY 91 EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT REFUND-TENNIS LEAGUE FEE WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE-PARK MAINTENANCE FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES-FIRE DEFT -LIFE JACKETS/CAMERA/FILM/BATTERIES-ROUND LAKE MARINA/RECREATION ADMINISTRATION INSECT CONTROL SPRAY-WATER DEPT GASKET SET-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID TRUCK TOOL BOXES/RACK-WATER DEFT DISPOSABLE FILTERS-WATER DEPT -OXYGEN/CARBON DIOXIDE-ANIMAL CONTROL DEPT/ EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT GLOVES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE DUES-COMMUNITY CENTER -CHEMICALS/CHLORINE TEST TABS/LEAF RAKE/ GOGGLES-POOL MAINTENANCE PROPANE CYLINDER-COMMUNITY CENTER LIGHT BULBS-FACILITIES DEPT LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT RACQUETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 260.71 146.50 21.32 79.26 12.83 2770.00 93.59 273.00 78.80 25.75 144.60 159.73 8.70 160.00 96.35 1252.48 17841.65 10 198.16 200.00 20.00 160.00 176.00 294.65 101.59 11.66 125.00 220.00 760.00 27.50 81.50 296.32 83.88 50.00 459.49 47.30 117.54 107.00 - )0 AUGUST 6.1991 17217 WALCRO FLOORCOVERING INC GLUE-FIRE DEFT 93.71 17218 WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP CO -SPARE PARTS FOR EXISTING LIFT STATIONS- 18762.44 SEWER DEPT 17 1 KEITH WALL JULY 91 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 200.00 1\ J WATER PRODUCTS CO -DRAIN TILE-PARK MAINT/CABLE/CURB BOX KEY/ 1018.02 -TUBING CUTTER/PAINT WAND/GATE VALVE/ -HYDRANT EXTENSION/CURB STOP BOX CAP REPAIR-WATER DEFT 17221 WATERITE INC POOL LIFT-COMMUNITY CENTER 1955.00 17222 WEST WELD BACKING PAD/CARBIDE BITS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 90.31 17223 ROBERTA WICK MINUTES-CITY COUNCIL 150.00 17224 JACK L WIEBKE sommal OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 244.00 17225 MORGAN WILLOW PERFORMING ARTS CAMP INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 120.00 17226 WINDSONG ASSOCIATION REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING . 24.00 17227 WOLLACK & ASSOCIATES INC -LAW ENFORCEMENT EXAMINATION RENTALS-HUMAN 2618.57 RESOURCES DEPT 17228 WILS KXP INC DUES-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 20.00 17229 ZACKS INC -CLEANING SUPPLIES/SHOVELS-EQUIPMENT 193.40 MAINTENANCE/UTILITIES DIVISION 17230 JIM ZAIC EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 15.00 17231 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 1ST AID SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 69.55 11000 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BOND PAYMENTS 168687.50 11000 NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA N A BOND PAYMENTS 262837.74 15033 VOID OUT CHECK 187.00- 15858 VOID OUT CHECK 50.00- VOID OUT CHECK 145.50- 16411 VOID OUT CHECK 50.00- 16426 VOID OUT CHECK 120.00- 16c02 VOID OUT CHECK 51.75- 3 VOID OUT CHECK 9441.00- b4705399 $1492748.97 It7V1 DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS 479193.33 1299.55 64076.12 44876.34 50.00 1221.60 800.00 540.00 75.00 168887.50 156186.35 262837.74 7182.41 79338.91 221040.52 1217.83 2825.77 1100.00 10 GENERAL 11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 20 CEMETERY OPERATIONS 21 POLICE DRUG FORFEITURE 30 CASH PARK FEES 43 77 FIRE DEBT FUND 44 UTILITY DEBT FUND 45 UTILITY DEBT FD ARE 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 55 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND ARE 57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 73 WATER FUND 77 SEWER FUND 80 POLICE CONFISCATED FDS 81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 88 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE $1492748.97 ItzL SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION CO MOSS & 13ARNETT 4800 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Stre;-. Minnevolis, MN 55402-4119 (612) 347-0300 347-0448 July 29, 1991 Mr. Carl Jullie City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Dr. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Mr. Kenneth Rosland City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Mr. Jim Genellie Assistant City Manager City of Hopkins 1010 So. First St. Hopkins, MN 55343 Dear Southwest City Managers: Mr. James F. Miller City of Minnetonka 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 Mr. Jim Prosser City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Enclosed is the revised update explaining the Relief Extension recommendation approved at the July 21, 1991 Commission meeting. As discussed at the Commission meeting, we ask that you present this to your Council at your earliest convenience to obtain their questions or comments at this point in the process. It would be helpful if you could each make a verbal report at the August 15, 1991 Operating Committee meeting on the response of your Council to the negotiated package. The information you obtain will contribute to the drafting of acceptable agreements and future information memos that will be helpful to the Councils as we move toward Ordinance amendment. Please call me at 347-0448 if you have any questions on the enclosed summary. VerrUuly yours, ) AEH/mfd Enclosure 1248ZMFD cc: Ann Mathews Debra S. Cottons Karen Anderson Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka & Richfield le SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION Go MOSS & BARNETT 4800 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN S5402-4119 (612) 347-0300 SUMMARY OF KEY ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN ACIREMENT_INLODEIEF 7/24/91 Unless otherwise identified the changes begin August 1, 1992: • 5% franchise fee to Cities • Paragon Cable assumes full responsibility for "local programming' • News show production beginning November 24, 1991 • Annual budget $347,000, escalated by 5% each year and deducted from gross revenues prior to calculation of the franchise fee • Beginning November, 1993, news show will continue or $100,000 of budget will be devoted to local origination • Continued coordination of programming with Cities and Commission • Retain service levels, equipment repair and replacement as defined in Performance Agreement and current contracts for local programming • No itemization of cost for local programming on customer bills for at least 2 years (July 31, 1994) • Cooperation and participation between Paragon Cable and Commission to create meaningful reporting requirements • New agreement terminates upon sale or transfer 3372040 Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka & Richfield SwSCC MEMOANDUM 7/24/91 RELIEF EXTENSION REQUEST The following is the summary of an agreement that has been reached between representatives of Paragon Cable and the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("SWSCC") at its meeting of July 24, 1991. Paragon Cable has requested that the Relief Agreement remain in effect until the end of the Franchise term, which is December 31, 1999 (the current termination date for the Relief Agreement is March 1, 1992). The SWSCC recommends acceptance of the relief extension request, with certain modifications (summarized below) as mutually agreed to by the parties. 1. Franchise Fee. The full 5% Franchise fee would be paid to the Cities beginning August 1, 1992. According to calculations made by Paragon Cable, the additional 1% Franchise fee that would then be received by the Member Cities from August 1, 1992 through December 31, 1999 would amount to approximately two million dollars. 2. Local Programming Overview. The current formula for local programming funding, that is the 1% match between the Cities and the cable company, would remain in effect until July 31, 1992. The following funding and services would take effect August 1, 1992: a. Local Origination Programming. This is currently funded by the Member Cities in the amount of $115,000 per year for the "Southwest Community News" show. This obligation will be assumed by Paragon Cable upon expiration of the current contract between Paragon Cable and the Commission. The current date of termination of the contract is November 17, 1991. Therefore, Paragon Cable will start production of the news show after that date and continue to provide production through November 17, 1993. Thereafter Paragon Cable will spend a minimum of $100,000 from the local programming budget annually on local origination projects. Paragon Cable acknowledges that its spending (in at least 1992 and 1993) may exceed the figures proposed due to the costs associated with production of the news show. b. Local Programming Funding. The Operating Committee intended that the annual budget would approximate the current level ($115,000 for the -2- news show and $260,000 for public access). The negotiations resulted in a funding formula that established a base of $347,000 in 1992 which will escalate at an annual rate of 5% thereafter. These funds will support both local origination and public access. c. Local Programming Expenses -- Franchise Fee Calculation. The annual budget for local programming will be deducted from gross revenues prior to calculation of the franchise fee when proposed changes become effective. In other words, the $347,000 amount will not be included as part of the revenue of Paragon Cable against which the 5% Franchise fee is calculated. d. Other Local Programming Obligations. Paragon Cable will continue to meet the service levels described in the Performance Agreement and Service And Facilities contracts. However, as subscribers (and this funding) increase, it is anticipated that the playback hours will be expanded and additional staff hired as necessary. Paragon Cable will notify the Commission of all plans for service enhancements. e. Local Programming Reports. Because Paragon Cable and the Commission and Member Cities will no longer be, in effect, partners in the development of local programming due to the match no longer existing, Paragon Cable will not submit its annual budget to the SWSCC for approval. However, Paragon Cable will certify its local programming expenditures and will provide an overview of local programming services and enhancements in its annual report to the SWSCC. Also, pursuant to the CATV Relief Agreement, Paragon Cable will also provide a preview of the upcoming year's activity in its annual business plan. f. Continued Cooperation. It is intended that coordination and cooperation in the production of local programming will continue between the Cities and Paragon Cable. First, Paragon Cable proposes to continue production of the 'Southwest Community News show for a period of at least two (2) years from November 17, 1991 to the end of 1993. Thereafter, Paragon Cable proposes to allocate at least $100,000 annually to local origination (from the local programming budget) and to discuss program ideas and requests with the Commission. It may well be that both parties will agree to continue the -3- news show through 1999. It may also be determined that another format or type of weekly show would better serve the Cities. Second, Paragon Cable believes that its local programming staff has made every effort to be responsive to the Cities requests for programming. Most programming is developed individually with the Cities and it is recommended that this cooperative effort continue. Lastly, local programming has functioned as a hybrid of public access and local origination. This is necessary to assure production of community events, to assist producers in completing projects, to respond to the myriad of public requests and to maximize the benefit of volunteer activity. Paragon Cable proposes to continue this flexible, needs-based approach to the delivery of local programming services. g. Bill Item'zation. Paragon Cable will agree to refrain from separately itemizing local programming charges on customer bills through July 31, 1994. Thereafter, Paragon Cable will reserve its right to do so. However, in the event Paragon Cable decides to itemize such local programming charges on customer bills after July 31, 1994, the company will provide a sixty day notice to the SWSCC and allow the Commission time to comment. Further, the SWSCC and Member Cities retain the right to legally challenge or object to Paragon Cable's itemization. h. Stipulation for Renewal Purposes. Paragon Cable will agree to enter into a stipulation indicating that, for purposes of Franchise renewal, the levels of support for local programming contained in the Agreement extending the CATV Relief Agreement should be treated as if they were contained in the original Franchise proposal. 3. Termination of Aareement. It will be understood between Paragon Cable and the Member Cities, that although the Relief Agreement is extended through December 31, 1999, this new Agreement will terminate upon the sale or transfer of the cable system. 4. Reporting Requirements. The reporting requirements included in the CATV Relief Agreement will be reviewed and revised, as necessary, to assure that -4- meaningful reports are prepared for purposes of the SWSCC's ongoing administration of the Franchise and in preparation for Franchise renewal. In conclusion, the above summary outlines an agreement in principle that was recently approved by the SWSCC. The review of the request for extension of relief has been a highly complex matter. We believe that what is presented in this memorandum provides a simple straight forward approach in resolving any issues or concerns and allows both the Commission and Paragon Cable to achieve their goals. The Commission will continue to keep the Member Cities apprised of the process leading to ordinance amendments in ongoing updates as necessary and appropriate. -5- 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 18, 1991 SUBJECT: Recommendation for Community Center Expansion Program The City Council has reviewed a preliminary cost estimate to construct an addition to the Eden Prairie Community Center that would include a second ice rink at a cost of approximately 1.8 million dollars including the cost to buy out the North Star lease and architectural fees. City staff requests the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources commission and the City Council to review and approve the program e1 ,r1ents that would be included in this facility expansion. City staff would recommend the Council obtain bids that would include the following: 1. Size of Rink - Expansion of the Community Center to include a regulation ice rink, 85'x200' identical in size to the existing ice rink, as well a bid for an Olympic size rink that would be 100'x200'. All indications from the major users of this rink, as well as managers of other ice arenas recommend construction of an Olympic size rink as our second ice rink. The estimated cost for the larger rink is approximately $180,000 above the regulation ice rink. 2. Impact on North Star Addition - The City is presently negotiating with the Minnesota North Stars to buy out their lease in order to allow the City to construct the necessary team locker rooms to accommodate a second ice rink in the space presently used by the North Stars. The City is also discussing the interest the School District might have to purchase a portion of that space for an expansion of the high school hockey team locker room. If we are unable to negotiate the acquisition of the North Star area at a cost significantly less than the cost to construct those same facilities on the end of the rink, staff would be recommending constructing those facilities at the end of the rink. Staff will report to the City Council upon completion of negotiations with the North Stars and with the School District regarding these issues. These issues must be resolved prior to initiating final design. 3. Office Space - The initial design for the Community Center did not provide sufficient office space for staff necessary to administer that facility. Staff recommend expending the administrative offices in to the two team locker rooms immediately adjacent to the offices in order to accommodate office space for the Community Center Manager and the copy facilities, as well as the Aquatic Supervisor and her staff. The two team locker rooms that would be lost due to this expansion would then be added either in the North Star area or in the new addition on the end of the new rink. (Office space for the recreation staff that have been "temporarily" using Meeting Room A for five years, will have to be addressed when the Council decides on a permanent City Hall.) 4. An additional item that should be addressed by the architect is the feasibility of enclosing the area above the North Star team locker room and the compressor room when the new addition is added. This may be a very low cost addition of approximately 6000 square feet of space, or it may not be feasible if the existing ceilings are not constructed as load bearing structures. The feasibility of using this space might address other needs such as additional storage space, added meeting rooms, a *teen center" and permanent recreation staff office space. Use of this space could be developed at a later date if it is planned for now. 5. The final item that should be addressed is the entry to the Community Center. This entry improvement was proposed by staff in 1990 and includes safer automobile access, limited short-term parking and a safer pick-up/drop-off area, as well as a much more functional pedestrian access to the building. Although there are other Community Center improvements that some may wish to address at this time simply because the Community Center addition is being considered, staff would recommend limiting the program for the Community Center addition to the above mentioned improvements. BL:lca facility/bob -MEMORANDUM- TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, P.E., Director of Public Works DATE: July 25, 1991 SUBJECT: Parks/Public Works Facility Alternative Analysis City staff has collaborated to review potential sites for a new Parks/Public Works Maintenance facility to replace the existing building and site which will be taken as part of the TH 212 road construction project. Our conclusion is that a combination of the Eaton building plus approximately 5 acres of satellite storage facility is the most desirable and potentially the most cost effective alternative for the maintenance facility relocation. EXISTING FACILITY The existing joint-use facility for Parks and Public Works consists of approximately 33,000 square feet of building on 4-1/2 acres of land. The site at the corner of Mitchell Road and TH 5 is jointly used by the Utilities Division and Fire Station No. 1 and these figures represent a prorated share of the nine acres available at the site. The approved plan for TH 212 includes an interchange at Mitchell Road and both the Fire Station and virtually all of the maintenance facility would be lost to that construction project. The current facility was built in 1983 and had the capabilities for expansion. However, because of the TH 212 project, no proposal to expand at the present site has been forwarded to City Council -- even though the building facility and the storage space is extremely cramped at present. We currently rent winter storage space in Chanhassen to store off-season equipment and two utility vehicles and the trailer-mounted generator are stored at the Fire Station at Technology Drive and TH 169. Material storage behind the old City Hall has been the source of neighborhood complaints in 1991. FACILITY NEEDS City Council authorized the architectural firm of Setter, Leach and Lindstrom, Inc. to review the adequacy of the existing Eaton building as a potential maintenance facility site. As part of that review process, the consultant performed an abbreviated space requirements study. Ultimately, we believe we need a permanent facility of approximately 60,000 square feet. At this time, 40,000 square feet would accommodate the space needs of the current staff and equipment compliment and it is likely that a new building could be staged with a first phase of 45,000 square feet and expansion to 60,000 square feet in the future. From the viewpoint of providing a permanent site to accommodate all outdoor storage and building needs, it would be desirable to have a site with a minimum of 15 acres and preferably as much as 20 acres -- depending on location and need for buffering from adjacent land uses. THREE SITES REVIEWED With the above space need requirements noted, the choices for a new facility location in Eden Prairie are limited. However, three reasonable alternatives have surfaced and a general description of each follows along with a comparison chart shown on the last page. The sites are generally identified as Eaton, Zylka and Airport site. The airport location site is not fully described, since a couple of alternatives exist for that particular location. Further, based on experience with the premature identification of the Marshall site as a potential maintenance facility, details of screening should be developed before a specific location is proposed to the public. In addition, the cost analysis is in general terms so that current land owners would not be unduly concemed or overly encouraged about the price estimated for acquisitions. EATON SITE Staff was asked to review this site by the City Council earlier this spring. Although the review process began with some trepidation, this site has in fact turned out to be the preferred site by City staff. Eaton subdivided this building and site from the existing property in 1991 resulting in a 66,000 square foot building on approximately 7.5 acres of property located at the westerly end of Technology Drive cul-de-sac. The attached letter dated June 11 from Setter, Leach and Lindstrom, summarizes the space requirements along with the general scope of work necessary to convert the building to a maintenance facility at a cost of $3.2 million. The singularly outstanding advantage of this site is the location -- access to the community via a good road system to work sites for the Maintenance staff; more rapid response time for service delivery; and supervision of the location would be easier due to proximity to other City facilities. In addition, the Eaton site would be an appropriate land use for a maintenance facility. There are other industrial uses in the area and it is likely that the school district bus garage will be located immediately to the south and west of the location. Recycling an existing building which has proved to be difficult to market may be better for the community than purchasing another site, which might have a higher and better land use and a more productive tax revenue. From the perspective of managing our facilities, getting approximately 10 percent more space than what we believe to be ultimately necessary is certainly a strong benefit for this site. An initial construction for a new facility at 45,000 square feet might be the best financing plan, but would then require an often times painful decision to expand at a future date. One of the major drawbacks of the site is the size --7.5 acres. A desirable size for a permanent facility is at least 15 acres. It appears that we could enlarge the site slightly by picking a compatible alignment for the extension of Technology Drive to Wallace Road. MnDOT will be 2 building this frontage road as part of the TH 212 project and as long as the alignment would accommodate the proposed bus garage for the school district, some flexibility in the alignment could maintain the largest site possible. It would be necessary therefore to acquire 5-6 acres in another location for outside storage of materials. The total estimated cost (1991 dollars) for the Eaton site including initial purchase price, remodeling, architectural fees, and additional acres for outside storage is approximately $5.4 million. This price assumes a high-end purchase price for the site and a high-end cost for remodeling. If we are able to react to this location in the near future, we could potentially save on the purchase price due to the currently depressed market as well as the very favorable construction market for remodeling the site. It is easily conceivable that a savings of nearly $1 million could be realized -- based on a small savings on the initial purchase price and a rather substantial savings on the remodeling costs with final plans and specifications available. AIRPORT SITE There are two or three potential sites along Pioneer Trail either on or adjacent to airport property which could conceivably be utilized for a maintenance facility. The significant advantage to these sites is that they are not constrained and it would be possible to obtain 20 acres, which would provide for all future needs for the Parks and Street operations. The two primary disadvantages are the proximity to residential areas and the location. As we have witnessed in the Marshall location, the mere concept of a non-traditional use in a relatively close proximity to residential neighborhoods can cause a great deal of distress. However, with a 20 acre site, we are convinced that we could more than adequately screen the location with significant berming and landscape materials. These sites would require rezoning, since the guideplan shows the area as open space. From a management perspective, the location is the most significant drawback of the sites. A quick review of our street and park system identifies that we would significantly increase travel time to perform maintenance activities and supervision would be more "long-distanced. The final unknown for this site is based on the fact that it is outside of the MUSA line. If City Council should elect to pursue this site, it would be necessary to begin a conversation with Metropolitan Council on a MUSA line expansion. The total ultimate cost for the airport alternative is estimated at $5 million. This assumes both an initial construction of 45,000 square feet and an addition of 15,000 square feet in the future (estimated in 1991 dollars). The expansion is estimated at $1 million, leaving a net initial cost of $4 million for the project, which includes land acquisition, architectural fees, and site work. Since the land is vacant and the prices are based on new construction, the estimates should be fairly accurate. In other words, any substantial reduction in price due to high-end estimating is not expected. 3 ZYLKA SITE This site is located at the northwest corner of TH 169 and Pioneer Trail (CSAH 1). This site is 16 acres in size and is shown on the guideplan as a combination of industrial and multi-family residential. While the acreage is sufficient for our uses, a portion of the site falls away to the floodplain and would require substantial grading in order to develop enough usable space. By way of advantages, the site appears to be compatible with adjacent land uses and the owner expects to put it on the market shortly. Disadvantages include the grading necessary to develop the site and location. The site issues can be resolved with money, but the location issue once again would put a facility outside the center of the City and require extra travel time for maintenance activities. The total ultimate estimated cost is $5.2 million for this site and includes architectural fees, land acquisition, site work and both initial construction of 45,000 square feet plus the expansion of 15,000 square feet. Once again, the expansion costs of $1 million could be deferred until a future date, leaving the net initial cost at $4.2 million. The building costs should be fairly accurate, but the land cost is estimated based on current market conditions. Frankly, if market conditions were right, a higher and better use which could command a slightly higher land price might be reasonable for the current owner. Since the owner has not established a selling price at this time, the estimate could be low by 5% or more. ANTICIPATED FINANCING With the money that has been set aside for a satellite storage facility during the past three budget years and the expected value of the current maintenance facility along with some moving and relocation costs to be paid by MnDOT, we can expect that there will be approximately $3 million of funding available for a new facility. If we were to exactly replace the current facility at the airport site, that would be approximately the amount of money needed. However, with an initial building program of 45,000 square feet at the airport site, there would be a need of approximately $1 million from the General Fund to make the project work. The preferred alternate at the Eaton site could result in a General Fund expenditure of between $1.4 and $2.4 million -- with a strong probability of $1.4 to $2.0 million. The difficulty with funding the preferred alternative is that the entire ultimate space needs are available immediately and virtually none of the costs could be deferred for an extended period of time. However, the 5 acres necessary for outdoor storage could probably be deferred for three to five years, with the only concern being the availability of land in the future. Some innovations on that aspect could include having the Utility Fund purchase a portion of the existing site from the General Fund since there will be some remnant of the maintenance facility left at the current site which will be needed for the future water plant expansion. 4 jJ SUMMARY The following table summarizes the general issues relating to site selection for a Parks and Public Works maintenance facility. Perhaps the most nebulous but potentially the most significant site issue is the location of the new complex. The Eaton location is attractive for the same reasons that the current facility is a great location for maintenance purposes. It is central in the City, close to the Police Department and City Hall and has good public road access. The airport site is the next best site location, but is about 2-1/2 miles from the intersection of TH 5 and Mitchell Road. This means that approximately 75% of all maintenance trips will be increased by 5 miles (round trip), fuel dispensing operations for a fleet of over 160 vehicles will result in the increased fuel use and lost time forever. Using the average City employee's salary and an extra 10 minutes for travel time for 100 vehicles results in a present worth for gasoline fill ups of over $150,000. This is just one tangible piece of evidence in a multitude of intangible concepts related to location from the perspective of travel time to work sites and supervision of work crews. ALTERNATIVE MAINTENANCE SITE COMPARISON CRITERIA EATON AIRPORT ZYLKA Cost Initial $3.8-4.8 mil 84.0 mil $4.2 mil Cost Ultimate $4.4-5.4 mil $5.0 mil $5.2 mil Location Excellent Fair Fair Site Size Negative Positive Marginal Initial Space 66,000 S.F. 45,000 S.F. 45,000 S.F. Ultimate Space 66,000 S.F. 60,000 S.F. 60,000 S.F. Neighborhood Compatibility Yes No Yes Zoning Required No Yes Yes MUSA Expansion No Yes No Highest/Best Use of Site Yes No No Staff is convinced that the Eaton site represents the best choice for the permanent maintenance facility (in conjunction with 5-6 acres of outdoor storage). While the price tag is higher, the long-term advantages appear to be significant. The opportunity to construct a new facility from "scratch" is desirable, but the slightly larger than necessary space at the Eaton building should easily provide the flexibility necessary to develop a high quality and efficient maintenance facility. Dsk:GD.SITE.BLG 5 rij Setter. Leach & Lindstrom. Inc. AM/1AV EligrneerS 1100 Peavey Building 2nd Avenue 58th Street Minneapolis. Minnesota 55412-2454 Phone 612/S38.874t Fax M21338-4840 June 11, 1991 Mi. Bob Lambert Director of Parks and Natural Resources City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Public Works Garage/Park Maintenance Facility Dear Mr. -Lambert: The enclosed plans diagram the general scope of work necessary if the Eaton Building were renovated for use as a new Public Works Garage/Park Maintenance Facility for the City of Eden Prairie. The plan organization is based on interviews with City staff regarding their future space needs. The summary of these space requirements is also enclosed with this letter. Several alternatives showing how these space needs might be best accommodated in the Eaton Building were evaluated in arriving at this Schematic Plan. Based on the schematic plan enclosed, a construction cost estimate has been prepared using the 1991 Means Cost Data guide as well as Setter, Leach & Lindstrom's recent experience on a very similar project. We believe that the construction cost (in 1991 dollars) to modify the Eaton Building for the use described above will be $3,221,000. This estimate includes a 10% planning and design contingency. Although the drawing shows the scope of the work in more complete detail, a general summary of the work follows: 1. Add a new fuel island as well as additional paving for parking and a new site access point from the Future Technology Drive. 2. Paint exterior precast walls. Exterior walls at the south wall of the building would be re-clad. 3. Install a new roof. E octal 000011u.ty Emp:owr Mr. Bob Lambert June 11, 1991 Page 2 4. Rather extensive modification of the existing interior floor slabs will be necessary to add or revise floor drains throughout the building. 5. Rather extensive modification of the existing office space will be necessary for City use. 6. Provides new ventilating and air conditioning system throughout the building. 7. Provide a new electrical service as well as new electrical system to meet the user needs. We believe that this letter with the enclosed drawings and space sunnary provide the information you requested, however, if you wish to discuss this further please call us. Thank you very much for allowing us to be of service to the City of Eden Prairie. Very truly yours, Walter Daniels, AIA Project Manager WD/lra (p-1) 1848.004.01 Enclosure 740 9,180 3,100 (4 bays) 448 414 13,882 1,200 18,360 6,000 (5 bads 75 cisep) 900 1,800 (30 x 60) 576 28,836 Setter, [cat& & Lindstrom, Architects& Engineers 1100 Peavey Building 2nd Avenue at Hth Street inneaprdis. Minnesota 55402-2454 Phone 6121338-8741 Fax 612/3384840 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE/PARK MAINTENANCE FAClUTY Summary of Future Space Requirements May 21, 1991 FACE EXISTING AREA (NSF) NEW AREA (NSF) OFFICES: Lobby Offices Lunchroom and Lockers Training Room SUBTOTAL OFFICE FUNCTIONS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Truck Wash Large Equipment Storage (includes street department) Equipment Maintenance Parts Welding Bay Maintenance Equipment & Tools SUBTOTAL PUBLIC WORKS PARK MAINTENANCE: Wood Working Secure Storage Hazardous Chemicals Paints Metal Work Paint Booth Large Equipment Storage SUBTOTAL PARK MAINTENANCE TOTAL NSF BUILDING (Without mechanical/electrical or circulation) 330 500 816 3,300 1,836 2,500 1,000 2,982 7,300 1,200 1,200 310 600 150 150 150 150 1,200 1,200 352 720 13,000 • 20,000 16,362 24,020 33,226 NSF 60,156 NSF • includes 2 other buildings used for storage (4800 sf and 1500 sf) , Equal Opppri.,:y Empoye,