HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 07/02/1985 J.
(, EDEN PRAIRIE! ,!,�_��
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA t,
TIJESDAY, JAY 2, 1915 7:00 PM, SCHOOL ARMINISTRATION
BUILDING BOARDROOM 1
ti.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Andersen,
George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and ""
Paul Redpath
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: A k ;City Manager Carl J. Jullie; Assistant
A' 'to the City Manager Craig Rawson; City
O'l. �� :Attorney Roger Pauly; Finance Rirectpr
_ John Frane; Planning •irecter Chris
S �.;. (tiger; Director Hof Community Services
''�/�00 Abert Lambert; lirector of Public
�y. A' orks Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
.--
„OVA' LSecretary Karon 4ohael
1 PLEBGE OF ALLEGIANCE-- j A• 4
C.a RI 4
RILL CALL
I. APPf,A\'AL iF AGENDA ANS OTHER ITEMS IF VUSINESS
II. MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MELTING ,iELI TUESIAYi '4A'! 7 1945 Page 1413
lei. CONSENT CALENIAR
�` rj Au A. Set Tuesday, ust 6. 1985s D_pO PM_ fora Joint Meeting
L with the Parkc,• Recreation A Natural itesiurces Carmission
tilD. Approve plans and specifications for Preserve Boulevard Page 142
irnpruvenents and au'hor,ze Turps to me received August 1(2)41P 1
Ty651 I.C. 5 2-171--(Pesolution N . ts5-15t)--'C. Atithori__>e preparation of feasibility report for Technotegl Page 1434
Drive Petwen Nuraati Creek aid Prairie Center Drive„ I.C.
Sz=CIft (Resolution Ne. B5-15,) t
C. Final Plat aPPr4val for 8iiant Lake Business Center 2n4 Page 143: ''
Addit.ien (-Resolution Na. 85-1GJ)
E. Final 1984 ;Budge! (Resolution No. 85-167) Page 144i
F. CITY WEST RF1AIL CENTER_. 2nd Reading if Ordinance No. 111-84, Page 144?
Zanina District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Comiiercial
for 7.29 acres For service uses; Approval of Developer's Agreement
for City West Retail Center; and Adoption of Resolution No.
( B5-155, Authorizing Sum ary of Ordinance No. 111-84, and Ordering
Publication of Said Sur:-nary. (Rct„it, INI-se-at restaurant,
health club, fast food restaurant, and gas station/convenience
store). Location: Southeast corner of Shady Oak Road and
City West Parkway.
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,July 2, 19d5
G. Change Order No. 4 = Grading at Franl, and Eden Valley Park Page 144
( H. Resolution No. 85-165 Restricting Parking on Valley View Road Page 1445
between CSAH 4 and Edenvale Boulevard
I. Resolution No. 65-166 Requesting Variance from State Aid Page 1451
Standards for Volley View Real
lV) PUBLIC HEARINGS (Beginning at 7:31 PM)
A. WIIOLAKE SANITARY SERVICES, INC. Request for Planned Unit Page 1342
"ei
` tevelepment Concept Amendment for approximately 313 acres; ` 1;
• e rezoning of approximately 14.44 acres in the Rural District to
a district created specifically to allow the establishment of 1:„ : a temporary landfill or rezoning to a district presently 3
identified in the Zoning Cede by amending the permitted use
section of such district to allow the operation of a temporary ;;1'
" LA landfill; Development Stage aeprevai for approximately 313
�i,—- ? acres; end authorize an expansien of area to be used for
✓r, '� sanitary landfill purposes from approximately 14I7.1 acres to
t,.y approximately 148.9 acres. Location: Southeast of Flying Cloud
,t? V' Drive-In Theater. (Ordinance No. 4-85 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 4.
- J 85-162 - PUD Concept & Development Stage Approval) Continued
Public Hearing from June le, 1985 �, a
� 8�.:' WIODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES, INC., to Amend Chapter,11 of the Page 1452
' ` City Code to rezone approximately 149 acres described below from
>y the Rural District to a District which permits its use for first,
f}{� landfill, and second, Public-Recreational and Industrial uses; t
I � and, to amend the City Comprehensive Guide Plan to designate m
n approximately 145 acres described below for Public-Recreational/ 1
r Industrial Uses. Location: Southeast of Flying Cloud Orive-In
Theater. (Ordinance No. 24-85 - Rezoning; Resolution Ni. 85-163 -
O Amending Guide Plan) ; i
O lik
I. FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR TECHNOLOGY DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS FROM
Page 1489
? Ill/ ,WALLACEkkLLACE ROAD EAST TO CPT, I.C.I_C_ 52 (Resolution Flo.
,4:: 8E-1bO� -- — —
1,,,. 'i I. REQUEST ay' PARKWAY APARTMENTS PARTNERSHIP FIR MULTI- Page ie
< ,, :4- FAMILY HOUSM3 REVENUE DONDS IN THE AMOUNT $F il7L$10 $$$
Tkeselution No. 85-164) z
'Ow !v
E. THE GARDEN/by Hakon and Karen Terjosen, eguest for Zoning Page 1514
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 )0.16 acres and
fir': `,,. Preliminary Plat for 11.16 acres intet single family lets.
Location: North of Rowland Road, West Of Shady Zak Road.
(Ordinance No. 22-85 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 85-15i -
Preliminary Plat)
F. HAGEN SYEMS by Hagen Systems. Request for Planned Unit Page 152i
ST
Devrlepniirt district Review, Zoning District Review on 2$
acrrs Zonine B`istrict Change from Rural to 1-2 Park, on 3.12
acres, and preliminary Plat of 9.78 acres into one let and two
outlets for an office building. Location: Last of City West
Parkway, West of Highway #169. (Ordinance No. 2345 - Rezoning;
Resolution No. 85-157 - Preliminary Plat)
. .?,
City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,July 2, 1915
. . ,.,
G. HAMPTON INN by Eden Prairie Hotel Investors. Request for Page 15?.
Zoning District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional Service
for 2.69 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the hard of
Appeals, for a hotel. Location: West of of Highway
#169, South of Valley View Rea , East of Highway 115.
(Ordinance No. 24-$5 - Rezoning)
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. nes5----21341 Page 1531
VI. ORDINANCES 1 RESOLUTIONS:
VI I. iTTITTINS, REUESTSL-COMMUNICATIONS ..
A. Request from Marie Wittenberg, member of the Historic0 & Page 1544
Cultural Commission, to change terms to 2 gears rather than 3
• 1 ,,,
.\ :::,.. 5. Request ky Hagen Sistems and Hampton Inn for an allocation Page 1545
.,:.
lithe City's 1,54 IOR CA*
)Y . ...
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY %MISSIONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS'
iX. REPORTS- F-OFFICERS;-11ARIS & COMMISSIONSI AP ,:iir VA
A. Re--rtS of-Council MemierS iv,1 aNfe •
P4.I el& • -•
I. Re 'rt if City Milyieffi MOVOrt,
1. LIFO-gag çjy_s qgiir s Page 1544
YS-teni
S. Cpert if City Attorney! OA 1 If!I lie Eel 1 011
Ar
O
I' . :':.• A: il At 1:2
D. -hurt of Finantt Oiretto0
1. Clerk's License List (including Gould Kennel License
l
request which was continued from June 15, 1115) Page 154$ ..t...::
q) XII. ADJOURNMENT
;, „,/, I,V VI'\ • ,,,
4,, 4 \l, lv, \ _ :, , •
‹. ' ''''''' ''' ,-.•
'''A, 01' ' \,s,, !.•
;,--.-
(
-H:2
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
0 D
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL '
I
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, George
Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and Paul Redpath
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the
City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger ,4
Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning
Director Chris Enger, Director of Community Ser-
vices Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works
Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen 1
Michael
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE tt
ROLL CALL: Council member Pidcock was absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Item III. A. BRYANT LAKE BUSINESS CENTER, PHASE II by Welsh Companies, Inc_
was continued to the May 21, 1985, meeting of the City Council.
Added to the Agenda was item III. M. Guide Plan Change, Research Farm.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Agenda and Other
Items of Business as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A. Minutes of Ci Council Meeting held Tuesday, February 19, 1985 (continued
from April 16,y 1985)
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Minutes of
City Council Meeting held Tuesday, February 19, 1985, as published.
Motion carried unanimously.
•
B. Minutes_of City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 19, 1985
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Minutes of
the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 19, 1985, as published.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Minutes of Ci /_Council Meeting held TuesdL, April 2, 1985
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Minutes of
the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 2, 1985, as published.
Motion carried with Anderson abstaining.
4•
City Council Minutes -2- May 7, 1985
D. Minutes of Joint City Council/Development Commission Meeting held Tuesday,
( April 16,_1985 — — -- —
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Minutes
of the Joint City Council/Development Commission Meeting held Tuesday,
April 16, 1985, as published. Motion carried unanimously.
III. CDNSENT CALENDAR
A. BRYANT LAKE BUSINESS CENTER, PHASE II by Welsh Companies, Inc. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 8-85, Zoning District Change from C-Regional to .
I-2 Park for 7.96 acres; approval of Developer's Agreement for Bryant Lake
Business Center, Phase II; and adoption of Resolution No. 85-99, approving
Summary of Ordinance No. 8-85 and ordering publication of said Summary.
7.96 acres into two lots for construction of three office/warehouse buildings.
Location: south of Valley View Road, east of Market Place Drive.
(Ordinance No. B-85 - rezoning from C-Regional to I-2 Park and Resolution
No. 85-99 - approving Ordinance Summary and Publication) - continued to
May 21, 1985, Meeting of the City Council
B. PRIMETECH PARK, PHASE I by MRTT Joint Venture. 2nd Reading of Ordinance
NO 10-85, amending Ordinance No. 74-84 for zoning district change from
I-2 Park to Office on 1.93 acres; approval of Amendment to Developer's
Agreement for Prinietech Park; and adoption of Resolution No. 85-10D,
approving Summary of Ordinance No. 10-85 and ordering publication of 1
said Summary. 1.93 acres for 31,500 square foot office building. Location: 1.
north of Shady Oak Road, east of City West Parkway. (Ordinance No. 10-85
- amending Ordinance No. 74-84 rezoning from I-2 Park to Office and Reso-
lution No. 85-100 - approving Ordinance Summary and Publication)
C. 1985 Jaycees Donations
D. Hendrickson Property_Purchase on Rile,_Lake (Resolution No. 85-110) -
continued from April 2, 1985
E. Final Plat Approval for Bluffs West 3rd (Resolution No. 85-104)
F. Final Plat Approval for Bluffs West 4th (Resolution No. 85-95)
G. Set a hearing for May 21, 1985, Mr, & Mr, Patrick Lueck to consider their
o ection to the sewer/water connection fee
H. Set Public ilearing_for May 21,1985,_to reconsider a request for a
revised PUU Concept for Cardinal Creek Village
I. Participation in ICMA Retirement Corporation
J. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 11:85, Tree Ordinance
K. Resolution No. 85-102 Proclaiming M y 5--12_,_1985, "Small Business Week in
EdenPrairiie'`
— ---L. Approval of Refinancing Bonds in the amount of $2,700,000.00 for TECH Park
III Project ZResolution No. 85-112T
M. Guide Plan Chime, Research Farm (Resolution No. 85-1I3) `
itl(�1
City Council Minutes -3- May 7, 1985
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve items B - M on the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
Peterson noted that he, Redpath, City Manager Jullie and Director of Public
Works Dietz had toured the property at the end of Phaeton Drive and other
properties in that vicinity where there are erosion problems. Peterson
asked that other Council members also tour the area so they might be aware
of the extent of the problems.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,000,000.00 FOR
TANAGER CREEK (Resolution No. 85-97) - continued from April 16, 1985
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been published
• and referred to information provided Council members regarding the offering
prospectus. Jullie also called attention to a letter distributed this
evening to Council Members which further explained the financing.
Bentley asked if the bonds would be approved based upon the letter which
the Council received this evening. City Attorney Pauly suggested it would
be appropriate to have a separate resolution regarding issues of this
nature. Pauly stated the recommendation'was to impose a 1/8 of 1% fee
which should be formalized by a resolution adopted by the City Council.
Tom Maple, Miller & Schroeder, said the credit enhancement would guarantee
payment of the total principal and interest.
A representative of the bonding company, Kutak, Rock & Huie, addressed the
question as to how the bonding would be accomplished.
City Attorney Pauly noted there is more of a burden on the City with
this kind of offering.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No.
85-97, adopting a housing bond program for the issuance of multifamily
housing revenue bonds for the Tanager Creek Apartments project and
authorizing submission of same to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
noting the letter dated May 7, 1985, addressed to Mr. John D. Frane,
Finance Director, regarding the manner in which the financing will be
secured. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath to adopt Resolution No.
85-114, imposing a 1/8 of 1`L fee on the initial amount of the housing
revenue bonds for the Tanager Creek Apartments project and an $800
application fee on same. Motion carried unanimously.
1-1:0
•
City Council Minutes -4- May 7, 1985
B. AUTUMN WOODS 3RD ADDITION by Trumpy Homes. Request for Zoning District `"i
Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 2.64 acres, RM-6.5 to RI-9.5 en 2.37 acres,
and preliminary plat of 5.01 acres into twelve single family lots. Loca-
tion: east of Highway #101, north of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad. (Drdinance No. 14-85 - rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5
and from RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 and Resolution No. 85-101 - preliminary plat)
City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been published
and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified.
Dennis Truempi, proponent, addressed the proposal.
Planning Director Enger stated this request had been reviewed by the
Planning Commission at its meeting on April 8, 1985, at which time it
voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included in
the Staff Report dated April 5, 1985.
Redpath asked if Dell Road was going to be constructed, Jullie said the
right-of-way would be dedicated and the residential street equivalent would
be paid for.
Peterson asked why sidewalks were not required on both sides of the street.
Enger said Eden Prairie has taken a middle ground position whereby side-
walks on most streets are only required on one side; in the case of major
streets the City has been requiring sidewalks and/or hikeways/bikeways on
both sides of the street.
Bentley asked about where the water in the ponding area comes from. Dietz
said it was from the immediate area.
Anderson asked about the location of the City park in relation to this
proposal. Truempi located the park on a map and also indicated the
location of the City's water tower.
Peterson expressed concern about the drainage and the fact that more trees
might be lost because of additional water in the ponding area. Dietz
explained the drainage plan for this proposal in relation to that of
Paulsen's Addition to the east, Bentley cited problems in Bloomington
where ponding areas were used prior to storm sewers be built.
Anderson asked how much of this area is wooded. Enger stated about
half of it.
Wally Hustad, Jr., asked if most of the trees would be lost either because
of construction in the area, Enger said it would be possible-to save a
number of the trees in the sideyards. Ron Krueger, surveyor, said it would
be very difficult to identify every tree on the property; he noted that
a tree inventory had been made for the area from the street to 60' back
from the street.
l;ir /
City Council Minutes -5- May 7, 1985
Anderson indicated the most significant feature of this area is the
1 trees. He said he was concerned because other developers have not •
considered some trees significant which really were significant trees.
Hustad asked how many lots there would be if this were zoned 13.5 rather
than 9.5. Truempi said there would be four lots rather than six.
Krueger noted there were 66 significant trees in this area (Outlot C.)
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 14-85, rezoning, with 2nd
Reading of Outlot C subject to a tree inventory/location of building
pads. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution No.
85-101, preliminary plat approval, with final plat approval subject to
• the same conditions as imposed on the zoning matter. Motion carried
unanimously. •
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to prepare
a Summary Resolution of Approval per Commission and Staff recommendations.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Amendment-�to--Landscape Ordinance and Amendment to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5
District t0rdinance No. 15-B5)
City Manager Jullie noted the purpose of the proposed amendment is to
quantify the amount and size of landscaping expected by the City pro-
portionate to the size and height of the building. Jullie said this
amendment is similar to ordinances in effect in Plymouth and Minnetonka.
He also said the ordinance amends the minimum width requirements for
residential lots in the R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 districts; ultimately this
will provide for greater variety of housing styles to be places on
lots within these districts. Official notice of the Hearing was published.
Planning Director Enger stated this amendment had been reconanended for
approval by the Planning Commission.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing
and to give Ist Reading to Ordinance No. 15-85, amending the Landscape
Ordinance and R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 zoning districts. Motion carried unani-
mously.
City Council Minutes -6- May 7, 1985
•
0: Approval of Housing Revenue Bonds in the amount of $7,300,000.00 for
I faypoint Manor II T 1) •
esolution No. 85-11
City Manager Jullie indicated notice for this Public Hearing had been
published.
ia-
Brent Behrens, representing the proponent, addressed the request.
'A
Bentley asked if this was a previously approved project. Oirector of
Planning Enger said it was previously approved and most of the changes
would occur on the interior; any changes to the exterior were felt, by
Staff, to be positive changes.
Bentley asked if this would be a private placement. Behrens said it
would be, but that there was the possibility of a public offering.
Finance Director Frane stated he had notified the proponent that, if
there would be a public offering, the proponent would have to come
back before the Council. 'i
Enger noted the proponents had indicated today they would like to
increase the number of units by six per building.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing
and to adopt Resolution No. 85-111, relating to the issuance of revenue
bonds pursuant to Chapter 462C, Minnesota Statutes; giving preliminary -1.
approval to the project, adopting a multifamily housing program and
authorizing submission of the housing program for review. Motion
carried unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 19841 - 20175
NOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Payment of
Claims Nos. 19841 - 20175. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Redpath
and Peterson voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Appeal from the Decision of the Board of Appeals _- Variance Request
of Jeri Halmrast and William Gilk for Red Rock Heights
City Manager Jullie indicated notices had been mailed to property
owners who were notified of the original variance request before the
Board of Appeals. He said that Ron Krueger, surveyor, had submitted •
the proposed plat to the DNR and preliminary indications were that
they had no problems with it •
.
.
Director of Planning Enger stated a letter had been received from
Judy Qeaudreau, DNR, dated May 2, 1985, in which concern was expressed
that the City had not taken into consideration the 1,000' setback _
from School Pond. Enger said that body of water is not shown on the
City's Shoreland map; the DNR indicates it as a "natural environment". •
Enger said he felt any resident. on the south side of Scenic Heights
Road has to be more concerned about how the views across the pond
are treated than any concerns regarding the pond itself. Enger called
Iq1?-) •
City Council Minutes -7- May 7, 1985
' attention to the fact that the DNR does not feel it has approved
the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance; Enger reviewed the
steps which had been taken by the City at the time the Ordinance
was adopted. Enger stated that one lot will be removed from the
lake-front area and that the average lot size will be 20,000 square
feet.
Bentley asked City Attorney Pauly what form the motion should take
should the Council decide to reverse the action taken by the Board of
Appeals. Pauly reviewed the procedures open to the Council.
Peterson asked if the storm water run-off from this area goes right
into Red Rock Lake. Director of Public Works Dietz stated that every-
thing from this development would go into Red Rock Lake. Krueger said
•
sump manholes would take care of any sediments.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to reverse the decision
of the Board of Appeals regarding variances for Red Rock Heights based
upon modifications discussed this evening and based on the hardship
demonstrated by bringing in utilities; and to grant the variances
necessary for completion of this request. Motion carried unanimously.
B. RED ROCK HEIGHTS by Jerry Halmrast & Bill Gilk. 2nd Reading of Ordinance
No. f 85, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 22.6 acres;
approval of Developer's Agreement for Red Rock Heights, and adoption
of Resolution No. 85-87, approving Summary of Ordinance No. 7-85 and
Ordering Publication of said Summary. 33.9 acres into 50 single family
lots and three outlots. Location: south of Scenic Heights Road,
east of County Road 4. (Ordinance No. 7-85 - rezoning from Rural to
R1-13.5 and Resolution No. 85-87 - approving Ordinance Summary and
Publication) -- continued from April 14, 1985
MOTION: 8entley moved, seconded by Redpath, to grant 2nd Reading of
Ordinance No. 7-85, rezoning.
Anderson stated he would vote in favor but was not happy about reversing
the decision of another advisory Board. He said he felt that the Board
should have had the same information available to it as was available
to the City Council. Peterson concurred.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Developer's
Agreement for Red Rock Heights. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: 8entley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution No.
85-87, approving Sunnnary of Ordinance No. 7-85 and ordering Publication
of said Summary. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -8- May 7, 1985
•
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to forego the issuance
of grading permits until the DNR has granted its approval of the
proposal.
Peterson indicated he would vote against the motion because it did not
appear to him that the DNR found any major points of contention.
Planning Director Enger stated he had asked Ms. Beaudreau of the DNR
if she felt comfortable with the City going ahead with all actions
regarding this matter except for the final plat. She had told Enger
this would be acceptable.
VDTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried with Peterson voting "no."
C. Final Plat Approval of Red Rock Heights (Resolution No. 85-103)
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to continue action on
this Resolution to the May 21, 1985, Meeting of the City Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letter from Gerard L. Severson, Executive Vice President/Real Estate,
Factory Outlet Centre, regarding request for second amendment to
ISevel er's A.greement and Declaration of Restrictions regarding
tenant identification on pylon at east entrance.
City Manager Jullie noted the memoranda of April 27 and 19, 1985,
which addressed the request and reviewed the history relating to
signage at the Factory Outlet Centre.
Dan Lieberthal, representing Factory Outlet Centre, called attention
to a letter of April 19, 1985, from Gerard L. Severson which addressed
the proposal.
Jullie said the signage on the building was specifically approved with
commitments made by the proponent which were to have been recorded.
Jullie said he felt the record should be clarified regarding these
commitments.
Planning Director Enger indicated this was a "custom" situation.
Redpath said he was not as much concerned with the change in the sign
as with the size of the sign.
Bentley said he recalled very specific discussions regarding the color,
size of letters, etc. of the sign when this was before the Council a
year ago. He said there was to be no advertising on the outside of the
building for any tenant. Bentley asked why the covenants had not been
signed. Lieberthal said he did not have an answer to that. •
Bentley said the Council could give the proponent 30 days to sign the
covenants and then, if that were not done, the large sign would have
to be removed. Jullie noted the covenants could be amended.
•
� t2f
J
1
City Council Minutes -9- May 7, 1985
MOTION: (Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to authorize Staff to
redraft the covenant agreement regarding signage with the proponent
being required to sign this agreement within 30 days or the City's sign
ordinance would apply to the entire parcel; all future matters pertaining
to signs and/or substantial changes regarding Factory Outlet Centre
should come before the City Council.
Redpath said he felt this Centre was in need of some help, but he would
like to see them stay within the permitted square footage of signage.
Anderson said he had a problem with this in that it was a change to what
had previously been agreed to.
City Attorney Pauly indicated the covenant needs only to have the date
•
changed.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried with Anderson voting "no."
•
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
A. Recycling Advisory Committee - Organized/Contracted Refuse Collection.
MOTION: 8entley moved, seconded by Redpath, to accept the report
and to thank the Committee for reviewing this item; this item will
be tabled until such time as the Metropolitan Council study has been
completed and its effect on Eden Prairie can be assessed. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. Historical & Cultural Commission - Marketing proposal for the Kouba
print and request for funds,
Redpath noted that the Eden Prairie Foundation bank account has money
in it from the sale of the Kouba print and suggested that this money
should be used to promote further sales.
The consensus was to turn this matter over to the Eden Prairie Foundation.
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS BOARDS & COMMISSIONS •
A. Reports of Council Members
Redpath - called attention to the continuing water problem on Padon Downs.
He stated he would like to see an outlet from the lagoon sandbagged to
relieve the problem. City Manager Jullie reviewed what Staff has done
regarding this and stated there would be substantial cost involved in
rectifying the problem. Director of Public Works Dietz stated the causes
of the on-going problems. There was discussion as to the various actions
which might be taken to alleviate the problem. Staff will further review
•
the situation.
111 A6
City Council Minutes -10- May 7, 1985
• Peterson - expressed his appreciation for the kindnesses shown at •
thee time of the death of his step-mother. He thanked Paul Redpath
for acting as Mayor during his absence.
Peterson - asked for two Council members to serve as judges on Sunday
afternoon, June 2, at 1 p.m. for the Kiddie Parade. The entire Council
will be invited to serve as judges since everyone volunteered to do this.
Peterson - requested all Council members to physically view Sally Brown's
property to view the erosion which has occurred. E`
Peterson - noted that Gene Grover had slipped and fallen at the Community
Center and asked what might be done so this would not happen to other
users. Staff will review this matter.
B. port of City Manager
City Manager Jullie gave an update on the response to the Flying Cloud
•
Landfill permit.
C. Report of City Attorney
1. Discussion on Welcome Home
City Attorney Pauly called attention to his memorandum of May 2,
1985, in which the Opinion of the Attorney General concerning
the Welcome Home matter was included.
D. Report of Director of Public Works •
1. Award Contract for Apple Grove/Paulsen's Addition Sanitary Sewer
I.C. 52-061 (Resolution No. 85-106)
•
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No.
85-106, accepting the bid of F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. for I.C. 52-061,
Apples Grove/Paulsen's Addition Sanitary Sewer Project. Roll call
vote: Anderson, Bentley, Redpath and Peterson voted "aye." Motion •
carried unanimously.
2. Award Contract for 1985 Seal Coat Project, I.C. 52-077 (Resolution
No. 85-107)
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No.
85-107, accepting the bid of Allied Blacktop Co., Inc. for I.C. 52-077,
1985 Seal Coat. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Redpath and •
Peterson voted "aye," Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -11- May 7, 1985
•
3. Award Contract for Tractor Backhoe I.C. 52-078 (Resolution No.
135-108)
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution No. •
85-108, accepting the bid of Long Lake Ford Tractor for I.C. 52-078,
tractor backhoe. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Redpath and
Peterson voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
4. Award Contract for Signals at Prairie Center Drive/TH 169, I.C.
2-398A (Resolution No. 85-109) •
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution
No. 52-398A, for I.D. 52-398A, for signals at Prairie Center Drive
and TH 169, subject to approval by the State. Roll call vote: c:
Anderson, Bentley, Redpath and Peterson voted "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
E. Report of Finance Director
1. Clerk's License List
•
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Clerk's
License List, with the provision of a waiver for the requirement
of a Performance Bond for the Lions Club gambling license for
Schooner Days. Motion carried unanimously.
X. NEW BUSINESS
•
There was none.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 10:55
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
•
•
•
1u,Z
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
• FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works '
DATE: June 26, 1985
RE: Preserve Boulevard Improvements
I.C. 52-071 •
The agenda includes an item for Council to approve the plans and
specifications for the upgrading of Preserve Boulevard as discussed at the
public hearing. Also attached for your information is a copy of a letter from
RCM which summarizes the results of further soils investigations for the
project as well as provides a new schedule for the improvement and an updated
cost estimate.
While it was anticipated that a portion of the pavement structure could be
utilized in the final design of the roadway, our soil's consultant confirms
that the least cost alternate would be to completely remove the pavement
surface and reconstruct the entire facility. The additional cost to do so is
estimated at about $21,000.
The schedule anticipates that bids would be opened on August 1, 1985. We do
not have the easements for the project at this time and that schedule may have
to be delayed until proper access to the work site can be made available to
the contractor. With Council authorization to proceed with a bid opening, we
will utilize an addendum procedure if a time extension will be required.
EAD:sg
•
•
June 19, 1985
•
Mr.Eugene Dietz, P.E.
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Preserve Blvd.
Eden Prairie l.C. 1152-071 11
RCM Project No.841039
Dear Gene:
This letter is in response to our conversation on 6/7/85 in regards to changes
.• in the schedule and costs for the above referenced project. You also wanted
a clarification of the information presented in Braun Engineering's May 31, 1
1985 soil report.
Attached is a revised schedule for the Preserve Blvd. project. The project
E LiUfl was delayed approximately four weeks due to the delay in the City Council's
ordering of the plans and specifications,and the additional time required to
meet State Aid requirements. As shown, the revised City Council approval 1
rieke
date for the plans and specifications is July 2, 1985 and the revised bid ti
carroll opening date is August I, 1985.
muller
,sociates,inc. Based on Braun Engineering's soil borings and the recommendations in their
hiiecls report, the project scope has changed from what was assumed in the
en •
gineers p . p g
land surveyors feasibility report. We are now proposing to remove all of the existing
bituminous pavement on preserve Blvd. prior to new pavement construction.
Based on our recent conversations with Braun Engineering, they concur that
it is more feasible to remove the existing pavement then to try to save it
and incorporate it into the new pavement sections. Existing topsoil, found
in some of the borings beyond the edge of the existing pavement, will also
need to be subcut three feet below the subgrade elevation.
Due to the above mentioned changes, we estimate the total project cost to
increase by $21,200. These additional costs would be included in the City's
share of the project costs. Attached is the revised Table 1 from the
•
feasibility report which shows the revised costs. The total project cost
shown in Table 1 also includes approximately $21,400 to widen Preserve
Blvd. north of Franlo Road, as we discussed on April 15, 1985. A more
detailed engineer's cost estimate will be made once the final plans are
completed.
If you have any questions or need additional information,please call.
Sip erely,
/ X4L
Ad-<—
I etc:- Kn1/chic,P.C.
R1EKE CARROLL HULLER ASSOCIATES,INC.
loll Ins!,:tie,,::ordrl
ix;:;otiu,0 In;..1.+tl PJK:jj
hoiri.ur;mmr.,•-aot.l 153•i3
612.935-6901 Enclosure •
RCM 841039
PROJECT SCIIEDULE
PRESERVE BLVD.
I.C.52-071
March 5, 1985 Present feasibility report to City Council.
March 12, 1985 Mail Notice of Hearing to Eden Prairie Community News.
Publish March 20 and 27,1985.•
March 12, 1985 Mail Notice of Hearing to Public.
April 16,1985 Hold Public Hearing,order improvements and preparation
of plans and specifications.
May 1, 1985 Begin negotiations to acquire easements.
July 2, 1985 Approve plans and specifications and order Advertisement
for Bids.
July 3, 1985 Mail Advertisement for Bids to Eden Prairie Community
News (publish July 10, 1985) and Construction Bulletin
(publish July 12 and July 19,1935).
August 1, 1935 Open Bids.
August 6, 1985 Award Contract.
October, 1985 Construction substantially complete.
May, 1986 Construction complete.
October, 1986 Special Assessment Hearing.
Revised 6/18/85
•
ltt')
RCM 841039 •
Table 1
Estimated Costs for
Eden Prairie Improvement Contract 52-071
Preserve Blvd.
Grading
Street&
Storm Sewer(1) Watermain(2) TOTAL
Construction Costs(1985) • $285,600 $ 7,700 $293,300
+ 5%Contingencies
14,300 400 14,700
Subtotal $299,900 $ 8,100 $308,000
4.
+ 12%Eng.,Staking, l_,000 37,000
& Inspection 36,000
Subtotal $335,900 $ 9,100 $345,000
-City Share (267,000)(3) (9,100) (276,100)
•
Subtotal Assessable 0 $
Construction Costs and Fees $ 68,900 $ 68,900
+ 9%City Administration
6,200 0 6,200
+ 12%Capitalized Interest 8.300 0 8,300
(10% for S/S5-10/36)
Total Estimated Assessable Costs $ 83,400 $ 0 $ 83,400
•
TOTAL PROJECT COST $350,400 $ 9,100 $359,500
(Incl.City Share)
(I) Right-of-way costs not included. The costs incurred for right-of-way and easement
acquisitions(if any) will be added to the final assessments.
(2) City to pay entire cost out of Trunk Waterrnain Fund.
(3) City's share includes all street costs except storm sewer, sidewalk, and outside curb and
gutter. City's prorated share of front foot cost for storm sewer, sidewalk, and curb and
gutter for Pit) 1123-13-000I (Lake Eden City Park) is included in this amount.
•
• Rev.6/IS/85
1432-
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 85-158
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
WHEREAS, the City Engineer, with the assistance of REM, Inc., has prepared
.plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit:
• I.C. 52-071, Preserve Boulevard Improvements
and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE: •
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public
inspection in the City Engineer's office, are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official
paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon
the making of such improvement under such approved plans and
specifications. The advertisement shall be published for two weeks,
shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be
received until 10:00 A.M., August 1, 1985, at City Hall after which
time they will be publically opened by The Deputy City Clerk and
Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will ac considered
Eden
be oniePrairie
Schoe
olCouncil at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, August 6,
1985,School Administration Building, 8100 School Road, Eden Prairie. No
bids will be considered unless sealed and filed withboth or certified
the
clerk
and
accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid
check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 6, 1985.
•
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
•
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
•
I�(3
I:
•
•
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members •
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
DATE: June 26, 1985
RE: _ Feasibility Report
Technology Drive (Creek 2 Prairie Center Drive)
I.C. 52-010D
•
During discussions of road improvement projects (1984), Council requested that
• Technology Drive between Purgatory Creek and Prairie Center Drive be
constructed as soon as practical. Attached for your information is a
correspondence dated June 21, 1985, wherein Braun Engineering Testing confirms
that it is possible to construct the roadway at this time. Although it is
getting rather late in the year to commence a special assessment improvement
project with any expectation of construction in 1985, I'm recommending that
you •authorize the feasiblity report and that we proceed with the project.
Depending on the cost allocations and any resistance from property owners, it
• may well be possible to get the project under contract and show some progress
this year with a completion date in early 1986. •
EAD:sg
•
•
•
P�R3�
1,
[,1 ,Liii,
-,J ./ ifll ,i , ) I
\_ LI la_/L..��� Smv,es Smct.1?.d
ENGINEERING TESTING .--- f
,. i•. :.��x PI ,.0.,m t•ia el
':S6ISOTA-Mimi n it ,illdnury.Si CIointitiini ii t I'nil ru+4our.nll unao k,RI1d rl i.
11.tt:rd 1'1 JAAI,%J 1 W:N..1, El
AA JAK01A.E11sma1ck•S,lido 1, MO17TAUA:lidlings • ou nn\W,pt '
Reply To:
P.O. Box 35108
Mpls., MN 55435 ,
(612) 941-5600
June 21, 1985
• City of Eden Prairie
Attn: Gene Dietz, P.E. a
8950 County Road 4
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: 81-524 SETTLEMENT PLATE
•MONITORING
Technology Drive
Extension Surcharge
Eden Prairie, MN '
I.C. #52-010D
i
Mr. Dietz:
This correspondence deals with the surcharge monitoring between
stations 74+00 to 91+00+ over the last 2 years. Please refer to.
our earlier reports regarding background information in this
area.
Settlement plates were provided by us and installed by represen-
tatives of Rieke, Carroll, Mueller & Associates, Inc. (RCM). The
elevations of these plates were periodically monitored by RCM and
this information was provided to us. Recent surface elevations
at the top of the surcharge have also been provided for us by
your survey crew. Semi-logarithmic curves of settlement versus
elapsed time have been plotted from the data for each of the
settlement plates. These graphs are attached. In addition, a
summary of the data collected at the individual settlement plate
locations is included.
Based on the data collected at the various plate locations, it
appears that settlement of the embankment has slowed sufficiently
• such that the surcharge can now be removed. Some long-term
settlement of the embankment will still occur as with most
c,`N'•i1111KG M i N(a i RS!`. st te S AND MATE RIM S �{.)J
Alf l•a!r,1(i,mq.ai Is I,u t•h011..11.i!n,✓oaa„•na.,l L•.Lu9 and Col E.uau nl - llama Lnauunrm"H.J I ah,,iab n,,.If,.
81-524
City of Eden Prairie -2- June 21, 1985
surcharged embankments. However, maintaining the current
surcharge load would not reduce this settlement significantly.
Projecting the time/rate of settlement curves over a period of
the next ten years, we expect that differential embankment
settlements will likely not exceed 1 inch to 2 inches after the
excess fill is removed. In the areas of roadway stations 83+00+
and 89+00+, adjacent to the segment where the organic subsoils
were displaced, the excessive depth of organic soils and heights
of fill placed to ramp up to the displaced segment are factors
that have been cause for continued and slightly faster rates of
subsidence, whereby we have projected that long-term settlement
could more likely be on the order of 4 inches to 6 inches in
these areas. Significant water level fluctuations in the area
bordering the embankment could alter these settlement predic-
• tions.
Prior to constructing the pavement section, we recommend that the
exposed soils at subgrade elevation be surface compacted with
several passes by a large, self-propelled vibratory roller.
Should you have any questions regarding these data or require
additional testing when the project progresses, please contact us
at your convenience.
• •
Very truly yours,
•
BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
Cam' t-1..••_.„
David A Clauson /J
Engin .r zn As Via' E
William K. Cod .E.
Project Engineer
DAC/WKC:gcc
•
Attachments
•
......:.. ..r ,l':.... ........... .. ..... ..'.... , .fi:.•a:+t.,..rm rnlM••e ..ry.•ul r..•lu wr wr.uen.Nl..r ii `
• .... .. ..... ......•...............r.... t.:....r....�....r ....l...i.�lit r.<unl.n� - !'...:
•
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-159
RESOLUTION ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT •
•
WHEREAS, it is proposed to make the following improvements:
I.C. 52-01OD, Technology Drive between Purgatory Creek and
Prairie Center Drive.
•
and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of
the improvements, pursuant to M.S.A. 429.011 to 429.111.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer
for study with the assistance of RCM, Inc., and that a
feasibility report shall be prepared and presented to the City
Council with all convenient speed advising the council in a
preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment and feasibility
of the proposed improvements.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 2, 1985.
•
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
zr
•
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician Qir
DATE: June 26, 1985 •
SUBJECT: BRYANT LAKE BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION
PROPOSAL:
The Developer, Welsh Construction, Inc., has requested City Council approval
of the final plat of Bryant Lake Business Center Second Addition and I-2 Park
development located southwest of Valley View Road and Northwest of T.H. 169 in
the South 1/2 of Section 11. The site contains 7.96 acres to be divided into
two lots for the construction of three office/warehouse buildings. Lot 1,
Block 1 will contain a 38,000 sq. ft. building and Lot 2, Block 1 will contain
two buildings (30,000 sq. ft. and 23,000 sq. ft.).
HISTORY:
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on April 2, 1985, per
Resolution 85-80.
Zoning to 1-2 Park was finally read and approved by the Council on May 7, •
1985, per Ordinance 8-85.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed on May
7, 1985.
VARIANCES:
All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
An 8" water main through the site, from Bryant Lake Office Tech Center north
to Valley View Road, will be installed by the Developer for ownership and
maintenance by the City. A 20' wide utility easement covering the water main
must be included on the plat prior to release. All sanitary sewer and storm
sewer within the site will be installed by the Developer with maintenance •
responsibilities to be shared by the property owners.
Cross easements covering access to the individual lots will be necessary. The
Developer must provide copies of the easements to the Engineering Department
prior to release of the plat.
•
PARK DEDICATION:
Park dedication requirements are covered in the Developer's Agreement.
1L(31
•
•
2, Final Mat of Bryant Lake Business Center Second Addition, 6/26/85
BONDING:
Bonding, in conformance with the requirements of Exhibit C of the Developer's
Ageeent n to be
must
bersu�bmittedvto�the tEngineering tDepartmen n tpriordtoareleasedofy the City,
thefinalplat.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Bryant Lake Business Center Second
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 $936.00.
2. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $800.00.
3. Satisfaction of bonding requirements.
4. Satisfaction of utility easement requirement.
5. Receipt of cross easements for access.
DLO:sg
cc: Ron Krueger
Brad Bainey, Welsh
i`134
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-161 •
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
BRYANT LAKE BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Bryant Lake Business Center Second Addition has been
submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie
Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all
proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the
regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and
ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
•
A. Plat approval request for Bryant Lake Business Center Second
Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation
of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated June 26,
1985.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to.supply a certified
copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the •
above named plat. •
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on July 2, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor •
ATTEST SEAL
4 John D. Franc, Clerk •
Iygo
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-16B
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1984
BUDGET AS AMENDED
BE IT RESOLVED that the attached be approved as the 1984 General
Fund Budget as amended.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 2, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
SEAL
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, Clerk
I�i�l�
I
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
19E14 BUDGET
('cXPENDITURES r
ADJUSTED
BUDGET EXPENSE DIFFERENCE
MAYOR & COUNCIL 13200.00 13200.00 0.00
MANAGER 102600.00 102562.73 37.27
PUBLIC INFORMATION 14800.00 14707.41 92.59 t'"
CORPORATION COUNCIL 67300.00 67273.68 26.32
FINANCE 111400.00 116328.16 -4928.16
ELECTIONS 26900.00 26843.29 56.71
GENERAL SERVICES 43800.00 43735.03 64.97
INFORMATION SYSTEMS 20200.00 20115.90 84.10
BENEFITS 697100.00 675842.35 21257.65
SHARED SERVICES 125800.00 125794.94 5.06
CITY HALL 41900.00 41839.59 60.41
CITY HALL ADDITION 6000.00 5489.26 510.74
RESERVE 79600.00 63475.91 16124.09
ENGINEERING 281500.00 281439.02 60.98
INSPECTIONS 250300.00 250018.78 281.22
ASSESSING 156200.00 155977.27 222.73
POLICE 1175600.00 1175507.69 92.31
FIRE 186100.00 186064.92 35.08
CIVIL DEFENSE 10100.00 10020.12 79.88
PROSECUTION 69100.00 69035.00 65.00
JBLIC SAFETY BLDGS 103600.00 103512.05 87.95
.,NIMAL CONTROL 17400.00 14422.94 2977.06
STREET MAINTENANCE 456400.00 456312.30 87.70
PW & PARK BLDGS 22900.00 22845.42 54.58
SNOW REMOVAL 58200.00 57505.65 694.35
STREET LIGHTS 48000.00 47966.38 33.62
PARR: MAINTENANCE 336400.00 336355.33 44.67
EDUIPMENT MNTC 334900.00 334761.42 138.58
RECREATION PF:O3RAMS 304440.00 301294.32 3145.6E
ADULT RECREATION 80560.00 80213.57 346.43
PLANNING 165600.00 164958.28 641.72
COMMUNITY CENTER 405300.00 405215.10 84.90
CONCESSIONS 9200.00 9147.12 52.88
FORESTRY 85200.00 85112.72 87.28
TOTALS 5907600.00 5864893.65 42706.35
REVENUES
TOTAL 5692000.00 5920005.00 228005.00
DIFFERENCE 55111.35 = ADDITION TO
FUND BAL
Y
1441
City West Retail Center
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 111-84
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 f"
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
•
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Neighborhood Commercial
District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the
Neighborhood Commercial District, and the legal descriptions of land in each
District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B,
shall be, and are amended accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
•
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of July 2, 1985, entered into between
een
Prime Development/Landmark Partnership, a Minnesota General Partnership,
City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is. hereby made a part hereof.
Section b. 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 4th day of September, 1984, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 2nd day of
July, 1985.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _ _ day of •
•
PA 9. •
•
{
•
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Lot 10, Block 1, CITY WEST, according the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
L.
•
NIP)
•
•
City West Retail Center
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985, by
and between The Prime/Landmark Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership
hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for zoning from Rural to Commercial
Regional Service for 7.29 acres, with a variance from the required number of parking
spaces for the use to allow 298 spaces, for retail and service uses, situated in
Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached
, hereto and made a part hereof, and said entire 7.29 acres hereinafter referred to as
"the property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #111-84,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of
said property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated May 26, 1985, reviewed and approved by
the City Council on September 4, 1984, and attached hereto as
Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided
herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain
the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
•
3. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property, Developer
shall obtain necessary access permits from the Hennepin County
Transportation Department.
`'4
•
RNLI
4. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property, Developer
shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's
approval of:
A. Plans indicating the exterior building materials showing the •
proposed color spectrum for glass, brick, stucco, and metal
panelling. Developer shall provide samples of said
materials. •
B. An overall signage plan, showing that all wall signs are
internally lit, with individual letters of a consistent size
and style. The roof sign proposed for the Burger King use
shall be removed and relocated to the wall of the building
in a similar manner to the wall signs of the signage plan.
C. An overall lighting plan. All parking lot lighting shall be
accomplished with down-cast lighting with cut-off luminars.
• Parking lot lighting polls shall not exceed twenty (20) feet
in height.
D. A detailed landscaping/screening plan, including screening
of parking areas, provision of additional planting islands
within the parking area, and a minimum of a 25 ft.
landscaped buffer zone along' the western border of the
property. Berm height within the buffer zone shall be five •
feet in height as a minimum.
E. A revised site plan indicating the location of the southern
private access to the site, which shall be coordinated with
the City West Business Center development to the south.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements indicated
in the above plans, as approved by the Director of Planning.
5. Concurrent with building construction, Developer agrees to
construct, or cause to be constructed, a sidewalk connection along
the east side of the private drive from City West Parkway to the
retail buildings.
6. Developer agrees to notify the City and Watershed District at least
4B hours in advance of grading.
•
7. Developer acknowledges that the property will benefit from any
future improvements to Shady Oak Road in the vicinity of City West
and agrees to pay its fair share of the corresponding special
assessments.
•
•
•
City West Retail Center
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-155
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 111-84 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 111-84 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 4th day of September, •
1984;
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. 111-84, 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 brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. 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. 14-85 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 July 2, 1985.
6 y D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
•
•
(t �lf
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 111-84
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 DF 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:
Sumnary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located on the
southeast corner of Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway, known as City West Retail
Center, from the Rural District to the Neighborhood Commercial District, subject to
the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this
Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the — day of , 1985.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
•
E cl41
CHANGE ORDER NO. 4
MAY 30, 1985
PROJECT: Grading at Franlo and Eden Valley Park
T0: Preferred Paving/Bruce Anderson
You are hereby directed to make the following changes to your Contract for the
above referenced project.
NATURE OF WORK
Use of City of Eden Prairie's water truck by Subcontractor for road and
parking lot grading at Franlo Road Park.
AOJUSTMENTS TO CONTRACT QUANTITIES:
3 hours water truck rental @ $90.00 per hour
$270.00
SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS TO CONTRACT TOTAL AMOUNT:
Contract total prior to this Change Order 114,547.83270.00
Decrease resulting from this Change Order
•
Total 14,277.83 •
THE ABDVE CHANGE DRDEPS ARE APPROVED: THE ABOVE CHANGES R ACCEPTED:
THE CITY OF' EOE' PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA PREF ifED PAVING IM .
By - : By
V
1y`iP,
•
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
DATE: June 27, 1985
RE: Valley View Road Improvements, I.C. 51472
The Council agenda for July 2 includes two resolutions regarding the Valley
View Road improvement project. The first resolution provides that parking
will be prohibited on the roadway between Edenvale Boulevard and Eden Prairie
Road. This is a State Aid requirement and is consistent with the resolutions
that we have passed for Valley View Road west of Eden Prairie Road and
Anderson Lakes Parkway among others.
The second resolution requests that a variance be granted from State Aid
Standards for Valley View Road east of Edenvale Boulevard. State Aid
Standards require a 52 foot wide roadway section and our typical four lane
road section is 48 feet wide. While I do not offer much hope in the State
granting the request to reduce the road section by 4 feet, I do feel that it
is reasonable and we should at least ask.
I recommend that both resolutions be approved as submitted. •
EAD:sg
NU()
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE •
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
{ RESOLUTION NO. 85-165
Relating to Parking Restrictions on Valley View Road
S.A.P. 181-103-03 from Eden Prairio Road to Edenvale Boulevard
in the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
THIS RESOLUTION passed this 2nd day of July , 1985, by the
City of Eden Prairie to Hennepin County, Minnesota. The municipal corporation
•shall hereinafter be called the "City":
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the "City" has planned the improvements of MSAS 103 (Valley View Road)
from Eden Prairie Road to Edenvale Boulevard, and,
WHEREAS, the "City", will be expending Municipal State Aid Funds on the Improve-
ment of said street, and,
WHEREAS, said improvement does not conform to the approved minimum standards as
previously adopted for such Municipal State Aid Streets and that approval of the
proposed construction as a Municipal State Aid Street project must therefore be
conditioned upon certain parking restrictions, and,
WHEREAS, tho extent of these restrictions that would be necessary prerequisite •
to the approvai of this construction as a Municipal State Aid project in the .
"City", has been determined,
•
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED: •
That the "City", shall prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on both sides at
all times. •
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 2, 1985.
Gary Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. fion°, Clerk
•
1IS0
•
•
CITY OF EVEN PRAIRIE •
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-166
Request for Variance to State Aid Standard on
Valley View Road
S.A.P. 181-103-03 from Edenvalo Boulevard to Penny Hill Road
in the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota
THIS RESOLUTION passed this 2nd day of July , 1985, by the
City of Eden Prairie in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The municipal corporation
shall hereinafter be called the "City":
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the "City" has planned the improvements of MSAS 103 (Valley View Road)
from Mitchell Road to Eden Prairie Road, and,
WHEREAS, the "City", will be expending Municipal State Aid Funds on the Improve-
ment of said street, and,
WHEREAS, the "City" desires to construct said street to a width less than the
minimum standards as previously adopted for such Municipal State Aid Streets and
that approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State Aid Street pro-
ject must therefore be conditioned upon a variance to standards,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
That the "City", hereby requests the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation to grant a variance to the width requirement for a 4 lane
undivided, high density artorlal from 52 feet to 48 feet (total width, face to
face of outer curbs).
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City CounciI on July 2, 1985.
Gary Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. i ran:, Cfork
NS'
1!
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning .
DATE: June 21, 1985 .
PROJECT: Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill ti
APPLICANT: Woodlake Sanitary Services, Inc. 4
LOCATION: Southeast Quadrant of Highway 1169 and County Road #1
REQUEST: 1. To amend Chapter 11 of the City Code to rezone approximately :
149 acres from the Rural District to a District which
permits its use for first, landfill, and second, Public.
Recreational and Industrial uses.
2. To amend the City Comprehensive Guide Plan to designate
approximately 149 acres described below for Public-
Recreational/Industrial uses. t.
REFER TO: Memorandum from Hoisington Group, Inc., dated June 14, 1985 '
Letter from Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, & Lindgren, Ltd., dated June 18,
1985 {p
Staff Report dated May 23, 1985
Environmental Impact Statement for Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill
Proposed Expansion
ti
Findings of Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission
Summary of Complaints Logged by Hennepin County
Background:
At the June 10, 1985, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended denial of
proponents' request for the following:
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment for approximately 313 acres;
Rezoning of approximately 14.44 acres in the Rural District to a district
created specifically to allow the establishment of a temporary landfill, or
rezoning to a district presently identified in the Zoning Code by amending
the permitted use section of such district to allow the operation of
temporary landfill; Amendment to PUP 70-1 for approximately 313 acres; and
authorization for an expansion of area to be used for sanitary landfill
purposes from approximately 107.1 acres to approximately 148.9 acres; and
Development Stage approval.
•
8FI Staff Report Two 2 June 21, 1985
One of the reasons for denial was the finding made by the Commission that the
request was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. In response to
this, WSS applied for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment over the entire 148.9
acres to be used for a landfill and requested a Zoning Code amendment for a district
to cover the same area.
No new, or revised, plans have been submitted. Other than the change in the
requested area of zoning and request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, the
physical proposal is identical to that previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission. Therefore, the Planning Commission should utilize all of the same
. information to review the current request (i.e. original submittal, Environmental
Impact Statement, hiay 23, 1985, City Staff Report).
New information which has been submitted by the proponent includes the memorandum
from the Hoisington Group, Inc., and the letter from Mr. Nowlin of Larkin, Hoffman,
Daly, and Lindgren, Ltd.
The proponents' substantiation for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment is based
upon the following assertions:
1. Any major adverse impact of the active landfill is mitigated because
measures required by other permitting agencies will assure this.
2. The landfill is not an industrial use but a transportation use,
which makes it Quasi-Public, which is compatible with the Public
Open Space land use designation.
3. The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts Public Open Space use over part
of the existing landfill; therefore, further expansion into- this
area must be compatible.
4. The use is of a low intensity, temporary, and is compatible with
surrounding uses. Although not an ideal use next to residential, it
is acceptable when compared with the affects from airports,
highways, etc. on residential areas.
5. The Comprehensive Guide Plan graphic depicts part of the expansion
area as "undesignated," indicating the City has no definite plans
for this category.
6. The Comprehensive Guide Plan is general enough in scope to permit
the interpretation that no Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment is
required.
Impacts
The overall assumption upon which the compatibility argument is based is that any
major adverse impact of the active landfill is mitigated and this is supposed to be
assured by the conditions of permits from other agencies.
The fact that the landfill is regulated has been shown time and time again that such
requl;tion does not eliminate nuisances such as wind-blown debris, dust, odor,
noise, fire, bird strikes, and erosion. (See attached logs of complaints, Staff
Report of hiay 23, 1935, and EIS.)
I I'j 3
BF' Staff Report Two 3 June 21, 1985
Public or Industrial Use
Unlike railroads, some airports, and utilities, private landfills in Minnesota have
been given no right of preemption over local land use authority and, according to
the EIS, fall within the land use regulation of the local government. The Flying
Cloud Airport, by comparison, is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, a governmental agency.
The landfill is a private, for profit, enterprise' which will operate for an
undetermined period of time. (WSS has not given a commitment to a firm closure
date.) It is not a government, or a governmental entity, as is the Metropolitan
Airports Commission. The landfill is not a Public Open Space use. •
Little attention is given in the proponents' description of the project to the
length of time, or over what period of time, the landfill is to actually to be
constructed. The original 90-acre "kettle" allowed filling of waste with little
excavation. The requested horizontal expansion will require large earth moving
equipment to excavate and remove 4,500,000 cubic yards of earth. (That is
equivalent to 40 football fields 100 feet deep.) By any measure, the construction
of the new landfill alone would be a huge earth moving project occurring over a
period of years.
The nature of both the activity necessary for daily operation of the landfill and
the scope and length of construction make this land use Industrial in nature.
Current Comprehensive Guide Plan
The current form of the Comprehensive Guide Plan graphic was prepared in 1975 and
reflected the expectation of a completed landfill. The Public Open Space
designation anticipated the closure of the landfill. The expectation was that the
Public Open Space area would not be built upon, but would be retained as an open
space corridor to the Minnesota River Valley and mould operate as a buffer from the
Industrial use that was expected to occur along Highway #169.
No graphic changes in the Comprehensive Guide Plan were made subsequent to the 1982
request for landfill expansion. Since no resolution of the landfill expansion was
reached in 1982, and has still not been reached, the City has not changed the plan
to reflect proponents' proposal.
The landfill is continually referred to as a "temporary use," however, it has been
in existence for fifteen years and some estimates as to its future life are for as
long as eighteen years more. No comnittmcnt has been made by the proponent for a
date of closure.
Land Use Comatibility_Airjrort
Eden Prairie's Flying Cloud Advisory Connnission has reviewed the proponents' request
and made recommendations, which arc attached to this report.
Bird strikes arc only recorded by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the
Federal Aviation Administration if there is an accident. Near misses and prop and
engine damage are not recorded, but have been documiented by users of the airport. .
The location of the landfill within 1,000 feet of the'airport, is not in compliance
BrI Staff Report Two 4 June 21, 1985
with Federal Aviation Administration regulations.
Land Use Compatibility--Residential
The proponent attempts to prove compatibility by assuming all.adverse impacts are to ;
be mitigated, pointing out that it would be ideal not to have disruptive outside
influences, but seemingly justifying one more because it is not a perfect world, and F'
justifying the use as acceptable, although not the best use.
.
The proponents' information indicates that, "Ideally, residential uses should be
maintained totally free from disruptive outside influences. Unfortunately, few
residential areas enjoy such sanctity." The City has the responsibility of planning
for and reviewing land use requests to promote compatibility between land uses. The
• current Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts Public Open Space use over the eastern
portion of the existing landfill. Upon closure, expected in 1980-82, the area was
expected to be revegetated, returned to Open Space, and dedicated to the public.
This Public Open Space use was then thought to be compatible with the planned and
existing Low Density Residential area further east.
There is no question that the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts land uses on
the landfill site more compatible with surrounding uses than the proposal of y
expanding the landfill. I
Comprehensive Guide Plan Graphic
The proponent continues to indicate that there is an Undesignated category of land
use in the Comprehensive Guide Plan, which, they speculate, is some type of a
"holding category" for which the City has no definite plans. The Comprehensive
Guide Plan graphic denotes a number of land uses throughout the City, with the use i
of colors and letters. Since the largest area throughout the City is Low Density
Residential it is not designated with a letter, but is represented by the color
yellow in the legend. Since every other category is represented by a color and then
designated with a letter for clarity, the Low Density Residential category in the
'legend reflects that it is undesionated because it is not represented graphically
with letters, but only with the color indicated.
The proponent indicates that the Comprehensive Guide Plan could be in error because
of its general graphic nature. The scale of the graphic cannot account for the
landfill expansion completely across the Public Open Space area and twenty acres
into the Low Density Residential area.
i
The depiction of only part of Homeward Hills Park was given as an example of the
very general nature of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Contrary to information given
by the proponent, the proponents' portion of Homeward Hills Park was not dedicated
to the City until 1984 (two years after the Comprehensive Guide Plan was formally 4
adopted).
Grading Plan
•
Statements are continually put forth indicating that noise, debris, and views of the
landfill operation will he eliminated by the construction of a landscaped berm and
cyclone fence. As pointed out in the earlier Staff Report, no grading plan has.been
submitted to shop how the landfill will be graded when finished. The-EIS points out
that the berm will not be effective when the landfill construction and operations
111r5
•
DF1 Staff Report Two 5 June 21, 1985
occur at the 923 elevation, and above. We have indications from the proponents that ;j
as much as 40-50 acres may be up at the 923 elevation. Although we have no
• confirmation from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that they would be willing
to allow proponents 40-50 acres of 2% sloped area, that amount of land at the 923
elevation with no elevations higher seems to be the best case situation in terms of
the portion of the landfill that would be that high. The EIS and all of the sight-
line studies were done with a much more shallow top cover plan that will be allowed.
Any project which the City reviews is required to submit a detailed construction p
plan which can be reviewed. The request by proponents is that the City approve
their landfill plan without a plan for how it will look when finished. Assumptions
are made about impacts upon surrounding land uses using evaluation of a grading plan
which has been abandoned.
Conclusion
The landfill is not a Public Open Space use. The landfill construction and
operation is not a low intensity use; it is a large, noisy, dusty, construction
project, which causes odor, wind-blown debris, and poor views, which have not been
proven to be totally mitigated. It has characteristics of an outdoor storage, heavy
industrial use. t
. l
Findings: a
1. The request to expand the landfill is not in conformance with the y
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
2. Proponent has applied for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment and Zoning
Code Amendment to permit a first use as a landfill and a second use as
Industrial, Sports Complex, Open Space, and Residential.
3. The landfill expansion as proposed is not compatible with surrounding land
uses.
4. Proponents have not adequately substantiated the request for first use as a i
landfill expansion and have not proven land use compatibility. The proposal
has not been shown to be more compatible, or as compatible, with surrounding
. uses as if developed according to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan.
5. The proposal creates the potential for environmental impacts on air, water,
vegetation, wildlife, and surrounding land use.
6. The proposed final cover plan is not in conformance with suggestions made in
the EIS, or PCA Draft Permit.
7. No final grading plan has been submitted which will make the proposed second
use feasible.
RECO,`•1?WNRATION
City Staff recommend denial of the request for Amu'ndinent to Chapter 11 of the
Cit.yCo o to rezone approximately 149 acres from the Rural District to a District
which permits its use for first, landfill, and second Public-Recreational/Industrial
DFI Staff Report Two 6
June 21,1985
uses, and to amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan to designate approximately 149 acres
far Public-Recreational/Industrial uses based upon the findings and conclusions of
the City Staff Report dated May 23, 1985, and the findings of this report.
•
�q��
Hoisington Group Inc.
Land Use Consultants
Land&Naturd(lemmata Analysis • Planning
Protect Management
MEMORANDUM June 14, 1985
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY CITY STAFF REPORT
DATED MAY 23, 1985 •
RE: LANDFILL COMPATIIBILITY WITH LAND USE AND GUIDE PLAN
1. Is the expansion of the Flying Cloud Landfill
compatible with the surrounding land uses?
In assessing this question, one must assume that the mitigation
measures required by the permits and plans for the Landfill
expansion will eliminate or reduce the major adverse off-site
impacts which can result from the operation of a landfill. •
• Specifically, it is assumed that plan and permit measures will 1
prevent or mitigate adverse impacts on lands beyond the i.
boundary of the Landfill from groundwater contamination,
methane migration, excessive noise, odor, dust, and litter.
This assumption is supported by the fact that statutory
authority and governmental regulatory programs exist which are
intended to monitor these major impacts and achieve compliance
with established state, federal and county standards governing
these impacts. If the Landfill were to cause impacts in
violation of standards on groundwater quality, methane
migration, air quality, noise, and other nuisance related
effects, it would be subject to appropriate enforcement action
including permanent or temporary closure by the supervising
regulatory authorities.
The expansion of the Landfill is being reviewed and permitted
in accordance with new regulatory authority and controls which
are substantially different from the; authority applicable when
the Landfill was initially permitted in 1970. Plans for the
Expansion's development and operation as well as the permits
and licenses to he issued for its operation embody numerous
provisions which will improve the facility and further reduce
the risk of adverse off-site social, environmental and economic
impacts. These improvements which include the installation of
n leachate liner and collection system, active and passive
methane control systems, additional interim and final cover
• material requirements, phased development, noise reduction
measures, screening and the establishment of n 15 foot high
berm :surrounding the Landfill are all thoroughly discussed in
the ElS and PUB documents.
The following discussion examines the compatabiltty of the
expanded Landfill on the use of surrounding lands.
111111 li.i 1111i,1110
Ue`nl9.111 h• GIN"!lii HT)
IIifr'1,11r !ill(,1:•It •
•
A description of a landfill use is necessary for purposes of
examining computability. Landfills are service facilities
which arc owned by public or private bodies and include land
areas used for the disposal of solid waste generated by the
public at—large. They accept waste from all persons and
businesses located in specific geographic areas. Solid waste `
is usually brought to the site by garbage haulers in 20 ton
trucks. Garbage haulers contract with public bodies and
private individuals and companies for the disposal of their
solid waste. A landfill normally is comprised of a small gate
building where incoming loads are checked and fees are {{
collected plus a large land area that is supervised and
operated by a small number of employed personnel. 4
Normal daily operations at the Flying Cloud Landfill include
two active fill areas or working faces, each of which is worked
by a Caterpillar D8 bulldozer and a compacter operated by two
individuals. In addition to waste filling, excavation for
cover material and disposal cells is a continuing activity at a
landfill. Normally, excavation and cover placement is handled
by the equipment operators at the two faces. On occasion, they
arc assisted by additional equipment operators. Approximately
400 vehicles per day deposit refuse at the Flying Cloud
•Landfill.
•
A landfill is classed under Division E of the Standard
Industrial Classification Manual (SIC) promulgated by the
Office of Management and Budget as a "Transportation,
Communications, Electric, Gas and Sanitary Service use." More
specifically, a landfill is classed under Group 495 as a
"Sanitary Service" which includes other public utility type
uses including sewage systems, incinerators and street refuse
systems. The Manual states that "the establishments cassified
in this division furnish services to the general public or to
other business enterprises.. ."
The majority of landfills in Minnesota as well as elsewhere are
owned and operated by public bodies. Whether or not they are
owned by public or private entities, all landfills throughout
the nation arc extensively regulated by governmental agencies
for the purpose of preventing adverse impacts on the
environment and on the public health, safety and welfare.
According to the Hennepin County Solid Waste Disposal
Ordinance, the Flying Cloud Landfill must accept solid waste
brought. to the facility by any member of the public who pays
the established fee for waste disposal.. In terms of regulatory
supervision and the provision of service to the public at
large, landfills are similar to public utilities such as water,
sewer, electric, gas and telephone distribution and service
businesses.
2
•
In terms of operating characteristics, a landfill is an {'
extensive rather than an intensive use of land and in a sense,
closely resembles an agricultural use. Normally, only four ri
pieces of equipment arc operated at. the Flying Cloud Landfill °.4.
which is some 107 acres in size. Use of the equipment occurs 1
daily, but on an intermittent basis during daylight hours. The
major equipment use associated with a landfill is disposal 1.
truck traffic.
A landfill use is also similar to gravel mining except in
reverse. A landfill imports and disposes of material while a •
gravel operation exports raw materials. Landfills, however, do
• not involve the mechanized grinding of gravel and thus are less
intensive than most gravel operations. In the intermittent use
aspect, a landfill resembles a construction site.
In summary, a landfill operation is clearly a low intensity,
outdoor, quasi-public use involving limited mechanization that
is heavily regulated and continuously monitored by the public
to minimize off-site effects.
What are the surrounding land uses and what is the potential
for impact on these uses? :i
•
The Flying Cloud Airport is located west of STU 169. While
publically owned, the Airport (SIC Transportation) is occupied
by several different use types which include private a
businesses. Other than the transportation function, the
Airport closely resembles an industrial complex, consisting of
warehouses, hangars, and other industrial buildings.
The Landfill has generally been acknowledged as a compatible
use with the Airport by MAC over the past 15 years. Bird
strikes have been reported on occasion but have been resolved.
Generally, neither use negatively impacts the other. The'
Airport does have a noise impact: over a much larger area that
includes hundreds of residences. Noise, however, does not
adversely impact the Landfill.
Lands immediately north of the landfill are owned by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission and are used to provide a
clear zone for landing aircraft . This area is frequently
cultivated and used for agricultural purposes. This correlates
approximately with Airport Safely Zone A which severely
restricts land uses that involve human occupancy. Land owned
by MAC comprises approximately 40 acres and has a north-south
dimension of 80O to I ,000 feet.
3
Lands northeast of the Landfill are currently vacant except for
n few scattered homes on County Road I . Some
quasi-agricultural use is also made of this area. Much of this
area is within Safety Zone B. While some limited development
could occur within this zone, the nearest residential
development will he a minimum of 1/4 mile from the expansion
area. Land within Zone B is also designated 1 Public in the
City's Guide Plan.
Lands south of the Landfill include the Minnesota River bluff
owned by WSS and upland and floodplain areas within the
Minnesota Valley National -Wildlife Refuge. The bluff will be
protected, maintained anti used for passive recreation and
scenic uses to insure compatibility with the Refuge.
The primary concern, vis-a-vis the Landfill's land use
compatibility, is with the existing residential development
east of the expansion area.
Two subdivisions, Hillsbcrough and Bluffs West 2nd Addition are
located approximately 1,000 to 3,000 feet from the eastern edge
of the Landfill expansion area. Both are generally located at
elevations considerably below the Landfill surface except for
part of Hillsborough on the north. Both subdivisions were
developed in the late 1970s while the Landfill was in
operation. Many of the homes were constructed under the
assumption that the Landfill use would be terminated in the
1980s. However, 23 homes have been built in these two
subdivisions since January 1983 following the announcement of
Landfill expansion plans. The notoriety of the proposal would
indicate that a majority of these people were aware that the
Landfill operation might not terminate during the 1980s as
previously expected.
The maintenance of a separation or buffer between the Landfill 1
and these residential areas is important in assessing and
insuring compatibility. WSS ownes 70 acres directly east of
the Horizontal Expansion Area. A distance of 2,000 feet
separates the eastern edge of the Expansion Area from Homeward
Hills Road. WSS has purchased the vacant lots nearest the
expansion area in Bluffs West 2nd Ad•dil.ion to insure that homes
will not he built within 1 ,000 feet of the expansion area, as
prescribed by MPCA regulations, at least until after closure of
the Landfill . This buffer area will be maintained by the
approved PUP. Part of this area is planned for residential
development after closure of the Landfill.. MAC land will also
continue to serve as a buffer along the north and northeast
sides of the Landfill.
Ideally, residential uses should he maintained totally free
from disruptive outside influences. Unfortunately, few
residential areas enjoy such sanctity. Some must he located
adjacent to commercial and industrial areas. Others are
affected by airport and highway noise, auto emissions and a
- :'.
host of other residual byproducts or our modern society.
4 •
l'flJ
While not ideal, the relationship between the Landfill and
existing residential areas is not unacceptable. In short, the
Landfill is not incompatible with the existing residential uses
east of the site, given the proposed mitigative measures and
the buffer area separating the uses. The Landfill is
physically separated from residential areas by a minimum of
1,000 feet. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) "1,
regulations used to review landfill siting since the 1970s have
recommended a 1,000 foot separation between landfills and
residential uses. The MICA guideline is based largely on
potential impacts from methane and groundwater pollution not on
nuisance potential. Here methane migration will be controlled
. and groundwater pollution is not a factor which warrants
separation since these subdivisions are served by City water
and leachate from the Expansion Area will he collected .and
disposed of off-site. The 1,000 foot buffer does, however,
mitigate potential noise, dust, odor and visual impacts from
this use.
The Landfill will not be observable from adjacent residential
areas and the proposed screening berm will reduce the volume of
noise below present levels in spite of the expansion.
• Landscaping of the berm will essentially eliminate views of the
Landfill while attenuating noise levels by approximately 8 dilA.•
Noise will be well below MPCA standards at the nearest
receptors 1,000- feet distant.
Landfill activity, including the ingress and egress of trucks,
is oriented to Hwy 169 to the west. Essentially no activity
occurs which orients to the east. Phasing of the Landfill
operation is also planned to minimize residential exposure by '
early opening and closure of the eastern part of the Expansion
Area. While there will he impacts during the construction of
the berm on the eastern boundary, these will be short and .
temporary in nature. Construction of the berm will take
approximately three to four months.
•
The landfill use is temporary and after closure it will be
turned into a park or passive open space. Either of these uses
will he beneficial to the neighborhood and the community.
Closure is likely within eight to twelve years and the park
will be developed in phases beginning even before final closure
is complete. The Homeward Hills park is already being
deve•.loped on lands formerly owned by WSS per dedication in •
1984.
In exchange for living temporarily 1 ,000 In 3,000 feet from a
• well buffered, limited intensity, Industrial or service use
with a bad image, the residents will gain a recreation and open
space facility that will provide lasting neighborhood benefits
over many years.
•
kA lam+
I
In conclusion, given the established land use pattern, the
1,000 foot plus buffer and the development of environmental, t
nuisance and operational controls, the landfill will serve as a
temporary transitional use which will be replaced by a
permanent transitional use between the airport and residential
uses upon closure.
2. Is a limited and temporary expansion of the Flying Cloud
Landfill compatible with the City's Guide Plan? -
i
The City's Guide Plan shows three general classifications for
lands within PUll 70-1 and the Amendment Area. The following is
a comparison of the uses proposed by WSS with those set forth
. in the Guide Plan:
WSS WSS
Location Guide Plan End-Use Plan Interim-Use Plan
•
West Ind Ind Ind/Vac
Center Ind/Pub Rec Landfill
East (Homeward
Hills Park) Undes Rec * Rec *
Southeast Undes Res Vac
* One-half the land for Homeward Hills Park was donated
to the City by WSS.
It is important to remember that a comprehensive guide plan is
intended to be a general depiction of overall land use
relationships and locations, not a specific delineation of land
use boundaries. The Zoning Map serves the latter function.
The Guide flan Land Use Map addresses uses in generalized blobs1.
and patterns with a considerable portion of the map colored
yellow or Undesignated.
A good example of the generalized nature of the Guide Plan is
the "P" boundary that does not appear to embrace the existing
Homeward Wills Park but instead identifies that_ park land as
"Undesignated". Since the land had already been donated for
park usage at the time of Guide Plan adoption, one should not
assume that an error was mnde or that the land was intended for
some other use. It is more likely that the general nature of
the land use designations in the Guide or Comprehensive Plan
explain what may otherwise appear to he technical
inconsistencies with actual or zoned land use. Technical
inconsistencies such as these arc common in relation to
municipal planning and zoning.
6
}
I
I
Applying the generalized land use principals in the Guide • . ;
Plan to the subject property, the amoebic depiction of "P"
Public could have a different boundary configuration and
still satisfy the land use relationships proposed in the
Guide Plan. In other words, one cannot interpret the
boundaries shown on the Plan literally. The critical
features of any land use plan are the arrangement and
relationships among the various uses. Within reason, actual
land usage could be located at variance with the general use
scheme in the Guide Plan without being contrary to the •
Plan's intent.
The City's Guide Plan land use map applies three characterizations
to lands involved in the horizontal and vertical expansion of the
Landfill . The majority of the area, approximately 130 acres,
is characterized or labeled "Industrial" and "Public." The
• Industrial characterization covers the west side of the Landfill
and the Woodlake office and garage area abutting Highway 169.
The eastern portion of the existing Landfill as well as all of ;I'
the land in the airport safety zone to the north and a portion
of the buffer area each of the Landfill is labeled Public. A
small portion (approximately 20 acres) of the land to be used
for the horizontal expansion is characterized "Undesignated."
The Landfill PUD proposal shows the use of the 150 acres
of land involved in the horizontal and vertical expansions )
of the Landfill for temporary landfill use. The application
as well as recent action by the Metropolitan Council indicates
that landfill use will be terminated by 1996. The PUD j
application also suggests the use of approximately 20 acres
within this area for active recreational purposes (City park)
by 1988-1990. The PUD application shows that after the
Landfill is terminated, approximately 25 acres of the land
i
on its western edge will be devoted to industrial use. This 1
land is within the area characterized as Industrial in 11
the Guide Plan. 40 to 50 acres will be devoted to active
recreational use (City park) and the remainder of the land
(approximately 70 to 80 acres) will be given vegetative
cover and become public or quasi-public open space use
permanently. Twe use of the active and passive recreational
open space areas would be conveyed to the City if desired.
Title to this property would not be-conveyed because of potential
long-term maintenance and liability responsibilities. Thus,
the "second uses" of the Landfill -- industrial and recreational/ i
open space -- appear consistent with the City's Guide Plan.
The narrow issue presented by the Landfill in relation to
its consistency with the City's Guide Plan is whether the
temporary landfill operation (10 years) is incompatible or
inconsistent with the Guide Plan land use map which shows
Industrial , Public and Undesignated characterizations for
parts of the subject land.
I
A discussion of what a landfill is from a land use standpoint
is provided on pages 2 and 3 of this report. In summary, it
appears that a landfill is a low intensity, outdoor, quasi-
public use with some characteristics of a nonmanufacturing
• industrial use . For the first 12 years of existence, it was
apparently regarded by the City as a quasi-public use because
it was permitted under this provision of the Ru zoning district.
If the Public characterization in the Guide Plan contemplates .
the inclusion of uses normally characterized as public, it ,
would appear that the Landfill fits this characterization.
The Guide Plan itself supports this interpretation of the
Public characterization in that all of the lands used for •
'i
airport purposes north and west of the Landfill are within
• the Public designation in the Guide Plan. The airport
clearly is not a recreational open space use. As noted
previously, the various uses of the airport property include
transportation and aircraft cleaning, servicing, storage,
terminals, engine repairing facilities and retail aircraft
sales operations. In composite, the airport use appears to be
a transportation, industrial and commercial facility which
can be classed as a public facility only by virtue of its
ownership and its use by the general public. In comparison,
the airport in terms of theac.tivities conducted on the site
is more an industrial/commercial operation than is the
Landfill . Consequently, if the airport operation is consis-
tent with the Guide Plan's Public characterization, then it
would appear that the Landfill likewise is not inconsistent
with that characterization. .
Viewed broadly, the Guide Plan together with existing land
use shows the devotion of the Flying Cloud area to two
public/quasi-public service activities located in an area
proximate to lands devoted to single-family residential
use. It would appear that compatibility between the airport
and Landfill and the single-family residential areas both
from the standpoint of the Guide Plan and in actual fact is
largely dependent upon the maintenance of a buffer area
between the two public/quasi-public uses and the residential
uses. The extent and importance of this buffer area has
been discussed above. The existence of the buffer area
•
parallels and supports the general demarcations in the Guide S
Plan. The buffer area has been created and maintained by
both private and public decisions in the past, and it would
appear that these decisions reflect and support the overall
•
approach depicted in the Guide Plan for separating nonresiden-
tial and residential uses.
From a technical standpoint, it could he argued that the
approximately 20 acres within the horizontal expansion area
which is characterized for Undesignated use in the Guide
Plan would involve a Guide Plan inconsistency. As mentioned
8.
•
•
previously, Guide Plan demarcations are not typically regarded
as finite and precise. Viewing the Guide Plan land use map
as a whole, it appears that the areas characterized as
Undesignated are in part the lands for which no specific
demarked use has been determined. Undesignated, then, could
be interpreted to be analogous to a holding zone area. The
extension of a small part of a large quasi-public use into
a portion of the Undesignated area would not appear to create
a use situation inconsistent with the Guide Plan land use
map.
The history of the Guide Plan's development and modification
in relation to the Landfill also indicates that the City
•
has regarded the Landfill use as compatible with the
Industrial and Public characterizations in the Plan for
a considerable period of time. The Landfill operation
'has been conducted since 1970 on the lands characterized
for Industrial and Public use in the Guide Plan. The
Guide Plan was apparently amended in 1976 to designate a
portion of the Landfill area as Public. This demarcation
was unchanged with the overall revision to the Guide Plan
undertaken in 1982. Given the existence of the Landfill
operation when these Guide Plan changes were developed, it
would appear that as late as 1982, Landfill use was regarded
as compatible with the Ind"ust'rial and Public demarcations
•
in the Guide Plan by the City and its staff.
•
•
u��7
9.
•
1.A1tKIN. I1(tvrMAN, DAIS & LiSlt(atEN, IND. OLRALO(5(Ew
A77O0NEYS AT LAW •
OHO Hw(.+
R.
JON D.
EUAu {£00 NORLN WESTERN FINANCIAL CLNTEN wOOEw c•Ir w ^,[,[
LYNN
7000 2ENXE5 AVENUE SOUTH OOCOT O. �'
....Los.. MI £SA31 OANtf.A !
OLOOMINOTON, :COON' N ,Hw( '.,
-' TCLCPNONE IG121 0J+'3000 OoO I. AN �.
INFER..
TELCCOPI CR NO.IG121 835.5102 0,00 Eo
LL FEDERAL PRAC.ICC PARTNERSHIP .: ,
1700 TcH£T GAN.,PLACE WEST rI
+JOLO.It LASKIN.NOEL E.FALR RR.UNL
O 120£GUIH SI(TH STREET �ryLnw EACH
SUITE 1110 It
0.0 O N MINNCA PO LIS,MINNC£OfA£9402 T
JOIN c {301 PCNNSYLVAHIA.N.W-
RoIIE TELEPHONE 1G121 JJO-6010 WASHINGTON,O.C.2000A
1CLC PHONE/E OEI)3)-1000 ALA.I c • .'.5
OAP, PICOT r(HCwMAw ....
CHARLLI'.fILOCIER7 1.~ P(TCR J. TLRL 1
OLR J. CN PETCH J.C wA H(T wILSON•
POCN
RICC14lHwHV�• a
JOHH M. CO N CA COC PHS(L ;.
...RCS u t S H Ili
CA .,
STCP
•H TNOHAS L ARLY 1,
F01.cH 1 wucow(,H PIN
cwaul O.ncic«aoTY '
•
June 18, 1985
Peterson and Council.members • I.
Mayor Gary be••
City of Eden Prairie
150 Eden Prairie Road
_den Prairie, Minnesota 55344
•
Re: Woodlake Sanitary Service Flying Cloud PUD, Zoning and
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Dear Mayor Peterson: E
The following is written in support of the Flying Cloud PUD amendment
in response to the City staff report of May 23,
1985 (thle
and,Reint part,wI.
to the
198F, (the Report.) , which was received to late for comment prior1
Planning Commission Meeting of May 28. i
i
1. 7,onincl and Comprehensive Plan Inconsis en
tt ( to
Woodlake Sanitary Service (WSS) submitted requests for a rezoning
I.
Landfill District Zoning Amendment and a Comprehensive Plan
TOM
amendment applicable to the entire area involved in the
amendment which would he expansion. In response to the
horizontal and vertical landfilSSque is the amendments despite nt i
position liken inthe Report,
•
application cons they arc request for the}continuation�ofnaneexisting application constuitutes entirely
a request 11
.
within a land area originallyoned zoned
dof
tlargdlformed ore andfrlly See letter to Planning Commission of
1aygI ly usc,l for I i ail us alternative zoning )
position in relation to
Mot. the
1735E WSS is willing to accept ti at to by
�dr the landfill ,,re1�. WSS takes a similar
(Ale Comprehensive Plan Amendment.. See the enclosed Report prepared
the lloiaingt.on Group in relation to these issues.
•
LARKIN, II01,1'N.1N. DAY (Y.: LINL)GREN, I:rD.
Mayor Gary Peterson and Councilrnembers
nc 18, 1985 fi
lam' 2 i
2. Conflict with Aircraft Operations. 4
This subject is discussed at length on pages 221 to 232 of the 1.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS indicates that: the
bird-hazard potential results from the seasonal migration of gulls
which occurs during a limited time in the spring and fall; the hazard
may exist "even if the Landfill were not present;" and the landfill
expansion plans "will probably not result in an increase in the
potential for bird strikes." The FAA has reviewed the expansion plans
and has expressed no objection to the proposal indicating that the ,,
' Landfill and airport uses can be operated in an acceptably compatible
manner as in the past.
1
3. Inconsistency with Metropolitan Council Solid Waste Policy Plan.
This issue is currently being assessed by the Metropolitan Council in
its review of the proposed sanitary landfill permit for the expansion. t
The Metropolitan Council staff report states that the approval of the l
expansion: _ ..
May necessitate modification of the development schedule prior to tu
the end of the decade. Clearly, there will be a need for the j
proposed capacity prior to the year 2000. The allocation of ;
capacity in this instance could help to stem the proliferation of
land disposal facilities in the region.
As stated in the Report, the Metropolitan Council's 1985 Solid Waste
Policy Plan is intended to stimulate the development of a
significantly revised solid waste disposal system. The Policy Plan
proposes to limit land disposal to only processed municipal waste by 'I
1990 and directs the development of waste reduction, source separation
and resource recovery programs and facilities which will handle 1005
of the area's solid waste by 1990. The Plan intends to significantly
reduce (by over 50%) the amount of waste disposed at landfills.
Legislation sanctioning this objective was passed during the 1985 #4
session of the Legislature.
Implementation of Metropolitan Council's policies, however, is i
dependent upon responsive actions taken by generators, municipalities,
counties, and other governmental and private bodies. Throughout the
development of the Policy Plan, it was recognized that the proposals, j
including those relating to landfill use and capacity, were policy $I
objectives and not regulatory requirements.
The Metropolitan Council's Plan states that under the hest case (1001,
eduction, separation, and burning implcrrented by 1990), the
>tropolitan Area will need only an additional 3,726 acre feet of
i.andfil.l airspace capacity through the year 2000. Of this amount, it
':
',Anti IN, Ilt>r•i vAN, DAr.Y & I.rxI)C I I N, I:rn. • k'
Mayor Gary Peterson and Councilmembcrs
•
me 11, 1985
rage 3
is recommended that Hennepin County develop 3,232 acre feet of
• landfill capacity by 1991. The Policy Plan also states that under the
worst case, the Metropolitan Area will need approximately 30,000 acre
feet of new landfill disposal capacity by the year 2,000 requiring the
development of more than ten new landfills.
At present, there is approximately 11,900 acre feet of landfill space
t
remaining in the Metropolitan Area. The Metropolitan Area is
exhausting airspace capacity at the rate of approximately 2,500 acre
feet per year and Hennepin County at the rate of 1,100 acre feet a
• year. Capacity currently is being used at Flying Cloud at the rate of
500 acre feet per year. Under current use rates, Flying Cloud will
use 3,000 acre feet of capacity through 1990 even if the Ramsey-
Washington County RDF Facility and the Hennepin County Resource
Recovery Facilities are completed in accordance with existing
schedules. The Anoka landfill, however, is expected to run out of
capacity by the end of this year, and Hennepin County's waste disposal
needs from 1985 to 1990, will likely exhaust the capacity at the
Woodlake, Louisville, and Freeway landfills within a relatively short
period of time. As a result, it is anticipated that Flying Cloud will
experience at least a ten percent annual increase in waste received
nd that approximately 4,000 acre feet of capacity will be used 1
through the year 1990. Flying Cloud is the only existing landfill or
new site in southern Hennepin County. The County will continue to
have need for land disposal capacity beyond 1990. Arguably, the 1,644
acre feet of capacity after 1990 will be used within a relatively
short time for the disposal of processed municipal solid waste.
4. End Use Feasibility. i
WSS has proposed the use of approximately 20 acres at the western edge
of the landfill for industrial use, approximately 40 to 50 acres
located in the western half of the existing waste deposit for ball
fields, parking, and active recreational facilities, and approximately
48 acres located adjacent to the eastern extent of the Landfill berm $
for mid-density residential use following closure and completion of
the Landfill. The Report questions the feasibility of siting uses on
a very deep waste deposit subject to settlement. The residential use
proposal is questioned on the basis of the 1,000 foot separation
suggested in the EIS for residential use incident to an active
landfill.
WSS, by its PUD amendment application, has expressed a commitment to
develop and maintain the Landfill to insure the feasibility of the •
proposed uses, Drowning-Ferris Industries, the parent company of WSS,
has previously developed active recreational facilities on closed
andfill . Industrial uses have been developed on closed landfills in
the Metropolitan Area, with the principal example being the Hopkins
y
LAtttct\, 1TovI':st.\x, D.1i.1' ` l.. Nmuti:N, I:rD.
yor Cary Peterson and Councilmernbers 'f
' ne 18, 1985 t
Page 4
1
Sanitary Landfill. Houses can and have been constructed close to
sanitary landfills.
•
The Flying Cloud kettle is a deep waste deposit. Surplus excavation
materials, however, have been and will continue to be used to
surcharge this deposit and significantly increase compaction of the
waste. Surcharging can effect a dramatic reduction of uneven i
settlement potential following landfill closure. The industrial area l
and the active recreational area have been placed specifically to take
advantage of both surcharging and waste decomposition attributable to t
the length of waste placement in particular areas of the Landfill.
Reuse is being proposed only for those areas which have been filled
for a considerable period of time, and on which surcharging has or qp;
will occur. Reuse is not proposed for the bulk of the horizontal 1
expansion area located in the eastern part of the Landfill. ,i
Recognizing the difficulties of envisioning landfill reuse, WSS took
the City's Director of Parks and Recreation on a tour of closed and 3
reused landfills in 1984. The director reported on the feasibility of
landfill reuse after the tour. This effort was thought to be more
roductive than a literature search and information submission. i
..andfill reuse raises more questions as to the ultimate feasibility of i
implementation than does development on other types of soils. On the 1
other hand, with authorization of the concept plan, numerous design
and operational measures can be incorporated to insure the feasibility •
the proposed end uses. WSS has made the representations contained in .
the concept plan in recognition of the design and operational needs
involved and the cost of preparing the waste deposit and its surface
for the uses proposed.
Concern is expressed in the report as to the aesthetic impact of `
outdoor storage in the industrial area proposed for the western •
portion of the landfill. Concerns such as these can be addressed
incident to a proposal f:or development stage approval and/or rezoning
to industrial use. The details of an industrial reuse proposal have
•
not been developed for the concept plan. Clearly, an aesthetically
acceptable industrial 1.15C can be designed. ,
The Report notes that a surface grading plan and soils and drainage
information have not been provided with the application. WSS cannot
develop this information until after plans for the Landfill cap have
boon approved by the PCA. This plan is being developed in conjunction
with the leachate liner: and collection system plans and is scheduled
•
for submission within three months following issuance of the sanitary
landfill permit. It is requested that City action on the POD
lmondmont be conditioned on the development of a grading and soils
plan acceptable to the City within six months following issuance of
the PCA permit.
lll6)-
1
• LA121C IN, llur•rMAN, D.1LY (S LiNDGiti:. LTD.
3
"lyor. Gary Peterson and Councilmemhers ;$
ne 18, 1985 '
Page 5 i-
'i
5. Environmental Impact Comments.
Silt Layer - The Report states that the existence of a silt layer 0
below the Landfill area "cannot be documented" and thus apparently
implies that the percolation and purification benefits of such a 4
layer should be disregarded. More accurately; soil borings and
well logs developed prior to and incident to the EIS establish
that a silt layer which is between 20 to 90 feet thick does exist
underneath the horizontal expansion area of the Landfill and quite ,
likely does extend underneath the existing waste deposit. Data
indicates but does not absolutely confirm the presence of the silt j
layer under the existing waste deposit primarily because the PCA )
and the Minnesota Department of Health objected to performing
borings at this location because of the danger of punching holes
in the bottom of a Landfill. An explanation of this situation is
found in the EIS and in the responsive comments to the comment
letter on the EIS received from Hennepin County's consultants.
Three figures from the EIS are appended to illustrate the
hydrogeologic setting, groundwater movement, and the number of
soil borings that have been performed to develop information for
the EIS.
i
Leachate Impact Mitigation - As noted in the report, the EIS 1
suggests three major measures which could limit the impact of
leachate on groundwater at the Landfill. The draft PCA permit for
the expansion which will govern its design and operation if the
permit is approved, requires the implementation of two of these
measures: the construction of a leachate liner and collection
system under the horizontal expansion area and the development of
a relatively impermeable two to four foot thick cap on top of the
entire horizontal and vertical expansion (e.g_._ including existing 6
waste deposit). In addition, the permit requires an elaborate
monitoring and study program to determine potential impacts, if
any, from the leachate on Grass Lake and the development of a
contingency action plan specifying remedial measures which will be I
undertaken to prevent or mitigate any such impacts if discovered.
Further, the Metropolitan Council has required the placement of
relatively impermeable cover material on all unfinished areas of
the Landfill which may remain incompleted for 12 months or more.
Household Hazardous Waste - WSS is currently working with the
Minnosol:,i Waste management
an,agement Board to develop a cooperative program
' with municipalities and residents for the collection of household
quantities of hassrdous wastes. In essence, the program would
involve separation of these wastes from the waste stream by
residents and delivery to a common collection point which could
well he the Landfill.
•
LA121:lx. 11ovi'MAN, DMA' .` l.lx LA;itEN, l:rn.
'you Gary Peterson and Councilmembers
•
`.,une 18, 1985
Page 6
Air Duality_ - Landfills do not generate or emit significant
quantities of air pollutants. They are a source of particulate
emissions such as dust. While gases are generated by the
decomposition of the waste deposit, the only Landfill gas posing a
risk is methane. The methane collection and control systems in
•
existence and proposed for the expansion (active, passive, and
monitoring) are new state-of-the-art systems designed to eliminate
potential problems due to methane migration off site. Existing
data relating to the present active and passive methane control
systems on the west and east sides of the Landfill respectively
indicate that both systems are working in an efficient manner to
eliminate off site migration of methane.
Debris - Experts employed by WSS indicate that the development of
•
the 15-foot high berm and the 15-foot high cyclone fence around
the edge of the waste deposit will significantly reduce the
potential for off-site liter migration.
•
Odor - The Landfill does generate oderous gases during the
decomposition process, but methane is oderless.
Erosion - WSS will continue to protect and maintain the Minnesota
River Bluff as suggested in the staff report.
Visual - WSS has recently transmitted a concept plan for
landscaping and screening which will provide an aesthetically
pleasing appearance and eliminate potential visual impact of the
Landfill on residential areas to the east.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide these comments. We will be in
attendance at your meetings to provide additional information as
requested.
Very truly yours, •
.ZOLAJ----' ------- .
Forrest D. "Dick" No in, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
mp
6.FDN:ADS I ♦f'/(i
•
45 N.
♦ •
fl,
Figure 19.
LOCATIONS OF MONITORING WELLS, PIEZOMETERS,
BORINGS, SPRINGS, AND SEEPS .
III III 4 II ,~) ;n
4, i; r .', ,,;�
`\0- / / •TH2� r�`,\sy<\( .1.
.` ► W8 ` ` c\
i / :� 'iW 1_—.max \\ 1
1"I •O � Cr``,j�'t^K1,.`�..aTH1 , \��\ ��aKB \v l
O / /^ {i �. \ 3e � ti\
O' ,f 0 01 ❑J K2_:,);NK7o ‘ K112�1�
W 11 �i^^^11�. J �i c r�i `�a W9`\
o / NI ,ST1 �� �TH4 1, 1n = �tkK5\�
O � 1' r � ��1�� nK9''ITHS ���
fl ( ST2a� r' Q n
TH3 /, I�`
A� I-/I )l�/�/,��K8 / aw10
a �,._� K160- 0�j�fl_J K13�
411�W2a:.`W / �G7,jr,K14 o- ._1
� ����K 19 ,--f••K 15
44SW4 1200 feet S� , 4 , „ ,
,::-.:,--\., __el -,,,,,;Z,-„,•••,p7•..:./ ;LH I I CZ,H,---1111 -\--'is.:::.
Grass _ 5. �•-__,--
Lake Pond n/ds '•"
Mlnnnaot\\�
q/o'
1 0 000 1:00 Feet
•
' Dneo Map Source: G.M.Sun,to, • K 10-Monitoring well,plozomotor,or boring
Consulting Enginoor. ♦SYt1 -Opon surface wotor soup used for sampling
;
47
m
J
O O O O
O OO v� 00
' Nq_ W m 2 ' ^ S m t ` , F^ 0
Z03 \ \
p � m mot`. \ � . � $
U \\• FLY N G, .*` � \\\
• <t W `,,` \...- \\1 r r N Cj
co
,„,.; ./1 ....,.....ca.•,....••••:‘....k . :.^,. \ \ k <, .
"a
U Y �'-\ \\\1 �I
* `? .1
0 i�
N a / 1/1/o°
d w L�,�(�r Q
xa4'
o a / $r �� � p�l �o 0.
o` n
\ m
I0 _ 49/ L
vi W 'ji'l w a
o /m f / / o
0
o, .., c O o
m o 0 0 0 o g fl Q m
3 a 0, w m c. r. '0 8S o
2
ICIAOI ooa uoow:Lwq1.1 too{ul uolta013 °
•
• 49 ,
It
I.
° ° a o ° °n o °° .
°
I a a ois m n
O a7 u
1 t F •
I • f I 0
_O F c 9
1 I K —
C r.
r
1
O 6 �r E►.. (C C C {
O fa 2
Z44
M Z O 1 1 f V' 3 W
1�.. 1 I
I 1 A
WL Q i 1 y
I.- y //' ,I , 1,, ; T ~, Q i -..:1 >Z<
Q W ,( i i , 1 I ,l, H
O /, ' I j l7
1 v V Y<. o`" ---'�r I ' .
m 1
0 s m 3 e [ t., 1 E c > I I n / I IIii W . ` r"' �\ -„ Ii I0.
\ _ ,...
\..\��\\\\\\ 1� li 1, 11 I .
Q O\ \\\\.`l\ IlmlI 11 \ 7 m m `� .1
E. va. . - ' ' o WY \\� 1 1wY) m >° .� f 1 I N o O\•. 1 OO` Q° \\ f l jtl m0a1, \\ , �► -4 / Ji*P
1 _ a Q o
GUl J\\J t I ` t +• N •�
v
7..—.p 2—PH 11 � I J I I
Vv�-�.• s. r- iIl i���i 1 1 1 ° I
r'1
v_ 3Mfl
� .--�' :1 i1 1f _ % C O• 1.0 c
rW wo , 1 iI o �, 1 f ' e O c
N m „* ^ �; rye , 1 I �o I ti a a o
�l I'
1 1 ,o I __ 1
N \� N\7 r—1•• /� l C I r 0 m
0 / I F , -----:; [I.-,I.a•~ ' 1 a ,,o r`l•
crT
j I�' III o o u°i o u n r 0m n
Imnol 1109 UOOW Onogo tool Ill u090n313
FOLLOWING IS A DRAFT OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 24, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES REGARDING THE REQUEST OF WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES, INC.
C. WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES, INC., to amend Chapter 11 of the City
Code to rezone approximatelTIT9 acres described below from the
Rural District to a District which permits its use for first,
landfill, and second, Public-Recreational and Industrial uses; and,
to amend the City Comprehensive Guide Plan to designate
approximately 149 acres described below for Public-
Recreational/Industrial Uses. Location: Southeast of Flying Cloud
Drive-In Theater. A public hearing.
Mr. Fred Hoisington, representing proponent, reviewed the status of the
previous request before the Planning Commission, explaining that proponents
• had not requested amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, nor zoning over
149 acres with their previous request. Proponents were asking that these
two matters be considered with this current request. Mr. Hoisington stated
that proponents did not feel that a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment was
necessary for the site, but were applying for the amendment per the advice
of the City.
Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents understood that one of the reasons for '
the Planning Commission recommendation for denial of their previous request ? .
was because proponents' plan was not considered in compliance with the
Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that it was proponents' opinion that
they were in compliance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan, both short-term
and long-term.
Mr. Hoisington stated that the Commission had also denied the request for
non-compliance with zoning requirements in that the landfill was no longer
considered a quasi-public use. Me stated that, at one time, prior to the 3'
amendment to the City Code, the landfill was considered a quasi-public use.
Also, the Commission had found that the zoning for the use was improper as
landfills were not a permitted use in any of the zoning districts within the
Code. Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents were of the opinion that their
application for a temporary landfill zoning district, or an amendment to an
existing district to allow a temporary landfill, would mitigate this
situation.
Mr. Hoisington noted that another finding of the Commission for their denial
of the previous request was that the landfill was incompatible with
surrounding land uses. Mr. Hoisington stated that the location of the
landfill in proximity to the surrounding land uses was not an ideal
situation, but the use, as proposed, would likely be better than the current
situation. He added that there was better compatibility with some of the
surrounding uses, than others, specifically airport to the west, the open
space to the north, and the Minnesota River Valley to the south, were more
compatible with the landfill than the residential to the east.
Regarding incompatibility with the airport, as stated in the City Staff
1/1`-74
Report, Mr. Hoisington noted that, other than bird strikes, it was
( proponents' opinion that the landfill had a great deal of compatibility with
the airport. He stated that it was proponents' opinion that both uses, in
terms of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, could be considered as public uses.
He added that proponents felt the landfill provided a good transition
between the residential developments to the east and the airport.
Regarding compliance with the Metropolitan Council's Policy Plan for Solid
Waste Management (Policy Plan), Mr. Hoisington stated that proponents felt
there was room for discussion. He noted that the Metropolitan Council had
recommended approval of the expansion of the landfill by a vote of 9-7, with j
conditions, including placing a specific closure date on the use of the
property for landfilling and the condition that any refuse in the vertical
expansion, after April, 1986, must be processed waste.
With respect to the potential for environmental impacts of the landfill, Mr.
Hoisington noted that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dealt with
these impacts and that proponents had offered supplemental information in •
that regard.
With respect to conformance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(PCA) regulations, Mr. Hoisington stated it appeared that most of the
concerns revolved around the construction of the cap of the landfill and the
second uses proposed on top of the cap, and specifically, whether the slope
should be between 5-6%. Mr. Hoisington stated that, typically, such
decisions were not made until 3-6 months after a permit would be granted by
the PCA.
Mr. Hoisington stated that another finding of the Commission was that there
was no final grading plan presented for the property, nor a plan indicating
that it was feasible to construct the end uses proposed by the proponents.
He stated that he had been authorized to proceed with a grading plan to show
this. As to an end use of the property, Mr. Hoisington stated that
proponents would comply with any end use the City wished to have.
As to future decisions to be made on the proposed landfill expansion, Mr.
Hoisington noted that the City Council would be reviewing the request on
July 2, 1985, and that proponents had extended the time period to July 16,
1985, if the City Council determined that one additional meeting was
necessary. Proponents would be taking the conceptual grading plan to the
City Council at that time, perhaps with additional narrative regarding the
project, as well. Tentatively, the PCA would be making a recommendation
regarding the proposed expansion at a meeting to be held on July 23, 1985
and Hennepin County would he acting on the proposal on July 25, 1985.
•
Mr. Rick Rosow, City Attorney's office, stated that since the last time the
Planning Commission had met on the proponents' request, the Metropolitan •
Council had met and recommended approval of the plan. It was required that
• they review the proposal for compliance with their Policy Plan. Mr. Rosow
stated that the Staff Report by the Metropolitan Council Staff and the
public testimony given recognized that the Policy Plan would have to be
amended to make the proponents' proposal be in compliance. This, in fact,
was done with their vote on the issue. He pointed out that even though the
Policy Plan had been amended to fit with the proponents' proposal, the
•
I�►I,GI)
Planning Commission could consider the matter based upon the original Policy
Plan, which was in effect at the time of the submission of the proponents'
request.
Planner Enger stated that the Commission could also still rely upon the
information from the EIS and the May 23, 1985, Staff Report, for review of
this item, along with the new submissions of the proponent. He stated that
Staff did not feel that the EIS assured mitigation of potential problems 1
from the landfill, and referred to the charting of complaints received over f
the years. He added that any mitigation from the berm would likely be lost
because the landfill would be rising vertically above grade, and become
closer and closer to the residents of the area.
Planner Enger noted that the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission had
recommended denial of the proposed expansion due to the use's
incompatibility with the airport, citing bird problems, including
collisions, many of which did not necessarily result in accidents, but did
• result in substantial damage to aircraft.
Planner Enger stated that, in proponents' information, the supposition had
been made that the landfill not be considered an industrial use, but be •
considered a transportation use, like the airport. He stated that
proponents indicated the landfill could be considered a low intensity,
temporary use. Planner Enger stated that City Staff disagreed with this
position, and that the use would be more like an on-going construction 1
project for its entire life.
Planner Enger stated that the City was asking no more of this proponent than
of any other proponent--basically the City wanted the proponents to provide
detailed information about what was being proposed and what it would look
like. Proponents, however, had not presented the City with a plan
indicating these things in sufficient detail to be evaluated. For example,
the City had not yet received a grading plan for the site from proponents.
He noted that the plan proposed and considered by the EIS did not meet the
PCA requirements, therefore, the City was reluctant to consider that plan at
all. Furthermore, the plan considered by the EIS represented a 2% slope for
the dome, or cap of the landfill. The PCA required a 6% slope. Planner
Enger stated that, based upon conversations related to the City Staff which
proponents had had with the PCA, the PCA would be willing to accept 40-50
acres at a 2% slope. He stated that this may be the reason a "flat" area of
the dome was proposed by proponents, upon which to locate the proposed ball
fields of the second use. Planner Enger noted that this was pure
speculation by City Staff since final plans had not been submitted for the
City's review.
Planner Enger stated that no sight lines had been presented by proponents
indicating the elevations of the proposed 15 ft. high berm, nor had
information been presented indicating how the berm would serve to attenuate
noise, litter, dust, or visual impacts upon the residential areas to the
east.
Planner Enger noted that the EIS pointed out that the operation of the
landfill would be visible from the Hillsboro area from the 923 elevation.
He stated that, if the "conversational plan," the one which proponents had
been saying would take place, included 40-50 acres at that 923 elevation,
Staff would be concerned that neither the City, nor the Metropolitan Council
had had opportunity to review it and evaluate its impacts upon this
neighborhood.
In summary, Planner Enger stated that the City was being asked to approve a
plan without being shown what it would look like until after all approvals
had been granted in about 120 days. He pointed out that he did not feel it
would be prudent for the City to make a decision based upon inadequate
information.
Marhula whether grading plans had been prepared for the site. Mr.
Hoisington stated that they were in process. He stated that proponents were
hoping to be able to show conceptually how the end use could be accommodated
on the site and present this at the July 2, 1985, City Council meeting.
Marhula stated that, from the beginning of this process, one of the problems
had been that no one had been able to present any type of "picture" or
rendering by plans of exactly what had taken place to date in the kettle
area, nor what was proposed to happen in the future to this property. He
asked if a grading plan could be drafted indicating cross sections of the
progress of the landfill and indicating the future intended elevations of
the property, as well as the intended uses. Marhula suggested that such a
grading plan could perhaps indicate the excavation limits and the fill
limits, as well as the location and proposed elevation of the berm, the
original elevation of the kettle, and the proposed ultimate elevations and
slopes for the property.
Mr. Hoisington responded that the proponents had originally considered
construction of a model which would provide much of that type of
information; however construction of such a model proved to be difficult.
He stated that he would discuss this with other members of the consulting
groups for the proponents to see if they could better illustrate the
situation.
Marhula asked if proponents were able to establish the limits of its
excavation and fill, if records of this had been kept over the years. Mr. 1
Hoisington responded that topography for the site was obtained each year.
Marhula asked if there were yearly records •of the amount of land which was
backfilled, or if there was any way to draw a line showing where the
excavation ended and backfill started. Mr. Hoisington stated that he would
review the files available on this with the proponents.
Gartner stated that she felt it was significant that the Federal Aviation
Administration had regulations stating that no landfill should be allowed
within a certain distance of an airport, yet this landfill was within close
proximity to the airport. She stated that she did not feel such regulations
as these should be changed to fit this particular situation.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City
Council denial of the request of Woodlake Sanitary Services, Inc. for
amendment of Chapter 11 of the City Code to rezone approximately 149 acres
from the Rural District to a District which permits its use for first,
landfill, and second, Public-Recreational and Industrial uses and for
amendment to the City Comprehensive Guide Plan to designate approximately
c149 acres onclusionsoofptheiStaffrReportsiofnMaytrial 23, andeJunea sed on the findings and
21, 1985
Motion carried--7-0-0
•
•
•
141,<6 tU
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 85-160 •
RESOLUTIDN ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 4th day of June, 1985,
fixed the 2nd day of July, 1985, as the date for a public hearing on the
following proposed improvements:
I.C. 52-010A, Technology Drive Road Improvements east from Wallace
Road.
•
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the Council hearing through two weekly
publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held on the
2nd day of July, 1985, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an
opportunity to be heard thereon.
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
1. Such improvement 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, Inc., consulting engineers. •
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 2, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
1(1.1) i
, :,.
•
TA/ rr
.j.i l l i!t rot}t enoF .,,,,, • • :, .:
I
ACHINE- 8,ENGINEERING CORP. % .-' I f i�`r r� •
IL,nimr,ROfSYG'.a�-- 10.F' 0 l'.OX 70010!hP1S,M1'9.55— -Of110 'e's— "=��J
June 21, 1985
•
Ms. Kathy Hermann
Deputy City Clerk
City of Eden Prairie
- 8950 Eden Prairie Road
•
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Notice of Hearing on Proposed Public Works Improvements-"- ' _!"`' c\^
i. C. 52-010A
Property Identification No. 16-116-22 24 0009 '
Lot 2, Block 2, Eden Prairie Industrial Center
8021 Wallace Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Dear Ms. Hermann:
ce to te upcoming
I have received
your ice with the purposeeofnextending TechnologyeDrive.eting to be
held on July 2,, 1985 for
It is quite apparent that you are seeking to condemn 35 feet of my property.
I want you to know that in my opinion the value of the tract of land is worth
One Million Dollars. that would remain of that parcel of land has little
value to me or my corporation. Therefore, I would expect to receive the
value stated here if my property is taken by condemnation.
Yours very truly,
METRO/MMAAC11TNE b ENGINEERING CORP.
11. E. 1 ESKOV
Presid'cnt and Chairman of the Board
BEB/pj
cc: Eugene A. Dietz, P.E.
Director of Public Works .
City of Eden Prairie
1`H O
""S1 KENSINGTON INVESTMENTS, INC.
LI[1 lJ U 405 SOUTH EITH STNEET • MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55404
(612)341.3700
June 25, 1985
•
Kathy Herman
Deputy City Clerk, Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Blvd.
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
RE: Assessment for I.C. 52-010A Construction of
Technology Drive from Wallace Road to 2200 feet east
Dear Ms. Herman,
We are the owners of the property at 8000 Wallace
Road (P1D 1/16-116-22 24 0014) legally described as Lots
4 & 5, Block 1, Eden Prairie Industrial Center, and we
are opposed strongly to the proposed assessment of
$17,923.62 against our property for the construction
of the above mentioned road.
We cannot logically understand how it can be
construed that we benefit, when we already have a
road and all utilities that we are already paying for.
Further, you state that there can be acquisition costs
in addition that would be assessed against us so that
the actual cost is not yet even known.
We will, hopefully, be at the July 2 meeting,
but if we are unable to attend, please pass our
objections on the Council.
Very truly yours,
Neil A. Brastad
NAB/cns
•
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: June 26, 1985
RE: Housing Revenue Bonds - Parkway Apartments $17,000,000 -
Resolution 85-164
The project located at Chestnut Drive and Anderson Lakes Parkway
consists of 375 units and had a first reading of a zoning ordinance
on June 4-th4t The owners equity is approximately $2,500,000; the •
bond sale would be a private offering. Resolution 85-164 is
included for your consideration.
r
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
•
Application for
Industrial Development or Housing Bond Financing
1. APPLICANT:
A. Business Name: Parkway Apartments Limited Partnership
B. Business Address: 6005 Wayzata Blvd.
Minneapolis, MN 55416
•
C. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietor-
ship, etc.) : Limited Partnership
D. State of incorporation or organization:
Minnesota •
E. Authorized Representative: Sidney Bader
•
F. Phone: 544-5228
2. NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR. STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS:
A. Sidney Bader, 3531 Oakton Dr. #3010, Mtka, MN 55343
B. Zollie Baratz, 3531 Oakton Dr. #3002, Mtka, MN 55343
C.
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL
PRODUCTS, ETC.:
' Apartment Rentals
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
A. Location and intended use:
Chestnut Drive and Anderson Lakes Parkway to be used as a
375 unit rental apartment complex, consisting of five
buildings with 75 units each.
B. Present ownership of project site:
Galaxy Developers, Inc.
C. Names and address of architect, engineer, and general
contractor: James M. Cooperman & Associates,
Shelard Tower, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 ,
Bar-ett Construction Co.
1
5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FOR:
$ 500,000 1
Land Construction contracts 14, 975,000 $
Equipment acquisition and installation* 1,800,000
Architectural and Engineering 150,000
Legal 75,000
Interest during construction 1,300,000
Bond reserve
Contingencies 400,00010,000
Loan fees 150,000
Other
TOTAL $19,500,000
*Heating and air conditioning should be included as building
costs. Indicate the kind of equipment to be acquired here.
6. APPLICANT'S EQUITY IN PROJECT $ 2, 500,000
Heating & AC 750,000
Elevators 200,000
Security 125,000
Emergency Lighting 25,000
Appliances - G.E. 550,000
Washers & Dryers 35,000
Furniture 135,000
1,800,000
RRH Li
7. BOND ISSUE:
•
•
A. Amount of proposed bond issue: $17,000,000
B. Proposed date of sale of bond: August 1, 1985
C. Length of bond issue and proposed maturities: 15 years
D. Proposed original purchaser of bonds:
First Minneapolis
E. Name and address of trustee:
First Trust Co. of St. Paul
332 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
F. Copy of any agreement between Applicant and original
purchaser:
None
•
G. Describe any interim financing sought or available:
None
•
H. Describe nature and amount of any permanent financing
in addition to bond financing:
•
None
8. BUSINESS PROFILE:
A. Are you located in the City of Eden Prairie? Sidney Bader
and Zollie Baratz each are 10% partners/owners of the 174
unit apartment complex called Edenvale Apartments. Sidney Bader
and Zollie Baratz are 75% owners in 70 units called Eden Glen Apts.
B. Number of employees in Eden Prairie?
10 employees at Edenvale Apartments
1. Before this project:
Page -4-
•
• 2. After this project? 15 more employees at new complex:
C. Approximate annual sales: $2,760,000
D. Length of time in business Sidney Bader - 20 years
Zollie Baratz - 30 years.
in Eden Prairie 3 years
E. Do you have facilities in other locations? If so, where?
Sidney Bader and Zollie Baratz are partners/Managers •
of 400D+ units all over the Twin Cities.
F. Are you engaged in international trade? '
• No
9. OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(S) :
A. (Reference to "Applicant" includes applicant as owner,
substantial user or as a related person within meaning
of Section 103(b) (6) of I.R.C.) . List the name(s) and
location(s) of other industrial development project(s)
in which the Applicant is the owner or a "substantial
user" of the facilities or a "related person".
Parkway Associates Limited Partnership has no other projects.
Sidney Bader and Zollie Baratz are each owners/partners in:
Edenvale Apartments, 174 units, Eden Prairie, MN - 10% partners
each; Aspenwoods of Eagan, 162 units, Eagan, MN - 8% partners
each; Park Hill Apartments, 70 units, St. Louis Park, MN -
25% partners each; Eden Glen Apartments, 70 units, Eden
Prairie, MN - 25% partners each.
•
•
ILL?t; •
B. List all cities in which the Applicant has requested
industrial revenue development financing.
•
•
None
C. Detail the status of any request the Applicant has
before any other city for industrial development
revenue financing.
•
•
None
•
•
•
D. List any city in which the Applicant has been refused
• industrial development revenue financing.
• None
E. List any city (and the project name) where the Applicant
has acquired preliminary approval to proceed but in which
final approval authorizing the financing has been denied.
None
rage -o-
F. If Applicant has been denied industrial development
revenue financing in any other city as identified in •
(D) or (E) , specify the reason(s) for the denial and
the name(s) of appropriate city officials who have
knowledge of the transaction.
None
•
10. NAMES, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE:
A. Underwriter (if public offering)
•
•
1. Name: Juran & Moody, Inc. •
•
•
2. Address: 400 N. Robert, Suite 800, St. Paul, MN 55101
• 3. Telephone Number: 224-1500
B. Private Placement Purchaser (if private placement)
1. Name: First Minneapolis
2. Address: 120 S. 6th St.
3. Telephone Number: 370-5304
Page -7-
NOTE: If lender will not commit until City
has passed its preliminary resolution •
approving the project, submit a letter
from proposed lender that it has an
interest in the offering subject to
appropriate City approval and approval
of the proper state agency.
First Minneapolis . MHFA
C. Bond Counsel:
1. Name: Holmes & Graven
• 2. Address: Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, MN
3. Telephone Number: 338-1177
•
•
D. Corporate Counsel:
1. Name: Meshbesher., Singer & Spence, Ltd.
2. Address: 1616 Park Avenue •
3. Telephone Number: 339-9121
E. Accountant:
1. Name: David Lurie; Lurie, Eiger, Besikof & Co.
2. Address: 621 N. Lilac Dr.
3. Telephone Number: 541-9103 •
•
•
• Page -8-
11. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
A. Construction start: 8/1/85
•
B. Construction completion: 8/1/87
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ronald "Kelner 544-5228
Scott Bader 544-5228 .
The undersigned Applicant understands that the approval or disapproval
by the City of Eden Prairie for Industrial Development or Housing bond
financing does not expressly or itnpliedly constitute any approval,
variance, or waiver of any provision or requirement relating to any
zoning, building, or other rule or ordinance of the City of Eden
Prairie, or any other law applicable to the property included in this
project.
Parkway Apartments Limited Partnership
Applicant
BY:
Sidney Ba , Partner
DATE:
• x:
•
•
•
1C oO
Page -9-
12. ZONING - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
A. Property
vi�s zoned:
1 r I 4-"IA 2.= a.ftinovJ.JcQ, b//8/t S
B. Present zoning (is) (is not) correct for the intended
use.
C. zoning application received on
for which is correct for the
intended use.
D. Variances required.
•
City Planner
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
RESOLUTION NO. C-/(, `�
ADOPTING A HOUSING BOND PROGRAM FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF 1MULTIFAMlLY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS •
AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF SAME TO THE
MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY. 1'.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Housing Act, Minnesota •
Statutes, Chapter 4ti2C (the "Act"), the City of Eden Prairie (the "City") is
authorized to adopt a housing plan and carry out programs for the financing of x,
multifamily housing which is affordable to persons of low and moderate income;
and
WHEREAS, the Act requires adoption of the housing plan after a public
hearing held thereon after publication of notice in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City at least thirty days in advance of the hearing;and
WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing on the City's Housing Plan (the
"Plan") after at least thirty(30) day' published notice on February 2, 1982, and by
the passage of Resolution No.82-27(the "Plan Resolution")adopted the Plan;and
WHEREAS, in accordance with its requirements, the Plan provides for
programs for the issuance of bonds to finance multifamily housing development
which are affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income and are
consistent with the goals,conditions and requirements of the Plan;and
WHEREAS, the Act requires adoption of a program after a public hearing
held thereon after publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation In the
City at least fifteen days in advance of the hearing;and
WIIEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie (the"City") has on this date conducted
a public hearing on a housing bond program (tile "Program"), after publication of
notice as required by the Act;and
WHEREAS, the Program provides for the issuance of up to $17,000,000 of
the City's multifamily housing revenue bonds to finance the acquisition of land and
construction of an approximately 350-unit rental housing development to be
located at the intersection of Chestnut Drive and.Anderson Lake Parkway in the
City and owned and operated by Parkway Apartments Limited Partnership (the
"Developer");and
WHEREAS, the Act further requires submission of the Program to the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency(the "MUIFA") for its approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, 13E IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Eden Prairie:
1. That the Program for the issuance of up to $17,000,000 of the City's
multifamily housing revenue bonds is hereby in all respects adopted.
-1-
•
2. That the City \tanager is hereby authorized to submit the Program to
( the 61HFA, and to do all other things and take all other actions as may be
necessary or appropriate to carry out the Program in accordance with the Act and
any other applicable laws and regulations.
3. The Developer has agreed to pay directly or through the City any and
all costs incurred by the City in connection with the project whether or not the
project is approved by the MHFA; whether or not the project. is carried to
completion;and whether or not the bonds or operative instruments are executed.
4. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a
firm commitment that the City will issue the bond as requested by the Developer.
The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and
accordingly not issue the bonds, or to issue the bonds in an amount less than
$17,000,000, should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine
that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the bond or should the parties
to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of
any of the documents required for the transaction.
5. All commitments of the City expressed herein are subject to the
condition that by December 31, 1985 the City and the Developer shall have agreed
to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the bonds and
of the other instruments and proceedings relating to the bonds and their issuance
and sale. If the events set forth herein do not take place within the time set forth
above,or any extension thereof, and the bonds are not sold within such time, this
Resolution shall expire and be of no further effect.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
•
•
•
-2-
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-156
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE GARDEN,
FOR HAKON AND KAREN TORJESEN
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council.as follows:
That the preliminary plat of The Garden, for Hakon and Karen Toriesen, dated April
10, 1985, consisting of 10.16 acres into 25 single family lots, 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 2nd day of July, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
• ATTEST:
John 0. Franc, Clerk
•
•
•
J).)`{
• F
4.
DAMN & KARENJ 'J'OIIJESEJJ
6(r05 Rowland Bead
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 .
612/944-24404
May 10, 1985
Members of the City Council,
Manning Cm mission and Staff
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie MN 55344 :1
Ladles and Gentlemen:
We are writing regarding our zoning and preliminary plat
proposal for The Carden, in response to your request at the April 1
22 Planning Commission meeting, that there be some further study
of suggestions made at that meeting and in the April 19 Staff
Report. We are in full agreement with the principal findings of
the staff report, and accept its recommendations.
•
Building Pads The attached sketch revises the site plan and
grading pl e to, show building pads on most lots. -,Thee--p1-en=
rep re:= - i.o-e-worst.-ras seem is in-the<event=-development, does-
7 =c,--r t+ .a t rrzr:..f<or;a a ti-s. Most of the lots will be rear walk
out or standard lots. Lots 6 and 7 will have rear walk outs half
a level above the garages. Most of the fill for lots 6, 7 and 8
is in an area of young poplar and box elder, and the few oaks
lost are under 321e in diameter. On lots 15 and 16, the fill is
in an r. _^n of young elm, ending ,lust; before the massive oaks on
the rear lot line. i,ots Yr and 1t rs.•.ain custom lots, with
neural house locations that would preserve all but one or two of
the heautifn] oaks near the peak of the hill. Lots 19 and 20
have building pods that stop just short of the large oaks between
the 930 and '510 contour lines. •
Drninose The natural drainage for this site is north into
the +•le. t Iaiici r(ors on the 2 Id In and ilrrr ir. prop,t•t icc, through a 4
cuiv; i on Old 2d1ajy Oak Egad, into the wetlands on the Kinion
property, then south into the tiled leelanda on the Green i
pro*i.tles. The tile runZs between the Green houses, under Old
ShSari: Oat; Road, into a ditch in T •yant Lake Park that follows a
well define.? route into Lake Prvant.. historically, this system
Ira:; been ndequ.lte for a large drainage area north of the ]alce
that. Includes the Carmel :subdivision. The system is currently
h( lr ,ii ;r: r:-;- 1 by in:u+crrn rte nil c re o" ition over the rower to
C r hy t t Ir of the peat nest tne 1e wlandn heir f'lled for
.Th;ei r,_r;. r;i<u•r , and l.y a 1enoor.rry eel.ae'•t. under the .Shady (Ink
Iitr aendin;' eln'r::Lien whichr.ti:. two t'�•r•t. hltt ter than the
e,
rnI er•i. niter Old :;hardy (rak lioad. This has larded up t.hc. w.rt.cr
• I tr. el:'• iat:t. ;1:0 I ':',hint 5 Lu ::how d: m:rge to
vc(a'I:rl ion ;Ilene the• rdre of the wetland. i re::umably the city
/""I)
can take p •oupt. action to solve these problems. They do not bear
on tie lona term adequacy of,the •ateerr. At some later date, 1f
de•velo;e c•et, occurs en the Pinion and Green parcels, the system '$'
could be upgraded with storm sewer at minimal depths. We were
asked to look at the poasibiIity of' reversing thin drainage
pattern by designing The Garden's storm sewer system so that the
area could drain southward, under Howland Hood, into Bryant Lake
Park. 'the lowest elevations for ouch a routing seems to be in
the area of lots :11 and tt and the western portion of the Ruzic
parcel. it would involve depths of 20-30 feet for a distance
over 300 feet and a deep culvert under Rowland Head. It does not
appear to be a natural way to drain The Garden and surrounding
ar•eac. However, we will cooperate with the City if their study 4
shows that such a routing is appropriate to larger drainage
needs. ;4
Density The Garden is proposed at a density of 2.26 unite
•
per acre. The density comparabl.es in the area are the adjoining
Shady Cak Ridge with low density clusters at 2.9 units per acre
and the nearby Carmel single family area at 1.49 units per acre.
To achieve their densities Carmel has cuts into hills as deep at
40 feet, and Shady Oak Ridge cuts up to 20 feet off its ridge and
fills it into the wetland. In The Garden, the deepest cuts and
fills are about 16 feet in the revised grading plan, and the y,
grading is accomplished without infringing on major oaks. The
Garden's density is well within the ordinance limits, and appears
also to be well within the capacity of the site.
Farber Alternative In the three weeks since the last
Planning Commission meeting, we have had several conversations
with the Farbers that have cleared the air considerably.
However, we have not been able to get any specific details on a
possible alternate plan or to evaluate :its feasibility. We have
pro, l r the Farbers that if their thoughts on a plan can be
shown to be feasible, we will be open to considering it:. The
Farbels phoned last evening to say that Frank Cardarell was now
working on a proposal, and that it would be ready by Monday. We
wi].l try to work with them on these plans over the weekend.
Until we see romet.,"hing better, however, we heleive that the
development of the ton of' this hill., as proposed in The Garden,
is justified for several reasons. First, this area is the most
•
beautiful and demirahle location for homes on the entire site.
Pecond, it, can he sensitively developed without serious impact on
•
the trees or topography. Third, the two proposed houses facing
the Paeberr. (lots 18 and Id) appear to he further away from their
home than the house:: in Carmel located north and trust of their
home, which the Farber!: did not oppose, and from which they
derived ecc,r,eulc: benefit from colllug the land north of their •
horse to Carriel. Fourth, we behove there are stripier ways to
prot.rc, tare P.w er.;' view t.ic rt to redo:tit'n a r.ubd'Lvinton. For
e s.atit%l e we ;roil 1,i la, willing to ::el] their .lots. 18 and 19 or to
give alum the rlr.lht. of first rc tal:all to pnahi e them after
h, t;r• ('Y:tt.inure to tel teve that, the least
dlarta l iv•• . rc�e':s: t-o the teaa lying pr•otte rt.ie:, north of the
•
Garden 1:• from the Keith. However,' we have provided a sewer
I', -1,^
•
ea:anent into the Bodin property, and would consider a road
easment as well if this would be feasible and helpful.
Pond The pond in our lawn is man-made and often dry. It is
an iniTfin1eficant tip at the end of a very large swamp and water
area to the north. We have change the boudaries of our pond from
time to time as we have tried to keep it dug out. We do not
believe the pond needs to be an issue in this development. We
can comply with any reasonable city wish on the final
configuration of thepond.
Thank you for your timely attention to these matters.
Re pectfully,
•
6-ittect,
'
•Hakon Torjesen
•
r
STAFF REPORT •
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning -
DATE: April 19, 1985 1
PROJECT: The Garden 1
LOCATION: North of Rowland Road, west of Old Shady Oak Road
i
APPLICANT: Hakon and Karen Torjesen
FEE OWNER: Hakon and Karen Torjesen, and Crystal Greguson ,
REQUEST: Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.16 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 10.16 acres into 23 single family lots.
i i I 4-ter -• t- +` - 1
Background "T jl ���
P ii `
This Staff Report is based on -11 �,-
revised plans, dated April 18, 1985.
fl i The proponent has reduced the number \ PROPOSED SiTE ff E
l , 1 I
of proposed lots from 'L5 to 23, and �) �_ y
the length of cul-de-sacs, in an J i w�,Fnre,I_r y
effort to disturb less vegetation, E , 1
and to lessen slope modification, V _� caMM c omi RuuL 1.
caused by house pad locations. \`_ _ I 1,,j i,
The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts ',..,-..: ' \ \ N,� l'. � I I ,T. . ,1
Low Density Residential land use for 11 ` tt
this site for up to 2.5 units per ll(� r...• `"' ,\'''',..
.�.,
P a 1. i
The site is currently zoned ` --:.�?\,, t vs,, .r'-\\
acre. ,.. � �
Rural. Surrounding land uses con- ?�-_ ';, 1 1
silt of future Low Density Res- ./� `-_: +y a': ��a•
identi al to the north, west, and 1r - ,�---- 4--- t,, - L rl
south, with Shady Oak Ridge (RM-6.5) ; ;, '
_! `�� ( ,.�,z; ,, ,l
to the east, and Bryant Lake _ —i ( _�.
Regional Park to the southwest. The FP 1'. ii
j �j i'��, r
Carmel subdivision (R1-13.5) is J % (Ifr � 1fr4` ., r; Rrn;, -
approximately 150 feet further to 1, % -
the northwest. ,- j, :_A'
There is a variety of graE
.
on the site, with \ j v.✓ / i `, �,......
/ . . ( j
feet the to approximately 65 j.` ns` (4e ' '.a_-__--J_i _.. 1 : ��\ 1
feet above the low wetland area to .1„,_ 1
•
`j AREA LOCA T Cal MAP t
f3DZ -
The Garden
2 • April 19, 1985 fy,
the north. Vegetation consists primarily of numerous oak and elm along the steep °'
slopes, with boxelder, spruce, and pine varieties along Rowland Road. A small pond ;
exists in the lowland area, and is not subject to shoreland criteria.
Site Plan
Twenty-three, R1-13.5 lots are proposed on 10.16 acres, with a density of 2.26 units `f.
per acre. Lots vary in size from 13,500 square feet to 28,800 square feet, with an
average lot size of 16,350 square feet. The average lot frontage is 84 feet.
The proponent's intentions are to retain the existing houses on Lots 12 and 22.
Since these homes were not in conformance with the Code with regard to setbacks at
the time of the ordinance adoption, they are non-conforming uses. Any remodeling, '.
addition, or reconstruction of the structures would not be allowed unless a variance
to the Code could be obtained.
A tree inventory has been submitted with the proposal, indicating the extent of
vegetative cover, with individual locations of those trees twelve caliper inches, or
larger. 1.
Grading and Drainage • #.
Site grading is to consist of road cuts and slope modifications at the cul-de-sac 1
ends, with a cut of approximately ten feet for the cul-de-sac, and approximately
eight feet of fill for house pads along the eastern side of this cul-de-sac. The 1
east cul-de-sac grading consists primarily of filling of the lowland area and a 1
portion of the pond for house pad locations. a.
The site grading does not take into account typical house pad locations for Lots 7
and 8, or for Lots 16 through 19. The proponent has indicated the need for site
specific house styles for these lots. Since there will be no architectural controls
for the subdivision, it will not be possible to assure specific house types on each
A.
lot. Furthermore, the proponent has indicated that the development will consist of
upper income housing in the range of $200,000. Housing styles in this bracket tend
to be more elahorate and require larger building area than the typical R1-13.5 lot
can provide. With building line widths of only 65 feet along the cul-de-sac ends,
house construction could be directed further back into the sloped area to
accommodate these larger homes. •
Staff feels that this could lead to excessive' tree loss and additional slope
modification, particularly for those lots along the cul-de-sac ends. Staff would
recommend the following alternatives:
1. Provide additional grading information for house pad locations within the
critical lots for proper evaluation of potential tree loss and slope
modification; and/or,
2. Remove two additional lots to provide larger lot widths in an effort to
establish more building area for the anticipated types of housing.
The majority of storm water run-off will sheet drain overland toward the lowland
marsh area located at t.hr north end of the site. The western portion will drain
west onto neighhorinq pr.aperty and Rowland Road. Catch basins are proposed along
•
the cul-de-sacs to provide additional storm water flow, via storm sewer, to a
/'0')
i
The Garden 3 • April 19, 1985
i. discharge point near the lowland marsh area. Currently, there is no outlet for this
lowland area. rt
Utilities if
Sanitary sewer and water services for the site are to connect to the proposed Shady
Oak Ridge system located to the northeast. Services are not available to the site
at this time. The developer to the northeast proposes extension of the utilities
under a future project with no schedule for installation proposed. Development
timing will be dependent on when utility connection is available, and must be
coordinated between the proponent and Shady Oak Ridge.
The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed sanitary sewer and water system, and
recommends the following: (See Attachment A)
1. Extend the sanitary sewer to the south and west property line.
2. Extend the watermain to west property line.
3. The City's Water System Comprehensive Plan indicates a 12-inch watermain to
be installed along Rowland Road. A possible alternative to this location
- would be to extend the main through the proposed site and connect to the
Shady Oak Ridge system. This would eliminate the essentially parallel six-
inch line currently proposed for the site.
The Fire Marshall has also reviewed the proposed water system and has recommended
•
that the watermain be increased to an 8-inch pipe along the west cul-de-sac for fire 1
protection purposes. (See Attachment A)
Access
Staff has reviewed access to the site, with regard to sight vision distance along
Rowland Road. Based on a 30 miles per hour design speed, sight vision distance to
the northwest is more than adequate. However, sight vision distance to the !€
southeast is less than 250 feet. This distance is not adequate for safe traffic
movement and additional sight vision distance should be required. The proponent has
indicated that locating the access at the peak elevation of Rowland Road (between
Lots 1 and 2) would require additional tree lost and grading work. A connection
between Lots 2 and 3 would permit a shorter cul-de-sac, but would have created grade
problems for access to the existing house. The proposed location takes into account
the more level terrain and a natural tree break. Staff feels this access would be
acceptable if road corrections are made along Rowland Road to establish proper sight
vision distance.
Lot 23 will require access to Rowland Road also, but will be in excess of 170 feet
from the proposed access, and will not be affected by sight vision problems.
STAFF RECO"FL NDATI0NS •
Staff would rec:omnend approval of the request of rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for
10.16 acres and preliminary plat of 10.16 acres, and subject to the following:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
l') i U) -
The Garden • 4 April 19, 1985
A. Provide additional grading information with regard to house pad •
locations for Lots 7 and 8, and Lots 16 through 19, for proper
evaluation of potential tree loss and slope modification; and/or,
remove two additional lots to provide larger lot widths for expected
housing types.
B. Meet with City Engineer to determine location of 12-inch watermain.
C. Revise sanitary service to include extention to south and west
property line, revise water service to include extention to west
property line. (See Attachment A)
D. Revise storm water drainage plan to include an outlet across Rowland
Road to Bryant Lake Park. •
E. Revise water service to increase watermain to eight inches along the
west cul-de-sac. (See Attachment A)
F. Submit plans indicating the construction limits for grading,
proposed location of snow fencing for preservation of existing
vegetation.
•
' 2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall: .
A. Provide detailed drainage and erosion control plans for review by
the Watershed District and City Engineer, and provide detailed
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, and street plans for Engineering
Department for review. -
B. Provide detailed plans to the City Engineer for sight line
improvements to be made along Rowland Road.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading or tree removal.
r5 •
E
� ` Ic
2 @ z
741
•
d y r `�\. gill X } i� 0••tit \ -`�"� \� A �.. • j
cts
t.
- /tgr..r-- ,, 1,1
--- \ .., //............ //,,,,c-•,------, it..t.410 c % .
/ cn�� ,.ram/ t- /
+ - \ N C \\ \y C),
Vk..4-,''‘ :•;‘,/ k
•,nJ( :m\,/ /j':
.� " l ,c3 r , i/c
•
't. yy `t . , ,,( 9
SUMMARY OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 10, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A. THE GARDEN, by Hakon and Karen Torjesen. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.16 acres and Preliminary
Plat of 10.16 acres into 25 single family lots. A continued public
hearing.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing.
•
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Hakon and Karen Torjesen for Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 10.16 acres, based on revised plans dated
May 10, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April
19, 1985.
Motion carried--3-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Hakon and Karen Torjesen for Preliminary Plat of
10.16 acres into 25 single family residential lots, based on revised plans
dated May 10, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
April 19, 1985.
Motion carried--3-D-1 (Marhula abstained)
Ic
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 17, 1985
_2_
• V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. The Carden •1
Refer to memo dated June 12, 1985 from Bob Lambert, Director of
Community Services and staff report dated April 19, 1985.
• Lambert said that the developer was not contacted to be present at
the meeting since there arc no significant .issues to be discussed.
Lambert showed a map of Bryant Lake Park pointing out the new main
• entrance and existing entrance to the park and also the proposed
• site of the Garden. lie recommends that a bike trail be constructed
from Shady Oak Road through the park although the plan does not
• show a trail system. At this time, Carmel Park is the closest
neighborhood park. When Rowland Road is upgraded, Lambert feels a
wide shoulder or trail should be requested. •
Cook asked if there was any possibility of putting a trail in
another area. Lambert said that it would be difficult because of
the slopes and too many trees would have to be removed. He does
• not recommend relocating the trail and does not feel there will be
a problem with children getting to neighborhood parks. The City
will speak to the county to see if a trail system can be
accommodated. ..
Cook asked if the trail would eventually begin at Shady Oak Road.
Lambert said it would when Rowland Road is upgraded.
Cook asked if white lines on county roads for bicycles are
requested by the City or the county. Lambert said that green lines
mean-excellent, red means poor and yellow means a questionable area Ifor safe bicycling. He added that a bike trail from Prairie Center
Drive along Highway 5 is being considered.
Kingrey asked what Lambert's recommendation is on an 8' bikeway on
Rowland Road and whether this could be added to the Commission's
recommendation to the Council. Lambert said that when Rowland Road
is upgraded, a request could be made to see if the construction of
a trail is possible or that shoulders be added to the road. A
change in the park plan would be necessary to add bike trails.
Cook asked if the developer could be asked to construct a bikeway.
Lambert said it would not be fair to ask the developer to put in a
trail because it would be torn up when Rowland Road is upgraded.
IIOTJON: Eingrey made a motion recommending that when Rowland Road
. is upgraded, an ii' asphalt bikeway be constructed along Rowland
Road for access to the neighborhood park Lrow residential •
subdivisions that will be developed north of Rowland Road and
giving pedestrians safe access to the Bryant Lake Regional Park
Entrance located in the area of Carden Road. Gonyea seconded the
motion and it passed 4-0.
B. Iaunt_Curve Addition
Refer tostaff report dated April 19, 1985. 16 14
•
•
, i
. t
B. THE GARDEN, by Hakon and Karen Torjesen. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.16 acres and Preliminary
Plat of 10.16 acres into 25 single family lots. Location: North of
Rowland Road, West of Shady Oak Road. A continued public hearing.
Planner Enger stated that Staff had met with the proponent on several
different occasions since the April 22, 1935 Planning Commission meeting.
The proponent had revised the grading plan to reflect actual building pads,
which were a realistic representation of the impact of the development upon
the property. It was Staff's opinion that revised the amount of grading
proposed was acceptable. .
• Staff had also had conversations with Mr. • Bodin and Mr. Farber, adjacent
• neighbors, who indicated that they had engaged the services of a site }
planner to give them an indication of how portions of their properties might N.
be developed along with the Garden.
Just prior to this Planning Commission meeting, Staff met with the neighbors
and a representative of the proponent to review possible solutions to
mitigate the concerns of all parties. Alternatives were discussed. ''
Mr. Tim Erkkila, Westwood Planning and Engineering, representing proponent,
stated that 23 lots were now proposed at a density of 2.26 units per acre.
Mr Erkkila reviewed site characteristics of the property, stating that the
northwest and southeast slopes of the property ranged from 25-5M. He
stated that, after discussing the alternatives reviewed with the Planning :1
Staff and the neighbors earlier that day, the proponent had declined the
alternative of access through the wetland and had declined the alternative
of "swapping" land with the adjacent neighbors as proponent believed this
would ,mean giving up the prime lots within the subdivision, without adequate
compensation to proponent.
Mr. Erkkila stated that it was proponent's position that the revised grading
plan provided adequate protection of the oak trees on the . property. He
presented a cross section proposed grading of the property as it would be
viewed from the property to the west. Regarding the issue of a storm sewer
outlet, Mr. Erkkila stated it was proponent's position that the storm water
drainage plans for the area be reinstated to provide proper drainage for the
area as was provided in the past; however, proponent did not feel the storm
wafer drainage work needed in this area was as a result of this project.
Another issue was that of sight distance at the intersection of the property
with Rowland Road. J•ir. Erkkila stated that proponent was willing to
undertake whatovc'r was necessary to improve Rowland Road to make sight
vision distance. safer.
Regarding the project density, Mr. Erkkila stated that proponent's project
Planning Commission Minutes .3 May 13, 1985 i.
was at 2.26 units per acre; the property to the east was at 2.9 units per q
acre, and the property to the west, which was recently platted, was at 1.49 1
units per acre. i
Mr. Erkkila stated that the revised grading plan now resulted in the •
potential loss of only two, or three, trees twelve inches in diameter, or
greater. One cottonwood tree, located within the right-of-way, would be
removed. In general, scrub elm trees and box elder trees would be removed j
with the grading process. `5
Regarding treatment of the pond, it was proponent's position that the work °i
in this area, as proposed, was necessary to make the project successful.
Mr. Erkkila stated that proponent felt the net effect on the overall area j
would be negligible as the proposed development of the pond area would not .4
displace enough water to be of any consequence and, in proponent's opinion, t
• would not affect the overall drainage for the area significantly.
E
With respect to structural controls, Mr. Erkkila stated that the lots would
be prepared with the building pads graded to accommodate the types of ,
structures necessary to preserve trees and slopes. '4
Mr. Erkkila stated that the proponent was not willing to give up the prime
lots in the northwest area of the property to "swap" land with his
neighbors. He added that proponent was also not willing to spend more time
and money on development of plans for property which was not under his i
control.
Planner Enger reviewed the proposed land "swap," which had been discussed t
prior to the Planning Commission meeting with Mr. Erkkila, representing the
proponent, and the two neighbors, Farbers and Bodins.
Mr. Erkkila stated that the proponent had told him he would be willing to
review other plans for the area; however, a deadline should be established .
for all parties to make some sort of presentation before the Commission.
Johannes asked whether the proposed "swap" of land between the neighbors
would have an impact on the grading plan for the property. Planner Enger
responded that there would be a positive impact in that 30-40 feet less of
grading would be necessary in the northwest area of the property since
housing pads would not be graded in this location. Johannes asked if trees
of any significance would be saved by this plan. Mr. Erkkila stated that
there would not be any addition tree saved by this plan.
Mr. Roger Farber, 6525 Rowland Road, stated that he had been told by the
proponent that it was proponent's intention to sell the property. not to
development himself. Mr. Farber expressed his willingness for a "swap" of
property with the proponent in order to help in planning for the ontire
neighborhood. He also expressed concern regarding the protection of the )
northwest ::ouded slope of the property.
( ::_ Mr. Cliff Rodin, MOO Shady Oak Road, stated that he agreed with Mr.
Farhor's co',. ots, adding that he felt it was important to allow for the
highest and best use of the property by Proper planning of the neighborhood.
Ile added that the proposed development. would leave a portion of his Property
151b
•
Planning Comnission Minutes 4 May 13, 1985
landlocked, which did not necessarily have to be the case. •
MOTION 1:
•
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to continue the public hearing
to the June 10, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow proponent and the
surrounding neighbors to work out joint plans to-be presented to the
Commission. Proponent and the neighbors shall have their plans to the
Planning Staff no later than June 1, 1985.
Dodge stated that she was under the impression that proponent was not
• interested in alternative methods of developing the property. Mr. Erkkila
stated that proponent did not feel the proposed alternative was one which
benefitted him; however, he was willing to look at other alternatives to
•
mitigate the situation.
Motion carried--6-0-1 (Marhula abstained) •
•
•
MINUTES •
EVEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A. THE GARDEN, by Hakon and Karen Tor•jesen. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to RI-13.5 on 10.16 acres and Preliminary
Mat of 10.16 acres into 23 single family lots. Location: North of
Rowland Road, West of Shady Oak Road. A continued public hearing.
Planner Enger explained that this item had been continued from the meeting
of April 8, 1h85, at the proponent's request for• modification of the plans.
!7 l '
7,
Planning Comnission Minutes 2 April 22, 1985
Mr. Hakon Torjesen, proponent, reviewed surrounding development which had
1.
taken place recently in this area. He also reviewed the existing site
characteristics and features of the property proposed for development. Mr.
Torjesen noted that there were two existing residential structures on the 1
property. He stated that there were no variances being requested for this
plat. '.
Planner Enger reviewed the concerns of Staff as pointed out in their report
of April 19, 1935. He noted that Staff was concerned about tree loss on the
property, and that some mitigative measures have been taken by the proponent
to reduce possible tree loss on the site. Proponent had informed Staff that •
tuck-under type units would be located on some of the more sensitive lots;
however, it would be up to the proponent to require such unit types as the
City was unable to place such requirements on a subdivision. Another
suggestion which had been made to the proponent was that two additional lots
be removed from the subdivision and lot lines readjusted in order to save •
more trees. •
Planner Enger stated that the access to Rowland Road posed sight vision
distance problems for the area. In addition, the Engineering Department had
pointed out that a study should be made of the storm sewer outlet for the
project toward the Bryant Lake Park area. This would be required prior to
•
City Council review of the project.
Hallett asked if the pond on the property would be subject to the rules and
regulations of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Planner Enger
responded that the pond did not fall into any of the Department of Natural
Resources wetland categories. He added that fill would be allowed to the
point that the City and Watershed District would consider acceptable. In
most cases, the City followed the recommendations of the Watershed District
for situations such as this.
Gartner asked if removal of two more lots from the subdivision would make
filling of the pond unnecessary. Planner Enger responded that specifically,
two lots would need to be removed, and lot lines readjusted to make to two
larger lots in the vicinity of the pond in order to make fill unnecessary
for this project. He added that such a rearrangement of the lot lines may
only cut down the need for fill and that the area proposed for fill was
where proponent had indicated that soils were unsuitable for housing
construction.
Hallett asked about pedestrian trails in the area. Planner Enger stated
that there ware no sidewalks planned along Rowland Road. Hallett stated
that he thought it was City policy to require residential subdivisions to
provide pedestrian trails especially for access to the major parks in the
area, in this case, Bryant Lake Regional Park. Planner Enger responded that
this was, indeed, common practice. However, the City, in this case, does •
not have adequate area to include such improvements within Rowland Road.
•
•
Mr. Ed Sieber, 11792 Dunhill Road, stated that the adjacent subdivision,
Carmel Addition, had been developed at a density of 1.3 units per acre. Mr.
Sieber stated that he felt that this was an appropriate density for •the
area. In addition, the Carmel subdivision had been required to wake
improv wnts to Rowland Road.
J') J J
Planning Comnission Minutes 3 April 22, 1985
Mr. Roger Farber, 6525 Rowland Road, expressed concern about potential tree
loss on the site. He stated that he felt the grading for the property
should be modified to require less cut in the hills on the site. Mr. Farber
stated that he felt Rowland Road was a dangerous road at this time and that
the addition of this subdivision would only increase traffic onto Rowland
Road. He suggested that, with respect to the lowland ponding area on this
site, it may be appropriate for the developer to work with his neighbors to
negotiate a swap of land in order to preserve the ponding area and not
require filling of this area for housing construction.
Mr. Cliff Bodin, 6400 Shady Oak Road, expressed concern for the impact of
development on this area. He explained the impact on his property caused by
the development on the property to the east of the Torjesen parcel. Mr.
Bodin stated that the storm water drainage for the area was a matter of
major concern to him, in particular, he noted that the smell of the water
' coming from the north/northeast was putrid, in his opinion. Mr. Bodin
stated that he was also concerned about the "island" of earth which had
surfaced on his property. Planner F_nger explained that in the process of
surcharging property under development in this vicinity, this "island" had
been sheared off from underground and had surfaced on Mr. Bodin's property.
The City was aware of the problem and would be taking measures to have it
corrected. Mr. Bodin added that nothing had been done yet this spring to
correct the matter.
Gartner stated that she felt the suggestion of the three property owners
working together was a good one. She also stated that she did not feel the
pond should be filled.
Torjesen stated that he was willing to work with his neighbors and return to
the Planning Commission at a later time.
Hallett stated that he felt it would be appropriate to consider dropping
some of the lots in the subdivision.
Gartner asked if the developer of the property known as Carmel had paid for
improvements to Rowland Road. Planner Enger responded that this developer
had paid for a two-inch wearing course on Rowland Road.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue the public
hearing on this item to the May 13, 1985, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Marhula abstained)
I') mU
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-157
•
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HAGEN SYSTEMS,
FOR HAGEN SYSTEMS •
•
• BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Hagen Systems, for Hagen Systems, dated April 22, 1985,
consisting of 9.78 acres into one lot and two outiots for an office building, 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 2nd day of July, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: . •
John D. Franc!, City Clerk
•
•
STAFF REPORT
( •
TO: Planning Concussion
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner t
THROUGH; Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: June 7, 1985 4.
PROJECT: Hagen Systems '
•
APPLICANT/ Al Hagen 4
.
FEE OWNER: Anderson Development, Inc. 1
t
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development District Review on 2D acres. ;
2. Rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park on 2.94 acres.
3. Preliminary Plat of 9.78 acres into one lot and three
outlots. 1.
Background _ _-_ `
fy�11 i
The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts ! wlL7.:... sf,_` "'`_ _�L__I_.,, -
this site as Office. The Com- ' — �\ IEiOvGprehensive Guide Plan depicts ' �\, O C EFC '
surrounding future land uses as High �,. Jam-
Density Residential to the north, I ;44
Office to the east, west, and south '', \ 80:12 OFC�4
of the site. OFC..r<- t
This site is part of Primetech Phase "PROPOSED SITE
III, approved by the City Council in ` 1 ,,. ,`' Ci
1.
January of 1984. The approved 1 J__ __,_,_r'; ' \\ r .
*-- t77-i , j
concept plan included three, one- UL I FAMILY ( 1/ `e y
story office condominiums, and � FF CL o. , I•I
research and development offices, I ftk.\--\"1/9'
,?,�occupying the general area of the OMM-C MM:RCI! \/ :\, ,,,may
Hagen Systems site, with a combined -_ i
square footage of 28,000 square / ''` ks•, t.
feet. The Hagen Systems proposal /,%%/ ` C Ii1". f I,
involves a two-story building, Phase • • :li ` �.
feet, with • t 7/ ?I--1=L;S,,------
I of 25,000 square / /• I-2PK
expansion plans in Phase it for an Sri//1G�' I-8-2i
additional 15,000 square feet. -!1' . /,' / i - .
81 2 7 .I k �.` 1� ,,,
r• r
Site Plan .1..... ,-- . ,79-�,3 u•
PUB v L_.,il.
The site plan involves the con- �‘
square on of a two-story, 25,000 ii
.! li -T1 -- -,- - — __'1_
square foot office building, at a
Floor Area Patio of 0.19. The Floor ,o .� E'
Area Ratio for Phase I and Phase II pi
? ": 1 L C VONMAP
cogibincd is 0.31. W24). 4`�'
Hagen Systems 2 June 7, 1985
Variances will be necessary under the Planned Unit Development District Review for
front yard setbacks to building and parking, for I-2 Park zoning from 50 to 35 feet •
for building, and from 50 to 17.5 feet for parking. The 35-foot building setback,
and 17.5-foot setback for parking are consistent with Primetech Phase I. The 17.5
setback to City West Parkway also means that lots abutting Highway #169, if zoned
office, must have a 35-foot setback since it is a front yard. The setback to
parking would be contingent upon effective screening of parking areas which will be
covered under the landscape section.
A total of 108 parking spaces are provided for Phase I and a total of 200 parking
spaces for combined Phases I and II. Parking for Phase I is figured at 20,000
square feet of office at five spaces per 1,000, 2,500 square feet of assembly, at
three spaces per 1,000, and 2,500 square feet of warehouse, at h space per 1,000.
Overall, parking for Phase I is in excess of four spaces per 1,000. Total parking
required for Phase I and Phase II would be five spaces per 1,000.
Guide Plan
The Comprehensive Guide Plan indicates an Office designation for this property. The
proposed building is office in appearance and function. Only 10% of the building is
for assembly, which would require 1-2 zoning; however, 90% of the proposed uses
would be allowed in the Office District. This high office percentage should be
consistent with the Office designation in the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
•
Access
Two access points are proposed off City West Parkway. A right-in/right-out access
for visitor parking, and a full intersection access and new median cut along the
south property line, adjacent to the daycare facility. The proposed right-in/right-
out access should be closed and relocated to the south property line which would
serve as a joint access to the daycare site. The proposed access to Hagen Systems
and the daycare center from the loop road should be relocated further back from City
West Parkway to provide greater vehicle stacking distance. (See Attachment A)
Grading
A general way to describe the proposed grading would be that the high points along
the northwest and southwest corners of the site would be cut to provide fill for the
southcentral portion of the site, where parking is proposed for Phase I. Although
up to 14 feet of fill is required in some cases, there is no existing significant
vegetation on-site, and portions of the site had been used for surcharging, as part
of previous grading approvals.
Architecture
A two-story, 25,000 square foot building is proposed with primary building materials
consisting of brick, bronze metal panel, and bronze tinted insulated glass, which is
consistent with building materials for Primetech Phase I and Phase II. '
The building will be cut into the high ground along the north property line, with
the facility appearing approximately 1' stories high from City West Parkway and the
adjacent residential property to the north, and as a two-story structure from •
Highway #169.
77.
Hagen Systems 3 June 7, 1985
No rooftop mechanical screening plan has been submitted at this time. Any rooftop
or ground mounted mechanical units will be required to be screened with the building
material architecturally integral with the building. Metal panel would be an •
appropriate screening material for rooftop units, and brick material would be
appropriate for ground mounted units.
Landscaping
The proposed landscape plan is in compliance with landscape ordinance in terms of
total caliper inches and size of proposed plant material. 4
Parking is proposed to be screened from City West Parkway with a brick wall and
plant materials. This is consistent with screening plans for other phases of
Primetech Park. Parking will be visible from Highway #169 since Highway #169 is at
a higher elevation than the proposed elevation. Since screening of proposed parking
areas will not be possible, landscaping should be utilized to break up the view of
the hard surface area. One way to accomplish this would be to revise the landscape
plan in a manner similar to Attachment B, which would provide a 10-foot green space
for plantings between parking in Phase I and Phase II.
One dock-high door is proposed on the east elevation of the building. This loading
area will be visible from Highway #169 and the adjacent future residential land uses
to the north. To better screen the loading areas from adjacent residential j
properties, additional coniferous trees should be planted and the size increased
from a seven to eight-foot height to 14-16 feet average. To help screen the loading
facility from Highway #169, the landscape plan should be revised to provide
coniferous plantings on the proposed six-foot high berm and along the south side of
the driveway entrance to the loading docks.
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be provided to this site by a connection to existing
sanitary sewer and water main lines in City West Parkway. Water service must be
provided to the parcels to the east and north of the site. This may require the
•
relocation of the ten-inch water main as shown on the plan. Easements will be
required over the ten-inch water main.
Storm water run-off is proposed to drain from this site into two directions. Storm
water run-off from the proposed visitor parking area will drain in a southwesterly
direction toward catch basins in City t•test Parkway. Storm water run-off from the
main parking area and the private loop road will drain in a southeasterly direction
towards Highway #169 right-of-way. An easement will be required over the 30-inch
storm sewer pipe.
Lighting and Signage
Lighting and Signage details should he consistent with Primetech Phase I. This
would involve a 20-foot high, downcast, cut-off luminars for lighting. Signage
would involve free standing, monument, project identification signs at the entry
points off City West Parkway, and individual identification signs on the face of the
buildings.
STA11 RECON'MEW^ATTONS
Staff would recommend approval of Planned Unit Development District Review on 20
115 q •
Hagen Systems 4 June 7, 1985
acres, with variances to the 1-2 Zoning District for front yard setbacks to building
• and parking, Rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Park on 2.94 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
9.78 acres into one lot and three outlets, based on plans, Staff-dated April 22,
1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report, dated June 7, 1985, and
subject to the following:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Modify the site plan to eliminate the proposed median cut in City
West Parkway, and utilizing the proposed right-in/right-out access
and relocate to the southwest corner of the property. See
Attachment A.
B. Modify the landscape plan to provide a 10-foot planting strip
between the Phase I and Phase II parking areas, and add additional
coniferous trees, where necessary, to screen the loading areas from
Highway #169 and residential property to the north.
2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans to the
Watershed District for review and comment.
B. Submit detailed utility, storm water run-off and erosion control
plans for review by the City Engineer.
C. Provide additional utility easements as determined necessary by the
City Engineer.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
C. Submit a rooftop mechanical screening plan which is architecturally
intregral with the building.
D. Submit lighting and signage details for review.
E. Submit color samples of the proposed exterior building materials for
review.
4. Hagen Systems must be a part of the overall City West Owners' Association
and maintenance of common property.
5. The developer must agree to assume their share of all future assessments in
direct proportion to their percentage of land area within the City West
Planned Unit Development.
•
• , '. ,•
/
i j o i f •
�\ ` _ ?'';
L� _-0
i I Lii ��LiY I
ill •
—tom
(" \ N
G - \� -_.�
•••— chi + \ F` \`\` , /r •� t�r`'• / `Ci �`s�I
•
4. . '"....--------, •... /........... ....'...• ....!/sq., . C3
crt
• v. /,--...,,,
•
•
• ..
l
� •
'�/,' / •
wtr
, /r ! l+ 1/ '
r r) '1 t
t._ G_ y •a /
1 151 tt ,s1 .
+
G
•
•
Lam. • r. O i * rrb •-`�j��w S i C)// / ...
-st • /
', `.i , z ,`�v,
-
E
SUMMARY OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 10, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
D. HAGEN SYSTEMS, by Hagen Systems. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review on 20 acres, Zoning District Change from
Rural to I-2 Park, on 3.02 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 9.78 acres
into one lot and three outlots. A public hearing.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
•
Motion carried--4-0-0
•
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hagen Systems for Planned Unit
Development District Review on 20 acres, and Zoning District Change from
Rural to 1-2 Park, with variances, on 3.02 acres, based on plans dated April
22, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated Jung 7,
1985.
Motion carried--4-O-0
MOTION 3:
•
•
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hagen Systems for Preliminary Plat of
9.78 acres into one lot and three outlots, based on plans dated April 22,
1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 7, 1985.
Motion carried--4-0-0
4
STAFF REPORT
t
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
TFOUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: June 7, 1985
PROJECT: Hampton Inn
APPLICANT: Eden Prairie Hotel Investors
• •i
FEE OWNER: S.W.K.B. Partners -)
LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of Highway 4169 and I-494.
REQUEST: Rezoning from C-Regional to C-Regional Service on 2.64 acres.
Background t I , i �'- ' 4I"
surrounding land uses as primarily OFC� \, f.
Regional Commercial. X. . •,ij
4
This site is part of the 9-acre `_ ;i y � \''''':—;. !�/
development plan submitted at the &.
time of approval of the Brock c ;;� ,1?23\ \ yL4N
) (' r
envisioned three buildings for ,,..� PROPOSED SITE- �� J
either office, or restaurant, uses • O•a - , ___,
on approximately four acres of land \? .--'::-
(See - = 7
outside of the Brock Residence Inn. �\
Attachment A) ` PU6 /-
' C F2Et; ( -�
Land Use ,( ( kg I C 4,'
3tY''='-J �'"
This site is very prominent in the - '• 7"' i • \
Major Center Area (MCA) and is a f J
- . -9
"keystone" site in the community, � '' �� ,.RL-G•S'r.R. '� \_____
that will help shape visitors' u 1.
overall impression of the. City. The //„ !2
site. should he developed for its' � `.) k ` I
highest and hest use. Although ' N: /l i^�
motels are regional commercial land V12 -t� ;IM r
uses, the Planning Ca:.aission and �� •-• ���• 1 1'u �_ -.. 1 laS_3
( Council must consider what use of •
the site would he most appropriate. j ,_, y„yy ,•^^ �^e(`•14 MAP
I;;d,�i
TAU
Hampton Inn 2 June 7, 1985
Examples of other potential land uses may include: full service supper clubs, "full
service" hotels with meeting rooms and restaurants, a restaurant park, with full
service and family type restaurants, or offices.
: i
The Hampton Inn is proposed as a three-story, 124-room, "limited service" motel, .
that provides primarily lodging, similar to a Super 8 or a Dillon Inn. With two .1
"limited services" motels in the City thus far, (Brock Residence Inn and Super 8) el
and no "full service" hotels, a decision must be made as to whether, or not, another
motel in that category is warranted and whether locating on this site is the highest .1
and best use. j
•
Site Plan • `
The site plan involves the construction of a three-story, 124-room motel, on 2.64
acres of land, with a Floor Area Ratio of 0.48, based on a gross building area of a
54,878 square feet, which includes 4,592 square feet of unassigned basement area.
Excluding the unassigned basement area, the Floor Area Ratio would be 0.44, based on 4
50,286 square feet of building. A Floor Area Ratio variance must be reviewed and
approved by the Board of Appeals in order to allow the project as proposed.
Because of the unusual configuration of the property, and steep slopes adjacent to
U.S. #169 right-of-way, three groups of two-tiered retaining walls will be
necessary, in order to provide enough developable land area to accommodate the )
building and parking as proposed. The retaining walls, although better than .
originally proposed, artificially elevate the site and provide a fairly imposing
mass to the highway user. The initial plan involved a 20-foot high retaining wall,
running the entire length of the site. Use of a two-tiered and shorter length
retaining walls, with a combined effective height at its tallest point of ten feet,
is better, and with heavy landscaping, may soften the view from the highway.
Because the access was designed for the entire property (including Brock Residence
Inn) and the land requirement for Hampton Inn, the land remaining now envisioned by
the fee owner for a f m ily style restaurant, would have the majority of parking area
split from the building by the entrance road to the Brock Residence Inn. City
ordinance requires that parking be provided on the same site as the intended use.
el
Walkways along the proposed access drive to the future restaurant site would have to
be clearly identified to minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
(See Attachment B)
Parking requirements for hotels are based upon a ratio of one space for each unit,
and one space for each employee. Since 124 rooms are provided, and ten employees
are anticipated, the Code would require the provision of 134 vehicles. Though,
technically, the proposed 17.5 minimum setbacks to parking along U.S. #169 and
Highway 169-212 meet Code, the site appears tight visually and heavy landscaping
will be needed to screen parking.
Grading
il
Proposed site grading will require the construction of retaining walls along the
northwest property tine. A series of two-tiered retaining walls are proposed, and
vary in total effective height between eight to ten feet at the highest points in
the center of each two-tiered grouping. From these high points, the walls will
taper gradually to match grad' at the ends of the walls. The solution to the
retaining wall is better than an initial plan, tshic.h had a 20-font: high wall running
6`2(,)
J ,f'
Hampton Inn 3 June 7, 1985
the entire length of the property. The height and length of the retaining walls
could be reduced further if 2/1 slopes were used; however, Staff has observed that
even properly constructed 2/1 slopes on other projects in town, have had sloughing
problems. The height and length of the retaining walls could also be reduced if the
Floor Arca Ratio proposed was reduced to below current ordinance requirements of 0.4
for multi-story buildings.
Landsca_p
The landscape plan is in conformance with the landscape ordinance in terms of
quantity and size of plant materials. To better screen parking areas, the landscape
plan should be revised to include additional plantings in the gaps along Highway r
169, and increased berm height and plantings along Highway 169-212 from section line
B to the south. From section line B south, the height of the road increases so
sight lines are not blocked by proposed berming and plantings. Since excess right-
of-way exists along Highway 169, the proponent should obtain permission from the I.
Minnesota Department of Transportation for a grading easement, since the proposed f.
17.5 setback to parking does not allow adequate room to create a berm high enough to
screen parking. Parking will also be visible when viewed from Valley View Road on 1
the north. The landscape plan should be revised to screen parking from public 4
roads.
The retaining wall is proposed to he constructed of concrete. The face of the walls
oriented toward Highway 169 should he brick to he architecturally compatible with
the building.
Architecture
The three-story, 40-foot high, 124-unit motel, is proposed to be constructed
primarily of a stucco-like material, with some brick for the wall elevations of the .
building, with a metal panel proposed for the modified pitched roof. The color of
the stucco is proposed to be off-white. The metal panel will be a dark copper
color. No color has been identified for the brick.
As a condition of approval of the Brock Residence Inn proposal, a design framework `-'
manual Was to be submitted concurrent with any future development. The design 1
framework manual was required in order to provide for continuity in terms of ' .
architecture, building materials, signage, lighting, and pedestrian systems. In the
absence of such a manual, it would seem that each building would be proceeding
architecturally independent of each other. The Use of brick over 75% of the face of
any wall, and color spectrum comparable to what was used on the Brock Residence Inn
buildings, would he helpful. Staff feels the use of brick as the dominant material
is important because it is a more durable material than stucco, and would provide
continuity with the Brock Residence Inn site.
Because of the high visibility of the site in the community, the architecture should .
be of the highest quality in order to convey that image to people traveling through
the community on one of the major highway corridors. The architectural image could
be described as "budget" architecturally, not to he taken in the negative sense, but
more on a comparative note to full service hotels, in which the architecture would
be 'up-scale" t.o convoy the additional services provided. Because of the simplicity
of tho architect.!,re and its: effectiveness in conveying the image of budget lodging,
it is questioniule as to r.lother the change in materials from stucco to brick is
adequate to convey a more up.calr. inane. A decision must be made as to whether, or
not, the architeocture in this location is appropriate.
/'1'1 t .
Hampton Inn 4 June 7, 1985
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be provided to this site by connection to existing
utilities in the private drive serving this site and the Brock Residence Inn.
Storm water run-off is proposed to sheet drain across the parking areas into catch
basins where the water will flow in two different directions, towards Highway 169-
212 on the east, and towards Highway #169 on the northwest.
Sidewalks •
•
To provide for pedestrian movement between different land uses on this site and
adjacent land uses, a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk should be constructed where
shown on Attachment C. This sidewalk would also tie into the City's overall
sidewalk and trail plan.
Signage and Lighting
A signage and lighting plan must be submitted for review with details of the
lighting standards and type of proposed free standing, or wall-mounted, signs. To
provide continuity between this site and the Brock Residence Inn site, lighting
standards should be of a similar size and style. Signage should also be comparable
to the Brock Residence Inn site and in compliance with the City's signage ordinance
1 requirements. Prior to Council review, proponent should submit a signage and
.lighting program.
Outdoor Store
The trash storage area is proposed within the front yard setback. The trash storage
area should be completely enclosed, constructed of brick to be compatible with the
building, and relocated to comply with City Code.
Preliminary Plat
Initially, Hampton Inn was proposed to occupy all of Lot 2, Block 1, Promontory
Ridge (3.19 acres). A restaurant is now planned to occupy a 0.5-acre portion of the
south end of the site (Outlot A). The proponents must apply for a preliminary plat
to subdivide the property into one lot and an outlot. This will require a public
hearing and review by the Planning Commission.
Conclusions
Two primary issues are raised in the Staff Report, including appropriateness of land
use and site planning details.
If it is determined that the proposed motel is the highest and best use for this
site, then a determination should be made as to whether, or not, the site plan, as
proposed, is the best way to develop the site.
If the Commission is comfortable with the land use and site plan as proposed, then
one altern;rtive would be to recommend approval of the project based upon the
following condil.ions:
Hampton Inn 5. June 7, 1985
f. 1. Revise the building plans to indicate building materials as facebrick, or
its equivalent, for at least 75% of the building exterior. Stucco may be
appropriate as an accent material not to exceed more than 25% of the
exterior of any one wall. Submit color samples of the proposed exterior
•
building materials for review prior to Council review.
2. Revise the landscape plan to effectively screen parking areas.
3. Revise the site plan to indicate five-foot wide concrete sidewalks where
shown on Attachment C.
4. Provide an overall signage and lighting plan, that is compatible with the
Brock Residence Inn site, for review.
5. Submit details of the trash enclosure for review. Primary building
materials should be of facebrick, or equal, to match the building. Relocate
the enclosure in conformance with the City Code.
6. The outer surface of the retaining walls should be constructed of facebrick
to be compatible with the building.
7. Obtain variances from the Board of Appeals for Floor Area Ratio.
8. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by •
the City and the Watershed District.
9. Submit detailed utility plans, storm water run-off and erosion control plans
for review by the City Engineer.
10. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee on an acreage basis.
11. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of
grading.
If the Commission, on the other hand, feels that there are other uses which may be a
higher and better use of the property, then the request for rezoning of the property
should be denied.
•
•
•
_2Ai . )\._ •I,, ''.( nvL, n. ,.c,t,n,n
,/, . //„(- •,/,,..! •i, •,.• .i, . .,•;/:: :i ii• •L , •
/ / !. /.l l : I /// /
•
�/ /.1�� /.�, • III:, t'
I,. • 1, •
/2 r, • < is
/ II i, • ;(,! •J
�, • il
,) / % '' 1 I , 11 I ,.
. ./,,,,/,,,' ,,,,,/ /•,, , .$ .',// ' / / /,.••.°; ••!.' ,•. i ! ,
• . /// , /, /,-<-_— ,, ,' t, It! f. y
/�/ //,• `\\` \r •s \ \ /I! I, i '/I Ii 1 r t, , a
Tr?;• , /
rI
',1 r l ' 1 11.� I,1
• l pu , , , i •, ',' •, t• 1 r .!3
f /. I , I ! 1 i; g H
L
.:
:.:,,,., --,._ - /./:.,,, ....,,,, ;. ,., • ,:,,,,, ,,,. ._, , .,:,
.,,,,u
,,,,,,, : -,...... / I, ..,,, , ,,...,....,....:.::: : \,.. .,„ .,, ,, ,A .,,
•
o ' �� 1 . •-- .. .. /I I: \\\1 t T `..fie
t
1
' \� \ • AAA �l ,L! . C A•/ ,• , VA.ck k 1,.,
,' • / \ , AA r 1�,�
oc.
. ,
•
. '
..iA• 4.. 4„
i
. .
," , \..) . l
2 • ,. 4,/4. , . , 1...1 ... I 1
/••'////' ' I 1 . 4 ¢
• , -- I/
// /• • 77) ,
.
1
2 • • 7
/ -,' •-;,, I\ ; .% i 77
‘....0
. - S\C i
. 77,...1,
?,.
. g , . ,
, ,, , 4141,_.......,„; i
' me(
, .
W.\ i
. ,
, / i i / if ;* • ) , .
•• \ i
, i • , . j
lo.ci i
/.:
. .
: .. , ,-.. i.,, ; t.f. i
. .
- •..,-,..1/4
/ ,,,.. k--,_ ' :: .' i ! ' ..
/ -..0‘. • _.,, ..-...- Z.: f ...—
'' / - . 1
,•. , I, ,./ -- , \T-.2 rz,...) . : • 1 =
2 / /. i" ?-./ :— - ,,,,.. \ .• . ',- ---; ---
/ 1, . _. ,,
/ -„, .. f i
i-c:.- c
/, ,/ , ....,._ __, • ' z‘ •. ;.:. c', '''‘,, ' —V—."..,‘/, 1' r 1- i , •'
I /, ,„ -11 i .," : b • , .:(s<
- ' i ' `) 1 / 2 .r
. I /* ,/
1 '/ / / ' I i ,./ tc• <: v• Y./ tl-' . .
. , I
NO .
-- ...
;.• .
• '\ : ',7— •ct" •s‘, 1 . 'N',
f '....S.2 -.--,'— j
• C. -..- - I
t< f
1 it
1 i— t.-
. I .' •—_ , ..
; - I; :il I
2 c's 1, 1 •-:-.'--\•, . •• •_,, .,-- , , 1:1, IN
41* ', . 1--"":.-- 1 ' ' — L.:•- ' ...-2, ,
2 -...,,... ‘..__ . '.. •.. if .., ) . . , , ..
' \ • •, ), :- - — •••.. •„ )—""
V,..\ • • _ - .
.....--. %-tc.
VA(
,$) tj I 1•S\ ,
_._ .s.,.
— ,
\ • r,--1--1 • 1
:. ..,
•
"N. '.•..„. .' ? c---77
II
t.9%%_ • ). , .r,t
•
'6) _) ) )
.' ,...
,.... \\'
1.—...........rout. .,
\ . ' 4
- n ‘ ,:.
\
• 0,, ' .\\-{,
\•• ‘,.. :4... \
' .
. .,
. .
''., . A *.'•-,'• `,...,; °
\ . %1-
'' I i:Ilit (' . ' .--:' •N':.%\\'
,.
•
• . J'\ '' ''''' ' s. k. /- --) \''.'\;\\ \‘;^- °I- \ . ,
• 1. V.1, 0' ), -- so-- ..'N. . .'''? ',.•'', :-;'•
• t.',\ 1\• ./N.,1 ' •••• ',-' '\ i''' \ •
1', \ '.,, i •-.1./„\. , -.\ •••...-\ .<•,;, ..,,,
. k` , •• I • - .\ ' ' • \ • .i
i -,,,\,. \\, ;t:,it :,.,:.,. • !'--/. ,...--4.......-' . -,_..->..„-•,_ ' '' •\.\,_'f 7.r-,, .
• ,
'..'\ '••• \\-.1:-1 . ' • "Z,. - -N, \:`,,'''' , '\, N ,
. 1. .‘ 1.\\\ \. .•,.., . . .- :,.. - ---,`, --,\ ,V, \ N \-- 1..`!:'
.,,-.
l', .\•I.‘A . ---,. , . ..„. . .- \ - N-.....,,,,,..,-„ Y \\. • *
I\..•\\ .\••,.i:.‘ .` .,.%. 1... G;:.ve, .,. ,,.. ,..... •..\....... . is.... 4 \
‘ '.,...‘...\'s . -- -). \-:.-.....:,,, . s.,.\ \.•. -..,,, Izs.
\••• ,k, \ "—_, \ ...-. . ,.!.•.,.,-- t,-;.;,.. ...- \\. i •N .::...., ‘,. 4. .,:
..• „,..,r , .,. - •-;:, , , 7„ \. -.I. .., ,_ -..-\ .....:.-.., ,
\... ...,...,. .',...,t,\, , .. --,1.--.--sy, p-- -.. ..... • ,..'..1 ...,•:,.,. -1,.s., \. . •7
'••
\\...-l'V',11.,..\•-i I/•;'...':,- 1,-,--, ‘).‘S1 °e'ic, .'-..1:,• c,,-;,\\•,‘ 11 \ ''‘. = •:.
..-N s,3
*Ct .er • ,
\'... '.1, Vd,, \Y.., - , \ ,,-, , 's • \ z.", V-2:::
. . \ ., 1 \‘‘.‘ s\ •••- \ ' -.T-\), o .\.::-.- '''''''' 'A -' I A'''. iii 1. • . \ \\ \ 1 %, ,•-• V -- .
• , \ ‘•.. ,. ,\ \,‘.* ,--*.•'- -.. ''''°0 -:;'•--) "' •• -t -1,/.•1 -../"•• . c2, N---- ••---
i 1•..',.1 \1' '•1\\\ ". s -----\ 1),-; .•- /;)- \ -
1 \'•'''% 1 I. ; \"-'. 7--\t. --- .•;',-.(7..... ',...'C.--,47•.(' ' ‘
. i ,,, .•,.;.\ \ i x:-..--. .t.-- ,..--'..- ••••••(2.'2,,, '•,' .••:.,„// ''''.7- - . ,
• 1 1' ,,,\ \ ', \• ,.1\k,-...:. ._ j•-•.,''Nt. % ".... .,t://;' '''" • .. .,' r
• 1 \''` "'' '‘ 11\ IC ,'? rs' ''L.7'it''-'- ' '‹ \ "
'‘N,,:.'.1 '.., • •, •;,-;',-- F- 0 ,,,,..,// .,,,,, ,....". ,___,..1::- ..,. ;,,,
•t ‘ '-i.f.‘t• % 11/\\.‘:i 7 9 2 i 1 /../*/':7''.. Zo..„ ..1,it,,,t . '
1:\ ' .1'''.%""' %:::. V I"A • :, .>•%\'----1);'/.1./% ''...,4. 1:,,,, ..',
i\ \ ''.,:::', ',. \/.;:', '''.-', c-''t, i 1'1 I 1 ••• 1.11., ' '
, i .1 , ',•.,N ,,,‘:,",'...1\\ 1 .--./ . ';, • { .I
. . . :
I ..'', 1.•%. ..‘....,. \\\'‘'.:.,--_' ‘., -'''.'.,'''-'.,. :, .,. I''•,, . ".'S'!‘, 9 .
,.:
' \ ''',. ., ‘... \''''. ‘k' '''''''\‘ - -....". '- ." \\\\\\• ' 74' i : • • '
• . i \ ;‘ 2 -,;--" .•,:,-. A2'.'-‘:•'• ,S),,\•
I \ r•'.''''' :.--•\-\\‘ ''. -
, ..s._ r, \•,, •.•-•** ,, ....1
\
V' . ;
-•., • y" ' ,,, . \\•r.,,
; -
. I 1 \\,,'•..\\ \\ \ .../IIN 'S.•,.`•,,,
. :•..
{ \ ..• .- L, ;-••,/- \ 9, ••\\':2.. I -i. i
\ ‘ .'• \•' - ••-' \\ ' '
N 4 \- •41.,...N. '• ,•,, :
..: z
1\ \,1.,,1%•,, ', .1% ' ',\, „1;, \\0 ,.t. \ \\... \\\\r't- \\\‘
\ ;,.% ,' •,..•,', \%.' \ , i\\ ,‘ • .` . \•'•\
I\ \''''''‘.; '1\ •••\ \‘' \ \I-1 '":^''`' \ ' `•-- ,
. ', \"..,‘\ •* •• x• •.,\ ',. 4 e, 'k 1;#•.-- • \ ':
% •;,•\ \ • • •- . • , ,, \ \ . > .,, '1. ,,• ,,,,
\ '• . 1 .. ' \ .. ' ' 'I ' \ •••"
• ‘ '.. , , •`;',• 1 k ‘.. ... ..' • .•"...„•:,
\\ •• • 1 ‘ .„-I's. '• t \V .-.
0 \ • ...,- .'s:•• \ °1 1.1
0 , . • ' . , . 1 - r4,.., ‘.,,. I •t, •
4. 1 . \ . , ‘ . ...••• es ,,,..4„ • /
• \ 1 •• \ •• • \ •i ‘. ot" •1„;" .. $4.
k 1 .• . ‘ . ••. '• 4,,•.''
. . ‘, \ \ .• 1' • .'. ,,•`.. . .
. - r
\ , . . • . .
. .. .
‘ 1• • ,"--)/
1 . i
• 3 '
SUMMARY OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 10, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
E. HAMPTON INN, by Eden Prairie Hotel Investors. Request for Zoning
District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional Service, with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary
Plat of one lot and one outlot. A public.hearing.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to continue the public hearing
for the Hampton Inn to the June 24, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, to
allow proponents the opportunity to redesign the site, with consideration
given to the final layout of the parcel to the west, between Hampton Inn and
the Residence Inn, in order that the private access road through this
undeveloped site not become a design problem in the future. Further, that
Staff be directed to publish the item for the July 2, 1985, City Council
agenda for their.review.
Motion carried--4-0-0
•
SUMMARY OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 24, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A. HAMPTON INN, by Eden Prairie Hotel Investors. Request for Zoning
District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional Service, with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for a hotel.
Location: West of Highway #169, South of Valley View Road, East of
Highway #5. A continued public hearing.
The site plan, as redesigned, mitigated safety, parking, and other design
concerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting of June 10, 1985.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2: •
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Hampton Inn for Zoning District Change
from C-Regional to C-Regional Service, with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, based on revised plans dated June 20, 1985, subject to the
Staff Reports of June 7, and June 21, 1985.
Motion carried--6-0-1 (Johannes abstained)
JULY 2,1985
20035 VOID OUT CHECK 540.47-
20792 VOID GUT CHECK 33.71-•
208 VOID OUT CHECK 15.00•-
209iv VOID OUT CHECK 129.14
21034 LOTS BOETTCHER MINUTES FOR 6/3/85 PARK & NEC MEETING 99.00
21085 AWl PRODUC1S INC HOSE COUPLINGS - EQUIP MAINT 94.50
21035 LANCE SUPPLIES - LIQUOR STORE 129.14 •
21037 HILSCHFIELDS PAINT - COM14UNITY CENTER 41.47 :,
21038 PITNEY BONES COPIER SUPPLIES - COMMUNITY CENTER 139.32
21089 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 55.61
21090 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 106.02
21091 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR • 1790.79
21092 GRIGGS COOPER A CO iNC LIQUOR 6251.77
21093 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 131.40
21094 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO WINE 1901.72
21095 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 6677.42
21096 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 331.48
21097 QUALITY WINE CO LIQUOR 2495.86
21098 WASNINGTON HILTON CONFERENCE - WATER DEPT 432.50
21099 ELK RIVER FORD-MERCURY INC 5 NEW SQUAD CARS 57514.75
21100 THE GUNNERY AMMUNITION - POLICE DEPT 285.00
21101 NORTHERN STATES POWER SERVICE 6489.22
21102 MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY SERVICE 2713.08
21103 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 6/14/85 19443.78
21104 CO!MISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 6/14/85 10441.35
21105 DEPARTWENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 6/14/85 14732.74
2110A CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 6/14/85 1330.00
211 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 6/14/85 10.00
21108 GREAT WEST LIFE INSURANCE CO PAYROLL 0/14/85 5238.00
21109 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG JUNE. DUES 626.85
21110 PERA PAYROLL 6/14/85 72.00
21111 PERA PAYROLL 6/14/85 16548.24 •
21112 TWIN CITY STRIPING STREET STRIPING 6804.45
21113 HELM/'INC. MANUALS - STREET DEPT 42.50
21114 LANDON RUESTER REFUND SVIrlING CLASSES 9.75
21115 LAU3EU KUESTER REFUND SUIE LING CLASSES 9.75
21116 LAUREN KUESTER REFUND SWIMMING CLASSES 9.75
21117 KRISTINA A. RODRIGUEZ REFUND SKATING CLASSES 14.00
21118 BLAKE 7IEDOL REFUND SWIMMING CLASSES 10.00
21119 ERIC MILANO REFUND SWIMMING.CLASSES 6.70
21120 CHERYL LEXCEN REFUND TEUN IS CLASSES 20.00
21121 PA1RiCIA ECKLUND REFUND TENNIS CLASSES
21122 D.J. DEAN REFUND SWIMMING CLASSES 10.00
21123 KELLY DEAN REFUND SWIUMING CLASSES • 8.25
21124 MEGHA KOIHARI REFUND SWIF::4IRG CLASSES 6.37
21125 LORI OUNE REFUND SWIMMING CLASSES 15.00
21126 CIRCUS SUMMER PROGRAM EXPENSES 225.00
21127 1HE CHILDRENS MUSEUM SUMMER PROGRAM EXPENSES 39.00
21128. LAGOON MASTER REFUND SWIMMING CLASSES 9.75
21129 PAK6;,RA iKLLNTINE REFUND SWIMMING CLASSES 15.0D
2113J CO: 1W> .R OF REVENUE JUKE EST 7425.00
21r Cc" nF!I OF REVENUE MAY SALES TAX
12684.04
20,, PRII 15;E CO WIRE 159.94
21133 PAU TIS K SONS CO WINE 210.73
21134 TWIN CHI WINE CO WINE 238.77
18349344
/ ).
21135 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 377.41:
21136 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE • 1249.'/0
21137 EU PIHILLII'S & SONS CO LIQUOR • 4879.65
21138 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 2969.9R
21"9 QUALITY WIRE. CO WINE 1969.2V
21 ) JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR WINE • 2704.47
21141 INSTY PRINTS PRINTING-SENIOR CENTER 109.47 '
21142 A COMMERCIAL DOOR COMPANY REPAIR CAR WASH DOOR-P/W BLDG 80.80 9.
21143 AMI PRODUCTS INC HOSE COUPLING/OIL SEAL-EQUIP MAINT 89.08
21144 AT & T INFORP TION SYSTEMS SERVICE 54.00
21145 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 13.80
21146 AIRPORT COURIERS INC FREIGHT CHARGES-POLICE DEPT - 7.50
21147 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC FILM RENTAL-WATER DEPT 40.00
21148 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC STREET SIGNS 816.80
21149 ARMCO INC PLATE REDUCER MATCHING INV-HOMEWARD PK 288.03
2115D ARi;OR SECURITY INC 3RD QUARTER 85 SECURITY SERVICE 127.50
21151 ASSDCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP 1707.5E
21152 B R W INC -SERVICE-TECH DR/EDEN RD/ANDERSON PKWY/ 35576.19
• VALLEY VIEW RD/PRAIRIE CENTER RD/
21153 BSN CORP SOCCER NETS-PARK MAINT 654.00
21154 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC OIL FILTERS/LAMP/SEALED BEAMS/EQUIP MT 133.73
21155 WILLIAM BAUMAN REFUND WATER & SEWER BILL 52.03 •
21156 BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE-WATER PLANT EXPANSION 26957.54
21157 LOIS BOETTCHER JUNE 17 (MINUTES 30.00
21158 LEE BRANDT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 263.00
21159 BRAUN EPIG TESTING INC -SERVICE-PAULSONS ADD/FLYING CLOUD DR EXT/ 3526.90
NORSEMAN 6TH ADDN/EDEN VLY PK/FRANLO PK/
21160 ROBERT DONALD BRUSTAD FIREMAN CALLS • 4.00
21161 MIKE BURGETT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 251.00
2'-"2 BURNSVILLE SPORTS CENTER SERVICE ON MOTORCYCLES-POLICE DEPT 228.93
2. ,3 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 229.95
21164 CARDOX CORP CARBON DIOXIDE-TATER DEPT 140D.00
21165 CHAMPION CULVERTS-STREET DEPT 695.76
21166 MARK CHARGES REFUND PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT 100.00
21167 CHEMLAWN LAWN SERVICE • 676.00
21168 CONCRETE RAISING INC STREET SWEEPING 4345.00
21169 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC MATERIAL REPAIR ROAD CRACKS-STREET DEPT 626.40
21170 COPY EOU1FFNT INC XEROX BOND/DRAFTING TAPE/POINTS 191.9:
21171 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO STAMP-POLICE DEPT 17.0_,
• 21172 CURLL PRINTING COMPANY INC BUSINESS CARDS-ENG DEPT 36.40
21173 CUTLER MAGNER CO QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 6797.41
21174 WARD F DAHLBERG JUNE EXPENSES 1985 80.00
21175 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-COMTY CTR & PARK MAINT 64.55 Ht
71176 CRAIG W DAWSON EXPENSES 39.50
21177 A B DICK CO PUNCHED PAPER-CITY HALL 232.00
21178 PRISKILLS SUPER VALU SUPPLIES FOR CO„CESSICN STAND-COMTY CTR 286.5'R
21179 JEFF DLJtFORD RACQUETBALL INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 576.00
21180 DUSTCOATICG INC CHLORIDE-STREET DEPT 3264.00
21181 JOY EASTMAN EXPENSES 19.55
21182 CITY OF EDINA MAY WATER TESTS 135.50
21163 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC WADERS-SEWER DEPT 75.15.
21184 E P1RE-CRO'31 AUTO INC MUD FLAPS/FLR VA TAMPER BLDS/STICKS/SPK PL/ 430.26
21185 ESS GROILI:RS & SONS INC MANHOLE COVER-SEWER DEPT 80.0C
21186 RON ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FELS PD 45.00
`.Q:;60632
21187 LORI ANN EARNING FIREMAN CALLS 266.00
211G0 FAUVER COMPANY INC PWR STEERING HYDRAULIC MTR FOR STREET SWPR 267.00
21159 FLED RITE CONTROLS INC CHLORINE-F!ATER DEPT 486.12 •
211:^0 F107D SECURITY 3RD QIR IS SLE(JITY SYS-LIQUOR STORE 306.00
2I( JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA INC AIR COh1PRESSOR PART-COMMUNITY CTR 116.50
21•:t FOX NCCUE A MURPHY AUDIT SERVICE 12791.71
21193 G & L CONTRACTING INC SERVICE-BtT ERSWEET & VLY VIEW RD 505.05
21194 GARDNER H:1RDRARE. CO LOCK-COMMUNITY CTR 47.25
21195 GENERAL CORKUNtcAT1oNS INC REPAIR RADIO & PARTS 612.10
21196 GLIDDEN PAINT PAINT-PARK TAINT 189.15
21197 GOODYEAR AU1O SERVICE CENTERS 8 TIRES-POLICE CARS •
13D5.16
21198 HACH CO CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 107.87
2I199 BECKY PLOWMAN HAHN TENNIS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 1380.00
21200 MICHAEL N HAMILTON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 138.00
2120I RANDY HANKE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES•PD 26.00
21202 HARMON GLASS TINTED GLASS 35.05
21203 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE-TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT 383.79
21204 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OXYGEN/FLOOR DRY-PARK MAINT 30.94
*21205 HENNEPIN CTY DEPT OF PROPERTY TAX POSTAGE-VERIFICATION FOR VOTER REGISTR 5.06
21206 MATHEW J HODAPP SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 169.00
21207 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC REPAIR ZAW2ONI IACHINE-COMMUNITY CTR 455.52
21208 HONEYWELL JUNE-AUG 85 SECURITY ALARM-LIQUOR STORE 352.89
21209 HONEYWELL INC REPLACE TRANSMITTER-WATER DEPT 953.07
21210 HYLAND SKI AREA SKI RENTAL/FEES PD 2465.00
21211 ITT GRINNELL CORPORATION VALVE-WATER DEPT 36.21
21212 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST r1272 -CUSTODIAL SERV & CITY HALL SUPPLIES/ 3387.38
GYM & LOCKER RM RENTAL-COMMUNITY EDUC
21213 INGERSOLL-RAND COUPLER-EQUIPMENT MAINT 10.05
21"4 GARY ISAACS SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 182.00
2. .i JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 49.16
21216 J & R RADIATOR CORP REPAIR AIR COROT CONDSR/EQUIP MAINT 80.00
21217 JAK OFFICE PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 13.69
21218 JUSTUS LUMBER CO LBR/NAILS/FLR PUT/POLICE/WTR/FRSTY/PK MT 520.57
21219 KARULF HARDWARE INC REFRIG-POLICE DEPT/PAINT/SUMP PUMP-WATER 626.23
21220 TOM KEEFE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 247.00
21221 KELLY SERVICES INC TEMPORARY HELP-POLICE DEPT 257.13
21222 JIM KERN SOFTBALL. OFFICIAL/FEES PD 13.00
21223 SOUTHDALE YMCA COUNSELORS SERVICE-SENIOR CENTER 5000.0.
21224 MICHAEL KISSER GOLF INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 216.00
21225 KMART SUMMER PROGRAM SUPPLIES 218.68
21226 KOSS PAINT & WALLPAPER INC PAINT-P/S BLDG 228.79
21227 KRAEMFRS HOWE CENTER LIGHT BULBS-POLICE DEPT 238.01
2122E LAKE. STATE EQUIPMENT CO SHAFT/BUSHINGS/RINGS-EQUIP MAINT 14.51
21229 LANCE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 53.6o
2123E LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS CENTER REPLACE TREES DESTROYED-PLOWING SNOW 86.00
21231 LANE INSURANCE INC INSURANCE-L/S 2061.Ou
21232 BOB LANZI SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 186.50
21233 LEEF BROS INC RUG SERVICE-POLICE & STREET GARAGE 257.0
21234 L1NHOFF FILM PROCESSING-PARK PLANNING 16.1,
21235 LOGIS MAY 85 SERVICE 5181.0
2123E LONG LALE FORD TRACTOR BELT-PARK FAINT 30 4,
21237 LYMAN U'MUER CO LUMBER-STREET DEPT 59.70
21238 MACDONALD AND HACK PARTNERSHIP SERVICE-RESTORATION OF CUMMING GRILL ROUSE 1722 'r
'39 RANDY MASON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 45.0E
4443260
21240 MASYS CORPORATION TERMINAL-POLICE DEPT 1725.00
21241 MA11S AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING.SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 200.00
21242 MCFARLAML S INC CONCRETE-DRAINAGE 52.00
21243 MCGLYIIN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES 84.29
24" MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIVE DEPT 52.03
21E.., MERRILL LYNCH REALTY REFUND ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OVERPMT 1756.56
21246 METRO PRINTING INC ENVELOPES/LETTERHEAD-POLICE DEPT 737.00
21247 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM JULY 85 SEVER SERVICE 93146.96
21248 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CTR 825.65
21249 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP-STREET DEPT 4628.03
21250 MPLS AREA CHAPTER EQUIPMENT RENTAL-COMMUNITY CTR 35.00
21251 MP1..S STAR & TRIBUNE CO EMPLOYMENT AD-ASSESSING DEPT & CMTY CTR 85.00
21252 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY INC MIXES-LIQUOR STORE 217.24
21253 MINNESOTA DAILY EMPLOYMENT AD-COMMUNITY SERVICES 23.94
21254 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-CO)1TY CTR & SUMMER PROGRAMS 80.60
21255 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS-LIQUOR STORE 321.48
21256 !1INNESO1A VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 36.25
21257 MINNESOTA WANNER CO FIRE HOSE TESTER 1168.84
.21258 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIP CO REDWOOD BENCH-PARK t4AINT 213.27
21259 R E MOONEY & ASSOC INC PARTS FOR VALVE-WATER DEPT 418.59
21260 MUI1CILI1E CO STROBE LIGHT FOR HEW BACKHOE 159.00
21261 MURPHY PLBG FLARE-WATER DEPT 1.65
21262 MY CHEESE SHOP EXPENSES 63.40
21263 JEFF NELSON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL 208.00
21264 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
21265 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 1160.15
21266 BILL 0 ROURKE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 266.00
21267 OCHS BRICK & TILE CO CEMENT 126.82 t
2 HARRY A ORTLOFF SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 312.00
24o9 ROBERT E OSLUND REFUND BLDG PERMIT 150.63
21270 PEOPLE PLEASING OF MN INC MICROWAVE-ROUND LAKE PARK 155.00
21271 PATRICK PEREZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 351.00
21272 WILLIE PEREZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 65.00
21273 PATRICIA PIDCOCK EXPENSES 82.00
21274 PNEUMATIC CONTROLS INC EQUIPMENNT REPAIR & PARTS-COMMUNITY CTR 101.00
21275 POMNER MFG CO INC RACQUETBALL TROPHIES/FEES PD 8.41.
21276 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC INSTALL PUP RECPTCL ON LIGHT POLE-PK MAINT 180.0,E
21277 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 01L/CLIPS/ROLLER SEAT/ENGINE 37609 683.24
21278 PREFERRED PAVING SERVICE-FRANKS & EDEN VALLEY PARKS 22757.25
21279 JAMES PUIAHL SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 195.00
21280 R & R SPECIALTIES INC SHARPEN ZAMRDNI BLADES-COMMUNITY CTR 57.00
21281 RECREONICS CORP RESCUE ROPES/GUARD PATCH-ROUND LK PK 56.55
21282 MARK H REUBISH SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 13.00
21283 RICHARDS ASPHALT COMPANY STREET CRACKFILLER 481.25
21284 RIEKE-CARROLL-HULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE-PAUL2EN ADD/SANITARY LIFT STA/ 17951 45
FLYING CLOUD DP/NORSEMAN IND PK/PRESERVE
21285 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO BLADES FOR SANDER SPINNERS-EQUIP PLAINT 35.28
21286 RYAN CONSTRUCTION REFUND PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT 1000.09
R1287 VOID OUT CHECK
21288 SATFI.LITE 1000STRIES INC PORTABLE RESTROOM-PARK DEPT 124.43
21289 THE SA1TERLEE CO SIGN HOI.UF.R-FIDE DEPT .O(h
1290 SAVOIL SUPPLY CO INC TOWELS-WATER DEPT 152 158.00
:J^g1 KEVIN D SUMMIT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD
15207545
21292 SCHMIDT READY MIX INC CONCRETE-STREET DEPT 169.5E
21293 STEVLN R SINELL JUNE EXPENSES 170.6U
21294 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP SOCKET SET-STREET DEPT 63.30
21295 SNAP PRIUT-WEST FORMS PRINTED-COMMUNITY SERVICES 304.79
21'61 SOYDFRS DRUG STORES INC SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 72.26
21. SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC LEGAL ADS & H.APPENINGS 2115.41 ,- •
21298 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER 27.00
21299 SPORTS WORLD SHIRTS-COMMUNITY CTR & SUMMER PROGRAMS 993.90
21300 STATE TREASURER FEE-WATER DEPT 15.0C
21301 BARBARA STRUWE MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT 4.50
21302 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC PUMP TANK-RESEARCH ROAD 50.00
21303 TARGET 220 SUPPLIES-SUMMER PROGRAMS 440.64
21304 TRACY OIL CO INC UNLEADED GASOLINE 9279.2E
21305 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS SUPPLIES-SUMMER PROGRAMS 32.65
21306 TRI-STATE TREE SERVICE INC REMOVE DISEASED ELM TREES-FORESTRY DEPT 1345.00
21307 TURF SUPPLY CO W000ACE-FORESTRY DEPT- 259.00
21308 TWIN CITY TESTING REVIEW OF WATER LEAKAGE AT COMMUNITY CTR 3I34.12
21309 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES UNIFORMS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES 490.05
•21310 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE-PARK MAINT 23.08
21311 VESSCO INC VALVE-WATER DEPT 76.47 •
21312 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS-COMMUNITY CTR 818.3
21313 WARMINGTON WODDCOCK AND WILLIAMS RENT SOUND SYSTEM FOR DOG SHOW-POLICE DEPT 125.0E
21314 WATER PRODUCTS CO GENERATOR/PIPE/TEE/BUSH 461.02
21315 XEROX CORP SERVICE 152.84
21316 ANACOMP MICROFILM MACHINE-FORESTRY DEPT 191.22
21317 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC MAY 85 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 150.0U
21318 CHRIS ENGER JUNE 85 EXPENSES 165.00
21319 FRAN2 ENG REPRODUCTIONS INC REPRODUCTION OF CITY MAPS-PLANNING DEPT , 454.53
21320 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 GYM & LOCKER ROOM RENTAL 182.0[1
2 '1 RESOURCE RECYCLING SUBSCRIPTION-ASSISTANT MANAGER 32.00
2 42 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 959.52
21323 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 6794.21
21324 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 22308.70
21325 CHRIS SODERHOLM REFUND-GOLF COURSES 15.Oi: •
21326 BRIAN LEIRINGER REFUND-MUNCHKINS 12.0E
21327 CINDY ROUBOS REFUND LIFE SAVING CLASSES 32.Oc
21328 AN KIM LE REFUND SWIMMING CLASSES 1.71
21329 DAVID LARRY HUHN REFUND BOU;DARY WATERS TRIP 179.£
21330 JIM WALTER PAPERS XEROX PAPER 659.6_
21331 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR CONFERENCE-FINANCE DEPT 20.01
21332 JOHN FRANE JUNE EXPENSES 165.00
21333 KAREN MIiCHAEL MILEAGE 36.0:
21334 JAMES WOODY SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 78.00
21335 DAN SH114EK SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 195.6
21336 THOMPSON & KLAVERKANP LEGAL SERVICE 9116.0'
21337 NATIONAL REGISTRY EMT FEE-POLICE DEPT 15.0
21338 GARY HORTON EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER •
7.F ..
21339 EMERGENCY SERVICE SYSTEM INC REPAIR SQUAD CARS 319.:'0
21340 XEROX CORP SERVICE 1205.50
639I897 $549531.7:
f '
July 2, 1935
Cash Disbursements by Fund number
10 'FNERAL 201108.30
1� .ERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 59366.61
15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 26414.17
17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 32637.25
31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 23906.43
33 UTILITY BOND FUND 26957.54
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 47022.63 •
57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 1780.43
73 WATER FUND 25571.06
77 SEWER FUND 93897.97 '
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 1756.56
87 COBS FUND 1722.50
90 TAX INCREMENT FUND 7390.33
$549531.78
•
•
1).)115
•
9880 Crestwood Terrace
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
June 18, 1985
Mr. Paul Redpath
Councilman, City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Mr. Redpath: •
Just a short note to express a concern that some of us
have regarding the length of the term served on the
Historical and Cultural Commission.
I suppose your thinking on the three year term is that
it takes awhile to get to know what is going on and you
could see a project through to its completion. This is
good.
However, our thinking is that a two year term would be
better because by the end of two years we would know if
this is something we want to continue with - and are
contributing anything to - or if it is time for us to
step down and make room for new blood. Many would be
willing to take a second two year term, but three years
again, making six years, is more than we care to commit
•
ourselves to.
I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
•
Sincerely,
Mrs. Dennis Wittenberg
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: June 21, 1985
RE: Request for MIDI'S
Hagen Systems $2,511,111
Hampton Hotel $4,511,1111)
The City has $2,550,111 remaining of its 1985 allocation of $9,301,1/1.
These projects appear earlier in the agenda with zoning requests and
under our criteria if one or both projects received a first reading of
a zoning ordinance they would be eligible for consideration of an
allocation of the cap. If neither project receives a first reading this
item should be dropped from the agenda.
Three possibilities then exist
First: loth projects are approved. In this case Hampton Hotel would
be eliminated because it is the larger project (I L 1. of the
Guidelines attached)
Second: Hampton approved. Hagen not approved. In this case Hampton
would receive the allocation and would have to find the
$2,011,111 balance of their request (See II A of the Guide-
lines)
Third: Hagen approved. Hampton not approved. Hagen receives the
allocation.
Resolution #15-10 is .available for use if a decision to allocate is made.
TO: Mayor and Council
.ROM: John Frane
DATE: May 15, 1985
RE: MIDB Guidelines/charges for tax exempt financing
We suggest the Council adopt the following criteria for the allocation
of the City's MIDB "caps"
I. No project will be considered until a first reading of'a zoning ordinance
which is consistent with the intended use has been passed.
If the Council desired to grant MIDB approval of the project
suitable action would be taken. This amounts to a first come first
serve, if the project is acceptable, allocation system. It does,
however, put considerable pressure on the planning staff and the
planning commission.
II. In the case where projects will compete for allocation in excess of the
amount available the following criteria could be used to eliminate
projects until the number of dollors is equal to or less than the
available "cap'1
A. No closing before August 1st. A 1% deposit will be required which
would be refunded if the project is closed before August 1st
B. Retail use •
C. Spec building (40% or more leased to persons other than the owner(s)
or the owner(s) business
D. Large requests
E. Applicants business is not presently in the City
F. Ratio of jobs to bonds issued. In the case of spec projects skip this criteria
G. Cut cards
or
I. Above
II. A. Above and then cut cards
We also recommend a yearly charge of 1/8 of 10 on the outstanding principle
balance of MiDB and Housing Revenue Bonds issued by the City for projects
which do not now have a preliminary resolution.
•
•
GAT 6 i/-'
-e.
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
n
THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie ,
FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson p) ',.
SUBJECT: Upgrading City Copiers '(:
DATE: June 27, 1985
Over the past several years the amount of paper produced by the City has
been increasing at a rapid but steady rate. This stream of reams keeps
flowing in ever-larger volumes for several reasons, the most salient of
which is the expanding number of persons and organizations needing to have
copies of reports and documents produced or received by the City. Over the 4
past year, the effects of this pressure to share information have become
readily apparent: there have been higher incidences of equipment failure,
overtime required of copier operators, and an occasional need to use
copiers of other public organizations such as the Eden Prairie School
District. Put simply, the technology of copier equipment used by the City,
particularly in City Hall and the Public Safety Building, is obsolete.
Given the high growth in copying needs as well as the demands on clerical
staff to devote more time on other pressing tasks, the use of current
copier equipment could be considered somewhat counterproductive.
Needs: Over the past few months a staff committee has examined several
copiers and discussed the City's immediate and long-term needs in the City
Hall and Public Safety Buildings. City Hall needs two high-volume and
high-speed copiers so that large copying runs can be done simultaneously.
(This need frequently arises.) This arrangement also provides capable
backup equipment in the event tht one machine breaks down. One of these
machines should he what the industry calls a "duplicator" capable of doing
70 copies/minute (similar to the Xerox now in place); the other should be a
high-speed copier (50 copies/minute). Copiers generally have more features
with enlargements and reductions which would he needed by Engineering and
Planning staffs. The Public Safety Department needs a machine rated to
•
perform 25,000 copies/month to replace a Xerox machine rated to do 10,000
copies/month. The Department currently produces 12,000 to 15,000
copies/month. All machines need automatic document feed,
reduction/enlargement, and sorting capabilities.
Copier Evaluation: Staff solicited quotes for copiers rated at 50
copies/minute-for City Hall and 30-35 copies/minute for the Public Safety
Building. Prices for all these machines were less than the $15,00D
statutory requirement for competitive bids. Staff then projected long-term
costs. These projections included lease-purchase pricing, maintenance
charges, and supply costs. The most favorable (as well as realistic)
projection were total costs over five years assuming three-year lease-
purchase terms. Results of these five-year projections are tabulated
( below:
- 2 -
Brand Vendor 50 cpm Brand (Vendor) 30-35 cpm );
Toshiba (Wagers) $45,350 Toshiba (Wagers) $25,600 `1.
Canon (IOS) 46,300 Canon (IOS) 27,950 ti
51,850 Savin (COP) 30,450
Savin (COP)Sharp (DCHey) 53,000 Xerox 32,550
Pitney-Bowes 59,550 Ricoh (Metro) 36,300
Xerox 60,900 Pitney-Bowes 37,300 :
Ricoh (Metro) 65,500 Sharp (DCHey) 53,000 1
Estimates on the number of copies were held constant but high; that is, the
number of copies per month anticipated in the fifth year was used for years ,
1 - 4 even though the number of copies during these years is likely to be
much fewer.
Staff recomnends that the Canon NP-7550 System and Canon NP-350AF machines
be obtained. These machines were evaluated by the committee as the easiest
to use for the features and copy quality desired. The Toshiba model in the ,
50 cpm column produces only 46 cpm and therefore did not meet
specification. For administrative ease and better vendor responsiveness to .
maintenance requests, it is preferable to have both machines placed by the
same vendor.
Ouplicator Evaluation: Quotes from firms selling and servicing duplicators
indicate that the purchase price for this equipment is above the $15,000
statutory limit requiring competitive bids. Staff requests authorization .1
to prepare specifications and to advertise for bids on this equipment.
Budget Im1lications: The 1985 Shared Services budget appropriates $24,000
for equipment rental and maintenance in City Hall. Approximately $20,000
of this account is for copiers. Based on costs for existing equipment and
projects for a new Canon NP-7550 System and for a new duplicator, overall
copier costs for 1985 should be in the $19,000 - $20,000 range.
The 1985 Public Safety Oepartrnent budget shows $6,000 for copier services.
A new Canon NP350-Af would add approximately $2,250 to its 1985 budget.
The City is still obligated to purchase the remaining 15 installments on
the Xerox machine in the Public Safety Building. This machine would be
transferred to the Emergency Operations Center or another City facility.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the.City Council authorize staff to
execute three-year lease-purchase agreements with Internatinal Office
Systems, Inc. (IOS) for a Canon NP-1550 System copier and a Canon NP-350AF
copier. It is also recommended that the Council authorize staff to execute
12-month maintenance agreements with the IOS for these machines. It is
further recommended that the Council authorize staff to prepare
specifications and to advertise for bids for a duplicator to replace the
Xcro 7000 now in place in City Hall.
C
111
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
July 2, 19B5
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) PLUMBING
Cardarelle & Associates, Inc. Dependable Well Company
Gezel Plumbing
Heins & Sons Plumbing
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Hoff Plumbing, Inc.
Dan G. Johnson Plumbing
Goodwin Builders, Inc. Ron's Plumbing
IMS Construction, Inc. South/West Metro Plumbing
Nelson's Landscaping Star Plumbing
Outdoor Development
Quality Checked Construction
Superior 77 TYPE B FOOD
North Gro, Inc./Appleside Orchards
HEATING & VENTILATION
Airco PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE
Bergman Heating & Air Cond.
Midwestern Mechanical Corp. Charles Gould
MECHANICAL GAMES
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Gina Maria's Pizza
Bauer-Reamer Corp.
SOLICITOR
Bruce Willard Eggan
These licenses have been approved by the deptmeht heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
VYt SoTil,Licensing