HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 12/03/1985 AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AND RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, NINE
MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT, LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT
TUESOAY, DECEMBER 3, 1985 6:00 P.M. SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING, BOARD ROOM
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Gary Peterson, Mayor; Richard Anderson; George
Bentley; Patricia Pidcock; Paul Redpath
CITY STAFF LIAISONS: Scott Kipp, Assistant Planner; Jean Johnson, Zoning
Administrator
BOARD MEMBERS: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District:
William E. Sault, President; Conrad B. Fiskness;
Howard L. Peterson; Frederick W. Rahr; James L.
Cardinal; Fredrick Richards, Attorney; Robert Ober-
meyer, Engineer
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District: Aileen Kulak,
President; Eugene D. Davis; Larry Madden; Helen
McClelland; Donald Lofthus; Fredrick Richards,
Attorney; John Dickson, Engineer
Lower Minnesota River Watershed District: Russell
A. Sorenson, President; Jens Caspersen; Russell
Heltne; Cyril B. Ess; William J. Jaeger, Jr.;
Raymond A. Haik, Attorney; Lawrence E. Samstad,
Engineer
I. ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. WATERSHED DISTRICT ACTIVITY REVIEW--1984-85
IV. REVIEW OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR 1985-86
V. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
A. Summary of Watershed District Rules and Regulations--Permits
Required
B. Implementation Processes--Major Areas of Concern
C. Philosophy of Watershed District in Capital Improvement Programs and
Funding of Water Management Projects
VI. ADJOURNMENT
EDEN PRAIRIE
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
TUESDAY_. DECEMBER 3. 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING BOARDROOM
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary 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 Pauly; Finance Director
John Frane; Planning Director Chris
Enger; Director of Community Services
Robert Lambert; Director of Public
Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
Secretary Karen Michael
PLEOGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. PRESENTATION BY MAYOR PETERSDN OF AWARDS OF VALOR
TO LANCE BRACOAND TRACY LUKE
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List Page 2903
B. Set Tuesday, January i 19B6, 6:00 p.m., as date & time
for Joint Meeting with Flying Cloud Airport Advisory
Commission
C. Final Plat Approval for City West Fourth Addition (Location: Page 2904
Finger Property on East Side of City West Parkway) Resolution
No. 85-272
D. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 41-B5, Renaming West 66th Page 2B01
Street to Tanager Lane East of Manchester Lane
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PARKWAY OFFICE/SERVICE CENTER by The Brauer Group. Rezoning Page 2784
from Rural to Community Commercial on 2.75 acres. Location:
Northeast corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and U.S. Highway
No. 169-212. (Ordinance No. 43-B5 - Rezoning from Rural
to Community Commercial) Continued from November 19, 1985
B. VACATION OF OLD EDEN PRAIRIE NIL NORTH OF WILLOW CREEK ROAD page 2907
AND WEST OF PANf LAKE DRIf1E Resolution No. 85-277}—
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,December 3, 1985
C. SIGNATURE II OFFICE BUILDING by MRTT Joint Venture. Request Page 2909 j
for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 20 acres,
( Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances,
on 2D acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office
on 4.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat or 4.07 acres into one lot
for construction of a 54,000 square foot office building.
Location: West of U.S. #169, East of City West Parkway.
(Ordinance No. 44-85 - Rezoning from Rural to Office;
Resolution No. 85-271 - Preliminary Plat)
D. ARTEKA NURSERY by Arteka, Inc. Request for Zoning District Page 2925
Change of 0.6 acres of excess right-of-way from Rural to
Community Commercial within the Arteka Nursery. (Ordinance No.
45-85 - Rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial)
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 24017 = 24279 Page 2927
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIDNS
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Review of McGlynn Bakeries Variance Request #65-40, and the Page 2933
Board of Appeals and Adjustments Action of November 14, 1T 5,
to delete the continuance of the mansard roof.
B. Receive petition and authorize preparation of feasibility Page 2965
report for I.C.. 52-082 Resolution No. 85-176)
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
1. Street name discussion - Anderson Lakes Parkway/Scenic
Heights Road
B. Report of City Manager
1. Leaf Recycling •
C. Report of City Attorney
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
December 3, 1985
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) PLUMBING
Norcraft Construction Schlefsky Plumbing
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Landmark Homes, Inc. Swedlund Sewer & Water
MJM Homes, Inc.
WELL DRILLING
HEATING & VENTILATING
Bohn Well Drilling Co., Inc.
Metro Brothers Heating & Air Cond. Leuthner Well Co.
GAS FITTER
Metro Brothers Heating & Air Cond.
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed ctivtiy.
Pat Solie, Licensing •
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-272
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
CITY WEST FOURTH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of City West Fourth 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
�i PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for City West Fourth Addition is
approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City
Engineer's report on this plat dated November 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 December 3, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
John 0. Frane, Clerk
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 g, °e.C?
DATE: November 26, 1985
SUBJECT: CITY WEST FOURTH ADDITION
{
PROPOSAL:
The Developer, The Park at City West Limited Partnership, has
requested City Council approval of the final plat of City West
Fourth Addition, a 13.5 acre site located in the northeasterly
portion of the City West PUD, in the North 1/2 of Section 1.
The proposal is a replat of Outlots 0 and E, City West Second
Addiiton. The construction of 28B apartment units is proposed
for the site.
HISTORY:
Zoning to RM 2.5 was finally read and approved by the City
Council on October 15, 1985, per Ordinance 31-B5.
The preliminary plat was approved by the Council on September
3, 1985, per Resolution 85-201.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was
executed on October 15, 19B5.
VARIANCES:
All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
All municipal utilities and streets necessary to serve the
site have been installed.
Extension of an 8" sanitary sewer and the relocation and
extension of a 10" water main has been proposed by the
Developer. The proposed building construction will interfere
with the existing 10" water main, therefore, the main will be
relocated along the Northerly property line. A 25' drainage
and utility easement has been provided on the plat to contain
the utility extensions. The vacation of the existing easement
was authorized by the Council on October 15, 1985, per
Resolution 85-232 (VAC 85-6).
Exhibit D.. of the Developer's Agreement addresses Developer
responsibilites for the construction of a future access
roadway to property located north of this proposal. Cash
payments, as defined through Exhibit D are to be paid prior to
issuance of a building permit for the project.
Page 2, Final Plat Report of CITY WEST FOURTH ADDITION 11/26/85
PARK DEDICATION:
Park dedication shall conform to City Code and Developer's
Agreement requirements.
BONDING:
Bonding shall conform to the requirements of the City Code and
Developer's Agreement. These requirements shall apply to the
proposed utility extensions along the northerly property line.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of City West Fourth
Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the
Developer's Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of Engineering fee in the amount of $11,520.
2. Satisfaction of Bonding requirements.
DLO:sg
cc: Joseph M. Finley, Leonard, Street & Oeinard
Michael C. Cyert, Israelson & Assoc.
1
VAC 85-10
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 85-273
VACATION OF OLD EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD IN
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 22
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has had road right-of-way known as OLD EDEN
PRAIRIE ROAD in Section 12, Township I16, Range 22, Westerly of Bryant Lake
Drive and Northerly of Willow Creek Road;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 3, 1985, as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that said right-of-way is not necessary and
that it would be in the public interest that it be vacated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
1. The above described right-of-way is hereby vacated.
2. A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared by the City
Clerk and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedings and shall
be recorded in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on December 3, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
• 8 �" 41'a. _ ...... i
i I
VAC 85-10 u>I ]�_ i •__L_
$.
•S
'�tj..•....o••" 'n
t • II R (7)
(t7)
e c { •
•
1E
(19) et .D.
i tems (i
r N,
a 114P‘Ni
Y//////////// Doc. 93e1,30
I] .e''�, ♦ FILED f-S-tl
(7) P = •e
% \\
:‘ ik
\ (I yy�: - )� -,.fl' t 1] fie.
o•
ft11 (6) . ` I. ,47
N (5) t (I) NI3
ce o
a4.1 . Woo
�1 Y
• l'C� ¶, .. [- -I :
�. t". "1111 '```-e.
D f. .n' f )
mR1IIYee ee (e) 1 Z
WILL®lM 'e - .
ar
��9. CRILF 14�
lE u6.17.1+.0007 [ �3
' (7) 1 k I ) I- ''D-
1.. ..
2 W A®® • (6)
t t •
o a - i
+
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-272
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SIGNATURE II OFFICE BUILDING FOR
PRIMETECH, INCORPORATED
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Signature II Office Building for Primetech, Inc., dated
September 25, 1985, consisting of four acres and one lot, 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 3rd day of December, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
}
ATTEST:
•
John D. Frane, City Clerk
•
T
i
t
,
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
T ATUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: November 8, 1985
SUBJECT: Signature II Office Building
LOCATION: Primetech Park between City West Parkway and Highway #169
OWNER/
DEVELOPER: Primetech, Incorporated
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 2D acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 20 acres with
variances.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 4 acres.
4. Preliminary Plat of 4 acres into one lot.
( Background L� L-� \ OF, i
This is a continued item from the ,�
October 4, 1985, Planning Commission 2'
meeting. The Commission recommended 39-83 OFC.r
that the development plans be OFC , ��•-- I
returned to the proponent for w ' ,� PROPOSED SITE 1 ,
revisions based on recommendations ; __ f//7 ,4-
as identified in the Staff Report. �
The primary issue discussed at the //'�
meeting was the increase in traffic 1:_ .� •!`2
and how it affected the inter- ^s�7'\� 4
sections at City West Parkway and 1 ` II[ �� i� ;iiir 4*alt�
Shady Oak Road. ! is- _\ ��!w��r ;� ,
Traffic I =• 26 fh"iSh
pso �s
The original traffic analysis w- 8' /' / 78 K prepared by Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch 4 ; .0;d
indicated that the additional square 1 R[1(\:
81-27; �^
footage in Primetech Park over the I `"-,� PUB Im 0-- ' :fig
approved Planned Unit Development
would generate 80 more peak hour ( �' 3� - I '` .
trips which represented about a 3% I ,`.y,: "5" ' �`- y�wr
to 4% increase in traffic for the I / 8�=i�
i.� 79-37'a:•
-..�-.,.
I/ 11111111k?FK 1-2,P
�, I.22 .( Ill i �,�. -a
1,'-, AREA LOCATION MAP
Signature II Office Building 2 November 8, 1985
City West project. Although the traffic report indicated that increase in trip
generation would not cause an impact on the intersections immediately adjacent to
City West, Staff felt that although the percentage increase might be low, that two
of the four affected intersections are already at a level of service F, which is
close to a stop condition. Staff felt that any increase in traffic would make an
existing condition worse.
The attached revised traffic study is based on as-built conditions and the projects
proposed for development. In summary, the traffic study indicates that there is a
lower projected trip generation than calculated in the original traffic analysis
because of a mixture of land uses which result in lower peak hour traffic than
originally forecasted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment,
and Planned Unit Development District Review on 20 acres, a Zoning District Change
from Rural to Office on four acres, and a Preliminary Plat of four acres and one
lot, based upon recommendations in the Staff Reports dated October 4, 1985, and
November 9, 1985, based upon revised information dated November 6, 1985, and plans
dated September 25, 1985, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The amended Planned Unit Development would be limited to no more than 0,000
square feet of building on the remainder of Primetech Park.
2. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Submit samples of proposed exterior building materials for review.
8. Modify the landscape plan to provide additional plantings to better
screen parking areas from Highway #169 and provide a better scale
relationship between the building setback and the height of the
building from the private loop road.
3. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed erosion control and storm water run-off plans for
review by the Watershed District.
8. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utilities, and erosion control
plans for review by the City Engineer.
4. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
R. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
C. Submit an overall lighting plan with details for review.
D. Submit an overall signage plan with details for review.
5. The project will be a part of the overall City West Owner's Association.
6. The project would also be responsible for their proportionate share of cost
relating to improvements to Shady Oak Road.
STAFF REPORT
f
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: October 4, 1985
SUBJECT: Signature II Office Building
LOCATION: Primetech Park, between City West Parkway and Highway #169.
OWNER/
DEEPER: Primetech Incorporated
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 20 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 20 acres with
variances.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on four acres.
4. Preliminary Plat of four acres into one lot.
I
Background f �� OF
This site is part of a 181,000 ,- -- Cr-2
square foot office park approved by
the City Council in 1983. The �' 39-83
approved concept plan identified an 0, e -
arrangement of single-story office , PROPOSED SITE . -
buildings around a private loop /a,7 -',
road, which connected to City West .Ari
Parkway. The project was to be ',, Wrz
il
r2
office-like in character and in land N, t
use. This request for concept .^e��7 1 .�,,
amendment is the third request I II-8 - 11, IOW ;; ��
proposed by Primetech Park. The ; s"M-65 ,y, \ e��'.Cr `` „
first request was the replacement of
a one-story industrial building, /'\26-- � �"1 '���`
with a two-story office building I-2 P / `
called the Signature I Office \. 8,,,z; , 12PK
Building. The second request was / 't i 78-21
I
the replacement of two, 15,000 �. 81-P7 1r '
square foot research and development I Air PUB II O42'y`1 :79
buildinscorporate�headquarters
with a s0ccalled YeHagen f 1 - �iri$�/ ." -2•
Systems. The third request t':y , �r /
(current) is for an increase from I / /'8 4` 79-37/
aPRKI-2;P,R
1 iiIi�RI-2?_ •�° -F-:.
AREA LOCATION MAP
Signature II Office Building 2 October 4, 1985
30,000 square feet contained in two, one-story office buildings, to a five-story,
54,000 square foot office building.
The four-acre site proposed for development is currently guided Office.
PUD Concept Amendment
As was mentioned in the background section, the PUD Concept Amendment involves a
change in the total square footage and height of the office buildings originally
proposed for this parcel. On a site specific basis, two, one-story, 15,000 square
foot buildings were originally proposed.
The entire development on 20 acres envisioned 181,000 square feet of building. With
the change proposed for the Signature II Building on this site, and contemplated
future changes for the remaining undeveloped property, the total square footage is
envisioned to be as high as 234,000 square feet, or 53,000 square feet more than the
approved plan. Additional square footage may have merit within any project,
provided there are not significant impacts created by an overcrowding of the site,
lack of parking, an unusually large number of variances, or increased traffic
congestion. Each of these site specific impacts will be addressed under specific
sections later in this Staff Report.
Site Plan
The site plan involves the construction of a five-story, 54,000 square foot office
building, at a Floor Area Ratio of 0.57. Though higher than the approved PUD Floor
Area Ratio, which is under 0.2 and the maximum allowed for office buildings (multi-
story) of 0.5 percent, the increase in Floor Area Ratio may have merit considering
the proximity to Highway #169, in that the height of the building is off-set by the
setback from Highway #169, and the fact that this is a visible site, and taller
buildings of unique architecture and high quality convey a clean and upscale image
to people travelling through the community on one of the major traffic corridors.
The height of the five-story building would also be in keeping with other taller
buildings, which have been approved on adjacent parcels, including the seven-story
hotel building, and the three-story O'Neill Office 8uilding.
The increased Floor Area Ratio does not precipitate any requests for normal setback
or parking variances. The building and parking areas are located on-site in
compliance with Code setback requirements for Office zoning. Parking is provided at
a ratio of four per 1,000 square feet of building area, actual parking spaces, and
proof-of-parking up to five spaces per 1,000. If actual use of the building would
dictate that four spaces per 1,000 adequate, a large green space area would remain
permanently on-site, which provides a balance to the increased amount of hard
surface and building area.
Access to this parcel will be off the common loop road, which serves the other
phases of Primetech Park. There will be two main entrances to the site off this
access road with cross-access provided to parcels to the north and south of the
property.
Grading
Since the site has previously been graded as part of the PUD approved grading plan,
only minor additional grading work will be required in order to accommodate the
Signature II Office Building 3 October 4, 1985
project as proposed. Of primary concern with this project is the relationship
between the parking areas and views from Highway #169, which is at a higher
elevation. Although a 35-foot setback is normally adequate enough room to construct
a five-foot berm at 3/1 slopes, and since Highway #169 is at a higher elevation in
the property, berming would only provide a minor blocking of the views of the
parking area. For this reason, screening of the parking areas will have to rely
solely on landscaping around the perimeter to block primary views, and heavy and
large plantings within the parking lot to break up the large amount of hard surface
area.
Architecture
The proposed five-story office building will require a height variance since the
maximum height allowed within an office district is 30 feet. As previously
mentioned, the height of this building would be consistent with taller buildings
that have been previously approved on other sites in the City West project,
including the O'Neill Office Building and the seven-story hotel. The increase in
building height on this site adds variety to the project and contributes to the
office character of this northeast corner of Eden Prairie as viewed from Highway
#169.
Primary exterior building materials will be facebrick and glass with curtain wall
glass being the dominant material. The proponent should identify a color of the
brick and type of glass being used (i.e., color, glazing, reflective or non-
reflective). The type of exterior materials proposed is consistent with what has
previously been approved and construction within Primetech Park todate.
There will be two types of mechanical units on-site. There will be a sunken pit for
a cooling tower off the first driveway entrance into the site, which will be
screened by a brick wall on all sides for approximately three feet in height above
grade. The proposed monument sign will also provide a screen for this structure.
The area around the structure should also be heavily landscaped. No rooftop
mechanical plan has been submitted for review; however, the architects have
indicated that there will be a parapet around the top of the building, which would,
in effect, screen all possible sight lines from adjacent roadways. However, since
the adjacent hotel will be a seven-story hotel at a higher elevation, there will be
views down to the top of the roof. Because of this relationship, there should be a
rooftop mechanical screening plan, using materials which are architecturally
integral to the building. This rooftop mechanical screening plan, and the ground
mounted plan details, should be submitted for review prior to Council review.
Traffic
At the request of City Staff, proponents have prepared a traffic analysis for the
Primetech Park development. The information supplied by Stragar-Roscoe-Fausch,
Incorporated, indicates that the additional square footage would generate 80 more
peak hour trips in the written proposal for the area. The 80 trips represent about
a three to four percent increase in total trips for the City West project. The
traffic engineers feel that the increase in trip generation would cause no impact to
the intersections immediately adjacent to City West.
While the percentage of increased traffic might be low, it is important to point out
that two of the four intersections are affected intersections and are already at
level of service F, which is a stop condition. The increase in traffic may not be
Signature II Office Building 4 October 4, 1985
significant enough to increase it to another level of service; however, it could be
described as going from an E to an F- condition. It is also important to consider
that there are other remaining sites within the City West project, which may request
additional building square footage. There are 15 acres remaining on the Ryan
project, City West III and IV, the three-acre CRC site, and the remaining ten-acre
Primetech site could all request higher building square footage than what had been
previously approved. Incremental increases of three to four percent over these
three projects could be a ten to twelve percent increase in traffic, which Staff
considers to be considerable.
The original traffic study done for the Primetech project was based on 202,000
square feet. The amount of actual building square footage, which has been built,
recently approved, and this 54,000 square foot building would be 158,400 square
feet. Subtracting this from the 202,000 square feet anticipated in the traffic
study, means that the remaining undeveloped piece of property now envisioned for a
60,000 to 80,000 square foot building, could only be 43,600 square feet in gross
floor area. However, it should also be considered that developing the Primetech
project consistent with the PUD would be approximately 21,000 square feet less than
what was considered in the traffic study, meaning that total traffic generated would
actually be less than what was anticipated.
There are a number of possible alternatives to be considered in regards to the
traffic impacts. These would include:
1. Total building square footage for the Primetech Park not to exceed 181,000
square feet. Since 104,400 square feet of building has been built, or
recently approved by the City, a total of 76,400 square feet could only be
built between the Signature II Office Building and the proposed office use
on the balance of the property to the north of the site. Or, the five-story
office building could be built (54,000 square feet), meaning the remaining
building on the adjacent property could only be 22,600 square feet.
2. Total building square footage in the Primetech Park project could be amended
to 202,000 square feet of building area, meaning that 43,600 square feet-of
building would only be possible on the undeveloped parcel to the north.
3. Using 202,000 square feet of building as a base, the height of the proposed
Signature II Office Building could be reduced by one story, or 10,800 square
feet. This could be added to the future building on the property to the
north, resulting in a 54,400 square foot building. This would make some
sense since a shorter building of four stories would relate better to the
surrounding one-story office buildings, and a taller building with more
square footage would relate better on the parcel to the north since that
site is dominated by a steeply wooded hill.
Landscaping
For a building of this size, Code would require the provision of 169 caliper inches.
The proposed landscape plan indicates a total of 460 caliper inches.
There are two areas on-site where Staff feels there is a need for additional plant
materials. One area is immediately east of a five-story building adjacent to the
private road, serving all of the Primetech Park. Since the setback area between the
private road and the building is only between 30 to 42 feet, there will be a need
for additional and taller plant materials to offset the height of the building in
Signature II Office Building
5 October 4, 1985 y
such a short space. Staff feels that the provision of five, 20 to 26-foot spruce
trees is a start, and the landscape plan would benefit from additional coniferous
trees or shade trees. The other area on-site, which is in need of additional
landscaping, is a 35-foot setback between parking and Highway #169. Since Highway
#169 is at a higher elevation, the extent of berming proposed will not be adequate
enough to screen parking areas. While the amount of coniferous trees is a good
start towards screening of the parking area, it is the same approach used on
Primetech Phase I. Staff feels that the proposed planting on Primetech Phase I does
not adequately screen parking areas or break up the extent of overall hard surface
area. Staff feels that there will be a need for additional coniferous trees, and in
a double row to cut off sight lines, since until the plant materials mature, there
will be a triangular gap between the coniferous plantings. The future parking area
should be sodded and landscaped in areas which will be used for setback.
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be provided to this site by connection to existing
utilities in the private loop road.
The majority of storm water run-off will sheet drain across the parking areas into
catch basins on the eastern portion of the property. From that point, water will
flow through a series of storm sewer pipes into the proposed and existing drainage
swale within Highway #169 right-of-way.
Pedestrian Systems
As part of the overall Master Plan for the City West Primetech project, there was to
be a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of the interior loop
road. Site plans should be modified to extend this five-foot wide concrete sidewalk
to the northern most property line. There should also be five-foot wide concrete
sidewalk connections from the parking area to the building and from the building to
the private loop sidewalk system.
Lighting
The proponent must submit an overall lighting plan, with details, for review. The
lighting standard for the Primetech project has been a 30-foot, cut-off, downcast
luminar. This should also be the standard for this project.
Signaqe
The proponent should submit a signage plan for review with details.
Conclusions
With changes in the landscape plan to provide for better screening of the parking
areas, the remaining, and unresolved issue relates to total traffic generated by the
project and the impacts upon effected road network. We do know that with the
increase in building square footage over and above the 202,000 square feet,
identified by the traffic study, will make traffic conditions worse at effected
intersections. The traffic section identified three possible alternatives for the
Commission to consider, all three of which limit the total building square footage
on the Primetech site to 202,000 square feet or less. Since traffic impacts at
effected intersections are at level of service E, which is the worst level of
Signature II Office Building 6 October 4, 1985
service, perhaps serious consideration should be given to not departing from the
approved 181,000 square foot concept plan. However, if a decision is made to
approve the project, then Staff would suggest that serious consideration be given to
alternative three, which proposes 10,800 square feet of less building area and
reducing the height of the structure from five to four stories on this site, and
adding that square footage to the adjacent property's (54,000) with a total building
square footage of 202,000 square feet. If the Commission agrees with this
alternative, then Staff would recommend that the request for PUD Concept Amendment,
PUD District Review, with variances for height and Floor Area Ratio, Zoning District
Change from Rural to Office on four acres, and a Preliminary Plat of four acres on
one lot be approved, based upon the recommendations identified in the Staff Report
dated October 4, 1985, based on revised plans dated September 25, 1985, and subject
to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Submit samples of proposed exterior building materials for review.
B. Modify the landscape plan to provide additional plantings to screen
parking areas from Highway #169, and to provide a better scale
relationship between the building setback and the height of the
building from the private loop road.
2. Prior to Final plat approval, proponent shall:
{ A. Submit detailed erosion control and storm water run-off plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utilities, and erosion control
plans for review by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading. No grading permit shall be issued until all erosion
control measures have been installed and approved by City Staff.
B. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
C. Submit an overall lighting plan with details for review.
D. Submit an overall signage plan with details for review.
E. This project will be a part of the overall City West Homeowners'
Association.
F. This project would also be responsible for their proportionate share
of cost relating to improvements to Shady Oak Road.
;1ti11 1
Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 12, 1985
B. SIGNATURE II OFFICE BUILDING, by MRTT Joint Venture. Request for
Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 20 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review, with variances, on 20 acres, Zoning
District Change from Rural to Office on 4.07 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 4.07 acres into one lot for construction of a 54,000 square
foot office building. Location: West of U.S. #169, East of City
West Parkway. A continued public hearing.
Planner Franzen stated that this project had been continued to this meeting
from the October 7, 19B5, Special Planning Commission meeting, pending
additional study of the traffic for the area. He noted that the additional
traffic data had been submitted, and that it was found that there would not
be an increase in traffic beyond what was originally planned for this area.
Planner Enger explained that the major difference came from the fact that
the commercial center located at the southeast corner of City West Parkway
Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 12, 1985
and Shady Oak Road had eliminated a fast food restaurant from its proposed
uses, thereby reducing the traffic generation for the entire development.
Marhula stated that, at the last meeting regarding this project, the
Commission discussed the traffic for this area and the fact that much of the
area that had already been developed was generating less traffic than
originally predicted in the first traffic study for the City West
development. He asked if the lesser volumes had been considered when this
recently revised traffic study had been done, as the City had considered
this a contributing factor to approval of these developments. Planner Enger
stated that it had been taken into consideration.
Marhula asked if there was additional traffic volume available for this
development. Planner Enger stated that there was not, in Staff's opinion.
He added that the traffic volume which would now be generated by the
development of the City West area was now reduced to the point which the
City had been comfortable with previously. He stated that the traffic
volumes were now at the level considered acceptable at the time of review of
the commercial center at the southeast corner of City West Parkway and Shady
Oak Road.
Marhula stated that it appeared that there were two "fronts" to the
structure. Mr. David Broesder, architect for proponent, reviewed the
architectural design for the project.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of MRTT Joint Venture for Planned Unit
Development Amendment Review on 20 acres Planned Unit Oevelopment District
Review, with variances, on 20 acres, and Zoning Oistrict Change from Rural
to Office on 4.07 acres for an office building to be known as Signature II,
based on plans dated September 25, 1985, and the traffic study dated
November 6, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated
October 4, and November 8, 1985.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of MRTT Joint Venture for Preliminary Plat
of 4.07 acres into one lot for an office building to be known as Signature
II, based on plans dated September 25, 1985, and the traffic study dated
November 6, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated
•
Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 12, 1985
( i
October 4, and November 8, 1985.
Motion carried--7-0-0
•
Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 7, 1985
E. SIGNATURE II OFFICE BUILDING, by MRTT Joint Venture. Request for
Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 20 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review, with variances, on 20 acres, Zoning
District Change from Rural to Office on 4.07 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 4.07 acres into one lot for construction of a 54,000 square
foot office building. Location: West of U.S. #169, East of City
West Parkway. A public hearing.
Mr. Tom Gerster, KKE Architects, representing proponents, reviewed the site
characteristics and development plan for the property with the Commission.
He noted several constraints, including bad soils, which had been factors in
the decisions made about the design of the project.
Mr. Gerster noted that proponents had prepared a traffic study due to the
proposed increase in square footage for the overall Primetech portion of the
City West Planned Unit Development of which this development was a part. He
stated that the original approval for the Primetech portion of the City West
Planned Unit Development was for 181,00D sq. ft. of structures. Proponents
were now requesting a total of 230,000 sq. ft. of structures for the same
acreage, with the majority of the increase taking place in this parcel and
the final and third phase of the Primetech portion of the City West Planned
Unit Development. The traffic study done indicated that this would
represent an increase in the overall traffic within the City West
development of 3.4%, or 75 additional cars during the PM peak hour.
Mr. Peter Fausch, traffic consultant for proponents, presented detailed
information about the traffic study. He noted that it had been based upon a
previous traffic study done by another firm at the time of review of the
overall City West Planned Unit Development. The traffic counts for that
P
Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 7, 1985
original traffic study were done based on no improvements being made to
Shady Oak Road or the adjacent highway and freeway systems. The conclusions
at that time indicated that traffic at the intersections of City West
Parkway and Shady Oak Road would be "level F," or the worst condition
possible. Mr. Fausch stated that conditions existed currently which did not
exist at the time of the original traffic study, and some of the detering
factors that existed during the original traffic study had since been
mitigated.
Mr. Gerster then reviewed the architecture and landscaping for the proposed
development. He added that, based on the concerns of the Staff Report, and
in order to accomplish at least this portion of the remaining Primetech
development, proponents were suggesting that the City take action on this
parcel alone at this time, leaving decisions about increased traffic,
increased square footage in the Primetech area, and other such matters to a
time when the last parcel within the Primetech development came before the
City for review.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of October 4, 1985, with the Commission. He stated that traffic was
a major concern in reviewing the proposal. Planner Franzen reviewed
alternatives for the development, including reduction of square footage of
the structure, or the addition of property to the site in order to
accommodate the square footage requested, thereby reducing the size of the
remaining and final Primetech development, Phase III.
Planner Enger stated that in cases where traffic volumes began reflecting
level of Service F conditions, it was a clue to the Staff that land uses
needed to be re-evaluated for a development. He stated that it was not
considered responsible planning to approve a situation which was known to be
a "worst case" for a development, such as traffic conditions at level of
Service F. Planner Enger added that the original Environmental Assessment
Worksheet for the City West Planned Unit Development was based upon a total
of 202,000 sq. ft. of structure for this area. If that square footage was
to be exceeded, another Environmental Assessment Worksheet would need to be
prepared by the developer.
With respect to overall land use planning, Planner Enger stated that the
City also needed to take into consideration the fact that there would be
other uses in the area surrounding the Primetech developments, and he listed
the other parcels involved. He noted that the City's Comprehensive Guide
Plan land use designations were based partially upon the traffic figures in
a given area, or neighborhood, and that, in this case, more than just the
City West development made up the neighborhood using the roads in the area.
Planner Enger stated that, in Staff's opinion, the traffic matters needed to
be dealt with prior to any further action on this portion of Primetech, or
Phase II of the Primetech development.
Hallett stated that, while he felt the building proposed was attractive, he
was concerned about the traffic situation. He stated that this may not be
the location for a five-story building.
Bye stated that she did not feel it was realistic to assume that there would
be a voluntary spreading of peak hour traffic amoungst the uses in the area.
}
Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 7, 1985
She added that one of the factors considered by future tenants of any
structure was accessibility of the structure, which did not seem to be the
case with Level of Service F traffic volumes in this area.
Chairman Schuck stated that his business was located within the first phase
of the Primetech development and that he had noted that traffic had
increased significantly in this area since occupying the structure.
Mr. Fausch, traffic consultant for proponents, stated that the traffic study
done for this particular development had been based upon full development of
all the uses mentioned earlier by the Staff. He noted that traffic
conditions showed improvement upon completion of road improvements such as
left-turn lanes, etc. in the area.
Bye asked when such road improvements would be implemented, adding that she
did not feel it was appropriate to make decisions at this point in time
based on unknown factors which would have a large impact on the development.
Mr. Fausch responded that there was no time table set for the road
improvements.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments or questions from members of the
audience. There were none.
Gartner asked what was likely to happen to the property to the north of the
City West Development if the owners did not build a facility of their own in
that location. Planner Enger stated that the property would possibly be
developed in a similar manner to the uses within the City West Development.
Planner Enger noted that the City had required a reduction in square footage
of developments before based on traffic and listed examples. Mr. Gerster
stated that it was proponents' opinion that the amount of increase in
traffic was not significant.
Mr. Gerster reiterated his request that the City review this request based
on its own merits, leaving the other questions about traffic to the time
when Phase III of the Primetech development was presented to the City.
Chairman Schuck stated that he did not feel the City would be acting
responsibly by postponing such decisions to the time of development of Phase
III as suggested.
Bye concurred, adding that she felt this site and its traffic could have a
significant impact on the overall development of this neighborhood.
Hallett questioned the transition that would take place between this five-
story structure and the remaining 22,000 sq. ft. that would be left for
development of Phase III of the property, and suggested that the building
may fit the overall development better if it were one story less in height.
Marhula stated that he, too, felt that the matters of traffic needed to be
resolved with this project and before the development of Phase III of the
Primetech development. He stated that he was not willing to grant an
implicit approval of a definite square footage for the remaining site in
Primetech Phase III without the traffic situation being mitigated. Hallett
Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 7, 1985
(
concurred.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to continue the public
hearing to the November 12, 1985, Special Planning Commission meeting to
allow proponents the opportunity to resolve the issues raised by the
Commission and in the Staff Report dated October 4, 1985. •
Motion carried--6-0-0
1
ii
STAFF REPORT
i
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: November 22, 1985
PROJECT: Artecka, Inc.
LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of County Road #62 and County Road #60 (Townline
Road and Baker Road)
REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial for 0.6+ acres.
Background I
This 0.6-acre parcel is adjacent to ;�• / ` , I -r)
the 9-acre+ parcel owned by Artecka, i"�'/ \( `}}}------ PROPOSEDt-� SITE
(depicted as Parcel 2 on the /f/ II
_ '
survey), proposed for acquisition by ,,,.� .- ,\,-1
Normandale Tennis Club. This parcel 'f -'
is one of four that are intended to / ° 1WO.;71;0 be aggregated in the sale to 1 . i -, .•Normandale Tennis Club to make the V ( '
overall lot large enough to allow 13 3 cYr " �;44m?, ;i,, ��
the athletic club to be constructed 4iiie4.;? . ,"{�, �� ����i��: � ,according to City Code. The parcel w �aVi�% 'proposed for rezoning is a portion I
of right-of-way no longer needed for 4 • -
County Road #62, which has been t k'':,1110
obtained by the Bailey's. Parcels 3 `•v
and 4 are also excess right-of-way '' 1that was zoned Community Commercial Il �� \ \ 1 d
prior to the original acquisition by
the State Highway Department and 23 9
County Highway Department. There- i PUB ��
fore, no zoningis needed or + ":!It: w
requested on Parcel 3 or 4. Parcel �.
1 has also previously been zoned - .- ., \
Community Commercial. A deter- . qc�
mination has been made by the Board A �'t,�f \
of Appeals and City Council that the PUBt ��
Normandale Tennis Club fits the a './ 2g-B3
description of permitted uses within * .. R1-13. '
the Community Commercial District. """ °°'° \�k 1( T�!
The Comprehensive Guide Plan also ' J 11 ' " 1 ' 1 - ^ `-f " ' .4 '
'CARER LOCATION M, .K.,
designates this parcel as Community ,,,••
Commercial.
Z9
•
Artecka, Inc. 2 November 22, 1985
Compliance to Code
Subdivision 3B, Section 11.25 of the City Code, states that "zoning requests will be
considered only on the basis of a Comprehensive Guide Plan for the entire area to be
zoned and specific plans for initial structures and site development." Although the
proponent indicates that the purpose of this rezoning is to provide additional land
for ultimate sale to Normandale Tennis Club, no specific site plan has been
submitted to the City. No other information indicating how the parcel would be
utilized has been submitted other than the Certificate of Survey showing the parcel
location.
The minimum lot size for a Community Commercial lot is five acres with a minimum
mean width of 300 feet and minimum mean depth of 300 feet. The lot proposed for
rezoning is approximately 0.6 acres in size with a mean width of approximately 372
feet, and a mean depth of approximately 73 feet. The parcel does not meet the
minimum size or dimensions required for a Community Commercial lot. •
The normal procedure for considering a rezoning would be to review a site plan to •
determine proper setbacks and other factors on a properly sized lot. None of this
information is supplied at this time, and the minimum lot size is not met without an
aggregation of this parcel with adjoining parcels. The City must rely completely
upon proponents indications that the sale to Normandale Tennis Club will be
consumated. We must further rely upon review of a site plan, which has not been
submitted to us yet. In the event the sale to Normandale Tennis Club does not go
forward, the information upon which the City relied for ultimate land use and site
planning details will no longer be valid. Therefore, the Staff would suggest that
the developer enter into an agreement with the City, if the rezoning is granted, to
provide that the parcel must be aggregated with Parcels 4, 3, and 1, and to be
utilized for the express purpose of a tennis club or else revert back to Rural
Zoning. Since the normal situation in Eden Prairie is that vacant parcels are left
zoned to the Rural designation pending a specific request, the City is left without
any potential review of this corner in the event that the tennis club does not
proceed. In order to protect the City's best interest, it is necessary to assure
that the tennis club, which is the premise of the rezoning, is the use which is
ultimately constructed upon the site.
•
, I
DECEMBER 3,1985 I
23929 VOID OUT CHECK 55.0'
23994 VOID OUT CHECK 1156.90-
'4014 VOID OUT CHECK 150000.00-
I, .4017 LES BRIDGER EXPENSES FOR SURVEILLANCE VAN 100.00
24018 MINNESOTA PUBLIC EMPLOYER LABOR CONFERENCE -CITY MANAGER 55.00
24019 SANDY WERTS -CHANGE FUND -HISTORICAL & CULTURAL 50.00
COMMISSION CONCERT
24020 ERIC WAHLIN TWIN CITIES STRINGS -CONCERT 125.00
24021 EIJI IKEDA TWIN CITIES STRINGS -CONCERT 125.00
24022 EDWARD STACK TWIN CITIES STRINGS -CONCERT 125.00
24023 RUDY LEKHTER TWIN CITIES STRINGS -CONCERT 125.00
24024 CARLJEDLICKI REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00
24025 PRAIRIE CONSTRUCTION #LOUSING REHABILITATION PROJECT 8250.00
24026 LANE INSURANCE CD INSURANCE 15751.00
24027 MN ASSOC OF URBAN MANAGEMENT REGISTRATION -CRAIG DAWSON 10.00
24028 DANA GIBBS PACKET DELIVERIES 52.00
24029 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLL 11/15/85 960.00
24030 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO LAND-PRAIRIE VILLAGE APTS -SR BUILDING 150000.00
24031 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 532.59
24032 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 280.39
24033 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 851.96
24034 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 6981.55
24035 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR WINE 2400.60
24036 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 3106.91
24037 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 851.75
24038 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 1230.47
24039 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 459.61
24040 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO WINE 62.38
1041 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 309.33
64042 COMMISSIDNER OF REVENUE OCTOBER SALES TAX 18613.08
24043 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OCTOBER 85 SPECIAL FUEL TAX 408.68
24044 SANDRA HAAPALA REFUND -RACQUETBALL LESSONS 26.00
24045 KIMBERLY LENDT REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 9.75
24046 CONNIE ANDERSON REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24047 JAIMEE COSTELLO REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24048 NANCY CROES REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24049 DOTTIE DANICICH REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24050 EILEEN DONOVAN REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24051 JOAN FOY REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24052 LORETTA J GRAMSTAD REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24053 CINDY HAYDEN REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24054 KATHY HEDRIX REFUND -AQUA' AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24055 AGNES E HOREISH REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24056 CELIA HREN REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24057 MARY SUE INGMAN REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24058 EVELYN MUSTANSKI REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24059 KAREN OSWALD REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24060 DEBRA PETERSON REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24061 MARY SCHOENWALD REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24062 DEBRA S SHIVELEY REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24063 LINDA K STANGER REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24064 JANE THOMAS REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
24065 JEAN E WIKLUND REFUND -AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 1.75
"4066 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 626.32
.067 SOUTHDALE YMCA 2ND HALF OF COUNSELORS FOR 1985 5000.00
6631547
I
24068 MET CENTER SESAME STREET LIVE 624.00
24069 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 21.69
24070 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 161.99
24071 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 21336.17
4072 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 6271.67
_4073 NORTHWESTERN 8ELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 18.56
24074 FEDERAL RESERVE 8ANK PAYROLL 11/15/85 20482.90
24075 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 11/15/85 8563.81
24076 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 11/15/85 14651.38
24077 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 11/15/85 5195.00
24078 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 11/15/85 1810.00
24079 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 11/15/85 10.00
24080 SUBURBAN NATIONAL 8ANK PAYROLL 11/15/85 250.00
24081 PER A PAYROLL 11/15/85 63.00
24082 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP PAYROLL 11/15/85 1858.00
24083 PER A PAYROLL 11/15/85 18086.53
24084 REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARO CONFERENCE -ASSISTANT MANAGER 10.00
24085 8LACKBURN NICHOLS & SMITH INSURANCE-4/ t/D'.) ,-/ .6`-17/ 5050.00
24086 ALDY GRAPHIC SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES -PLANNING DEPT 34.00
24067 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC CROSS CONNECTION PACKAGE -WATER DEPT 130.00
24088 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SIGN BRACKETS/ADAPTERS 66.96
24089 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 831.75
24090 AT & T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 1.88
24091 BARRY & SEWALL PAINT -WATER DEPT 29.10
24092 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -HOSE CLAMPS/OIL FILTERS/BRAKE PARTS/ 484.96
BATTERY
24093 8 R W INC SERVICE- VALLEY VIEW RD/PRAIRIE CENTER DR 12115.89
24094 BM8 SERVICES -INSTALL NEW CONTROL CORD & OUTLETS - 227.50
COMMUNITY CENTER
'4095 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC -SERVICE- ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY/GOLDEN 5082.00
TRIANGLE CROSSING
24096 BROWN PHOTO PHOTOS OF PARKS 26.15
24097 MAXINE BRUECK EXPENSES -FINANCE DEPT 43.43
24098 8URNER SVC & COMBUSION CONTROLS I GUARD -COMMUNITY CENTER 17.65
24099 8UTCHS BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES -LIQUOR STORES 62.80
24100 CARDOX CORP CAR8ON DIOXIDE-WATER DEPT 1061.83
24101 CARGILL SALT DIVISION SALT 3590.97
24102 R J CARPENTER 8LAST BEAVER DAMS- DRAINAGE DEPT 100.00
24103 CHAPIN PU8LISHING CO LEGAL ADS- TECHNOLOGY DRIVE 65.96
241D4 CHASEWOOD CO OF COLORADO INC REFUND -OVERPAYMENT OF 8UILDING PERMIT 19738.58
24105 CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORT LEASE AGREEMENT- WATER DEPT 60.00
24106 CITICORP INDUSTRIAL CREDIT DECEMBER 85 SERVICE 656.81
241D7 CITIZENS LEAGUE SU8SCRIPTION -ASSISTANT MANAGER 8.00
2410E CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC 'KIT -EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 28.13
24109 COMMISSIDNER OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE- PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 28.09
24110 CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY INC FACEPIECES/VALVES -FIRE DEPT 34D.00
24111 COPY EQUIPMENT INC BLACKLINE/VELLUM/CHAIR 149.67
24112 CRONSTROMS HEATING & A/C INC SERVICE -FURNACE 198.00
24113 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME -WATER DEPT 1586.93
24114 COUNTRY KITCHEN EXPENSES -POLICE DEPT 5.71
24115 OALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES -WATER DEPT 238.20
24116 CRAIG W DAWSON EXPENSES 56.75
24117 A B DICK CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 374.46
24118 ILLUSION THEATRE DEPOSIT -JAN 85 PROGRAM 100.00
'520D686
24119 ELECTRIC SERVICE CO CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN MAINTENANCE 1400.00
24120 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS MANHOLE RINGS -SEWER DEPT 90.00
24121 EMPIRE-CROWN AUTO INC MIRROR/HORN/FLOOR MATS/CLEANING SUPPLIES 91.32
24122 CHRIS ENGER NOVEMBER 85 EXPENSES 165.00
1123 FERRIS SOD FARM REFUND ON FIRE HYDRANT METER DEPOSIT 217.32
-4124 FITNESS STORE TRANSMISSION CABLE/HUB CONNECTION 25.08
24125 FORD-McNUTT GLASS COMPANY GLASS -POLICE DEPT 30.20
24126 JOHN FRANE SEPT/OCT/NOV 85 EXPENSES 495.00
24127 G L CONTRACTING INC SERVICE-PARK TERRACE 3024.91
24128 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC BRACKET/ANTENNA/FUSE -EQUIPMENT MAINT 224.67
24129 HEDBERG & SONS CONCRETE-STREET MAINT 496.03
24130 HENNEPIN CO DEPT OF PROPERTY TAX -POSTAGE FOR VOTER REGISTRATION 6.46
VERIFICATIONS
24131 HILLYARD FLOOR CARE SUPPLY CO FLOOR FINISH - COMMUNITY CENTER 80.20
24132 MARKHURD AERIAL SURVEYS INC AERIAL SURVEY -WATER DEPT 1500.00
24133 IBM SERVICE 963.21 .
24134 IBM CORP TONER -CITY HALL 340.00
24135 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES -WATER DEPT 119.85
24136 J & R RADIATOR CORP REPAIR RADIATOR -EQUIPMENT MAINT 26.50
24137 JAK OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES -FIRE DEPT 7.84
2413E JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 60..14
24139 CARL JULLIE EXPENSES 52.62
24140 KARULF HARDWARE INC -KEYS/BATTERIES/SAW BLADES/BRACES/BUCKET/ 229.53
-TAPE/CHALK/SPONGES/ROPE/SANDPAPER/
VARNISH/GLOVES
24141 DALE LACHERMEIER HAND CLEANER -WATER DEPT 136.00
24142 ROBERT LAMBERT NOVEMBER 85 EXPENSES 180.50
24143 LANCE SUPPLIES -LIQUOR STORE 17.05
24144 LANE INSURANCE INC AUTO INSURANCE 458.00
'4145 LOGIS OCTOBER 85 SERVICES 7524.27
.146 LYMAN LUMBER CO LUMBER -POLICE DEPT 68.63
24147 MARQUETTE NAT'L BANK REFUND WATER BILL 7.70
24148 BARBARA MATTSON AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR -FEES PD 105.00
24149 MCI CELLCOM SERVICE -POLICE DEPT 19.95
24150 MCFARLANES INC CONCRETE -PARK 200.00
24151 MERIT/JULIAN GRAPHICS PERMIT & INSPECTION STICKERS-BLDG DEPT 244.98
24152 METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIP CO CHEMICALS -FIRE DEPT 171.75
24153 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM OCTOBER 85 SAC CHARGES 207009.00
24154 GARY L MEYER FIREFIGHTERS CONFERENCE 134.65
24155 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO SUPPLIES- COMMUNITY CENTER 93.85
24156 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP -STREET DEPT 132.49
24157 MARION MILLER KIDS KORNER SUPPLIES 5.48 '
24158 MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO EMPLOYMENT ADS -COMMUNITY CENTER 323.00
24159 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 1409.02
24160 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC AD -COMMUNITY CENTER 16.25
24161 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS -LIQUOR STORES 75.60
24162 MN DEPT OF PU8LIC SAFETY RETAILERS BUYERS CARD LIQUOR & WINE 12.00
24163 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO PULLEY & BEARING -PARK MAINT 77.38
24164 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC BOOKS -FIRE DEPT 9.31
24165 NICHOLS & HINES INC REFUNO FIRE HYDRANT METER DEPOSIT 273.50
24166 NORTHERN PLUMBING REFUND PLUMBING PERMIT 205.50
24167 TOM O'BRIEN ARTWORK FOR HAPPENINGS -COMMUNITY CENTER 25.00
24168 PENNSYLVANIA OIL CO OIL/HYDRAULIC FLUID -EQUIPMENT MAINT 1552.16
24169 JOYCE PHELPS SKATING INSTRUCTOR -FEES PD 72.00
'3020590
24217 DUANE J CABLE
FIREMAN CALLS 202.00
24218 SPENCER L CONRAD FIREMAN CALLS 1212.00 !
24219 GENE E DAHLKE FIREMAN CALLS 452.00
24220 RICHARD R DEATON FIREMAN CALLS 808.00
'4221 FRANKLIN P ELLERING FIREMAN CALLS 710.00
_4222 ROBERT R GRANT FIREMAN CALLS 724.00
24223 JOHN K HACKING FIREMAN CALLS 128.00
24224 JOHN THOMAS HOBBS FIREMAN CALLS 1002.00
24225 WALTER C JAMES FIREMAN CALLS 506.00
24226 OUANE L JOHNSON FIREMAN CALLS 640.00
24227 RONALD 0 JOHNSON FIREMAN CALLS 1750.00
24228 PENNEY E KING FIREMAN CALLS 530.00
24229 DAVID 0 KRUEGER FIREMAN CALLS 442.00
24230 MARVIN A LAHTI FIREMAN CALLS 532.00
24231 BRADLEY E LARSON FIREMAN CALLS 562.00
24232 JAMES W LINDGREN FIREMAN CALLS 820.00
24233 ROBERT P LISTIAK FIREMAN CALLS 698.00
24234 LOWELL D LUND FIREMAN CALLS 680.00
24235 PHILIP MATHIOWETZ FIREMAN CALLS 936.00
24236 BRIAN GILL MCGRAW FIREMAN CALLS 488.00
24237 GARY LEE MEYER FIREMAN CALLS 920.00
24238 RAYMOND I MITCHELL FIREMAN CALLS 390.00
24239 THOMAS MONTGOMERY FIREMAN CALLS 928.00
24240 JOHN PAFKO FIREMAN CALLS 932.00 '.
24241 DOUGLAS LEE PLEHAL FIREMAN CALLS 1202.00
24242 MICHAEL J ROGERS FIREMAN CALLS 1442.00 '
24243 CURTIS OBERLANDER FIREMAN CALLS 882.00
24244 JOHN D RIEGERT FIREMAN CALLS 763.02 ,
24245 STANLEY A RIEGERT FIREMAN CALLS 618.00 I
24246 JOHN D ROCHFORD FIREMAN CALLS 694.00
1247 NORBERT H ROGERS FIREMAN CALLS 827.01
‘4248 TIMOTHY A SATHER FIREMAN CALLS 1075.02
24249 CHARLES SCHAITBERGER FIREMAN CALLS 1042.00
24250 HARVEY HERMAN SCHMIDT FIREMAN CALLS 296.00
24251 LEE A SCHNEIDER FIREMAN CALLS 672.O0
24252 GERALD M SCHWANKL FIREMAN CALLS 852.00
24253 JOHN J SKRANKA FIREMAN CALLS 750.00
24254 MARC LEWIS THIELMAN FIREMAN CALLS 1310.00
24255 BURTON LEE SUTTON FIREMAN CALLS 942.00
24256 JAY C WHITING FIREMAN CALLS 694.00
24257 THOMAS D WILSON FIREMAN CALLS 682.00
2425E JERRY ANDERSON HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 24.00
24259 TIM BLOCK BASKETBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 52.00
24260 LEE M BRANOT HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 108.50
2426I JEFFREY CONRAD HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 105.00
24262 RON ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 67.00
24263 MICHAEL W HAMILTON -HOCKEY/BASKETBALL/VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL- 122.00
FEES PD
24264 ROGER HAWKINSON BASKETBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 52.00
24265 KURT HYSTER HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 124.00
24266 TOM KEEFE BASKETBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 52.00
24267 MIKE LAMBERT VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 80.00
24268 BOB LANZI JR VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 130.00
24269 RANDY MASON HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 93.00
3274455
,2 30
24270 GREG MUELLER VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL —FEES PD 104.00
24271 PAUL R MYERS BASKETBALL OFFICIAL —FEES PD 45.00
24272 HARRY H ORTLOFF HOCKEY OFFICIAL —FEES PD 52.00
"1273 RICK PALMER BASKETBALL OFFICIAL —FEES PD 52.00 i
ts 274 SCOTT PETERS VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL —FEES PD 20.00
24275 KEITH POKELO VOLLEYBALL/BASKETBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 78.00 I
24276 ROBERT RYAN HOCKEY OFFICIAL —FEES PD 186.00
24277 KURT A SANDNESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL —FEES PD 156.25
24278 MICHAEL SAUL FOOTBALL OFFICIAL —FEES PD 52.00
24279 KART SMITH BASKETBALL DFFICIAL —FEES PD 20.00
76525 $551293.68
•
•
•
Ili
T :-
10 GENERAL 224524.67Ir
15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 29558.32
17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 24394.49
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 16971.29
57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CDNST FD 65.96
( 3 WATER FUND 31998.83
.7 SEWER FUND 207867.98
81 TRUST It ESCROW FUND 7407.45
87 CDBG FUND 8250.00
90 TAX INCREMENT FUND 254.69
$551293.68
•
•
i '.
•
McGlynn Bakeries - Variance #85-40 •
Contents
Memorandum dated November 26, 1985
Variance Application #85-40
Letter from Burton McGlynn dated September 4, 1985
Variance Request #85-40
Final Order #85-40
Staff Report dated November 7, 1985
Unapproved Minutes from November 14, 1985
Staff Report dated October 3, 1985
Approved Minutes from October 10, 1985
Staff Report dated October 11, 1984
Variance Request #85-55
Final Order #85-55
Letter from Eden Land Sales, Inc. dated October 3, 1985
•
Exterior elevation - dated September 6, 1985
•
Original Site Plan - dated September 19, 1985
Revised Site Plan - dated October 10, 1985
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council
FROM: Steve Durham, Assistant Planner
DATE: November 26, 1985
RE: Variance Request #85-40, McGlynn Bakeries
McGlynn Bakeries applied for and received variances in October of 1984, to construct
a 48,000 square foot building addition with a F.A.R. of .35 (Code maximum is .30),
and parking of 181 stalls, (Code required 278 stalls). To support the F.A.R.
variance request, Staff suggested continuation of the existing mansard roof line to
the new building addition. This would architecturally connect the existing building
with the new building addition and continue the existing office characteristic
already established. Variance Request #84-55 was granted with the condition that
the mansard roof line be continued on the new addition.
In September of 1985, McGlynn Bakeries submitted an application to the Board of
Appeals requesting the condition of continuing the mansard roof be deleted from
Variance #84-55. Staff was not in support of the request, which is reflected in the
Board of Appeals Staff report.
( On November 14, 1985, the Board of Appeals acted on Variance Request #85-40 with the
following motion:
Motion: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-40 with the
following findings:
1) A minimum 12" metal fascia and a maximum of 24" metal fascia be
placed on the new building addition at the discretion between the
architect and the City Staff.
2) There be some color continuity throughout that would make the
building more pleasing.
3) A revised landscape plan be submitted with at least 300+ caliper
inches per Code.
4) There was only one letter of concern against the issue which was
from the Edenvale Corporation.
Sandvick seconded the motion adding that the mansard roof be deleted from
the previous Variance Request #84-55. Also, the depth of the fascia be
expanded to a measurement that would be arrived at between Staff and the
proponent that would take on a visual continuity, from either Mitchell Road
or Martini Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Council, at its November 19, 1985, meeting, elected to review the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals decision to delete the continuation of the mansard roof on the
McGlynn Addition.
J; 1
(
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
VARIANCE REQUEST Variance No.52.
( 1
DATE: September 9, 1985
APPLICANT'S NAME McGlynn Bakeries, Inc.
•
ADDRESS: 7752 Mitchell Road zip
PHONES: Work 937-9404 Home
FEE: $50.00 receipt #
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT: Address: 7752 Mitchell Road
. Legal:
REASON FOR VARIANCE: Deviation from City restrictions on design.
•
ATTACH THE FOLLOWING 1. 811x11"survey showing lot lines and setbacks of
existing and proposed structures and location
of buildings on adjoining properties. Also show
pertinent topographical features such as trees,
fences, berms, steep slopes, ponds, roads, and
existing and proposed elevations.
2. Letter addressed to the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments explaining nature of variance request
and reason(s) why conformance to the literal pro—
visions of the City's Code would cause hardship. •
Applicant's natures
(0
Fe Owner's S' natur�j
Notes to Applicant:
-Applications must be filed no later than the
2nd Thursday of the Month previous to the meeting
-The Board meets on the 2nd Thursday of the Month,
7:30 PM, City Hal1,8950 Eden Prairie Road
-Notices are published in the Eden Prairie News
and mailed to property owners within 500 feet.
Applicants are encouraged to personally contact
adjacent property owners prior to the hearing in
order to explain the variance and to be prepared
to address their concerns at the hearing.
(
Q 21.
® Q2 32
McGlynn Bakeries,Inc..
September 4, 1985
Board of Appeals and Adjustments
City of Eden Prairie
6950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
SUBJECT: Exterior Building Design
McGlynn Bakeries Expansion
BUILDING: Located at 7752 Mitchell Road
PROPERTY I.D.: 09-116-22-44-0043
We request a variance fran the City Planning Departments requirement of
a mansard application on the exterior of the new building expansion.
We believe that the building aesthetically would be enhanced by
emitting the mansard on the new addition. Please refer to the
submitted color rendering of the total building facade as seen fran
Mitchell Road. The existing, older mansard structure should be treated
as a separate entity because of its lower lines and window
fenestration. As such, the new higher addition should contrast, vet
complement, the adjacent building. The berming, landscaping, coloring
and massing of the pre-cast addition aesthetically answers these
concerns. Additionally, the present lower structure remains a
significant focal point when the taller adjacent building is left
unobtrusive.
We, like the city, desire an attractive building that we can all be
proud of. We strongly feel that these goals will be jeopardized by
simply adding a mansard and matching :mint.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue. We await your reply.
If there is anything further that we can do to facilitate the Board's
consideration, please advise.
Sincerely,
Burton J. ?SSGl
bb
General Ottices
7752 Mecnell Roan
Eden Praine Minn 5531.1
Phone 612.937.9104
•
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
BOARD Of APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING VARIANCE REQUEST
q 85-40
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments
will meet at the following time and place: •
7:30 P.M.
Thursday, Oct. 10 19 85
At the Eden Prairie School Board Room, Administration 81
3100 School Rd., 55344
to review and consider the variance request # 85-40 , submitted by
McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. for property located at 7752 Mitchell
Rd., Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Legally described as: See Attached:
The request is for a variance from the conditions of Final Order #84-55,
which required the continuation of the mansard roof on the new McGlynn
•
building addition. McGlynn requests the requirement for continuation of
the mansard roof be deleted.
Written or oral comments relating to this variance request will be heard
at this meeting. Said variance application is on file for public review
at the Planning Department at Eden Prairie City Hall.
PUBLISH: September 25, 1985 City of Eden Prairie
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Legal Description for Variance Request #85-40:
Edenvale Industrial Park, Lot 1, Block 3, and outlot C, and Lot 1,
Block 4, also that part of Lot 2, Block 4, lying easterly of a line
running from a point 30 feet north from south line thereof and 216
feet west from southeast corner thereof to a point on north line
thereof distance 170 feet easterly from northwest corner thereof.
•
\✓?j lr _
i-'Y OF EDEN PRAIRIE VARII(' E #85-40
BOARD OF APPEALS t.NO ADJUSTMENTS '
FINAL ORDER
RE: Petition of McGlynn Bakeries
ADDRESS: 7752 Mitchell Road
VARIANCE REQUEST: See Attached
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the City of Eden Prairie at a
regular (special) meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and
after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file I
therein does hereby find and order as follows:
1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said
variance have been met. (YES x NO ).
2. There are circumstances unique to the property under consideration,
and granting such variance does not violate the spirit and intent
of the City's Zoning and platting Code.
3, Variance Request #85-40 is herein Granted x , Denied
4. Conditions to the granting x , Denial , of said variance
are as follows:
See attached:
5. This variance shall be revoked within 15 days after notice of
failure to meet the required conditions has been given.
6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the
City Clerk.
7. This order shall be effective Nov. 14, 1985 ; however, this
variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection
or alterations permitted shall occur within one (1) year of the
effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant
to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one
year from the effective date hereof.
8. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City
Council review.
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTE�ENTS
BY: 1.1
_ C04 Ceeln/�terrvL
DATED: /f— /'I—?S
c
VARIANCE REQUEST #85-40:
The request is for a variance from the conditions of Final Order #84-55,
which required the continuation of the mansard roof on the new McGlynn
building addition. McGlynn requests the requirement for continuation
of the mansard roof be deleted.
1�(J
C
CONDITIONS TO THE GRANTING OF VARIANCE REQUEST #85-40:
1) A minimum 12" metal fascia panel and a maximum of 24" metal fascia
panel be placed on the new building addition at the discretion bet-
ween the architect and City Staff.
2) There be some color continuity throughout that would make the
building more pleasing. Paint the new addition a color, which
will match the existing building. Color must be approved by the
Planning Department.
3) Submit a revised landscape plan to the Planning Department for
approval, which meets the current minumum Code requirement of
300+ total caliper inches.
4) A landscape performance bond be required for the revised landscape
plan.
5) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
I
Page 1 1
STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of Appeals and Adjustments
FROM: Steven Durham, Assistant Planner
DATE: November 7, 1985
RE: November 14, 1985
A. Request #85-40, submitted by McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. for
property located at 7752 Mitchell Road. The request is for a
variance from the conditions of Final Order #84-55, which
required the continuation of the mansard roof on the new
McGlynn building addition. McGlynn requests the requirement
for continuation of the mansard roof be deleted. (Continued
from October 12, 1985 meeting)
Background - This variance request was continued from the October
12, 1985 meeting. The continuance was to allow the Board members
time for further review of the request, and allow applicant time to
submit additional material, in support of not continuing the mansard
roof on the new McGlynn building addition.
In October of 1984, McGlynn Bakeries applied for received variances
from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. The variances were
related to the 48,000 square foot building addition which included
Floor Area Ratio and parking variances. The F.A.R. was permitted at
35, (Code permits .30), and parking was permitted at 181 stalls,
(Code required 278 stalls).
Initially, Staff was concerned about building mass and architectural
continuity for the site. The existing structure, which fronts on
Highway 5 and Mitchell Road, included a mansard roof on the second
story portion of the building. The appearance of the structure is
office in nature and characterizes quality development, in an I-2
zoning district. The site is also at the main entrance to the 1000
acre Edenvale Planned Unit development which includes residential,
commercial, and industrial development. Approximately 2,700+ people
reside in Edenvale PUD.
The new addition has a total building height of 25 feet. The 9,280
square feet freezer space has a height of 38 feet. The height along
with a Floor Area Ratio of .35, dictated the need for some type of
architectural connection, between the existing and new building
addition. To achieve architectural connection, Staff suggested
continuation of the mansard roof line. In October of 1984, Buetow &
Associates, the architects of the building addition, presented the
building addition to Staff with and without the mansard roof line.
It was determined by Staff that the continuation of the mansard roof
was architecturally needed to connect the new building additon to
the existing structure, perpetuate the existing office character of
the building, and support the granting of a variance for F.A.R. and
parking variance.
Page 2
The Board approved Variance Request #84-55 with the following
conditions:
1) The architecture of the proposed building expansion
reflect continuity in terms of building materials,
color, and roof lines. Continuation of the mansard
roof and office appearance be maintained.
2) All mechanical rooftop equipment located on the
existing and proposed roof be screened.
3) All loading docks be screened from Martin Drive.
4) Freezer wall panel color selection be Egyptian
White. •
5) An 8 foot berm with 16 feet evergreens be placed
along Martin Drive.
6) The four parking spaces for handicapped be split
between the main entrances.
Origin of Request - The new building addition was constructed over
the winter and summer of 1985. The mansard roof was not constructed
with the initial expansion. In August of 1985, McGlynn Bakeries
requested an on-site inspection by City Staff to discuss deleting
the mansard roof. City Staff determined, after an on-site
inspection and after reviewing various building elevations, with and
without the mansard roof, continuation of the mansard roof line.
Site Review - The applicant has submitted a landscape plan dated
October 25, 1985, as an alternative to continuing the mansard roof.
(Note Exhibit Al. The revised landscape plan does not change
significantly from the approved landscape plan dated September 18,
1984. (Note Exhibit A2). Below is a comparison of the two
landscape planting schedules and actual installed plant material,
Approved Plan Revised Plan
September 18,_1984 October 25, 1985 Currently Installed
NAME QUANTITY SIZE QUANTITY SIZE QUANTITY SIZE
Amur Maple 6 5'- 6' - - - -
Sugar Maple 2 4"- 6" 2 4"- 6" 2 4 6"
Marshall Seedless Ash 2 2 1/2" 5 2 1/2" 3 5"- 6"
Red Wing Dogwood 12 4'- 5' 6 4'- 5' 12 4'- 5'
Black Hills Spruce 4 5'- 6' 34 10'-12' 22 5'- 6'
Black Hills Spruce 14 5'- 6' - - 2 10'-12'
Total Plants 47 WI
Page 3
Exhibit A3 is the actual installed landcape plan on the McGlynn
site. The proposed landscape plan does not support the deletion of
the mansard roof for the following reasons.
The landscape plan as submitted does not meet current City Code
standard. The building would require 300 total caliper inches of
over story plant material as a minimum. The proposed plan indicates
160 total caliper inches.
The intent of the mansard roof was to architecturally connect the
two buildings and lessen the impact of the Floor Area Ratio
variance. A landscape plan cannot be utilized to accomplish the
same purpose. The landscape plan should be utilized to further
enhance the site plan and lessen impact of the building. The
landscape plan should not be used as a band-aid approach to
architecturally lessen the impact of the building and increased
Floor Area Ratio.
Deviations From Site Plan Approved - The following deviations from
the original site plan have occured. The original site plan
indicated removal of an existing drive-way on the Northwest portion
of the building, where the loading docks are located. The drive-way
was to be closed, bermed, and landscaped with the construction of
the new addition. To date this has not been completed.
The color of the building was to match architecturally, the existing
building. The color of the new addition does not match the existing
building.
A condition of Variance Request #84-55, was to install 16'
evergreens along Martin Drive, adjacent to the freezer. This has
not been completed.
The landscape plan, as approved, was not followed. Location and
plant material size.
Conclusion - Staff has reviewed the new landscape plan submitted,
and has determined that the plan does not support reason for not
discontinuing the mansard roofiine. The continuation of the mansard
roof is still supported by Staff with the following findings:
Architectural continuity is maintained with the mansard roof, which
was the original intent for this requirement. Absence of the
mansard roof creates disunity, between the new addition and existing
building.
The site has high visibility from Mitchell Road and Highway 5 and is
the main entrance to the Edenvale PUD. An office characteristic
existed, prior to the new addition. Staff felt the continuation of
the offic characteristic should be maintained. Therefore, Staff
suggested continuation of the mansard roof as part of a condition,
to granting of Variance #84-55. McGlynn agreed to the continuation
of the mansard roof.
Page 4
The proposed landscape plan is inadequate and not significantly
different from what is presently installed. The landscape plan
cannot effectively tie the two buildings together.
Removal of a condition approving a variance may set a precedent for
future amendments to approved variances.
Recommendation - The Board could choose from one of the following
alternatives or a variation thereof:
1) Deny Variance Request #85-40, with the following
findings:
a) No undue hardship has been demonstrated.
b) The mansard roof was a condition of granting
Variance Request #84-55, and the Board does not find
reason or supportive information to delete the
continuance of the mansard roof.
2) Grant Variance Request #85-40, with the following
conditions:
a) Submit a revised landscape plan to the Planning
Department for approval, which meets the current
minimum Code requirement of 300+ total caliper
inches.
b) Paint the new addition a color, which will match the
existing building. Color must be approved by the
Planning Department.
c) Close the middle drive entrance, adjacent to the
Northwest loading docks, as indicated on original
site plan, dated September 18, 1984.
d) A landscape performance bond be required for the
revised landscape plan.
•
S ...I !
�� Page / x y`
Q- N 1
�` W W V�M� Z •
p 1 .z.., tv
W a ¢< �
v 1� I► '
- r1\
../. ok.s.e........:—.. '\,..„..---/\,...0.
1 • .�. gar 1 k IHP
tttj a `s
\ 1 11y y� 3 3
I
. W }p I I� I' C1 ¢ u�.a •
i' i4 W ' �I p j <�
J J O ,,v~. I OL
_ Q W WY , 2K
K
X « j e
— -..r AS) 1.
_W ii1
.: ilpfA
. ,,, liP•es. 1
i iw
e. 4
z
x N s '1-'
� •4 N j .� �J � ; Q
J N.R
d
r j .�. I
,-----)e))
.,, ri,) ,
. 1 .,.3 1 —2.
7----______ , , _.
,.
ti�:',fr. /
... ,, \.„ ...
.„..
___ i, f W rW EXHIBIT Al _ 4
\l S t fl
,, . •5,— Page 6
cyll
---__
ei •,,,
,
--.--''''-•.-'7-------.-_,__ ",••••,.1 kr
"6' --zt - r•-b''''::;:— : '-'1'7". i.7';y;..,' '-- -- :7'2 ;.',..
1
(14_
. .-. --,,,,•.“ , .4..:4,,.-- . ---".:."1,"------------
:A •*
1.. t.
..., -Y. . .. -..... _ v. 1
---- • 7,..;
i• ii: 4/,.. , ...., ••••• -,,
• . ../-!;.'...- •' 'far(. •,,_ ...... . ___---------, .I . '• ''• • ': - -; 7-. ft --!' ,lei'''. "1/4ti - - •-• - * '‘'"' . li'79,L
. t.... ......_— ..... ....._ __
w .....,t!:P.,, ....t---------..:?-‘,-.--,A-,- ., ;;;i -,8„,
-- Z.?, ' , • -
N.L.1„„...(/- • r9) ' - k
k•-• •1/4 \
Z ' ,... -, i... -<-_,,,,m____.4.: • '7-7-, --.....-4 ..--ii.- '‘,0 ---- -''''•.' . ... '-
,___,, -PS_., 4,3 \<.:....0.171 : :fp, ii- .--,;,... r,„, , _ ,.....:„.- ...,..„,,,.. 3,-.- _______... -•
• •'..4,•,;' 1'21fig.... ' i ;.-1:7:---"---or,4.J._:•-•-:/-1.-- . -;',"'J--.•----
I 1".'2 2'1:St • 1 - '''•'.tl.! ...,0',-• 7-10'7f4".v." "•,•.',,e14..." •:',Nt.4-•-0'''`-•., . 1 -..4•----- -71- ' .-:-'4.,,,. •.. 11--)
L ' * : fvzil,-,*,c- ,3P1-7---- - .-i'.- ,?- . 4,tto.. ..,..c.qm.--404tz,efit..-.1 ,7.,„ ..' --->..-,
i
...-- ' -c,---r-i-, --7r ..,..•.o..-?,vLiTf, --,ity..,1.2,1-4•4-2,-,:A",:i,,,,,„0-.41,4,,...•:.::,,..,;,',,'i-v*4''lo.4'i;:e.-
,tc‘,•,...-.)..4.
.i;,.,.'i:,-1/4f",.>,,- _„--_-„-i-i-#17-:p.:..,,,--,,-.;L:,-:':,:-.'-.',:z:,7,,.",;‘.?'.g,-4:'',,,it.x1,.1:„.tt,„4:),,4,°•;:.,,1 i•.,,:..-.,`,.?"--.,:f,,‘,.1,,i.-,,.4.,,.Il.t't.i-1.,wv„4r..,f...,.V-,,tq,;4..i....7,,4
,a;gt,'r-,..-1,e,",.-i..3.N,-,'A44':,,',7i,,i-,,,r-t-e,...iN9,,:,.'..*.,:-„..-:.i..*4..4.,-,.i,i::.-,:4.-,",.,:--:l;::.'!-.':i-.:.--',...I.,;-'.;.'.-37:,..--:-2,r,,1;.,'1':,1.,...-!,!.'..."--',,.:Z,:1.,1,.!,.'q,-1ri-,-,,-,..'-,g':;?,:-.'-,:1.''1,--;,;.:.',.,',,";.,,,,,,'-':,-,'•;.,.,,.„-„_---.?'::-.;?;„---,,.',..-,;.:,-f''-,;•,'A4.73.,'-.,-"„.'•'.1:,r,7_.;--,4-,,.:f-.,:,.7n,,:A?:.7:7..,_-;$:::,t.-,7'.,."'„;11'„-1-,-,.,-0;'1'4'7'.''('k,4'l':q,'.0-h4,.-1"7 1:‘,:2g•.;,.7'54,.,i,.t„.,t-.,a;-.--:-''4,`:',-•,i•L-;',•',.,-',,",,,:‘:.,..,`i:'::,-..-j=:",,V,,-i-.•1.C,.„,.:,-:‘7i.:,,•t,,z;.,.7:1
\3 - : 4 t1:4, .- ,.sp t
1ir "„Z4 : 2YZ - 31r
, , :4.. . t4 -:.(;,•:..
..:,
;,,4.•",,:,:;,...,:.4,v
.,'•'-
' ''-• .'• i:- •;;. .- -''''''j !;...:Ar0••=;--„.•no,.,-,-.- -''•••..*-4"•-,'el.••'',,: ili..1*- iz•-•,,:,
•;,\\
\,,-___t_''‘I''..'0\''( ,-,'•',-..,•,,.•..-.c_,_i.i.1,.1-:-7-7-".-.m17.r'.*."4',.‘;-...,•** ::,'•7::!1,, i•-:•,;i!•4,-.•t74••,:,9:.•.-0.•--,*;,.,77-.r.'•,.•'•!,•,k4c•7F;.':-•.:,7:E-'.2.4.-:.'•-•.i.l;ci-1tp?,t•„'.:,t:,-...:-;T3-P-=..--,.:;.-'.i-:,::,•:•:;is••&=,••,,.5,'i-......;.:-,,-.'';.,.,.'.‘,..,-,1',•.-,..:1.:k;',,xa'.,0.'•-=.:,-":-1,;,-.*,,-,,';,:,,,,.,,=Z.,--,'.-,7;"7.:?'1.,.-.-
id.
1 .
-_ : 7, :,: 4A
. ' >') . .._
--6-Y-'2',..,:-.7,--
....... _,.A
.)...1")-,e,"?.."`\ '''''.."_ ...
----,4- "---.4",..- A'9\ `re4t• - .
•,-. '',...i 3/4.5' "''''', 'le '•..1"..Z.. -', •-
'' ' ''''' f _-' ,•ksi.._ . -,i- - : ...2-- ' "-,,:
---
-.),. ) i
--'•'-' 1- k.42,-.hisZ;k: 1,"--,,,----. ; ..
4:•'• ,.
-.:
'
"4 fr-5 •,", -`-'100- ' ,.• - It.-=',›C ' 7 .' - : A-
-
is-....1-
ia'-4 aiirkin ..
. ..
, .
..',.'r.
',..
EXHIBIT A2
: ••"..-_:....
•
\NI ." MilaS(1►r1.Le 7 q A _
4 _ - l 2 N Ny c 1
W v a �< , \>
R Et)Ti),` p ° '. ' �• . .x e
N.• CC‘, 1/4yj
toxsA i. ► g $
�� 1 \ i — % i �� = .f1 v =
3 V .c J u
® z `
f . . Qi o v< o .
3
c I SutR CD v -1. -
w
i.
01
® `
`\ !• $Ls'tY. I}ht.Ls S1g cE ,
( c Q
•
i i_
r
N i I.
gNW u
. Zl(.. �`L
J ( l , I,
2. , z!` 0 ( Pim z
!,,
ern. ,
xt ' V
,. 1
• . 4.•
(
I
0 ; 1 5 -s 2 4
/'- 4J SC�RSI} {,--.
--___,. \\. 'ti v j�.,jr .,r
), , ,; EXHIBIT A3
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1985 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION
BLDG., SCHOOL BOARD ROOM,
8100 SCHOOL ROAD
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch,
Roger Sandvick, James Dickey, and
Hanley Anderson
BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and
Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede
ROLL CALL: Anderson and Lynch were absent.
I. MINUTES
A. Minutes of October 10, 1985.
MOTION: Dickey moved, seconded by Sandvick, to approve the minutes
of October 10, 1985. Motion carried--2-0-1. (Krueger abstained.)
II. VARIANCES
•
A. Request #85-40, submitted by McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. for property
located at 7752 Mitchell Road. The request is for a variance
from the conditions of Final.Order #84-55, which required the
continuation of the mansard roof on the new McGlynn building
addition. McGlynn requests the requirement for continuation
of the mansard roof be deleted.
This variance request was continued from the October 10, 1985 meeting to
allow proponent more time to work with the issue.
Farrell Johnson of Buetow and Associates, architect with the project, spoke
to the request. Instead of putting the wood treatments at the top of the
building, a combination of heavier planting (from 31-42 large size plants)
and posts which would be drilled in the ground was suggested. The posts
would hold pre-cast sections and would hold the parking berm in a firm
position. This would give an adequate drive space between the building
and the berm for parking and driving. This proposal was presented to
the Planning Staff.
Sandvick asked how the problem of continuing the architectural continuity
of the previous building was approached. Johnson said that theyfwere not
in favor of the mansard originally. It did not add to;the overall appearance
of the building. The existing building justifies the mansard on it by the
nature of its construction. The addition has a sheer wall that is slightly
higher than the building. • A plain.wall would give the backdrop for the
• present building a better appearance. Therefs a rustic effect to the
building with the existing berms and the signage. By enhancing the berm
with more planting, and vertical relief of wood members from the ground up,
the rustic flavor of the site development would continue.
oard of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - November 14, 1985
Sandvick stated that he would like to see something along the fascia to
compliment the mansard roof. Nothing was done with the building itself
Johnson said that the color that was picked was neutral. Possibly a
painted strip of fascia at the top could be used.
Dickey asked if the color was recommended by the Planning Department.
Durham said no, the intent of providing architectural continuity was to
match the existing color with the new addition.
Krueger said that there is no connection with the old and the new building.
Dickey asked if repainting the fascia with one or two colors would take
care of the problem. Durham replied that it would help, but that the
building may not need to be a two-tone color.
Dickey stated that he leans towards more landscape and a different color.
Dickey is anti-mansard because of the up-keep involved in the future. •
Dickey had a concern with the middle drive entrance towards the back of
the building. Durham said that it was proposed to be closed off to
screen the loading docks.
Sandvick wondered if the cap could be eased with a material to tie in
with the existing mansard roof. Johnson said that a metal flashing
extending 12-18" could be used. It could be colored in a dark tone.
Sandvick inquired about maintenance. Johnson said that there was no
maintenance with the color clad fascia.
Sandvick asked about sizes for the fascia. Johnson stated that if the metal
fascia is too big it would tend to wrinkle up.
Sandvick asked how the metal fascia was tacked up. Johnson said that it
came in 10' lengths.
Sandvick wondered what size would be appropriate for the metal flashing
Johnson said that 12" would be okay. They would have to check further.
Sandvick was not sure that a 1' metal flashing would make a significant
visual difference, although color would have an impact.
Dickey inquired if there was a problem with the middle drive being opened
or closed. Burton McGlynn, owner, said that it would be a hardshio if it
were closed. Durham wondered why it was shown closed off on the original!
plans. McGlynn said that they must have forgotten about it.
Dickey asked if there would be a problem increasing the number of caliper
inches for landscaping. McGlynn said no.
•
oard of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - November 14, 1985
MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-40
submitted by McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. with the following findings: •
1) A minimum 12" metal fascia panel and a maximum of 24" metal fascia
panel be placed on the new building addition at the discretion bet-
ween the architect and City Staff.
2) There be some color continuity throughout that would make the
building more pleasing. Paint the new addition a color, which
will match the existing building. Color must be approved by the
Planning Department.
3) Submit a revised landscape plan to the Planning Department for
approval, which meets the current minumum Code requirement of
-300+ total caliper inches.
4) A landscape performance bond be required for the revised landscape
plan.
5) There was only one letter of concern against the issue, which was
from the Edenvale Corporation, dated October 3, 1985.
6) This variance request must be utilized within one year.
Sandvick seconded the motion adding that the mansard roof be deleted
from the previous Variance Request #84-55. Also, the depth of the
fascia be expanded to a measurement that would be arrived at between
the Staff and proponent that would take on a visual continuity from
either Mitchell Road or Martin Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
•
• STAFF REPORT DATED - OCTOBER 3, 1985 Page 2
B. Variance Request #85-40, submitted by McGlynn Bakeries, Inc.
for property located at 7752 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie,
Minnesota. The request is for a variance from the conditions
of Final Order #84-55, which required the continuation of the
mansard roof on the new McGlynn building addition. McGlynn
requests the requirement for continuation of the mansard roof
be deleted.
Background - In October of 1984, McGlynn Bakeries applied for and
received variances from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. The
variances were related to the 48,000 square foot building addition
which included floor area ratio and parking varianes. The F.A.R.
was permitted at .35, Code permits .30, and parking was permitted at
181 stalls, Code required 278 stalls.
Initially Staff was concerned about building mass and architectural
continuity for the site. The existing structure, which fronts on
Highway 5 and Mitchell Road, included a mansard roof on the second
story portion of the building. The appearance of the structure is
office in nature and characterizes quality development in an 1-2
zoning district. The site is also at the main entrance to the 1000
acre Edenvale Planned Unit development which includes residential,
commercial, and industrial development. Approximately 2,70040eople
reside in Edenvale PUD.
The new addition has a total building height of 25 feet. The 9,280
square feet freezer space has a height of 38 feet. The height along
with a floor area ratio of .35, dictated the need for some type of
architectural connection between the existing and new building
addition. To achieve architectural connection staff suggested
continuation of the mansard roof line. In October of 1984, Buetow b
Associates, the architects of the building addition, presented the
building addition to Staff with and without the mansard roof line.
It was determined by Staff that the continuation of the mansard roof
was architecturally needed to connect the new building addition to
the existing structure, perpetuate the existing office character of
the building, and support the granting of a variance for F.A.R. and
parking variance.
The Board approved Variance Request #84-55 with the following
conditions:
1) The architecture of the proposed building expansion
reflect continuity in terms of building materials, -
color, and roof lines.
Continuation of the mansard roof and office
appearance be maintained.
2) All mechanical rooftop equipment located on the
existing and proposed roof be screened.
3) All loading docks be screened from Martin Drive.
4) Freezer wall panel color selection be Egyptian
White.
( 5) An 8 foot berm with 16 feet evergreens be placed
along Martin Drive.
6) The four parking spaces for handicpped be split
between the main entrances.
T
STAFF REPORT DATED - OCTOBER 3, 1985 Page 3
The building color of the new addition does not match the existing
building. Granting of variance request #84-55 did require the color
to match the new addition with the existing building. The 'Board
should consider this in reviewing the current request.
Site Review - In support for deleting the requirement of the
mansard roof, from the new building addition, Buetow and Associates
have again submitted elevations of the building with and without the
mansard roof.
In a letter from Burton McGlynn, dated September 4, 1985, a case is
presented separating the new addition from the existing building.
McGlynn believes the berming and landscaping, that was required,
asthetically and unobtrusively connects the buildings together.
Staff has reviewed the new plans submitted with and without the
mansard roof. The continuation of the mansard roof is still
supported by Staff with the following findings:
1) Architectural continuity is maintained with the
mansard roof which was the original intent for this
requirement. Absense of the mansard roof creates
disunity between the new addition and existing
building.
2) The site has high visibility from Mitchell Road and
Highway 5 and is the main entrance to the Edenvale
PUD. An office characteristic existed prior to the
new addition. Staff felt the continuiation of the
office characteristic should be maintained.
Therefore, staff suggested continuation of the
mansard roof as part of a condition to granting of
variance #84-55. McGlynn agreed to the continuation
of the mansard roof.
3) The elevations of the buildings without the mansard
roof indicate extensive plantings. This is not a
true rendition of the planting out on the site.
Staff does not believe that extra plantings will
architecturally connect the existing and new
addition.
Recommendation - Staff supports the Board of Appeals and
Adjustment's decision of October 11, 1984, requiring the
continuation of the mansard roof for Variance Request #84-55.
Deleting the mansard roof would defeat the architectural building
continuity originally suggested by City Staff and remove a condition
for the approval of the variance request.
The Board could choose to grant Variance Request #85-40.
The Board could choose to deny Variance Request #85-40, with the
following findings:
No undue hardship has been demonstrated
The mansard roof was a condition of Variance Request #84-55
and the Board does not find reason or supportive
information to delete the continuation of the
mansard roof.
APPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF APPEALS ANO ADJUSTMENTS
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1985 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION
BLDG., SCHOOL BOARD RM.,
8100 SCHOOL ROAO
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch,
Roger Sandvick, James Oickey, and
Hanley Anderson
BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and
Recording Secretary, Lynda Oiede
ROLL CALL: Krueger was absent.
I. MINUTES
A. Minutes of September 12, 1985. •
MOTION: Oickey moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the
minutes of September 12, 1985. Motion carried--2-0-2. (Lynch
and Sandvick abstained.)
II. VARIANCES
A. Request #85-27, submitted by E.A. Sween Company for property
located at 16T01 West 78th Street. The request is for a var-
iance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03 Subdivision 3,
J, 1, to permit outside parking of trucks over 3/4 ton in north-
west corner of site. (Variance #83-41 prohibited parking in the
northwest corner of the site.)
This variance request was withdrawn by Oouglas Fincham on October
1, 1985. Parking of trucks over 3/4 ton is still not permitted
in the northwest corner of the E. A. Sween site.
B. Request #85-40, submitted by McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. for property
located at 7752 Mitchell Road. The request is for a variance
from the conditions of Final Order #84-55, which required the
continuation of the mansard roof on the new McGlynn building
addition.McGlynn requests the requirement for continuation
of the mansard roof be deleted.
Farrell Johnson, of Buetow and Associates, architect with the
project, reviewed the project with the Board. Site plans were
displayed. Johnson explained that McGlynn Bakeries is back to
the Board because in the course of taking the plans to the Plann-
ing Staff and the approval at the City Hall, the intent for the
need of the mansard roof was misunderstood. McGlynn thought .
continuation of the mansard roof was a code requirement and
neglected not to "buck" the code anymore than they had to in
regard to Request #84-55. A variation is being asked from the
I
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - October 10, 1985
design concept that was originally presented and approved by the
Board. McGlynn feels that the building aesthetically is more
appealing, and more truthfully stated the use and application
of the building as a production building. The continuation of
the mansard roof from where it is presently on the building to
the extension, creates an overdone issue. The original mansard
was applied to achieve a configuration of building in conjunction
with windows, doors, etc. that were a part of that building for
both first and second floors. The present building is strictly
a production building. The application of a mansard on it is
quite superfluous in terms of its function. The issue becomes
one of aesthetic values. To keep the building in the form and
shape that it presently is, without the mansard, is a more honest
statement. The site line that the mansard creates on the present
building doesn't "read" out on the addition.
Johnson referred to a letter written by K.E. Schumacher, Eden Land
Sales, Inc., October 3, 1985. The letter criticized the sterile
appearance of the addition. They recommend the original mansard
roof be installed or planting of more trees and shrubs. In view-
ing the surrounding buildings, the combined effect of the McGlynn
building, with the mansard as is presently on, with the expansion
as it is built,and with the berm structure as it is, presents an
equal or better appearance than other buildings in the area. Photos
were displayed of buildings in the surrounding area. Immediately
behind the office to be used by K.E. Schumacher, there is a building
with a sterile effect and with no berms or trees.
Lynch wondered when the decision was made not to use the mansard.
The theme of the mansard was for architectural continuity.
Johnson said that they felt that the mansard was a code requirement.
The Planning Staff requested that McGlynn have the mansard. The
mansard was designed and intended to be built. When the building
was 95-96% complete, McGlynn asked the Planning Staff to visit the
site. The Planning Staff suggested that if the whole mansard wasn't
desired, a partial type of mansard could be built. After studies
were made, it was decided to do all of the mansard or none.
Dickey said that to add a mansard roof would be a waste of money
on McGlynn's part. On the part of the City, it would be further
maintenance problems. If there was some added landscape and some
kind of finish on the cap structure where the roof meets the side,
it would be adequate to meet the needs. To add a mansard roof
around the entire structure would be overdoing it.
Lynch asked if there were any comments from the audience. There
were none.
Anderson said that McGlynn knew that they needed the mansard roof
and didn't add it on.
Durham stated that the mansard roof was not a code requirement.
Because the site is the entrance to Edenvale PUD, it was felt
the mansard roof to join the two buildings together should be
required. As a condition, to approval of the original variance on
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - October 10, 1095
•
October 11, 1984, of F.A.R. and parking, a mansard roof was
( required.
Sandvick asked how much parking was given up. Durham said that
278 was required and 181 was approved by the Board. The F.A.R.
was increased from .30 from the entire site to .35.
Lynch said that normally consideration of the Board in granting
variances has been related to undue hardship or something unique
to the property.
Johnson said that originally, when the building was designed, there
was an opinion against the mansard. When the mass of concrete went
up and it formed a back drop for the rest of the structure, feeling
grew stronger against a mansard.
Lynch felt that McGlynn didn't understand the options that were
made with the original agreement. Lack of planning, foresight,
or procastration doesn't constitute a crisis.
Sandvick felt that there was no continuity in the two colors of
the buildings. The mansard roof would at least tie it together.
Johnson said that the two colors of the building are complementary
to each other. The building is minimized by the color picked.
- Sandvick read from the conditions of Final Orders, Request #84-55,
of October 11, 1984. It reads in part:
"The architecture of the proposed building expansion reflect
continuity in terms of building materials, color and roof
lines. Continuation of the mansard roof and office appear-
ance be maintained."
Sandvick said that the spirit of what was done on October 11, 1984,
was not carried through.
Dickey said that we should ask if it would be more pleasing with
more trees or with the mansard roof. Lynch felt that the issue
is the conditions that were set in the orginal variance. There
is no hardship stated.
Johnson stated that there was a hardship in terms of the owner.
A mansard roof would cost $65,000 to put on. There would be a
cost of $15,000-$20,000 to put trees in to justify the lack of
the mansard.
Dickey said his concern is with the use of wood. The original
building was not designed to have the mansard roof. It was an
afterthought by Mr. Peterson.
Sandvick asked if there was some cap that could be put on the
roof to pick up the mansard roof without changing it. Johnson
said that a cap or fascia did not work out in their studies.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - October 10, 1985
Bert McGlynn, owner, stated that the color of the building
could be changed.
Sandvick asked if McGlynn originally owned the building. McGlynn
said that he originally leased space from Dietrich. McGlynn owns
the whole building now.
Sandvick wondered why the mansard roof was put on when it wasn't
required by code. McGlynn said that the office/warehouse on the
corner was the entrance to Edenvale, and they wanted them to look
like an apartment. The mansard roof was added as an afterthought.
Lynch said that the original variance was an 8 foot berm and 16 foot
evergreens. Lynch wondered what the difference was in the land-
scaping. Johnson said that the berm was between 12-14 feet al-
ready. The planting as it exists, is consistent with the intent.
It will be enhanced.
Dickey felt that the mansard roof would make the building look not
as pleasing as it is now.
Anderson asked if McGlynn would like to have the request tabled
for a month and work on the issue. Johnson replied yes.
MOTION: Anderson made a motion to continue Variance Request
#85-40, submitted by McGlynn Bakeries to November 14, 1985.
Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried --3-1-0.
( (Lynch voted nay.)
C. Request #85-41, submitted by Neil Brastad, Kensington Investments,
Inc. for property located west of Martin Drive, between Tobin Arp
and N.S.P. Power Station. The request is for a variance from City
Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit a lot
size of 4.38 acres in I-General Zoning District. (Code requires
5 acre minimum.)
Neil Brastad, representing Kensington Investments, Inc. spoke to
the request. In 1977, a variance was granted for lot size. The
conditions to granting of the variance were not met within the
one year time limit. They have reapplied for a lot size variance
because they have a prospective tenant interested in locating
there.
Lynch questioned what conditions are different now than in 1977.
Durham stated that they are proposing a moving storage building.
There is concern regarding the location of the loading docks and
screening of the outside storage. Four front loading bays are
being proposed facing Martin Drive. Staff has suggested the
architect relocate the dock or provide an effective screening
plan.
Brastad stated that the plan was designed to meet tenant needs.
Durham said that the City does not have specific site plans of
the project such as: location of driveways, or landscaping or
I
STAFF REPORT DATED DCTOBER 11, 1984
D. Variance Request #84-55, submitted by McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. for property
located at 7752 Mitchell Road. The request is for a variance from City
Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subd. 2, to permit construction for a
total F.A.R. of .35 (Code permits .30) and Chapter 11, Section 11.03,
Subd. 3, H, to permit reduced parking requirements to 181 stalls. (Code
requires 278 stalls.)
1) Background
McGlynn Bakeries located in Eden Prairie in 1973. The original •
structure was approximately 30,000 square feet on 5 acres. In
1980, McGlynn constructed an addition of 32,500 square feet on
the south end of the original building. Presently the building
is 65,100 square feet on 5.05 acres. 146 parking spaces are
located on the lot. The present floor area ratio (F.A.R.) con-
forms to the City Code.
As indicated in the letter directed to the Board of Appeals,
McGlynn Bakeries has been growing dramatically in recent months.
McGlynn expects sales for the calendar year of 1984 to be up 652:,
over that of 1933. Growth of the company has placed extreme
pressure on the existing facility and its capability to respond
to the expected growth.
2) Staff Review
a) Buildinn
-Memo - 6 - October 11, 1984
The proponent plans to construct a 48,000 square foot addition
to alleviate growth pressure. The new addition will be located
north of the existing building on a lot owned by McGlynn Bakeries.
The new lot combined with the existing lot totals 7.24 acres.
The maximum building coverage allowed by Code on the 7.24 acres
is 94,572 square feet. The existing building and proposed
addition will total 112,969 square feet. A second story portion
of the building will include 10,800 square feet. The actual
footing area for the total building will be 102,169 square feet,
or a F.A.R. of .325.
The new addition will house the area needed for straight line
production service equipment and a 9,280 square foot freezer
space. Total height for the new addition will be 25 feet and
total height for the freezer 38 feet.
Architecturally, the building will consist of white precast
wall panels. The freezer will consist of an insulated wall
panel. A cedar shake mansard roof will be connected to the
addition to match the existing mansard roof.
It is suggested by the the Staff that a 7 foot berm with 16
foot evergreens be placed along the west wall of the freezer
to visually lessen the height impact of that structure.
b) Parking
At present, 146 parking stalls are located on site. McGlynn
is proposing 181 total new parking stalls with proof of parking
for 36 spaces. 278 are required. McGlynn has reviewed the
highest peak number of employees and found that during a two
hour period on Friday mornings, there is a potential for 100
to 115 employees on duty. Even with the expansion of the
building, McGlynn's is confident that they would never require
more than 178 parking spaces. All tennant space is being
illuminated.
3) Recommendations
a) Floor Area Ratio
Should the Board choose to approve the floor area ratio
variance request of .35, the following conditions will
apply:
1) The architecture of the proposed building expansion
reflect continuity in terms of building materials,
color, and roof lines. Continuation of the mansard
roof and office appearance be maintained.
2) All mechanical rooftop equipment located on this existing
and proposed roof be screened.
Memo - 7 - October 11, 1984
3) All loading docks be screened from Martin Drive.
4) The latest plans submitted to the Planning office dated
September 18, 1984, accompanied with a letter dated
October 1, 1984, be utilized.
5) Freezer wall panel color selection be Egyptian white.
6) An 8 foot berm with 16 foot evergreens be placed along
the west wall of the freezer.
is
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
• BOARD OF APPEALS ANO ADJUSTMENTS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING VARIANCE REQUEST
I 84-55
TO WHDM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments
will meet at the following time and place:
7:30 P.M.
Thursday, Oct. 11 lg 84
At the Eden Prairie School Board Room, Administration Bl,
3100 School Rd., 55344
to review and consider the variance request t 84-55 , submitted by
McGlynn Bakeries.. Tnr for property located at 7752 Mitchell Road,
legally described as Lot 1, Block 3 and Outlet C and L
The request is for a variance from City Code„_Chapter ll, Section_LLO3.
Subd. '2, to permit construction for a total F.A.R. of 35 [code permits
.30) and Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subd. 3 H, to permit reduced parking
requirements to T90 stalls. (Code requires 278 stalls.)
idd _.D
•
Written or oral cp=ents relating to this variance request will be heard
at this reeting. Said variance application is on file for public review
at the Planning Department at Eden Prairie City Hall.
PUBLISH:jeptember 26, 1984 City of Eden Prairie
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE VARIANCE a84-55
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS '
FINAL ORDER
•
RE: Petition of McGlynn Bakeries,_ing.
ADDRESS: 7752 Mitchell Road
VARIANCE REQUEST: To permit construction fora total F.A.R. of .35 (Code
permits .30) and to permit reduced parking Caguire-
pri SP
ments to 1-99 stalls. (Code requires 27B stalls.)
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the City of Eden Prairie at a •
regular (special) meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and
after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file '
therein does hereby find and order as follows:
1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said
variance have been met. (YES x NO ).
1
2. There are circumstances unique to the property under consideration,
and granting such variance does not violate the spirit and intent
of the City's Zoning and platting Code.
3. Variance Request #84-55is herein Granted x , Denied
1
4. Conditions to the granting_ x , Denial , of said variance
are as follows:
SEE ATTACHED
5. This variance shall be revoked within 15 days after notice of
failure to meet the required conditions has been given.
6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the
City Clerk.
7. This order shall be effective Oct. 11, 1984 ; however, this •
variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection
or alterations permitted shall occur within one (1) year of the
effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant
to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one
year from the effective date hereof.
8. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City
Council review.
BOARD OF APPEALS AND r.D,JUSTt,ENTS
BY:
DATED: -- I6 —
VARIANCE REQUEST #84-55 .
Conditions to the granting of said variance are as follows:
1) The architecture of the proposed building expansion reflect continuity
in terms of building materials, color, and roof lines. Continuation
of the mansard roof and office appearance be maintained.
2) All mechanical rooftop equipment located on this existing and proposed
roof be screened.
3) All loading docks be screened from Martin Drive.
4) Freezer wall panel color selection be Egyptian white.
5) An 8 foot berm with 16 foot evergreens be placed along the west wall
of the freezer.
6) The four parking spaces for handicapped be split between the main entrances.
1
1
0 •
•
. •
EDEN LAND SALES,INC.
14875 Martin Drive•Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344•(612)937--8300
October 3, 1985
Board of Appeals and Adjustments
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Variance Request No. 85-40
Gentlemen:
We are in receipt of the request by applicant, McGlynn Bakeries, Inc.
concerning the mansard roof on the addition to the McGlynn building.
As a member of the architectural control committee for the Edenvale
P.U.D., we oppose the deletion of the mansard roof on the addition.
It is our view that the building mass in its present condition is
too great to avoid some further treatment. We would recommend that
the Board require the proponent to continue on with the original plan
which includes a mansard roof and which would break up the otherwise •
sterile appearance of the addition. We suggest that, as an alternative,
the entire addition be screened by very large berms covered with large
and closely planted evergreen trees. These trees would then provide
adequate screening for the building. In order to provide a good screening
job, the berms would have to be substantially enlarged and made sub-
stantially higher. This may lead to some site line problems relating
to traffic coming in and out of the parking lot as well as traffic at
the intersection of Mitchell Road and Martin Drive. We believe the
proponent should work with the city staff to reach a resolution which
would include one or both of the recommendations that we are making
concerning this project. If you have any questions concerning this,
please give me a call at your convenience.
Yours very truly,
i ( , ( l L
,C. ffr ti
K. g. Schumacher
KES/po
cc: Burt McClynn
Chris Enger
�`.lu4
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 85-176
RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND
OROERING FEASIBILITY REPORT
WHEREAS, a petition has been received and it is proposed to make the following
improvements:
1.C. 52-082, Street Improvements adjacent to Eames Addition
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 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 December 3, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
qy.L. ✓L v v
EAMES APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
November 22, 1985
Mr. Gene Dietz
City Engineer
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Rd.
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Proposed Howard Lane
Dear Gene,
This letter is to confirm our phone conversation that
Eames Apts., Ltd, Partnership requests that its petition
for city construction of the above referenced road be
re-submitted as soon as possible.
Please let us know when the petition will be heard by
the City so we can be present. Thank you for your continued
courtesies.
Very truly yours,
EAMES APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
( ayG724:hs
.57
GGF.vcl
CC: Mr. K. Schumacher
•
I
�p •„_ ��_?] •
:ai ie City CC::nCi 1:
e _-. c-:S:c:.i r'•7 C:•P1't)' cv:.ers }.€rein petition the e.en rreirie City -.
cocncil to cc-sic:er -•aline the following described =._aoree-.ents(s):
(Canerel Lrcatior)
g c;c.:-. Fo,er Adjacent to Lot 1, Block 1tEames Addition
— as proposed in that certain Plat for the sa=e
c•c-t raving -- ----
ot'.er — -- -- ---
- . . • o. other
]on of .-: of -;
•
Lot 1, Block.1,. Eames Addition _E (�- ARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHI`_
(as proposed) — S ✓^.�.. -— - -
Its General Partner
•
N1,41 ((119 8/.
SZ-O82_
,�'1 iCt lrzl,,eti 3,415-
K.E. Schumacher
Attorney-at-Law
14875 Martin Drive
Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344
(612)937-8300
November 25, 1985
Mr. Gene Dietz
City Engineer
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Gene:
We are in receipt of the letter of Eames Apartments dated November 22,
1985. We hereby reiterate our position outlined in my letter of July 15,
1985 (copy attached). As you can see from the other attached correspondence,
substantial negotiation has taken place between the parties.
We have, in addition, done a substantial amount of design and engineering
on the entire 45 acre piece and will shortly be submitting a development
proposal. We believe, at this juncture, that any action taken by the
city related to the petition or feasibility study will be to the detriment
of the adjacent landowner, The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the
United States.
Again, let me reiterate to you our objections as stated in my letter of •
July 15, 1985--we respectfully request that no further action be taken on
petitioner's request at this time.
A
urs v ry truly,
E. Schumacher
i
KES/po
Enclosures
cc: Dennis Marhula .
Eric Ekblaw
1
ref-
K. K. Schumacher
Mummy-al-Law
14.511f v'dlir�/v View Rudd
Eden I'rdnir. �`linnesuld 55144
U120101111NIG 937-8300
July 15, 1985
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mayor and Councilpersons:
We are representatives of The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United
States (Equitable). Equitable is the owner of Outlots C and D, Edenvale 2nd
Addition.
We have been advised that David Ames, as owner of Lot 1, Block 4 and Outlot F,
Edenvale 2nd Addition has requested a feasibility report by the city for
putting in a roadway along the property lines. We have been advised that
such a report will take approximately 90 days and will cost approximately
$5,000 to $10,000. As Equitable, we object to the ordering of the feasibility
report as unnecessary expense. Our reasons for our objection are as follows:
1. Since Equitable and the previous owners have had an agreement (said
agreement assumed by the present owners) in the past for the installa-
tion of the road, its location and cost sharing, we prefer to put
the road in ourselves, with each owner paying his proportionate
share on a private rather than a publically assessed basis.
2. As the roadway location throughout the entire site owned by
Equitable is integral to the overall development plan of the
47- acres owned by Equitable, additional time for analysis is
needed to maximize the benefit to the property and hence to the
community to integrate the roadway with the overall plans,
including grading, cut and fill analysis and storm sewer require-
ments. A substantial portion of this work has been completed by
our engineers, with the balance being completed at this time.
I
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 2
July 15, 1985
3. We believe it will be difficult at this time to arrive at a fair
public assessment of the benefits to Equitable on its property
adjacent to the proposed road, absent the time necessary to do a
thorough and thoughtful analysis of the property usage.
4. The cut and fill analysis and grading plan will be somewhat
determinative of storm sewer needs and capacities, which must be
integrated not only into this proposed roadway but also into
the Valley View Road upgrade plan.
5. It has been the policy of Equitable to do the necessary road
construction for its various properties privately, to minimize
the cost impact and to be able to co-ordinate with city staff the
ultimate end product.
6. We believe that satisfactory resolution of the roadway construction
can be worked out privately between the owners without the necessity
of city involvement on an assessment basis for the feasibility and
subsequent construction.
Equitable is prepared at this time to order its engineers to complete the drawings
necessary to let a contract for the roadway in question; Equitable is prepared
at this time, subject to the completion of the working drawings and bidding.
documents to award a contract for the work. To do this, Equitable would require
only satisfactory evidence that the present owners of Lot 1, Block 4 and Outlot F,
Edenvale 2nd Addition are prepared to pay currently their one-half share of the .
roadway, water service and storm sewer, in that said owners are obtaining sani-
tary sewer service by access to the existing sewer in Fairway Drive.
It is for the foregoing reasons that Equitable opposes any further action or
expense by the city at this time in connection with the proposed roadway
construction.
ur very truly,
Schumacher
ttorney at Law
KES/po
(41.1
I
LAw onmm
GRANNIE,CAMPBELL,FARRELL&KNUTSON
DAVID L GLOOM•/97401.1 PR09MBONAI.ASSOCIATION
DAM LGRANNO.]B•1910-1990
BOAT Off=Box 97
VANC9 B.GNANNB
YAWS B.GWNNI9..IA NO MOWN?BMX BUMPING
T901w J.CAMPBMA. rn NOBTN CONCORD EXCHANGE
PATIOCk A.I*WU.
DAVID L GRANNq UI SOUTH ST.PAUL MINNESOTA 55075
BOOM N.MOWN
THOMAS M.SCOW 612.46S.I861
CAW G.FUCIY
MAXV B.VWOVKN
THOMA9 L.GRUNDNOVBI August 26, 1985
DAVID L MAXMI M g
Mr. K. E. Schumacher
The Equitable Life Assurance
Society of the United States
7600 Equitable Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
RE: Edenvale / Quail Ridge Roadway
Dear Mr. Schumacher:
The following is a breakdown of the estimated cost of constructing
approximately 1,000 feet of roadway, including utilities, along the
property line of the land owned by Equitable and the Quail Ridge
partners.
EQUITABLE COST EST. CITY COST
Street with bike paths, $ 47,675 $70/linear foot
curb, gutters, etc. 8,000
4,000 or
2,000 70,000
$ 61,675 $ 70,000
Utilities/ 54,300 Between $40 S 81/ft.
Sewer & Water (est. figure $50/ft)*
•
50,000
$ 115,975 $ 120,000
Engineering $ 18,750 $ 14,400 (12% Eng. )
Soil Testing 2,000 10,800 ( 9% Admin.)
Legal 2,000 12,000 (10% Int. )
Street Signs/Lighting 4,000 $ 157,200
Landscaping 2,000
City Fees • 200
Grading 15,000 15,000
$ 153,925 ? 2 $ 172,200 f 2
$ 76962.50 $ 86,100.00
* Cost may vary between $40 and $81/ft. depending upon the number of
service hook-ups.
1611
•
Edenvale / Quail Ridge Roadway
Page Two
The above estimated City costs are based on the phone conversation
I had with "Rod" at the City Engineering Office. I hope this information
enables us to resolve our apparent differences.
Very truly yours,
GRANNIS, CAMPBELL, FARRELL
& KNOTS , P.A.
BY:
r G. hs
GGF:srn
EAMES APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
7
September 17, 1985
Mr. K.E. Schumacher
14500 Valley View Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Quailridge/Equitable Roadway Project
Dear Mr. Schumacher:
In response to your request, the following are the proposed
terms upon which the Eames Partnership and Equitable would
proceed to construct the roadway along the common border
of their two properties.
Mr. Marhula of Westwood Engineering will complete the
neccessary plans and drawings for the roadway and the
installation of utilities and will forward several copies
of those documents to each party.
Each party will then proceed to obtain bids from reputable
contractors to construct the roadway and install the
utilities. The lowest bidder for each portion of the project
will receive a contract from both parties to perform the
portion of the work on which he was low bidder.
For its service in drawing the plans and coordinating the
work, Westwood Engineering will be paid a fee equal to 50%
of the total cost of the construction contracts. In addition,
Westwood will be paid an hourly fee for its services in
inspecting the work as it progresses, to be sure the work
conforms to the plans and city's requirements.
The total cost of construction including engineering services
will be shared equally by the partnership and Equitable.
However, the partnership will have alternative methods of
paying its share of the cost. The alternatives are set forth
below. The partnership will elect which alternative it
desires, in writing, at the time the construction contracts
are awarded.
ALTERNATIVE A:
The partnership and Equitable will each pay 50% of each draw
request as submitted and approved by Westwood Engineering.
In addition, the partnership and Equitable will each pay
50% of all other costs of the road improvements as those
various costs become due and payable., .
ALTERNATIVE B:
Equitable will pay 100% of all costs incurred as a result
of constructing the roadway and installing the utilities.
In lieu of paying 50% of those costs, as they become due,
the partnership will pay Equitable the sum of the following
- I
emounts, on the following terms:
a. 50% of the total of the amount paid to the
contractors for construction of the roadway and
installation of the utilities. (The "hard costs").
b. 105% of the hard costs.
c. 21% of 105% of the hard costs
(Administrative and Engineering)
d. 21,E of 105% of the hard costs
(construction interest)
e. $5,000.00 (Feasibility study)
The total of the above amounts, together with interest at
the rate of 11% per annum on the unpaid principal balance,
will be paid to Equitable, by the partnership, over a period
of 5 years commencing on the date construction is complete.
The general partners will execute a personal promissory note
to secure the payments.
As an inducement to the partnership to pay the full amount
of the amortized payments sooner than required, the
partnership will have the option to prepay the debt, in full,
every 6 months during the 5 year payment period. The amount
due at each six month prepayment opportunity will be
determined as follows:
a. The portions of each installment payment already
made under Alternative B that has been applied
to reduce the principal balance will be added
together.
b. That sum will be subtracted from the total cost
that would have been payable by the partnership
under Alternative A. •
c. The partnership will pay the balance, plus an
additional amount, calculated as follows:
Prepayment Time Additional % of Balance Dues
6 Months .5%
12 Months 1.0%
18 Months 1.5%
24 Months 2.0%
30 Months 2.5%
36 Months 3.0%
42 Months 3.5%
48 Months 4.0%
•
54 Months 4.5%
( 60 Months 5.0%
The escalating percentage of additional fee will be an
incentive to the partnership to pay off the cost of
construction as early as possible. The benefit to Equitable
is that it will be receiving 11% interest on an amount which
is well in excess of its actual cost and will never receive
less than 50% of the actual cost of construction plus an
additional fee.
I shall await your response to this proposal. Your courtesy
and cooperation is appreciated.
Very ruly your
f
G.
t