HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 12/17/1985 EDEN PRAIRIE
IZ
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION fi
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
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
II. MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 220 1985
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List
B. Change Order No. 1, Contract for City Hall Architectural
Services
C. Tax Forfeited Lands (Resolution No. 85-274)
D. Final Plat lEntmLL for Technology Park 4th Addition (Pearson
Gravel Pit Area) Resolution No. 85-278)
1 . ALLSTATE DISTRICT CLAIMS OFFICE by Opus Corporation. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 39-85, Zoning District Change from
Rural to Office; Approval of Developer's Agreement for
Allstate District Claims Office; and Adoption of Resolution
No. B5-283, Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 39-85 and
Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 2.62 acres for the
construction of an insurance claims office. Location: Highway
No. 5 and Prairie Center Drive. (Ordinance No. 39-85 -
Rezoning from Rural to Office; Resolution No. 85-283 - Approving
Summary and Publication)
F. Final Plat approval for Allstate 1st Addition (North of Norwest
Bank) Resolution No15-279
G. Development Commission Meeting Schedule
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,December 17, 1985
H. EDEN PRAIRIE CONVENIENCE CENTER by K. Charles Development
Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 35-85, Zoning District
Change from Office to Regional Service; Approval of Developer's
Agreement for Eden Prairie Convenience Center; and Adoption of
Resolution No. 85-281, Approving Summary of Ordinance No.
35-85, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 2.30 acres for
restaurant-tenant retail space. Location: Northwest corner of
U.S. Highway #169 and Eden Road. (Ordinance No. 35-85 -
Rezoning from Office to Commercial Regional Service; Resolution
No. 85-281 - Approving Summary and Publication)
I. HOYT TECH 5 6 & 7 by Technology Park Associates. 2nd Reading
of Ordinance No. 36-85-PUD-6-85, Zoning District Change from
Rural to PUD-6-85-Office for 3.21 acres and from Rural to
PUD-6-85-I-2-Park for 9.77 acres; Approval of PUD Developer's
Agreement for Hoyt Tech 5, 6, & 7; and Adoption of Resolution
No. 85-282, Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 36-85-PUO-6-85,
and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: East of
Golden Triangle Road and South of West 76th Street. (Ordinance
No. 36-85-PUD-6-85 - Rezoning from Rural to PUD-6-85-Office and
to PUD-6-85-I-2-Park; Resolution No. 85-282 - Approving
Summary and Publication)
J. FINAL APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS FOR
RIALTO ((Ha en Systems) IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,900,000 Weif5lution
No. 85-275) — —
K. FINAL APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS FOR
RON-MAR IN THE AMOUNT OF S750,000 (Resolution No. B5-277)
L. HOUSING REVENUE BOND APPROVAL FOR PARK AT CITY WEST IN THE
AMOUNT OF $16,53 ,000 Resolution No. 85-216T-
M. 1ST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 42-85, PARK USE ORDINANCE
N. ADOPTION OF FEE RESOLUTION (Resolution No. 86-01)
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PARKWAY OFFICE/SERVICE CENTER by The Brauer Group. Rezoning 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. 43-85 - Rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial)
Continued from December 3, 1985.
8. MENARDS EXPANSION by Menards Inc. Request for Zoning District
Amendment within C-Reg-Ser District for construction of an
accessory building. Location: Menards Building, adjacent to
Plaza Drive. (Ordinance No. 46-85 - Amending Ordinance No. 78-45)
C. EDEN SQUARE by Commercial Partners, Inc. Request for Planned
Unit Development and Zoning District Amendment Review within
C-Reg-Ser District and Preliminary Plat on 9.59 acres for the
construction of commercial/retail. Location: Northeast
quadrant of the intersection of Highway #169 and Prairie Center
Drive. (Resolution No. 85-284 - Approving Planned Unit
Development District Amendment; Ordinance No. 47-85 - Amending
Ordinance No. 7B-56; Resolution No. 85-287 - Preliminary Plat)
City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,December 17, 1985
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 24280 - 24544 e.
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Review of McGlynn Bakeries Variance Request No. 85-40, and the
Board of Appeals & Adjustments Action of November 14, 19$5, to
delete the continuance of the mansard roof Continued from 12/3/85)
B. CITY WEST REPLAT by Ryan Properties, Inc. Request for
Preliminary Plat of 19.5 acres into three lots within the City
West Business Center. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, West
of City West Parkway. (Resolution No. B5-282 - Preliminary
Plat)
C. TRACKLINE II OFFICE/WAREHOUSE by Undestad Investments. Request
for Site Plan Review on 3.79 acres for office/warehouse. Location:
LaVonne Industrial Park.
D. NORMANDALE TENNIS CLUB by Arteka, Inc. Request for Site Plan
Review for a tennis Tub. Location: Southeast quadrant of Baker
Road and West 62nd Street.
E. ARTEKA NURSERY by Arteka, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No.
45-85, Rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial, Approval of
Developer's Agreement, and Adoption of Resolution No. 85-286,
Approving Summary of Drdinance No. 45-85 and Ordering Publication
of Said Summary. Location: Southeast Quadrant of W. 66th
Street and Baker Road. (Ordinance No. 45-85 - Rezoning from
Rural to Community Commercial; Resolution No. 85-286 - Approving
Summary and Publication)
F. Request from Cardinal Creek Homeowners Association regarding
Chimo Development Proposal
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members \-y
1. Appointment of Site Selection Comittee
B. Report of City Manager , r�
1. Amendment of Gambling Devices Ordinance `i
C. Report of City Attorney
D. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Award contract for Technology Drive Improvements between
Pur ator Creek and Prairie Center Drive, I.C. 52-010D
Resolution No. 25-280
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT.
I
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, & Paul Redpath
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the
City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger
Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning
Director Chris Enger, Director of Community Ser-
vices Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works
Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen
Michael
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I
ROLL CALL: City Manager Jullie was in Chicago attending a FSLA Seminar.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were added to the Agenda: III, K. Set Special Meeting
of the City Council for Tuesday, September 10, 1985, at 7.30 p.m. in the
School Administration Boardroom: and X. A, Anderson - Discussion on Grading
Permits.
"ITION• Pentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Agenda and Other
Iters of 7usiness as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES j
•
A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday. June 4, 1985
pane 3: para. 8, line 4 - chance "relect" to "reflect".
page 5: para. 1, line 4 - add - "it is understood that" before "no consider-
ation".
page 10• para. 7. line 1 - change 'office" to "officer".
MOTION: Bentley moved. seconded by Anderson. to approve the Minutes of the
City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 4, 19B5, as amended and published.
Motion carried unanimously,
B. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday. June 18: 1985
MOTION: Bentley moved. seconded by Redpath. to approve the Minutes of
the Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday. June 18, 1985. as published,
Motion carried with Anderson abstaining,
l
City Council Minutes -2- August 20, 1985
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Award contract for Preserve Boulevard Improvements, I.C. 52-071 (Reso-
lution No. 85-185)
B. Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of
.roposed 1985 Special Assessment Rolls and set Public Hearing date for
Tuesday, September 17, 1985
C. PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS by Derrick Land Company. 2nd Reading of
Ordinance No. 2-85, Zoning District change from Rural to RM-2.5 on
6.61 acres; approval of Developer's Aareement for Prairie Village Apart-
ments; and adoption of Resolution No, 85-118, authorizing Summary of
Ordinance No, 2-85 and ordering publication of said Ordinance. 14.25 acres
into two lots and one outlot for two, 56-unit apartment buildings. Location:
Gonyea 4th Addition, Outlot B.
D. HIGHWAY #101/VALLEY VIEW ROAD, 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 29-85. Zoning
District change from Rural to RI-22, for 3.62 acres] adoption of Resolution
No. B5-194, authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 29-85 and ordering publica-
tion of said Summary. Location: northeast quadrant of Highway #101 and
Valley View Road.
E. TECHNOLOGY PARK by Techology Park Associates, Approval of Developer's
Agreement for Technology Park Planned Unit Development Concepts 2nd Reading
of Ordinance No. 19-85, Zoning District change from Rural to 1-2 Park for
4.5 acres; approval of Developer's Agrement for Tech Park III; and adoption
of Resolution No. 85-I97, authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 19-85 and
ordering Publication of said Ordinance. Location: south and east of Valley
View Road. west of Washington Avenue. north of Viking Drive, and east of
Smetana Road.
F. HERZOG ADDITION by K.P. Properties. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 20-85,
Zoning District change from R1-22 to R1-13,5 on 5.35 acres: approval of
Resolution No. 85-195, authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 20-85 and
ordering publication of said Summary. 5,35 acres into ten single family
lots. Location: southeast quadrant of Duck Lake Road and South Shore Lane.
G. Final Plat Approval for Herzog Addition (Resolution No. 85-192)
H. HAGEN SYSTEMS by Hagen Systems. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 23-85-PUD-4-85,
Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District change from
Rural to I-2 Park, on 3,D2 acres: approval of Developer's Agreement for
Hagen Systems; adoption of Resolution No 85-198, authorizing Summary of
Ordinance No, 23-85-PUD-4-B5, and ordering publication of said Summary.
Location: east of City West Parkway and west of Highway #169, THIS
ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA.
I. Change Order No. 4. N.E. Quadrant Prairie Center Drive, I,C. 51-308A
J. Change Order No. 1, Eden Road & Singletree Lane. I.C. 52-D11
{
City Council Minutes -3- August 20, 1985 }
K. Set Special Meeting of the City Council for Tuesday. September 10, 1985,
at 7:30 p.m., in the School Administraton Boardroom.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve items A - G and I - K
on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CARDINAL CREEK VILLAGE by Chimo Development Corporation. Request for
a revised Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Environmental Assess-
ment Worksheet for a range of 209-249 units of multiple family development
on 40.7 acres. Location: north of Cardinal Creek, east of Baker Road.
(Resolution No. 85-196)
Assistant to the City Manager Dawson stated this request, if approved,
would still need to go through the rezoning and platting process,
Greg Kallenberger, Chimo Development, and Roger Freeburg, architect,
said they were present this evening largely to answer questions,
Planning Director Enger noted the Planning Comnission had reviewed this
request at its July 22, 1985, meeting at which time it voted to recommend
approval of a concept plan in a range of 209 - 249 units adopted subject
to the plans and Staff Report of July 19, 1985.
Redpath asked why the proponent had not come back with any change. Kallenberger
said the proponent is trying to determine a range at which they can be comfor-
table and which will be acceptable to the City and they wished to do this
at this point before any further plan development has occurred.
Redpath asked about the road connection to the south. Kallenberger stated
there has been a realignment with Stonewood Court which would direct
traffic to the north.
Peterson asked if the developer would have an option on the road to the
south. Kallenberger said that land is under the control of the Gustafsons;
there is no option on that property,
Bentley said he felt that the proponents inability to do the type of inter-
section which was discussed at great length previously would jeopardize the
project. Kallenberger asked if Bentley was referring to the double "T"
intersection, Bentley indicated that was what he was referring to, Kallen-
berger said they would do whatever they had to do, Pidcock asked how this
could be done if they did not own the land, Kallenberger said he did not
have an answer for that; he did not know how they could comply to that
request,
Pidcock asked how many units would have to be removed to come into the
209-unit range. Kallenberger said he did not have a direct answer to that
but that they would have to look at getting a better mix in the building
types.
t'
City Council Minutes -4- August 20, 1985
Pidcock asked if Enger had anything to help resolve this. Enger said
there would be design solutions but the Planning Staff had not seen a
plan which reflects the range: he stated that taking buildings out would
loosen up the center of the site.
Anderson noted he had made the motion in support of the 209 - 249 range
and now he felt disappointed because the proponent had not been able to
come up with something which fits that range. Kallenberger said he did
not feel that there was a specific range indicated at the last City
Council meeting at which this was reviewed, He said this is still in
the concept stage. Kallenberger said he was not sure that 209 was the
magic number nor did he know whether or not 249 was either. Enger said
he felt that 249 units was too dense particularly in the center of the
site -- there were too many buildings and they were too close together,
Bentley asked if the problem might be that this site should not be guided
for medium density residential use. Enger said that is what the City had
designated this site as and which means that up to 10 units per acre are
allowed; the designation of medium density residential does have some
validity in this case. Enger noted that the maximum of 10 units per acre
has yet to be proven.
Bentley asked if this project had been designated as largely rental all
along. Enger said he recalled that originally it was scheduled with smaller
units which were going to be sold. Bentley said he recalled it was to have
been a condominium project. Bentley said the Council should keep in mind
that it must let the residents and the developer know just what type of
density the City wants. Anderson concurred. Anderson said he has walked
that area and, because of the terrain and the natural features of the
property, this is a very unique area. The Council must determine how this
can be a worthwhile project. Kallenberger said he did not think that
this particular plan fits and there is work to be done on the plan. He
said he felt this plan orients well with the terrain but that more specific
plans would be coming back to the Council for its review -- the issue which
he hoped would be determined this evening was that of density range and
concept approval. Enger noted the Planning Commission had recommended a
base of 209 units and stated the Planning Staff had put together a schematic
showing the bottom range, This was shown to the City Council.
Peterson indicated concern had been expressed about the stacking of the
buildings; the view from the floodplain would give the impression of four
buildings stacked. Enger said it is a question of solving the view from
any point; he did not think there would be that type of an impact with
209 units.
Floyd Siefferman, Jr., 6997 Edgebrook Place, said he felt Bentley had
correctly assessed the situation. Siefferman reviewed what has happened
milt' the course of time when this has been before the Planning Commission
as roll as the Council. He said he would urge the Council to tell the
developer that this is worse than what was previously reviewed. Sieffer-
man cited the Euclid vs. Ambler Realty case as the reason why the single-
family homeowners do not want to have multiple-family units near them,
He said the developer is still using the Cardinal Creek 3 or 4 name as
the name of the proposed subdivision and the single-family residents do
not want to have this development known by that name.
T
City Council Minutes -5- August 20, 1985
Roger Swigart, 13184 Cardinal Creek Road, reviewed the existing apartment
developments, the developments in north Eden Prairie. the density of
�. multi-family developments, and recent building trends in Eden Prairie.
Swigart expressed concern regarding property which is for sale which would
help to create a safe intersection in the vicinity of Stonewood and Cardinal
Creek Road: the Cardinal Creek residents feel this is a breach of what should
be considered there.
Art Roberts, 13543 Woodmere Circle, indicated he felt the Council and the
Cardinal Creek residents are now seeing the proposed development from the
same view. He said this should be a time for civic pride: this "showcase"
site should be preserved. Roberts reviewed what the Cardinal Creek resi-
dents feel is appropriate for this site and what the appropriate density
should be. He asked that the Council confirm the density resolution which
it adopted in January and reaffirm its desire for an aesthetically pleasing
development.
Gordon Alexander, 6895 Sand Ridge Road, said he did not understand where
there was any pressure to approve a development. He did not feel this was
going to be the last development. Alexander said he felt the question should
be that of highest and best use of the property and he did not feel the pro-
posal demonstrated that. He stated the residents of Cardinal Creek would
like the development in this area be consistent with the density of St.
John's Wood. He said he felt there were too many buildings proposed for
the site. Alexander stated the Cardinal Creek homeowners are interested
in havinn a quality project developed.
Wendy Meneely, 6640 Kingston Drive, said she did not feel there should
be rental units next to the Cardinal Creek neighborhood.
Kallenberger reviewed the various apartment developments in the area
(information taken from the City Council Minutes of January 8, 1985).
He stated that the units which are now proposed to be rental units had
started out to be condominium units, but the condo market is "flat" at
the present time and Chimo is addressing what is happening in the market
now.
Bentley said he felt the question was whether or not a multiple residential
development on this site would be workable. He said he felt the developer
was reputable. He equated this project to fitting a square peg into a round
hole. Bentley said he felt this would be an excellent development in any
other part of the City. He noted that the Guide Plan indicates this is an
appropriate use on the site: he questionned whether the Guide Plan is right.
He said he felt the Council should vote "no" on this proposal.
Redpath said he does not like the comparison of rental versus ownership.
He said he was disappointed the developer had not come back to the Council
with something more than what was shown since the Planning Commission had
requested some changes. He said he would consider a maximum of 209 units
and that was all.
City Attorney Pauly noted that previous action of the Council had approved
up to 208 units on this site. The request before the Council is for a
range of 209 - 249 units. Pauly said the Council should turn down the re-
quest for a revised concept if it wished to leave the matter as it was.
City Council Minutes -6- August 20, 1985
MOTION• Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing
and to deny the request for revising previous Council action to allow more
than 208 units on this site. Motion carried with Bentley and Anderson voting
"no."
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson. to ask Staff to study the
feasibility of changing the Guide Plan in this area,
Bentley questionned whether or not this was an appropriate action. City
Attorney Pauly said it was: he suggested another alternative would be to
request a specific chance be%made. Peterson asked what the implications
would be since Chimo still had density on the site up to 208 units. Pauly
noted that concept approval does not create binding action on the part of
the City according to the Code. Redpath said he felt the Council should
request an overall Guide Plan review rather than a study of a specific
area of the City. Bentley said he would support the motion with the
understanding this is a study with a report back to the Council rather
than a recommendation for action. He also suggested that Staff should
notify the developer that this is being done, Redpath said he thoucht
this is after the fact; this should have occurred when the Gustafsons
had the Cardinal Creek Guide Plan changed. Anderson said he would support
the motion. Peterson said he would vote against the motion because he
did not fell it was appropriate at this point in the process. Bentley
said he would recommend this be deferred so the Council could think
about it: he did not think two weeks would make a difference one way or
another.
MOTION: Bentley moved. seconded by Redpath, to table the previous motion.
Motion carried with Pidcock voting "no."
B. FEASIBILITY REPORT FDR TECHNOLOGY DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS FROM WALLACE ROAD EAST
ID CPT, I.C. 52-010A (Resolution No 85-160)
Assistant to the City "iananer Dawson said notice of this Public Hearing had
been published and property owners in the project vicinity had been notified.
Director of Public Works Dietz addressed the details of the improvements.
He noted the City would purchase two lots and the remnant of a third lot.
Dietz stated there would be a change in the alignment from what had been
earlier planned; it would now be 35' to the south.
Redpath asked when the portion of Technology Drive east of Mitchell Road
would be completed. Dietz said that will be a Spring project: the feas- _
ilibity report on that portion will be before the Council in September.
Dietz noted this road alignment will have a positive impact on the School
District as this will provide the District another route to get out of
the Central Middle School area. Anderson said he would not like to see
more traffic go through the school area
i�i' '
'!"City Council Minutes -7- August 20. 1985
Redpath asked what type of intersection is being planned for the the pro-
posed TH 212 and Wallace Road. Dietz said there would be a half diamond
with Wallace going over TH 5.
Bentley asked where the City was going to get the money to purchase the
lots necessary to complete the Technology Drive proposal. Dietz said that
there would be a 25% down payment on the lots and that interim financing
was available. Bentley said he did not want the Council to become involved
in the land speculation business. Peterson said he felt if the property
owner was not willing to hold the property unitl the road is in then why
should the City take the risk. Dietz said the damages would equal the cost
of the right-of-way; this appeared to be the most viable way to do this.
Pidcock asked what the area of the two lots was. Dietz said 10 acres.
Bentley said he would like to have the opinions of the Finance Director
and the City Manager regarding this method of financing the project.
Tom Carlson, vice president of operations, ITT Schadow, said he could
support the Technology Drive access, the last time this was proposed
he was not in favor of it. He expressed concern with the fact that all
the costs have not been disclosed. Dietz explained that the City does
not attempt to include the land acquisition costs in a feasbility report.
Bernie Bogeskov, Metro Machine and Engineering, stated two years ago his
company had donated land to the City for utilities. He said there has
been some activity on the lot which he owns and which has been for sale
however, when a prospective buyer found out about the road going through,
the offer to purchase the property was withdrawn.
Neil Branstad, owner of property in the area, questioned whether the land
acquisition costs would be assessed back to the owners of properties in
the area. Dietz said the City had been talkinn about absorbina half the
cost of the right-of-way.
Jon Otterlei, property owner, stated he has had people interested in the
property which he owns. He said he felt the lots would be saleable if
they were replatted as outlined by Dietz.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to continue this Public Hearing
to the September 3, 1985. Meeting of the City Council. Motion carried
unanimously.
C. Request from Welcome Home to appeal decision rendered July 25 by the Board
of Appeals & Adjustments on Variance Request No' 85-26 (A Public Meeting)
Assistant to the City Manager Dawson said notice of the appeal had been
sent to property owners in the vicinity.
City Council Minutes -8- August 20, 1985
Assistant Planner Durham stated the Board of Apneals and Adjustments had-
reviewed the variance request at its July 25, 1985, Meeting at which time
it voted (3-1-0) to deny the variance request. Durham explained the City
Attorney suggested the Council base its decision on two items: 1) were
the modifications proposed before the property Welcome Home proposes to occupy
constitute such a change as to violate provisions relating to non-conforming
use structures and 2) is Welcome Home entitled to variance from provisions
contained in Chapter 11 of the City Code relative to the proposed modifi-
cations. Durham referred to the "Findings and Conclusions Relating to the
Request of Welcome Home to Operate a Licensed Residential Facility." Durham
reviewed the chanaes on which the variance was based.
Redpath asked if their is an existing deck on the house and noted there is
already a porch on the house. Durham said there is also a deck on the house.
Durham noted that any up-grading of the property would have to conform to
present City Code,
Bentley asked the City Attorney if the scope of the changes proposed for
the interior of the structure should be considered by the Council this
evening. City Attorney Pauly said all of the proposed modifications should
be considered. Pauly said the Attorney General when asked for his opinion
regarding this issue, was not specifically asked for an opinion as to the
extent of modifications which might be made to the structure: the Attorney
General was asked whether or not the use to a three-apartment complex from
a two-apartment complex was abandonment of the two-apartment complex. Pauly
stated the Council should consider all of the modifications to the structure
but not who is to use the structure. He said that each of the questions
outlined by Durham should be answered separately by the Council; should one
be given an affirmative, Welcome Home could be granted a buildino permit.
City Attorney Pauly asked that the following documents considered by the
Council be included as part of the record. pages 1857 - 1923 of the Council
packet; the plan prepared by Delano Erickson, architect, dated January 8,-
1985; and the plan showing the condition of the structure along with a
January 8, 1985, exhibit and memorandum from Steve Durham.
Pauly cited a variety of decisions which indicated there is no clear-cut
case law opinion to use as a basis for making a determination.
Anderson asked if what is proposed is an enlargement or an expansion.
Pauly said the courts have gone from one extreme to the other on that•
the City Council can make that decision.
Steve Schele, Program Director/Administrator of Welcome Home. spoke to
the request. Schele indicated the porch is to be turned into a room for
year-round use: it would be glassed-in rather than screened-in. This will
create minimal impact on the building. Schele said the deck they have
been told, is there illegally; this can be taken down, but the feeling is
this would be a place which would provide tranquility and serenity. Schele
noted the staircase is required: it is proposed at the location shown be-
cause it would have the minimal impact on the building. Schele noted
any plans to change the aarage have been abandoned, There will be no
exnansion of the building. Schele cited various provisions of the City
Code which would support their request
f
City Council Minutes -9- August 20, 1985
Bentley said he felt the essence of the issue was whether or not the
proposed changed to the structure constitute an illegal expansion of a
( non-conforming use.
June Theese. Hennepin County. asked City Attorney Pauly whether or not
the legal opinion regarding a non-conforming use/group home in Brooklyn
Center was applicable in this case. Pauly said he had already referred
to that case and the Court of Appeals did not find the changes to be
non-conforming.
Patricia Siebert, Minnesota Mental Health Project, asked if Mrs. Sutton
(previous owner of the property) were aoinq to build a stairway, would
this be undergoing such scrutiny? Peterson said it has gotten this far
because it is Welcome Home and because it is a good project,
Pidcock asked for clarification regarding "grandfathering." Pauly said
an enlargement or expansion of a generally non-conforming use is not allowed
based on the assumption that obsolescence will come via deterioration; any
modification which would extend the life of the property would then be
an improper enlargement or expansion.
Don Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated the issue is a very narrow one.
He said Minnesota case law is most like that of New York and Illinois and
he cited decisions in those states, Sorensen said the property is now valued
(assessed valuation) at $64.500 and that the improvements would be about
$50,000, He said he did not feel that 77% of the value of the building
in improvements constituted the type of improvements allowable. Sorensen !
called attention to the fact there is no exisiting driveway to the property
except via the Bren property; Bren will not allow expansion of the driveway
to accommodate the needs of Welcome Home, Sorensen said that undue hardship
is not based on hardship to the property owner, He stated that he did not
feel the expansion and variances are valid,
Elaine Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road. said Mrs` Bren had a call today
from Don Hansen (owner of the Welcome Home property) regarding the use of
her driveway.
Schele said Welcome Home had begun working on the approval process on August
10, 1984. and had proceeded in good faith. He said they had done what they
had been asked to do by the City; reasonable use is being denied them,
Jim Just, Executive Director of Welcome Home said the neighbors had offered
$129,000 for the property. He stated the estimated cost of the improvements
are in the range of $40,000 - $45.0OD,
John Konek, attorney for the Willow Creek residents, said the value of the
building without the land is $90 000, He addressed the issue of non—confor-
ming use and pointed out that the value of the improvements will be more
than 50% of the cost of the building. He said the Council must look at
the question of non-conforming use; he pointed out that City Code states
that if 50% or more of the value of a non-conforming use building is not
allowed. The property can be put to use as a single-family dwelling or
a duplex: therefore, there is no undue hardship which can be demonstrated.
;a7 I
City Council Minutes -10- August 20. 1985
Susan Konvick, Mental Health Association and also a licensed realtor,
spoke to the market value of the property. She questionned how many
people would sell their homesteads for the price at which the property
was assessed.
Nancy Furst, 8693 Darnel Road, said she felt the proponents had adequately
proven their case and she felt a variance should be granted.
Barbara Morris, 6921 Edenvale Boulevard, said she would like to have a
facility like this available in Eden Prairie and related a person exper-
ience whereby a relative would have been helped if one had been available.
John Wilkie, 7221 Willow Creek Road, noted this had been voted down (4-1)
by a committee which first reviewed it,
Mary Ann Radas, 8064 Tirtber Lake Drive. said a facility such as Welcome
Home is badly needed in Eden Prairie.
Nelva Mavison, 6613 Canterbury Lane, said she could not believe the City
Council would have approved this and not realized that there would be a
need for some improvements to the structure which might result in variances.
Yvonne Hargens, 9060 Staring Lane, stated the City Council has the preroga-
tive to make exceptions to things. She asked what the legal ramifications
would be to voting "yes" on this; Anderson said he had the same question.
City Attorney Pauly said he felt that either action was defensable and
reasonable and would be a supportable action in this instance, Bentley
pointea out there were other issues regarding the legal aspect such as
overruling the Board of Appeals decision and the fact that there are a
number of non-conforming uses in Eden Prairie.
MOTION: Redpath moved seconded by Anderson, to grant the variances with
the exclusion of the variance for the deck.
Redpath said he felt major expansion involved construction such as that
involved in the expansion of Lil Red and Lion's Tap, He said he felt
the decision which was made which determined Welcome Home to be a legiti-
mate use recognized what might happen next. Bentley said he felt this
was a non-conforming use and no proof of hardship had been demonstrated.
Peterson said he was concerned with the magnitude of the modifications;
he felt the use was allowed but not the perpetuation of the use, Peter-
son said he would vote "no" with reluctance, Pidcock said she was torn
but was sympathetic to Welcome Home's situation,
VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with Bentley and Peterson voting
"no.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson to find that the modifications
proposed by Welcome Nome are permitted and authorized modifications of a non-
conforming structure. Motion carried with Bentley and Peterson voting "no."
MOTION: Anderson moved. seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff to prepare
a Resolution of findings reversing the decision by the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments. Motion carried.
City Council Minutes -11- August 20, 1985
M0TI0N: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to authorize the granting
of the necessary building permits and their modifications. Motion carried
with Bentley voting "no."
D. Request from Midwest Asphalt Corporation to appeal decision rendered July
11, 1985, by the Board of Appeals & Adjustments on Variance Request No,
85-24
Assistant to the City Manager Dawson stated notice of this appeal had
been sent to owners of nearby properties.
Assistant Planner Durham said theBoard of Appeals denied this variance
request on a 4 - 0 vote at its July 11 1985, Meeting. Durham said a
policy issue exists which states that redevelopment of property within
the City should conform to current standards,
Dick Bury, owner of the property, addressed the request and noted that
all the industries in that area are non-conforming uses.
Redpath said he felt whatever Bury did across the street from his present
facility would clean up the area and would be a definite improvement.
Peterson asked if the proponent was willing to work with City Staff on a
landscape plan as well as other things which had been requested. Bury
said he did not want to mislead the Council; he said he was going to put
up a nice looking building and would black top the surface right up to
the building. He said he would hate to see this hung up due to the lack of
a landscaping plan.
Planning Director Enger asked if Bury planned to hard surface the entire
lot. Bury said that in that area most of the properties are fenced and
are paved right up to the right-of-way line.
Bentley asked what the correct zoning on this property is. Bury said he
thought it was heavy industrial. Bentley asked the size of the parcel.
Bury said it was 8 acres.
Bury said the reason he would have problems with landscaping the property
in a manner which the City has suggested is that he has a truck scale and
there would not be room to maneuver the trucks if there was a lot of
landscaping. He said you don't need grass in front of a shop facility.
Anderson expressed concern about the entire area in which this property
is located. He wondered how long an area such as this is allowed to
remain in this condition.
Bentley asked Bury if he could come back to the Council with a plan, a
simple schematic drawing, which would show exactly what is proposed.
Bury said that could be done.
City Council Minutes -12- August 20. 1985
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to continue this matter
to the September 3. 1985, meeting of the City Council and to direct
Staff to work with Bury to resolve the landscaping matter. Bury was
requested to come back to the Council with a schematic drawing of
what is proposed. Motion carried unanimously,
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 22030 - 22315
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Payment of Claims
Nos. 22030 - 22315. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Pidcock, Redpath, and
Peterson voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously,
VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. Resoltuion No, 85-179 establishing just compensation and authorizing offer
for the City of Eden Prairie to acquire Prairie Village Elderly Apartment
site of 3.05+/-; and Resolution No. 85-180 authorizing the City of Eden Prairie
to sell 3.05+/- acres of land to Derrick Land Companies
Planning Director Enger noted the two Resolutions are necessary for the
City to acquire the elderly apartment site and reconvey the land to Derrick
Land Companies. He said these are procedural resolutions required for use
of Community Development Block Grant funds.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution No. 85-179
establishing just compensation and authorizing offer for the City of Eden
Prairie to acquire Prairie Village Elderly Apartment site of 3,05+/- acres;
and to adopt Resolution No. 85-180 authorizing the City of Eden Prairie
to sell 3.05+/- acres of land to Derrick Land Companies, Motion carried
unanimously.
Dick Krier of Derrick Land Development updated the Council as to progress
of the proposal.
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
There were none.
IX. APPOINTMENTS
There were none.
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Rports of Council Members
Anderson • Discussion on Grading Permits - continued to September 3 meeting
due to the lateness of the hour,
;Ix/ "l
City Council Minutes -13- August 20, 1985
/( B. Report of City Manager
0. There was none.
C. Report of City Attorney
There was none.
XI. NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Pidcock moved seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 1115
a.m. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
December 17, 1985
1986 LICENSE RENEWAL
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) ON SALE LIQUOR
Artistic Applications & Decorating Abby's Restaurant
Nelson Brothers Construction
Wm. Poppenberger & Son ON SALE LIQUOR & SUNDAY LIQUOR
Eden Prairie Mr. Steak
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Flagship Athletic Club
Green Streets
Barthel Homes, Inc. Kabuki Restaurant
Richard Marple Builders Three Beez II
Quam Development
ON SALE CLUB LIQUOR & SUNDAY LIQUOR
Eden Prairie Legion
GAS FITTER Olympic Hills Corporation
Metropolitan Mechanical Cont. WINE & SUNDAY WINE
Yale, Inc.
Country Kitchen
PLUMBING
BEER ON SALE
Dan the Plumber
Randy Lane Plumbing Cedar Hills Golf Park
Metropolitan Mechanical Cont. Jerry' Super Valu
R. J. Miller Plumbing, Inc. Lion's Tap
Masterpiece Pizza, Inc.
Pizza Hut, Inc.
HEATING & VENTILATING Rocky Rococo
Schmidts Market
Riccar Heating & Ventilating
Metropolitan Mechanical Cont. BEER OFF SALE
Southside Heating & Air Cond.
SBS Mechanical, Inc. Eden Prairie Grocery
Yale, Inc. PDQ Food Store
TYPE B FOOD Prairie Dairy
Q Petroleum
W. Gordon Smith Co.
W. Gordon Smith (Wallace Rd.) Superamerica
W. Gordon Smith (Flying Cloud Dr.) Eden Prairie Legion
Jerry's Super Valu
Lion's Tap
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
page two
CIGARETTE
Eden Prairie Grocery TYPE B FOOD
Eden Prairie Legion
Eden Prairie Mr: Steak W. Gordon Smith (Flying Cloud Dr.)
Jerry's Super Valu W. Gordon Smith (Wallace Road)
Lion's Tap
PDQ Food Store CANDY
Prairie Dairy
Three Beez II W. Gordon Smith (Flying Cloud Drive)
W. Gordon Smith (Flying Cloud Drive) W. Gordon Smith (Wallace Road)
W. Gordon Smith (Wallace Road)
VENDING
MECHANICAL GAMES •
W. Gordon Smith (Flying Cloud Drive) •
Lion's Tap W. Gordon Smith (Wallace Road)
(
L These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
at o le, Licensing
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie
FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson
SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1, Contract for City Hall
Architectural Services
DATE: December 13, 1985
The space planning and site evlauation phase for new City offices was
essentially put on hold from December 1984 through September 1985. The
architectural firm performing this work, Setter Leach & Lindstrom, has cited
36 hours of additional work it has expended to re-start the project. It
requests $2,000 be added to the contract for this extra effort imposed by the
City. An additional $500 is requested for a computer-aided perspective
drawing of how a building might fit on the site south of the Public Safety
Building. Staff believes that these requests are justified.
( Recommendation: It is recommended that Change Order No. 1 for the Agreement •
with Setter Leach & Lindstrom be approved so that the cost for the Schematic
Design Phase would be amended from an amount not to exceed $30,000 to $32,500,
and the total contract would be amended from an amount not to exceed $195,000
to $197,500.
CWD:jp
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services',
DATE: November 29,1985
SUBJECT: Tax Forfeited Lands
Enclosed is a classificatin list of non-conservation land located in the City of
Eden Prairie. These parcels forfeited to the State of Minnesota for non-payment of
real estate taxes.
As provided in Minnesota Statute 282, the Hennepin County Oepartment of Property
Taxation requests the City Council to approve these parcels for either public sale
or for private sale to adjacent owners, if the parcels are unable to be improved
because of non-compliance with local ordiances. The Council may also aquire parcels
for public use by resolutions stating the use to be made of the parcels. City staff
has reviewed these parcels and provide the following information on each parcel:
PARCEL 01-116-22-12-0005 STATE LAND DEPARTMENT OPUS II, SECOND ADDITION OUTLOT A
Date of Forfeiture - 04/17/85
Market Value - $36,000
This tiangular shaped parcel of approximately 1 1/2 acres is located in the
northeast portion of the City at the intersection where Crosstown splits to the
north away from Highway 169/212. It is a wooded hillside that should be considered
for preservation as this parcel is a very visible portion of a major entry into the
City.
An attached aerial photo depicts this parcel outlined in red. Opus owns the parcel
immediately to the west. The northern boundary of City West is south of this
parcel. Staff recommends the City acquire this parcel for permanent open space
preservation.
PARCEL 05-116-22-43-0039 TIM PIERCE & ASSOCIATES, INC, DUCK LAKE VISTA
Date of Forfeiture - 08/12/85
Market Value $100
This parcel is located west of County Road 4, immediately south of the railroad
tracks, east of Duck Lake.
The previous owner has attempted to market this parcel for several years; however,
due to the undesirable location between the railroad tracks and a county road, as
well as the relatively steep topgraphy, the parcel is not desirable for a
residential lot. Staff recommend the City Council consider acquiring this parcel
for future road and bicycle trail right-of-way. The City trails plan depicts an 8'
asphalt bikeway on the west side of County Road 4, north to the Minnetonka border.
The City would have to acquire additional right-of-way in this location at some
future time in order to construct that proposed trail.
•
f PARCEL 08-116-22-12-0010 TIM PIECE & ASSOCIATES, INC., DUCK LAKE VISTA
Date of Forfeiture - 07/23/85
Market Value - $22,ODD
This parcel is located immediately south of the above referenced parcel (see the
attached map). The owner has also attempted to market this parcel as a single
family or a duplex lot for several years. Due to the undesirable location, as well
as the relatively steep topography, this parcel has been an undesirable residential
lot. City staff recommend the Council consider the acquistion of this parcel for
road and trail right-of-way in order to extend the trail on the west side of County
Road 4 north. The City would need to acquire right-of-way in this location for
filling and construction.
PARCEL 06-116-22-43-0026 JOHN SKRANKA, BELLHURST ADDITION, OUTLOT 1
Date of Forfeiture - 01-23-85
Market Value - $200
This small triangular shaped outlot is located south of Valley View Road adjacent to
the Hidden Ponds Homeowners Association Outlot A. The Homeowners Association trail
extending from Valley View Road through their outlot crosses this property. The
Homeowners Association has been maintaining this parcel. The Community Services
Staff recommend that the City acquire this parcel for road R.O.14 that will be needed
in the future when Duck Lake Trail is upgraded.
City staff recommend that the City Council approve the resolution requesting the
County allow the City to acquire all of the parcels on this list.
1
I
CITY Of EDEN PRAIRIE
( HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55344
RESOLUTION NO. 85-274
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF TAX FORFEITED LAND
FOR PUBLIC PARK AND ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has received from the County of
Hennepin a list of lands in said municipality which became the property of the
State of Minnesota for non-payment of real estate taxes, which said list has
been designated as Exhibit A attached hereto, and
WHEREAS, provided in the Minnesota Statutes 282, the City Council is
asked to approve the public sale of these parcels, or to indicate which
parcels the City wishes to acquire for public use, and
WHEREAS, the City desires to obtain title to PIN 01-116-22-12-0005 for
public park purposes and PIN 05-116-22-43-0039, PIN 08-116-22-12-0010 and PIN
06-116-22-43-0026 for public road purposes,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Eden •
Prairie does request the Board of Hennepin County approve the acquisition of
these parcels by the City of Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 17th day of
- December, 1985.
•
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
1 •
John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
e e e • e $ a $ e $ $ a a e $ e + \
!
�( 1
1
); |) ■ }
g ° -
I-
-! .
/B ) ) / N .
a7 0 0
IIA ■ '
§ k\ 0 0
E
!. -
( kE
.. § H § K
kIN DJ WIi ! §
® e 1!
i§ § --
. DJ.k§ I
2maB._ ■ &§g 2!
B » kE!
E ? g $t §2%
cs .
| 2
§ \§ §
,9 9 §
( ■
\ 3
2 0 N N j. i
4.°1t20CS
. $
_ \ . . , .g k ,
i))J | R . .
0 $ 9 0 $ 0 0 $ e $ @ @ S . 0 0/ $ N.
- , . - ...\ . • 7" •, '
1.""' -'' •'-' ---:?.. -,0 , A 77'7.2c.';'..-'. t„A. . f,, 7.. -, % %t•ti;. ' .,ti It, ••
\' . • - 1/4v_i --. . ,, .• 4 "it,tr... . , .... - .
--Lc•-.••.-;• *- -7 • -
• - - - ..,_,., .
•• \
.. .. . ,,,,,,„ . .1414•:. • ,.... .... • ..,. .
. ...,...
-Oft- • •• o r n't • •=, . ...
:;•.r:t•-•=;...A.* •
' - ' ''' 7;i%* -1 tr.j/c/C"- '. r.‘is 2•:.7.v.,**7;'.i:--..- ......,- • .--..,10' .-
io 1.,.• ir- , ‘ • . • •01 . i.*••,•* ; .., ' •!' `; •:,-..A........
‘* 1L4:...4 ,,-- -' ,44"t,P\V -It . .1/4 .
trot,....., . .,. . .....; ••• • ;A,.-
.. ... ,.
* t-E•S' 4 ....
A 4 • ,-/ I* zr. 4-1
. •,. 2„ ....,,.„A.03.- 0163 S•4, 0 \1-• le t1 -. .. ---77 „ ,.-.... ..:,........-...,.•,
•• •" •4 4 er-, ",!..,L.: on
•1.,i, 1'..1. . ,.....
.' \ R -.‘' . - •
. , .
•.,. • c?,...,,:. - .7 vlsi."',---. 17.`_,. ...,' 7.- , -t" ' kli---:;+,- -,,4% • •-- .-c- ... .-.... -
z....., _.._ ..,... • . •Se 7i., ••• t• - r • \._/^t -
.-"•- -, t.:;',7, • - - :--
:•, • ,... .4 fr.. 1..........4 • 4
. j:ILI --'f=21;pit,....,1 .cc ! oz./ rszt•
sot i 4"'",1.-1 - ''' Wc.",,,,,, r. •\ • "la IA-• e. --"M°2°"' ei•ri ft.1". I
:,-.4 0-70 ..,s•-ti. ,, ....,.. ' ,,, -.7,-. .z.- ..0, ,f)co.1,_==.e., .==a ri) ,,,,?, a-,-,'-•,,:.•••••••• ",,i.!...-F..---===.7,-t...:ti •" .- ,
t1.'sell'i P1-3-.4"7-1- 0 "A `- 'I'S'''' ilot/iin, V ---'; ' 7,5 v`-•' cr,....,:-3'47,--1- -
. `-t -.c ..,. 4-3 -0,- ,- ..,u, •___..._ a, ,.. 2.1 ',.....4m0 . .0 T vf• - . f.,
•,u,'' '..6 ... ;,,,i ..."4 3 ‘3-,.%J 4. ‘. 44) ' '''-'-'-14:t.• .'a.. 7.... 1 :oh r ,,*'? rr-9:::-*--!r,/,:s.: - . .•":
:-s,s, 0 ..),s ef,a.• 64.9s.-irrts .. 147. -1.„,,-1 ,..'e:4-0 s„ a _r_,-.,....., 'Lai tatrt... 9 -..• - -
."'- ? ..;0? 1:04.4,.•,1•4 t• v.. . - :71,,,S-7.'.-';'-' eq.;1 "" Z.' n• ;', •144-7;t1.,,,_4.1 .... i MOM;;Ii1,.i'14 '. '..''.} ' a - 4 Av,--Istrrr wi.- .= 1".%•.7.• ,,c, , •1 -' .. .`1A----f9. •11,'-`"i•,- .. ri T56, .41F.rn 1"---,.=•04. r,...-w, ..,-, ,g.o, u., !.. '::-44)‘?"-,..z.:`-1: -.•,,''' s 4;,.. ...N› .
,#_se-.AP ,i.A.4' h‘.' :;• 4...• • -•i '... - %," '''' , ',\' ,...:4 <'..,..7 • C gpV.i yi,t•71 1-2 %"... ".:.
- ...s. - ••• ","Y.?' •:,:-;,4".'' -;,• , .r; )--. ij'4'•.r. ''',3•,1/4, CI '--°-' ka •--l'OFF,,.5,&-.-...-__ ,•.-t!• •
. :41r.>5'^ -., ' ..--z-r`.. -wzr.lt•Rg.,•••. '-• .42.NJ.';id ,'As--9-•-',.7' --, -- 0-;---..„t 0;•--••=:IT) u
•
1‘• :-..!•!,,.i4/ 7,-,,,E1/4,i' ,11,--4rt.oN, -e... .;''=- .;:c 4"' ,--,1•Ii=r-'‘ ='-'it-. „,A,,„„% -- 14'. *.,..._..,1- -- 0_,......,'`rb I
„s, •...k.,r.",.-..:•- 4 :s-zsi •4 .3- .‘• e„ ''.....\ •, ,3-z -' ..." 'V 01 • .L-Tast r.:,
--. ...f FAI ••,,D• ',:p.i \301 :ALS, •• ')-a• .).--i• -.,;c: / us--.11',0
Si
;;VOVzrit Ir. ' ^0,.Z- •:„*.\ .... r 4" 3„
In 0_ 0". .." ii - , 00"9,-1.. 1.7.;st.4•02,.- •
3. ,:az.,...s f,i;,,...:,• ."V Ifg\....:%:,r,1 S.W.%Zre .-4, . -:-.:: --C. , D 't. % .. "210i..•.4"F;I•'.'D.
.,:,c4-1,4t, gi--,-;-.-.,sig - •,,.- ... .•'•2 ...,.- ' ... -<- --:. .,, .• ,-,,- :, <- r-stl r e 4‘*•:.---1•=-.--4... .
,:., ...,--1-)ss, , _,.,-7., , i,.• .-„, ui.,, ,,,I, • 07 eif/4 111161.%•• -..? rr,1 1-'.. crir .7 ''"1."'.!0:Pah.4" i...1' 6er--4 ,.,../.:. *k of,y C^i'lt: i'
.., "...?z,... ..4 cs, , - 1/4 r----*
)4,41.,„.2.7.....i..1-:-I , .4 -• ,,,, s.,-,- ..,•,,,,,4.)• '' ..,.., i.e. tr_tp,....-..1,-0
• --iPi.."1-- "64' l• "". ''' . 7 ctlt• . 4.4, '.,.‘. P.' 'Z'ali•'÷011.1."... • " . . •
5,T-d.„,.....,3 .; 7,-.,4,T . !,4,411$4\ 01.4,44,,. , .......
g1/4;v„,.. F.,7,11.,, ....if-TAZS ,,--', 0., wo _'- .10, :. .0,x,• ,,,V-11,2,
-, e• t y_-_,--- :,,4e:•-" .ir =',1,.. )1.4.-•-e-,----,2::-, e i--4.- •---e;.....a.„,,• ,•:•..-.bc. ,,',5-04°FnDC'`q-t Z 4'13 zo:Port.2 1..
en-1 I tiit,Olt; .-,*-..11...74-1431 I 001-.:.:I no' I 49 9,1 l':: 4". r:`:. Lilo,' orzv re.'oc s • : -
. 1
:,-,-/-7.-- • .- :4i, :-..d7.'7-7 ''-71-"r 'Z't---, `"ic. 77; .1 '..ovIr2r;;_, "..----77-7- -- '':•'-'1,. "---zi': .
.., ''.:. ). t" .2.., --''-• .0-11*/4,,,A..,
•- r'l 4 J 7 ,-.(-1-::-. „•.• •• vet:', • ,c ...I. IP\g2 Z .. ./. a...i:‘,. 14 .;L......t!.....:4.5,... S.Z, ...r. .',••?....:".. 4.02 ."7.,"....z7.,::,-,0 .•a...A, e,, .,,s .4 0...1;.00, .4...* 4.)
•••.0-....Z., -
.1.
.....ke - 0 r• •• -1-. '.., ..i.n,q,.,•<. il .,C% -4-1 "--1- '!' - ‘ •:.•-.:.,' . ''‘‘ •-.3 \a ',.' .,,%`. . 1.-",
.")‘-/,,,,,•V'' t. C..i• 1 , 4... '4.. 1.'tes", ''', o .0 -.Cg., 1,„ ‘.. .*;16"4 .‘...•'`-- ....:57.- . - , ....,,. ? .;7-' . -.,,,.s.:-. ., -- - .' -.=.. :. - -- ° • ,..- i gi 0,...- .. ..r..-.., ,..%<...as
.2 ---1....,_ --, --..9. . . ---'' - s 4 %.... ._. v•J, .. (;,-. ' s 1 • all, ",„ 4,7 ... t,,......,- ...,., , ,,,,,,,..,...).10 „,..., . sts„., - Afr ,,,,,• tot'44 •.% 1. . '' ff...ti .
la
l'. A S't .r.,,i....;::_„..„...1:1/1.. 1..r. ••`'. ..,.... -.‘...6 • r. . •-
•. ,5",< 5:,,- , s) ---...,,,,,,..1.-.., .. :;.1-7,-.\;_-,.. lec7. Ili,Ilt==. t...--•,,, 1 ... st4.1,•- , 1.-.- ,0.• •.1.1 ....
...9t4.‘„,........41.4. '.,. •.*"';.. 1. 1014 4..... ',...;::T- '.. Q‘4/908°1 '.-% S.'t' • ..W
, -,\"/...---. ollier', 1_ ''''' e -' -....&100°1..`..c, 4% I. •0 ft.‘. 7 *9?..-I. .„*.41,0
6..:, C., ,../;:.NZI.) z.....61,ee•;',".:?,,,,,.1,,‘;', 0 ,,,,1.7•di .P.Z.,_""), ---7_, 2,•.; at • ,cca = ,T ..,.. .
--.... • --: Y• ,„ ..:. . • --. --,-.4 7,. ....% --.-.4, ,,,,'-,fi 1 6=- .-. z. - :.---„..i h 2
-'7. ..• ,,''',4 7- -..-1„,••04. .•..- ,y,,„• ,-, .. .4 Wool!_.4,Ti•t.
• , . -- , i_:...::.•,..,:,- ...,-,/ ,,.7-1 ,,, -.- .\_.....„7rwin ?" .....
-.‘.
r.s...1
e...;., .,, .„,.." 1,0::••• .. -• '
• .. ',.'."••I ... 41,17: V. ..., Z T,"1/414 -4-:,AI"-, ,,, .--! - - ........
"----.„,....\-:::):.. •p , ,c,r, .••,...: ..,,,....,..-•-, c:', ;;;.' w_ ".."-.....-_,-.._ VI. ... .,- ::3:z.' . 1 . ...
',/,.....,.. , . ..../.4.1. ‘,1::!'•'. °I..:.1.7.4..7,.7.-7,:it'.'"..4, .,*/----(z.- ".•,•-•:2 -2- 4 ,14-.14.,'‘..--1 .-...1-:...
a
. ,
•.• ,.;..• • ',a .., . .„ `..,N. il• ""'42rS,".." "'... .,17.:4 / .--
• '• ' ,e P, LLI.,...• eo• :!/..7, :,,,,
-7-- -''' '-- 1-r--. ..",ri 4-.,• :----- ... '."..., Zc---..- ...-'4.'7 ' -t*-----. '---
',/ ,--...• ;'t ,,,r,:s. , , i
. '' .--..7:1 = / '', \ •...V •:,'''.'itr ff 1:? ..' '''r fel'- '' sr'".., ...'-
/
•
sl ,m:;." - '-' ''-1 1.1. • ,?' - ? , ,,'
.',-)7,1 .--. .:.! •"--•:::!/ '7 T., ..-. ...-z;) .,,ak,..„., ,s.....: .'1'..TE.,tt-
- •••• Z--, ,i 1,--., et 73::' ..'''`*---"*-:-In.7. ,/\.-i';,..N.7.04,:',4-.., -....,-- qt": • i, •
•Pp, , 11 • . ‘•••-' i•r " _ •-....-. ,.(.. . *,::',3,
. .5.-.! .47i: '•-' " •/' '2 •\• i ''', "k ..x: i.;. ..
. .. ,:.' .., - .tic v., 7:7.., w--+ ei/ 6.-.11 4-,., ., :. ...
:/ ---.. •'•^'•.• - ••.r.;:,. ,fr ;.,- '"'".•-
*,....;;41‘ -.••'• •",:. -,-.*,• •-•"- -.A. .4.. / . s
SV • ./ .-,./ . ..,.v ::-- ..1,
a ,,,,
. f--..
,,..' .... •:-/..,/ •:':`‘ '?/' '",11 & . 7.
I..---. _ „._, - -"- %To -f - .-.-::.--.% -.1•-,
^ .'.le 'v; `.°oM ' •u'�
-s/ ., �) .•
t• .. . . - Olt J; - _ �'Cos — C\
1 ® 1 ne " �.00 n.if i L �tio it. ` t
•.V• J nn, ,. oe .wln.i • ' SI I p �,
. k . N a '.i'� t''' -1 2 3N(d n ,. ��wiM
�. - ) • O,i �00 0, HSo, �r :rlr — „fi l i, 10
J',. �,''•- .^ '�(y 0 01 •WYr.\ �� o f MIAIOI y/..*
it, Q.....- -dr. 8.. 6 .4.,;,..7.. ;,, •1•",,7.% + : r: •-••::,i .7,
/= .f —� `,..._ ay1/Q st sb.° v-e r.a hail- u t9� ,.. c5ec
• 1
•
U `.A{ ' i :If-►�rr:fm G -�f tfss:y �1 H�`�'�,•,;_•
.._ N303
r CM M'+ O ) 1
L.
• e) t\t4g . .. , ,A1 ,0,0,, _........ _ ,.....„ 0.1,...,,, ....1., —.74 ,
^ y "'
°' 1,
i �. _ - r<,I tom.• -
_ —. > r ... \e•
04 CTdN '
• 'i •
• _ I4.s Hltt _ erti
,� �° .. oy' . ' - ),� ,Z ��• M� -
� ' yt
_ f1 f 1
t}r _ �\ r sr
�•— -ti
M1 ' ,_ � ~ , Of C I _ J f )
G $ tJ .. 'I, - '^ II* (till
♦4 s / Ja 'rS, A �3 •'•, O ,oi . of _r -
•
o ,ir ., N o y ` ,,ri w �.�G ••
• Jv1.• ,t s ,.� b •• 1 ',11jj•• silo , . 0 1t o-=•tf° 0 ) o:-.e; u ]. [
tN
4', y (n •,r - * "' r' rr r a° - ' rq 5° y+ ..r,1M.4.+'+ei►r'►
i t' a`• `� _ ti 0 %y 1•- t • • M y
1. lo'14f J _ .3- ..1 t p P I:.fy:'
• t 15°1 1 yr ! N . I�.�.,� .Or A -,.��Y ,r �t-T
t.
..' _a. I tit er cc. Or
N - A 4 '
' $1i1 -.�.i ,171' .t I1M
I INyr N- weu ' '
C ViVl t.' a. 411 : ...• \ "�
a'" _ r ...4 • o ; :.: at ..• o
}y
N 1 N,. ?W ff .... f. 0
ate+ N •IN N - . Z .4 .ff`•.,.. V ZL
.w.iot Rio "; j ,, •'''4,k,1., 1. i 1H_zs.00.f1{1
N h J` ••IIC -.
1-+'iv. t v w •..• s o .•'1i%' 9Z c
" 05 t y /sr a 9• •
I
. °
h�+;hyygy 141
p♦.4 111 • 4G2
+ ,..; r1,,,`x. 13
11. 1 V
i J` • d .` t _..
^y �y � ~ .
"•�'
apt.
,:i,•,....\ r'� �• �,--" OUT LOT
o' tin •
T C,c-
l. •'SLI W l
Z _
1 1
o -, _ _ 4
V
1 j _ -,..: .
\ -
OLJTLOT D
4
•
t i , 0
ri
r
i ..
t •LZ „, ., . .
.i'.1.: ?r,„: . . :
•
!,' G 1� S1 e.
• •s
. , • •• 'ix‘,„„ -, . 4,;..:',,s' .• -.,
.f'r> 14. t• '.. ti. \ ' - • .,...,, I.11kiti\\' • - :.1./;.. • ,.• ".,tgi . I. ....- ./.. -...,..- ,
__--- , . 1• ,r4. .,, Y.' •, . . .4".'t • •
... . \ '41., 1. : '•„_.' • .it't44111'.
.4-. . . 1 4.:3i;;.:-.-4: •
-...,:•44i,,,,,s,.. .,..-;-.. ' •
':1, ':.!•.•::. . ..- . ...et
...,
••••• . 4,.. i •;,,..;;. : • • ... ..,, . . • 'N ''''!i. '.1
.",tr,
Ik •:1..:T, ''..-' . —•- 41%.-
• '. . • • ..e ' r .74z•. •. • ,.....7' '•,;4,,-, • ' '''''. ' ' . • "..4,16
, Z.. '.. ;c *: , „' •nalt...-....A. ..... .,
'.!a• •Nit'
AI:. .1?,%;' . . . :7'. ,:,. i 4.. '„Ati,' .:.' .1,,4..., . '',, N. f• ., '
4.:'' ' °'-.;1'%*-7 ' . / . • ',.. .1.‘••.s : —.., , "---„,_ . .' ' •
,3!•4.4..,,i3;,,.$,.- . '• .. .• .f. ,. . •• -4,..•.. -.._
...,r..,. , ..r. . ;.. • ' .." -!`„:... ' "W.:: .. -',' . .. 5:.'•'.:1,17.•:."'!jir ---'-• 4, '0
• -,'"..„:,... ..',..,...,, •-.,,,..........
'444.' -. -1.' 'r-• :'
• .1., ...— '•.; , .' • -.'
•0 •.! • ' / 1-,.. , •,.. / .
'.','!'t.1-,.'..•:'.:,'.''; _,- .1 '•'r;'4
. -' )ilt7:• ••4),t v, ' „ - ''..•,,,,,, • (4
r'Sl's'",, :•• . •v.irf:i' . • . , •• iy,••.).' •/ • -•' ;"I :*4• .
• • • i , 0, .4..
: 4,t.: .', . . . ..i.' ; ." .•.;••• ''',
/
., ...e.,te...,nt,•.!;414F4 -,..„', ,
i.1:. / , 4' ;-.":".- ','. , . . - • • - ,, i---..w."--/-r-, .. 4 .
i 114, ,, <07;r .....: :.: !;••,:: , , ; • . ,, -. ,-,,- ,Ari4....04.. .',,e64/"., , •*,;4! Itt• •,•
..., •.; ••
. . ,•,,, . ...;,44:4P-4,1",.•it 4,(:-'4` •
.:, .. „N.,—., ,,.. , ,„,,,..:..,;:'--'4.,,,,%4 '" ,-: .,,,. • L.' .,,,'' t',,.. r 2 f/'
,'.. 41.,, ,,:?' x.-..:,:, ...,,,/ ,.,.. ; .? ..., ,. , , ..;,-- ,. ..,..,.. -.,•.,. , •-
p- -1.7.... / ., -'4 ' ‘' "''•-,.4:'.•..!: ; ' '..-: ' ,•:'•-4;2' ' -,- ' t•
. .": •, .4 ,,,....,,.,,-.: .. ..i . , . -..: . -. 4'i
Y /.. .-'1'.-1'' '''.: ''.'''...) - -'.. %• -",'••.''''.".-' •,•,,..". -''''•,,,,„. ,.. .:(1-4' '''
,,,./ .. ‘ . ,...,,,,,„,...!..,,,- ,,,, • ... ...„..,:._ , ... ..... ..- .: ,..., .,,,,,,„,,,,, ..„...,....,:: ,...„ ,.. F..
, ..,. . ,...,.,„ ,,,,,,,,,........,. . ...,, • • ...,•,..„,.,./ s • .„., .,•,...).,.,..,,.,..: :,_ :. . .......,.... ...,., ,,,,,,...,
,..,., . ....„.,..„•,... .„•• . .. • . •, .. ,. •,,,... .,,,,,...p.,-.,..,
/,
#,,, — •*-. ; ,•:, „:„. . • ,,.. • .••:,•... .. „ ..„ . ,,,, ,,,, ..... . ..; •:, ,,,,, 4,.
6, 4, -, - -,.'-'.. ir -,-- . - --:- ;c• . q.. :.. ; .- •..'' i,""... •-•:. ' -, 1 -'. d '.4,. ":4440,111.,ti."."-- . .
, .
' ir• '•.„ *. ,.....''' ' li '',.,. ..,)„'. ',' . :•'''' -'' - ' +,'',;(..' 1'
.'...',/;.,••'?.:?I',-'' . •N'V ' .. .
' ,k••• '-' ' •..-1*t.',,,:::, . sn't,.., '-.,_-- I, '' i0i4': 1 '!'` ''''ici.:If: •-r-'-'/'..i. ti '''' •,'' •.' ! •t''' .''• '-,A,.,.4.;,,•*'it'' ''. —,' --.--*-a
..•,--- 011P .. -,
4 , '‘‘, ty/' ' .1 ',.:4'"..7 : if , . .',..i ,tt,,.. i',,;;:. - ' :- '; , •. . C
•. 4, •^ ^.' ' , ,, IP` • • i, , "-' -;'/-" .‘...• , .. .r- , #.,... ,z./...- ' :4-,...$
,;., . ,,,,,:. 1-‘.•,, • - ,• ',...._ - tA. .,,
- ,......d.,...,4,.... -.:-... . ( ....• i,-, , --- l' ' _. •R._-..;.. .i,,,.....,6:,-,
. ..,.• sr_:i, •,.,,,,-.,J, , /.,- -- ..--- - •_
k,...- ..,.,-, '''-'-. •:.1/4.-,
• •,.
c,..i, •,•.,_.,A , . - e- .
'''oii.-•:".'''.1k^ - ' . -,.. - ' . tiltwe-, '' . .'"..,. .
r,*1.•• - ...., ',Sit •
' 'tN•',C.. .' 4Kit-./
41,3.
k
i , .....,c, • •%i•
..,
,,,
-r .‘.•.".4'-'-'
7
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Dec. 2, 1985
-5
Lambert said that residents surrounding the Spring Road softball
field complex will be invited to the January 6 Commission meeting
for review and comment on this concept plan.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Tax Forfeited Lands
Refer to memo dated November 29, 1985 from Bob Lambert, Director of
Community Services.
Lambert reviewed the four parcels of land located in the City of
Eden Prairie that have been forfeited to the State of Minnesota for
non-payment of real estate taxes. The first parcel is located in
the northeast portion of the City where Crosstown splits to the
north away from Hwy. 169/212. Staff feels this parcel should be
preserved since it is a major entry into the City.
The second parcel is located west of County Road 4, south of the
railroad tracks, east of Duck Lake. Staff recommends that the City
acquire this parcel for future road and bicycle trail right-of-way.
The third parcel is located south of the above parcel and staff
recommends that the City acquire this parcel for road and trail
right-of-way in order to extend the trail on the west side of
County Road 4 north.
The last parcel is located south of Valley View Road and adjacent
to Hidden Ponds. Staff recommends that this parcel be restricted
to the sale to adjacent owners since it cannot be improved because
it is not in compliance with City ordinances.
Staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution requesting
the county to allow the City of Eden Prairie to acquire three of
the parcels and restrict sale of the fourth parcel.
MOTION: Gonyea moved to recommend approval of the resolution per
staff recommendation. Cook seconded the motion and it passed 5-0.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Gonyea moved that the meeting be adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Kingrey seconded the motion and it passed 5-0.
Respectfully submitted, •
Lois Boettcher
Recording Secretary
�.t�U
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
f, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-278
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
TECHNOLOGY PARK 4TH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Technology Park 4th Addition has been submitted in a
manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and
under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly
had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the
regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and
ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Technology Park 4th Addition is
approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City
Engineer's report on this plat dated December 10, 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 17, 1985.
Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
-!)j,{
1
•
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
DATE: December 10, 1985
SUBJECT: TECHNOLOGY PARK 4TH ADDITION
PROPOSAL:
Hoyt Development, has requested City Council approval of the
final plat of Technology Park 4th Addition located south of
West 76th Street and east of Golden Triangle Drive in the
South 1/2 of Section 12. The plat contains 17.53 acres to be
divided into 2 lots and 2 outlots. Lot 1 contains 9.27 acres,
intended for the construction of 2 office/warehouse buildings.
Lot 2 contains 3.77 acres intended for the construction of a
five story office building and an adjoining parking ramp.
Outlots A and B contain 3.26 and 1.26 acres respectively with
l ownership to be retained by the Developer. Future use of
these outlots is defined in the Developer's Agreement.
HISTORY:
Second reading by the City Council of Ordinance 36-85 - PUD-6-
85, rezoning Lot 1, Block 1 to I-2 Park and Lot 2, Block 1, to
Office is scheduled for December 17, 1985. Future development
of Outlots A or B will require conformance with City code
requirements for platting and zoning.
The Preliminary Plat was approved by the City Council on
November 5, 1985, per Resolution 85-251.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is
scheduled for execution on December 17, 1985.
VARIANCES:
All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
•
Page 2, Final Plat Technology Park 4th Addition 12/10/85
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
Municipal utilities and streets will be installed throughout
the development in conformance with City Standards.
Walkway locations have been defined in the Developer's
Agreement.
Except for the creek crossing, the Developer proposes to
construct the on site improvements privately.
PARK DEDICATION:
Park dedication shall conform to City Code and the Developer's
Agreement requirements.
BONDING:
Bonding shall conform to City Code and the Developer's
Agreement requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Technology Park 4th
Addition, subject to the requirements of this report, the
Developer's Agreement and the following:
I. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $1300.
2. Second reading of Ordinance 36-85-PUD-6-85.
3. Execution of the Developer's Agreement.
cc: Mr. Brad Hoyt
Mr. D. Edward Ames, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc.
.n I/d J
Allstate District Claims Office
CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 39-85
AN ORDINANCE DF THE CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESDTA, REMDVING CERTAIN LAND FROM DNE
ZDNING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS DF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADDPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTIDN 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS •
THE CITY COUNCIL DF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Office District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the
Office District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in
City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended
accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of December 17, 1985, entered into
between Opus Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie,
which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the I9th day of November, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of
December, 1985.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of .
j!
Exhibit A
ZONING
That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 10,
Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as commenc-
ing at the southwest corner of said East Half of the Southeast Quarter;
thence northerly on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 27 minutes
43 seconds West, along the west line of said East Half of the Southeast
Quarter,to be described;f 3 thence North 89 degrees feet to the n32ominutesn�1�
of the
land seconds
East a distance of 289.94 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of
Prairie Center Drive according to Document No. 4744101; thence North
0 degrees 27 minutes 28 seconds West, along said right-of-way, a dist-
ante of 393.60 feet; thence South 89 degrees 32 minutes 17 seconds
West, a distance of 289.94 feet to said west line of the East Half
of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 0 degrees 27 minutes 43 seconds
East, along said west line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter,
a distance of 393.60 feet to the point of beginning.
rr i
t_
PRELIMINARY PLAT
That part of the : .t Half nt t`:u Southeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 116,
Range 72, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as ii,mmenclog at the southwest
corner of said East Na1f of the Southeast Quarter; thence northerly on an assured
hearing of North 0 degrees 27 minutes 43 seconds West, along the west line of
said East Half of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 865.13 feet to the point
of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 89 degrees 32 minutes
17 seconds East a distance of 289.94 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of
Pr' nie Center Drive according to 1"cumient No. 4744101; thence North 0 degrees
27 minutes 28 seconds West, along said right-of-way, a distance of 651.16 feet;
thence North 46 degrees 21 minutes 07 seconds :.est, along said right-of-way,
a distance of 27.84 feet; thence South 87 degrees 45 minutes 13 ;econ-s West,
along said right-of-way, a distance of 270.13 feet to said west line of a East
Half of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 0 degrees 27 minutes 43 seconds
East, along said west line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter, a distance
of 662.13 feet to the point i.f beginning.
I
I
Allstate District Claims Office
( DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985, by
Opus Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer,"
and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural
to Office for 2.62 acres for construction of an office building, situated in
Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the
property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #39-85,
( Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of
said property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated , 1985, reviewed and approved
by the City Council on November 19, 1985, and attached hereto as
Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided
herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain
the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Devall ofthe per at such times and terms � mannern such
, covenants, agreements, and conditi provided therein
onssetforth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Prior to release of the final plat by the City, Developer shall
submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's
approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer,
and erosion control for the property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or
cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit
C, attached hereto.
4. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and receive
the Director's approval of:
A. A modified landscape plan providing for additional
coniferous plantings within the concrete planting island to
screen damaged vehicles.
B. Detailed plans for signage and for lighting on the property.
C. Samples of the proposed exterior building materials and
rooftop mechanical equipment screening materials.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements shown in
the plans and with the samples noted above, as approved by the
Director of Planning.
5. Developer agrees to notify the City and the Watershed District at
least 48 hours in advance of any grading, tree cutting, or tree
removal upon the property.
6. Developer agrees that damaged vehicles shall be concentrated in the
14-car parking space on the western border of the property.
t
sr',rE
i
Allstate District Claims Office
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-283
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 39-85 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 39-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 17th day of December,
1985;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 39-85, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 39-85 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,.
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on December 17, 1985.
Gary O. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
l
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN
RESOLUTION NNO. 85-279 TY, TA
A RESOLALLSTATEP1STIADDITION FINAL PLAT OF
WHEREAS, the plat of Allstate 1st Addition has been submitted in a manner
required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinnnc havodeeeandulunder
er
Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all p
thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the
regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and
ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Allstate 1st Addition is approved
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
report on this plat dated December 10, 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.
Manager are hereby authorized to
C. That the Mayor andCity roval on behalf of the City
execute theacertificate of aPP
Council upon compliance with the foregoing previsions.
AOOPTED by the City Council on December 17, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
SEAL
ATTEST
John D. 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 Cii&
DATE: December 1D, 1985
SUBJECT: ALLSTATE 1ST ADDITION
PROPOSAL:
The Developer, Opus Corporation, has requested final plat
approval of Allstate 1st Addition, a 4.43 acre site located at
the Southwest quadrant of Valley View Road and Prairie Center
Drive in the South 1/2 of Section 10. Lot 1, Block 1 contains
2.62 acres intended for the construction of a two-story office
building. Ownership of Outlot A (1.81 acres) will be retained
by the Developer with rezoning and replatting to be done in
rr conformance with City Code requirements at a later date.
t'
HISTORY:
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on
November 19, 1985, per Resolution 85-256.
The final reading of Ordinance 39-85, rezoning Lot 1, Block 1
to Office is scheduled the December 17, 1985, City Council �.
meeting.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is
scheduled for execution on December 17, 1985.
VARIANCES:
All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
Municipal utilities and streets necessary to serve this site
have been installed.
During the construction process for Prairie Center Drive and
Valley View Road, easements were obtained by the City to cover
the installation of the utilities and roadway. The Developer
`.Ji�
•
Page 2, Final Plat Allstate 1st Addition 12/10/85
is now expected to dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the
improvements. The dedication of Prairie Center Drive and
Valley View Road must be shown on the plat prior to release.
Cross access agreements or easements with the owners of the
southerly adjacent property must be provided prior to release
of the plat. A second entrance, centered on the northerly
line of Lot 1, is also proposed. This entrance would provide
access to Outlot A and will require cross access agreements or
easements to be submitted prior to plat release.
PARK DEDICATION:
Park dedication will conform to City Code and Developer
Agreement requi rements.
BONDING:
Bonding for the installation of municipal utilities and
streets will not be necessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Allstate 1st Addition
subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's
Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $250.
2. Receipt of cross access documents. I�
3. Second reading of Ordinance 39-85.
4. Execution of the Developer's Agreement.
cc: Mr. Walter Carpenter
Mr. George Wilkinson, Opus Corp.
Mr. Edward Sunde, Sunde Surveying
1,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Craig Dawson, Staff Liaison to the Development Commission Up
SUBJECT: Development Commission Meeting Schedule
DATE: December 13, 1985
The members of the Development Commission believe that their meeting on a monthly
basis is not productive. They wish to adopt a quarterly basis for the Commission's
regularly scheduled meetings. According to Sec. 2.10 of the City Code, "Each Board
and Commission shall hold its regular meetings at a time established by the
Council."
The Development Commission requests that its regular meetings be held at 7:30 AM on
the first Friday following the first Monday in March, June, September, and December.
CWD:CJJ:jdp
J ! �
r
Eden Prairie Convenience Center
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 35-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMDVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANDTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTIDN 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIDNS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Office District and be placed in the C-Reg-Ser District. I
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, i
and hereby is removed from the Office District and shall be included hereafter in
the C-Reg-Ser District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred
to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph 3, shall be, and are
amended accordingly.
( Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of December 17, 1985, entered into
between K. Charles Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of
Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 5th day of November, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of
December, 1985.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
( PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of .
9
Ji �
Exhibit A
•
Legal Description •
That part of the West half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14,
Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the 5th Principal Meridian
lying westerly of the westerly right of way line of U. S. Highway
No. 169 - 212, northerly of the northerly right of way line of
Eden Road, easterly of Line "A" described below and southerly and
southeasterly of Line "8" described below:
Line "A": Commencing at the Northeast corner of Registered Land
Survey No. 895; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89
degrees 53 minutes 45 seconds East, along an easterly
extension of the North line of said Registered Land
Survey No. 895, a distance of 75.22 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence South 15
degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 422.41
feet to the northerly right of way line of said Eden
Road and there terminating.
Line •8": Commencing at the intersection of the northerly right of
way line of Eden Road and the westerly right of way line
of U. S. Highway No. 169 - 212; thence northerly,
westerly and northwesterly along said westerly right of
way line of U. S. Highway No. 169 - 212 a distance of
420.36 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be
described; thence westerly, deflecting to the left 90
degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for a distance of 133.0
feet, more or less, to the existing shoreline of the
lake; thence southerly and southwesterly along said
shoreline to its intersection with the above described
Line "A" and there terminating.
(2) Land Area - 100,000 square feet/2.30 ac.
1,
1
3
Eden Prairie Convenience Center
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985,
by and between K. Charles Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, City previously approved agreements for development of the land,
said land being that as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, and hereinafter referred to as "the PUD property," and said previous
agreement are as described below and as follows:
A November 25, 1980, agreement approving a Planned Unit Development for the
PUD property, known as the Lake Idlewild Planned Unit Development, and
rezoning from Rural to Office of 3.5 acres of the PUD property;
An Owner's Supplement to the November 25, 1980, agreement, dated December
16, 1980; #.
A May 31, 1983, agreement amending the Lake Idlewild Planned Unit
Development and including additional property within the development;
An Owner's Supplement to the May 31, 1983, agreement, dated May 31, 1983;
and,
WHEREAS, Developer has applied for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from
Office to Regional Commercial on 2.3 acres, Zoning District Change from Office to
Commercial-Regional-Service, with variances reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for
2.3 acres, and preliminary platting of 2.3 acres into one lot for a commercial
convenience center, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully
described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereinafter
referred to as "the property;" and,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #35-85,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of
said property as follows:
1. Developer shall plat and develop the property in conformance with
the materials dated December 17, 1985, as revised, reviewed and
approved by the City Council on November 5, 1985, and attached
hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof, subject to such changes
and modifications as are provided herein. Developer shall not
develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other
respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Developer shall develop the property in accordance with that certain
developer's agreement dated November 25, 1980, with an Owner's
Supplement dated December 16, 198D, as amended by that certain
developer's agreement dated May 31, 1983, with an Owner's Supplement
dated May 31, 1983, except to the extent that said agreements are
inconsistent with this Agreement. Such agreements, as amended, are
incorporated herein by reference.
Planned Unit Development #4-83 approved by the City Council, is
hereby amended to the extent that it is inconsistent with this
Agreement.
4. Prior to release by the City of the final plat, Developer agrees to
submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's
approval of detailed plans for storm water run-off, erosion control,
sanitary sewer, water, and streets.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct,
or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto, as approved by
the City Engineer.
5. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer
agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the
Director's approval of samples of exterior building materials.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed
above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning.
6. Prior to building permit issuance, Developer agrees to submit to the
Director of Community Services, and receive the Director's approval
of plans for an eight-foot wide bituminous trail along Lake
Idlewild, and provide for an appropriate connection between the
building and said trail, and plans for a five-foot wide, five-inch
thick concrete sidewalk connection between the building and the
sidewalk along the north side of Eden Road.
Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, said
trail and sidewalk concurrent with building construction, in
( accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached
hereto, as approved by the Director of Community Services.
1
lr
Eden Prairie Convenience Center
• CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ;
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-281
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 35-85 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 35-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 17th day of December,.
1985;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 35-85, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
O
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 35-85 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on December 17, 1985.
Gary D, Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
Technology Park 5, 6, & 7
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 36-85-PUD-6-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING OISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENOING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the PUD-6-85-Office District and
the PUD-6-85-I-2-Park Oistrict.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is removed from the Rural Oistrict and shall be included hereafter in the
PUO-6-85-Office District and the PUD-6-85-I-2-Park District, and the legal
descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03,
Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of Oecember 17, 1985, entered into
between Hoyt Development, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie,
which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 5th day of November, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of
December, 1g85.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
J
•
• Exhibit A !!"
REZONING TO OFFICE
That part of Outlot A, Technology Park 3rd Addition, according to the record plat
thereof,described as follows:
Coeunencin9 at the northeast corner of said Outlot A; thence South 0 degrees. 48 •
minutes 50 seconds West, record bearing, along the east line thereof 943.4 feet •
to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 73 degrees
15 minutes 01 seconds West 179.11 feet; thence South 73 degrees 45 minutes 24
seconds West 215.00 feet; thence North 72 degrees 41 minutes 09 seconds West •
130.79 feet; thence North 62 degrees 40 minutes 48 seconds West 110.29 feet;
thence South 59 degrees 45 minutes 14 seconds West 20.00 feet to a point in the
west line of said Outlot A; thence northerly along said west line 258.29 feet;
thence South 72 degrees 39 minutes 00 seconds East 355.92 feet; thence North 74 •
degrees 18 minutes 35 seconds East 112.64 feet; thence North 21 degrees 02 •
minutes 20 seconds East 101.24 feet; thence South 89 degrees 11 minutes 10
seconds East 228.00 feet to a point in the east line of said Outlet A; thence
South 0 degrees 48 minutes 50 seconds West along said east line 327.40 feet to •
the point of beginning.
REZONING TO 1-2 PARK
That part of Outlot A, Technology Park 3rd Addition, according to the record plat
•
thereof, lying northerly of the following described line:
•
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Outlot A; thence South 2 degrees 24 •
minutes 28 seconds West, record bearing, along the west line thereof 440.02 feet
to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 87 degrees 06
minutes 33 seconds East 50.00 feet; thence South 70 degrees 49 minutes 50 seconds •
East 120.64 feet; thence South 89 degrees 11 minutes 10 seconds East 128.50 feet;
thence South 42 degrees 10 minutes 10 seconds East 200.94 feet; thence South 10
degrees 16 minutes 47 seconds East 103.94 feet; thence South 89 degrees 11
minutes 10 seconds East 273.00 feet to a point in the east line of said Outlet A
distant 616.00 feet southerly of the northeast corner thereof and said line there
terminating.
•
LEGAL FOR PLATTING
Outlot A. Technology Park 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, MN
V
•
Technology Park 5, 6, & 7
PUD-DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS PUD-AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of
1985, by and between Technology Park Associates, a Minnesota general partnership,
hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, City previously approved a PUD (Planned Unit Development) agreement
for development of the land, said land being that as described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, and hereinafter referred to as "the PUD
property," and said previous agreement being described as the August 20, 1985,
agreement approving a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the PUD property
known as Technology Park, for development of 66.31 acres; and,
WHEREAS, Developer has applied for Planned Unit Development District Review
and Zoning District Change from Rural to PUD-6-85-I-2-Park for 9.21 acres and from
Rural to PUD-6-85-Office for 3.77 acres, with variances allowed as part of the
Planned Unit Development for structure height in the PUD-6-85-Office District of
five stories, for floor area ratio of 31.4 in the PUD-6-85-I-2-Park District, and
variance from Shoreland Management requirements reviewed and approved by the Board
of Appeals, and preliminary platting of 17.53 acres into two lots and two outlots,
all situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit
A, attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereinafter referred to as "the
property;" and,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #36-85-PUD-
6-85, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and
maintenance of said property as follows:
' a
1. Developer shall plat and develop the property in conformance with
the materials dated December 17, 1985, as revised, reviewed and
approved by the City Council on November 5, 1985, and attached
hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof, subject to such changes
and modifications as are provided herein. Developer shall not
develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other
respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Developer shalt develop the property in accordance with that certain
PUD Developer's Agreement dated August 20, 1985, except to the
extent that said PUD Developer's Agreement is inconsistent with this
Agreement. Said PUD Developer's Agreement is hereby incorporated
herein by reference.
4. Prior to release by the City of the final plat, Developer agrees to
submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's
approval of detailed plans for storm water run-off, erosion control,
sanitary sewer, water, and streets.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct,
or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto, as approved by
the City Engineer.
5. Developer agrees that the exterior building materials for the office
structure shall be granite, glass, and glass spandrel panel.
Exterior building materials for the industrial structures shall be
glass, brick, poured concrete, and metal panelling architecturally
integral to the structure.
6. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer
agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the
Director's approval of:
A. A modified landscape plan which provides for additional and
larger coniferous materials along the southeast side of the
proposed parking ramp, and which provides for heavy
landscaping along the man-made slope.
B. Detailed plans for overall signage and lighting for the
property.
C. Samples of materials for the retaining wall far the office
structure, and detailed plans for the retaining wall
including calculations far structural soundness.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed
above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning.
1
7. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer
agrees to submit to the Director of Community Services, and receive
the Director's approval of plans for an eight-foot wide bituminous
trail along Nine Mile Creek, and plans for a five-foot wide, five-
inch thick concrete sidewalk along Golden Triangle Drive and West
76th Street.
Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, said
trail and sidewalk concurrent with street construction, in
accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached
hereto, as approved by the Director of Community Services.
8. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer
agrees to enter into an agreement with the City for landscaping,
grading, and site restoration in the outlot along Nine Mile Creek
and Developer further agrees to provide a bond for 150% of the cost
of said landscaping, grading, and site restoration.
9. Developer agrees to notify the City and the Watershed District at
least 48 hours in advance of any grading, or tree removal, on the
property.
Prior to issuance of any permit for grading upon the property,
Developer agrees to implement erosion control measures and adequate
protective measures for areas to be preserved and areas where
grading is not to occur, and to receive City approval of said
measures. This shall include the area of the south-facing hill, as
depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto. Prior to approval by the
City, the Developer shall call for an on-site inspection of the
property by the City. Defects in materials and workmanship in the
implementation of said measures, if any, shall then be determined by
the City. Defects in materials or workmanship shall then be
corrected by the Developer, reinspected and approved by the City,
prior to issuance of the grading permit by the City. Approval of
materials and workmanship may be subject to such conditions as the
City may impose at the time of acceptance.
10. Developr agrees to confine grading to that area of the property
within the construction limits as approved by the City. Developer
shall place snow fencing at the construction limits within the
wooded areas of the property prior to any grading upon the property.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Developer shall submit to
the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of, a
tree inventory of those trees within the construction area and
within 25 ft. outside of the construction area, indicating the size,
type, and lcoation of all trees twelve inches in diameter, or
greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground level.
If any such trees are removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the
construction area, Developer agrees that, prior to issuance of any
building permit for the property, Developer shall submit tot he
Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of a
replacement plan for all such trees removed, damaged, or destroyed
1
outside of the construction area. Developer further agrees that
such trees shall be replaced by similar tree species and that the
trees used for replacement shall be no less than four inches in
diameter. The amount of trees to be replaced shall be determined by
the Director of Planning, using a square inch per square inch basis,
according to the area of a circle created by a cross sectional cut
through the diameter of a tree as measured 4.5 feet above the
ground.
If a tree replacement plan is required, Developer agrees that, prior
to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer shall
prepare and submit for approval to the Director of Planning a
written estimate of the costs of the tree replacement work to be
compelted. Developer shall then submit a bond, or letter of credit,
guaranteeing completion of all tree replacement work as approved by
the Director of Planning. The amount of the bond, or letter of
credit, shall be 150% of the approved estimated cost of
implementation of all tree replacement work and shall be in such
form and contain such other provisions and terms as may be required
by the Director of Planning.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed
above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning.
�u��j
•
Technology Park 5, 6, & 7
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-282
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 36-85-PUD-6-85 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 36-85-PUD-6-85 was adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 17th day of
December, 1985;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 36-85-PUD-6-85, which
is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that
said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of
said ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.D7.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 36-85-PUD-6-85 shall be recorded in the ordinance
book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B
herein, within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on December 17, 1985.
•
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: December 10, 1985
RE: Final approval MIDB's Rialto (Hagen Systems) 1,900,000
Resolution 85-275
This project was given preliminary approval June 4, 1985 and is
part of the 1985 MIDB cap. The final documents have been reviewed
and approved by the city attorney's office. The resolution will
be in the mayor's signature file.
?JfiV
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: December 10, 1985
RE: Final approval MIDB's Ron-Mar $750,000 Resolution 85-277
This project was given preliminary approval October 15, 1985
and is part of the 1985 MIDB cap of the City of Silver Bay.
The final documents have been reviewed and approved by the city
attorney's office. The resolution will be in the mayor's
signature file.
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: 12-12-85
RE: Final approval Housing Bonds for Park at City West - $16,53O,000
Resolution 85-286
This project was given preliminary approval on September 17, 1985.
The city attorney's office has reviewed and approved the final
documents. The resolution will be in the Mayor's signature file.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
SUBJECT: 1986 Fee Resolution
DATE: December 13, 1985
Attached is the Fee Resolution for 1986. Additions and changes have
been highlighted. Where there has been a change in the fee, the old fee
is noted in parentheses.
The changes on page 10, Section 2.39, are dictated by the Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission.
Additions indicated on page 6 reflect changes in the Uniform Building
Code. On page 12, Section 3.31, we are suggesting the additions as
shown which will help the City recover the cost of processing these
applications.
Please note the User Charges on page 11, Section 2.40, will remain the
same in 1986 as they were in 1985.
The Fee Resolution will be on the Consent Calendar for your action on
December 17, 1985, as Resolution No. 86-01.
CJJ:km
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 1
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-01
A RESOLUTION REGULATING FEES AND CHARGES FOR BUSINESS LICENSES,
PERMITS AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES
The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie resolves as follows:
INDEX
SECTION 1 FEES, CHARGES AND RATES AUTHORIZED AND DEFINED
SECTION 2 FEES, RATES AND CHARGES PURSUANT TO CITY CODE
SECTION 3 OTHER FEES, RATES AND CHARGES
II
SECTION 1. FEES, CHARGES, AND RATES AUTHORIZED ANO DEFINED
The fees, charges and rates for the purposes set forth in this Resolution
for licenses, permits and municipal services shall be in the amounts set
forth in the following sections.
SECTION 2. FEES, RATES AND CHARGES PURSUANT TO CITY CODE
The following fees, rates and charges required to be fixed and determined
by Resolution of the City Council pursuant to the City Code and for other
licenses, permits and municipal services are hereby fixed, determined and
adopted as hereinafter set forth.
Business Licenses:
2.1 CIGARETTES (Section 5.35) Annual $12.00
2.2 CONTRACTORS (Section 5.33) Annual
One and two family $15.00
Multi-family and commercial $25.00
2.3 DANCE HALLS (Section 5.31 and 5.32) Annual
Public Shows or Dances
$400.00 if live musicians are employed.
$100.00 where music is provided exclusively by electrical or
mechanical device(s).
Incidental Shows or Dances
$300.00 if live musicians are employed.
-1-
•
$ 50.00 where music is provided exclusively by electrical or
mechanical device(s).
Ir
$ 25.00 when live musicians are employed and when the applicant
is a religious, charitable or other non-profit organiza-
tion and the permit is for a special event or limited
period; when music is to be provided exclusively by
electrical or mechanical means for such non-profit
organization, the fee shall be $10.00.
No fee is required for dances conducted by the Park and Recreation
Department, any agency of the Eden Prairie School District,
or the Eden Prairie Foundation.
2.4 DOGS (Section 9.07)
License: Male Annual $4.00
Female Annual $4.00
Impounding fees: $25 - 1st offense/year
$50 - 2nd offense/year
$10D - 3rd offense/year
Boarding fee: $5 per day
Euthanasia fee: $5
2.5 DOG KENNELS (Section 5.60) Annual
Commercial $50.00
Private $25.00*
*Includes three individual dog licenses and tags.
2.6 DRIVE-IN THEATERS (Section 5.31) Annual $300.00
2.7 FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS (Section 5.38) •
A. Restaurants, stores, supermarkets,
manufacturing and processing plants,
etc. $225.00
Supplementary areas: bar, kitchen,
meat market, bakery, grocery store,
other. each $15.00
B. Bottled soft drinks and packaged
products sold in prepackaged form each $40.00
supplementary area $10.00
C. Other food establishments not in "A" each $175.00
supplementary area $15.00
-2-
' Itinerant food establishment first day $50.00
each additional day $10.00
Temporary food license $35.00
Retail candy shop - when operated in connection
with another licensed food establishment $10.00
•
Retail candy outlet $55.00
Readily perishable food vehicle, first truck $50.00
including bakery food vehicle additional $30.00
Vending machines for food or beverage each $15.00
Catering food vehicle $100.00
2.8 GAMBLING (See Ordinance No. 1-83)
Annual Fee $300.00
Temporary Fee $ 40.00
2.9 GAS FITTERS Annual Class A $15.00
2.10 GRAVEL MINING (Section 11.55)
Application Annual Performance
fee license bond
Land alteration
incidental mining
(0 to 25,000 c.y.)
total plan volume $200.00 $100.00 $1,000.00
Borrow pit, with
25,000 - 75,000 c.y.
annual plan volume $2,000.00 $300.00 $10,000.00
Borrow pit with more
than 75,000 c.y.
annual volume $2,500.00 $750.00 $10,000.00
2.11 HEATING & VENTILATING Annual $15.00
2.12 LIQUOR (Chapter 4) •
Non-intoxicating malt liquors Annual Application fee $100.00
On-sale $50.00
Off-sale $10.00
-3-
6
• Liquor On-sale Annual $7500.00
Investigation fee $500.00*
Liquor On-sale - fraternal
clubs Annual $100.00
Investigation fee $500.00*
non-fraternal
clubs Annual 50% of annual on-sale fee
Investigation fee $500.00*
Liquor On-sale - wine Annual $2000.00
Application fee $250.00
Sunday Liquor Annual $200.00
Set-ups Annual $200.00
Employee License Annual $10.00 1
I
*An investigation fee not to exceed $500 shall be charged an
applicant by the City if the investigation is conducted within
the state, or the actual cost not to exceed $10,000 if the
investigation is required outside the State, shall be charged
an applicant by the City.
2.13 MECHANICAL AMUSEMENT OEVICES AND AMUSEMENT CENTERS (Section 5.30)
For each of the first three machines/devices ("A") $25.00
Juke boxes, kids rides, etc. per machine ("B" & "C") $25.00
Amusement Center, plus $5 per machine for up to 10 i
machines $25.00
2.14 PEDOLERS (Section 5.37) Annual - evidence of State License $5.00
2.15 PLUMBING LICENSE No fee - State Bond/Insurance required
2.16 PUBLIC SERVICES
Refuse and garbage collectors (Section 5.36) Annual
1st vehicle $30.00
Each additional vehicle $15.00
Scavengers (Section 5.34) Annual $10.00
2.17 WATER SOFTENING AND FILTERING No fee - State License required
2.18 WELLS No fee - State License required
-4-
2.19 BUILDING PERMITS (Section 10.06)
Total Valuation Fee
$1.00 to $500.00 $10.00
$501.00 to $2,0D0.00 $10.00 for the first $500.00
plus $1.50 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,
to and including $2,000.00
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $32.50 for the first $2,000.00
plus $6.00 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,
to and including $25,000.00 •
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $170.50 for the first $25,000
plus $4.50 for each additional
$1,00D.00 or fraction thereof,
to and including $50,000.00
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 $283.00 for the first $50,000
plus $3.00 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof,
to and including $100,000.00
$100,000.00 and up $433.00 for the first $100,000
plus $2.50 for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction thereof.
PLAN CHECKING FEES:
Plan checking fee shall be 65% of the building permit fee.
2.20 DEMOLISHING OR RAZING BUILDINGS (Section 10.05) $25.00
2.21 EXCAVATION AND GRADING
(Chapter 70, U.B.C. 1986 and City Engineer's approval)
Plan Checking Fees Fee
101 to 1000 cubic yards $22.50 `=
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $30.00 S'
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $30.00 for the first 10,000 cubic
yards, plus $15'.00 for each addi-
tional 10,000 cubic yards or frac •
-
tion thereof.
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $165.00 for the first 100,000 cubic
yards, plus $9.00 for each additi-
onal 10,000 cubic yards or frac-
tion thereof.
('
200,001 cubic yards or more $255.00 for the first 200,000 cubic
yards, plus $4'.50 for each additi-
onal 10,000 cubic yards or frac-
tion thereof.
_5_ q/p 1
Other Inspections and Fees
Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions
to approve plans: (minimum charge = one half hour) - $25.00 per
hour.
Grading Permit Fees �, !
101 to 1,000 cubic yards $22.50 for the first 100 cubic yards
plus $10.50 for each additional
1,000 cubic yards or fraction
thereof.
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic
yards plus $9.00 for each additional
1,000 cubic yards or fraction
thereof.
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $198.00 for theifirst 10,000 cubic
yards plus $40.50 for each addi-
tional 10,000 cubic yards or frac-
tion thereof.
100,001 or more $562.00 for the'first 100,000 cubic
yards plus $22.50 for each addi-
tional 10,000 cubic yards or frac-
tion thereof.
Other Inspections and Fees
( Inspections outside of normal business hours $30.00 per hour
(minimum charge = 2 hours)
Reinspection fee assessed under provisions of ;4,27. ')
Section 305(g) $30.00 each
Inspections for which no fee is specifically
indicated (minimum charge = one-half hour) $30.00 per hour
Inspections outside of normal business hours
(minimum charge - two hours) $30.00 per hour*
Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of
Section 305(g) $30.00 per hour*
Inspections for which no fee is specifically
indicated (minimum charge - one-half hour) $30.00 per hour*
Additional plan review required by changes,
additions, or revisions to approved plans
(minimum charge - one-half hour) $30.00 per hour*
*or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the great-
est. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly
wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved.
-6-
1
2.22 EXCAVATION OF STREETS (Section 6.07) $10.00
2.23 FIRE PREVENTION PERMITS (Section 9.05)
Storage & handling of flammable liquids $25.00
Storage & handling of corrosive liquids $25.00
Dry cleaning establishments $25.00
Hazardous chemicals $25.00
Resurfacing and refinishing $25.00
Installation of LP tanks, permanent $25.00
Installation of LP tanks, temporary $10.00
Installation of flammable & combustible liquid
tanks $25.00
Tents $25.00
Grease vapor removal system cleaning $25.00 per cleaning
Fireworks $25.00 +
(+ = standby firefighters at present hourly rate)
Explosives, storage or handling $25.00
Burning permits, residents $10.00/week or frac-
tion thereof
other $50.00/week or frac-
tion
thereof
Fire alarm systems (10.06) - based on valuation - see 2.19
2.24 HEATING & VENTILATION (Chapter 10)
A fee for the issuance of a permit for work and for making inspec-
tions pursuant to applicable ordinances shall be as set forth in the
sections which follow, except as provided in the State Building Code.
A. Job Valuation
0 to $1,000 2% (.02) of job value - minimum of $10
$1,000 to $10,000 $20 for the first $1,000 plus $1.25 for
each additional $100 or fraction thereof
to and including $10,000.
$10,001 to $50,000 $132.50 for the first $10,000 plus $1.00
for each additional $100 or fraction
thereof, to and including $50,000.
$50,001 and up $532.50 for the first $50,000 plus $7.50
for each additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof.
B. Gas Piping
For 3 openings on gas up to 2" $ 3.00
Each additional opening 1.00
Over 2" 7.50
Each additional opening 1.00
-7-
2.25 HUNTING
Landowner free
Resident $5.00
Non-resident $10.00
2.26 INCINERATORS (Section 9.05) $20.00
2.27 MOVING A BUILDING (Section 10.05)
$1,000 deposit each from the owners of the building and building
mover. •
Moving a building $250.00
Moving a garage only 50.00
2.28 PLUMBING (Chapter 10)
Fixtures - each $ 5.00
Rough-in fixtures $ 5.00
Setting fixtures on previous $ 5.00
Electric water heater $ 5.00
New ground run for existing building $ 5.00
Sump and receiving tank $ 5.00
Water treating device (softener) $ 7.50
Washer openings $ 2.0
Sillcocks $ 2.00
For extending water lines $ 5.00
Sewage disposal (individual) $15.00
Municipal sewer per 100 feet $10.00
Municipal water per 100 feet $10.00
Meter inspection and sealing $15.00
Inside change over - sewer, water or both $ 7.50
For 3 openings on gas up to 2" $ 3.00
Each additional opening $ 1.00
Over 2" $ 7.50
Each additional opening $ 1.00
Storm sewer and sub soil drains per 100 feet $ 7.50
Gas stove $ 5.00
Bar-b-que $ 5.00
Incinerator $ 5.00
•
Minimum permit fee $ 7.50
-8-
,J2
I
2.29 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS (Section 9.05) 1
1 - 5 heads $ 15.00
6 - 25 heads $ 15.00 first 5 heads plus
$ 10.00 each additional 10 heads
or fraction thereof.
26 - 50 heads $ 35.00 first 25 heads plus
$ 7.50 each additional 10 heads
or fraction thereof.
51 - 200 heads $ 57.50 first 50 heads plus
$ 5.00 each additional 10 heads
or fraction thereof.
201 and up $132.50 first 200 heads plus
$ 2.50 each additional 10 heads
or fraction thereof.
Relocate sprinkler heads, piping or appliances - fees are the same
as described above for new instal-
lations.
Standpipes
1 - 3 floors $15.00 each stairway
$10.00 each additional floor or
fraction thereof for each
stairway
r
2.30 SIGNS (Section 11.70)
Up to 33 square feet in size $12.00
33 square feet through 60 square feet in size $15.00
61 square feet to 100 square feet in size $18.00
Each additional 100 square feet or portion thereof not
exceeding 300 square feet additional - per year $ 2.00
Each additional 100 square feet or portion thereof over
a total of 400 square feet additional $ 2.50
Directional signs for housing projects $ 5.00
Temporary signs
Up to 10 square feet - 30 days $ 3.00
Over 10 square feet - 30 days $ 5.00
Fees shall not be pro-rated for a period of time less than shown. The
surfaces of double or multi-faced signs shall be combined for the
purpose of determining the amount of the fee.
2.31 SEPTIC SYSTEM PUMPING (Section 10.02) $ 5.00
2.32 WATER SOFTENING AND FILTERING (Chapter 10) $ 5.00
i
2.33 WELLS (Section 10.04) $15.00
-9-
Development Fees
2.34 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) (Section 11.40)
$300 minimum or $5/acre - whichever is greater.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
$300 minimum or $5/acre - whichever is greater.
2.35 ZONING (Section 11.77)
$300 minimum or $5/unit (residential) - whichever is greater.
$300 minimum or $25/acre (commercial, industrial, office, public)
whichever is greater.
2.36 PLATTING (Section 12.04)
$200 minimum or $5/lot (residential - whichever is greater)
$200 minimum or $25/acre (commercial, industrial, office, public) -
whichever is greater.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
$300 minimum or $5/acre - whichever is greater.
2.37 CASH PARK FEES (Section 12.40)
Single family unit $400
All other residential $305 per unit
Office, commercial, industrial $2200/acre
2.38 SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE PERMITS (11.50)
Temporary structure in public waters $10.00
Change in structure in public waters $10.00
Multiple dock or dock in excess of 75' $10.00
Variance request for dock in authorized
dock use area $10.00
Utility Charges (Section 3.02)
2.39 SYSTEM ACCESS CHARGES
A. For sanitary sewer: as established by the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission and as agreed by the City Council at its
November 17, 1981 meeting.
B. For sanitary sewer - $150 per R.E.C. plus $105.
$300 each Metro SAC for industrial, public, office - plus $105.
$450 each Metro SAC for commercial - plus $105.
For water - $350 per R.E.C.
$700 each Metro SAC for industrial, public, office.
$1050 each Metro SAC for commercial.
-10-
i
2.40 USER CHARGES
A. Sanitary sewer - $1.35 per 1,000 gallons subject to a minimum of
5,000 gallons per quarter per R.E.C.
B. Water - $.95 per 1,000 gallons subject to a minimum of 5,000
gallons per quarter per R.E.C.
C. The minimum monthly use charge for uses other than residential
shall be the same as 1 R.E.C.
D. A residential equivalent connection (R.E.C.) is one dwelling
unit.
E. In addition to the charges in A., B., C., and D. each R.E.C.
will be billed: $6.25 fixed charge for water and $6.25 fixed
charge for sewer per quarter.
F. Unmetered residential sewer only use charges are $20.65 per
quarter per R.E.C. plus a $6.25 fixed charge.
G. Penalty for billed charges: 1% per month on account not paid
within 30 days of billing.
2.41 WATER/SEWER CONNECTION FEE (Section 3.07)
A. In addition to applicable charges listed above, a connection
fee of $7400 per single unit is applicable if the property has
not participated in the cost of the utilities by other methods.
SECTION 3. OTHER FEES, RATES AND CHARGES
3.1 GUIDE PLAN CHANGE
$300 minimum or $5/acre - whichever is greater.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (E.A.W.)
$300 minimum or $5/acre - whichever is greater.
3.3 ENGINEERING SERVICES TO LAND DEVELOPERS
For consultations, utility and street plans and specifications,
general and final inspection of improvements and special
assessment division (collected at time of final plat):
Residential
Per unit $4O.OD/unit (minimum $250.00)
Commercial, Industrial, Office and Public
Per acre $100.00 per acre (minimum $250.00)
Plus cost of review by special consultants necessary as determined
by the City Manager. Deposit required.
-11-
1r
3.31 CHARGES FOR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENT VACATION FEE
Application fee per each transaction for vacating the
City's interest in real property, including right-of-way
and easements (for consultation, review, notice mailing,
publication of notice, and recording). $100.00
3.4 APPEAL TO BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS $20.00
3.5 ZONING AMENDMENT AND ZONING APPEAL (Appealing to Buiiiing Code Board
of Appeals)
Zoning amendment $200.00
Residential (includes building additions, decks,
and Code interpretations) $ 75.00
•
Other (includes variances associated with office,
industrial, commerciai development and variances
associated with new construction) $125.00
Plus cost of review by City Staff and/or special consultants necessary
as determined by the City Manager. Deposit required.
3.6 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SEARCHES
$10.00 per parcei. No charge for Eden Prairie residents on searches
of their homesteaded property.
3.7 MAPS AND PRINTING
$.50 per square foot for miscellaneous printing.
$3.00 each for small size (2' x 3' or less) City maps.
$5.00 each for large size City maps.
$12.50/acre for Mark Hurd Co. topography maps previously purchased by
the City, except $5.00/sheet if topo map purchased by other than
City and with original purchaser's permission. New order through
Mark Hurd Co. - their original charge plus $.50/acre.
Duplicating costs: $.50 for the first 5 pages of any file and $.25
for each additional page, plus postage, if any.
$75 annual charge for City Council Minutes (pro-rated)
$50 annual charge for Planning Commission Minutes (pro-rated)
3.8 COMMUNITY CENTER
A. Ice Arena
Rental - prime-time = $70.00/hour (with applicable tax)
Non prime-time = $65.DD/hour (3 a.m. to 2 p.m. on days when school
is in session.)
-12-
��f
School District Educational Classes = $17.50/hour
School District Hockey Team practice, Hockey Association of Eden
Prairie, Eden Prairie Figure Skating Club and any other Com-
munity Group that books a minimum of 100 hours of ice time:
prime-time = $65.00/hour, non-prime time = $32.50 hour.
Hockey games = $70.00/hour (personnel required to run the games
supplied by others - school keeps 100% of the gate minus ice
time and personnel costs.)
Individual open skating fees
17 years and under = $1.00
18 years and older = $2.00
Family skate = $4.00/family
Recommended open skating times: Monday, Wednesday & Friday
from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; Friday nights from 8 - 11 p.m.;
Saturdays from 1 - 4 p.m. and 8 - 11 p.m.; and Sunday after-
noons (family skate) from 1 - 4 p.m.
B. Swimming Pool
Residents:
Rental fee - group reservations: 25 participants or less is
$27.50/hour with 1 Staff person; 25 - 50 participants is
$34.50/ hour with 2 Staff persons; and over 50 participants
is $42.50/hour with 3 Staff persons.
Non-Residents:
$70.00/hour plus $5.00/hour/lifeguard
( School District Educational classes = $17.50/hour
School District/Foxjet after school use (team practice) _ $20/hour
School District/Foxjet swim meets = $22.50/hour
Individual open swimming fees:
19 and older = $2.00
5 - 18 years = $1.00
Tots 4 years and under = $.50 (accompanied by an adult)
Recommended open swimming times: Open family and adult swim-
ming times would be spaced throughout the day Monday through
Friday. Longer sessions would be available on Saturdays and
Sundays. Hours would range from 11 to 21 hours Monday through
Thursday. Friday, Saturday and Sunday would range from 11 - 4
hours to accommodate family recreational swimming.
C. Racquetball Courts
Rental fee - School District use = $12/hour for 3 courts (includes
use of available racquets and eye protectors.)
-13-
D. Fitness Center
Rental $35.00/hour
Individual use = $1.00
E. Meeting Rooms
Only private profit-oriented groups will be charged for use of
meeting rooms.
Room #1 = $10 per hour - first floor
Room #2 = $10 per hour - first floor
Rooms #1 and #2 - $20 per hour - first floor
Room #3 - $15 per hour - second floor
F. Lockers
There is no charge for lockers, but members/guests must provide
own locks.
G. Membership Fees
All memberships become due January 1st of any given year; member-
ships purchased after January 1st are pro-rated on a monthly
basis. Non-resident fees are approximately 150% of those charged
for residents.
Swimming & Fitness Membership
Family = $85
Individual = $50
• Scheduled open swims are free; free use of fitness center.
Fitness Membership
Family = $40
Individual = $25
Free use of fitness center.
Racquetball & Fitness Membership
Family = $85
Individual = $50
$2.5D per member for racquetball court; free use of fitness
center.
Swimming, Skating and Fitness Membership
Family = $120
Individual = $80 •
Scheduled open swims are free, scheduled open skating is free,
free use of fitness center.
Swimming, Racquetball & Fitness Membership
Family = $135
Individual = $85
Scheduled open swims are free, $2.50 per member for racquetball i.
court, free use of fitness center.
-14-
H. Daily Use Fees ]r
Ice Arena - open skating
19 and over = $2.00
18 and under = $1.00
Family skate = $4.00 per family
Swimming Pool - open swim
19 and over = $2.00
5 - 18 years = $1.00
4 and under (accompanied by paying adult) _ $.50
Fitness Center
$1.00 per day
Racquetball Courts
Live or work in Eden Prairie (proof required) = $3.50 per
person per hour
Anyone outside of Eden Prairie = $4.25 per person per hour
Persons with racquetball memberships will pay $2.50 per person
per hour.
Maximum court fee = $10/hour
I. Policy on Group Rates and Liabilities
Supervision will be at the discretion of the Center Management.
This will be based on the number of people to be using the Center
as well as the age and type of group. Necessary life guards,
building supervisor(s) and people to operate specialized equipment
will be provided. Fees are $500 for City residents/groups; $650
for out of town groups. Fees are based on use of the Center from
11:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. on a lock-in basis. An insurance policy for
liability is also required. The maximum number in a group is 600.
Liability limits are $500,000 - bodily injury; $100,000 - property
damage; and $500,00D - personal injury.
3.9 PARK FACILITY FEES
Fees are based on the number of people in attendance. Eden Prairie
public service groups will not be charged a fee. Groups or companies
outside of Eden Prairie may reserve facilities after June 1 of the
current year only if they have a branch office in Eden Prairie or
have Eden Prairie residents as employees.
Number of persons Fee
25 - 50 $ 25
51 - 100 $ 50
101 - 150 $ 75
151 - 200 $10D
201 - 300 $150
No private group of over 300 will be allowed to reserve facilities
at any park. (Maximum number at Staring Lake Park will be 150.)
-15-
3.10 ASSESSING FEES
Abatement fee = $5.00 per parcel per year.
Copy of Appraisal/Field Card = $2.00
3.11 CITY CODE
City Code - bound copy = $25.00
City Code - Chapter 11 = $ 4.00
City Code - Chapter 12 = $ 3.00
3.12 TAX EXEMPT FINANCING CHARGES
$800 application fee
1/8 of 1% per year on the unpaid principal balance
Fees not stated in this Resolution may be set by the City Manager.
All Resolutions of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, relating to fees
heretofore adopted are hereby repealed.
ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 17th day of December,
1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
-16-
STAFF REPORT
rf
D
TO. Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THOUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: November 22, 1985
PROJECT: Menard's Expansion
LOCATION: Menard's Building, adjacent to Plaza Drive j
APPLICANT: Menard, Inc.
REQUEST: Zoning Amendment within C-Regional Service District
Background \.` 1 ; ; I
\ .; RI This is a continued item from the {� �: ,
October 7, 1985, Planning Commission 49. L. : 14 >, �._ +
meeting. At that time, the Com- 'F \ -"L 1,.: .
mission recommended that the dev- ', 1 274
R1�2 i \. f- •
elopment plans be returned to the .—mrr PUB
proponent for revisions based upon ; I \� 1477 .,.
recommendations as identified in thePROPOSED SITE , ,..�,._,-
$toff Report. Primarily, these re- ��-83 �
commendations center around the 108-84 E.-REG
following questions: 1 C-REG-S .,., 'N.SER C'FC
1. Knowing what the outdoor "" �4t•TNI N��
storage areas look like , +4•44•+�i
today, should the City 49 83 <��A` +e 41
REG
consider approving an ex- C-REG-SER ,::�+, --E-�
+mil
pans ion of the same type of VI*". '
use? /
2. If the idea of additional �' �' �` 10
outdoor storage is accept- 12-•-
able, under what conditions �-, — -
should : ::
allowed to ,�lj1 :_
4 '
Revised Project ::: 0 f
\\\
I
In response to both Commission and k1- '`- 1-5 -K 0
Staff concerns, the current site jl1\\ ,.�,/�`
plan has attempted to address those }� i - F.- c1� y`
"conditions for approval" discussed -,'.AREA LOCATION PIIAF
Menard's Expansion 2 November 22, 1985
under Alternative #3 of the October 4, 1985, Staff Report. There have been three
major revisions to the current site plan designed to help "clean up" the outdoor
storage area. These revisions include the elimination of a number of yard poles,
the demolition of the existing board shed (although a replacement storage building
is being proposed), and a complete re-design of the yard layout due to the addition
of two storage buildings containing approximately 19,870 square feet. In summary,
the applicant has addressed all of the conditions presented in Alternative #3 with
the exception of #9 which says that all outdoor storage along the west side of the
building would be removed and placed to the rear of this main building. In response
to this, the applicant has stated that Menard's is not in a position to comply with
this requirement. Staff feels that the changes which have been made are positive in
nature and do tend to "clean up" the site. However, the primary question remains as
to whether or not to allow the expansion of additional storage buildings. The
storage buildings as proposed measure 62 feet by 185 feet (Building #2) and 56 feet
by 150 feet (Building #3) with total square footage equaling 11,470 and 8,400
respectively. Based on these figures, the overall building and dimension breakdown
proposed on-site is as follows:
Width Length Height Sq. Footage
Menard's Main Building 240 ft. 204 ft. 26 ft. 48,960
Storage Building #1 131 ft. 144 ft. 24 ft. 18,864
Storage Building #2 62 ft. 185 ft. 26 ft. 11,470
Storage Building #3 56 ft. 150 ft. 23 ft. 8,400
Total 87,694
An increase in building square footage of approximately 16,995 square feet over what
is currently on site is being proposed. This has two implications which can be
viewed in different ways as it relates to this site.
First of all, the increase in rooftop massing as stated in the previous Staff Report
will be extremely visible when viewed from higher elevations to the north and will
increase the tightness of the project. However, because of the additional storage
buildings, the outside material storage area is being redesigned and "cleaned up"
per se. In reviewing both the existing and proposed Menard's yard layout, a number
of differences can be noted. One of the primary differences between the layouts is
a reduction in the number of rows used for material storage from four to two due to
the placement of storage building #2. This appears to "clean up" the outdoor
storage; however, there are two areas in particular on the new design scheme which
should be discussed. These areas are the desirability of storing material along the
face brick side of storage building #2 and the addition of a 140-foot by 24-foot
storage area along the western side of the main Menard's building. (See Attachments
A & B) The previous Staff Report stated that the applicant shall be required to
move all outdoor storage to the rear of the main building. The applicant refused to
do this, plus, on the new yard layout, located an additional storage area along this
western side. In summary, the overall reduction of outdoor storage area has been
calculated to be approximately 4,000 square feet. This reduction has been achieved
by placing the redwood and cedar lumber, which was previously stored outside, into
the new 8,400 square foot board shed. In this case, a trade-off has been made. For
a reduction of 4,000 square feet of outdoor material storage, an additional 16,995
square feet of building is being proposed.
Menard's Expansion 3 November 22, 1985
A determination needs to be made as to whether the benefits attained by "cleaning 1
up" the outside storage area outweigh the negative aspects achieved by the increase
in rooftop massing and conversely, should the building sizes be increased, to allow
for additional material to be stored indoors.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the fact that Alternative #2 of the previous Staff Report was deemed
unfeasible due to the location of a 30-foot drainage and utility easement, Staff
would like to present two alternatives regarding the proposal of Menard's Expansion.
Alternative #1: This would be an "not approved as proposed" approach, which would
not make the present situation any worse, but would preclude the
opportunity to consider conditions of approval improving other
features of the site which Staff feels are visually "unattractive"
today including fencing, berming, plantings, architecture, and
mechanical equipment screening.
Alternative #2: This would be an "approved with conditions" approach, which would
allow the proposed the outdoor storage expansion subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall revise the building elevations to
reflect pre-finished metal panels along the gables instead of the wood, as
proposed. The color shall be consistent with that used on the doors.
2. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall complete 100% of the
rooftop mechanical screening on the existing Mendard's building and shopping
center. (A mechanical equipment screening bond could be given in lieu of
finishing screening prior to permit).
3. Any outside material storage shall be screened from view from adjacent
properties. This would include keeping the height of the material
consistent with the height of the existing fence and landscaping.
4. Concurrent with building construction, the proponent shall plant 12-foot
evergreen trees along the northwest fence line to break up the views as
depicted on the site plan. (A landscape bond will be required).
5. Concurrent with building construction, the proponent will be required to
reduce the number of sign poles from the present number to that which is
depicted on the new landscaping and pole layout plan, dated November 14,
1985.
Staff would recommend approval of Alternative #2 based upon the Staff Report dated
November 22, 1985, and plans dated November 14, 1985.
LEAWRO SHED
aeweasam•444.x...I.nom.,*.11.4. Paw. . 12...._1:4:..L._1.!•••••••..4
..tt,,, , 11- 14RIR aroma.3 .
— —
Tli
:' f
I.
lo. I .
I
: -
Itt .-.1
5 v -
--r. Ol •••
' t" WAREHOUSE
i /777
1.
I e — IIIENARDS
, .
1•
'•
.1 ::,4•:....1tr•.....••••••,,?1*I i 1 i I
___„....„.. ,_
..,..,.„..„...:„...,,:
. Tio
-....
4 i 1
...............,•••.....r,
5 WAREHOUSE 2
1 ri 1
I •--i7'; \k...::.,•:•".. I
I 1
,.. s.,,.......,‘, ,
k ! , a.s.•........e. 1 ........--..0 .
/
•••••••••
SE 1 el 14 II .4,e 1 7 c, 1
t••• i 7..•• ••S 1
..
;‘
•.'-... 7..::.'r.,•:."--, '..,1 :•'1-.': ''7.:;.1
I "`"'"'"' "'" ;•:...."'W.:- '•,.......-. '.......... r. I IN
........ I :
i , •4 I . 1 .i i 0
tour
2 1 I 1 1 1 Ili,1131119ii illi.."..-1---i'it'1 L
i
1
,
L
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED MENARDS YARD LAYOUT
._,
. :...,...
-4- 1 t I- i
it t I t i.., MIMICS ,1-
1/111LE/11111111111=111:11111211C11 . ll
II 7 I
1
( ff77 ‘. I sromwsmffss
I
a 0 0 e.
a i tZ, I .
if, • ....k X I
Ton.7•....%51..r Iff., I tdr.r.r.f... 1 I
L—
4 IVAREMOLCIC 22..0 ,
t .
l'''‘ 7777V .
i [ ME/VARDS .
. .
,,. ItVgY:11.'Zit.thatti—— .
44.... . :=
a 1 —
— .
:i.
..,
)MM./I
V •
4 """". "I. "‘.".". . l'i. 4114.6•011r
Maw..
MM.,NV" 4.10.151 AVM
h7,14V.I 13.)41 1: iles
fiaan wry a V e :1 1: f.d 1,I VO -
i A d a NI Mil '
L tpli ,
1 I I
i I
I
II
. 1
' ATTACHMENT B
EXISTING MENARDS YARD LAYOUT
_._,
i
( ( s
STAFF REPORT '
•
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Don Uram, Assistant Planner
HROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
•
DATE: October 4, 1985
SUBJECT: Menard's Expansion
LOCATION: Menard's Building, adjacent to Plaza Drive
APPLICANT: Menard, Inc.
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on a 13.3-acre
site known as Lot 1, Block 1, Menard Addition.
I::::du: owo
tin - --
questions raised by �� i
Staff and their review of the F.b ". �J \ . '� !
Menard's recent proposal. These area °y 11 ,
as follows: �' 274 �• '�` {
•
% I. Knowing what the outdoor ter'` PU8 0, l
storage areas look like ' 1 \� t� '
today, should the City PROPOSED SITE
28�—, •'r
consider approving an ex- i -83 � 10q- .
pansion of the same type of 108-84 C•-REG ``� 4 `
L 0P
use? C-REG-SER �,� ••• �\
2. ! je; E
f the idea of 4,,Wi":!iO % ,—�'W4.:: ^ -a45 83 ♦.. ♦ REV.a�•♦ 2s,
' C REG S �.♦♦♦�!,
e
occur? ' (
Based on these three questions, - - : m//�_ (\
Staff would like to present a brief ///�- -- - 10 �,� _
scenario addressing the question of �1�. i�- 12-'!if
how Menard's and adjacent properties 1\ ,O -
would be affected by either the '� ,/�• �►
construction of the additional
buildings, or if the site was to I 4-
remain as is. The scenario will be 14-I ` OFr
followed up by Staffs conclusions .. . 1-5 F-K I . ,
and recommendations for this pro-
jest. � 1-- r,r„-,cl-''-47 - !I
'AREA LOCATION MAF
l
Menard's Expansion 2 October 4, 1985
Project Review
To begin, the current proposal includes the construction of an additional storage
building (Building #2) measuring 186 feet by 63.34 feet and containing 11,780 square
feet, and an 84-foot by 40-foot (3,360 square foot) expansion of the existing board
shed. The purpose of storage building #2 is to allow for the storage of special
order merchandise, while the addition to the board shed is primarily designed as a
shelter for customers from the weather.
Overall, the building and dimension breakdown on-site is as follows:
Width Length Height Square Footage
Menard's Main Building 240 ft. 204 ft. 26 ft. 48,960
Storage Building #1 131 ft. 144 ft. 24 ft. 18,864
Storage Building #2 63'4" 186 ft. 24'9" 11,780
Board Shed
(including expansion) 62 ft. 114 ft. 25 ft. 7,068
Total 868,672
Based on a site size of 13.3 acres (579,348 square feet) and 86,372 square feet of
building area, a Floor Area Ratio of approximately 15 percent is achieved, which is
well below the maximum of 20 percent allowed in the C-Regional-Service Zoning
District.
The proposed storage building and expansion meet the minimum required building
setbacks and no additional parking or utility extensions will be required. Exterior
building materials consist of rough sawn boards and face brick for storage building
#2, and rough sawn boards for the expansion of the board shed. Face brick is
proposed on the north and south elevations (building ends) of storage building #2
and based upon square footage, would constitute approximately 31% of the total
building exterior square footage. Both buildings are consistent in construction
with the existing buildings; however, it is stated in Section 11.03, (K) that within
all zoning districts, except the Rural, R1-44, R1-22, R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and RM-6.5,
75 percent of the exterior building finishes shall consist of materials comparible
in grade and quality to the following: face brick, natural stone, etc. Clearly,
the prnposed buildings do not conform to current City Code regarding this issue.
Outdoor storage was originally approved under a set of assumptions and mitigating
measures which were thought to be able to downplay or screen the outdoor storage
areas. As viewed today, the fencing, berming, and plantings, do not work
effectively. In addition, there are some adverse impacts apparent today that were
not initially anticipated, such as the white roof, numerous pole signs and poor
mechanical equipment screening.
As far as the visual effect of the proposed expansion, what are some of the impacts
on the adjacent properties. Primarily, there are three visual aspects of the
proposed additions which may have some sort of adverse impact on the adjacent
properties. These are the height of the proposed structures, the color and material
of the roofs, and the increase in roof massing on the project site. To begin, both
t t
Menard's Expansion 3 October 4, 1985
structures proposed are approximately 25 feet in height, which when viewed in
relation to the existing fence and from higher elevations, will be extremely
visible. This, in addition to the white roof as proposed, will increase the
visibility of the storage buildings. Finally, the size of the proposed building,
adding an additional 15,000 square feet of rooftop massing to the site, will
increase the "tightness" of the project. These factors, (height, rooftop color,
roof massing) taken in combination, may create a situation in which special design
features must be implemented to insure quality development. These issues are
addressed in the recommendations sections.
One other consequence which should be discussed is what will happen to the displaced
outdoor storage. The additional storage building is designed as storage for custom
cabinets. Staff is assuming that the displaced outdoor storage will not be placed
indoors and must be relocated somewhere on the existing site. This may have
additional negative impacts on the site, which could include crowding of the
existing outdoor storage, increased stacking heights disrupting views from adjacent
sites, or additional storage along the west side of the building, which can be
viewed from the front yard parking area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff expects that the plan for outdoor storage as proposed can be no better
visually than what can be seen today. Basically, Staff feels there are three
alternatives that may deal effectively with the expansion of the outdoor storage
areas.
Alternative One: This would be a "not approved as proposed" approach which
would not make the present situation any worse but would
preclude the opportunity to consider as conditions of
approval improving other features of the site which Staff
feels are visually unattractive today including fencing,
berming, plantings, architecture, and mechanical units.
Alternative Two: This would be a "change in concept" approach which would
allow for additional storage expansion as part of the main
building. This would create architectural continuity and
help clean up the outdoor storage area in back of the
building.
Alternative Three: This would be a "approved with conditions" approach which
would allow the proposed outdoor storage expansion subject
to the following conditions:
1. Proposed storage building #2 and the expansion of the board shed shall meet
the requirement of 75 percent brick or better exterior finishing materials.
2. The existing board shed shall be brought up to Code regarding exterior
materials.
3. Roof treatment on the existing and proposed storage buildings shall
eliminate glare from the white rooftops. This may include changing the
color and/or the rooftop material.
4. Any overhead doors on the existing and proposed buildings shall be painted
to match the brick exterior.
t �
Menard's Expansion 4 October 4, 1985
5. Additional large caliper inch (12-foot minimum) evergreen trees shall be
planted along the northwest fence line to break up the views.
6. 100 percent rooftop mechanical screening on the existing Menard's building
shall be completed.
7. The number and height of the existing sign identification poles on-site add
to the unsightlyness of the outdoor storage area. One way to reduce this •
effect would be to lower the height of the poles to a level which may be
screened from adjacent properties.
8. The amount of outdoor storage displaced by the construction of the
additional storage building and board shed expansion shall not be replaced
as outdoor storage.
9. All outside storage shall be placed to the rear of the main building. This
would include removing all outdoor storage from the west side of the
building.
Staff is not in a position at this time to recommend approval of any of the
suggested alternatives, since it is difficult to envision precisely what the plan
would look like with revisions. If the Commission concurs with Staff then it would
be appropriate to return the development plans to the proponent for revisions and
continue discussion to another meeting.
•
I
MINUTES
{
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
A. MENARDS EXPANSION, by Menards, Inc. Request for Zoning District
Amendment within the C-Reg-Service District for the construction of
an accessory building. Location: Menards Building, adjacent to
Plaza Drive. A continued public meeting.
Mr. Mary Prochaska, representing Menard's, reviewed the changes in the
plans, responsive to Commission concerns from the meeting of October 28,
1985.
Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
regarding the proposed changes. He noted that proponents had met every
concern of the Commission mentioned at the previous meeting reviewing the
project, with the exception of the storage materials located against the
brick wall on the west side of the building.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
•
MOTION:
Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Menard's for Zoning District Amendment
within the C-Reg-Service District for construction of an accessory building,
based on plans dated November 19, and November 25, 1985, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated October 25, and November 22,
1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 28, 1985
f r,`
_ — " - 'B. - - MENARDS EXPANSION,- by Menards, Inc. Request for Planned Unit
Development Amendment Review for the construction of a shelter.
Location: Menards Building, adjacent to Plaza Drive. A continued
public hearing.
Staff and proponent had discussed the matters of concern on this project
since the last Planning Commission meeting. Proponent currently is in the
process of revising plans and has requested additional time to do so. Based
on the amount of change involved, proponent has requested extension for two
meetings.
MOTION: Ifg
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to continue the public I
hearing to the November 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow
proponent opportunity for revision of plans.
Motion carried--5-0-0
•
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 7, 1985
D. MENARDS EXPANSION, by Menards, Inc. Request for Zoning Amendment
within C-Reg-Service District to allow for the construction of a
shelter, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals.
Location: Menards .Building, adjacent to Plaza Drive. A public
hearing.
Mr. Mary Prochaska, Menards, explained that the proposed development was for
an amendment to the existing plans to allow for expansion of the board shed
on the north end of the site. He reviewed the plans for the structure with
the Commission.
Planner Uram reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report of
October 4, 1985. He pointed out that Staff had two major questions
regarding the request: First, considering the existing condition of this
area, would it be appropriate to approve an expansion of the use; and,
second, if the expansion were to be approved, should conditions be added to
the approval requiring the changes to upgrade the existing portions of the
development.
Mr. Prochaska stated that he did not feel the existing outside storage area
should be changed as it was approved as built. He stated that he had no
objection to changing the roof color as suggested in the Staff Report, nor
to painting the overhead doors. He stated that he felt additional evergreen
plantings as suggested in the Staff Report did not seem appropriate in his
opinion, since Menards had built a fence to screen the area from the
residential neighborhood to the north. Mr. Prochaska pointed out that final
development of the property to the north of the existing development had not
yet occurred, therefore, he did not feel it would be necessary to screen
this area at this time.
Marhula asked if the original approval included provisions for screening of
mechanical equipment. Planner Enger stated that the Code provision
requiring mechanical screening was not in effect at that time. Mr.
Prochaska stated that some of the mechanical units were required to be
screened, but others were not.
Marhula asked if outside storage had been addressed with the original
development, in particular the storage on the west side of the property.
Planner Enger stated that one of the problems in this area was that the west
side of the structure was brick; however, the brick was not visible because
retail materials were stacked against the wall, hiding the brick. Also,
during the time of review of the original proposal, Staff had been concerned
about the height of the storage materials, and making certain that the walls
proposed around the storage area would be high enough. However, one of the
things not anticipated was that the "sign poles" would be higher than the
storage materials and the walls screening the storage materials. Planner
•
Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 7, 1985
Enger pointed out that during two subsequent proposals on this property,
improvements had been requested to the original Menards structure. Staff
was concerned that another storage area had the potential for adding to the
"visual clutter" of the site. j
Marhula stated that he agreed with the concerns of the Staff. He stated
that he did not feel it would be appropriate to add outside storage to this
site.
Chairman Schuck stated that he concurred with Marhula, and wanted to see
more detail in order that the City could be assured that this addition would
not result in another wall against which to stack building materials. He
added that he felt the developer should work with Staff to discuss
alternatives for any additions to this site to mitigate the concerns of the
Commission and those listed in the Staff Report of October 4, 1985.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to continue the public
hearing to the October 28, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to allow
proponent the opportunity to mitigate the matters of concern addressed by
the Commission and in the Staff Report of October 4, 1985.
Motion carried--6-0-0
•
•
�J l
i
CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-284
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EDEN SQUARE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT
TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and,
WHEREAS, Eden Square is considered a proper amendment to the overall Eden
Prairie Neighborhood Center Planned Unit Development Concept; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the
request of Commercial Partners, Inc., for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the
overall Eden Prairie Neighborhood Center Planned Unit Development Concept for Eden
Square and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City Council;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on December 17, 1985;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Eden Square PUD Concept Amendment, being in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment approval to
the overall Eden Prairie Neighborhood Center Planned Unit
Development Concept as outlined in the application materials for
Eden Square, dated November 25, 1985.
3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the
Planning Commission dated November 25, 1985.
AOOPTEO by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 17th day of Oecember, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
; 1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-287
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EDEN SQUARE FOR
COMMERCIAL PARTNERS, INC.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Eden Square for Commercial Partners, Inc., dated
November 20, 1985, consisting of 9.59 acres for the construction of
commercial/retail, 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 17th day of December, 1985.
�. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
i
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
HR UGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: November 22, 1985
PROJECT: Eden Square Shopping Center
LOCATION: Northeast quadrant of the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and
U.S. Highway #169
APPLICANT: Peter Jarvis, BRW
OWNER: Commercial Partners, Inc.
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 9.59 acres with
variances for number of parking spaces to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals.
2. Preliminary Plat of 9.5 acres into two lots.
c-KLG-SF 11--<„ it �g1
Background R 1=Imr'''. w.,- �� `'�
This site is currently guided -� :' -'m . t� + � W1_ , - 924 c
Commercial. This site is currently .CIE •"•C - G-S
zoned C-Regional Service according 80'316; arl '•' bill HWY.
to a 1978 Planned Unit Development ,t,,, OFC Jr .• _
(PUD) for the Eden Prairie Neighbor- --- . C.i.
hood Shopping Center containing , E G
82,500 square feet of building, o.-.M �'� �:.
which included a bank, a grocery " AP T
store of 35,000 square feet, and two Ai PROPOSED SITE
retail buildings totalling 45,000 A P ' � -�R. 1, 4
square feet. In 1980, there was a 6yR +!- 78-16
request for PUD Amendment by i �iMf
Applebaums Grocery Store. That re- ...t► PUB
quest was withdrawn prior to Council C7 EG -
review. The original 1978 PUD was . .; S C-REG-
amended in 1983 to allow for a 5,00D /,301 z ._ _ -' s 7-pt4 SER
square foot Edina Bank. That was OFC/ 6ivo * (.-
approved by the City Council but the \ 118-84 .. Z."511s
project was never built. • , — RM-2.5: �.e�'�, ,
Site Plan \ .n.n .c9 :t.,,ia.
784 1 MI-6 S `�� 9°""
This site plan involves the ., a.7;Cj-A-i
''`�9 1.-A.1. 1 L/) �,0'1'
construction of two. one-story �' ,� +'
* .(ilte
`i . RAC_ nc V
` AREA LOCATION MAP
Eden Square Shopping Center 2 November 22, 1985
retail buildings totalling 83,500 square feet at an overall Floor Area Ratio of
0.20. C-Regional Service zoning will allow up to a 0.2 Floor Area Ratio for one-
story buildings.
Building and parking areas are located on-site meeting minimum setback requirements
for C-Regional Service zoning.
Actual parking is provided at a ratio of 5.5 spaces per 1,000, which is consistent
with the approved 1978 PUD. The 1978 PUD also required that proof-of-parking be
provided up to 6.8 spaces per 1,000. Given the high Floor Area Ratio, and tightness
of the site plan, there is no room on-site for proof-of-parking. The 5.5/1000 ratio
is consistent with parking approved for other retail sites such as Prairie Village
Mall and Anderson Lakes/County Road #18 mall. Staff feels that actual parking will
be adequate and proof-of-parking at a higher ratio will not be necessary. Ninety
(90) parking spaces are shown in the southeast corner of the parking lot, which
represents about 25% of the total parking. Although the proponent indicates that a
portion is for employee parking, they are not certain about the exact figure. Staff
believes that some of this parking will be used for customer parking, which would be
at quite a distance from the retail entrances. A way to offset this would be to
construct a free-standing building on this site, and shorten up the other retail
building and convert to parking. Staff feels this may provide for more convenient
customer parking.
Architecture
Two, one-story buildings are proposed with primary exterior building materials of
brick, glass, and metal panel. The buildings might best be described as a strip
mall orientated towards the Eden Prairie Shopping Center. This leaves approximately
1,100 linear feet of blank wall or "back door" to the site visible from Highway #169
and Prairie Center Drive. This "back door" approach would be comparable visually to
the Car Care Center across Highway #169, but on a much larger scale. The use of
building jogs across the exterior building elevation helps to reduce the linearness
of the project, but because the elevation is primarily a blank wall, the jogs alone
do not eliminate the "back of the building" appearance.
The mechanical unit screening plan is not acceptable. Considering the number and
size of the units, individual wood screens are not appropriate. Mechanical units
screening warrants an architectural solution. Staff has previously suggested to the
proponent either a continuous metal panel similar to the approach used on the
Factory Outlet, or a parapet wall.
There are three site plan alternatives which Staff believes would create a better
"front door" appearance to the project. This would include flip-flopping the
project so that the parking would be in the front yard and the front portion of the
shops would be facing the exterior or the project could be designed as an enclosed
mall with store fronts around the perimeter of the project. There would also be an
interior mall which would also connect the shops. The third alternative would be to
architecturally extend elements of the building front around the back to create two
"front-door" appearances. The proponent has begun to respond to this by wrapping a
portion of the architecture around the ends of the building. The campanile (clock
tower) and metal panel in the center (back side) is a strong statement, but the rest
of the building is still architecturally weak along Highway #169, Prairie Center
Drive, and the east end off Franco Road, leaving large gaps of blank wall. Though
softened somewhat with landscaping, Staff feels that the "front side" architecture
Eden Square Shopping Center 3 November 22, 1985
must be more prominent and be extended further along the Highway #169, Prairie
Center Drive, and Franlo Road sides of the building. Attachment A indicates where
this should occur.
Landscaping
The landscape plan meets the minimum requirements for caliper inches per Code and
provides a large amount of large caliper trees which helps break up the parking lot
and soften the building.
Grading
This site has been previously graded as part of the overall Homart Shopping Center
approval. It is a two-tiered site with a steep slope approximately centered on the
site. The proposed grading plan would level out the site, with some room for
berming around the site's exterior, along Prairie Center Drive. Since the property
sits at a higher elevation than Highway #169, there will be a slope up to the
building.
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be extended to the property by connection to utilities
along Highway #169 and within the private loop roads serving the shopping center.
Storm water run-off will drain through a series of catch basins towards Prairie
Center Drive and Highway #169.
Pedestrian Systems
Conditions of approval for the 1978 PUD included internal pedestrian circulation
which not only linked different uses on-site, but also connected into the City's
overall trail system. There should be a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk
constructed along Highway #169 and Prairie Center Drive frontage, plus a connection
into the site. This sidewalk would also follow along Franlo Road and the private
loop road along its entire frontage.
Siqnage
A schematic plan for the location of wall signs has been submitted. Wall signs are
proposed around the entire building, including roof signs. Roof signs are not
allowed per ordinance. The back side of the building is proposed for extensive wall
signage. Considering that between 30-4D tenants would be likely for a project of
this size, a wall covered with unregulated signs in terms of quantity, size,
location, color, and lighting, would be visually unattractive. To keep a clean
architectural look to the building, it would seem appropriate to limit the signage
beyond the ordinance; however, historically this has not been very successful. The
proponent should submit an overall signage program with details for review.
Conclusions
Although Staff is comfortable with a commercial land use for the property, Staff
feels that the "back side" elevations needs revisions architecturally in order to
provide a better "front door" image from Highway #169 and Prairie Center Drive.
Because of the high visibility of the site, Staff would recommend that the
development plans be returned to the proponent for the following revisions:
Eden Square Shopping Center 4 November 22, 1985f
1. Revise exterior building elevations to extend the front side architecture
further around the ends of the building where shown on Attachment A.
2. Submit an overall signage plan with details for review. Eliminate all
rooftop signs.
3. Revise mechanical equipment screening plan to utilize either a parapet wall
or a continuous metal panel.
is
Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 25, 1985
D. EDEN SQUARE, by Commercial Partners, Inc. Request for Planned Unit
Development Amendment Review and Zoning Amendment on 9.59 acres and
Preliminary Plat of 11.73 acres into three lots for construction of
a 83,500 square foot commercial mall. Location: Northeast quadrant
of the intersection of Highway #169 and Prairie Center Drive. A
public hearing.
Mr. Peter Jarvis, BRW, representing proponents, reviewed the site
characteristics and design of the development with the Commission. He also
reviewed the proposed development in relation to the adjacent major roads
already in place.
Mr. Harold Skjelbostad, BRW, landscape architect for proponents, reviewed
the landscape plan with the Commission, explaining the screening which would
be accomplished by the planted materials.
Mr. David Shea, Shea Architects, representing proponents, reviewed the
architecture of the development as it related to Highway #169 and the
interior parking area of the site.
Planner Franzen explained the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report
of November 22, 1985. He noted that, since the report had been completed,
the proponents had amended their plans to be in compliance with the issues
of concern described by Staff in the report. Planner Franzen stated that,
with the changes made by proponents, Staff would recommend approval of the
plans, subject to the following conditions: grading, drainage, utility, and
erosion control plans were to be submitted for review and approval by the
Watershed District; utility easements, as determined necessary by the City
Engineer, were to be dedicated to the City; Cash Park Fees were to be paid
prior to building permit issuance; proponents were to notify the City and
Watershed District at least 48 hours prior to grading; details and examples
of materials for exterior materials, lighting, and signage, were to be
i
1
Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 25, 1985
i
submitted to Staff for review and approval prior to building permit
issuance; and proponents were to receive review and approval of the
requested variance for the number of parking stalls for the property from
the Board of Appeals.
Bye stated that she felt this was a cornerstone site within the community
and expressed concern about signage. She stated that she felt the signage
should be well integrated into the design.
Planner Enger explained how the signage would be integrated into the
architecture of the site to blend with the design of the buildings.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by 8ye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
i' Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Commercial Partners, Inc., for Planned
Unit Development Amendment Review and Zoning District Amendment within the
C-Reg-Sery District for 9.59 acres for construction of an 83,500 sq. ft.
commercial mall to be known as Eden Square, based on plans dated November
22, and November 25, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated November 22, 1985, and the conditions of approval stated at the
Planning Commission meeting of November 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Commercial Partners, Inc., for
Preliminary Plat approval for 11.73 into three lots for construction of an
83,500 sq. ft. commercial mall to be known as Eden Square, based on plans
dated November 22, and November 25, 1985, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated November 22, 1985, and the conditions of approval
stated at the Planning Commission meeting of November 25, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: November 27, 1985
SUBJECT: Supplementary Staff Report to the November 22, 1985 Planning Staff
Report Regarding Eden Square Shopping Center
PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
Community Service staff concur with the Planning Staff Report recommendation
regarding pedestrian systems with the exception that the trail adjacent to
Prairie Center Drive should be an 8' wide asphalt trail in order to be
consistent with the trail system plan for the Major Center Area. This plan
depicts an 8' wide asphalt trail entirely around the interior of the loop road
system of Prairie Center Drive and Valley View Road. The trail plan also
depicts a 5' wide concrete sidewalk on the outside of the loop road (Prairie
Center Drive) from Valley View Road south and east to West 78th Street.
The section of trail adjacent to Highway 169 should also be an 8' wide asphalt
section of trail that should eventually extend north to the existing 8' trail
on the east side of 169 that ends at West 78th Street.
The remaining portion of the perimeter trail could either be 5' concrete or 8'
asphalt, depending on the preference of the developer. It is likely that once
bicyclists leave the trail adjacent to Prairie Center Drive or 169, they would
prefer to ride within the street system or parking lot.
The Community Services staff recommend approval as per the November 22
Planning Staff Report with the above stated exceptions.
BL:md
-I
I
3
DECEMBER 17,1985
1
21465 VOID OUT CHECK 54.23-
f '3914 VOID OUT CHECK 27.00-
4114 VOID OUT CHECK 5.71-
24280 JASON-NORTHCO PROPERTIES DECEMBER 85 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 4254.14
24281 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE-BUILDING DEPT 90.00
24282 IBM PRODUCT CENTER RIBBONS-POLICE DEPT 37.00
24283 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 110.60
24284 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 3043.16
24285 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE-BUILDING DEPT 90.00
24286 DON HARTFORD MAIL BOXES-STREET DEPT 20.00
24287 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 147.20
24288 MARK VII SALES WINE 43.36
24289 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CD WINE 58.18
24290 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 578.14
24291 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 3955.03
24292 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 177.82
24293 TWIN CITY WINE CO WINE 133.79
24294 EAGLE WINE CO LIQUOR 2051.70
24295 DANA GI88S PACKET DELIVERIES 70.00
24296 TARGET STORES REFUND-WATER & SEWER BILLING 5259.02
24297 DALE SCHMIDT EXPENSES-STREET DEPT 42.23
24298 EVERGREEN PROPERTIES REFUND IRB STATE DEPOSIT 48500.OD
24299 HAGAN SYSTEMS REFUND IRB STATE DEPOSIT 4D00.00
24300 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 880.20
24301 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 10.67
24302 MN DEPT DF P/S MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 7.25
24303 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 5983.11
' '304 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTER INC DECEMBER 85 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 3944.74
-4305 AARON FLYNN REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 11.35
24306 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 11/29/85 20011.81
24307 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 11/29/85 8384.03
24308 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 11/29/85 14379.D6
24309 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS PAYROLL 11/29/85 344.43
24310 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 11/29/B5 5060.00
24311 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP PAYROLL 11/29/85 1858.00
24312 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 11/29/85 10.00
24313 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 11/29/85 1810.00
24314 PERA PAYROLL 11/29/85 17735.96
24315 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE-BUILDING DEPT 90.00
24316 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE RELIEF ASSOC 1985 FIRE PENSION REIMBURSEMENT 103765.00
24317 MINNESOTA GAS CD SERVICE 406.48
24318 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN DECEMBER 85 INSURANCE 12751.61
24319 GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC DECEMBER 85 INSURANCE 1951.10
24320 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC DECEMBER 85 INSURANCE 6231.60
24321 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE CO DECEMBER 85 INSURANCE 846.34
24322 PROTECT-AIRE SCREEN-POLICE CAR 75.00
24323 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 10093.14
24324 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CD WINE 199.57
24325 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 1500.35
24326 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 12610.78
24327 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 1414.97
24328 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 1765.49
"'1329 TWIN CITY WINE CO LIQUOR 5577.03
330 BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER 5062.10
24331 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CD BEER 48.75
31739435
i
I
I
24332 CITY CLUB DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 9073.50
24333 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIXES 559.50
134 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 3739.55
',_.335 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER 6356.90
24336 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 279.40
24337 MARK VII SALES LIQUOR 2233.50
24338 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO MIXES 569.25
24339 REX DISTRIBUTING CO INC BEER 628.75 .
24340 ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CO MIXES 102.2D
24341 THDRPE DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 10203.12
0.00
24342 TWIN CITY HOME JUICE MIXES 24.18
24343 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 1532.33
24344 COMMEDIA THEATRE CO PLAY FOR DDNUTS WITH SANTA/FEES PAID 85.00
24345 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN EXPENSES 57.25
24346 MN DEPT OF ENERGY & ECONOMIC DEV STATE POOL IDR DEPOSIT 62000.00
24347 PRESERVE HARDWARE HANK SUPPLIES-PLANNING DEPT 17.99
24348 CHARLES A FERN FIREMAN CALLS 1110.00
24349 WALTER S FIELDS FIREMAN CALLS 384.00
24350 CHARLES A GOBLE FIREMAN CALLS 642.00
24351 FREDRICK K HAFFNER FIREMAN CALLS 410.00
24352 MICHAEL W JOHNSON FIREMAN CALLS 628.00
24353 MAILAND EARL LANE FIREMAN CALLS 340.00
24354 REGAN L MASSEE FIREMAN CALLS 31D.00 .
24355 JAMES LEE MATSON FIREMAN CALLS 236.00
24356 GENE R SPANDE FIREMAN CALLS 544.00
24357 VERNON T STEPPE FIREMAN CALLS 286.00
?435B JEFFREY D STONEBURG FIREMAN CALLS 484.DD
( 59 A & H WELDING & MFG CO STEEL- PARK MAINT & STREET DEPT 66.88
24360 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 569.42
24361 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO RUG SERVICE- LIQUOR STORE 18.10
24362 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BOND PAYMENTS 349342.23
24363 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK SERVICE 50.00
24364 AMERICAN TEST CENTER LADDER TEST- FIRE DEPT 1950.00
24365 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC FILM -WATER DEPT 16.00
24366 AMI PRODUCTS INC HOSE COUPLINGS/ADAPTERS- STREET DEPT 651.07
24367 ANACOMP MICROFILM -ENG DEPT 488.78
2436E EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC 2 PLAYSTRUCTURES -EDEN VALLEY/FRANLO PARK 13383.10
24369 APPLIED ROOFING SYSTEMS REROOF SENIOR CENTER 67D0.00
24370 DALE ARNDT NOVEMBER 85 CUSTODIAL SERVICES 200.00
24371 ASTLEFORD INTL INC MOTOR -STREET DEPT 72.00
24372 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 1020.35
24373 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 105.01
24374 BACHMANS FLOWERS 16.49
24375 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC FILTERS/BATTERY/WHEEL WEIGHTS/BRAKE FLUID 350.95
24376 B R W INC -SERVICE- EDEN ROAD/ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY 16028.23
VALLEY VIEW ROAD/PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
24377 BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE -WATER PLANT EXPANSION 37083.73
24378 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH CO REPLACE LOCKS -P/S BLDG 70.00
24379 LOIS BOETTCHER MINUTES FOR PARK & REC MEETING 12/2/85 36.00
24380 BDUSTEAD ELECTRIC & MFG CO BELT- COMMUNITY CENTER 21.09
24381 BOYER FDRD TRUCK WHEEL BEARINGS -EQUIPMENT MAINT 14.22
24382 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC -SERVICE -ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY/TANAGER 1563.65
CREEK/PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
53265372 .
-i
i
i
74383 BROWN & CRIS INC SERVICE -DRAIN TILE 298.00
384 BROWN PHOTO PHOTOS -FORESTRY/ENGINEERING/POLICE DEPT 141.70
c4385 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC ROCK 1074.81
24386 BURNER SERVICE & COMBUSTION CONTR SERVICE -COMMUNITY CENTER B6.25
24387 BURROUGHS CORP OFFICE SUPPLIES 22.03
24388 BUSINESS FURNITURE INC TWO ORAWER FILE -WATER DEPT 200.00
24389 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES -LIQUOR STORES 633.78
24390 CARDOX CORP CARBON DIOXIDE- WATER DEPT 777.35
24391 CARGILL SALT OIVISION SALT -STREET DEPT 1672.11
24392 BILL CARROLL HOCKEY & BASKETBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 124.00
24393 BILL CARROLL EXPENSES -COMMUNITY CENTER 9.50
24394 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SERVICE -LAKE ANN INTECEPTOR 1540.00
24395 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER -HOSES/GASKETS/FLASHERS/CARBURATOR KIT/ 1B57.B4
-WATER PUMP/AIR FILTER/SWITCH/HEATER/
-SHOCKS/IGNITION WIRES/FITTINGS/CHDKE/
EXHAUST/SMALL TOOLS
24396 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS -SPARK PLUGS/GAS FILTERS/CLUTCH PARTS - 122.48
FORESTRY DEPT
24397 CHAPIN PUBLISHING CO LEGAL ADS -TECHNOLOGY DRIVE 13B.72
24398 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC BRAKE SHOES/PIN KIT -EQUIP MAINT 256.27
24399 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE -MITCHELL RD 996.32
24400 COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALISTS INC -REMOVE MOBILE PHONE & INSTALL IN ANOTHER 24B.B3
SQUAD -POLICE DEPT
24401 COPY EQUIPMENT INC -TRIANGLE/BLUELINE/DRAFTING TABLE/VELLUM/ 514.69
PENS -ENGINEERING & PLANNING DEPT
24402 CPT CORP 1986 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- POLICE DEPT 1546.00
""403 CROWLEY COMPANY INC FENCE MATERIAL- WATER DEPT 71.50
404 CURTIS INDUSTRIES DRIVE BELTS/CLEANING SUPPLIES -STREET DEPT 364.20
24405 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME -WATER DEPT 3463.B3
24406 WARD F DAHLBERG NOVEMBER 85 EXPENSES 80.00
24407 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES -WATER OEPT/COMM CENTER 183.75
24408 EUGENE DIETZ NOVEMBER B5 EXPENSES 263.00
24409 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU SUPPLIES -COMMUNITY CENTER/CITY HALL 99.02
24410 DENNIS P EARLEY MILEAGE -LIQUOR STORE 31.50
24411 EARL'S ART & DRAFTING SUPPLIES IN OFFICE SUPPLIES -PLANNING OEPT 43.35
24412 EDEN PRAIRIE CHANBER OF COMMERCE EXPENSES -ASSISTANT MANAGER 6.00
24413 LIL RED EDEN PRAIRIE GROCERY SUPPLIES -FIRE DEPT 12.35
24414 EDEN PRAIRIE TRASHTRONICS NOVEMBER 85 TRASH PICKUP 325.00
24415 ELECTRIC SERVICE CO OUTDOOR WARNING SIREN 10465.00
24416 RON ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL -FEES PD 46.50
24417 DON EVE AND SONS BALES -PARK MAINT 160.00
24418 FLAHERTY'S HAPPY TYME COMPANY SUPPLIES -LIQUOR STORE 232.80
24419 FLEET MECHANICAL SERVICES BALANCE FRONT TIRES & FRONT END -FIRE DEPT 70.50
24420 FLYING CLOUD SANITARY LANDFILL TAX ON LANDFILL DISPOSAL 57.30
24421 FIRESTONE STORES 3 TIRES -EQUIPMENT MAINT 528.18
24422 G & K SERVICES SERVICE 372.55
24423 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR & PARTS 468.30
24424 GNERER WELDING INC DEFLECTOR/MOTOR/PUMP- EQUIPMENT MAINT 790.80
24425 GREATER MPLS AREA BD OF REALTORS 1986 DUES -ASSESSING DEPT 45.00
24426 GREATER MPLS AREA BD OF REALTORS DEC -FEB B6 MARKET REPORT -ASSESSING DEPT 50.00
24427 DALE GREEN CO SOD -DRAINAGE DEPT 9.00
74428 ED GREGORY SOFTBALL & FOOTBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 77.00
129 J M GRIMSTAD INC REPAIR OIL UNIT -FIRE DEPT 304.20
c4430 HALE COMPANY INC REPAIR COMPUTER FOR GAS PUMPS 324.75
24431 HANCO TIRE INFLATING CAGE -STREET DEPT 1913.00
314D606
:_ i ?')
24432 HAZARD CONTROL INC WARNING TAPE -FIRE DEPT 620.00
24433 HEALTH & HOME ADS -LIQUOR STORE 86.66
24434 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE -CROSSTOWN BRIDGE 21827.64
'435 HENNEPIN COUNTY OCTOBER 85 BOARD OF PRISONERS 2559.50
.436 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE -HWY 169 FRONTAGE ROAD PAVING 238B.74
24437 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT SUPPLIES -FIRE DEPT 6.00
24438 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT OCTOBER 85 BOOKING FEE 210.26
24439 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT SUPPLIES -POLICE DEPT 40.80
24440 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS SCHOOL -FIRE FIGHTERS 480.00
24441 GREG HERRMANN SWITCH - COMMUNITY CENTER. 58.29
24442 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC -SQUEEZE REFILLS/CRANKCASE HEATERS/CLEAN & 308.39
INSPECT OIL FLOAT -ICE ARENA
24443 HONEYWELL DEC-FEB 86 SECURITY SYSTEMS 352.89
24444 HOPKINS DODGE SALES INC REPAIR OIL LEAKS -EQUIPMENT MAINT3 606.25
24445 HOTSY EQUIPMENT COMPANY REPLACE PISTON/RINGS/SEAL -EQUIP MAINT 240.50
24446 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC LIGHT BULBS -WATER DEPT 159.80
24447 INGRAM EXCAVATING INC SERVICE -FRANLO PARK 442.00
24448 IBM CORP -TYPEWRITER TRADE IN CREDIT RECEIVED 420.00
TWICE FOR SAME MACHINE -POLICE DEPT
24449 INTL CONFERENCE OF BLDG OFFICIALS BOOKS -BUILDING DEPT 109.00
24450 INTL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSDC BOOKS -CITY MANAGER 48.75
24451 J & R RADIATOR CORP REPAIR RADIATOR -STREET DEPT 46.50
24452 F F JEDLICKI INC CLEAN PONDS -VALLEY VIEW RD/MARKET PL DR 365.00 I
24453 JONAH USA LTD GRINDING WHEELS/TUBE STICKS -COMM CENTER 155.37
24454 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 154.4D
24455 CARL JULLIE EXPENSES 95.51
24456 JUSTUS LUMBER CO LUMBER -PARK MAINT 336.86
24457 KARULF HARDWARE INC -GUN RACKS/PROPANE TORCH KIT/GLOVES/CORKS/ 632.02 j
-SHDVEL/BULBS/BRUSHES/PAINT/TAPE/PLASTIC
( -BAGS/FUSES/FILTERS/PAPER PLATES/CONCRETE/
KEYS/GOGGLES
24458 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC -JACKETS/STOP WATCH/VOLLEYBALL- ORGANIZED 154.4B
ATHLETICS
24459 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER -ROLLER COVER/SLEDGE HAMMER/HOLE SAW/ 64.60
HANDLES
24460 DAVID KUSNER -REFUND DUPLICATE PAYMENT OF SPECIAL 229.42
ASSESSMENT
24461 LA HASS MFG & SALES INC PLOW GUIDES/FILTER -PARK MAINTENANCE 32.16
24462 MIKE LAMBERT VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 20.00
24463 LANCE SUPPLIES -LIQUOR STORE 131.02
24464 LANE INSURANCE INC -GENERAL LIABILITY/WORKMANS COMP & AUTO 52470.00
INSURANCE
24465 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD OCTOBER 85 LEGAL SERVICE 12518.20
24466 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD OCTOBER 85 LANDFILL LEGAL SERVICE 926.25
24467 LEEF BROS INC RUG SERVICE -CITY HALL 50.80
24468 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR PIN -PARK MAINT 30.19
24469 LP GAS EQUIPMENT REPAIR REAR STEP BUMPER -FIRE DEPT 628.36
24470 LYMAN LUMBER CO SPIKES -PARK MAINT 98.25
2447I MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC TAILGATE SANDER -STREET DEPT 1909.00
24472 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN CYLINDER -FIRE DEPT 54.00
24473 MERIT/JULIAN GRAPHICS FORMS -BUILDING DEPT 562.43
24474 MERLIN'S HARDWARE HANK DRILL BITS -PARK MAINT 11.98
24475 METRO FORE COMM INC DECEMBER 85 PAGER RENTAL 54.12
24476 METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIP CO DRY CHEMICALS -FIRE DEPT 80.35
.0277674
ri
24477 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM NOVEMBER 85 SAC CHARGES 143812.35 II
24478 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 308.15
24479 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP 1895.02 a
24480 MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO EMPLOYMENT AO -WATER OEPT 110.00
448I MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP OECEMBER 85 PAGER RENTAL 25.75
e4482 MINNESOTA PARK SUPERVISORS ASSOC 1986 MEMBERSHIP DUES -PARK MAINT 15.00
24483 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC EMPLOYMENT AO -STREET DEPT 60.75
24484 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS -LIQUOR STORE 300.48
24485 MINNESOTA WANNER CO REPAIR TANK ON FIRE TRUCK 32.50
24486 R E MOONEY & ASSOC INC PAINT -WATER OEPT 170.30
24487 DAVID MORTON -REFUND FOR POLICE OFFICER EMPLOYMENT AT 125.00
CHRISTMAS PARTY
24488 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO BRUSH -PARK MAINT 303.55
24489 MUNICILITE CO STROBE LIGHTS -EQUIP MAINT 381.60
24490 WM MUELLER & SONS INC ROCK - PARK MAINT 42.38
24491 MY CHEESE SHOP EXPENSES -COUNCIL MEETING 128.75
24492 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 1522.40
24493 NORTHLAND BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS REPAIR DICTAPHONE -POLICE DEPT 68.81
24494 NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS NA BONO PAYMENTS 642255.11
24495 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC HP120 COMPUTER -ASSESSING DEPT 1200.00
24496 JOYCE PHELPS SKATING INSTRUCTOR -FEES PO 52.20
24497 POWER RAKE EQUIPMENT CO STROBE -EQUIP MAINT 187.71
24498 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -REPAIR FIXTURE IN MENS LOCKER ROOM - 57.95
COMMUNITY CENTER
24499 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN SERVICE SNOW BLOWER -POLICE OEPT 147.47
24500 PRAIRIE W000 INC REFUNO DUPLICATE PAYMENT ON WATER BILL 122.97
24501 PRIOR LAKE AGGREGATE INC SAND 1713.48
24502 QUALITY WOOD PRODUCTS SIDEBOARDS FOR TRUCKS -EQUIP MAINT 35.00
24503 R & R SPECIALTIES iNC -OIL FILTER/PART FOR ZAMBONI WATER PUMP- 53.15
ICE ARENA
f 1504 REED'S SALES & SERVICE STARTER ASSEMBLY - PARK MAINT 20.95
24505 AAGE REFFSGAARO EXPENSES -BLDG DEPT 8.00
24506 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE -TECHNOLOGY DR/FLYING CLOUD DR/ 34448.64
-PRESERVE BLVD/COMPREHENSIVE SEWER POLICY
PLAN
24507 ROGERS SERVICE CO -ALTERNATOR REPAIR/STARTER/ALTERNATOR- 227.29
EQUIPMENT REPAIR & P/S
24508 SATELLITE INOUSTRIES INC PORTABLE RESTROOMS -PARK MAINT 79.43
24509 ELIZABETH SAUGEN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PO 104.00
24510 ERIC SAUGEN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 195.00
24511 SAVOIE SUPPLY COMPANY INC DOLLY/TRASH CAN -WATER TREATMENT PLANT 87.75
24512 SEARS ROEBUCK & CO DRUM SAND KIT - PARK MAINT 11.56
24513 SHAKOPEE FORO INC -CONTROL/PLATES/TIE R00/TUBE ASSEY/ARM 500.33
-REST/VISOR/MAT/MIRROR/PUMP/KNOB/DOOR/
-HANOLE/MOLDING/DOOR GASKET/RELAY/WASHER
-JET/SEALED REAR WINDOW- EQUIPMENT MAINT/
REPAIRS/P/S
24514 VOID CHECK .QO
24515 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP SOCKET -EQUIP MAINT 20.60
24516 SNAP PRINT-WEST -PRINTING -HISTORICAL CULTURAL COMMISSION/ 130.05
COMMUNITY CENTER
24517 SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COU H 0 M E GRANT PROGRAM 2312.27
24518 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT AD - POLICE DEPT 70.00
24519 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC ADS -LIQUOR STORE 198.64
83354234
24520 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC ADS -LIQUOR STORE 1.00
24521 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT AD -COMMUNITY CENTER 29.40 i
24522 STATE TREASURER NOV 85 BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGE REPORT 4666.78 ,
24523 STS CONSULTANTS LTD ENGINEERING-PROPOSED WATER TREATMENT PLANT 8757.25 1
?4524 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET -RETAINER/WASHER NOZZLE/FANBELT -EQUIPMENT 61.37
MAINT/EQUIP REPAIRS
24525 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC PUMP TANK- SR CENTER 50.00
24526 KEVIN TIMM BASKETBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD 104.00
24527 TUPCO INC TREE REMOVAL -PARK 80.00
24528 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES -UNIFORM RENTAL -EQUIP MAINT/WATER UTILITY 1429.23
/BUILDING/ENGINEERING
24529 VAUGHNS INC FLAG REPAIR -P/S 16.25
24530 VESSCO INC ELECTRICAL CONDUIT/ELBOW -WATER TREATMENT 143.30
24531 VOSS ELECTRIC CO LIGHT BULBS -P/S BUILDING 54.24
24532 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTION -FINANCE DEPT 107.00
24533 WATER PRODUCTS CO -GENERATOR TERMINAL COVER/METERS/BOTTOM 5406.82
-PLATE/BOTTOM LINER/STRAINER/SEAL/RISER/
-GASKET/CURB STOP/CLAMP/ROD/HYDRANT
GREASE/NUT/O-RING/NOZZEL -WATER PLANT
24534 WEST WELD 1/8 ELECTRODE -EQUIP MAINT 30.90
24535 WESTERN IRRIGATION INC SPRING -PARK MAINT 54.67
24536 WESTERN STATES FOREST PRODUCTS IN LUMBER FOR PICNIC TABLES -PARKS 296.00
24537 VOID CHECK 0.00 i
24538 STEVE WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY -SUNBONNET DAY 9.17
24539 XEROX CORP SERVICE 130.78
24540 ZIEGLER INC FILTER/SEAL/ELEMENT -EQUIP MAINT 39.95
24541 CHANNEL CONSTRUCTIDN SERVICE -TANAGER CREEK 36068.58
24542 HARDRIVES SERVICE -PRESERVE BLVD 33591.24
24543 RICHARD KNUTSON INC SERVICE -ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY 77640.16
Pi24514 VOID CHECK ll 0¢
4544 SHEEHY CONSTRUCTION REFUND BUILDING PERMIT 10.1
16877826
198655147
ii
1
10 GENERAL 233059.48
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 495.00
0. 5 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 52147.23
.7 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 37703.22
31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 12442.00
33 UTILITY BOND FUND 47380.98
44 UTILITY DEBT FUND 510628.98
45 UTILITY DEBT FD ARB 25.00
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 193488.37
52 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND 480968.36
55 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND ARB 254.42
57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 21065.68
73 WATER FUND 17250.02
77 SEWER FUND 152107.63
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 114500.00
82 FIRE RELIEF FUND 103765.00 •
87 COBS FUND 9012.27
90 TAX INCREMENT FUND 257.83
$1986551.47
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-285
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CITY WEST REPLAT
FOR RYAN PROPERTIES, INC.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of City West Replat for Ryan Properties, Inc., dated
November 4, 1985, consisting of 19.5 acres into three lots within the City West
Business Center, 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 17th day of December, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
John D. Frane, City Clerk
t
i
STAFF REPORT
1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott A. Kipp Assistant Planner
TUUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: November 22, 1985
PROJECT: City West Business Center Replat
APPLICANT: Ryan Construction, inc.
FEE OWNER: City West Business Center Development Company
LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat of 19.5 acres into three lots within the City West
Business Center.
Background ��
The re platting ca -.
p g proposal involves
both the City West I, and City West -- r - --= __
III and IV projects located within C_8,i � 353
the City West Planned Unit Develop-
ment, previously approved by City .1 \ ,` 1
Council. in order to accommodate
the parking needs of a future tenant
within the City West Phase I _' 39-83
project, an additional row of
parking has been proposed along the PROPOSED SITE -
southeast property line. City Code ' 4 4f
requires that all parking must be A �y��.��y��
contained within the parcel it is to .I, • / r; .7
serve; therefore, this request has 1>:_ " .
been submitted to replat the lot 'Z*�! ;� (4�C8�
line between Phases I and III in 11_8 il',
\ .4�" '� j� � r�
order to provide more land area to :.• *ib �,,�og ,
accommodate the additional row of ��!10 C
parking. Phases III and IV have � ��,�� ��1� �� ��
been zoned 1-2 Park, consistent with `V'tE ,'' = • _ 1
Phase I so the lot line shift will rtt‘lk5 .��� r; 1-2PK
not create any land use conflict. �. ,• 81.'. 78 21
Preliminary Plat �., 8127
iB Pt}8 fi 0' !�, _.7917
The preliminary plat involves a AN F' / '''. :�, ;.F
shift of the southeast lot line of ;; J,� ��
Phase 1 by 19 feet. This shift r 111 d p war
— AREA LOCATION MAP
s) , 1
City West Business Center Replat 2 November 20, 1985
provides for a ten-foot green space and one row of parking. A cross access has also
been provided between Phases I and III to facilitate traffic circulation. (See
Attachment A) A total of six parking stalls within Phase III were lost due to this
cross access, and will become proof-of-parking. Prior to final platting, the
proponent should meet with the City Engineer to determine which drainage and utility
easements will be vacated due to the lot line shift..
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the preliminary plat of 19.5 acres into three lots
subject to the following:
A. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
I. Meet with the City Engineer to determine which drainage and utility
easements are to be vacated. i
i
B. Proponent shall construct the cross access as provided in this report
between Phases I and III, City West Business Center.
•
TL
IL
rd
on
11501
Lq
,Attachment A
�
t
•
B. CITY WEST REPLAT, by Ryan Properties. Inc. Request for Preliminary
Plat of 19 5 acres into three lots within the City West Business
Center. Location: North of Shady Oak Road, West of City West
Parkway. A public hearing.
Planner Enger reviewed the request of the proponents for relocation of a lot
line between two properties in order to provide additional parking for one
of the lots. He stated that the only manner in which this could happen was
through a preliminary plat process.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or 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--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Ryan Properties, Inc., for Preliminary
Plat of 19.3 acres into three lots, all within the City West Business
Center, based on plans dated November 4, 1985.
Motion carried--5-0-0
1C)
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
•
DATE: December 6, 1985
SUBJECT: Trackline II
LOCATION: Carlson Drive, LaVonne Industrial Park
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Norman Undestad
REQUEST: Zoning District Amendment within an exising I-2 Park
•
Background
The Comprehensive Guide Plan des- -7---x ,r;--14--- ,
ignates this site as an Industrial _ i�--�� //7/
land use. This site is part of the Y -713-4 z�
LaVonne Industrial Park, approved by 1-, to II_ /�f
the City Council in 1982. As a 1.'
( condition of the developer's agree- \ ` i�, " - i
ment, prior to any development on �'l l V f 13 '
any site within the industrial park, ,
it was required that the individual PROPOSE SITE, i 4'
developer return to the Planning -+-1 FV PRK
,) ;.s�
Commission and City Council for a � ////// � -
site plan review of the project. OAP �y__ _� Jb
Site Plan / ;'SL
RT 7 :; RM E
The site plan involves the con-
iP n U r�o.
struction of a one-story, 46,200 FP ,, I
square foot office/warehouse ingtruild-
on 3.8 acresof c , ' '��� •,.. ''
land, at a Floor "1IZ ryx, ._, , j
Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.28. For I 2 '
ot
Park zoning, the Code would allow up L 0/ '4W' •^
to a 0.3 FAR for a one-story I s- - i-
building. For a building of this �' ,
size, the parking requirement would 13. 16
be 131 spaces based upon 1/3 office •�-54 J, fw PUB
at five spaces per 1,000, 1/3 A, ,% '
manufacturing at three spaces per E // '. . t „a, •
I,000 and 1/3 warehouse at 0.5 i � °�0 L
spaces per 1,000. A total of 135 --
parking spaces are provided on-site. +l, '�j/ i - —3 r---t".,
`
l� � F
Building and parking areas meet all - , (1-r ,
applicable setbacks for I-2 Park `y„AREA LOCATIO iVAP`
zoning. _. .__.. _ -
•
Trackline II 2 December 6, 1985
Grading
The existing site is relatively level and a minimal amount of grading is proposed.
The berming in front of the parking area is not high enough or large enough to
adequately screen the parking areas. However, since the setback to parking varies •
between 50 to 80 feet, a berm between nine to twelve feet high would be possible.
The grading plan should be modified to increase berm height to a level where parking
is appropriately screened. The proponent should provide sight lines through the
berming to demonstrate evidence of parking lot screening.
•
Landscaping
For a building of this size, the total caliper inch requirement would be 144. The
proposed landscape plan indicates a range of 133 to 162 total inches which is
reflective of minimum and maximum plant sizes. The landscape plan should be
modified to provide the required minimum caliper inch requirement.
Architecture
The one-story building will be 18 feet high and constructed of textured pre-cast
concrete panels. Examples of the color spectrum should be submitted for review 1
prior to Council review.
No mechanical unit screening plan has been provided. Prior to Council review, the
proponent should provide the location of any rooftop mechanical units and a detail
of the proposed screening.
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be provided to this building by connection to existing
utilities in Carlson Drive.
Storm water run-off is proposed to drain across the parking lot surface into catch
basins. From that point, water will flow through a series of underground storm
sewer pipes into a storm sewer system in Carlson Drive.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the request for Zoning District
Change Amendment in an existing I-2 Park Zoning District based on plans November 12,
1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 6, 1985, and
subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Modify the grading plan to maximize berm height within the front
yard setback to effectively screen parking areas.
8. Submit a rooftop mechanical screening plan with details for review.
C. Submit a color scheme for the building.
2. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
Trackline II 3 December 6, 1985
8. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
C. Obtain Watershed District approval for grading on the property.
D. Submit an overall signage plan with details for review.
E. Submit an overall lighting plan with details for review.
F. Submit plans to Fire Marshal for approval.
DEC 1,. 7;33
LARKIN. HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SECT
O ?L MAN ETAS IS NUM PNRET JR
JACK C OLipooatn 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER et.EW CRtCwSRI I
WENDELL
)900 XERCES AVENUE SOUTH RNZIE a.
GERAL H. P.QUINN •6LOOMINGTON.MINNESOTA 55431 RORERT 0.RENNET.JR. f
TELEPHONE 16,21835-3600 JrNEHEEN RANNRE
L
COWARDCOV•••0 J DRISCOLL 2000 PIPER JAFFRAT TOWER FEDERAL PRACTICE PARTNEOSMIP MOELLER
222 SOUTH NINTH STREET LARKIN.NOEL 6 FAIR
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 SUITE MO RRA ONw LO
•
DAVID C. N TELEPHONE 16121336-6610 I SOI PENNSTLVANIA,N.W. ETICM
W A S H I NG TO N,O.C.2000
MT
TELEPHONE l2O21737-1000 NCR 04
EN LEEN RVMCOTTE NEwMAN
JOHN R O pETEP 1 COTLE
STROMIER CA INC EARNS TT WILSON.
SEL
STE EN D AN Josue D
r»OMAE N CARET
December 12, 1985
The Honorable Gary Peterson, Mayor
City Councilmembers
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: Parking for Normandale Tennis Club
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
The Site Plan for the proposed Normandale Tennis Club on Baker Road in
the City of Eden Prairie provides 317 parking spaces to serve the
club. Normandale Tennis Club's experience with their ten other
racquet and swim clubs in the metropolitan area indicates that 317
parking spaces will be more than sufficient to meet the needs of the
club.
Because the tennis club represents a somewhat unique use, City
ordinances do not specify a minimum number of required spaces and, in
fact, there are no real industry standards directly applicable. For
this reason, staff has requested and the Planning Commission has
recommended that Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. submit documentation
stating that should any parking shortages occur they will provide
additional spaces to accommodate the increased demand.
This letter is submitted as the requested documentation to confirm
that Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. will provide additional parking
spaces as necessary to accommodate their members should any parking
shortages occur following construction and during operation of the
7-1‘Cj/J
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY 8e LINDGREN, LTD.
The Honorable Gary Peterson, Mayor
City Councilmembers
December 12, 1985
Page 2
club. It is our understanding that if the City identifies a parking
problem being caused by the Club due to off-site parking on Baker Road
or in adjacent residential areas, a determination will be made as to
the number of additional spaces necessary and they will be provided.
We will be happy to discuss this further during the Council's review
of the Site Plan.
SIserely,
Peter K. Beck, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
Attorneys for Normandale Tennis Clubs, inc.
PKB:AG2S
74
MEMO
TO: City Council
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: December 13, 1985
RE: NORMANDALE TENNIS CLUB
One of the concerns of the Planning Commission at their meeting on December 9, 1985
was the elimination of the knoll along the eastern property line and how this would
affect the surrounding properties. Staff suggested that with the elimination of
this site feature, a possible impact on the residents of St. John's Woods be an
increase in noise generated along 1-494. Because of this, Staff recommended as a
condition of approval, that a noise study be conducted by the proponent to determine
the actual impact of any increased noise. In conversation with the proponent, it
was learned that in order to secure a grading permit for grading within the I-494
right-of-way, an Environment Review Checklist must be completed and submitted for
review and approval by the Federal Highway Administration.
With these things in mind, Staff examined the grading plan in an attempt to retain
as much of the hill as possible without having to redesign the parking lot. This
was accomplished by eliminating the grading within the right-of-way and realigning
the contours (see Attachment A). Upon further investigation, the Planning Staff
determined that there appeared to be no need for the complete removal of the knoll.
The study grading plan generated by the Planning Staff retains a significant portion
of a major landform, reduces overall site grading, serves as a noise buffer between
I-494 and St. John's Woods, and helps reduce the view of the building mass from the
highway.
The proposed building construction will also result in the loss of over 800 caliper
inches of mature trees. While only 154 caliper inches are oak and are proposed for
replacement, the loss of 646 caliper inches of other trees is significant. Although
these trees are not specimens, collectively, they are a very important site feature.
To retain more of the existing trees, a substantial reduction in the building
footprint would be required.
33(214
•
r i ....I 1 .I 1 I i,i i_[ .---ar
_. i/��/�_._ .`
/ SFr/ ':N/ --• r Tit" N, \
MIL ,
Ilt�ll/1 `�` r
,A ,
M t s 't
Oar n `
o' t
r �� \' r r 4 i
::_1 -
0' rdao \\‘‘',,
� \ � tG
t
,L.-2,...--11'---.\-:1— tit- \\....: '„; /7.4
ys+V` i/
cir
r to i1.
c
Oil
co
r _ _ f' y, ,
i
i
i — .-
er-
N
1
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: December 6, 1985
PROJECT: Normandale Tennis Club '
LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of County Road #62 and County Road #60 (Townline
Road and Baker Road)
REQUEST: Site Plan Review for tennis club
Background
The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts I
a Community Commercial land use for
this site. Having been previously I C :) \LI
` \\
zoned Community Commercial, City
Council requested that prior to ` w_�
building permit issuance, the i
,
proponent submit plans to the ��:.
Planning Commission and Council for S ••••;•;:�.4
•s•••
site plan review and recommendation. 4 •••••pp•
This 9.73-acre site is located in a .•.r'.,�'�Y• " !;•p;•;•;
Ate.: ••••.•4
highly visible location having
frontages along Baker Road, County `-'1 I.Akt
Road #62, and I-494. Currently, . �
f IL \ \ (.
this site is being used as a PROPOSED SiT.
nursery. Surrounding land uses in-
clude the I-494 right-of-way to the enY T
east, St. John's Woods to the west, .
the Eden Prairie water tower to the n
south, the City of Minnetonka and
County Road #62 to the north. In LT. •�a
addition, there is an NSP easement ems=
along the western property line.
Physical characteristics of the site ;
include a large knoll in the \ c
northwest corner and a number of \ 4 c.•
large caliper inch trees which are )
scattered throughout the site. —
Bo_cause of the building and parking JTas` .o,oT, ��k,/ ,Icy,
ft location, it appears that none AREA LOCATION MAP
of the existing trees will be ` _AREA
—J I i 1 K-10+=,C —'`-4//rl l.---k \ rtAr a 1
Normandale Tennis Club 2 December 6, 1985
retained on-site. Approximately 800 caliper inch trees would be lost due to
construction. (See landscape section) In addition, a major portion of this site
has been ieveied as part of the nursery operation.
The proposed athletic club will provide both indoor and outdoor recreational
facilities including tennis, racquetball, swimming, jogging, exercise and weight
rooms, as well as a host of other activities.
The site plan depicts a 164,462 square foot health club facility on 9.73-acre site
located at the intersection of Baker Road and County Road #62. Included on the plan
is a parking lot containing 317 parking spaces and five outdoor tennis courts
containing approximately 30,000 square feet. Total impervious surface is in excess
of 55% which includes a Floor Area Ratio about 38.8%. The building, parking lot,
and outdoor tennis courts meet the minimum required setbacks in a Community
Commercial Zoning District.
Access and Parking
Access to this site will be provided from Baker Road. In order to facilitate
turning movements onto Baker Road, the proposed driveway design includes a right
and left turn lane. Based on measurements taken from the site plan, stacking
distance provided within the right-turn lane allows for two automobiles with the
third partially extending into the drive aisle. Because of this, Staff would
recommend increasing the depth of the right-turn lane to allow for a minimum
stacking of three complete automobiles.
Since the driveway and St. John's Drive are not aligned, the residents directly
across the street can expect headlight glare from exiting traffic during the evening
hours.
Parking provided on-site equals 317 spaces which includes six handicapped spaces.
Since the Code does not specify a parking requirement for health club facilities,
Staff has analyzed two methods for determining the parking demand, including
examining the parking demands of other existing athletic facilities in the
Metropolitan area and examining the Eden Prairie Zoning Code for similar uses.
Based on City Code, the most similar use in comparison to what is being proposed is
a gymnasium which requires five spaces per 1,000 square feet. Utilizing this ratio
and a proposed square footage of 164,462, a total of 822 parking spaces would be
required. It should be noted that these figures do not take into account the five
outdoor tennis courts.
Examining the parking ratios of five other Normandale Tennis Clubs with similar
facilities suggests that the parking demand may not be as great as the City Code
indicates. Based on square footage and number of parking spaces provided, parking
ratios range from 1.33 to 2.15 spaces per 1,000 square feet. (See Attachment A)
Currently, the proposed Crosstown Tennis facility is parking at a ratio of 1.93
spaces per 1,000 square feet of building or 1.63 spaces per 1,000 square feet if the
outdoor tennis courts are included. It is noted that both figures are within the
calculated range of parking ratios. Should any parking shortages occur, the
proponent would be required to provide additional parking spaces to accommodate the
increased demand.
Traffic
Utilizing information provided by the proponent, Staff anticipates approximately 750
to 900 vehicle trips per day. (See Attachment B) Depending upon construction
L
Normandale Tennis Club 3 December 6, 1985
phasing of the tennis club and the Baker Road upgrading a significant amount of
traffic congestion may be expected at peak times.
Grading
Elevations on this site range from a high of 1007 in the northeast corner to a low
of 958 in the northwest corner. Proposed grading involves a general leveling of the
site to allow for the construction of the parking lot and building pad. For the
parking lot, cuts of up to 30 feet and fill of up to ten feet is being proposed.
With this grading plan, the knoll along the northeast property line will be
eliminated. Staff expects that with the elimination of the knoll, the parking lot
of the proposed tennis club will be approximately at grade with the I-494/Baker Road
interchange. Because of this, Staff has some concern regarding the possible noise
impact on the adjacent residential land uses. The Commission may wish to consider
having the proponent conduct a noise contour study to determine the actual extent of
impact. It should also be noted that in order to accommodate the parking lot,
grading off-site within the I-494 right-of-way is being proposed. Permission to do
this will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Because of
the elevation difference of 30 feet or more on this site, provisions of the steep
slope ground development shall apply.
Because of the multi-level building design, the ground floor (court level) of the
building is at the 965 contour elevation with the second floor (entry level) at the
980 contour elevation. This would involve a maximum cut of 15 feet along the
eastern building line and little or no fill proposed along the western building
line.
A series of retaining walls are also being proposed on the west building line, along
the loading dock area and around the outdoor tennis courts. Staff has discussed the
possibility of eliminating retaining walls along the western building front adjacent
to Baker Road since they serve no functional purpose. The proponent has stated that
they would be willing to do this. Staff recommends that should the retaining walls
be eliminated, berming up along the building wall to a height approximating that of
what was previously proposed shall be implemented and the landscaping installed as
depicted on the landscape plan. The outdoor tennis courts are proposed at an
elevation of 978 which would require a maximum of ten feet of fill. The retaining
wall, as proposed, allows for this amount of fill adjacent to the property line.
Landscaping
City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision .G.(4) (B) states that "single-story building
in excess of 20 feet in height shall be considered a two-story building for the
purposes of determining its total gross square footage." Thus, in this particular
case, the total square footage used for determining landscaping caliper inches is
245,550. This figure, divided by 320, as per Ordinance, would equal 767 caliper
inches. Total caliper inches provided equals 573. In order to comply with the
landscape ordinance, Staff would recommend a combination of additional landscaping
plus an increase in caliper inch size of the existing plant material. Also, the
planting schedule shall be revised to reflect a more equal distribution of
coniferous and deciduous trees designed to "break up" views and screen parking
areas.
In regards to tree replacement previously mentioned, the landscape ordinance also
states that "shade trees of six or more caliper inch shall be saved unless it can be
Normandale Tennis Club 4 December 6, 1985
demonstrated that there is no other feasible way to develop this site." The
Council may require replacement of any removed trees on a caliper inch per caliper
inch basis. The development of this site would include the removal of approximately
800 caliper inches of trees. Staff feels that this is an excessive amount and
should be subject to tree replacement. Of the 800 caliper inches on-site, 154 of
these are oak trees in excess of 15 caliper inches. Staff would recommend that the
landscape plan be revised to reflect the addition of 154 caliper inches of oak trees
as replacement.
Due to the fact that the site is at a higher elevation than the adjacent roads, the
opportunity for substantial berming to screen parking areas does not exist. However,
there is an average height difference of 14 feet between the top of the berm and
Baker Road and 12 feet between top of berm and County Road #62. Parking lot minimum
elevation is at 966 and slopes eastward to a high elevation of 978. Thus, the rear
of the parking lot is approximately 20 feet higher than the adjacent roads. Staff
feels that a combination of proposed berming, the elevation of the parking lot and
the landscaping will be adequate to screen the parking areas. However, due to the
fact that the slopes which are proposed are at a 2/1 grade, Staff expects that there
may be erosion control problems which would require special consideration. Plans
for slope stabilization should be submitted for review.
Architecture
The plan depicts a 164,462 square foot building with exterior materials consisting
primarily of facebrick, blue/green ceramic tile, and glass. As proposed the
building does meet the requirements for exterior material finishes.
The building has a base footprint of 122,775 square feet and a second-story, of
41,687 feet. Total building square footage is 164,462. The height of the building
including parapet varies from 36 feet along Baker Road to the west, to 21 feet along
1-494 to the east. Building dimensions range from 377 feet north/south, to 373 feet
east/west. Combined with the outdoor tennis courts and fences which adds an
additional 120 feet to the north/south dimension, the perceived linear building mass
of 497 feet is attained. In summary, the building which is being proposed is very
massive with no specific architectural treatment design to break up this mass.
Building elevations depict mature trees averaging 30 feet which help to "break up"
this building mass. Although this may be the case in a few years, the largest plant
material on-site, based upon the landscape schedule, is 415 caliper inches, or
approximately 12 feet in height. Of the 88 large caliper inch deciduous trees, only
10 are planted along the west building elevation.
Utilities
Water and sanitary sewer services are available to this site. Connection for these
servies will be to an existing 16--inch water main located within the Baker Road
right-of-way and a 15-inch sanitary sewer line at the intersection of Edendale
Boulevard and Baker Road. Plans indicate the health club's catch basin and storm
sewer system connecting to a proposed Hennepin County storm sewer located within the
Baker Road right-of-way. Plans indicate that this storm sewer will be constructed
with the upgrading of 3aker Road.
Pedestrian Systems
The plans for upgrading Baker Road depict an eight-foot bituminous bikepath along
7
Normandale Tennis Club 5 December 6, 1985
the east side of the street. This path will be installed as part of the County
project. In addition, a five-foot sidewalk connecting the bikepath and front door
of the building shall be installed.
Signage
The proponent shall be required to submit signage details for review and approval by
City Staff.
Lighting
A lighting plan has been submitted which shows location and size. Lighting shall be
designed to minimize glare impacts on St. John's Woods to the west of Baker Road.
Although no exterior lighting is proposed for the outdoor tennis courts, Staff
expects that they will be lit year-round to maximize there use. Since lighting
standards for tennis courts are typically tall, some off-site glare into the St.
John's Woods residential area is expected. If exterior lighting is to be installed,
the proponent should submit lighting plans with details for review by City Staff.
Plans should demonstrate how off-site glare can be minimized.
Mechanical Equipment
No mechanical equipment screening plan has been submitted at this time. Because of
the size and quantity of mechanical equipment expected, the units should be grouped
in the center of the building and screened with a continuous panel consisting of a
material architecturally compatible with the materials on the building.
Proponents feel that the mechanical units will not be visible from public roads and
adjacent land uses. To verify this situation, the proponent must submit the sight
lines showing how the mechanical units are screened.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the Crosstown Health, Tennis, and Racquetball Club
site plan based on plans dated November 25, 1985, and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Modify the site plan to include a stacking distance for three cars
(60 feet) within the right-turn lane.
B. Submit documentation stating that should any parking shortages
occur, the proponent will provide additional spaces to accommodate
the increased demand.
C. Modify the site and grading plan to indicate the elimination of the
retaining wall along the west side of the building with details
showing any additional berming or landscaping.
D. Modify the landscape plan and planting schedule to indicate a new
total of 767 caliper inches as required by ordinance and 154 caliper
inches of tree replacement.
•
Normandale Tennis Club 6 December 6, 1985
E. Submit color and building material samples for review and approval.
F. Provide lighting details for review.
G. Provide signage details for review. .
H. Submit a mechanical equipment screening plan.
2. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: •
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control and slope
stablization plans for review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, slope
stablization, and utility plans, for review by the City Engineering
Department.
C. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
D. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading. •
E. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshal.
•
•
S 'v D• 2 O 7C c C -I S p 7.1 F. O
V 0 K E rn -f r xr - r Cr N n rn O
w YD 2 A rn rn o r r -I �"
n o. CD * 0 rn f 0 rn rn rn
a n *
rn
z
r+ - r+ Cl-I t//
j C c co V t0 to co Os r+ t0 co VD COM
Z
tel K M
N V)C 0 N •
(5 M
- - N r-' r+ co.'O
Q 6 3 co CTA A CAI C) N >CA'f Z
3 0. r 0 rs
c
,t IT
C o Q i D
3
fit
- °: N iv C7 Vf 7e
N
C 0 A D Cr
-s _
7-t' a N S 2
3 n A
in 2 r
CDD N * r+ N N D< V
- 3
a _N 3 N
fp 3
.0
C CT
C x x x x x x 0
z CI
r
•• CD
N >c x x x x x D
N c
0 -1
M r
~; c
C1 N
CD
-, x x x x x DC tern ,
-s C D-I
v)2
2 N rn
N
-I N .
r) -i c., •
x x JK 7C 7C SC .X/0
z
- N A t.a 05 A 05 V O A A
V t71 V 0 N tO C. A V CT X/
* * 7C
*
2
- r+ r+ N 'o N
to to W to Co a v tO 0 m0
A v w r O T 0 05 V MI D
0 0 c.J v T CO (AI - - A
0 0 0 Cr to 0 to Cr A rn
O O 0 0 0 a-. 'is tO N i
.'*V
r+ 0 0 r+ r+ a+ r-• N N A A
-I .
ON N 0 0 Co Co - to to O+-*
Z
O
ATTACHMENT A
PARKING ANALYSIS x.�„
111 ARCHITECTS, LTD.
612-544.8368
6311 Wayzata Boulevard,Suite 240 St. Louis Park,Minnesota 55416
TRAFFIC STUDY
In an effort to estimate the vehicle trips per day
that would be generated at the proposed "Crosstown
Racquet, Swim and Health Club", we obtained information
on membership use for the past year at three of Normandale
Tennis Clubs, Inc. existing clubs. The three clubs used in
this study are: Burnsville, 98th Street and Normandale Racquet
Swim and Health Clubs; they are of similar size and location
to the club being proposed.
The chart below indicates the approximate number of
people entering the club in an average month and day along
with the maximum per day.
MONTHLY PER DAY MAX. PER DAY
r Burns. 31,000 900 1200
\ 98th 24,000 650 900
Norm. 20,000 600 800
Based on this information, we would anticipate 750-900
cars per day and therefore 1500-1800 vehicle trips over
an 18 hour business day.
ATTACHMENT B -•
TRAFFIC STUDY
Arteka
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE }_
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 45-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Community Commercial District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the
Community Commercial District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District
referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be,
and are amended accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor' are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of I
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of December 17, 1985, entered into
between Arteka, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, which
Agreement is hereby made a part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 3rd day of December, 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of
December, 1985.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
Exhibit A
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast
quarter,
116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minesota described as follows:
Section 3, Township
Commencing at the southeast corner of Section 34, Township 117, Range 22;
thence on an assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 23 minutes 12 seconds West
along the North line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 3 a distance
of 853.31 feet; thence South I degree 36 minutes 18 seconds West 193.79 feet
to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South I degree
36 minutes 18 seconds West 46.21 feet to the south line of the north 240.00
feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 88
degrees 23 minutes 12 seconds West along said south line 385.74 feet to a
line which bears South 3 degrees 32 minutes 22 seconds East from a point on
the north line of said Northeast Quarter distant 1260.66 westerly from the
southeast corner of said Section 34; thence North 3 degrees 32 minutes 22
seconds West 61.46 feet; thence North 44 degrees 03 minutes 09 seconds East
52.62 feet; thence South 79 degrees 46 minutes 53 seconds East 359.79 feet
to the point of beginning.
Arteka
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1985, by
Arteka, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural to
Community Commercial for 0.5 acre of property adjacent to a parcel to be used for
construction of a sports and health facility, situated in Hennepin County, State of
Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #45-85,
Owner covenants and agrees as follows:
1. Owner acknowledges that the platting of this property is not in
conformance with the rules and regulations of Chapter 11 or Chapter
12 of the City Code. Owner agrees that the lots will be aggregated
upon sale of the property in order to bring the property in
conformance with these chapters of the City Code.
2. If Owner fails to proceed with plans for development of the
aggregated property as a tennis club, Owner, for itself, its
successors, and assigns, shall not oppose rezoning of said property
to Rural.
•
Arteka
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-286
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 45-85 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 45-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 17th day of Oecember,
1985;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 45-85, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 45-85 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on December 17, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
•
l'4}
•
4�,F pp1U G i',yFcO
44,
m C'
O n ROBERT M.WAGNER MD/THOMAS C.CARRIER MD/JOHN C.ELLIS,1R.MD
n O DAVID 1.OLSON MD/GORDON L.ALEXANDER MD/JAN L.DUQUETTE MI)
oy
3^cam
ti
r7oS'v a'SV December 9, 1985
Dear Mayor Peterson and City Council Members:
We of the Cardinal Creek Homeowners Association have extreme concern over
recent developments related to the City's approval of tax exempt financing
for the Multi-Family Development proposed by Chimo Development adjacent
to our area. Specifically, extreme inconsistency appears to exist between
the approved concept for the project and conditions of said financing
(the "Program").
•
#1. The approved concept for the project includes a combination of
rental and condominium units with a transition of twin homes;
the Financing Program specifies a totally rented project of 208,
one and two bedroom appartments.
#2. The P.U.D. concept was approved as an "up-scale" development
consistent with the adjacent area; the Financing Program included
low income housing.
#3. A rental range of $600 to over $1,000 per month was specified for
the approved concept; the financing approved required $5DD to
$700 a month for one or two bedroom appartments.
#4. The Financing Program was heard and approved by the City Council
without notification by the city to the involved residents.
Our position is as follows. First, by virtue of the "Program" approved by the
Council, the project has been changed - low income, no transition, totally
rental - a change made without public notification or due process legally
required for project approval. Alternatively, if the financing is applied
to the project as previously approved, the City of Eden Prairie is party to
misuse of Federal tax exempt financing. The approved financing simply is not
appropriate for this project as approved. We request immediate hearing at
the next City Council Meeting in December, 1985, hoping that action can be
initiated to resolve legal issues and significant potential problems for
the city and our residence.
For the residents of Cardinal eek
J31445,-A-
Gordon L. Alexander, Jr.
President, Cardinal Creek Homeowners Assoc.
GLA:ng (cc: See next page)
PROFESSIONAL.CENTER-SOUTHDALE/3625 WEST 65TH ST/EDINA.MN 554351PHONE 920-7001
RIDGES HEALTH CENTER/200 EAST NICOLLET BLVD.,SUITE 136/BURNSVILLE.MN 55337/PHONE 920-7001
?��
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: CARL JULLIE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROGER A. PAULY AND DIANA P. MASSIE, CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 1985
RE: AMENDMENT OF GAMBLING DEVICES ORDINANCE
NEW LAW
The State of Minnesota has now taken over regulation and licen-
sing of all paddle wheels, pull tabs, tip boards and ticket jars.
The State of Minnesota has also taken over regulation and licensing �.
of all bingo games and raffles, except no state licenses are required
for:
1. Bingo conducted in connection with a county
fair, state fair or civic celebration lasting
no more than twelve consecutive days in one
F calendar year;
l 2. Bingo conducted on four or fewer occasions in
one year;
3. Raffles by an organization which awards no more
than $750.00 in raffle prizes in one year;
4. Raffles conducted by organizations which,
directly or indirectly or under contract to
the state or a political subdivision, deliver
health and social services and which are
exempt from taxation under Section 501(c) (3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as
amended, if the prizes awarded in the raffles
are real or personal property donated by an
individual, firm or other organization.
See, Chapter 349, Minnesota Statutes.
The above four types of gambling are now exempt from State licen-
sing; however, numerous State regulations still apply. The law
provides that the City may require a permit for gambling which is
exempt from State licensing. The law also provides that the City
may adopt more stringent regulation of gambling than is the case
under State law and may prohibit any form of lawful gambling. The
City also has authority to disapprove by resolution the granting of
a State license. It is up to the City to decide if it is worthwhile
•
to require permits for these four types of gambling which are exempt
f from State licensing. Without City regulations, these four types of
bingo occasions and raffles would be permitted under State law with-
out a license. If the City wishes to regulate and issue permits for
these four types of gambling, an amendment to Sec. 5.40 of the Code,
relating to gambling devices,is necessary. If the City does not wish
to regulate and issue permits for these four types of gambling, it
should simply repeal that section.
RECOMMENDATION
From discussions of this topic with staff, it appears there is
no real need to regulate these types of activities at this time;
therefore, we recommend repeal of Sec. 5.40 of the City Code.
RAP/DPM:cw
-2-
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: December 27, 1985
RE: December 30, 1985 City Council Meeting
Eden Square Shopping Center - MIDB's. This project was given
preliminary approval on November 5th, 1985. It had a first reading
of the zoning ardinance on December 17, 1985. Documents have been
approved by the City Attorney's office.
Baypoint II - Housing Revenue Bonds. This project was given pre-
liminary approval on October 1, 1985. The project is zoned correctly.
Documents have not been reviewed by the City Attorney's office and
if they are not in final form Monday we will ask for a change in the
agenda.
Preserve Place - Housing Revenue Bonds. This project is zoned
correctly and was given preliminary approval on November 19, 1985.
Documents have not been finalized with the bond approving attorney
but are expected to be in final form on Monday, if not we will ask
for a change in the agenda.
Eden Pointe - Public Hearing for Housing Revenue Bonds. This project
is zoned correctly and was given preliminary approval on November 19,
19B5. A rehearing is required to comply with T.E.F.R.A. requirements.
Eden Pointe - Housing Revenue Bonds Final Approval. The documents
are not in final form but are expected to be finished by Monday.
If not we will let you know.
CSM - Housing Revenue Bonds Final Approval. As of this date the
status of the project is uncertain.
MEMO
TO: City Council
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
HROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
DATE: December 27, 1985
SUBJECT: CSM HOUSING PROPOSAL (800 UNITS) HIGHWAY #169 NEAR ANDERSON LAKES
PARKWAY
On Tuesday, December 24, 1985, Staff received a revised preliminary site plan and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the CSM proposal. Although we have not
had the time to complete a detailed review of the project, we have, however,
identified a number of concerns related to the zoning code, applicable State laws,
the Guide Plan, and site impacts. We hope that the following list will give you a
comprehensive view of the project, and from our perspective, the potential City
impacts.
1. The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts this site for High Density Residential
and Regional Commercial land use. The Regional Commercial portion of the
site lies adjacent to Highway #169. A Comprehensive Guide Plan Change will
be required and must be substantiated by the proponent. This high density
site is one of the last remaining high density sites in the community. The
High Density Residential land use designation makes sense because of the
proximity to the flood plain, recreational area, and the Major Center Area.
2. The Guide Plan would permit a density between 2D to 40 units per acre for
High Density guided land. The gross density of the project, based on 38.9
acres, is 20.1 units per acre. The net density, exluding portions of the
flood plain, is 28.57 units per acre. The net density would be the highest
in the community. The RM-2.5 zoning district, which is the High Density
Zoning District, allows up to 17.4 units per acre. This maximum per Code
translates into 676 units on the gross land acreage and 485 units on the net
land acreage.
3. The project as proposed will require a height variance for the four, six,
and ten-story buildings. The RM-2.5 Zoning District would allow up to a
maximum height of 45 feet.
4. Some buildings on the project do not meet the minimum 35-foot front yard
building setback.
5. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for this project since
it involves over 600 total housing units. An EAW has been prepared which
may serve as a scoping study for the preparation of an EIS.
6. An indirect source permit is required from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (PCA) since over 1,000 cars are proposed to be parked on-site. 1,600
total parking spaces are proposed.
Ej
Memo
December 27, 1985
Page Two
7. A waste water discharge permit is required through the PCA since it involves
over 50,000 gallons per day discharge. 197,280 gallons per day discharge is
proposed.
8. The impervious surface proposed on-site is 32%. The Code would allow a
maximum of 30% coverage within the shoreland area.
9. Two of the buildings on the northern end of the site and the adjoining
parking areas are within the 100-year flood plain. The Purgatory Creek
Watershed District will allow up to 11.6% of fill within the flood plain.
10. All but two of the buildings will impact the conservancy area of the
Purgatory Creek Master Plan. The entire site falls within the transitional
zone. The conservancy zone is a "no build" area and the transition zone is
a "build with care" area. The purpose of the Purgatory Creek Plan is to
preserve the unique features associated with Purgatory Creek including the
creek itself and surrounding steep slopes, flood plain, and woodland areas.
The conservancy zone of the Purgatory Creek Plan is generally described as
following the 100-year flood plain and the wooded slope area.
11. This site will require steep slope review per ordinance since the site has
slopes in excess of 12% and over a 30-foot vertical drop in elevation.
12. Sewer and water are not immediately available to this site. Sewer service
must be brought across Purgatory Creek from the Metro Waste Control
Commission interceptor line. A permit will be required for connection to
this line.
13. The preliminary traffic study projects a total of 4,880 trips per day for
this site. The traffic impacts are not apparent at this time since a
detailed study has not been provided. Staff expects that Anderson Lakes
Parkway and Highway #169 will be affected by the increase in traffic.
14. Large surface parking areas are proposed on-site. Though the parking areas
meet the minimum setbacks per ordinance, Staff expects that the 35-foot
setback will not provide enough room to adequately screen the parking areas.
15. Because of the building heights (up to ten stories) the project will be
highly visible from the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, Highway #5, and
Highway #169. Since the buildings are linear and minimal separation between
buildings are proposed, Staff would expect that collectively the buildings
would appear visually as a large building mass. The wooded area on-site
will help somewhat to diminish the height and mass of the building, but a
special architectural solution will be necessary in order to downplay the
building mass and to add visual interest.
16. A portion of the project in the northwest corner of the site will be within
the 300-foot shoreland setback from Purgatory Creek. A portion of one of
one building and the adjoining parking area falls within this 300-foot
setback.
Memo
December 27, 1985
Page Three
17. Three of the proposed buildings are immediately adjacent to the wooded area
in the central portion of this site. Staff would expect that construction
and grading would encroach into the wooded area and would result in tree
loss. Staff does know from a previous tree inventory that there are a large
number of mature oak, ash, and basswood trees on-site.
Conclusion
The majority of the site is guided High Density Residential. A small portion is
guided Regional Commercial and would require a Guide Plan Change. Although High
Density Residential in this location makes sense because of the proximity to
commercial services in the Major Center Area and to future recreational uses in the
Purgatory Creek flood plain. Staff, at this time, based upon a preliminary site
plan, is not in a position to react favorably to the project for the following
reasons:
1. A portion of the site is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Some land on the northeast corner of the site is Guided Regional Commercial.
2. Building encroachment into the shoreland area of Purgatory Creek.
3. Building and parking encroachment within the conservancy area of the
Purgatory Creek Master Plan.
4. Potential tree loss due to the proximity of buildings to the wooded area on-
site.
5. The buildings collectively will appear massive due to the configuration of
the building and tightness of the buildings on-site.
6. Some buildings do not meet minimum building setbacks for RM-2.5 Zoning.
7. There is not enough setback area between parking and the street to provide
enough room to adequately screen the parking areas.
8. Traffic impacts on affected roadways and intersections are not known at this
time.
9. Density and building heights as proposed do not conform with the zoning
ordinance and hardship has not been demonstrated at this time for variance
purposes.
If it is Staff's opinion that there is not enough land area on-site within which to
massage the site plan to address the impacts as identified above. A solution which
would best address the impacts would involve architecture and reduced density. An
architectural solution can help downplay the height and building mass while adding
variety. A substantial reduction in density would allow for more open area on-site
within which to create large berming and tree planting masses which can offset
building height and mass as well. This approach was utilized on the Tipton project
to the south which included large setbacks to building and parking, berms between 15
to 30 feet in height, heavy landscaping, and buildings with varying roof heights and
building projections. The Tipton project was approved at about 16 units per acre.