HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/04/1986EDEN PRAIRIE
CITY COUNCITTCETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1986 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING BOARDROOM
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and
Paul Redpath
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie; Assistant
to the City Manager Craig Dawson; City
Attorney Roger Pauly; 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 AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II, MINUTES
A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, July 2, 1985
B. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, October L. 1985
C. Special City Council Meeting held Monday, December 10, 198r
D. Joint City Council/Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission of
Eden Prairie meeting held Tuesday, January 7, 1986
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Problems with Remote Water Reader Meters Page 253
B. Final Plat approval for Parkway Apartments (Chestnut Drive east Page 254
of Anderson Lakes Parkway) Resolution No. 86-21
C. Clerk's License List Page 257
D. Appointment of Weed Inspector and Assistant Weed Inspector Page 259
E. Rosemount Grading Permit Page 260
F. Griepentroq Grading Permit Page 263
G. Carpenter Request for Land Use Clarification (Resolution
86-24)
Page 267
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Feasibility Report for Trunk Sewer and Water Improvements in the Page 269
vicinity of the Red Rock Interceptor, I.C. 52-088 (Resolution
No. 86-22T—
Page 208
Page 235
Page 243
Page 250
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,February 4, 1986
B. PRAIRIE VIEW by Mark Rooney. Request for Zoning District Change
from Rural to C-Regional-Service, and Preliminary Plat of 16+ acres
for shopping center. Location: 1-494 and Highway #5 at the
intersection of Prairie Center Drive. (Ordinance No. 4-86 -
Rezoning from Rural to C-Regional-Service; Resolution No. 86-10 -
Preliminary Plat)
C. THE FARM by Countryside Investments. Request for Rezoning from
Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 22.5 acres into 44 lots
and one outlot. Location: North of Duck Lake Trail, east of King
of Glory Church. (Ordinance No. 5-86 - Rezoning from Rural to
R1-13.5; Resolution No. 86-20 - Preliminary Plat)
D. ALPINE VILLAGE by Herlitz Construction. Request for Rezoning from
R1 -22 to for 8.23 acres and Preliminary Plat of 8.23 acres
into 17 lots. Location: East of Alpine Trail, south of Chicago,
Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. (Ordinance No. 6-86 -
Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5; Resolution No. 86-23 - Preliminary
Plat)
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 25145 - 25380
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIONS REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
1. Leaf Recycling (continued from 12/3/85)
C. Report of City Attorney
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Page 270
Page 284
Page 291
Page 300
Page 306
TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1985
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
EDEN PRAIRIE
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
7:00 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING BOARDROOM
Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George
Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul Redpath
City Manager Carl J. Jullie; Assistant to the
City Manager Craig Dawson; City Attorney Roger
Pauly; City Attorney Rick Rosow; Finance
Director John Frane; Planning Director Chris
Enger; Community Services Director Robert
Lambert; Public Works Director Eugene A.
Dietz, and Acting Recording Secretary Kate
Karnas
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: All members were present.
(The following set of Council minutes have been transcribed in the order of
the agenda for purposes of simplicity of the record.)
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Anderson requested the addition of an item to the agenda, Discussion of the
Off-Ramp from Valley View Road to the Topview Neighborhood.
Peterson requested that a time be set for performance review of the City
Manager as August 1, 1985.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Agenda and Other
Items of Business as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously.
II. Minutes of City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 7, 1985
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Minutes of the City
Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 7, 1985, as published and with the following
changes: Page 3, second paragraph be amended to read, "so they might be aware
of the extent of the potential for construction problems;" and Page 7, Item B,
third paragraph be amended to read "reversing the decision of an advisory
Board." Motion carried unanimously.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Set Tuesday, August 6, 1985, 6:001211„ for a Joint Meeting
with the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
_7;37
City Council Minutes 2 July 2, 1985
B. Approve plans and specifications for Preserve Boulevard
improvements and authorize bids to be received -Kaillif-T,
1985, I.C. 52=D71 (Resolution No. 837158)
C. Authorize preparation of feasibility report for Technology
UFWT6ifWeen Purgatory Creek and Prairie Center Drive, I.C.
52-010U-Mg6lution No. 85-1591--
D. Final Plat approval . for Bryant Lake Business Center 2nd
AUUTDOTIltesolution No. 85-1617 ---
E. Final 1984 Budget (Resolution No. 85-167)
F. CITY WEST RETAIL CENTER. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #111-84, ITEN District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial
for 7.29 acres for service uses; Approval of Developer's
Agreement for City West Retail Center; and Adoption of Reso-
lution No. 85-155, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 111-
84 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. (Retail, 200-
seat restaurant, health club, fast food restaurant, and gas/
station/convenience store). Location: Southeast corner of
Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway.
G. Change Order No. 4 - Grading at Franlo and Eden Valley Park
H. Resolution No. 85-165 Restricting Parking on Valley View Road
between CSAFT and Edenvale Boulevard
I. Resolution No. 85-166 Requesting Variance from State Aid
Standards for ViTTirView Road
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve items A-I on the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Beginning at 7:30 PM)
(NOTE: The following two public hearings were held concurrently and opened
simultaneously by the Council.)
A. WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES INC. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment for approximately 313 acres;
rezoning of approximately 14.44 acres in the Rural District
to a district created specifically to allow the establishment
of a temporary landfill or rezoning to a district presently
Identified in the Zoning Code by amending the permitted use
section of such district to allow the operation of a temporary
landfill; Development Stage approval for approximately 313
acres; and authorize an expansion of area to be used for
sanitary landfill purposes from approximately 107.1 acres to
approximately 148.9 acres. Location: Southeast of Flying
City Council Minutes 3 July 2, 1985
Cloud Drive-In Theater. (Ordinance No. 4-85 - Rezoning;
Resolution No. 85-162 - PUD Concept and Development Stage
Approval) Continued Public Hearing from June 18, 1985.
8. WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICES INC. to amend Chapter 11 of the
City Code to rezone approximately 149 acres described below
from the Rural District to a District which permits its use
first, landfill, and second, Public-Recreational and
Industrial uses; and to amend the City Comprehensive Guide
Plan to designate approximately 149 acres for Public-
Recreational/Industrial Uses. Location: Southeast of Flying
Cloud Drive-In Theater. (Ordinance No. 24-85 - Rezoning;
Resolution No. 85-163 - Amending Comprehensive Guide Plan)
City Attorney Pauly stated that Item IV. A. was a public hearing continued
from the June 18, 1985, City Council meeting and that Item IV. B. was a
public hearing on an additional request by Woodlake Sanitary Services (WSS)
relating to rezoning and a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. City Attorney
Pauly stated that he had spoken with the proponents and agreed that these
two matters could be coordinated and heard as one matter and that evidence
and information which was introduced and supplied to the City Council at
their June 18, 1985, meeting could apply to both items. Mr. Dick Nowlin,
representing WSS concurred with City Attorney Pauly's statement.
Mayor Peterson asked if it would be necessary to differentiate between the
two matters during the the process of the hearing(s). City Attorney Pauly
stated that it would not be necessary.
Mr. Nowlin referred the Council to his letter of June 28, 1985, requesting
that the hearing go forward but that the overall action not be taken on
these items at this meeting due to the confusion created about final grades
and elevations by the Metropolitan Council by their action on June 21, 1985.
Mr. Nowlin asked that the proponents be allowed to return to the August 1,
1985 Council meeting for a final action on these items.
Mr. Nowlin discussed the action of the Metropolitan Council. He stated that
their action created confusion as to how the processed waste and unprocessed
waste restrictions would be incorporated. In terms of volume of each to be
placed in the landfill, Mr. Nowlin stated that it would be difficult to
predict by the dates set by the Metropolitan Council, what the volumes of
these two types of waste would be, and therefore, difficult to determine
what final grades would be for the property. He stated that he felt it was
essential to have a concept for the final grade of the property and a final
"cap" plan in order to allow to the City to review the impacts with some
certainty. Mr. Nowlin noted that the Metropolitan Council had placed a
closing date of January 1, 1996, for the landfill, adding that that date
would be complied with by WSS, resulting in a 10.5 year expansion of the
landfill use on this property.
Mr. Nowlin stated that, in proponents view, the use was a public/quasi-
City Council Minutes 4 July 2, 1985
public use since WSS was required to accept waste from everyone. He
compared this to a public utility as an example. He stated that there was
no question that a landfill was a construction-like activity and that it had
aspects of an industrial use, which was one of the proponents' reasons for
requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment for the property. Mr.
Nowlin emphasized the fact that compatibility with adjacent uses would be
preserved, in particular with the single family residential use to the east.
He noted that the landfill operations would be 900-1,000 feet away from the
closest unit. In addition, he stated that the elevation of the perimeter of
the landfill would be higher than the residential subdivision. He stated
that there was a large distance proposed as a transition to the Hillsboro
neighborhood to the northeast, acknowledging that this did not prevent
impact from the landfill operations upon the Hillsboro neighborhood. Mr.
Nowlin stated that he felt that the regulatory controls which would be
placed on the landfill operation would work to mitigate these impacts. Mr.
Nowlin stated that the proponents intended to prepare a traffic impact
analysis, which would also be dependent upon the final grades of the
property. He stated that until proponents had the final information
necessary to complete the final grading plan, it would not be possible to
predict how many truck loads of material would be brought into the site.
Mr. Nowlin stated that one other issue that proponents would be dealing with
would be property value compensation to the residential neighbors of the
landfill.
Mayor Peterson asked Mr. Nowlin what had happened at the Metropolitan
Council's meeting of June 21, 1985, that was new, or different, to the point
that proponents were asking for continuance of the City's decision until
after the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) acted, what had occurred to
precipitate a change in the order of the proceedings regarding their
expansion request.
Mr. Nowlin explained that it was the fact that the Metropolitan Council had
placed a restriction of using processed waste, only, in the landfill after a
certain point in time. He stated that the potential environmental impact of
processed waste was not known. Mr. Nowlin added that proponents were also
concerned about the coordination of the placement of processed and
unprocessed waste with the phasing plans, which had been incorporated into
the Draft Permit recommendation of the PCA. He stated that the question was
where to place the processed waste, whether it would be better located in
the vertical, or the horizontal, portion of the proposed expansion of the
landfill. Mr. Nowlin noted that it was his understanding that the PCA saw
conflict between the Draft Permit and the Metropolitan Council
recommendation; therefore, the PCA was intending to recommend a "contested
case hearing" to review this issue.
Redpath asked if there was opportunity for input to the PCA's decision.
City Attorney Rick Rosow stated that the City would have a similar
opportunity to offer information to the PCA as it had to the Metropolitan
Council. He stated that he had spoken with members of the PCA staff and had
,;11
City Council Minutes 5 July 2, 1985
been informed that they would be recommending a "contested case hearing,"
which would take approximately two or three months.
Bentley asked the advice of the City Attorney as to whether the primary
issue before the City Council was land use at this time. City Attorney
Pauly responded that it was. He asked the City Attorney if there was
anything which would occur at the PCA review level that would significantly
change the issue of land use from what had already been submitted. City
Attorney Pauly responded that he did not believe there was anything
significant in this regard.
Mr. Robert Glebs, RMT, Inc., consultant for the proponents, stated that he
had been retained by the proponents to design a leachate collection system
and landfill liner for the property. He stated that the City should be
aware that all landfills produce leachate and that all leachate liners have
the potential for leakage. There were no 100% guarantees in such an
operation. Mr. Glebs stated that the efficiency of any landfill was judged
by how much leachate would be produced and the amount of infiltration of
that leachate which would occur. He pointed out that 95-98% of the leachate
produced by any landfill could be diverted with proper design, but that the
rest would likely leak through the liner of the landfill. Mr. Glebs pointed
out that this leakage would occur very slowly over a long period of time.
Mr. Glebs continued his explanation, stating that there was little run-off
from the site, itself; therefore, almost all the rainwater falling on the
site was forming leachate. He stated that a three-foot thick clay liner on
top of the landfill would be appropriate to prevent the rainwater from
filtering into the waste material. He also explained that it would be
possible to place a clay liner on the bottom of a landfill; however, he
preferred the liner on top of the landfill as cracks or damage could be more
easily seen and repaired when necessary. Mr. Glebs stated that, with a
three-foot thick clay liner "cap" it should be possible to divert
approximately 80% of any rainfall on the property. He noted that the best
of all possible situations would be to have a clay liner on the top and
bottom of any landfill site.
Redpath stated that he could understand that placing a liner on the bottom
of the landfill prior to fill would be ideal. He asked what would happen in
the case of a staged process. Mr. Glebs responded that it would be
difficult to predict what freezing weather in this climate would do to a
liner which was installed by a phased process.
Mr. Glebs then explained the proposed leachate collection system for the
landfill. It would consist of a series of pipes at a two per cent slope,
collecting leachate in basins, which would be cleaned out on an annual
basis, or more frequently, if needed. Monitors for detection of leachate
would be part of the system, as well.
Redpath stated that the collection system sounded like a reasonable system.
He asked what would happen if the system became plugged after a period of
City Council Minutes 6 July 2, 1985
time. Mr. Nowlin responded that there would be a 20-year post closure
bonding requirement for the monitoring system.
Bentley stated that the request of the proponents indicated that
approximately 56% of the total acre feet of expansion was proposed on the
existing site for purposes of vertical expansion, which left 44% of the
proposed expansion to occur in a horizontal fashion. He stated that it
seemed obvious that the only area which would be covered by such a
collection and monitoring system would be the horizontal expansion area. He
questioned whether it would be possible to have an adequate monitoring
system installed for the existing portion of the landfill, as well as for
the vertical expansion area proposed. Mr. Glebs stated that they could try
to design a system for both areas of proposed expansion.
Peterson asked where the leachate would be located, if it was not in the
fill area. Mr. Gleb stated that the leachate would then be in the sandy
soils around and under the site of the fill.
Anderson asked where and how the leachate migrated from the landfill. Mr.
Glebs stated that the leachate would migrate through the sandy soils into
the ground water, and then be discharged to the Minnesota River.
Peterson asked if there was data available which proved that the leachate
did, in fact, migrate to the Minnesota River. Mr. Glebs responded that the
data available indicated that this was the case. Peterson asked if it was
possible to measure the amount of leachate which was entering the Minnesota
River. Mr. Glebs responded that the only locations which currently existed
where leachate could be measured were within the wells surrounding the
landfill site. The measurements in these locations would not indicate how
much leachate was entering the Minnesota River, according to Mr. Glebs.
Anderson asked if it was possible that the leachate was reaching the
Minnesota River via springs underground.
Peterson asked if the studies of the landfill available at the University of
Minnesota indicated any data regarding the existence, or migration patterns,
of leachate into the Minnesota River. Mr. Glebs stated that this
information had not been collected.
Bentley asked if the information available had been based on the
gravitational flow of ground water. Mr. Glebs responded that this was the
case. Bentley asked if this took into consideration the impact of unnatural
draws on the ground water flow, such as wells. Mr. Glebs stated that this
was taken into consideration and that the information still indicated that
the ground water flows towards the Minnesota River. Mr. Glebs noted that
the deeper City wells penetrated the ground even deeper into the Prairie
DuChein and Jordan aquifers.
City Council Minutes 7 July 2, 1985
Bentley asked whether it was true that leachate would continue to work its
way down to deeper and deeper levels of the ground as time passed. Mr.
Glebs stated that this was not the case, but that generally speaking, the
leachate would fallow the path of the ground water flow. He noted that the
ground water discharge to the Minnesota River was substantial and massive,
stating that the movement of ground water was really a perpetually moving
system.
Peterson asked who would be responsible for the construction of the liners
for the landfill. Mr. Glebs stated that his firm had been hired for the
construction review and phasing of the project. He stated that his firm
would intend to have registered engineers and soils technicians available
throughout all phases of the construction process, in order to document that
the construction was taking place according to approved plans.
Peterson asked how the consultants would deal with the leachate from the
proposed new portion of the landfill or from the existing portion of the
landfill. Mr. Glebs responded that leachate detection systems would be
installed under the liners. He added that flowage monitors would also be
installed.
Peterson stated that he assumed that there would be some type of material
placed on top of the fill and he asked how damage could be detected through
the materials. Mr. Glebs stated that a number of monitoring devices would
be placed within the clay liner for the purpose of detecting cracks,
settling, or any changes in the placement of the liner. Mr. Glebs stated
that a maintenance program would also be initiated and followed. He noted
that the majority of settling, if any, would take place within the first
five years after installation of the liner. Mr. Glebs stated that no
equipment could be allowed on top of the clay liner due to the potential for
damage to the liner.
Anderson asked how the City could be assured that heavy equipment would not
be operated on top of the liner. Mr. Glebs responded that WSS would be the
responsible for seeing that this did not happen. He stated that WSS would
be required to correct any mistakes in this regard. Anderson asked how the
City would know whether any mistakes had been made. Mr. Glebs responded
that changes would be detected in the monitoring systems. He stated that it
would not be in the best interests of WSS to let mistakes go uncorrected
because they would be making a very large investment in this system.
Anderson stated that the amount of money WSS invested was not a matter of
concern, as, eventually, they would vacate the site. He stated that he felt
it would be the City that would be left with any problems created. Anderson
stated that he felt the City, or possibly the Pollution Control Agency,
should be involved in inspections of the liner to guarantee compliance.
Pidcock asked if there had been studies conducted showing how much leachate
there was in existing wells near the landfill currently. Mr. Glebs stated
that this would be done in the future through the monitoring process. It
would be a continuous study.
,g1L1
City Council Minutes 8 July 2, 1985
Pidcock asked why the City had not seen any data on what had happened so far
in terms of amount of leachate migration, etc. Mr. Nowlin responded that
part of the information that was available had been submitted to the RCA and
-part of it had been used in preparation of the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). He stated that the information in the EIS regarding
leachate was summarized from the original data collected.
Redpath concurred with Anderson regarding the need for guarantees in
monitoring of the landfill. Mr. Glebs stated that his firm had suggested to
other communities in these situations that they have someone present for the
first few days of the operation of the landfill and then on a regular basis,
who would report back to the City directly.
Anderson stated that the City had received over 200 complaints regarding
noise, litter, and odors from the existing landfill. He stated that WSS was
now asking the City to accept their intentions of "good faith" in terms of
handling these issues in the future, but that there had been no evidence of
WSS being able to handle the complaints they had received so far. Anderson
stated that he did not feel he could accept the "good faith" intentions of
WSS and be a responsible member of the City Council, knowing how the
complaints had been handled in the past by WSS.
Pidcock stated that the 200 complaints Anderson mentioned were the ones
which had been documented. She questioned how many had not be documented,
and she concurred that the City should look for stronger guarantees from WSS
in terms of monitoring of the landfill.
Mr. Nowlin stated that WSS was guilty of not responding to the extensive
list of complaints. He stated that WSS believed it was doing the best job
possible. He added that WSS was not simply asking the City to trust them.
He pointed out that the RCA would be requiring a separate, independent
monitoring agency to monitor the landfill operations for them. Mr. Nowlin
stated that WSS would welcome the presence of a City inspector. He added
that under similar circumstances in the city of Medina, the Medina had hired
an inspector and a hydrologist strictly for the purpose of monitoring the
landfill operations and reporting to the City.
Pidcock asked what the estimated payback period would be for the investment
WSS would be making in this proposed landfill expansion. Mr. Nowlin stated
that he could not respond.
City Attorney Pauly asked about the proposed design of the new portion of
the landfill. Mr. Glebs responded that the design was done based on the
best available information in the country. City Attorney Pauly asked
whether it would be preferrable to first determine the specific direction
and location of the ground water flow prior to location, or expansion, of a
landfill. Mr. Glehs responded that this would be the best possible case.
Pidcock asked how much time it would take to build the proposed liner. Mr.
City Council Minutes 9 July 2, 1985
Glebs responded that it would take between 30-60 days, depending upon
weather and the location of the clay necessary to build the liner.
Peterson asked how many acre feet of fill, or capacity, had been approved
for the existing landfill. Mr. Nowlin responded that WSS had received
approval for 5,621 acre feet. Peterson asked how close WSS was to meeting
that level of fill. Mr. Nowlin responded that they were very close, but
that he would not be able to answer specifically how close until a set of
aerial photos, which had been taken recently, were analyzed. He stated that
WSS estimated that the capacity would be reached some time in July, 1985.
Mr. Nowlin added that WSS would be applying to the PCA for a permit
expansion of the landfill on a temporary basis until this matter was
settled. He stated that the problem was being created by the inordinate
amount of time this process was taking; what should have taken one year had,
so far, taken four years to this point in time. Mr. Nowlin stated that WS5
was trying to respond to all requests for information as promptly as
possible.
Peterson asked if it was the intention of WSS to operate beyond the
permitted capacity currently approved for the landfill. Mr. Nowlin stated
that it was their intention to apply for a permit to do so.
City Attorney Pauly stated that records indicated that the applicant first
applied for expansion in 1982; however, during the process of that
application being considered, it was determined that the total area which
was filled had already exceeded the permitted capacity of the landfill. Mr.
Nowlin stated that he disagreed that the permitted capacity had been
exceeded previously.
Assistant City Attorney Richard Rosow reported that he had asked Mr. Nowlin
the same questions about the PCA permit. He stated that Mr. Nowlin
responded that WSS would continue filling after the capacity was reached.
Assistant City Attorney Rosow stated that he then asked the PCA what would
happen if the permitted capacity of the landfill was reached prior to
issuance of a permit for expansion. The response of the PCA was that a
temporary permit could be applied for by WSS. Assistant City Attorney Rosow
stated that he asked what regulations, or rules, existed which would allow
for this. He stated that he was told that he would have a response to that
question by July 23, 1985. Assistant City Attorney Rosow stated that he had
asked the same questions of Hennepin County regarding the permit required by
their agency. He reported that Hennepin County staff informed him that they
would not issue another permit; however, they did not expect WSS would
discontinue filling when their permit with Hennepin County expired.
Anderson stated that there had been more than the expected number of heavy
rainfalls in the past few years. He asked how much rainfall the cap would
be designed to handle at any time. Mr. Glebs responded that the cap was
designed to handle a 100-year storm. He noted that, under the worst
conditions, the cover over the cap may become slightly damaged by the
rainfall, but that the cap should remain safe, in place, and not be damaged
City Council Minutes 10 July 2, 1985
by any rainfall. The cover could be repaired, if, and as, necessary.
Anderson asked if Mr. Glebs was aware of any such landfills located on
slopes similar to those of the Minnesota River banks, adjacent to the
existing landfill. Mr. Glebs stated that he was aware of landfills located
near 2-to-1 slopes. He pointed out that maintenance would be necessary, and
that part of his firm's responsibility was to work out a maintenance plan
for such situations.
Ms. Judy Giddings, 12510 Sandy Point Road, expressed concern about leachate
in the Minnesota River and asked how it could be prevented. Mr. Nowlin
stated that it was a requirement that WSS institute a monitoring program for
this purpose in this area, according to the recommendations of the EIS.
Mr. Shaun Sikrani, 12055 Oxbow Drive, asked if WSS was planning to come up
with an end use for the landfill. He expressed concern, also, about a small
creek running behind his home and asked if leachate was infiltrating to the
creek, northeast of the landfill, as well. Mr. Glebs responded that it did
not appear that leachate was migrating to the northeast based on the data
available. Mr. Sikrani asked who would pay for an inspector for the
landfill, if one was hired. Mr. Nowlin responded that the citizens would
pay for such an inspector.
Mr. Sikrani asked about the cap for the landfill and whether it would be for
the existing portion of the landfill, or the proposed expansion. Mr. Glebs
responded that a cap would be designed for both areas, but that a landfill
liner would be designed for the proposed expansion area.
Mr. Sikrani asked about compensation to surrounding property owners. He
stated that he would like more information about this from WSS. He
suggested that the Council consider restitution as a requirement of any
action taken on the landfill.
Mr. Tim Holmes, 10391 Greyfield Court, stated that he did not feel the
proposed plans adequately protected the ground water in the area. He
expressed concern about land use of the property, as well. Mr. Holmes noted
that the expansion of this landfill may eliminate the need for the
Washington and Anoka County landfills proposed for the future, which were to
be designed based upon new requirements. He stated that he did not feel it
was appropriate for this landfill, not designed to meet current standards,
to be expanded, or continue in operation.
Mr. Holmes noted that there had been four major fires in the existing
portion of the landfill. He stated that the wells on the property dil not
have enough capacity to handle the fires and expressed concern about the
safety of this situation. Mr. Holmes expressed concern about the number of
trucks that would be occupying the site, removing soil from the landfill
property. He stated that he felt this would cause alot of noise and
traffic. Mr. Holmes also questioned whether the proposed 15 ft. high berm
around the proposed expansion area of the landfill would infringe upon any
7
City Council Minutes 11 July 2, 1985
solar rights of the residents adjacent to the landfill.
Mr. Holmes stated that the Freeway Landfill had not been approved for
expansion due to its close proximity to the Minnesota River. He questioned
-why this landfill was even being considered for expansion, based on its
proximity to the Minnesota River. Redpath stated that he was aware that the
Freeway Landfill was subject to flooding from the Minnesota River, which was
not the case with this landfill.
Mr. Matt Tofanelli, 12400 Jack Pine Court, asked about leachate production
from the existing portion of the landfill and what was being done to take
care of it. Mr. Glebs responded that installation of a cap on the landfill
would eliminate approximately 80% of the leachate production from this
portion of the landfill. He noted that the remaining 20% would continue to
migrate through the bottom of the landfill.
Mr. Gerald McGraw, 12115 Oxbow Drive, stated that he was concerned about the
construction of the liner. He stated that the noise at the landfill
currently was loud enough to keep his family awake. He asked if
construction would be allowed to take place at night. Mr. Nowlin responded
that work would not be allowed at night. He stated that he was aware that
the City had certain requirements for the times of day that construction
could take place and that WSS would operate within those requirements.
Mr. Pete Sydowski, 12094 Chesholm Lane, stated that he was concerned that
WSS was stating that they would ignore existing regulations and continue
filling after expiration of their existing permit.
Mr. Andrew Detroi, 10395 Greyfield Court, suggested that there may be other
areas for this use that were not in such close proximity to existing
residential areas. He expressed concern that WSS was seemingly changing the
rules at this point in time, pointing out that the residents expected that
the landfill would have been closed in 1982.
Bentley stated that the City had not yet heard from the proponents why the
issue of land use currently before the Council should be continued, instead
of acted upon, at this point in time. Mr. Nowlin stated that the action of
the Metropolitan Council regarding the type of waste to be allowed in
various portions of the landfill, existing and proposed expansion areas, had
caused confusion as to what the final grades would look like for this
property. He stated that City Staff had been requesting a final grading
plan in order to determine what the highest and best end use of the property
would be. Mr. Nowlin stated that, based on the action of the Metropolitan
Council, it would be difficult to determine what the final grades would be
and, therefore, difficult to inform the City what final grades they would be
working with in terms of an end land use for the property. He stated that
WSS was asking for more time to determine the impact of the Metropolitan
Council's action on the final grade of the landfill propert y, which would
then be provided to the City for along with WSS's proposal for an
appropriate end use. Mr. Nowlin stated that it would be possible that,
City Council Minutes 12 July 2, 1985
after ten years, there would be a depression in the topography of this area
based on the requirements of the Metropolitan Council.
Bentley stated that it was extremely difficult for the City to deal with
this issue with the "wait and see" attitudes that appeared to be coming from
the proponents, the Metropolitan Council, and the PCA. He pointed out that
these parties all wanted decisions from the City based on inadequate and
incomplete information, and that he did not feel it was fair that the City
was being asked to act without this information. He stated that it would be
the City that would be left to deal with the final results of what was
approved on this site, not the proponents, the Metropolitan Council, or the
PCA.
Bentley expressed concern that the Metropolitan Council was not backing its
own policy regarding expansion of landfills only for processed waste, but
rather changed its policy when this request for landfill expansion was
presented to it. He added that the siting committee of Hennepin County, of
which he had been a member, had determined, also, that any request for
expansion of a landfill should only be considered based upon the same
criteria as siting of any new landfills, which was not being followed
through in this situation.
Bentley asked for pros and cons relative to granting a continuance at this
time. City Attorney Pauly stated that, if the proponents had a request for
continuance supported by showing that the proponent would produce further
evidence, or relevant materials, regarding the land use question, then the
continuance may be in order. He continued, stating that, if the Council did
not feel the proponents could produce such information, then action on the
item, instead of continuance, may be in order.
Peterson asked if cap elevations and proposed vegetation on top of the cap
would be part of any information provided in the future by the proponents.
Mr. Nowlin responded that he would make sure that information was available.
City Attorney Pauly stated that the question remained as to why these issues
were not addressed earlier. He pointed out that the City had been placed in
a position of having to act expeditiously and had done so. Mr. Nowlin
stated that with the original application, proponents felt they knew what
the final cap would look like. He stated that the change was that the
action of the Metropolitan Council was such that the design of the final cap
elevations may be significantly different than originally thought of by the
proponents. City Attorney Pauly asked Mr. Nowlin if proponents felt that
this revision of the final cap plan would be reasonably likely to have an
effect on the end use considerations of the property. Mr. Nowlin stated
that he felt the end use would likely still be recreational, but that the
type of recreational uses may significantly change. He added that it could
have a greater impact on off-site surrounding uses in terms of traffic,
noise, dust, litter, etc.
Assistant City Attorney Rosow asked Mr. Nowlin if he was suggesting that the
City Council Minutes 13 July 2, 1985
impact could be worse than what the EIS suggested in its "worst case"
scenario. Mr. Nowlin stated that he did not think this was the case.
Assistant City Attorney Rosow asked if it was anticipated that the cap would
reach a higher elevation than 923. Mr. Nowlin responded that this may be
the case in some spots around the landfill property.
City Attorney Pauly asked if one of the alternatives the proponents would
consider would be to use the excess soils from the property to shut down the
vertical expansion of the landfill currently proposed. Mr. Nowlin responded
that proponents did not know, now, what materials would be necessary from
off the site, based on the action of the Metropolitan Council.
Assistant City Attorney Rosow asked if the current landfill was in a
condition such that, upon reaching the permitted capacity for the landfill,
it could have a cap placed on it and the commitments to the City could be
fulfilled. Mr. Nowlin responded that WSS would try to fulfill its
commitments to the City. He noted that the closure plan would require
importing a substantial amount of material.
Assistant City Attorney Rosow asked if WSS would be willing to cap the
existing landfill in accordance with the state of the art type of cap
discussed at this meeting. Mr. Nowlin responded that it would be to WSS's
advantage to do so because they would not want to be in the position of
having to clean up any ground water contamination that may occur.
City Attorney Pauly stated that, at the last meeting, proponents had
mentioned that they would be producing additional evidence about surrounding
land values and information about mitigation of this problem which may be
caused by the landfill. He asked Mr. Nowlin if WSS contemplated some
proposal regarding mitigation of any potential diminution of value of the
surrounding properties. Mr. Nowlin stated that WSS had maintained all
through this process that they would be willing to work out this problem,
and they would continue to do so. He stated that part of the request for
continuance would include a request for time to provide additional
information in this regard, as well.
Assistant City Attorney Rosow stated that the City's consultant on the EIS,
GME, Inc., had recommendations to offer regarding the request for expansion.
One of the recommendations was for clustering of the wells. He asked if WSS
would be willing to install clustered monitoring wells now until the new
Draft Permit was ready from the PCA. Mr. Nowlin stated that he was unable
to commit for WSS in this matter. He stated that WSS did agree that wells
were needed.
Assistant City Attorney Rosow stated that in 1973 there had been an
agreement signed by WSS wherein they had agreed not to ask for any rezoning
until such time as the site was serviced by public utilities. He asked if
there was a land use reason why that agreement should not be honored at this
time. Mr. Nowlin responded that one of the recommendations of the EIS was
that WSS provide public water to the site. He stated that he was unaware of
City Council Minutes
14 July 2, 1985
the agreement mentioned and asked that a copy be forwarded to his office.
City Attorney Pauly asked how long of a continuance WSS was requesting. Mr.
Nowlin responded that proponents would like to try to present the
information at the August 6, 1985, meeting of the City Council.
Bentley asked for the City Attorney's opinion as to whether a continuance
would give a clearer picture of the land use question, or whether it would
simply belabor the matter. City Attorney Pauly stated that City Staff had
been requesting some of this information regarding the cap for some time,
and that it appeared that the proponent recognized the significance of that
information. He stated that he felt a continuance may be warranted. He
added that there were some conditions that needed to be worked out.
City Attorney Pauly stated that, under PCA rules, the City Council was
required to have acted within 90 days of the completion of the EIS.
Currently, that deadline had been extended to July 16, 1985. He stated that
the City would ask for an extension of that time to a point beyond the
August 6, 1985, meeting, extending some time into the Fall, 1985. He
pointed out that City Staff would need adequate time to review any plans
presented by the proponents and to formulate a recommendation to the City
Council. City Attorney Pauly suggested extension to October 1, 1985. He
pointed out that this did not mean that it would have to take this long, but
that it would provide flexibility for adequate review time. Mr. Nowlin
stated that this would be acceptable.
City Attorney Pauly stated that City Staff would like to have the plans for
the final contours by August 1, 1985, if the proponents would want to be
continued to August 6, 1985, or to have to option to postpone the item to
another meeting for purposes of allowing adequate time for review. Mr.
Nowlin stated that they would endeavor to meet this deadline.
Peterson asked why October 1, 1985, was suggested as a time for extension of
the deadline for the City to act. City Attorney Pauly responded that City
Staff felt it may be necessary to have the additional time, depending upon
when the revised plans were received and to allow for determination of how
the information provided may impact the City. City Attorney Pauly stated
that this would only require a motion to continue to August 6, 1985, at this
time, since Mr. Nowlin had agreed to the October 1, 1985, extension of time
for the City to act.
Redpath asked if it would be necessary to return this item to the Planning
Commission for additional review. City Attorney Pauly stated that it would
not.
Anderson suggested that it may be wise to set a special meeting in order to
provide adequate public forum for this item and in order to provide adequate
public forum to any other items which may be scheduled for the August 6,
1985, meeting on a regular basis.
Z41
City Council Minutes 15 July 2, 1985
MOTION was made by Redpath, seconded by Anderson, to continue this item to a
special meeting of the Council to be held August 13, 1985, at 7:30 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0-0.
C. FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR TECHNOLOGY DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS FROM
WALLACE ROAD TO CPT, I.C. 52-010A (Resolution #85-160)
Public Works Director Dietz explained that there had been an error in the
public hearing notice for this item. He noted that corrections could be
made in order to hold the public hearing on August 20, 1985.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to continue the public hearing
regarding improvement to Technology Drive to the August 20, 1985, City
Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
D. REQUEST BY PARKWAY APARTMENTS PARTNERSHIP FOR MULTI-FAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,000,000 (Resolu-
tion No. 85-164)
City Manager Jullie stated that notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and referred to information provided Council members regarding the
offering prospectus.
Bentley asked about the $115,000 allocation for equipment. He noted that
the City had not previously included items with a life span of less than
fifteen years in such bonding approvals. He stated that he was concerned
that the City have a fall-back position, if necessary.
Mr. Ron Kellner, representing proponents, stated that the majority of the
equipment involved in this sum included heating plant equipment and
equipment for elevators. He noted that washers total $35,000 overall for
the project, and that the remainder of the $115,000 was for other equipment.
Mr. Kellner stated that the developer would be including $2,500,000 of their
own money, which was satisfactory to the bankers involved in the $19,500,000
project.
Peterson asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience.
There were none.
Redpath asked about changing the line item on the application to reflect the
equipment for heating, air conditioning and elevators, taking it out of
construction.
Pidcock asked if clustering the costs was the usual way to handle these
matters. Finance Director Frane stated splitting the costs would also be
appropriate, eliminating this from the construction line item.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution #85-164,
adopting a housing bond program for the issuance of multifamily housing
;22.
City Council Minutes 16 July 2, 1985
revenue bonds for the Parkway Apartments project and authorizing submission
of same to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Motion carried
unanimously.
E. THE GARDEN, by Hakon and Karen Torjesen. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.16 acres and Preliminary
Plat for 10.16 acres into 25 single family lots. Location: North
of Rowland Road, West of Shady Oak Road. (Ordinance No. 23-85 -
Rezoning; Resolution No. 85-157 - Preliminary Plat)
City Manager Jullie stated that notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified.
Mr. Tim Erkilla, Westwood Planning and Engineering, representing proponents,
reviewed the proposed development with the Council. He noted that no more
than twelve trees over twelve inches in diameter would be removed from the
site by the proposed grading plan. He also noted that the existing house at
the southwest portion of the property would be remaining.
Planning Director Enger reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation from
their meeting of April 22, 1985, noting that the major concerns included the
impact upon future development by neighbors to this development. He stated
that the request had been reduced to 23 lots in order to allow for larger
lot frontages and to preserve more trees. Planning Director Enger noted
that one of the most significant items of concern for this project was the
access point at Rowland Road. It had been determined by Staff that adequate
sight vision distance did not currently exist; therefore, proponents would
be working with City Staff to realign Rowland Road in this area.
Community Services Director Lambert noted that the Parks, Recreation, and
Natural Resources Commission had reviewed the plans at their meeting of June
17, 1985, and recommended approval per the Planning Staff report. He noted
that the majority of the discussion at the meeting involved the proposed
trail. He stated that the Commission concluded that additional trails would
not improve the design of the project and would also involve the removal of
more trees from the property.
Community Services Director Lambert stated that there was also concern about
access to the park north of the Carmel neighborhood, located to the west of
this site. He noted that the only access currently available would be via
Rowland Road, then through the Carmel neighborhood. He pointed out that the
County did not have a trail system which would aid this connection, either.
He added that the Commission had recommended that there be wide shoulders on
the road, once constructed, with an eight-foot wide asphalt trail along one
site to provide for access to Bryant Lake Park. Community Services Director
Lambert stated that the possibility of these improvements taking place was
likely slim because it the road would not be upgraded to more than a rural
section for some time.
Redpath asked if there was any way to substantially improve the access to
City Council Minutes 17 July 2, 1985
the development from Rowland Road. Planning Director Enger stated that by
moving the road alignment approximately 100 ft. to the northwest, the sight
vision distance problem would be corrected.
Bentley asked who would be responsible for implementation of this
realignment. Planning Director Enger stated that this would be the sole
responsibility of the developer, at the developer's expense. Bentley asked
if this would require closing the road. Planning Director Enger stated that
it was not anticipated that the road would require closure, but that it was
possible. These issues would need to be settled by the time of second
reading for this development.
Anderson asked if any plans had been submitted reflecting a change to the
entrance to Bryant Lake Park. Community Services Director Lambert stated
that there had been no such plans for several years. He noted that the
access to the park would be across from the access point to the proposed
development.
Anderson asked if the City Staff had reviewed the trail development plans
for this area with Hennepin County Staff. Community Services Director
Lambert stated that this had not been done recently. Anderson suggested
that this be done soon, considering the amount of development taking place
in this area.
Planning Director Enger pointed out that the access points for Bryant Lake
Park and for the Garden were not directly across from each other, but offset
by approximately 100 ft. at this time by design. He stated that it may be
possible that the County would alter this in the future and directly align
the park access across from the access to this development. Anderson asked
if the City was likely to be consulted about an amendment to the access
point in the future, if this was the County's desire. Planning Director
Enger stated that the City would probably be asked for their preference as
to location of such an access.
Anderson questioned how soon upgrading of Rowland Road would be required
based upon the amount of development taking place in this area. City
Manager Jullie stated that the City had requested that the County consider
the upgrading of Rowland Road in its future Capital Improvements Programs.
Public Works Director Dietz stated that the upgrading of the road had not
been included in the County's financial planning at this time.
Anderson asked if there would be trails provided along any upgraded portion
of Rowland Road. Planning Director Enger stated that it was a possibility,
but that it would likely require that the trails be located on Park Reserve
property.
Anderson stated that he would like to see any plans available for upgrading
of the road.
Peterson asked if it was feasible to locate the trail along the north side
City Council Minutes 18 July 2, 1985
of Rowland Road. Community Services Director Lambert stated that this would
be difficult due to the topography along the north side of the road.
Redpath stated that it would be difficult to require trail dedication from
this development when it had not been required of the other developments
located along Rowland Road to the east and west of this property.
Mr. Roger Farber, 6525 Rowland Road, expressed concern about coordinated
development of the entire neighborhood, stating that he did not feel it was
appropriate for each parcel to be developed independently from the others in
this area.
Redpath asked Mr. Farber if he had been able to work out the "land swap"
which had been discussed at the Planning Commission. Mr. Farber stated that
this arrangement had not come to fruition.
Redpath asked Mr. Cliff Bodin, adjacent land owner to the north, if he had
been part of any "land swap" discussions, or considerations. Mr. Bodin
responded that he had not taken part in any such discussions, but that he
agreed, in principal, with the idea of planning for the entire area, not
separately for each individual parcel. He pointed out that a portion of his
property would become completely landlocked, if access to it was not
provided somehow from this development, or from the property to the Farber
property at some point in the future.
Redpath asked Mr. Farber if he felt a solution could be reached between the
parties involved, if the Council were to postpone action on this item for
30-60 days. Mr. Farber stated that he was willing to try.
Mr. Erkilla stated that Mr. Torjesen had informed him that, in the absence
of any one developer who would collect the parcels and develop them as one
piece, or in the absence of any collective plan for the area upon which all
parties could agree, he would ask that the Council take action on this item
at this time. He stated that two such delays had proven unproductive at the
Planning Commission level; therefore, he did not expect that additional time
at this point in the process would be beneficial.
Peterson asked what types of controls the City would have to maintain
development of this parcel as shown, should the Torjesens sell the property
to a developer. He stated that he was particularly concerned about tree
preservation. Planning Director Enger stated that the developer's agreement
would contain strict provisions for tree preservation, along with penalties
for tree removal in unauthorized areas, noting that the agreement was
transferrable to all future owners, assigns, etc. of the property.
Mr. Ed Seiber, 11792 Dunhill Road, expressed concern that the proposed
development was being allowed at a higher density than the development to
the west, where he lived. He stated that he felt more was required of his
development in terms of lot sizes, dedication of park property, etc., than
was being required of this development. Mr. Seiber stated that he was in
City Council Minutes 19 July 2, 1985
favor of the plan, overall.
Bentley stated that he felt that unless the proponent was willing to
continue the item and negotiate, then further discussion along those lines
would be superfluous. He stated that he felt the proponent had a right to a
-decision by the Council, based upon the merits of the proposal.
Anderson asked for the opinion of the City Attorney regarding this issue.
City Attorney Pauly stated that the conclusions about proponent having a
right to a decision by the Council were correct. He stated that, in order
to continue the matter, there had to be a reasonable need for additional
information. It appeared that this was not the case for this item.
Bentley noted that this was only the first reading for the ordinance to
rezone this proposal; therefore, should the neighbors have additional
information, which was significant, they would be able to contact the City
prior to final action by the Council on this item.
Peterson asked about the storm sewer situation in this area. Public Works
Director Dietz stated that the City had reviewed this in detail. He stated
that, while the storm sewer for this entire area was a matter of concern to
the City, the current situation would not be aided, nor hindered, by the
development of this 10-acre parcel at this time. He noted that Staff was
working on a storm sewer plan for the entire area and would continue to do
SO.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing and
to give 1st Reading to Ordinance #22-85, rezoning. Motion carried 4-1-0,
with Anderson voting against. Anderson stated that he felt there were
unanswered questions with respect to storm sewer, trees, upgrading of
Rowland Road, and trails. He stated that he was also concerned about the
"piece-meal" fashion of development that was taking place in this area.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 85-156,
preliminary plat approval. Motion carried 4-0-1, with Anderson abstaining.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff to prepare a
developer's agreement per Council, Commission, and Staff recommendations.
Motion carried 4-0-1, with Anderson abstaining.
F. HAGEN SYSTEMS. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review
on 20 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 Park for 3.02
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 9.78 acres into one lot and two
outlots for an office building. Location: East of City West
Parkway, West of Highway #169. (Ordinance No. 23-85 - Rezoning;
Resolution No. 85-157 - Preliminary Plat)
City Manager Jullie stated that notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified.
22(
City Council Minutes 20 July 2, 1985
Mr. Dave Broesder, KKE Architects, representing proponents, reviewed the
details of the proposal with the Council. Mr. Al Hagen, Hagen Systems,
explained his business to the Council, stating that he currently had 65
employees, which he expected to double within the next few years.
Mr. Broesder explained that soils were poor in the area originally proposed
for the structure as part of Primetech Park; therefore, relocation of the
structure, and reorientation of the site plan was necessary. He also
explained the phasing of the project, which would be a corporate
headquarters for Hagen Systems. Mr. Broesder discussed the right-in, only,
access to the site.
Planning Director Enger discussed the right-in, right-out access, stating
that he felt the proponents and Staff could work out the final details of
this situation prior to second reading.
Bentley asked what the angle of the slope was on the north hill. Mr.
Broesder responded that it was approximately 3-1.
Peterson asked for comments, or questions from members of the audience.
There were none.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 23-85, rezoning. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No. 85-
157, preliminary plat approval. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct Staff to prepare a
developer's agreement per Council, Commission, and Staff recommendations.
Motion carried unanimously.
G. HAMPTON INN, by Eden Prairie Hotel Investors. Request for Zoning
District Change from C-Regional to C-Regional-Service for 2.69
acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for a
hotel. Location: West of Highway #169, South of Valley View Road,
East of Highway #5. (Ordinance No. 24-85 - Rezoning)
City Manager Jullie stated that notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified.
One of the concerns of Staff was that of separating the site from its
required parking spaces. City Code required parking to be located on the
same site as the structure. However, proponents were showing a cross-
parking arrangement with the Residence Inn, with parking for the Hampton Inn
being located across the access drive to both sites. 78 parking spaces were
shown, 52 of which were on the same site as the proposed structure.
Planning Director Enger stated that the Planning Commission had recommended
,2z)
City Council Minutes 21 July 2, 1985
approval of the development, with variances to be reviewed before the Board
of Appeals. He noted that the Commission was concerned about additional
placement of large plant materials on the west side to break up the massive
_look of the structure from the highway. It was also recommended that the
easterly entrance to the Hampton Inn be an "out" condition, only, in order
to allow for proper stacking distance from Highway #169.
Mr. Axel Russell, arcitect for the developer, reviewed the plans in greater
detail. Mr. Wally Hustad, Jr., discussed the parking arrangement. He
reviewed the ownership of the various parcels of property, including the
Residence Inn, the Hampton Inn, and a proposal for Perkins Restaurants,
potential owners of the middle parcel. The middle parcel was shown to be
split by the access road, thereby dividing a portion of its parking from its
structure, as well. City Attorney Pauly asked if the proposed Perkins
development would require the property on the west side of the access road
to meet floor area ratio requirements of the City Code. Mr. Hustad
responded that they would not.
Public Works Director Dietz stated that there could be a technical problem
in terms of review of any subdivision at this time, as the Planning
Commission did not review any such request. Planning Commission review was
required b, 7 4 ty Code.
Bentley stated that he felt it was difficult to determine how much property
was being requested to be rezoned at this time. He asked if the same party
owned all the remaining parcels. Mr. Hustad responded that this was the
case, adding that a subdivision could be forthcoming with the Perkins
proposal.
Redpath stated that he was concerned that this may not be the highest and
best use of the property. He noted that, originally, this was to be a site
for a restaurant, or office. Peterson concurred.
Mr. Ed Bosio, proponent, discussed the proposed site plan in greater detail,
explaining the architectural elements and materials.
Bentley reiterated concern about the specifics of ownership and how much
property was being requested to be rezoned. He questioned whether the site
across from the access road was part of the Hampton Inn proposal, or not.
City Attorney Pauly stated that, in order for Perkins to own the lot on the
west side of the access road, the property w...;uld need to be subdivided,
which would require review by the Planning Commission.
Redpath asked for an explanation of the proposed retaining walls along
Highway #169. Mr. Bosio reviewed the sight sections and explained the
purpose and materials of the retaining walls.
Bentley discussed the type of hotel the Hampton Inn represented as shown by
the Hampton's literature. He asked if the architecture shown in the
City Council Minutes 22 July 2, 1985
brochures was representative of the proposed building. Mr. Bosio responded
that there would be differences.
Mr. Hustad stated that, as property owners, they had previously discussed a
hotel use for this site. He stated that restaurants and offices had been
looked at for this site, but that such users had told the owners that the
site was not conducive for such uses.
Redpath stated that he was concerned about the use proposed. He noted that
it neighboring use, the Residence Inn, was visible from 1-494. He suggested
that perhaps the City should wait longer for the appropriate use to be
proposed for this site.
Mr. Mitch Anderson, Eden Prairie Hotel Investors, stated that proponents had
been looking for a land luse that would be about half of the cost of the
Residence Inn, in order to provide for a complementary hotel use in close
proximity to the Residence Inn. He stated that this site could not support
a hotel/convention center, due to its size. He noted that there would be
alot of landscaping around the hotel.
Pidcock asked if the Hampton Inn was considered a budget hotel. Mr.
Anderson stated that the prices would be approximately $40.00 per night.
Peterson expressed concern about a budget-type hotel being the highest and
best use for the property. Mr. Anderson stated that a similar facility in
Bloomington was charging more money than this development was proposing.
Pidcock stated that she felt this area needed more "up-scale" restaurants.
She questioned whether more negotiation with restaurants might be in order
by the owners of this site in order to obtain the highest and best use of
the property.
Mr. Hustad stated that he did not feel it would be fair to ask the owners of
the property to wait several years to use this site. Mr. Anderson stated
that he felt there were other sites better suited for restaurants in the
area.
Redpath stated that he disagreed, adding that this was the most prominent
site in the area, visible from many locations throughout the City.
Pidcock stated that she felt that other hotels would follow, if a large
hotel was proposed, as happened in the City of Bloomington. She suggested
that the City should wait for this to happen on this property in order to
obtain the highest and best use of the property. Mr. Anderson stated that
there was not enough property available at this location for such a use.
Pidcock asked why a restaurant would not then be appropriate. Mr. Anderson
stated that the land owners had been trying to interest a restaurant in the
site for over one year.
Bentley asked Mr. Anderson what his first choice for a use on this property
n')(1
"4-
City Council Minutes 23 July 2, 1985
would be. Mr. Anderson responded that he would prefer a restaurant to be
located on this site, because of the Residence Inn.
Redpath stated that he did not feel the City should be reacting to a land
cmner finding a client to purchase the property, but should only approve the
highest and best use for any parcel within the community.
Peterson asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience.
There were none.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance #24-85, rezoning. Motion failed,
Bentley and Anderson voted in favor, Peterson, Pidcock, and Redpath voted
against.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing,
and directing Staff to prepare a resolution of denial with appropriate
findings. Motion carried unanimously.
PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 21085 - 21340
ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Marie Wittenberg, member of Historical &
Cultural Commission, to change terms to 2 years, rather
than 3 years
City Manager Jullie explained Ms. Wittenberg's request to the Council,
referring to the letter within the agenda packet. The Council discussed the
matter in greater detail.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct Staff to prepare an
ordinance amendment the City Code to allow for two-year terms far the
Historical & Cultural Commission, rather than three-year terms. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. Request by Hagen Systems and Hampton Inn for an allocation
of the City's 1984 IDR Cap
Finance Director Frane reported that the City had $2,500,000 of its 1985
MIDB cap remaining for allocation, adding that Hagen Systems had met the
requirements for receipt of the allocation.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No. 85-168,
allocating $2,500,000 of the City's Industrial Revenue Bond Cap to Hagen
Systems (Rialto Investments). Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes 24 July 2, 1985
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
None.
IX. APPOINTMENTS
None.
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
None.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Updating City's Copier System
Assistant to the City Manager Dawson reviewed the information compiled by
Staff regarding the copier system situation in City Hall.
Anderson asked if it would be more advantageous to purchase the machines, or
lease them, considering long-term costs and maintenance needs. Assistant to
the City Manager Dawson stated that both long-term costs and maintenance
costs were less with direct purchase, rather than leasing of the equipment.
Anderson asked if it would be better to lease the machines considering the
quickly changing "state of the art" today. Assistant to the City Manager
Dawson responded that the purchase of the machines brought with it the trade
In value for upgrading to different machines, if it became necessary.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to authorize Staff to execute
lease purchase agreements with IOS, Inc., for two Canon copiers, including
maintenance agreements, and to authorize Staff to prepare specifications and
to advertise for bids for a duplicator machine to replace the Xerox 7000 at
City Hall. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Off-Ramp for Valley View Road
City Manager Jullie stated that the City had received copies of letters of
concern sent to the Minnesota Department of transportation (MNDOT) regarding
the off-ramp at 1-494 and Valley View Road. He stated that, at the time of
preparation of the feasibility report, a noise analysis had been requested
to determine the impacts of this ramp on the existing neighborhood. The
noise analysis indicated that the noise standards would not be exceeded by
the traffic at this location.
Public Works Director Dietz noted that the state standards, which were more
stringent than national standards, had been met by the design of the ramp.
He stated that MNDOT had informed him that they would, upon written request
City Council Minutes 25 July 2, 1985
of the City, perform additional analysis of the noise situation.
Pidcock asked if Staff had investigated the situation. City Manager Jullie
stated that Staff had been in the neighborhood, standing in the front yards
of the neighbors' homes. He stated that it was obvious that much of the
noise problem existed from 1-494, not the ramp necessarily. Public Works
Director Dietz stated that it had already been determined that the noise
from 1-494 exceeded noise standards. He added that the City would need to
discuss the impacts of 1-494 noise on this neighborhood with MNDOT, adding
that he was uncertain what type of funding would be available.
Redpath stated that the walls installed along 35W in the Minneapolis area
had proven to help the neighbors immediately adjacent to the freeway,
however, the noise was found to have "bounced" farther, affecting neighbors
that had previously not been impacted by freeway noise. He stated that he
felt it would be important to determine whether the noise was a result of
the ramp, or the freeway, itself. Peterson concurred.
The Council directed Staff to continue to pursue the noise analysis with the
State and to report back to the Council.
3. Performance Review of City Manager
City Manager Jullie suggested that October, 1985, may be an appropriate time
to schedule the review, based upon the work load currently before the City
Council. He discussed the format of the review with the Council, indicating
that the Staff had reviewed formats used by the School District and by the
ICMA.
Bentley suggested that a sub-committee of the Council be formed to establish
a format for this review and to make recommendations to the City Council.
Anderson stated that he concurred, adding that he felt there may be areas
where the School District and City differred.
Staff was directed to collect the information and report back to the City
Council at the July 16, 1985, meeting.
C. Report of City Attorney
John Liepke Complaint--City Attorney Pauly reported that the equipment was
still on Mr. Liepke's property and that the complaint was in process at this
time in his office.
Bicycles Riding in Right-of-way--City Attorney Pauly reported that his
office had reviewed the existing legislation regarding the use of bicycles
on roads. He stated that it appeared that bicycle riders had the same
status and rights as vehicle operators under state law. Community Services
Director Lambert stated that he had checked with other communities regarding
how they handled the situation and that he had requested copies of any
ordinances, or policies, available for Eden Prairie to review.
City Council Minutes 26 July 2, 1985
D. Report of Finance Director
1. Clerk's License List (Including Gould Kennel License request
which was continued from June 18, 1985)
Gould Kennel License--City Manager Jullie reported that he had been working
with Mr. Gould in an attempt to mitigate this matter.
Mr. Gould stated that he did not feel he could make arrangements for sale of
the property and moving of the operation in a six-month period of time. He
stated that he would prefer to move the operation, as he felt the business
would be easier to operate from another location. Mr. Gould stated that he
did not feel he could have another location set up within six months, even
if the current property were sold in that amount of time.
Mr. Gould stated that he had spoken with his neighbors, none of whom
complained to him about his current operations. He added that the kennels
could not be seen in the Spring, or Summer, because the foilage screened
them from view.
Anderson asked what a reason amount of time would be to accomplish the sale
of the property, set up of the new site, and moving of the operation. He
suggested 1-111 years.
Bentley stated that he had no strong objections to issuance of the license
at this time for a period of one year, with Staff review to take place
within six months regarding the progress of Mr. Gould in meeting his goals
to move the operation. Bentley noted that the Council would retain the
option of revocation of the permit. He stated that he did not feel
revocation should take place unless there was a serious problem, or a
blatant disregard for what had been decided and agreed to at this meeting.
Anderson asked if any of Mr. Gould's neighbors had confronted him directly
with a complaint about the kennel. Mr. Gould responded that the only
complaint he knew about was one in 1975, which had since been mitigated.
Finance Director Frane stated that the neighbors had a great deal of empathy
for Mr. Gould, but preferred to remain anonymous about their complaints.
Redpath asked about the numbers of animals present at the site at this time.
Mr. Gould responded that there were 21 adult dogs and three puppies at this
time. Redpath noted that the original license for the kennel had been
issued for 18 adult dogs and six puppies.
Redpath stated that he was more inclined to approve a permit for six months,
with an additional six months to be added to the term of the permit, if
progress were shown toward moving the operation.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the request of Mr.
Gould for a kennel license for a period of one year, for 21 adult dogs and
City Council Minutes 27 July 2, 1985
three puppies, with Staff review to take place after six months as to the
progress of Mr. Gould in moving his operation away from this location.
Mr. Gould asked if it would be possible to have his street fixed some time
during the construction season, noting that it had been in disrepair for
approximately three years. Staff was directed to do so.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously.
XI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Bentley, seconded by Pidcock. Mayor Peterson
adjourned the meeting at 1:40 a.m.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1985
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM
Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul
Redpath
Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to
the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attor-
ney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D.
Frane, Planning Director Chris Enger,
Community Services Director Robert Lam-
bert, Public Works Director Eugene A.
Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen
Michael
ROLL CALL: All members were present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were added to the Agenda: VII. B. Request from the
Community Theatre and IX. D. 1. Contract Amendment No. 2, Anderson Lakes
Parkway
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Agenda and
Other Items of Business as amended and published. Motion carried
unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 18, 1985
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Minutes of
the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 18, 1985, as published.
Motion carried with Anderson abstaining.
B. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, September 14, 1985
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Minutes of
the Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, September 10, 1985, as
published. Motion carried with Anderson abstaining.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List
B. Change Order #4, northern segment of MCA roadway system, I.C. 51-308C
/lc
City Council Minutes -2- October 1, 1985
C. Preliminary & Final Plat Approval for Pralle Addition. Location:
southeast corner of Paulson Drive & Ullman Circle (Resolution No. 85-
219 - preliminary plat and Resolution No. 85-221 - final plat)
D. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 32-85, an Ordinance amending City Code
Chapter 4, relating to beer, wine, and liquor licensing and
regulation
E. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 28-85, Round Lake Water Surface Use
Ordinance
F. Authorization for Grading Permit Issuance -- Eden Place Apartments,
Tipton Corporation
G. Final approval for Housing Revenue Bonds in the amount of $17,000,000
or Parkway Apartments (Resolution No. 85-222)
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve items A - G on
the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 1985 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING (Resolution No. 85-213) - continued
from 9-17-85
Director of Public Works Dietz noted this was a continuation of the
Public Hearing which was held on September 17, 1985; the two items
before the Council this evening were continued from that meeting.
Dietz addressed I.C. 52-065.
George Hoff, representing Herliev Helle, said the agreement which had
been reached with the City on behalf of his client called for an
adjustment of $40,000.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the assessment
for I.C. 52-065 with the inclusion of an agreement reached with Helle
as outlined by Dietz. Motion carried unanimously.
Dietz spoke to the assessment for I.C. 52-059 A & B. Dietz noted a
letter (attached to these Minutes) from Roger E. Farber, M.D. which
addressed his property.
Anderson asked if there had been any other situations in the City
similar to this. City Manager Jullie stated that City trunk system
have been levied to general areas and in some cases areas have been
left out until the pipes are reasonably available.
City Council Minutes -3- October 1, 1985
Anderson said he was concerned with the question of the burden of the
interest on the landowner. Bentley said a cap could be placed on the
interest. Peterson said he felt a 50% cap on the interest on the
Farber property would make sense since the property is not accessible.
Dietz said he would agree since that is a unique property.
Clifford Bodin, 6400 Shady Oak Road, asked what portion of his
property is considered to be developable. Dietz said four of the ten
acres are developable and would be assessed.
Roger Farber, 6525 Rowland Road, said it was his intent to donate his
land to the City. Farber suggested that the developer, Hans Hagen, be
assessed for 90% of the improvement cost.
Hakon Torjesen, 6605 Rowland Road, said the Council must face the
policy question and should also find a more reasonable way to look at
situations such as this. Bentley said he would like to have the City
Council discuss the process used.
Anderson asked for information regarding land hold. Jullie said he
would recommend against this method.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the
assessments for I.C. 52-059 A & 8 with deferments allowed until the
properties are developed. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct Staff to
investigate various policies whereby the process of assessing areas
such as Carmel might be improved upon in the future.
Redpath noted that one-fourth of the City is undeveloped and under
multiple ownership; assessment situations such as this might occur in
these areas. Bentley said that Staff should specifically invite Hakon
Torjesen to the meeting at which this is to be considered.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No.
85-213. Motion carried unanimously.
B. EDEN POINTE APARTMENTS by Eden Pointe Partnership. Request for
Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning District Change from
RM-6.5 to 911-2.5, and Preliminary Plat of 15.3 acres for 149 units.
Location: southeast quadrant of Pioneer Trail and Homeward Hills
Road. (Resolution No. 85-217 - PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance No.
33-85 - rezoning from 911-6.5 to RM-2.5; and Resolution No. 85-218 -
preliminary plat)
City Council Minutes -4 - October 1, 1985
City Manager Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and property owners within the project vicinity had been
notified.
Peter Beck, attorney for the developer; Jack Brandt, proponent; and
John Bergly, Nehmen & Associates were present to address the request.
Planning Director Enger stated this request had been reviewed by the
Planning Commission at its August 12, 1985, and September 9, 1985,
meetings. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the request
subject to the recommendations included in the Staff Reports dated
August 9 and September 6. Enger said the concerns of the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission regarding this proposal
involved the trails. Enger stated there is a sidewalk along Homeward
Hills Road and there will be a trail extended along the northern
boundary of the property on Pioneer Trail to the eastern boundary of
the Mill Creek property.
Doug Drexler, 11765 Runnel Circle, expressed concern about the traffic
on Homeward Hills Road from the entrances to the proposed development.
He stated he would prefer to see these units be owner-occupied rather
than rental units. Peterson asked if there was a particular problem
with this section of Homeward Hills Road regarding the entrance.
Public Works Director Dietz said he thought the grade in this area was
7 - 8%. Anderson asked about the site distance. Dietz said it was
acceptable. Bentley said he would suggest increased mainentance on
Homeward Hills Road. He said he thought the City should discuss with
the County the possibility of installing a semaphore at County Road 1
and Homeward Hills Road with the proponent being a participant in that
project; Pax Christi should also be asked to participate in the cost.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adopt Resolution Mo.
85-217, approving the Eden Pointe Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment to the overall Mill Creek Planned Unit Development. Motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to give 1st Reading to
Ordinance No. 33-85, rezoning. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution No.
85-218, approving the preliminary plat of Eden Pointe Apartments for
Eden Pointe Partnership. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct Staff to
prepare a Developer's Agreement per Commission and Staff recom-
mendations and to discuss signalization of the Pioneer Trail/Homeward
Hills intersection prior to 2nd Reading. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -5- October I, 1985
C. USE OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS
City Manager Jullie noted this Hearing was required under revenue
sharing rules.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
D. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,226,000 FOR
PRAIRIE VILLAGEAPARTMENTS PHASE I (Resolution No. 85-224)
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public
Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 85-224, relating to the issuance
of revenue bonds or notes pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
4621, for the purpose of financing a multifamily housing development;
adopting a multifamily housing program; and authorizing submission of
the housing program to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for review
and approval. Motion carried unanimously.
E. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,226,000 FOR
PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS PHASE II (Resolution No. 85-225)
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public
Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 85-225, relating to the issuance
of revenue bonds or notes pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
4621, for the purpose of financing a multifamily housing development;
adopting a multifamily housing program; and authorizing submission of
the housing program to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for review
and approval. Motion carried unanimously.
F. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,000,000 FOR
BARNETT RANGE
Finance Director Frane explained this Public Hearing was being held in
order to speed up development of the project and to take advantage of
present Federal tax laws.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
G. REQUEST FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,300,000 FOR
BAYRDINT IT (Resolution No. 85-223)
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public
Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 85-223, amending a program and
ratifying a resolution giving preliminary approval to a project and
its financing, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 4621 and authorizing
submission of the program to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for
review. Motion carried unanimously.
239
City Council Minutes -6- October 1, 1985
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 22869 - 23082
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Payment of
Claims Nos. 22869 - 23082. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Pidcock,
Redpath, and Peterson voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
There were none.
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Charles Koshenina to waive the requirements of Chapter 12
of the City Code
City Manager Jullie reviewed the requirements for an administrative
subdivision and explained why this request was before the City
Council.
Charles Koshenina addressed the request.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the
administrative subdivision as outlined by City Manager Jullie. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. Request of Community Theatre
Bentley stated the Community Theatre has requested funding for
lighting and lighting equipment for its performances. The capital
expenditure would be up to $4,300. Bentley said there is a
possibility the Eden Prairie Foundation might pay for this but that is
not a certainty at this time and, if so, the City would be reimbursed
by the Threatre. Bentley called attention to his memorandum of
October 1, 1985, in which this matter was addressed.
City Manager Jullie indicated funds would be available in the City's
general fund surplus.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to allocate up to $4,300
to the Eden Prairie Community Theatre for the purchase of lighting and
lighting equipment. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Pidcock,
Redpath, and Peterson voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
There were none.
IX. APPOINTMENTS
There were none.
2u 0
City Council Minutes -7- October 1, 1985
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
Bentley - asked if Staff could look at the intersection of Westwind
and Center Way; there is the need for a stop sign on the east side of
this intersection.
Peterson - said he would like the Council to consider a third meeting
each month or determine a way in which the meetings might be
streamlined. City Manager Jullie said consideration could be given to
starting the meetings at 6 p.m. with supper followed by perfunctory
items. At 7:30 the public hearing portion of the meeting could begin
with a timed agenda and could be done in a more formalized manner with
speakers signing up, etc. Redpath said he believed the City Council
is the last resort for some people and limiting debate is not
necessarily a good thing. He stated that Staff should be able to
gauge which public hearings are going to be controversial and
scheduling can be done accordingly. Bentley said he would prefer not
to have the debate period limited or to have a sign up sheet for those
who wish to speak. Redpath said he thought Staff should be able to
determine whether or not another meeting is needed in a particular
month. Anderson said he would prefer to meet earlier in the evening;
he did not think meetings after 11 p.m. were very productive.
Anderson said he would like to see the sign-up sheet implemented as
well as the procedure whereby a speaker could not speak again until
everyone else had been heard. Pidcock said she would prefer not to
have a third meeting; she suggested the meetings be scheduled for an
earlier time if the agenda was long. Peterson said he believed the
consensus of the Council was to look into this further; the sign-up
sheet was worth consideration.
Peterson - noted he had received a letter from the League of Minnesota
Cities T-equesting financial assistance for those who had gone to
Washington D.C. to lobby regarding tax legislation.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to authorize the
expenditure of $70 to the League of Minnesota Cities to help defray
lobbying expenses. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Pidcock,
Redpath, and Peterson voted "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
B. Report of City Manager
1. 1986 City Budget (Resolution No. 85-226) - continued from 9-10-85
City Manager Jullie called attention to his memorandum of
September 25, 1985, in which this matter was addressed. Jullie
said he had received a memorandum from the League of Minnesota
Cities which stated there could be cutbacks in revenue sharing and
)qi
City Council Minutes -8- October 1, 1985
local government aid if the there is a shortfall in State funds.
This would decrease the City's budget about $308,000. Finance
Director Frane indicated there would be about $900,000 in the
general fund reserve. He said in the past when there has been a
delay in payment of State aids or the aids have been cut, Eden
Prairie has not been in dire straights because it does not receive
much in aid.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Resolution
No. 85-226 and to include an expenditure of $1200 to the Mores for
driveway improvements.
Anderson asked if there was a five-year capital improvements
program available. He said he would like to be able to tell the
public that a project is not in the budget for the coming year but
is in the capital improvement program for a certain time. Jullie
said the City does have a capital improvements program which
includes parks, trails, etc. Jullie noted his recommendations for
the budget each year are based on discussions with each department
head and are based on capital improvement projections.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously.
C. Report of City Attorney
The City Attorney asked to meet in private session with the Council
following the meeting at which time pending litigation would be
discussed.
D. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Contract Amendment No. 2 to Anderson Lakes Parkway
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve contract
amendment No. 2 to Anderson Lakes Parkway. Motion carried
unanimously.
XI. NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
At 11:35 p.m. the Council adjourned to a closed session at which time
pending litigation was discussed.
(Ng.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1985
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
6:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM
Mayor Gary D. Peterosn, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Patricia Pidock, and Paul
Redpath
City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to
the City Manager Craig Dawson, Planning
Director Chris Enger, Director of Com-
munity Services Robert Lambert, Director
of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, Acting
Director of Public Safety Keith Wall, Fire
Chief Ron Johnson, and Recording Secretary
Karen Michael
ROLL CALL: Councilmember Redpath was absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following item was added to the Agenda: II. C. Set Special Meeting
for Monday, December 30, 1985, at 4:00 p.m., at which time Mousing Revenue
Bond proposals will be reviewed.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Agenda as
amended and published.
There was discussion as to whether or not the housing revenue bonds which
would be considered had been through the zoning process. It was
determined that the reason for the meeting would be to accommodate those
who wished to apply for the bonds under the tax laws for this year; only
those which had already received an inducement resolution (preliminary
approval) could be considered.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously.
II. NEW BUSINESS
A. Transit System Report
City Manager Jullie introduced Dick Wolsfeld, traffic engineer with
BRW, who reported on the Transit Study Draft Report.
City Council Minutes -2- December 10, 1985
Wolsfeld addressed the proposed system, commuter needs, internal
circulator, transit dependent groups, transferability, costs, and
marketing.
Planning Director Enger asked about the reverse-commute system which
is in use in Eden Prairie now. Wolsfeld said there are about 30
riders per day. He stated the employers are not marketing the program
to their employees. Those who use the system are loyal riders. He
noted the computer-industry employment base is not growing as it was.
Bentley asked why there was not the need for an out commute in the
morning to the 24th Avenue South/Cedar/494, Southdale, and County Road
18/Shelard areas. Wolsfeld said there are no incentives to ride the
bus those areas whereas the high cost of parking in the downtown area
provides the necessary insentive. He noted the shorter the trip, the
more difficult it is to get people to ride the bus. Bentley said the
Regional Transit Board Study which is due out in the Spring points out
why routes fail; this is largely due to the pinwheel effect of
everything zeroing in on the central cities.
Bentley asked on what basis the internal circulation routes were
determined. Wolsfeld said they were based on a combination of
reasonable travel times, trip generators, and parking complexes.
Bentley asked who would determine the rates. Wolsfeld said that would
be determined by the councils of the individual communities. Bentley
asked who would operate the routes. Wolsfeld said the cities would
bid the system; there would be a request for proposals which would be
sent out to various carriers. Wolsfeld said there would be a board
which would oversee the system. Bentley said he would be very
concerned about allowing the transit operator to select the routes and
fares.
Bentley asked what means would be used to "lock" the cities into an
agreement which would commit them to opt-out. Wolsfeld said this
would be done via a joint agreement via a resolution.
Bentley noted that the communities involved in the opt-out must
realize that total equitability is impossible. The governing body
must be able to support that.
Anderson asked if a survey had been done to determine where the
ridership will come from. Wolsfeld said that had been done. Anderson
said he had been surprised to hear from the employers along Wallace
Road just how many of their employees come from the west.
Wolsfeld stated what must be done by each of the cities involved:
each City Council must pass the same opt-out resolution, determine the
c24q
City Council Minutes -3- December 10, 1985
plan, draft a request for proposal, get a firm to provide the service
and market the service. Wolsfeld said there is much to be done in
order for this to be in operation in September. Bentley suggested the
City offer its facilities for a joint meeting with the other city
councils involved in the process so all could discuss the final plan
at one time.
Peterson said he believes the supervisory structure is as important as
anything to whether or not this goes. Wolsfeld said his
recommendation would be to have the cities establish a committee with
representation from the four cities.
The consensus of the Council was that the report was generally good
and that the prospect of providing this type of service was appealing.
B. Referendum for City Hall, Fire Station and Equipment
Assistant to the City Manager Dawson referred to the December 4, 1985,
memorandum in which this issue was discussed.
Present to address the fire station and equipment issues were Ron
Johnson, Fire Chief, and Mike Rogers, Assistant Fire Chief. Johnson
related the needs of the department and why it has those needs. He
stated there is a need to improve the response time to the southeast
portion of the City; that time now averages 16 minutes whereas in the
rest of Eden Prairie the response time averages six to eight minutes.
Other needs include that of increasng the efficiency of the existing
fire stations and increasing the overall firefighting capability.
Johnson said these needs can be met with the addition of a fire
station in the area of County Road 1 and Homeward Hills Road,
remodeling fire stations #2 and #3, and improving the radio system
which is presently in use. Johnson referenced the 1979 ISO study
which is the basis for rating insurance. He stated there is a need to
provide for the best overall firefighting capability and the same
level of service must be provided to all parts of the City.
Pidcock asked if an independent study of the needs of the City has
been done. Johnson said this was last done in 1979.
Anderson asked what the response time is for the airport. Johnson
said it averages ten minutes for the first truck. Anderson asked how
many responses the City has to the airport. Johnson said there have
been 20 - 22 in the past two years. City Manager Jullie said the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has stated it would be willing
to help fund a fire station but that it would have to be within 90
seconds response time from the airport.
Bentley asked Staff for an opinion as to the City's firefighting needs
in terms of fiscal responsbility. Jullie said there is a need for
City Council Minutes -4- December 10, 1985
another station as well as the equipment to support it. He said more
rationale was needed to support the expansion of the existing stations
as well as some of the stated equipment needs. Jullie said he had
asked that ideas be presented to the Council tonight as to what might
be needed by the department. Bentley said he would like to see a
prioritized list with recommendations from the City Manager as well as
site and design information and costs. He asked that this be ready no
later than January 31st.
Anderson said he would like to see something worked out with MAC.
Bentley suggested a comparison be done with surrounding communities as
to their equipment and also what equipment is available from the
surrounding communities with whom we have mutual aid. Peterson said
he would like to see some data regarding the radio situation.
Assistant to the City Manager Dawson spoke to the December 4, 1985,
memorandum and introduced Ed Frenette and Wally Daniels, architects
with Setter Leach & Lindstrom, Inc. who were present to discuss the
City Hall portion of the referendum. Daniels reviewed what has been
done and stated they are now in the process of finalizing the building
program. Daniels said the architects are aware of what the City's
needs are. Frenette said the building would be as efficient as
possible. Daniels reviewed three sites which they have looked at:
site one, across Mitchell Road from CPT, was unavailable; site two,
the City-owned property south of the Public Safety Building, is
"tight" and there would be more constraints particularly in the
parking which would have to be structured; and site three, the
property immediately north of the Flagship Athletic Club, is not owned
by the City,has poor soil conditions and would have to be built on
pilings. Frenette reviewed the design considerations.
Anderson expressed concern about the site restrictions of site number
two and the soil conditions of site number three. He posed the
question: what would a City Hall on Mitchell Road overlook? He did
not think overlooking the sludge ponds was desireable.
Bentley said it might be a wise decision to look at other sites.
Peterson suggested the Council appoint a site selection committee to
look at four or five sites.
City Manager Jullie said he liked the campus idea. He said he would
like to be near other City facilities for which he is responsible and
in that respect favored site number two.
Anderson said he concurred with Bentley about looking at other sites.
He indicated he had not really thought of a city hall in the Purgatory
City Council Minutes -5- December 10, 1985
Creek Area until he had seen the Purgatory Creek Master Plan. He said
that might well be a more enjoyable and aesthetic area in which to
have a city hall.
Peterson said consideration must be given to the question of what does
the community want to pay for -- an up-scale building would dictate
. something more than concrete block which is what most of the present
city buildings are and would be more costly.
Pidcock said she liked the idea of the campus-type environment. This
would lend itself to good, efficient government.
Director of Community Services Lambert said that if the City Council
is still committed to the Purgatory Creek Recreation area and if there
is going to be the grand entrance to the area, there most be enough
land to provide for adequate parking. He noted that parking can be
shared by the City Hall facility and the park users.
Peterson said he would like to see some cost estimates.
Planning Director Enger stated that the image of the community should
reflect what the City requests developers to do; he said he has to
tell developers on a daily basis what the City expects, and that
should be a consideration in the City's plans for a new city hall.
Bentley said he would suggest a site selection committee consisting of
the City Manager, two Staff members appointed by the City Manager, and
four residents appointed by the Council; this should be done very
quickly. Anderson and Pidcock said they would like to be on the
committee.
Daniels reviewed a possible time line which indicated potential
schedules from now until a bond referendum and from the time of a
referendum to the start of construction.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Peterson, to appoint a Site
Selection Committee consisting of the City Manager, one Staff member
appointed by the City Manager, and five residents appointed by the
City Council (appointments to be made at the December 17, 1985,
meeting of the City Council). Motion carried with Pidcock voting
"no".
Peterson said consideration should be given as to the types of
committees which the Council should appoint to carry out the work
necessary prior to the referendum. Bentley said the Council will have
to resolve these issues by January 29, 1986. He noted there is a need
to set a tentative date for a referendum.
City Council Minutes -6- December 10, 1985
City Manager Jullie said he had been asked by members of the Eden
Prairie Hockey Association to include their needs in the referendum.
He said an addition to the Community Center would cost approximately
$2 - $3 million; Miller Park site acquisition would be about $2.25
million; and a softball field complex would cost $1 million. This
would be a total of $11 million with a City Hall, fire needs and the
requests of the athletic associations; this would amount to 2.4 mills
or $54/year on a $100,000 home. Jullie said there is a question
regarding how the referendum question might be structured; the City
has had differing legal opinions regarding this and it is being
studied further.
Pidcock asked what the cost would be to the homeowner for a city hall
and a fire station. Jullie said about $25 - $30/year.
Peterson said he would like to see some projections on what we can
foresee in five to ten years regarding tax increment financing, other
City needs, and capital investments. He said there is a need for
definitive answers.
Bentley noted the City Needs Committee did a considerable amount of
work regarding the needs and the staging of needs. He said the
Council must look at how firmly it wants to stand regarding thos
recommendations. He said what he would like to know if there are
different needs than those which were recommended by the City Needs
Committee.
Director of Community Services Lambert stated that many on the
committee felt it made more sense to have the City make its requests
via one referendum rather than in consecutive years.
Bentley asked what is going to be done about the lake levels. Lambert
said Barr Engineering was supposed to report to the City in November
as to how much would be assessed to each community. He said he was
assuming the cost would be about $1 million.
Pidcock said she would like to know what percentage of the people in
Eden Prairie would be using the second sheet of ice as well as what
percentage of the population is served by the Community Center.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to set a special council
meeting date for Wednesday, January 29, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. for the
purpose of getting input from Staff and other sources on specifics of
the referendum; and to set a tentative referendum date for March 25,
1986. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Set Special fleeting for Monday, December 30, 1985, at 4:00 m. at wrich time Housing Revenue Bond Proposals wi e reviewed
?NZ
City Council Minutes -7- December 10, 1985
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to set a special meeting
of the City Council for Monday, December 30, 1985, at 4:00 p.m. at
which time Housing Revenue Bond Proposals will be reviewed; the
meeting will be held in the School Administration Boardroom. Motion
carried unanimously.
D. Peterson - noted that Floyd E. Siefferman and Gordon Alexander,
representing the Cardinal Creek Homeowners Association, have request
to be on the Council Agenda on December 17, 1985.
Jullie - noted that Jeannette Harrington had contributed her
TOTTiEtion of drawings of old Eden Prairie buildings to the City and
the School District.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer Jeannette
Harrington's donation of drawings to the Historical and Cultural
Commission for its input as to how to display them and to thank
Jeannette Harrington for her contribution. Motion carried unani-
mously.
Jullie - noted the process for the selection of a new Public Safety
Director has begun and applications will be accepted through the end
of January.
III. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at
11:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING WITH FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1986
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
CITY STAFF LIAISON:
6:00 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM
Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul
Redpath
Jean Bitter, Tim Callister, Larry Degner,
Robert Gartner, Clyde Lake, Les Lewis, and
Frank Shafer
City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to
the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attor-
ney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D.
Frane, Planning Director Chris Enger,
Director of Community Services Robert
Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene
A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen
Michael
Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator
I. ROLL CALL
Council member Richard Anderson was absent. Commissioners Robert Gartner,
Les Lewis and Frank Shafer were absent.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Agenda as
published. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Peterson thanked the Commission members for their work on the
Commission and for their willingness to share their time and thoughts with
the Council this evening.
III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMISSION
Larry Degner reviewed the moratorium on jet aircraft which was in effect a
few years ago and how that issue had been resolved with the adoption of
the noise ordinance. Degner noted the role the Commission had taken in
that matter.
Joint Meeting Minutes -2- January 7, 1986
IV. RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
A. Sign Ordinance
Tim Callister stated a sign ordinance had been adopted by the City and
new signage at the airport was a project of the Metropolitan Airports
Commission last summer. The operators at the airport have three years
in which to comply with the Ordinance. Callister said that directory
signs have been installed on Highway 169 and along County Road 1 to
indicate which businesses are located off of the various roadways.
The Commission has been working with the business community on
questions of compliance. Bitter noted implementation of the Ordinance
has not cost the City anything; the cost of the signage has been borne
by MAC.
V. WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMISSION AND THE CITY
Bitter stated the work of Jean Johnson, Staff liaison, is invaluable to
the Commission in carrying out its work.
VI. FUTURE ISSUES
A. Crash-Fire-Rescue (CFR) Building at Airport
Callister stated the crash-fire-rescue building is in the MAC budget.
He noted problems with staffing similar facilities which are under
MAC's jurisdiction and these issues are being looked into at this
time. City Manager Jullie indicated figures regarding a joint-use
building would be available at the Special Meeting of the City Council
on January 29th at which time the bond referendum will be discussed.
VII.METROPOLITAN AIRPORT CWIMISSION (MAC) WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE
Bentley said he had been reviewing the Aviation Chapter of the
Metropolitan Design Framework and noted that calls for assistance in
planning for communities in and around airports. Callister said that as
airports mature more concern will be given to the zoning particularly in
regards to environmental issues. Redpath said the Metropolitan Council
has always had a suggested policy for the airport area; he said he would
like to see something such as what is suggested in the Metropolitan Design
Framework.
Pidcock asked how many total acres were included at Flying Cloud Airport.
Canister said there were 640 acres. Pidcock asked how Flying Cloud
Airport ranked in terms of usage. Callister said there were 167,000
operations there last year; in the late '60's there were as many as
450,000 operations and it ranked first or second in the nation.
g 6
Joint Meeting Minutes -3- January 7, 1986
Peterson asked if there were many complaints regarding noise. Staff
liaison Johnson said there are about 4 or 5 per year and most of those
were regarding traffic from International Airport.
Degner asked what the Council perceives as the biggest problem of the
airport. Peterson said he sees the airport as a good corporate citizen;
the only thing which might get some attention over the next few years is
the airport's aesthetic image along County Road 1. Pidcock noted what has
been done with landscaping the entrance into International Airport.
Degner said perhaps the planning to be done could include a landscape plan
for Flying Cloud. Callister said MAC would welcome such a plan.
Bentley said he did not think the pressure to upgrade Flying Cloud Airport
would ever go away. Callister said the terrain is not good for expansion
and the cost of doing so would be prohibitive; he indicated there would be
no return in it for MAC to expand Flying Cloud Airport. Callister noted
Flying Cloud is designated as a minor-use airport; there are about 640
airplanes stored there.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn the meeting at
7:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Frane, Finance Director
DATE: January 24, 1986
RE: 2,000 Neptune brand water meters purchased during 1979,
1980,1981 and 1982
The meters purchased during this period from Neptune appear to have
an abnormally high failure rate of their remote readers. We have
previously attempted to resolve this problem when it became apparent
that the consumptions for a particular account were slowing down or
had stopped. This is a time consuming and expensive method. All
suspected slowdowns had to be checked by Water Department personnel:
some slowdowns were not caused by faulty remotes. When a defective
remote reader was detected the remote was replaced and the customer
was billed for the difference. It is an understatement to say the
customer was unhappy to receive a "catch-up" bill when the City's
equipment was faulty.
This problem came to a head when an account was found to be under-bill
e
d
by 400,000+ gallons. Billing the customer for the difference would
result in a catch-up bill in excess of $400 and there are undoubtedly
more like this.
We propose to resolve this situation by sending letters to customers
who may have Neptune meters asking them to read this meter inside
the home. We can then identify the bad remote readers and replace
them. The ones still functioning would be replaced over time as personnel became available.
In order for this to work we would have to forgive the unbilled
consumption because if the customer knew that a bill would be coming
he would not respond to the questionnaire. I have to believe there
are customerswho know they are being underbilled. Also since 1979
many homes have new owners and it it impossible to tell the consumption
of the old owner and the new owner.
Refunds would be made to customers with Neptune meters who have or
had catch-up bills.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-21
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
PARKWAY APARTMENTS
WHEREAS, the plat of Parkway Apartments 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 Parkway Apartments is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
report on this plat dated January 28, 1986.
B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A.
waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval
date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as
described in said engineer's report.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified
copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the
above named plat.
D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on February 4, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
26E4
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
HISTORY:
VARIANCES:
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician
January 28, 1986
PARKWAY APARTMENTS
The Developer, Bar-Ett Construction Company, has requested
City Council approval of the final plat of Parkway Apartments.
The site contains 35.9 acres, located east of Chestnut
Apartments and Burning Tree Club Apartments in the North 1/2
of Section 15. Five structures containing a total of 375
apartment units are to be constructed within the site. A
recreation building will be located on Lot 1, Block 2. Outlot
A consists largely of flood plain area and will be dedicated
to the City. The ownership of Outlot B will be retained by
the Developer with future divisions to be in conformance with
City code requirements.
Zoning to RM 2.5 was finally read and approved by the City
Council on August 6, 1985, per Ordinance 21-85.
The preliminary plat was approved by the Council on June 18,
1985, per Resolution 85-152.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was
executed on August 6, 1985.
A variance from the requirements of City Code 12.20, Subd.
2.A, waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the
approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final
plat will be necessary.
All other variance requests must be processed through the
Board of Appeals.
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSAL:
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
The municipal utilities needed to serve this site have been
installed or are presently included in a City improvement
Final Plat of Parkway Apartments -2- 1/28/85
contract. A section of public water main from the Burning
Tree Apartment site to Anderson Lakes Parkway will be
installed by the Developer in conformance with City Standards.
All on-site utilities and roadways, not located within public
easements or right-of-way, will be owned and maintained by the
property owners.
The Developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way of 2' to
eliminate the strip between Anderson Lakes Parkway and Burning
Tree Club Apartments.
Drainage and utility easement revisions will be needed. These
revisions must be coordinated with the Engineering Department
prior to release of the plat.
This plat is being approved with the Developer recognizing the
benefit of Anderson Lakes Parkway improvements.
PARK DEDICATION:
Park dedication will conform to the requirements of the City
Code and Developer's Agreement.
BONDING:
Bonding in conformance with City Code and Developer's
Agreement requirements will be necessary to cover the
installation of any publicly owned utilities not included in
City improvement contracts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Parkway Apartments
subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's
Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $490.
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of
$5,120.
3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $15,000.
4. Receipt of documentation covering maintenance
responsibilities of privately owned utilities and
roadways.
5. Revision of drainage and utility easements.
6. Receipt of Warranty Deed for Outlot A.
7. Satisfaction of bonding requirements.
8. Subject to special assessments for Anderson Lakes
Parkway improvements and Chestnut Drive.
9. Elimination of the 2' strip between Anderson Lakes
and Chestnut Apartments (widen right-of-way by 2').
DLO:sg
cc: Mr. Scot Bader, Bar-Ett Construction Co.
Mr. Ralph Wagner, Probe Engineering
Mr. Greg Brick, Probe Engineering
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
February 4, 1986
CONTRACTOR (MULTI FAMILY & COMM.) PLUMBING
Bar-Ett Construction Company
Dallas Development Company
Future Building Systems
GSB Investments
C. H. Haglin & Sons Co.
Haymaker Construction, Inc.
Helmer F. Hauck
Henley Helle
Knutson Construction Co.
D. J. Kranz Co., Inc.
Jim W. Miller Construction
Ryan Construction Company
Quality Homes, Inc.
ITT Schadow, Inc.
Sunrise Properties, Inc.
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY)
Argus Development, Inc.
Durabilt Associates, Inc.
Goodwin Builders, Inc.
T. Gray Construction
Hestia Homes, Inc.
Johnson-Reiland Construction
Keystone Builders Corp.
King Homes
Metro Custom Homes, Inc.
Joe Miller Construction
New Tech Builders
Prairie Construction
Priem Construction Co.
Sussel Corporation
Urban Unit Corporation
UTILITY INSTALLER
Hokanson Plumbing
K & K Heating & Plumbing
Lakeside Plumbing & Heating
Midwestern Mechanical Corp.
State Mechanical, Inc.
United Water & Sewer Co.
SOLICITORS
Junior Careers (Candy)
Aqua City Plumbing, Inc.
Carlson Plumbing
Crosstown Plumbing, Inc.
Dependable Well Company
Doody, Inc.
Edina Plumbing
Egan & Sons Company
Elander Plumbing
Wm. L. Gadtke Plumbing, Inc.
Galaxy Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
Grupa & Sons Plmbing & Heating
Harris Mechanical Contracting
Hayes Contractors
Hokanson Plumbing
Horwitz, Inc.
Jerry's Plumbing
K & K Heating & Plumbing
Kramer Mechanical Plumbing & Heating
Lakeside Plumbing & Heating
Larson Plumbing
Bill Londer Plumbing Co., Inc.
M & D Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
Madsen Plumbing & Heating
D. R. McDermott Plumbing
McQuillan Bros. Plumbing & Heating
Midwestern Mechanical Corporation
Minnesota Mechanical, Inc.
R. & E. Nelsen Plumbing & Heating
Northern Plumbing & Heating
Nova Frost, Inc.
P & D Mechanical Contracting Co.
Plymouth Plumbing
State Mechanical, Inc.
Steinkraus Plumbing, Inc.
Thoen Plumbing & Heating
Don Voss Plumbing & Heating Co.
Westonka Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
Zachman Plumbing
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Lakeside Plumbing & Heating
Rybak Digging & Trenching
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
page two
HEATING & VENTILATING
Bergman Heating & Air Conditioning
Controlled Air
Cronstrom's Heating & Air Conditioning
Dependable Heating & Air Conditioning
Dronen's Heating & Air Conditioning
Egan & Son Company
Flare Heating & Air Conditioning
Fredrickson Heating & Air Conditioning
Gopher Heating & Sheet Metal, Inc.
Hayes Contractors
Heating & Cooling Two, Inc.
Hoffman's, Inc.
Hoov-Aire, Inc.
Horwitz, Inc.
Judkins Heating & Air Conditioning
K & K Heating & Plumbing
Kleve Heating & Air Conditioning
Lakeview Heating & Air Conditioning
M & D Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
Merit Heating & Air Conditioning
Midland Heating & Air Conditioning
Midwestern Mechanical Corporation
Minnesota Mechanical, Inc.
O'Keefe Mechanical, Inc.
R & E Nelsen Plumbing & Heating
Rich's Heating & Ventilating
Rouse Mechanical
Valley Aire, Inc.
George Sedgwick Heating & Air Conditioning
Smith Heating & Air Conditioning
CIGARETTE
A & J Enterprises
Canteen Co. of Minnesota
Superamerica
GAS FITTER
Consolidated Plumbing & Heating Co.
Controlled Air
Cronstrom's Heating & Air Conditioning
Flare Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.
Fredrickson Heating & Air Conditioning
Hayes Contractors
Hoffman's, Inc.
J & H Gas Services
K & K Heating & Plumbing
Kleve Heating & Air Conditioning
Lakeview Heating & Air Conditioning
Merit Heating & Air Conditioning
Midland Heating & Air Conditioning
Minnegasco, Inc.
Northern Plumbing & Heating
R & E Nelsen Plumbing & Heating
Rouse Mechanical
George Sedgwick Heating & Air Conditionin
Smith Heating & Air Conditioning
Valley Aire, Inc.
WATER SOFTENER
Culligan Water Service
SCAVENGER
Roto-Rooter Services
WELL DRILLING
Dependable Well Company
CANDY OUTLET
Morrow's Nut House
MECHANICAL GAMES
Movies at Eden Prairie Center
FOOD VEHICLES
PRIVATE KENNEL
A & J Enterprises
Harold Jenkins - 15749 Lake Shore Drive
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
157
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson
Weed Inspector and Assistant Weed Inspector
Appointment
January 31, 1985
In accordance with State Statutes, the City is required to
appoint a Weed Inspector and an Assistant Weed Inspector. The
appointment of Weed Inspector falls on the Mayor. Stu Fox, City
Forester, will be named Assistant Weed Inspector. The City
Clerk's office will forward the necessary forms to Hennepin
County.
CWD:jp
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
?S Jeff Johnson, Engineering Technician'-
January 30, 1986
Grading Permit 86-04 (Rosemount, Inc.)
Rosemount Inc. seeks a grading permit to dispose of approximately 600 cubic
yards of soil displaced by the installation of an underground storage tank to
be located inside their building. They plan to dispose of this soil by
partially filling an abandoned storm sewer sedimentation area located behind
their building. This area is no longer in use, since it is bypassed by their
present storm sewer system.
Watershed District approval is not required. Erosion control material will be
placed in conformance with City requirements.
JJ:sg
""ik,
3A1210
1 1
i-rM rnki(
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician c7.4 9
January 29, 1986
Grading Permit 85-50 (17401 Flying Cloud Drive)
Mr. and Mrs. Griepentrog have requested City Council approval of their request
to place approximately 3,000 yards of fill at 17401 Flying Cloud Drive. The
attached drawing indicates the location and proposed plan for placing of the
material. The fill is needed to enable the construction of a storage building
which is to be constructed later this summer. The Minnesota Valley Watershed
District has indicated that a permit will not be necessary for the proposal as
shown, although any encroachment into the floodplain area will require
additional review. Erosion control material will be installed whenever
drainage leaves the disturbed area.
The Griepentrogs intend to start the work immediately upon receipt of Council
approval.
If Council approves this request, staff will require that a surveyor stake the
limits of the fill area to ensure that floodplain encroachment does not occur.
Appropriate erosion protection will be required.
DLO:sg
9000 II LAKE RILEY ihdt.rt 9400 LAKELANO CR LAKELAND TER 9800 10200 RICE LAKE 10 600 lZ ROAD z CLOSED D 11000 0 a) 0 0 CO CD 2 3
F, U,SaS. N &it-2 uer R tA/ 141:1 10° Cordowr , &1619 ccv.,/ FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN SCALE 0 200 400 limilepe•n••••momiNummas. 800 FE 6Q0
/
/ •:: / )
....,/ 'I /II
*1/ /1 / I I\
r 1 i / 1 1 1 11
111 I 1
•
S\ ' 1 I 1 /
I 1 1 / •' 1 1/
' , I I/
I/ //I
//,/ il I
//1" ,/ I //I ,
,-
1
/ ,, ,
,,.. , / o .„„, ...."- ",.... „ / / // ,
,r , 1 , /... --
1 / /1.— rJ
.1 1 i ifil
1 11 1 i 1 1 1 I
i t
%
gai
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 86-24
LAND USE CLARIFICATION
(CARPENTER LAND COMPANY PROPERTY LYING EASTERLY OF PURGATORY CREEK, AND SOUTH
OF TH 5)
WHEREAS, the Carpenter Land Company has requested a clarification of potential
land uses for property owned by them which lies generally south of Trunk
Highway 5 and easterly of Purgatory Creek;
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has adopted land use plans for Eden Prairie
and more specifically including the property owned by the Carpenter Land
Company, including a Comprehensive Guide Plan, the Major Center Area Plan and
the Purgatory Creek Floodplain Recreational Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie recognizes that the Comprehensive Guide Plan
is not site specific in some locations and requires further clarification.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL hereby determines the following:
1. Due to the proximity of the recreational area south of Technology
Drive, Industrial Zoning on this parcel would be inappropriate.
2. Due to the proximity of Trunk Highway 5 and Technology Drive,
residential use of this property would be inappropriate.
3. A more narrow refinement of land use may not be determined without
properly adhering to the procedures prescribed in the City Code of the
City of Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED by the City Council on February 4, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
:\'41
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
January 31, 1986
Carpenter Land Company Request for Land Use Clarification
The Carpenter Land Company has requested a clarification of land use for the
property they own south of Highway 5, east of Purgatory Creek and generally
lying on both sides of Technology Drive. This request comes to us at this
time for a number of reasons. First of all, we are presently negotiating to
acquire easements for storm drainage installation in connection with the
Technology Drive improvement project. Additionally, the proponent understands
that Mn/DOT proposes to close the access points to this parcel from Trunk
Highway 5.
Specifically, the Carpenter Land Company was requesting that approval of some
specific land uses could be determined by the City Council to insure
feasibility of development when the access and easement questions are taken
into consideration. Additionally, there are fairly large assessments being
proposed to the parcel in connection with the Technology Drive improvements.
The staff posture and the Council policy as well as Code provisions preclude
granting any type of zoning on this property without entire rezoning
procedures as prescribed in the City Code being followed. However, after some
discussion, we determined that some parameters could perhaps be given approval
by City Council based on past decisions and the specific site.
The City Council has adopted the major center area plan which shows commercial
and office type uses for the property. Also, the Council has adopted the
Purgatory Creek Floodplain Recreational Area Plan which shows office and
commercial type uses on the parcel. Finally, the Comprehensive Guide Plan is
not site specific in all locations. In the case of the Carpenter property,
the designation appears to be low density residential, but in fact is just the
blank space in between color designations.
We believe the solution to the request is to consider the attached resolution
to define what kind of uses would be inappropriate. Because of the roadway
location and the proposed recreational facility, it would seem that
residential and industrial would not be the best uses for this site.
Therefore, without making any real committment concerning what could be placed
on the property, the attached Resolution would satisfy the Carpenter request.
EAD:sg
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 86-22
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 7th day of January fixed
the 4th day of February, 1986, as the date for a public hearing on the
following proposed improvements:
I.C. 52-088, Red Rock Interceptor
WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for the
making of this improvement were given ten days published notice of the Council
hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice and the hearing
was held and property owners heard on the 4th day of February.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
I. Such improvements as above indicated are hereby ordered.
2. Subject to an agreement with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
to fix the responsibility and authority of the parties, the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission is hereby requested to proceed
with the construction of the Red Rock Interceptor.
3. The City staff is hereby directed to place pending assessments against
all the benefitting properties. These assessments shall be levied as
ordered by further action of the City Council.
ADOPTED by the City Council on February 4, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson
ATTEST:
SEAL
John D. Frane,lairk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #86-10
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PRAIRIE VIEW FOR
MARK ROONEY
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Prairie View for Mark Rooney, dated December 6, 1986,
consisting of 16+ acres for a shopping 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 4th day of February, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jehn D. Frane, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services -'4t-
DATE: January 31, 1986
SUBJECT: Community Services Department Staff Comments on Development Proposals
PRAIRIE VIEW SHOPPING CENTER
Staff has provided the packet on the Prairie view Shopping Center for Commission
review. There are no significant park and recreation related issues on this
proposal, however, due to the size of the project, staff felt the Parks, Recreation
and Natural Resources Commission members would be interested in reviewing the
information. No action is required.
BL:md
108-84 PROPOSED SITEREG-S
"Mr*
i
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
ITOUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: January 10, 1986
PROJECT: Prairie View Shopping Center
LOCATION: Northeast quadrant of Prairie Center Drive and Plaza Drive
APPLICANT: Weis Companies
FEE OWNER: Walter Carpenter
REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on
16.17 acres.
2. Preliminary Plat of 16.17 acres into two lots.
Background
This is a continued item from the
December 6, 1985, Planning Com-
mission meeting. At that meeting,
the Planning Commission recommended
that the development plans be
returned to the proponent to resolve
problems related to site planning,
architecture, landscaping, signage,
and access. Requested revisions
also included:
1. Provision of more parking.
Fifty-one (51) more spaces
have been added. The park-
ing ratio has changed from
5.29 to 5.78 spaces per
1000.
2. Improvement of the access on
Prairie Center Drive for
better traffic movement and
for more stacking distance.
Better stacking distance is
better at Prairie Center
Drive, but internal cir-
culation needs a protected
lane to be better.
Prairie View Shopping Center 2 January 10, 1986
3. Development of a landscape plan meeting the minimum caliper inch
requirements per Code. Provision of effective screening of parking and
loading areas from adjacent roadways and land uses.
The plan is 169 caliper inches short per ordinance. The plan needs more
conifers and higher berms to better screen parking. Loading areas and the
north side of project are not effectively screened and needs berming,
fencing, and conifers.
4. Revision of the building architecture to provide for continuity of building
materials and architectural treatment.
Buildings now utilize the same brick and metal panel. A covered sidewalk
has been added. The front side architecture is wrapped around the corners
of the back side of Building C.
5. Revision of the signage package in order not to exceed the maximum
requirements of the Code for the free-standing pylon sign and the wall sign
for Rainbow Foods.
The wall sign meets the ordinance maximum. The free-standing pylon sign is
20 feet high, but 144 square feet. This will require a variance.
Site Plan
The site plan has been revised in three different ways. One, additional parking has
been provided. A total of 720 parking spaces has been provided for the retail
buildings and the Perkins restaurant. If we assume a 165-seat restaurant, 55
parking spaces would be required. Subtracting this from the 720 spaces provided,
yields 665 parking spaces for 115,000 square feet of retail space. The parking
ratio for the retail buildings would be 5.78 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area. This compares to 5.29 spaces per 1,000 as depicted on the
original plan. Staff feels that the parking now provided on Lot 1 is adequate, but
will require a variance from the 8/1000 requirement by Code.
The second change in the site plan, is parking encroachment into the front yard
setback along Plaza Drive. Technically, this would require a variance; however, the
applicant has requested that the City vacate excess right-of-way. The City
Engineering Department has reviewed this preliminary request and has indicated that
vacation would be possible. Using excess right-of-way would allow for higher berms
and heavier landscaping to better screen parking areas. Final platting and zoning
would have to reflect the additional land.
A third change in the site plan is revised internal circulation for Lot 1, and
access from Prairie Center Drive. While Staff feels that the driveway entrance is
better than originally proposed, since it provides for additional stacking and
better circulation, the parking lot design eliminates the east/west protected lane
as originally depicted on Lot 1. Staff feels that the proposed protected lane for
part of the driveway parallel to Prairie Center Drive is not acceptable and will
create unusual circulation patterns within the parking lot with potential traffic
movement conflicts. Staff would recommend that the plans be revised to indicate the
east/west protected lane as originally depicted on a previous site plan or to extend
the protected lane parallel to Prairie Center Drive as shown on Attachment A.
Prairie View Shopping Center 3 January 10, 1986
Landscaping
The landscape plan has not been revised per previous Staff recommendations for total
caliper inches, screening of parking areas, screening of the back side of the
building and loading areas from adjacent roadways and land uses. For a project of
this size, the caliper inch requirement would be 591 inches. A total of 422 inches
has been provided for all trees that are 21/2 inches caliper or greater and six feet
in height or greater. The landscape plan is 169 caliper inches short of the Code
requirement. In addition, proposed plantings are not allocated in accordance with
the minimum size requirement per the landscape table in the Code which requires a
minimum percentage of trees to be between 2 11 to 5 inches in caliper.
Parking areas are not effectively screened from Prairie Center Drive or Plaza Drive.
Parking will be very visible from Highway #5, since it is at a higher elevation than
the parking lot. Proposed berming along Plaza Drive can be increased in height
between two to three feet, depending upon how much right-of-way is vacated by the
City. Proposed berming along Prairie Center Drive can be increased by one foot
within the 35-foot setback. Even with the proposed increase in berming, Staff feels
that the parking areas will be visible, especially from Highway #5, since Highway #5
is at a higher elevation than the parking lot. This means that the proposed
landscaping must be supplemented heavily with additional coniferous materials.
Loading areas will be visible from adjacent roadways and land uses. Though a four-
foot berm and a six-foot high fence are proposed for screening purposes, it should
be pointed out that the fence is located at the toe of the slope, meaning that the
effective height of fence is only six feet. In addition, the fencing and berming do
not extend far enough east along the north property line to help screen the "back
door" appearance of the project from adjoining land uses. The proponent should
submit sight lines from adjacent properties and roadways which demonstrate the level
of screening proposed. Staff would recommend that the four-foot high berm be
extended along the entire north property line with the fencing and plantings
proposed near the top of the slope so that a minimum ten-foot screening height could
be achieved. The increase in screening will help soften the views from adjacent
properties.
Architecture
The previous Staff Report described the architecture in a general way as plain and
lacking continuity, as compared to the more detailed architectural plans for other
retail centers including the Eden Square project, recently approved by the Planning
Commission. Previously it was suggested that additional detail, a covered walkway,
and wrapping the front side architecture around the backside of Building C would
help.
The architectural plans of the project have changed for Buildings B and C. In front
of Buildings B and C is a covered walkway with columns, an approach used on the City
West Retail Center and Eden Square project. The columns and the sloping roof have
been wrapped around the ends of Building C which would be visible from Plaza Drive
and Highway #5. The sides of all buildings have been further articulated through
the use of soldier coarsing of brick with different colors. This will not only adds
visual interest but also helps break up the walls visually.
The Perkins building utilizes a pre-finished metal sloped roof as proposed on the
,l71
Prairie View Shopping Center 4 January 10, 1986
other retail buildings. The color of the metal panel will be green to match the
other buildings. The primary exterior building finish for the Perkins Restaurant is
stucco. Current City Code is that all buildings in commercial, office, industrial,
and high density residential areas, be at least 75% facebrick and glass. The
building elevations should be revised to reflect 75% facebrick and glass.
The proposed Bonanza Restaurant will be utilizing a similar sloped panel, but with a
different bronze color. While this is a departure color-wise from the remainder of
the project, the change in color would add some interest. It would be beneficial
that all buildings proposed for this project utilize the same color brick on the
building. A variety in the size of brick or brick pattern would provide for detail
and variation, within a common color scheme.
Mechanical equipment will be screened with a metal panel on the Rainbow Foods
building. On the retail buildings and Perkins Restaurant, mechanical units will be
behind a parapet wall. If field investigation determines that parapet wall
screening is not effective, the proponent will be required to make changes as
required by the Planning Director. Mechanical equipment on the Bonanza Restaurant
should be a bronze panel to match the building instead of wood.
Signage
Initially both the wall sign for the Rainbow Foods and the free-standing pylon sign
for the shopping center exceeded City Code requirements for commercial zoning. The
Rainbow Food sign was originally proposed at 800 square feet. This has been revised
to meet the Code requirement of 300 square feet.
The free-standing pylon sign was originally proposed to be 24 feet high with
approximately 125 square feet of sign surface. This pylon sign has been revised to
a 20-foot maximum height and 144 square feet of total sign area. This will require
a variance from the Board of Appeals. The proponents have indicated to Staff that
if the shopping center buildings were to be platted into individual lots, each would
be entitled to a free-standing pylon sign, or a total of 240 square feet. While
Staff concurs, it should be pointed out that the Prairie Village Center Mall and the
Jerry's Super Value Mall, have been operating for approximately ten years with free-
standing pylon signs meeting the Code requirement of 20 feet in height and 80 square
feet maximum area. Given the size of the project, total acreage, and setback, the
request for variance to sign square footage may have merit, as long as it does not
precipitate requests for variances in the future. It should also be pointed out
that technically a commercial lot with two street frontages can have two free-
standing pylon signs with one sign being 80 total square feet and the other pylon
sign be 36 square feet, or a total of 116 square feet.
The proponent would be on firmer ground requesting a variance to combine their two
allowed sign areas for a total of 116 square feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Staff would recommend approval of the request for a Rezoning of approximately
16.17 acres from Rural to C-Regional-Service, and Preliminary Plat of 16.17 acres
into three lots, based on revised plans dated January 3, 1986, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated December 6, 1985, and January 10, 1986,
and subject to the following conditions:
Prairie View Shopping Center 5 January 10, 1986
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Modify the site plan to provide for better internal site circulation
as identified on Attachment A, through a protected lane east/west
through the center of the parking lot or an extension of the
protected lane parallel with Prairie Center Drive.
B. Submit samples of proposed building materials for review including
the brick and metal panel.
C. Modify the landscape plan to meet the caliper inch requirement per
Code. Screen parking areas, loading areas, and the back side of the
project from adjacent roadways and land uses. Submit sight lines
from adjacent properties and roadways to show the effectiveness of
proposed screening.
D. Modify mechanical equipment screening plan on the Bonanza Restaurant
to a bronze metal panel instead of wood.
2. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control
plans, for review by the City Engineer.
C. Concurrent with final platting, request City Council to vacate
excess right-of-way along Plaza Drive.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
C. Submit a final lighting plan, with details, for review.
D. Submit a final signage program, with details, for review.
E. Submit final exterior building materials for review.
F. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshal.
4. Board of Appeals approval for the sign variance and the free-standing pylon
sign.
21
ected
w.ey
' h
Penttins
BOLDING 0
I SION AIRIE CENTER DRIVE •
* 32 I 20 3
•n••n•-
%d : 35 .• •D"
7.0-1
;&e,'•e
Or gin I 0
(ti .e,41
,
—Alternatlye!Protected Lane
'
*
W i tt •• PN)*
ON
lei
Iti[mninumintomintinii.
Access and internal Circulation
Attachment A
-;
PnY5'79 a<aa'tP
AREA LOCATION MAP . ,
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
TffOUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: December 6, 1985
SUBJECT: Prairie View Shopping Center
LOCATION: Northeast quadrant of Prairie Center Drive and Plaza Drive
APPLICANT: Weis Companies
FEE OWNER: Walter Carpenter
REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on
approximately 16.17 acres.
2. Preliminary Plat of 16.17 acres into two lots.
Background
The Comprehensive Guide Plan des-
ignates this site as a Regional
Commercial land use. Surrounding
land uses are Regional Commercial to
the north and east of the site,
Regional Commercial and Office to
the south of the site (south of T.H.
#5), and Office to the west of the
site.
Site Plan
The site plan involves the con-
struction of five buildings total-
ling 127,549 square feet. Floor
Area Ratio's (FAR) proposed for this
site are at 0.2 for Site 1, which
includes the Rainbow Foods retail
buildings B and C and the Perkins
Restaurant, and Site 2 (Bonanza
Restaurant) is 0.06. Building and
parking areas meet minimum setback
requirements per Ordinance to all
property lines.
Total parking provided is 669
Prairie View Shopping Center 2 December 6, 1985
parking spaces for Lot 1, and 94 parking spaces for the Bonanza Restaurant on Site
2. Parking provided on Lot 1 includes parking for the restaurant. If we assume a
165-seat restaurant, 55 parking spaces would be required. Subtracting this from the
669 parking spaces provided yields 614 parking spaces. The net parking ratio for
the retail buildings, based on 115,849 square feet, would be 5.29 spaces per 1,000.
Staff feels that parking provided on Lot 1 is not adequate.
Access and Circulation
Four access points to this site are provided. Two driveway entrances are provided
off Plaza Drive. The westerly driveway entrance on Plaza Drive is 400 feet from the
Prairie Center Drive intersection. The distance between the east and west access on
Plaza Drive is 300 feet. Staff feels that both distances are acceptable.
Two driveway entrances are provided off Prairie Center Drive. The northerly
entrance would be used primarily for employee parking and truck access. The
southernmost entrance would be the main entrance into the retail center. Staff
feels that this driveway entrance design has too sharp of a turning movement, has
inadequate stacking distance, and should be revised. A better entrance would be to
bring the driveway entrance further into the site before the driveway makes a loop
to the south. This would be similar to the approach used on City West Retail Center
on Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway.
Landscaping
For a project of this size, the caliper inch requirement would be 591 inches. The
amount of landscaping provided, according to the submitted plan, is 422 inches for
all trees that are 21/2-inch caliper or greater and six feet in height or greater.
The landscape plan is 169 caliper inches short per Ordinance. In addition, proposed
plantings are not allocated in accordance with minimum size requirement per the
landscape table which requires a minimum percentage of trees to be between 21/2-inch,
3-inch, 31/2-inch, 4-inch, and 5-inch caliper.
Parking will be visible from Highway #5, since Highway #5 is at higher elevation
than the parking lot. The berms proposed along Plaza Drive, will not screen parking
meaning that screening will have to be supplemented heavily with plant materials.
Use of shade trees within the parking lot is helpful to break up the overall
expansive hard surface area; however, the site plan would benefit from additional
and larger planting islands.
Some of the parking area will be visible from Prairie Center Drive since a 35-foot
setback is provided, a berm of five feet high can be provided. This means that the
four-foot berm can be increased by one foot. This, together with additional
coniferous plantings should screen parking areas.
The Rainbow Foods building is located at the 35-foot minimum setback per Ordinance
from Prairie Center Drive. Considering that the building is 24 feet high, a five-
foot berm and minimal landscaping will not be adequate enough to soften the views of
a wall that is approximately 24 feet high and 220 feet long. Staff would suggest
that, rather than providing a five-foot berm, the grade could be sloped up from the
property line to the building which, in effect, would allow the slope to be up to
ten feet on the building. This, supplemented with heavy and large coniferous
plantings of between 16 to 20 feet in height would soften this view.
Prairie View Shopping Center 3 December 6, 1985
Loading areas are proposed to be screened from Prairie Center Drive and adjacent
properties through plantings and landscaping. The level of berming and plantings
provided will not be adequate enough to screen the parking areas. The berming should
be supplemented with walls or fencing to an effective height of 14 feet which should
screen any trucks parked behind the building.
Views of the project from the north will be from higher elevations and will be the
back side of the center. The amount of berming and landscaping provided is not
adequate to soften this view. Additional berming and landscaping should be provided
between parking areas in the north property line.
There will be a back side view of retail Building C from Highway #5 and Plaza Drive.
Though some plantings are proposed to soften this view, this approach is not
adequate and could be handled more effectively through architecture.
Architecture
The five buildings proposed on this site are proposed to be constructed of a variety
of materials including facebrick, glass, metal panel, and stucco.
The buildings could be described architecturally as plain and lacking continuity. A
comparative way of describing the architecture would be by physical example to the
more elaborate and detailed architectual plans of the Eden Square project recently
reviewed by the Planning Commission, City West Retail Center, and the Vantage Retail
Center on Highway #169. The architecture could benefit from additional articulation
and detail. There are a number of ways in which this could be accomplished;
however, at the very least the covered walkway should be a stronger, more physically
functional element. An example of this would be the columns used on the Eden Square
and City West Retail Center. Extending the canopy out farther from the building
would also provide a greater walkway area for people. The canopy is proposed at
eight feet at this time. The architecture of the back side of Building C would also
benefit from a continuation of the front side of the architecture.
The lack of architectural compatibility between buildings is evidenced by the
difference in roof slopes and building materials. The primary building material on
the Perkins building is stucco, as opposed to brick on the other buildings. The
roof on the Bonanza Restaurant is flat as compared to the sloping roof parapet
provided on the other retail buildings, with the exception of the Rainbow Foods.
Rooftop mechanical units are proposed to be screened by two methods: 1) there will
be a continuous metal panel provided around an aggregation of rooftop mechanical
units on the Rainbow Foods building and the Bonanza building; 2) an extension of a
metal parapet wall will screen the mechanical units on the other retail buildings.
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be provided to this site by connection to existing
facilities in Prairie Center Drive and Plaza Drive. Storm water run-off is proposed
to sheet drain across the parking areas into catch basins from which point water
will flow through a series of underground storm sewer pipes to the existing systems
in Plaza Drive and Prairie Center Drive. The open swale along Plaza Drive will be
converted into a storm sewer pipe so that proposed berming would be allowed to occur
within the road right-of-way. The reason for this is that there is a sanitary sewer
easement within the normal front yard setback, which precludes the placement of
heavy fill.
.Z7 ()
Prairie View Shopping Center 4 December 6, 1985
Grading
Since the site is relatively level, a minimal amount of site grading will occur.
There are areas of stockpiled dirt which will be leveled to provide building pads
for all the buildings. The degree of slope across the parking areas will vary
between two to five percent. Proposed berms along the site perimeter are at 3/1
slopes.
Sign age
The proposed free-standing pylon sign is 24 feet tall and approximately 125 square
feet of sign surface. For C-Regional-Service Zoning, the Code would permit a
maximum height of 20 feet and a maximum sign surface of 80 square feet. Signage
proposed for the strip retail buildings B and C will consist of a signage box within
which individually lit letters would be attached. Lettering should be of a
consistent size and style.
No detailed signs for the Bonanza and Perkins Restaurant have been submitted for
review.
Rainbow Foods will have a wall sign of approximately 800 square feet on the front
face of the building towards Plaza Drive and Highway #5. For Commercial Zoning, a
wall sign for a building of this size cannot exceed 300 square feet.
Lighting
No lighting plan with details have been submitted for review. Staff would recommend
30-foot maximum height and a downcast, cut-off luminar.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff feels that there are a number of unresolved issues related to site planning,
architecture, landscaping, and access, which require further analysis and redesign.
Staff would recommend that the development plans be returned to the proponent for
revisions for the following reasons:
1. Inadequate site parking provided.
2. Inappropriate access provided on Prairie Center Drive which results in
traffic movement conflicts and does not provide enough stacking distance.
3. The landscape plan does not meet the caliper inch requirement per Ordinance.
4. Proposed berming and planting does not screen parking areas. Loading areas
are not effectively screened from adjacent roadways and adjacent land uses.
Additional landscaping is needed along Prairie Center Drive in front of the
Rainbow Foods building to help break up the building mass. Additional
planting islands and larger trees are needed within the parking lot to break
up the overall hard surface area.
5. Building architecture needs revision in terms of continuity of building
materials and design and a need for additional articulation and detail.
6. The signage plan needs to be revised to not exceed the maximum requirements
per Ordinance for the free-standing pylon sign and the wall sign for Rainbow
Foods. 2•11
UNAPPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 1986
B. PRAIRIE VIEW, by Weis, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from
Rural to C-Regional Service on approximately 16 acres with variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of
approximately 16 acres into two lots for construction of 114,371
square foot retail center. Location: Northeast quadrant of Highway
#5 and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing.
Mr. Don Brauer, representing proponents, reviewed the changes which had been
made since the previous meeting as outlined in the Staff Report of December
6, 1985. He noted that the stacking distance had been increased in the area
of concern, internal circulation was changed, revisions were made to the
architecture, and parking spaces were added. He stated that the
requirements of the landscape portion of the City Code, while not reflected
on the amended plans, would be complied with by the proponents.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of January 10, 1986.
Marhula stated that it appeared that the access to the Rainbow Foods store
was more circuitous than direct. He asked if this was an acceptable
situation to the store representatives. Mr. Brauer responded that it was.
Hallett asked if any of the trees currently located on the site would be
saved. Staff noted that the existing trees were located where buildings
were proposed, and would, therefore, be removed.
Marhula asked about screening of the use from the day care center located to
the north. Planner Franzen stated that this had been one of Staff's
concerns in review of the initial plans. He noted that, in discussions with
the proponents, it had been determined that this "back" view of the
structures could be screened through the use of landscaping and that this
would be incorporated into the landscape plan.
Planner Franzen stated that there should also be a sidewalk connection from
the front of the structures to the eight-foot wide bituminous trail along
Plaza Drive, tying into the trail located along Valley View Road. Mr.
Brauer stated that proponents agreed to installation of this connection.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--7-0-0
MOTION 2:
1-tr% C o.
:2:e3
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Weis, Inc. for Zoning District Change
from Rural to C-Regional-Service for approximately 16 acres, with variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for a 114,371 sq. ft. retail center,
based on revised plans dated January 3, 1986, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Reports dated December 6, 1985, and January 10, 1986, with the
added condition that proponents provide for connection of the sidewalk in
front of the structures to the City trail system at Plaza Drive.
Motion carried- -7 -0 -0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Weis, Inc. for Preliminary Plat of
approximately 16 acres into three lots for construction of a 114,371 sq. ft.
retail center, based on revised plans dated January 3, 1986, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated December 6, 1985, and January 10,
1986, with the added condition that proponents provide for connection of the
sidewalk in front of the structures to the City trail system at Plaza Drive.
Motion carried--7-0-0
(Chairman Schuck departed from the meeting at 9:15 p.m.; Acting Chairman
Hallett assumed the chair.)
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION f86-20
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE FARM FOR
COUNTRYSIDE INVESTMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of The Farm for Countryside Investments, dated December
26, 1986, consisting of 22.5 acres into 44 lots and one outlot, 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 4th day of February, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
gig
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
January 31, 1986
Community Services Department Staff Comments on Development Proposals
THE FARM
The request is for zoning district change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 20 acres, and
prelilminary plat of 22.5 acres in to 44 single family lots and one outlot. The site
is located north of the intersection of Duck Lake Trail and Boyd Ave.
There are two Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission concerns relating
to this plat; the first being the request for construction of an 8' wide bike trail
along the north side of Duck Lake Trail; the second being the impact of this
proposal on the Purgatory Creek Floodplain.
The land below the 910 contour is within the Purgatory Creek Conservancy Area as per
the Purgatory Creek Study. The conservancy area was considered a no build zone, and
was designated a conservancy area in order to maintain the character of the creek
valley. In this location, the creek valley is extremely wide; generally a quarter
of a mile or more in width. The City presently owns in excess of 100 acres of
floodplain in this vicinity, thus, assuring the majority of the creek valley will be
retained in its natural condition. The Community Services staff do, however,
suggest limiting grading on the slope to retain as much of the original character as
possible. The Community Services staff would recommend that a tree inventory be
required within the conservancy area and that all efforts be made to preserve any
significant maples and ash or oaks along this slope area. The trees that are
identified that can be saved should be marked and fenced prior to grading.
,276
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: January 10, 1986
PROJECT: The Farm
LOCATION: Duck Lake Trail and Boyd Avenue
APPLICANT: Countryside Investments
FEE OWNER: John and Barbara Erlandson
REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 20.0 acres.
2. Preliminary Plat of 22.5 acres into 44 single family lots
and one outlot.
Background
The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts
a Low Density Residential land use
for this site for up to 2.5 units
per acre. The Guide Plan depicts
surrounding land uses as Open Space
to the north, Low Density Res-
idential to the east and south of
the site and Public land use to the
west. The site is currently zoned
Rural and is bordered by R1-22
zoning on the south and east of the
site, with Public zoning for the
King of Glory Church on the west.
Part of the Purgatory Creek 100-year
flood plain encroaches into the
extreme northwest corner of the
site. The low area, compromising
2.5 acres is proposed as an outlot
to be dedicated to the City. As
part of site development, the
farmstead in the south-central
portion of the site will be removed.
There are a large number of existing
The Farm 2 January 10, 1986
trees on the property consisting primarily of cottonwood, maple and ash. There are,
however, a number of large oak trees between 30 to 36 inches in caliper on the
property as well.
Land area below the 910 contour elevation is within the Purgatory Creek conservancy
area. The conservancy area was envisioned as a no-build zone to protect the slopes
along the 100-year flood plain. Fourteen (14) lots are within this zone. The Parks
Director has reviewed this and indicated the City has already purchased in excess of
100 acres of flood plain adjacent to the slopes and feels that additional land area
would not be needed since the City owned area is extensive, but did suggest limiting
grading on the slope to retain as much as the original character as possible. The
Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission should determine the need for
conservancy easements.
Site Plan
The site plan involves the construction of 44 single family lots on 22.5 acres of
land. The gross density, including Outlot A, is 1.96 units per acre. The net
density, excluding the outlot on 20.0 net acres of land is 2.2 units per acre. The
adjacent R1-22 developments to the east and south of the project are built at 1.8
units per acre. Lots sizes abutting the property average 22,000 square feet. Lot
sizes in this project vary between 13,500 to 28,750 square feet, with an average lot
size of 17,162 square feet.
All lots within the proposed subdivision meet the minimum street frontage,
dimensional, and square footage requirements for the R1-13.5 District.
Grading
In general, proposed grading works with the existing contours of the site. Walkout
units are proposed along the western side of Boyd Avenue to take advantage of the
drop in elevation between the roadway and the adjacent property lines. Units to the
east of Boyd Avenue will either be tuck-under units or on-grade units. Maximum road
grades proposed are at 5%.
Even though construction and grading is proposed on the slope in the conservancy
zone, Staff feels that overall grading is minimal and retains the integrity of the
slope. Staff would recommend that no grading be allowed below the 890 contour which
would preserve 20 feet of vertical height above the flood plain.
Proposed building construction and regrading will result in the loss of eight out of
eleven oak trees. It may be possible to save more of the trees by use of individual
building designs and specific placement of structures on the property to save more
of the trees. Many of the large cottonwood, ash, and maple trees, will remain on
the property. 47 of the total 70 trees will be retained according to the submitted
grading plan. Staff feels that any development of the property will result in tree
loss and the proposed layout of the property appears to be done in a sensitive way,
saving the majority of the trees.
Utilities
Sewer and water service must be extended to this site. Sanitary sewer service must
be extended from Parkview Lane to the west of the church, and from West 66th Street
to the east of the site. The proponents have submitted a letter indicating their
R17
The Farm 3 January 10, 1986
Intention to construct the sewer line at this time, but that they may petition the
City to extend the sewer line. Staff has also received a letter from the King of
Glory Church which indicates that they do not object to the sewer line being
constructed across their project.
Water can be extended to this site by connection to existing facilities along West
175th Street.
In order to extend sewer and water service from West 175th Street to the northern
part of the project it will be required that an easement be obtained from two
properties at the north end of 175th Street.
Storm water run-off is proposed to drain in two directions. The northern half of
the project will drain towards the Purgatory Creek flood plain area and the southern
portion of the project will drain towards Duck Lake Trail. The proposed storm sewer
pipes to the Purgatory Creek currently stop at some point on private property.
These should be extended to the outlot area to the west.
Bikeways
City plans include an eight-foot wide bike trail to be constructed on the north side
of Duck Lake Trail. The plat should be revised to include the trail.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Staff would recommend approval of the request for Preliminary Plat of 22.5 acres
Into 44 single family lots and one outlot, and rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 based
on plans dated December 26, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report
dated January 10, 1985, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Modify the utility plans to extend the storm sewer pipes to the
outlot.
B. Revise the plat to include an eight-foot wide bike trail on the
north side of Duck Lake Trail.
2. Prior to final plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility
plans, for review by the City Engineering Department.
C. Dedication of Outlot A, free and clear of all liens mortgages and
encumbrances.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
C. Stake the erosion control limits with a snow fence and stake the
proposed grading limits with a snow fence within the wooded areas of
the project denoting trees to be saved and trees to be removed.
Trees removed outside of the grading limits will be replaced on an
area inch per area inch basis. ,1.,1
UNAPPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 1986
D. THE FARM, by Countryside Investments. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 20.2 acres and Preliminary Plat of
22.5 acres into 44 single family lots and one outlot. Location:
North of Duck Lake Trail, West of West 175th Avenue. A public
hearing.
Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, reviewed the development plans with
the Commission. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations
of the Staff Report of January 10, 1986.
Marhula asked if it would be possible to accommodate this development
without connection to the lift station located north of the property.
Planner Franzen stated that this was possible.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked if the existing structures on the property
would be removed. Mr. Arvid Schwartz, Countryside Development, stated that
all existing structures would be removed from the property.
Marhula asked if it would be possible to eliminate direct access to Duck
Lake Trail for the few lots shown to do so on the plans. Mr. Krueger
responded that this alternative had been reviewed, but rejected due to the
preference to align the street access to Duck Lake Trail from this
development with Boyd Avenue on the south side of Duck Lake Trail.
Mrs. Alan Johnson, 6600-175th Avenue West, expressed concern about the
extension of sanitary sewer to the development. She explained that, in
order to accomplish this, the developer may need to access the sanitary
sewer via an easement across her lot. Mrs. Johnson added that she had no
objections to the type of development proposed.
Planner Enger stated that the decisions about access to the sanitary sewer
would be a negotiated process between the developer and the Johnsons from
this point forward. Mr. Krueger stated that the proponents were willing to
work with the Johnsons in order to make arrangements most beneficial to both
parties.
Mr. Mike King, 6720-175th Avenue West, expressed concern about potential
assessments which may be precipitated by this development. Planner Enger
stated that this was a matter for the City Council, but that it was his
understanding that the existing lots in Mr. King's neighborhood would not be
assessed for additional public facilities, or utilities as a result of this
development.
Mr. Jim Bass, 17440 W. 66th Street, stated that several years ago, the
sanitary sewer backed up in his home. He stated that he would be in favor
of elimination of the lift station as soon as possible. He noted that this
had not happened again since that time, and that he was aware of the City's
efforts to monitor the lift station.
Mr. Alan Johnson, 6600-175th Avenue West, asked if the City would be
79
compelled to force extension of the sanitary sewer line through hi
s
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
In the future, if the lift station proved to be a problem. Plan
n
e
r
E
n
g
e
r
stated that this would be a decision of the City Engineer, noting
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
development of this property would be an opportune time to take car
e
o
f
s
u
c
h
a problem.
Dodge asked about the final grading plans with respect to preserv
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
the trees on the property. Planner Enger stated that the developer
'
s
p
l
a
n
s
indicated preservation of the majority of the trees on the pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
;
however, after purchase by an individual homeowner, the homeow
n
e
r
h
a
d
ultimate responsibility and control over the preservation of tree
s
o
n
t
h
e
lots.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to close the public hear
i
n
g
.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Council approval of the request of Countryside Investments f
o
r
Z
o
n
i
n
g
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 20.2 acres for construct
i
o
n
o
f
4
4
single family lots, to be known as The Farm, based on plans date
d
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
26, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report date
d
J
a
n
u
a
r
)
, 10, 1986.
Motion carried --6 -0 -0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Bye, to recommend to
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Council approval of the request of Countryside Investments for Pre
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Plat of 22.5 acres for construction of 44 single family lots to be
k
n
o
w
n
a
s
The Farm, based on plans dated December 26, 1985, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
lg
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #86-23
_RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ALPINE VILLAGE FOR
• HERLITZ CONSTRUCTION
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Alpine Village for Herlitz Construction, dated January
7, 1986, consisting of 8.23 acres into 17 lots, a copy of which is on file at the
City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie
Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 4th day of February, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services —At-
January 31, 1986
Community Services Department Staff Comments on Development Proposals
ALPINE VILLAGE
The request is for a zoning district change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 8.36 acres and
preliminary plat of 8.36 acres into 17 lots for 16 single family homes.
This item was first brought to the Planning Commission in September of 1985 with a
request for Guide Plan change from low density reisdential to medium density
residential and zoning district change from R1-22 to RM 6.5 on 7.58 acres, and
preliminary plat of 8.36 acres of the two lots for the construction of 30 townhomes
and a single family home. The request has now been changed to request for zoning
district change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 8.36 acres and preliminary plat of 8.36
acres into 17 lots for construction of 16 single family homes.
The site is located east of Alpine Trail, south of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul
and Pacific Railroad. The development of this site will require extensive grading
with cuts of up to 52' and fill of up to 24, which will result in removal of the
majority of the vegetation on this site. Due to the steep grade of the road, even
development of half acre lots would require nearly the same grading; therefore, tthe
Community Services Staff recommend the approval of the Apline Village Single Family
request as per the Planning Staff Report of January 10, 1986.
AREA LOCATION MARA
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
iTIRTUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: January 10, 1986
SUBJECT: Alpine Village Single Family Revised
LOCATION: East of Alpine Trail, South of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad
APPLICANT: Herlitz Construction Company
REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 8.36 acres.
2. Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 17 lots for construction
of 16 single family homes.
Background
This property, Outlot 2, Alpine
Estates, is currently zoned R1-22
and guided Low Density Residential
for up to 2.5 units per acre. The
Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts
surrounding areas as Low Density
Residential, with current zoning
classifications including R1-13.5 to
the north, R1-22 to the south and
west, and Rural and flood plain to
the east.
The applicant is requesting a Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-
13.5 and a Preliminary Plat of 8.36
acres into 17 lots.
Site Characteristics
This site is naturally bowl-shaped,
with high point elevations existing
along the western and northern
boundaries. The topography slopes
in a southeasterly direction towards
Purgatory Creek. There is an
existing single family residence in
the northeast corner of the site
Alpine Village Single Family Revised 2 January 10, 1986
which is served by an existing driveway. In addition, there is a significant amount
of vegetation scattered throughout the site. This vegetation ranges from underbrush
and lowland vegetation adjacent to the floodplain, to large caliper inch ash and oak
trees high on the slopes. The majority of desirable trees are located in the
northeast corner adjacent to the existing single family residence and along the
southwest property line. It is recommended that as many of these trees as possible
be saved to help retain the natural character of the site.
Site Plan/Preliminary Plat
The preliminary plat depicts the subdivision of an 8.36-acre tract into 17 single
family lots averaging 17,512 square feet per lot. Lot sizes range from a minimum of
13,600 square feet to a maximum of 29,100 square feet. All of the lots meet the
minimum requirements of an R1-13.5 Zoning District.
Access to the site is provided by the extension of Alpine Trail to the east
approximately 830 feet. The proposed right-of-way for Alpine Trail measures 60 feet
in width and is being designed as a residential collector street.
Grading
The natural topography of this site slopes in a southeasterly direction towards
Purgatory Creek from high points existing along the north edge of the property.
These points range in elevations from 936 in the northeast corner to a low point
elevation of 848, a difference in elevation of approximately 88 feet. Natural
slopes range from approximately 2% adjacent to the Purgatory Creek flood plain to a
high of approximately 40%. Because there are slopes greater than 12% and an
elevation difference of over 30 feet, a steep slope review is required concurrent
with the development review.
Overall site grading can be described as extensive with cuts of up to 52 feet and
fill of up to 24 feet. The primary reason for this amount of grading is to allow
for the construction of the Alpine Trail extension with adjacent building pads.
Grades on Alpine Trail approach 8% which is the maximum allowed by Code.
Upon reviewing the proposed grading plan, Staff has determined that grading in both
the northeast and northwest corners is excessive and should be reduced to help
maintain the natural character of the site. In response to this, Staff is
recommending that due to the existing road alignment and adjacent building pads,
suggested grading limits should be at the 910 contour elevation in the northeast
corner and at the the 918 contour elevation in the northwest corner (see Attachment
A). Advantages of this would be the elimination of grading on the wooded hillside
adjacent to the single family home, thus retaining a number of large caliper inch
trees, eliminating the grading on the railroad right-of-way, decreasing the amount
of grading on the hill in the northwest corner, and possibly reducing the amount of
grade on the Alpine Trail extension.
Utilities
Water and sanitary sewer services are available to this site. Water service is
proposed by the extension of an eight-inch watermain within the Alpine Trail right-
of-way. Alternatives for sanitary sewer service, which are being examined by the
applicant, include tapping an existing 60-inch sanitary sewer trunk line located
east of the subject property or tapping an existing 12-inch sanitary sewer line
Alpine Village Single Family Revised 3 January 10, 1986
located in North Hillcrest Court, which is located to the south of the subject
property. Specific details regarding sanitary sewer location and any associated
easements will be required prior to City Council review. There is an existing 20-
foot drainage and utility easement which extends north/south through the subject
property, which primarily captures the run-off from existing drain culvert to the
north. Drainage is being designed to sheet drain across the residential lots in a
southerly direction towards Purgatory Creek. The applicant will be required to
design and install a storm sewer system within Alpine Trail to capture run-off.
Traffic
The applicant is proposing to develop 17 lots on this property. Trip generation for
single family residences can be calculated at ten trips per day per household, with
10% of the trips occuring in the peak hour. Total trips expected for this
development would be 170 trips per day, with 17 trips occuring in the peak hour.
These volumes as proposed should not have a significant impact on the traffic
capacity of the streets or intersections in the area. Staff would, however, concur
with the recommendations made in the traffic study for the proposed Alpine Village
development by Barton Aschman Associates, Inc., regarding the replacement of yield
signs with stop signs at certain neighborhood intersections (see Attachments 8 and
C)
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval for the request for Zoning District Change from R1-22
to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 17 lots, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1986, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Revise the grading plan to reflect the reduced grading as depicted
on Attachment A.
B. Revise the utility plan to reflect a storm sewer system within
Alpine Trail.
C. Submit specific details regarding the location of the sanitary sewer
line along with any associated easements.
2. Prior to final plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosions control plans for
review by the City Engineering Department.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall:.
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshall.
cw1 (0tn:1
f Alpine Village Single Family Revised 4 January 10, 1986
4. Prior to grading permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and the Watershed District at least 48 hours in
advance of grading.
B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing.
C. Stake the grading limits with a snow fence. Any trees lost
outside of the proposed grading limits shall be replaced on a
cross-sectional trunk, area inch for area inch basis.
ATTACHMENT A
UNAPPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 1986
C. ALPINE VILLAGE, by Herlitz Construction. Request for Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 8.36 acres and Preliminary
Plat of 8.36 acres into 17 lots for construction of 16 single family
homes. Location: East of Alpine Trail, south of Chicago,
Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. A public hearing.
Staff reported that this property had recently been reviewed by the City for
multiple residential development. Proponents were returning at this time
with a request for single family residential development of the land.
Mr. Charles Habiger, representing proponent, reviewed the plans for the
single family development with the Commission. Planner Franzen reviewed the
findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of January 10, 1986.
Marhula asked if proponents had met with the neighborhood regarding this
single family proposal, as had been done with the multiple family proposal.
Mr. Habiger stated that this had been done.
Mr. Habiger stated that he was asking the City to consider a 50 ft. wide
right-of-way, instead of a 60 ft. wide right-of-way, for the public road
through the project. He stated that this would aid in reducing the amount
of grading necessary for the development of the property. Planner Enger
stated that Staff would have to review this, prior to making a
recommendation as to the benefits of a 50 ft. wide road.
Marhula expressed concern about the proposed grading at the back of some of
the housing pads, noting that there was little provision made for 'usable
back yards, and that many of the back yards seemed to be sloped. He asked
about the sanitary sewer connection to be made from the east. Mr. Habiger
stated that he was still working with Mr. Anderson, owner of the property to
the east, regarding a potential utility easement for this purpose. He added
that he had discussed the situation in greater detail with the City
Engineering Department. He stated that it was pointed out that Mr. Anderson
would not be able to tie directly into the 60-inch pipe running through his
property, since he would only have a few buildable lots from all of his
property.
Mr. Dwight Harvey, 16190 Alpine Way, asked if there would be an appreciable
difference in the amount of grading necessary, if the homes were moved
closer to the railroad tracks. Planner Franzen stated that the difference
would not be significant.
Mr. Harvey asked what would be happening to the existing vegetation on the
property, particularly in the northeast and southwest portions of the
property. Mr. Habiger stated that the developer would be doing what he
could to maintain the vegetation where possible, but that he would have have
control over what individual landowners would do with their properties. He
added that the vegetation behind Mr. Harvey's property was shown to be
preserved on the plans.
2637
Mr. Harvey stated that he felt that a suggestion made at a previous meeting,
regarding the replacement of Yield signs with Stop signs, was still an
appropriate one for this development.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked for Staff's opinion regarding the proposal for
a 50 ft. wide right-of-way for the street. Planner Franzen stated that it
appeared to be an acceptable alternative, pending detailed review.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked if there were plans to continue the public
street through the property to the east, eventually connecting to Edenvale
Boulevard. Planner Franzen stated that this was not planned currently, but
that it may happen in future.
Acting Chairman Hallett asked if any sidewalks were planned for the
development. Planner Franzen stated that there were none planned for this
street, and pointed out that there were none existing in this neighborhood
to which a sidewalk, or trail, from this development could connect.
Mr. Al Bode, 16090 Alpine Way, asked about the eventual disposition of the
property located within the designated flood plain. Planner Enger stated
that the property would be protected from development by existing Code
requirements. He stated that, basically, property within a designated flood
plain was unavailable for development.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Herlitz Construction for Zoning District
Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 8.36 acres construction of 16 single family
homes to be known as Alpine Village, based on plans dated January 7, 1986,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1986,
with the added condition that Staff review the impact of narrowing the width
of the right-of-way for the public street to 50 ft. in order to minimize
grading.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Herlitz Construction for Preliminary Plat
of 8.36 acres into 17 lots for construction of 16 single family homes to be
known as Alpine Village, based on plans dated January 7, 1986, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 10, 1986, with the
added condition that Staff review the impact of narrowing the width of the
right-of-way for the public street to 50 ft. in order to minimize grading.
Motion carried--6-0-0
FEBRUARY 4,1986
,/4818 VOID OUT CHECK
i 017 VOID OUT CHECK
6019 VOID OUT CHECK
25145 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
25146 STATE TREASURER
25147 ED GREGORY
25148 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
25149 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO
25150 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU
25151 SARAH HARDIN
25152 ALEX FRICK
25153 TRACY OLSEN
25154 STATE REGISTER
25155 AMERICAN RED CROSS
DECEMBER 85 FUEL TAX
DEC 85 BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGE
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL - FEES PD
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES -CITY HALL/COMMUNITY CENTER
REFUND SWING LESSONS
REFUND SKATING LESSONS
REFUND SKATING LESSONS
BOOKS - PUBLIC SAFETY
-ADVANCE LIFE SAVING CLASS FILM -
COMMUNITY CENTER
8310.96-
432.48-
325.00-
402.90
6722.11
95.00
140.68
256.85
432.48
11.00
10.10
16.00
174.50
90.00
25156 VOID CHECK
25157 DRIVER & VEHICLE SERVICE DIVISION
25158 AT & T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV
25159 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS
25160 EDEN PRAIRIE TRASHTRONICS
25161 JERRY & MARJORIE FERR
25162 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
25163 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO
25164 SUE HERMAN MRC ADMINISTRATOR
25165 TIM BUSHNELL
25166 MICHAEL K EPPS
, BILL DOLNY
14, ,168 BRENT GAREMS
25169 MATTHEW KOCH
25170 MICHAEL & JEFFEREY MC MAINS
25171 RYAN WALZ
25172 U S POSTMASTER
25173 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO
25174 EAGLE WINE CO
25175 QUALITY WINE CO
25176 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO
25177 TWIN CITY WINE CO
25178 MARK VII SALES
25179 PAUSTIS & SONS CO
25180 PRIOR WINE CO
25181 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC
25182 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
25183 MINN POLLUTION CONTROL
25184 MN MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES INC
25185 ILLUSION THEATER AND SCHOOL INC
25186 AFTON ALPS
25187 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS
25188 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO
25189 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS
25190 ROBERT BARTON
25191 MATTHEW LE VOIR
'5192 MICHELLE ANDREA OLSSON
193 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
4194 TWIN CITY WINE CO
25195 QUALITY WINE CO
TAX EXEMPT PLATES FOR CITY VEHICLES
SERVICE
SERVICE
DEC 85 TRASH REMOVAL
REFUND -MARCEL MARCEAU TOUR
SERVICE
SERVICE
CONFERENCE - COMMUNITY CENTER
REFUND -RACQUETBALL LEAGUE
REFUND -SATURDAY SKI CLUB
REFUND - SATURDY SKI CLUB
REFUND -SATURDAY SKI CLUB
REFUND - SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND - SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND - SWIMMING LESSONS
FIRST CLASS PRESORT PERMIT FEE
SERVICE
LIQUOR
WINE
LIQUOR
WINE
WINE
WINE
WINE
LIQUOR
DEC 85 SALES TAX
CONFERENCE - SEWER DEPT
CONFERENCE - LIQUOR STORE
EXPENSES - HISTORICAL CULTURE
YOUTH HIGH SCHOOL SKI TRIP
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REFUND -SKI TRIP
REFUND - SKI TRIP
REFUND - KIDS KORNER
SERVICE
LIQUOR
WINE
0.00
2107.50
4.50
2540.25
325.00
41.00
3412.54
309.33
105.00
4.50
105.50
105.50
105.50
2.50
6.00
13.00
50.00
606.57
3312.38
447.52
3756.58
2849.67
32.83
597.92
709.23
757.43
21872.16
50.00
120.00
650.00
194.00
831.75
42.00
17.10
336.00
105.50
18.00
21044.23
5060.29
13.97
7194593
5 0
25196
25197
'-'5198
k j199
25200
25201
25202
25203
25204
25205
25206
25207
25208
25209
25210
25211
25212
25213
25214
25215
25216
25217
25218
25219
25220
25221
25222
( 223
‘...J224
25225
25226
25227
25228
EAGLE WINE CO
GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC
PRIOR WINE CO
ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO
WELCH VILLAGE
MET SPORT CENTER
JASON-NORTHCO PROPERTIES
MID AMERICA POWER DRIVE
ROXANNE AHSENMACHER
BRIAN CORNISH
BRENDAN NOLAN
LOUISE O'KEEFE
LORI RONHOVDE
TIM RONHOVDE
TRACY RONHOVDE
STEPHANIE SCHOLLMAN
BEN WAGNER
SHIRLEY LYE
THERESA MOE
PRAIRIE CONSTRUCTION
MINNESOTA COMMERCE DEPT
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
A TO Z RENTAL CENTER
ACME TYPEWRITERS INC
ACRO-MINNESOTA INC
AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC
AMP PRODUCTS CORP
EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC
ARMOR SECURITY INC
ARTWORKS TOO
ASPLUND COFFEE CO INC
ASTLEFORD INTL INC
25229 AT & T COMMUNICATIONS
25230 MICHAEL T AYERS
25231 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC
25232 BRIAN BENIEK
25233 B R W INC
25234 JOHN BERGL
25235 BIG WHEEL AUTO STORES
25236 SAM BLOOM IRON & METAL CO
25237 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
25238 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH CO
25239 BORCHERT-INGERSOLL INC
25240 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC
25241 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC
25242 BROWN PHOTO
LIQUOR 3844.70
LIQUOR 477.03
WINE 276.59
LIQUOR 3585.80
SKI TRIP TO WELCH VILLAGE - FEES PD 539.00
WORLD'S TOUGHEST RODEO - FEES PD 30.00
JAN & FEB 86 RENT - LIQUOR STORE 9237.89
CONFERENCE - STREET DEPT 40.00
REFUND -SWIMMING LESSONS 8.67
REFUND - RACQUETBALL MEMBERSHIP 47.50
REFUND - SWIMMING LESSONS 6.75
REFUND - SWIMMING LESSONS 13.50
REFUND - SWIMMING LESSONS 24.00
REFUND - SWIMMING LESSONS 24.00
REFUND - SWIMMING LESSONS 24.00
REFUND - SWIMMING LESSONS 24.00
REFUND - SWIMMING LESSONS 10.00
REFUND -WORLD'S TOUGHEST RODEO 45.00
REFUND -WORLD'S TOUGHEST RODEO 13.00
HOUSING REHABILITATION PROJECT EXPENSES 2905.00
NOTARY FEE - ENGINEERING DEPT 10.00
1985 WATER USE REPORT - ENGINEERING DEPT 10.00
EQUIPMENT RENTAL- COMMUNITY CENTER 53.00
SERVICE CONTRACT - POLICE DEPT 170.00
-OFFICE SUPPLIES/CHAIR/COMPUTER/TABLE/ 489.98
PRINTER STAND - CITY HALL
LAB SUPPLIES - WATER DEPT 93.44
BOOK -WATER PLANT 17.00
BATTERY LABELS - EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 141.75
STREET SIGNS -STREET DEPT 26.70
KEYS 20.70
LOBBY PICTURES -WATER DEPT 60.00
COFFEE - COMMUNITY CENTER CONCESSIONS 126.00
-POWER STEERING SEALS/MUFFLER CLAMPS- 60.62
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
SERVICE 90.86
REPLACE/REPAIR DOOR - POLICE DEPT 189.73
-OIL FILTERS/BATTERIES/SIGNAL LIGHTS/CABLE 749.39
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
MILEAGE - COMMUNITY CENTER 33.75
-SERVICE -EDEN ROAD/VALLEY VIEW ROAD/ 10495.77
PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
REFUND -BUILDING PERMIT 65.03
CYLINDER/RUNNING BOARD - EQUIPMENT MAINT 82.37
STEEL - POLICE TRAILER 361.32
ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICE- POLICE DEPT 310.00
-INSTALL ELECTRIC STRIKE SYSTEM/KEYS- 218.00
WATER PLANT/POLICE DEPT
WIPER SWITCH -EQUIPMENT MAINT 29.05
SLUDGE ANALYSIS -WATER DEPT 45.00
-SERVICE -ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY/PRESERVE 2560.60
BLVD/TANAGER CREED SEWER
-FILM PROCESSING - POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY 81.75
CENTER/PLANNING DEPT
3776824
,3 01
TERMINAL/WIRE- POLICE DEPT
SUPPLIES - LIQUOR STORE
SALT - STREET DEPT
-INSTALL FLASHLIGHT CHARGER & MAP LIGHT IN
SQUAD CARS/REPAIRS - POLICE DEPT
OIL/MIX/WRENCHES/GLOVES -FORESTRY DEPT
RIVET/BRAKE SHOE RELINING-EQUIPMENT MAINT
U-JOINT -PARK MAINT
LEASE SERVICE AGREEMENT - POLICE DEPT
-PLANHOLDER STRIPS -ENG DEPT/VELLUM -
PLANNING DEPT
-NAME PLATES -POLICE/ASSESSING/PLANNING/
BUILDING DEPT
QUICKLIME - WATER DEPT
MILEAGE
EXPENSES - DEC 85
MILEAGE/SUPPLIES
EXPENSES - COMMUNITY SERVICE
MASTERS WORKSHOP -ILLUSION THEATRE-FEES PD
DEC 85 TEST - WATER PLANT
JAN 86 EXPENSES
M
1136.36
RA
HOCKEY OFFICIAL - FEES PD
CHLORINE - WATER DEPT
AUDIT SERVICE
REFUND - BUILDING DEPT
SERVICE-FAIRWAY & BAKER - WATER PLANT
RADIO REPAIR & PARTS - EQUIPMENT INT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
REPAIR AURORA PUMP - WATER PLANT
TIRES - EQUIPMENT MAINT
LIGHTS - COMMUNITY CENTER
BUILDING REPAIR - P/W & PARKS
REFUND WATER & SEWER BILL
ADAPTER SET/DRUM TOOL -EQUIPMENT MAINT
BUS SERVICE - WINTER DAY CAMP DEC 85
-SAFETY SHIELD - PARK MAINT/TINTED GLASS-
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
TRAFFIC TICKETS 715.00
DEC 85 BOOKING FEE 218.88
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 114.57
RENTAL OF CHIPHARVESTER 9/85-FORESTRY DEPT 1479.40
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FEE 434.25
REPAIR COPIER - BUILDING DEPT 56.00
REPAIR TAPE RECORDER- PLANNING DEPT 30.75
REPAIR FLOOR JACK-EQUIPMENT MAINT 155.00
CLEANING SUPPLIES - CITY HALL 867.65
PROPERTY TAX JOURNAL - ASSESSING DEPT 15.00
XEROX COPIES OVERAGE - CITY HALL 80.45
COPY MACHINE TONER - POLICE DEPT 251.10
OFFICE SUPPLIES - POLICE DEPT 1124.80
NO SMOKING SIGN/GLUE - POL10E/WATER PLANT 30.07
EXPENSES - MANAGER 64.55
25243 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER
25244 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY
5245 CARGILL SALT DIVISION
,246 CENTURION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
25247 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS
25248 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC
25249 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE INC
25250 COLE PUBLICATIONS
25251 COPY EQUIPMENT INC
25252 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO
25253 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY
25254 STEVEN C DURHAM
25255 EUGENE DIETZ
25256 JENNIFER DRESSEN
25257 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
25258 EDEN PRAIRIE DRAMA CLUB
25259 CITY OF EDINA
25260 CHRIS ENGER
25261 RON ESS
25262 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC
25263 FOX MCCUE & MURPHY
25264 FRANZ ENG REPRODUCTIONS INC
25265 FRONTIER MIDWEST
25266 G L CONTRACTING INC
/ 267 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC
J268 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO
25269 GENERAL REPAIR SERVICE
25270 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTERS
25271 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC
25272 HALE COMPANY INC
25273 DON HANSON
25274 HANCO
25275 HANUS BUS CO INC
25276 HARMON GLASS
25277 HENNEPIN COUNTY
25278 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT
25279 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
25280 HENNEPIN COUNTY BUREAU OF PUBLIC
25281 DIRECTOR OF PROPERTY TAX AND PUBL
25282 D C HEY CO INC
25283 HI Fl SOUND ELECTRONICS
25284 HYDRAULIC JACK & EQUIPMENT SERVIC
25285 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 01ST #272
25286 INTL ASSOC OF ASSESSING OFFICERS
25287 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC
25288 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC
25289 JAK OFFICE PRODUCTS
25290 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC
2 5291 CARL JULLIE
218.64
320.20
702.26
72.00
108.36
21.17
48.14
156.00
167.64
76.92
3737.35
15.00
165.00
50.03
20.00
50.00
104.50
165.00
0.00
134.00
576.79
1000.00
PHOTOS - ENGINEERING DEPT 32.89
1740.90
136.95
23.60
628.77
186.12
25.00
170.21
276.18
176.19
100.00
112.31
1829195
JUSTUS LUMBER CO
MARK KILMER
LANDCO EQUIPMENT INC
LA HASS MFG A SALES INC
LANE INSURANCE INC
LANCE
LEEF BROS INC
LINDIG MFG CORP
LOGIS
MAUMA
MAMA
MILLER/DAVIS CO
MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT CO
VIKING LABS
METRO PRINTING INC
MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO
MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO
MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO
MINNEGASCO
MINNESOTA FIRE & SAFETY INC
MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSOC
MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC
MODERN TIRE CO
EARL R MORE
NELSON DISTRIBUTORS
ANDREA NERHUS
NORTHERN STATES POWER
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
NORTHWEST TRANSFER & WAREHOUSE IN
NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS NA
OCHS BRICK & TILE CO
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
25326 PENNSYLVANIA OIL CO
25327 JOYCE PHELPS
25328 POWER BRAKE EQUIPMENT CO
25329 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC
25330 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN
25331 R & R SPECIALTIES INC
25332 GARY LEE RADTKE
25333 AAGE REFFSGAARD
25334 GARY REYNOLDS
25335 RIDGE DOOR SALES CO OF MN INC
25336 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO
25337 ROHACO
25338 ROOT-O-MATIC SEWER SERVICE CO
25339 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC
25340 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO
25292
25293
/-14
k 295
25296
25297
25298
25299
25300
25301
25302
25303
25304
25305
25306
25307
25308
25309
25310
25311
25312
25313
25314
25315
25316
?5317
( '18
c4.319
25320
25321
25322
25323
25324
25325
LUMBER - WATER DEPT
UNIFORM REFUND - COMMUNITY CENTER
COTTER PINS- PARK DEPT
LUBRICANT/O'RING/PLOW GUIDES-PARK MAINT
NOTARY FEE - ENGINEERING DEPT
SUPPLIES - LIQUOR STORE
RUG & MIFORM SERVICE - STREET/POLICE DEPT
-TOOL KIT/SOCKET ADAPTERS/FEELER GUAGE-
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
DEC 85 SERVICE
86 DUES -ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
1986 MEMBERSHIP DUES - CITY MANAGER
ENVELOPES - CITY HALL
REPAIR CYLINDER- PARK MAINT
CHLORINE TEST TABS -COMMUNITY CENTER
-LETTERHEAD/ENVELOPES/INVESTIGATION REPORT
POLICE DET
CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER
BLACKTOP - STREET MAINTENANCE
1986 SUBSCRIPTION - CITY HALL
ADS -COMMUNITY CENTER/POLICE DEPT
EMPLOYMENT AD - ATHLETIC COORDINATOR
SERVICE
EXPANSION RINGS/SWITCH - FIRE DEPT
1986 MEMBERSHIP - PARKS & REC
ADS -LIQUOR STORES
8 TIRES - EQUIPMENT MAINT
REIMBURSE 50% OF COST FOR DRIVEWAY
SPROCKETS - PARK MAINTENANCE
EXPENSES - ASSESSING DEPT
SERVICE
4TH QUARTER 85 SERVICE
SHIPPING CHARGES - POLICE DEPT
SERVICE
CEMENT ROD - PARK MAINTENANCE
-CABLE/SCREW PIN ANCHOR - EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE
HYDRAULIC FLUID - EQUIPMENT MAINT
AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR - FEES PD
STROBE/SNOWPLOW LAMP - EQUIP MAINT
-REPAIR SPLICE/REPLACE BAD BREAKER- ROUND
LAKE SKATING RINK
SWITCH - PARK MAINT
SHARPEN ZAMBONI BLADES - COMMUNITY CENTER
EXPENSES -FIRE DEPT
BOOK - BUILDING DEPT
REFUND PLAN CHECK - BUILDING DEPT
REPAIR DOOR - P/S BLDG
HYDRAULIC RAM FOR SNOW PLOW
REPAIR KIT - WATER PLANT
SERVICE - LAURAL DR
PORTABLE RESTROOMS - PARKS DEPT
-HANDLES/WIRE BRUSH - WATER PLANT/CAR WASH
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
22.64
13.25
41.76
31.75
60.00
30.45
205.70
16.24
4794.70
15.00
5.00
9.20
74.27
17.13
678.00
450.70
160.63
35.10
120.00
38.50
5200.78
55.80
85.00
405.19
130.50
1137.50
23.68
12.00
7013.41
32.99
15.28
799.71
7.15
142.12
441.85
83.20
247.53
98.15
10.10
79.80
10.00
19.60
13.27
17.20
201.22
3.07
425.00
1010.00
271.00
2481212
25341
25342
( 344
25345
25346
25347
25348
25349
25350
25351
25352
25353
25354
25355
DALE SCHMIDT
KEVIN W SCHMIEG
STEVEN R SINELL
SNAP PRINT-WEST
SOUTHWEST FIRE LEAGUE
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSI
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC
SPS COMPANY INC
DON STREICHER GUNS
SULLIVANS SERVICES INC
SUN ELECTRIC CO
TENNESSEE CHEMICAL CO
TIERNEY BROTHERS INC
STANLEY W TULL CO INC
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO
25356 TWIN CITY PRICING & LABEL INC
25357 TWIN CITY VENDING
25358 VICTORIA REPAIR & MFG
25359 WATER PRODUCTS CO
25360 WILLIAM J ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES
25361 WILSON TANNER GRAPHICS
25362 XEROX
25363 ZIEGLER INC
25364 DALCO
25365 JUDITH L BOGGS
( 1 66 MIKE BURGETT
'6-367 LEE M BRANDT
25368 MICHAEL W HAMILTON
25369 PETE HESS
25370 DALE JANSEN
25371 PAUL R MYERS
25372 RANDY MASON
25373 GREG MUELLER
25374 JEFF NELSON
25375 HARRY A ORTLOFF
25376 KEITH POKELA
25377 KEITH POKELA
25378 SKIP SWANSON
25379 CINTHIA S WINBERG
25380 KEN WORDE
2732738
33q
EXPENSES - STREET DEPT
EXPENSES - BUILDING DEPT
JANUARY 86 EXPENSES
PRINTING -POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER
1986 MEMBERSHIP - FIRE DEPT
SEPT 1 TO NOV 30 1985 FRANCHISE FEE
EMPLOYMENT AD - STREET DEPT
PLUMBING SUPPLIES - PARK MAINT
SLING SWIVEL SET - POLICE DEPT
PUMP TANK - SR CENTER
ANALYSIS FOR CAR ENGINES - EQUIPMENT MAINT
FERRI FLOC - WATER DEPT
SUPPLIES - POLICE DEPT
BEARINGS/SEALS- PARK MAINT
-OXYGEN/WIRE/GOGGLE HEADBAND/VICE-GRIP/
ACETHYLENE - PARK MAINT/EQUIPMENT MAINT
LABELS - LIQUOR STORES
REFUND VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
WELDING - PARK MAW
-VAC BREAKER/252 5/8" METERS $11312.28/
100 COPPERKIRNS $1275.00
PRINTS -HISTORICAL COMMISSION
SIGNS - COMMUNITY CENTER
DEC 85 SERVICE - POLICE DEPT
-BRACKET/GAGE/SEAMOCKNUT/BOLT-EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE
CLEANING SUPPLIES -COMMUNITY CENTER
VOLLEYBALL/BASKETBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD
BASKETBALL OFFICIAL - FEES PD
HOCKEY OFFICIAL - FEES PD
-HOCKEY/VOLLEYBALL/BASKETBALL OFFICIAL -
FEES PD
BROOMBALL OFFICIAL - FEES PD
BROOMBALL OFFICIAL - FEES PD
BASKETBALL OFFICIAL - FEES PD
HOCKEY OFFICIAL - FEES PD
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL - FEES PO
BROOMBALL OFFICIAL - FEES PD
HOCKEY OFFICIAL - FEES PO
VOLLEYBALL/BASKETBALL OFFICIAL - FEES PD
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PO
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL -FEES PD
HOCKEY OFFICIAL - FEES PO
12.00
111.96
174.30
160.14
25.00
2994.01
36.00
105.45
108.50
305.00
2709.63
4516.55
45.00
20.28
233.18
65.73
42.00
15.00
13363.75
144.00
125.00
87.00
213.47
202.43
119.00
104.00
111.50
102.00
201.00
78.00
15.00
77.50
52.00
240.00
34.00
156.00
52.00
26.00
52.00
92.00
$180145.62
CASH DISBURSEMENT BY FUND - FEBRUARY 4, 1986
62578.51
31654.99
22786.16
400.00
450.00
12715.85
3.21
40652.61
1835.37
2994.01
2905.00
373.41
796.50
10 GENERAL
C. 7
5 LIQUOR STORE-P V M
LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE
30 CASH PARK FEES
45 UTILITY DEBT FD APR
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD
52 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND
73 WATER FUND
77 SEWER FUND
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND
87 CDB8 FUND
90 TAX INCREMENT FUND
91 T I F DEBT FUND
$180145.62
30s
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
City Manager Carl J. Jullie
Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson
Preliminary Report on Leaf Collection for Recycling
January 31, 1986
During the Fall of 1985, the City Council asked staff to look into the issue of
collecting leaves in order that they could be recycled through composting. The
unwillingness of some refuse haulers to pick up bags of leaves and the
incongruity of placing a recyclable resource like leaves into a nonrenewable
sanitary landfill were cited as reasons why the City should explore a new role
in this area.
Legislative Climate: Existing State statutes give overall solid waste disposal
planning and coordination to the Metropolitan Council. Metropolitan counties
are ultimately responsible for the implementation and operation of solid waste
disposal and abatement activities. Hennepin County has by tradition delegated
this responsibility to its municipalities.
Recent legislation has mandated a 16 percent reduction in the solid waste stream
through recycling and composting for each metropolitan county. This figure is
to be reached by voluntary efforts at first. If this objective is not reached
by January 1, 1988, then recycling and composting programs will be made
mandatory by July 1, 1988. To assist in the composting component of this
strategy, the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County have suggested strong
consideration to ban acceptance of yard waste (including leaves) at sanitary
landfills after 1988.
The Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee recommended to the
Board of County Commissioners that the County be responsible for operating all
recycling programs (for household and yard waste) except in those cities which
chose to run their own programs. In discussions with County staff, the City
staff has indications that the County Commissioners will likely not support this
proposal. In effect, the City will probably be responsible to set up recycling
and/or composting programs with an objective to meet or exceed a 16 percent
diversion of its solid waste stream from eventual waste processing and
landfilling.
Leaf Collection Alternatives
City-Operated Programs: Few, if any, cities in the metropolitan area currently
operate a program dedicated to collecting its residents' leaves. Most cities do
a fall street sweeping program where what leaves may be in the street are
collected. Some of these cities, such as Minneapolis and Edina, tolerate but do
not encourage their residents sweeping of leaves into the street. Other cities,
such as Richfield, actively discourage residents from this sweeping. Eden
Prairie does not have a fall street sweeping program. The City does
periodically sweep if a sufficient problem exists; if leaves were deliberatley
raked into the street, the City could consider it a nuisance violation.
A few cities such as Roseville have a leaf recycling operation where residents
and businesses may take their leaves to be composted. Such an opportunity
exists in Eden Prairie at the Hennepin County-run leaf recycling station on the
'DO
west side of the Flying Cloud Airport property. These operations occasionally
have problems with refuse other than leaves being dumped in the windrows. If
the weather is warm for a few days in the winter during the periodic turning of
leaf piles, as happened in Eden Prairie in mid-January this year, a distinct
silage odor can penetrate the air for a mile or more around the site.
A full-fledged leaf pick-up program existed in the City of St. Louis Park for
about 15 years. It began after the leaf burning ban went into effect in the
late 1960s. At first the program was manageable as the trees along the City's
125 miles of streets (the same as Eden Prairie currently has,) were relatively
young. Its operation became more difficult as the number, size, and age of
trees in the urban forest proliferated. Eventually, the leaf pick up program
involved 20 to 25 streets and parks maintenance personnel, several dump trucks,
street brush sweepers, flusher trucks, and front-end loaders - some 12 to 15
pieces of equipment in all. This effort lasted seven weeks and was plagued with
problems of having to go through some neighborhoods earlier than maximum leaf
drop and, at the other end of the season, being unable to collect from some
streets because of early, lasting snowfalls. The City Council decided that the
$75,000 cost associated with operating the program could be better used for a
variety of other maintenance needs.
An alternative which the City could consider is the collection of bagged leaves.
These bags could be transported to the County leaf recycling center where they
would be broken open. City crews would need to be careful to collect bags with
only leaves in them. What would be the required level of effort and attendant
expenses need to be studied further.
Use of Private Haulers: The private sector could be utilized in two ways:
1) The City may contract with a private firm to collect
leaves and transport them to the County leaf recycling
center; and
2) Private firms, perhaps with publicity assistance from the
City, could individually market and provide leaf collection
and disposal services which would be paid by the resident.
The advantages of either arrangement are the savings of expenses to use City
personnel and equipment, to remove the problem of mixing leaves and unacceptable
waste from the City, and the recirculation of money to the private economy. If
the City were to contract with a private firm, however, this arrangement would
require additional outlays from the General Fund. The drawbacks of either
approach center on the uncertainty that a sufficiently competitive number of
refuse haulers would be interested in providing this service.
Given the likelihood that such yard wastes as leaves will be banned from waste
processing and landfill facilities, in the mid-term future a market should
develop in which private haulers would be interested to provide leaf colleciton
services.
Recommendation: Given the history of problems cities have encountered in leaf
collection and disposal activities, and given the new, emerging environment of
solid waste activities in the metropolitan area, it is recommended that staff
work with licensed haulers in the City to have them provide leaf collection
services with appropriate assistance from the City to publicize theirservices.
This approach would fill the city's short-term needs and provide time to
determine what may be necessary for the City to do as Hennepin County and
Metropolitan Council plans become a reality. Staff seeks direction on this
recommendation.
CO:CJJ:jdp
o