HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 05/20/1986A'G ENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1986
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
8:00 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION 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, 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
Jan Nelson
PRESENTATION TO COUNCILMEMBER PAUL REDPATH OF "CERTIFICATE OF COMMENDATION"
FROM THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. MINUTES
A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 29, 1986 Page 1092
B. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 6 1986 Page 1104
C. Canvassing Board Meeting held Tuesday, May 6, 1986 Page 1111
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List
Page 112C
B. LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS CENTER by Edenvale Industrial Company and Page 1121
Landscape Products Center, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #16-86,
Zoning Amendment within the 1-2 Park District; Approval of
Developer's Agreement for Landscape Products Center; and Adoption of
Resolution #86-93, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #16-86 and
Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: North of Highway
#5, south of Martin Drive. (Ordinance #16-86, Rezoning; Resolution
#86-93, Authorizing Summary and Publication)
C. CARDARELLE III AMENDMENT by Frank R. Cardarelle. 2nd Reading of Page 1121
Ordinance #9-86, Rezoning from Office to Commercial-Regional-Service;
Approval of Developer's Agreement for Cardarelle III Building; and
Adoption of Resolution #86-95, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #9-86
and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: Northwest
quadrant of Regional Center Road and Eden Road. (Ordinance #9-86,
Rezoning; Resolution #86-95, Authorizing Summary and Publication)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - 2 - TUES.,MAY 20, 1986
D. THE RIDGE by Dirlam Development. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #19-86,
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5; Approval of Developer's
Agreement for The Ridge; and Adoption of Resolution #86-98,
Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #19-86 and Ordering Publication of
Said Summary. 10.42 acres into 17 single family lots and one outlot.
Location: Northwest of Kilmer Avenue, west of Atherton Way.
(Ordinance #19-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-98, Authorizing Summary
and Publication)
E. REVISED AGREEMENT FOR THE 1-494 CORRIDOR STUDY
F. 2ND READING, ORDINANCE NO. 23-86, REPEALING SEC. 5.40 OF THE CITY
CODE - regulating and licensing of gambling devices.
G. 1ST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 26-86, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 4.02,
SUBD. 4.G.; SECTION 4.14; SECTION 4.30; SECTION 4.32, SUM. 13 AND SECTION 4.51, SUBD.5, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1
AND SECTION 4.99 - the liquor license ordinance - to conform to the
new amendments in State law.
H. ORDINANCE NO. 27-86, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 7.01 AND ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 7.99 - incorporating
Chapter 169 and Chapter 171 of the Minnesota Statutes (1985) by
reference.
I. ORDINANCE NO. 28-86, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 9.06, SUBD. 2.8.,
SECTION 9.08; AND SECTION 9.31, SUBD. 5, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99, changing the penalty provisions
for possession of drug paraphernalia to conform to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 152.
J. Final Plat, Red Rock Heights 4th Addition, east of Village
Woods Drive, south of Scenic Heights Road (Resolution No.
86-104)
K. Final Plat, The Ridge, south of Donnay's Round Lake Estates
(Resolution No. 86-107)
L. Receive Feasibilty Report and Set Public Hearing for Drainage
Improvements in Bluffs West 5th Addition and vicinity, I.C. 652-069,
for June 17, 1986 (Resolution No. 86-105)
M. Receive Feasibilty Report and Set Public Hearing for Valley View Road
Improvements, I.C. 52-272, for June 17, 1986 (Resolution No. 86-108)
N. Sterling Field's Association Request
O. Confirmation of the appointment of Greg Schmidt as Metropolitan Airports Commission representative to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission
P. Resolution 86-109, regarding activities around Flying Cloud Landfill June L1986
Page 113;
Page 114 1
Page 1152
Page 1152 1
Page 1151
Page 115S •
Page 1162
Page 116E
Page 116E
Page 1171
Page 1173
Page 1176
Page 1177
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
- 3 - TUES.,MAY 20, 1986
EDENVALE MINI-STORAGE by Edenvale Industrial Company. 2nd Reading
-i:0-tT--inance #17-86, Zoning Amendment within the 1-2 Park District;
Approval of Developer's Agreement for Edenvale Mini-storage; and
Adoption of Resolution #86-94, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance
#17-86 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: North
of Highway #5, south of Martin Drive. (Ordinance #17-86, Rezoning;
Resolution #86-94, Authorizing Summary and Publication)
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Q. Page 117E
A. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER 3RD ADDITION, by Ryan Construction. Page 872
Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 15.91 acres,
Zoning District Change from 1-2 park to Office on 6.3 acres for
construction of a 69,500 square foot office building. Location:
North of Shady Oak Road, west of City West Parkway. Continued from
April 15, 1986.
B. BLUFFS EAST 4TH AND 5TH ADDITIONS, by Hustad Development. Request Page 1186
for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 184
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5, with variances, on 38.15 acres,
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
approximately 184 acres into 72 single family lots and nine outlots.
Location: West of County Road #18, northwest of Bluff Road, and west
of Franlo Road. (Resolution #86-99, PUD Concept; Ordinance #24-86,
Rezoning; Resolution #86-100, Comprenhensive Guide Plan Amendment;
Resolution #86-101, Preliminary Plat)
C. FLAGSHIP ATHLETIC CLUB. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment of 20.15 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-
Regional_Service on 2.45 acres, and Preliminary Plat of approximately
31 acres into one lot and two outlots and road right-of-way for
parking lot expansion. (Resolution #86-102, PUD Concept Amendment;
Ordinance #25-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-103, Preliminary Plat)
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 27062 - 27396
VI. PETITIONS REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
VIII. APPOINTMENTS
IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
1. Discussion on City Hall Options
2. Purchase Agreement for Proposed City Hall Site (continued
from April 29th Council meeting)
C. Report of City Attorney
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT.
Page 124
& 1185
Page 122S
Page 123E
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1986
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
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 Jan Nelson
ROLL CALL: All members were present
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were added to the Agenda: VI. B. 2.
Report on Round Lake Water Level; VI. B. 3. Process for
Selection of Human Resources Director
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the
Agenda and Other Items of Business as amended and published.
Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, February 4, 1986
page 12, second paragraph, second sentence: change "there"
to "their".
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve
the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, Feb-
ruary 4, 1986, as amended and published. Motion carried
unanimously.
B. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, February 18, 1986
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the
Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, February 18,
1986, as published. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -2- April 29, 1986
C. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, February 25, 1986
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the
Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday,
February 25, 1986 as published. Motion carried unanimously.
D. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 11, 1986
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the
Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday,
March 11, 1986, as published. Motion carried unanimously.
E. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 15, 1986
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the
Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 15,
1986, as published. Motion carried unanimously.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Final Plat approval for Timber Creek Woods Second Addition
(Resolution No. 8T6-76)
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve
item A on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
IV PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. DOUGLAS CORPORATION HEADQUARTERS by Opus Corporation. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 95+ acres of
land for office headquarters, manufacturing and distribution
campus. Location: Highway #169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway.
(Resolution No. 86-35 - PUD Concept Approval/Denial) Con-
tinued Public Hearing from March 4, 1986 and April 1, 1986
City Manager Jullie noted that this item had been continued
from the March 4 and April 1, 1986, meetings of the Council.
Mr. Arlyn Grussing, Director of Planning and Development for
Douglas Corporation, and Mr. Bob Worthington of Opus Corpora-
tion addressed the proposal.
Planning Director Enger said the Planning Commission first
reviewed this item at its November 25th meeting and was
concerned about the item creating an imbalance between in-
dustry employment and housing in the City. The item was
continued to the December 9th meeting of the Commission to
allow time for Staff to provide alternatives to recommend to
the Council.
1 0 9 3
City Council Minutes -3- April 29, 1986
Enger noted the initial Staff report of November 22, the
additional recommendations contained in the Staff report
of December 6th and some additional information on how the
proposal would affect the "big picture" contained in his memo
of December 6th. He said that the Commission, at its Decem-
ber 9th meeting, felt that the proposal did not go far enough
towards a "special type" of industrial use, and moved to con-
tinue the item to the January 13th meeting to allow time for
the proponent to reconsider the proposal in view of the con-
cerns expressed by the Commission and Staff.
Enger further noted that, at the January 13th meeting, the
Commission reviewed the letter received from the Douglas
Corporation stating that the plan they had presented was
their "best effort" and no further changes would be presented
at that time. The Commission then recommended denial of the
request for a PUD concept review on a 4-2 vote.
Redpath asked if there had been a fairly recent Comprehensive
Guide Plan change for the area around the proposed site that
designated office area along Hwy 169. Enger said that the
land included in the proposal was designated high density
residential or office.
Director of Community Services Lambert said that the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission reviewed the pro-
posal at its February 3, 1986, meeting. He said that the
Commission noted that the major question on this request was
the land use. Lambert referred to his memo of January 31
to the Commission that presented Staff comments on the pro-
posal. He said that the Commission recommended approval of
the PUD concept on a 6-0 vote with several conditions in-
cluding preservation of open space, the addition of a park-
way system and payment of cash park fees.
Anderson asked if the question had been answered as to how
the land along the lake and creek would be handled. Lambert
responded that, while proponent had proposed dedicating
4-5 acres by the creek in lieu of cash park fees, the Parks
Commission and Staff felt that a scenic easement would be a
better solution if the proponent did not want to dedicate
the land to the City as a gift.
Peterson asked what the basis was for the Planning Commis-
sion's conclusion that the proposed configuration and the
construction plans were not the best. Enger said that the
Commission was concerned about proportions--a majority of
the building was proposed to be manufacturing plant witha
/o9 -/
City Council Minutes -4- April 29, 1986
small office building attached to it. He said the Commission
was also concerned with the potential for future expansion
of the project, particularly in regard to adding rooftop
mechanical equipment and any building additions made during
the 15-year period of development planned by the proponents.
Redpath asked if the hang-up is the design of the building,
the 20 acres at the end of the building or that the pro-
ponents had refused to change the plans. Enger stated that
the main differences in each of the three Planning Commis-
sion meetings were in the information presented by Staff
and that proponent had presented no new information beyond
the original plans. Redpath expressed his concern about
proponent having been somehow falsely encouraged in present-
ing their plans for the site. Discussion followed about
previous concepts and plans suggested for this site.
Bentley noted that he believed Douglas Corporation had been
encouraged to come back with a plan that would convince the
Council that the site could be used for industry. He pointed
out the idea was to make it difficult enough so that the site
could not then be opened up to any sort of industrial devel-
opment.
Peterson noted that at this point the merits of the concept
should be reviewed and approval would be based on its being
judged a superior product. Bentley asked why this particular
project should have to be superior to any other industrial
project in the City. Peterson responded that over the pre-
vious months of deliberation it was determined there would
have to be very good reason to give the site an industrial
category rather than office or medium/high density residen-
tial. Discussion followed concerning the requirements for
approval of an industrial project on the site.
Anderson noted that he had thought of this area in terms of
multi-residential and corporate headquarters, but not indus-
trial, and therefore was concerned about the change in land
use. He noted that he would like to see more work done on
the plans. He also said he felt that visibility is very
important in this area and that we have responsibility to
the residents in the area for visibility. Pidcock asked
how this project would impact the people in the area. Enger
said it would be visible to residents in the Centex develop-
ment. A discussion of visibility followed.
Redpath asked why the decision was made to not change the
plans in response to the Staff recommendations. Mr; Worth-
ington responded that at the first meeting they were
City Council Minutes -5- April 29, 1986
encouraged by the Planning Commission in their early concept
but that at the second meeting they felt a different atti-
tude as the Commission returned to the issue of land use.
He said that after requesting a continuance to a third meet-
ing, proponents conferred and decided that they had an inno-
vative concept and that they would not revise the plans
until they were more certain that the industrial use for
the site would be approved.
Redpath asked about the location of the land that the School
District was interested in. Mr. Worthington pointed out the
area on the plans and said that it might require a realign-
ment of the road or other adjustments.
Bentley asked what the impact would be to our sewer alloca-
tion if the discharge plan for the project could not be
worked out and water had to be discharged into the sewer
system. Enger responded that their estimates show that a
residential component would have more sewage discharge than
the fully-completed Douglas plant.
Bentley asked about the location of an outlet to the south
of the development. Enger said the outlet would be to the
northern access road to Vo-Tech. Bentley then asked about
the timetable for the Hwy 169 upgrade. Director of Public
Works Dietz responded that work is now scheduled to begin
in August of 1987, with completion of four lanes to Hwy 1
in 1988.
Peterson asked about possible alternate types of parking for
the development. Mr. Worthington said he felt the proposed
berming and landscaping would be sufficient to screen the
parking lots along the distribution road but that they might
be willing to consider alternatives.
Pidcock asked about the roadway through the site and if it
would be a one-way system. Mr. Worthington pointed out the
location on the plans and said it would not be one way.
Anderson asked if the proponents would be willing to work
with Staff and the Council to bring back more detailed plans
if the zoning is changed to meet their needs. Mr. Worthington
said they would.
Mr. Keith Orner, 8880 Knollwood Dr., expressed concern about
the air quality of emissions from the building and about the
visibility of the project from his residence. He also was
concerned about the future growth of the manufacturing opera-
tion. He said he believed the site should remain as a resi-
dential site.
1.39(
City Council Minutes -6- April 29, 1986
Mr. James McGlennen, 8888 Knollwood Dr., said that he bought
his property on the assumption that the site was zoned resi-
dential. He felt that the land to the northwest of Research
Road should, in any case, remain residential. He also ex-
pressed concern regarding the covenants made for the open
space. He asked about the aerosols from the electro-plating
process and what methods of control there would be on air
quality.
Mr. Grussing explained the technology involved in the electro-
plating process and said that there would be no hazardous
wastes created. Mr. Worthington noted that the electro-plating
function would probably be the last one to be moved to the
site.
Mr. Chuck Shaw, 8615 Hiawatha Ave., spoke in favor of the
project. He expressed his concern about the trend of busi-
nesses leaving Minnesota. He also described some problems
that can occur with high-density residential developments.
Bentley noted that uses considered on this property had been
quite varied in recent years. He said his thoughts on the
parcel were that the southern part of the site would be suit-
able for high-tech office/Industrial type of use compatible
with Vo-Tech and that the northern part would then be resi-
dential. He noted that he had resisted designating the area
industrial, as that would have brought many proposals for the
site. He further said he felt this proposal has gone a long
way to convince him that an industrial use can be accomplished
on this site.
Bentley asked if the PUD concept approval would require a
Guide Plan change. Enger said that a Guide Plan change had
not been requested and that it would be feasible to obtain
PUD concept approval at this point without a Guide Plan
change. Enger said the proponents could then proceed with
plans for a first phase with a subsequent request for a first
phase rezoning and a Guide Plan redesignation.
Bentley then noted that, should there be PUD concept approval,
proponents would then have to provide additional assurances
as to the plans for the southern and western portions of the
site, air quality standards, and specific traffic flows as to
numbers and patterns.
MOTION I Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the
Public Hearing, to direct staff to prepare Resolution No.
86-35, approving the Planned Unit Development concept, and
City Council Minutes -7- April 29, 1986
to direct staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement per
Commission and Staff recommendations and including con-
tinued dialogue and cooperation with the School District.
Anderson expressed his concerns about this proposal being
the highest and best use of the land and asked City Attorney
Pauly if it was possible to tie up the restrictions regard-
ing water and air emissions. Pauly noted that any resolution
or agreement entered into would be on condition that cer-
tain standards be met. Pauly noted that concept approval is
no more than that and there is no obligation on the part of
the Council to adopt a development PUD, rezoning or a sub-
division.
Lambert asked if the Council would like Staff to pursue the
idea of the City working with Vo-Tech and proponent to devel-
op the southern portion of the land in a joint effort. A
discussion regarding possible joint uses followed.
Pidcock expressed her concern that this might develop into
a situation similar to the landfillsituation some years
from now as far as chemicals in the air and water. Peterson
noted that they would be subject to the appropriate Minne-
sota state regulations and control mechanisms.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried with Pidcock voting
"no".
B. TOUCH OF CLASS INTERIORS by Kate and Craig Halverson.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low
Density Residential to Office, and Zoning District Change
from Rural to Office for an interior design studio. Loca-
tion: Southwest quadrant of County Roads #1 and #18. (Resolution #86-50, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment:
Ordinance #14-86, Rezoning) Continued Public Hearing from
March 25, 1986 and April 15, 1986
City Manager Jullie noted that this item was continued
from the April 15, 1986, meeting of the Council.
Planning Director Enger reviewed the status of the project
and noted the letter from the Halversons dated April 17,
1986, indicating the extent of their plans for development
of the property. He noted that the Planning Commission did
not act on the zoning request in the required 60-day period,
therefore the Council could now act on the request for re-zoning.
City Council Minutes -8- April 29, 1986
Mr. Fred Hoisington, representing the proponents, said that
he and the Halversons were present to answer questions.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the
Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 86-50 approving
the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Office. Motion carried with Anderson voting
"no".
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt 1st
Reading of Ordinance No. 14-86 for rezoning.
Anderson noted that he has concerns about what is planned
for the surrounding area and about a trend to spot zoning,
particularly at intersections. Bentley said he felt the use
is consistent in the long term to what is appropriate use
for the entire quadrant.
Anderson expressed his concern that a precedent is being
set by approving this item. Redpath said he did not believe
we are setting a precedent. A discussion followed regard-
ing the potential development of the area and the plans for
upgrading Hwy 18.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried with Anderson voting
"no".
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct staff
to prepare a Developer's Agreement for the proposal includ-
ing Commission and Staff recommendations and the letter of
April 17, 1986, from the Halversons, subject to approval
of variances by the Board of Appeals. Motion carried with
Anderson voting "no".
V. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
There were no reports.
VI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
1. Bentley -
Bentley noted that, because of the polls closing at
8:00 PM for the referendum on May 6th and the School
City Council Minutes April 29, 1986
Board election on May 20th, the Council meetings on
those dates could not convene until 8:00 PM.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to convene
the May 6, 1986, and May 20, 1986, meetings of the City
Council at 8:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Authorize expenditure of funds for joint lobbying
efforts for MDIF (Metropolitan Development and Invest-
ment Framework) - continued from April 1, 1986 and
April 15, 1986
Planning Director Enger noted his memo of April 25,
1986, to the Council that reviewed the revised MDIF
and suggested three possible action items for the
Council, as follows:
1. We would suggest that Council direct Staff to write
a letter to the Metropolitan Council asking for an
additional sixty days prior to the first public hear-
ing on this matter for purposes of holding at least
four sub-regional meetings out within the Metropoli-
tan area to take testimony on the currently pro-
posed MDIF.
2. If the Council is interested in an Eden Prairie
lobbying effort, we would suggest that they begin
contacting our local legislators and members of the
Metropolitan Council with whom relationships have
been established, in order to go over the key points
outlined above.
3. We do feel there is merit to participating with the
other southwest area communities in a joint effort
on those items of common concern. Therefore, we
would suggest that rather than being left out of
the lobbying effort, the City Council participate
to the extent of $2,000.00 in the joint lobbying
effort on those issues upon which the communities
agree as listed above.
Peterson asked about the wording of the first suggested
action and the likelihood of them granting the additional
60 days requested. Enger responded that it was designed
to make the Metropolitan Council come out to the suburbs
for sub-regional meetings on the matter and noted that
such meetings had been held on other items.
:1'00
City Council Minutes -10- April 29, 1986
Enger noted that one of the major concerns about the
current proposal is that there may not be flexibility
on the part of the Met Council.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve
the three actions suggested in the staff memo of April
24, 1986, including the $2,000.00 participation in the
joint lobbying effort. Roll call vote: Anderson,
Bentley, Pidcock, Redpath and Peterson voted "aye".
Motion carried unanimously.
2. Report on Round Lake Water Level
City Manager Jullie reported on the problems created
by the extremely high water level of Round Lake. He
said that pumping is scheduled to begin next week to
help alleviate the problem. He noted that, because of
the concerns of property owners around Mitchell Lake,
water would not be pumped into Mitchell Lake as before,
but would instead be pumped into the Purgatory Creek
area.
Jullie said that the pumping is a short-term solution
only and noted that, for the long term, Barr Engineering
has completed their report on the Chain of Lakes feasi-
bility study. The report is scheduled to go to the
Watershed District Board meeting on May 7th for review
and, if approved, the Council should have the report
at the May 20th meeting. He noted that the Comprehen-
sive Drainage Plan developed in the early 1970's had
called for Round Lake to act as a storage reservoir.
Anderson asked if we can expect to maintain the level of
Round Lake in the next few years with the pumping into
Purgatory Creek. Jullie said that he believes there is
a suggestion in the Chain of Lakes report for a short-
term solution that outlets Mitchell Lake in addition to
the suggestions for a long-term solution.
Anderson asked if the pumping could be relied on to
alleviate the recreational loss caused by the current
high water level. Jullie responded that it will take
about 30 days to bring the level down and that after
that time it would depend upon the rainfall. Anderson
noted that Round Lake is the most visible lake and so it
is important to keep it as usable as possible. Discus-
sion followed regarding lake drainage in the surrounding
area lakes and anticipated costs for the drainage project.
P O I
City Council Minutes -11- April 29, 1986
Redpath asked if the budget would cover the costs of
pumping. Jullie said that there is money to cover the
planned short-term pumping efforts but not for pumping
all summer.
Bentley noted that he felt Staff should be prepared to
make specific recommendations on what can be done to
keep the water level down in the interim period until
the long-range solution is implemented.
Redpath asked about the effect of pumping water into
Purgatory Creek. A discussion of the possible negative
consequences of the pumping project followed.
Jean Deneve, 7805 Carnelian Lane, expressed concern
that the pumping program will cause problems with a
pond located behind his house. Director of Community
Services Lambert responded that the pond was originally
a natural pond that had become a holding pond.
Bob Villars, 7616 Carnelian Lane, expressed concern
about this as a continuing problem that needs a perma-
nent solution and also about the funding needed to
maintain such a solution.
Anderson noted that the real need is to stabilize the
water level because some years it has been necessary
to pump water into Round Lake because of low water levels.
Melody Villars, 7616 Carnelian Lane, noted her concern
about spending money on new parks before repairing exis-
ting facilities.
Nancy Schmitt, 7635 Carnelian Lane, expressed her con-
cern that no more trees would be planted or another path
made before a permanent solution is reached.
Peterson suggested that the area residents be notified
when the Council is scheduled to review the Chain of
Lakes report.
3. Process for Selection of a Human Resources Director
City Manager Jullie said that four candidates were
interviewed last Thursday and that he had selected
Natalie Swaggert, currently with Target, for the posi-
tion. He said she will be starting work on May 13th.
C. Report of City Attorney
There was no report.
City Council Minutes -12- April 29, 1986
VII. NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to adjourn the
meeting at 10250 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
iio
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY. MAY 6, 1986
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
8:00 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION 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, Planning Director
Chris Enger, Director of Community
Services Robert Lambert, Director of
Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and
Recording Secretary Jan Nelson
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
ROLL CALL: Councilmember Redpath arrived at 8:15 PM
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following item was added to the Consent Calendar: III. P.
1st Reading of Ordinance 23-86, repealing Eden Prairie City Code
Section 5.40.
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar: III.
F. Final Plat Approval for Red Rock Heights 3rd Addition (south
of Village Woods Drive) Resolution No. 86-85 became item VIII.
B. 2.
The following items were added to the Agenda: VIII. A. 1.
Andsrson - Hillcrest Creek Crossing and VIII. B. 3. Report of Proceedings of County Commissioners.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the
Agenda and Other Items of Business as amended and published.
Motion carried unanimously.
II. MINUTES
A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 4, 1986
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the
Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 4,
1986, as published. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -2- May 6, 1986
B. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 25,
1
9
8
6
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the
Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, Ma
r
c
h
2
5
,
1986, as published. Motion carried with Anderson an
d
Pidcock abstaining.
C. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting held
T
u
e
s
d
a
y
,
April 1, 1986
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to appr
o
v
e
t
h
e
Minutes of the Joint City Council/Planning Commission
M
e
e
t
-
ing held Tuesday, April 1, 1986, as published. Moti
o
n
carried with Pidcock abstaining.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approve plans and specifications for water plant expa
n
s
i
o
n
project and authorize bids to be received June 5, 198
6
,
Project No. 52-072 (Resolution No. 86-82)
B. Grading permit for Mike Sutton property at S.W. corne
r
o
f
CSAH No. 1 (Pioneer Trail) and Bennett Place
C. Special assessment agreement for the construction of
D
e
l
l
Road between Townline Road and south line of Wyndham
K
n
o
l
l
(formerly Hidden Glen East)
D. Receive 100% petition for public improvements -- str
e
e
t
,
storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain -- for Wy
n
d
h
a
m
Knoll Subdivision (formerly Hidden Glen East) adjace
n
t
t
o
Dell Road and authorize greparation of plans and specifica-tions (in conjunction with Dell Road improvements) I
.
C
.
5
2
-
097 (Resolution No. 86-83)
E. Receive feasibility report for sanitary sewer and wa
t
e
r
m
a
i
n
improvements along Baker Road north of Edenvale Boul
e
v
a
r
d
and set public hearing for June 3, 1986, I.C. 52-094 (Resolution No. 86-84)
F. Final Plat approval for Red Rock Heights 3rd Additio
n
(
s
o
u
t
h
of Village Woods Drive) Resolution No. S6-85 - becam
e
V
I
I
I
.
B. 2
L. G. Final Plat approval of Mark Charles 4th Addition (S.
E
.
c
o
r
n
e
r
Pioneer Trail and Franlo Road (solution No. 86-86)
H. Final Plat approval of Prairie Knoll 2nd Additio
n
(
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
Valley View Road at Ontario Blvd-.) Resolution No. 86-87
City Council Minutes -3- May 6, 1986
I. Final Plat approval of Wyndham Knoll (formerly Hidden Glen
East) Resolution No. 86=88
J. Clerk's License List
K. EDEN SQUARE, by Commercial Partners, Inc. 2nd Reading of
Ordinance #47-85, Amending Ordinance #78-56 within the
Commercial Regional Service District; Approval of Developer's
Agreement for Eden Square; and Adoption of Resolution #86-66,
Approving Summary of Ordinance #47-85 and Ordering Publica-
tion of Said Summary. 9.59 acres for the construction of
commercial/retail. Location: Northeast quadrant of the
intersection of Highway #169 and Prairie Center Drive.
(Ord. #47-85, Amending Ord. #78-56; Resolution #86-66,
Authorizing Summary and Publication)
L. PRAIRIE VIEW, by Weis Companies, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordi-
nance #4-86, Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial-
Regional-Service; Approval of Developer's Agreement for
Prairie View; and Adoption of Resolution #86-45, Authorizing
Summary of Ordinance #4-86 and Ordering Publication of Said
Summary. 16+ acres for shopping center. Location: 1-494
and Highway #5 at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive.
(Ord. #4-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-45, Authorizing Summary
and Publication)
M. Adoption of Amendment to 1985 City Budget
N. Finding of No Significant Impact for Eden Place EAW (Resolu-
tion No. 86 -89-)
0. A Resolution Proclaiming May 18 - 24, 1986 as "Small Business
Week" in Eden Prairie (Resolution No. 86-90)
P. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 23-86, repealing City Code
Section 5.40, entitled "Gambling Devices"
Relative to item B of the Consent Calendar, Bentley asked why
the grading permit was being requested. Director of Public Works
Dietz responded that Mr. Sutton owns 6-8 acres in that location
and, while he intends to eventually develop the area, his inten-
tion now is to build a new home. Dietz said Mr. Sutton wants to
grade all the property while he is grading the area for his home.
Bentley commented that he felt this was, in effect, "spec grading"
in anticipation of some future approval for platting or zoning.
Redpath arrived at 8:15 PM.
City Council Minutes -4- May 6, 1986
Planning Director Enger noted that this property had been
affected by two city assumptions, one on each end of the prop-
erty, and that it was a minimal grading with no vegetation
affected.
Mr. Miller, representing Mr. Sutton, described the proposed
grading and the future subdivision plans for the property.
Anderson asked if there are any legal obligations by doing this.
City Attorney Pauly said that the Council can attach conditions
to the granting of a permit for land alteration such that the
granting of a permit does not in any way authorize a subdivision,
rezoning or any other action in the future.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve item
B of the Consent Calendar subject to the condition that the
granting of the grading permit does not in any way authorize
any subdivision, rezoning or any other action in the future.
Motion carried with Bentley voting "no".
City Manager Jullie noted that item C, the Special Assessment
agreement for construction of Dell Road, has not yet been signed
by the proponent; therefore, approval of items C and D should
be given subject to the final signing of the documents and
review by the City Attorney.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve items
C and D of the Consent Calendar, subject to the final signing
of the Special Assessment Agreement and review of the documents
by the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve items
A, E and G-P on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unani-
mously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. DONNAY'S ROUND LAKE ESTATES, by LAD Properties, Inc. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment from Low Den-
sity Residential to Medium Density Residential on 14.71
acres and Planned Unit Development District Review on 34.92
acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.58
acres and from Rural to RM-6.5, with variances, on 14.71
acres and Preliminary Plat of 34.92 acres into 69 lots and
one outlot. Location: North of Highway #5, south of
Lorence Way and west of Atherton Way. (Resolution #86-48,
PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance #12-86, PhD District and
Rezoning; Resolution #86-49, Preliminary Plat) Continued
Public Hearing from March 25 and April 15, 1986
City Council Minutes -5- May 6, 1986
City Manager Jullie noted this request was continued from
the March 25th and April 15th meetings of the City Council.
He said that, in response to the concerns expressed by the
Councilmembers, Staff has had discussions with the proponent
about the pond, road alignment, number and location of units
proposed and a tree inventory.
Planning Director Enger noted that the proponent held a
meeting with some of the residents in the neighborhood over
the weekend.
Mr. Mike Gair of Gair and Associates, representing proponents,
reviewed recent changes to the plans for the project.
Enger noted that the revised plans do not include enlarging
the pond area to the east and called attention to the Staff
memo of May 1, 1986, that inventoried trees of 12 inches
in diameter or greater.
Enger noted that two possibilities exist for routing construc-
tion traffic; one would require a temporary easement through
The Ridge property to the south for direct access to Hwy 5,
and the other would direct the traffic out Evener Way and
Valley View.
Director of Community Services Lambert said that the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had discussed this
item at their meeting last evening and they urged that as
much of the pond as possible be preserved.
Pidcock questioned the effect of construction traffic on
Kilmer. Enger noted that the possible access road to Hwy 5 would help provide an alternate route and that a bond would
be posted to reconstruct roads damaged by construction traffic.
Director of Public Works Dietz said that requirements re-
garding the access road and the reconstruction of roads
damaged by construction traffic were to be put in the Devel-
oper's Agreement for The Ridge and that it had been suggested
that The Ridge developers work with the Donnay project to
develop the access road.
Peterson said that the access road made sense but noted
that there will be some construction traffic that will no
doubt try to use Kilmer and Heritage anyway, therefore the
developers will be faced with road repairs. Dietz noted that
Kilmer and Heritage will be posted to avoid construction
traffic on those streets.
POT
City Council Minutes -6- May 6, 1986
Peterson asked about the impact of storm water runoff or
overflow on the homes to the east. Dietz said that there
will be an outlet constructed for the pond to provide for
a permanent water elevation.
Mr. Don Uden, 7530 Atherton Way, said he felt great strides
had been made in preserving the pond but was concerned
about the extra traffic generated by the new units. Mr.
Gair reviewed the contents of his letter of April 29th
summarizing the traffic and daily trip generation.
Mrs. Candy Olsen, 7610 Heritage Road, expressed concern
about the traffic and asked that construction traffic be
limited to the hours of 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM (school hours).
She mentioned the visibility problem at the corner of Hames
and Evener as an example of problems created by construc-
tion traffic.
Anderson asked if it would be possible to drop the speed
limit and put in more stop signs on the construction traffic
routes. Dietz said that advisory signs could be posted and
noted that sidewalks exist on Evener and Hames.
Mr. Len Lappman, 17433 Evener Way, noted that the sidewalks
on Evener and Hames were not plowed in the winter and so
children were in the streets waiting for the buses.
Bentley suggested that, if the project were to be approved
for 1st Reading, as part of the Developer's Agreement Staff
could be directed to work with the developer on a plan to
deal with the traffic situation and present it to the Council
at the 2nd Reading. He also noted that Staff should check
out the obstruction created by construction at Evener and
Manes that had been mentioned.
Gary Green, 7590 Atherton Way, noted that High School stu-
dents walk along the streets to school and that some Prairie
View students ride bikes to school. He also expressed con-
cern about the lack of a path system in the area.
Mr. Gair noted that Minnetonka has posted 10 MPH speed
limits in construction areas and that warning signs can be
posted for vehicles leaving the site.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the
Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 86-48 for PUD
Concept Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
/10q
City Council Minutes
-7- May 6, 1986
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adopt
1st Reading of Ordinance No. 12-86 for PUD District and
Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adopt
Resolution No. 86-49 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct
Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement per Commission
and Staff recommendations, to work with the developer on a
plan to deal with the traffic situation, and to present the
plan to the Council at the time of 2nd Reading. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. HIDDEN GLEN 4th, by Derrick Land Company. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Amendment Review on 130.25 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances on
50.2 acres, with Zoning District Change from Rural to Neigh-
borhood Commercial on 2.10 acres, Rural to RM-2.5 on 10.95
acres, Rural to R1-9.5 on 22.72 acres, Rural to R1-13.5 on
8.13 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low
Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 10.95
acres, and from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood
Commercial on 3.45 acres, Preliminary Plat of 50.2 acres
into 119 lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way. Location:
Southeast quadrant of Highway #101 and Townline Road.
(Resolution #86-78, PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance #21-86,
PUD District Review and Zoning District Change; Resolution
#86-79, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution #86-
80, Preliminary Plat)
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing
had been published and affected property owners had been
notified.
Tim Erkkila and Roger Derrick, representing proponents,
addressed the proposal.
Redpath asked about the exception shown on the plans.
Mr. Derrick sait it was an existing house that would prob-
ably be removed as part of the Dell Road/Hwy 101 upgrade.
Planning Director Enger noted that the Planning Commission
first reviewed this item at their March 10th meeting. At
their April 21st meeting, the Commission recommended approval
of the PUD Concept Amendment and rezoning subject to the
recommendations of the Staff reports of March 7th and April
11th and with the direction to Staff to explore the possi-
bility of extension of sidewalks along Barrington Drive to
provide pedestrian access to the neighborhood commercial area.
U.)
City Council Minutes -8- May 6, 1986
Enger reviewed several suggestions contained in the April
11th Staff report including revision of details on the
commercial building, revision of the landscape plans for
the commercial land, a landscape plan for the residential
portion of the project, and a detailed construction plan
for a temporary intersection improvement at Dell Road,
Hwy 101 and Townline Road. He noted that the Planning
Staff felt that more work should be done on the twin home
project and that proponents should work with Staff on the
plans for the extension of Dell Road access from the south.
Director of Community Services Lambert said that the Parks,
Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed this
item at their May 5th meeting and recommended approval per
the Planning Staff and Commission recommendations and sug-
gested revisions contained in the Community Services Staff
report of May 1, 1986. He noted that the Community Serv-
ices Staff had recommended the inclusion of the sidewalk
along Barrington Drive and, further, that the City enter
into a contract for deed for the neighborhood park based
on the previously approved conditions for the park acquisi-
tion. He also noted that the Community Services Staff
recommended that the acquisition of the 4-acre outlot be
a condition of the revised PUD.
Anderson asked about the location of the park and the out-
lot. Lambert pointed out the locations on the chart and
said that, for the proposed park land, approximately eight
acres would be purchased by the City and three acres would
be dedicated.
Redpath asked if the Dell Road extension had been squared
away. Director of Public Works Dietz said that the agree-
ment would take care of that.
Pidcock asked which units will be built first. Mr. Derrick
pointed out the probably development sequence on the plans
and noted that several builders will be involved in the
project. Pidcock said that the point of her question was
to then recommend that the areas designated for the twin
homes and the commercial area be clearly posted so that the
single-family home purchasers would be aware of the other
units included in the project.
Pidcock asked if any evergreen plantings were planned for
the commercial development. Planning Director Enger said
there would be some as screening along the eastern side.
City Council Minutes -9- May 6, 1986
Mr. Robert McGowan, 6800 Wakefield Drive, asked who had
suggested the commercial area in the development and what
the motivation was for its inclusion. Peterson said it is
the developer's request. Derrick noted that the developer
felt it fulfilled a need for a neighborhood convenience
center within walking distance for the residents.
Mr. Bob Kruell, 6780 Tartan Curve, noted his objection to
the commercial area and to the relatively high density of
the residential area. He also noted his dissatisfaction
with the planning process in the City.
Bentley responded that the density proposed is barely
medium density, not high density. He noted that it is
essential to have many commercial areas interspersed through-
out the City to serve the population as it grows. He also
noted that Eden Prairie was one of the first planned com-
munities in the State and that it is one of the best planned
communities because it has had more opportunity to plan than
other areas. In addition he said that Dell Road has long
been considered one of the very major roadways in the City;
therefore it will have a lot of traffic.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the
Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 86-78 for POD
Concept Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt 1st
Reading of Ordinance No. 21-86 for POD District Review and
the Zoning District Change. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt
Resolution No. 86-79 for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amend-
ment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Reso-
lution No. 86-80 for the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff
to prepare a Developer's Agreement with the recommendations
of the Commissions and Staff and including the requirement
that signage be posted immediately on properties to be
developed indicating development plans and further that
there be indication to property purchasers that such con-
struction will take place. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -9- May 6, 1986
Mr. Robert McGowan, 6800 Wakefield Drive, asked who had
suggested the commercial area in the development and what
the motivation was for its inclusion. Peterson said it is
the developer's request. Derrick noted that the developer
felt it fulfilled a need for a neighborhood convenience
center within walking distance for the residents.
Mr. Bob Kruell, 6780 Tartan Curve, noted his objection to
the commercial area and to the relatively high density of
the re3idential area. He also noted his dissatisfaction
with the planning process in the City.
Bentley responded that the density proposed is barely
medium density, not high density. He noted that it is
essential to have many commercial areas interspersed through-
out the City to serve the population as it grows. He also
noted that Eden Prairie was one of the first planned com-
munities in the State and that it is one of the best planned
communities because it has had more opportunity to plan than
other areas. In addition he said that Dell Road has long
been considered one of the very major roadways in the City;
therefore it will have a lot of traffic.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the
Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 86-78 for PUD
Concept Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt 1st
Reading of Ordinance No. 21-86 for PUD District Review and
the Zoning District Change. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt
Resolution No. 86-79 for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amend-
ment. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt Reso-
lution No. 86-80 for the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff
to prepare a Developer's Agreement with the recommendations
of the Commissions and Staff and including the requirement
that signage be posted immediately on properties to be
developed indicating development plans and further that
there be indication to property purchasers that such con-
struction will take place. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -10- May 6, 1986
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Redpath to recess the
Council meeting at 10:50 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
AT THIS POINT THE COUNCILMEMBERS CONVENED AS THE CANVASSING
BOARD.
Mayor Peterson reconvened the City Council Meeting at
11:00 PM.
C. HOYT ROBERTS ADDITION PHASE III, by Hoyt Construction. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 Park
on 5.0 acres and Preliminary Plat of 9.62 acres into 2 lots
and road right-of-way for construction of Phase II, Hoyt
Roberts Addition. Location: West of Mitchell Road on
Technology Drive. (Ordinance #86-22, Rezoning; Resolution
#86-81, Preliminary Plat)
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing
had been published and affected property owners had been
notified.
Mr. Brad Hoyt, the proponent, addressed the proposal.
Planning Director Enger noted that the Planning Commission
had reviewed this item at its April 21, 1986, meeting and,
on a 4-0 vote, recommended approval of the Zoning District
Change and Preliminary Plat, subject to recommendations in
the Staff report of April 11th.
Bentley asked when the decision was made to not put Technol-
ogy Drive through. Director of Public Works Dietz said
that the decision has not been made, rather it is a proposal
to the Council. Dietz explained that the price to buy the
property is $2.25 per sq. ft. which would result in having
to remarket the balance of the property at about $2.50 per
sq. ft. while similar property has been selling for about
$1.95 per sq. ft.
Bentley stated that we should have reviewed the method of
property acquisition and considered the fate of Technology
Drive as a separate issue before this project came through.
Dietz noted that the process of condemnation would probably
have resulted in putting the road through on the lot line
between the two lots thus producing two lots that would not
be big enough to remarket. A discussion of the effects of
condemnation followed.
Dietz further noted that the decision by the Minnesota Dept.
of Transportation to put a signal at Wallace Road and Hwy 5
may have some bearing on the need to put Technology Drive
through.
City Council Minutes -11- May 6, 1986
Redpath said that he believed School Road should be shut
off to through traffic as it was supposed to be and allow
bus access only. A discussion of alternate traffic routes
in the area followed.
Anderson asked what kind of problems would be created for
this project by the future extension of Technology Drive.
Dietz replied that he felt there is a need to resolve the
issue one way or the other.
There were no comments from the audience.
Bentley asked if the proponent had pared down the size
of the building and altered the parking plans per the
Staff recommendations. Mr. Hoyt said they had.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the
Public Hearing and adopt 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 86-22
for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt
Resolution No. 86-81 approving the Preliminary Plat.
Anderson asked if we approve this project thereby closing
off Technology Drive, are we then going to close off School
Road. Bentley said he thought the issue of School Road
should be discussed with the School District.
Anderson asked the City Attorney about our potential options.
Pauly noted the possible use of a redevelopment project
through the Housing & Redevelopment Agency. Pauly further
said that, while the City has the right to acquire property
for right-of-way, it probably doesn't have the right directly
as a City to acquire properties, assemble them into parcels
and sell them, whereas the H.R.A. does have that power.
Pidcock noted that she believed it was important to leave
the options open in case at some time in the future, Tech-
nology Drive can go through.
Jullie noted the possibility or a TIF district for this.
VOTING ON THE MOTION: Motion carried with Pidcock and
Anderson voting "no".
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff
to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating the Commis-
sion and Staff recommendations. Motion carried with Pidcock
and Anderson voting "no".
City Council Minutes -12- May 6, 1986
• D. REFINANCING PLAN OF ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS (Resolution No.
86-91)
City Manager Jullie indicated notice of this Public Hearing
had been published.
Dottie Rietow, representing the proponent, was present to
answer questions.
Bentley asked if the refinancing plan would impact the
rates to the consumers. Rietow said it would not.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the
Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 86-91 giving pre-
liminary approval to a change of ownership and of a refinanc-
ing plan of the City's Cable Television Franchise. Motion
carried unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the
Payment of Claims Nos. 26704 - 27061. Roll call vote: Bentley,
Pidcock, Redpath and Peterson voted "aye". Anderson voted "no".
Motion carried.
VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
There were no reports.
VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
1. Anderson - Hillcrest Creek Crossing
Anderson asked about the report on the Hillcrest Creek
Crossing that was due around this time. Director of
Community Services Lambert said that Staff has a plan
for a trail system around the Edenvale marsh area and
that they had planned to present it to the Parks Com-
mission and notify the residents first, but that it
could be brought to the Council at the next meeting if
that was the preference of the Council.
City Council Minutes -13- May 6, 1986
2. Bentley - Anderson Lakes Parkway
Bentley asked when Anderson Lakes Parkway is scheduled
to open. City Manager Jullie noted that it hasn't been
paved on the western end as yet, but that he would
check on the completion date.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Purchase Agreement for Proposed City Hall Site
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to continue
this item to the May 20th meeting of the City Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. Final Plat approval for Red Rock Heights )rd Addition
(south of Village Woods Drive) Resolution No. 86-85
Director of Community Services Lambert reviewed the
trail system in the area of the project. He said that,
after reviewing the impact of the trail through the
project on current property owners, the best option to
serve the developer and the property owners is to cut
off the trail where it ends now.
Anderson noted that the long-range planning was to
build a trail that would lead along Red Rock Lake up
to the Central Middle School. He said he believed it
was to the advantage of the property owners to have the
trail provide access to the lake and that it is better
to have an existing trail when people purchase property
than to put one in after the property has been purchased.
Lambert further noted that the trail is not completely
cut off because of the sidewalk system available. A
discussion followed regarding the possible alternate
accesses if the trail is ended as suggested.
Pidcock noted that the original intent of the entire
trail system was to provide a connection between the
various lakes. Lambert replied that this would not
preclude the trail to Staring Lake because the trails
to the east and south will continue.
Peterson asked if we would have to ask the developer
to dedicate land for the trail if the plans are changed
now. Lambert said the procedure would be to ask for a
trail easement.
City Council Minutes -14- May 6, 1986
Mr. William Gilk, a proponent, expressed his concern
about the impact of the trail on this particular area
of homes and commented that the cul-de-sac ending of
the trail serves very nicely.
Bentley asked what would happen if an easement were to be
obtained to extend the trail without actually completing
the trail at this time. Anderson noted that this sort
of arrangement has caused problems in the past.
Pidcock asked what this does to our original approval.
City Attorney Pauly said that the trail has been part
of the Developer's Agreement and that would have to be
dealt with before changing the alignment of the trail
through the platting process.
Peterson asked if the Council could withdraw that por-
tion of the Developer's Agreement with no effect on the
approval process. Pauly responded that, if it is a
covenant in favor of the City, then the City can waive
it. A discussion of the benefits of extending the trail
versus not extending the trail followed.
Anderson expressed his concern that the opportunity
for residents to use the trail system will be cut off
by ending the trail at the existing point.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt
Resolution No. 86-85 with the understanding that the
trail will be terminated at the existing point. Motion
carried with Pidcock and Anderson voting "no".
3. Report of Proceedings of County Commissioners
Mayor Peterson reported on the meeting today of the
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners where Commissioner
Keefe introduced a resolution requesting that the Hopkins
transfer site be deselected and Eden Prairie be re-
evaluated for siting of the transfer station. He said
the resolution passed on a 4-3 vote.
Peterson also noted that he felt we can probably fight
this issue. City Manager Jullie said that Minnetonka
officials are eager to have our respective attorneys meet
to determine the options available, and that there should
be something relative to the options by the next Council
meeting.
City Council Minutes -15- may 6, 1986
4. Options relative to City Hall
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct
Staff to research options that might be available rela-
tive to the whole question of City Hall. Motion carried
unanimously.
Jullie noted that, as part of his continuing education, he
will be attending the City Managers' Conference next week.
C. Report of City Attorney
City Attorney Pauly reported that the trial on our injunc-
tion action against Woodlake Sanitary Services will be
coming up on June 2nd.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
X. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the
meeting at 12:20 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CANVASSING BOARD
TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1986
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
10:50 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
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, Finance Director
John D. Frame, Planning Director Chris
Enger, Director of Community Services
Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works
Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary
Jan Nelson
ROLL CALL: All members were present
The Mayor convened the Canvassing Board at 10:50 PM.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the results
of the election as presented by the City Clerk. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the Can-
vassing Board at 11:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
nig
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
May 20, 1986
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.)
Shelard Companies, Inc.
Starkey Laboratories, Inc.
U-K Builders, Inc.
Washtock Construction, Inc.
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY)
Barnett Builders
Mark Eklo Homes
Finnamore Building Corp.
Landshapes, Inc.
Arden Nelson
New Image Builders
Chris Thompson
CIGARETTE
J.B.'S Deli
HEATING & VENTILATING
Sunset Heating & Air Conditioning
TEMPORARY BEER LICENSE
Eden Prairie Lions
Schooner Days May 30, 31 & June 1
July 4th
Corn Feed August 9th
PEDDLARS
Stephen G. Bohrer (Ice Cream)
Tim Hayes (Firewood)
Ben A. Isder (Firewood)
Ricky Allen Kirschbaum (Firewood)
RAFFLE
Eden Prairie Lions (Schooner Days)
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
Pat Solii,—Eicensing
11:10
Landscape Products Center
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 16-86
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING FOR CERTAIN
LAND WITHIN THE 1-2 PARK ZONING DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing the amendment of
the zoning for the land within the 1-2 Park District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the zoning of the
land shall be, and hereby amended is within the 1-2 Park Zoning District.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of May 20, 1986, entered into between
Landscape Products Center, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie,
and that certain Owner's Supplement to Developer's Agreement dated as of May 20,
1986, entered into between Eden Land Sales, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and the
City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement and Owner's Supplement are hereby made a part
hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 1st day of April, 1986, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 20th day of
May, 1986.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
Exhibit A
Legal Description
(
Outlot G, Edenvale Industrial Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Landscape Products Center
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1986, by
Landscape Products Center, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for development approval of 5.79
acres within the 1-2 Park District for construction of a building for Landscape
Products Center, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully
described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage
hereinafter referred to as "the property:"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #16-86,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of
said property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated , 1986, reviewed and approved
by the City Council on April 1, 1986, and attached hereto as Exhibit
B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein.
Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the
property in any other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer agrees to submit to the City, and receive the City's
approval and release of the final plat for the property.
4. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City
Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water,
storm sewer, and erosion control for the property.
1:2-3
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or
cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit
C, attached hereto.
5. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours
prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property.
6. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the
Director's approval of the following:
A. Revised building elevations indicating the use of double-
scored concrete block in place of single-scored block.
Developer shall also submit samples of all other exterior
building materials to be used, including color schemes.
B. Detailed plans for exterior lighting on the property,
including location of lighting.
C. A revised landscape plan, indicating a berm ranging from
five to ten feet in height along the street frontage for
purposes of screening outdoor storage.
D. A revised site plan indicating a 50 ft. front yard setback
to the outside storage area, consistent with the building
and parking setbacks on the property. Said revised plan
shall also include a five-foot wide sidewalk to the
northwest pedestrian access to the structure from both the
northeast and southwest parking areas.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
implement and construct, or cause to be implemented and constructed,
those plans and materials listed above, as approved by the Director
of Planning.
Landscape Products Center
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT
TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS CENTER
AND THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1986, by
and between Edenvale Industrial Company, a Minnesota general partnership,
hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter
referred to as "City:"
For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinance #16-86
amending the zoning of the property owned by Owner within the 1-2 Park District, as
more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of
, 1986, by and between Landscape Products Center and City,
Owner agrees with the City as follows:
1. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners,
their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property.
2. If the Owners transfer such property, owners shall obtain an
agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree
to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
EDENVALE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
K. E. Schumacher, General Partner
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
I
Landscape Products Center
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-93
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 16-86 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 16-86 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of May,
1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 16-86, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 16-86 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on May 20, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
1f2Ao
Landscape Products Center
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 16-86
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN
LAND WITHIN THE 1-2 PARK ZONING DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance allows amendment of the zoning of the
property located north of Highway #5, south and east of Martin Drive, known as
Landscape Products Center, within the 1-2 Park Zoning District, subject to the terms
and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance,
gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John O. Franc
/s/Gary D. Peterson
City Clerk
Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1986.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
Cardarelle III Office Bldg.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 9-86
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that a portion of
the land be removed from the Office District and be placed in the C-Reg-Ser
District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and a portion of the
land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Office District and shall be included
hereafter in the C-Reg-Ser District, and the legal descriptions of land in each
District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B,
shall be, and are amended accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The portion of the land described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto, shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's
Agreement dated as of May 20, 1986, entered into between Frank and Lois Cardarelle,
husband and wife, and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a
part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 15th day of April, 1986, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 20th day of
May, 1986.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
103
Exhibit A
That part of the following described Traot:
Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 687, except that p
a
r
t
t
h
e
r
e
o
f
l
y
i
n
g
southwesterly of a line drawn from a point on the West
l
i
n
e
o
f
s
a
i
d
T
r
a
c
t
D
distant 14.53 feet Northerly from the Southwest corner
t
h
e
r
e
o
f
t
o
a
p
o
i
n
t
o
n
the South line of said Tract D distant 38.97 feet East
e
r
l
y
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
corner thereof, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Coun
t
y
o
f
H
e
n
n
e
p
i
n
,
which lies Northwesterly of a line run parallel with an
d
d
i
s
t
a
n
t
3
3
f
e
e
t
Northwesterly of line 1 described below:
Line 1: From a point on the East and West quarter line
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
4
,
Township 116 North, Range 22 West, distant 2557.59 feet West of the East quarter corner thereof, run Southwesterly nt an angle o
f
4
5
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
5
7
m
i
n
u
-
tes 00 seconds from said East and West quarter line (me
a
a
u
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
W
e
s
t
t
o
South) for 192.54 feet to the point of beginning of Lin
e
1
t
o
b
e
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
;
thence deflect to the right at an angle or 87 degrees 05 minutes 48 seconds for 80.50 feet; thence deflect to the right on a tangen
t
i
a
l
c
u
r
v
e
h
a
v
i
n
g
a
radius of 60 feet and a delta angle of 91 degrees 50 minutes 00 seoonds for 95.82 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 74.79 feet; thence deflect to the left on a tangential curve having a radius of 125 fe
e
t
a
n
d
a
d
e
l
t
a
a
n
g
l
e
of 39 degrees 13 minutes 19 seconds for 85.57 feet; thence o
n
a
t
a
n
g
e
n
t
t
o
said curve for 58.41 feet and there terminating.
Cardarelle Office Building III
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1986, by
Frank and Lois Cardarelle, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as
"Developers," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developers have applied to City for rezoning from the Office
District to the Commercial-Regional-Service District for one acre, situated in
Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the
property:"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #9-86,
Developers covenant and agree to construction upon, development, and maintenance of
said property as follows:
1. Developers shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated , 1986, reviewed and approved
by the City Council on April 15, 1986, and attached hereto as
Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided
herein. Developers shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain
the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developers covenant and agree to the performance ano observance by
Developers at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit upon the property,
Developers shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the
Director's approval of the following:
A. A revised landscape plan.
B. A revised grading plan.
I t30
C. A revised site plan reflecting the elimination of two
parking spates adjacent to the median along Eden Road, as
depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto, thus allowing for
the median to be increased in width by nine (9) feet to a
total of 26.5 ft.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developers shall
construct and implement, or cause to be constructed and implemented,
those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the
Director of Planning.
4. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the property,
Developers agree to execute Exhibit 0, attached hereto and made a
part hereof, entitled Declaration of Restrictions, which limits the
mix of uses within the building to 50% office and 50%
commercial/retail.
5. Should an increase in the commercial/retail lease space be desired
by Developers, Developers agree that prior to issuance by the City
of any occupancy permits for such additional commercial/retail lease
space, Developers shall submit documentation stating that the
parking provided on the property, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached
hereto, will be sufficient to accommodate the probable increase in
parking demand because of said increased commercial/retail lease
space.
1 1 31
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of
1986, by and between Frank Cardarelle and Lois Cardarelle, husband and wife,
(hereinafter referred to as "Owners") and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter
referred to as "City").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Owners are the fee owners of certain premises situated in the
County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, more particularly described on Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"),
and,
WHEREAS, the parties desire to provide for the preservation of certain
values and amenities of the Property and to subject the Property to certain
restrictions as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived, the
parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:
1. Use of the Property shall be restricted to uses allowed in an Office
District, except that the first floor of any building on the Property and no more
than 4,000 square feet of such first floor may be used in a manner consistent with a
commercial-regional-service use ("C-Reg-Ser"). If more than one building is erected
on the Propety, the total square footage of C-Reg-Ser in each building shall be
added together to determine the 4,000 square feet limit for C-Reg-Ser.
2. The terms "Office District" and "C-Reg-Ser District" shall have the
same meanings as those terms are given in the Eden Prairie City Code Sections 11.20
and 11.25 (effective dates 9-17-82) as amended from time to time.
3. The restrictions created hereby shall be perpetual and shall run
with and bind the Property from and after the date hereof.
032-
4. The restrictions shall benefit the present and future owners of the
Property and the City. Any party benefitting from any restriction
m
a
y
s
e
e
k
t
o
enforce it by a proceeding at law or in equity against any person v
i
o
l
a
t
i
n
g
o
r
attempting to violate the same, either to restrain violation, to require
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
,
or to recover damages. Attorneys fees and costs of any such actio
n
s
t
o
r
e
s
t
r
a
i
n
violation or to recover damages as determined by the Court shall
b
e
a
s
s
e
s
s
a
b
l
e
against and payable by any persons violating the terms contained herein
.
5. This restriction may not be altered, modified, or amended without
the prior written approval of the City.
6. This Agreem -nt shall inure to the benefit of and shall bind the
parties hereto and their successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents t
o
b
e
executed the day and year first above written.
DATED:
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1986, by Gary D. Peterson, the Mayor, and Carl J. Ju
l
l
i
e
,
t
h
e
City Manager, of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal co
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
o
n
behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
FRANK CARDARELLE
LOIS CARDARELLE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1986, by Frank and Lois Cardarelle, husband and wife.
Notary Public
Cardarelle III Office Bldg.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-95
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 9-86 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 9-86 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th. day of May,
1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 9-86, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 9-86 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on May 20, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane y City Clerk
Cardarelle III Office Bldg.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 9-86
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION. 11.99,
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
§MMTAnZ: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located in the
northwest quadrant of Regional Center Road and Eden Road from Office to Coenercial-
Regional-Service, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement.
Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this
property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane
/s/Gary D. Peterson
City Clerk
Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1986.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
113(,
The Ridge
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 19-86
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the R1-13.5 District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the
R1-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in
City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended
accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of May 20, 1986, entered into between
Dirlam Development, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, which
Agreement is hereby made a part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 15th day of April, 1986, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 20th day of
May, 1986.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
Exhibit A
THE RIDGE
ZONING
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That part of the East 602.98 feet. as measured at right angles to the
East line, of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, Township 116, Range 22.
Hennepin County, Minnesota lying North of the Westerly extension and
south 30.0 feet of the centerline of Kilmer Avenue as dedicated in the
plat of HERITAGE PARK FIRST ADDITION and lying South of the following
described line; Commencing at the Northeast corner of gold Southeast
1/4; thence on an assumed bearing of West along the North line of said
Southeast 1/4 • distance of 1150.00 feet; thence South 520.00 feet to
the actual point of beginning of the line to be herein described;
thence South 56 degrees 48 minutes 36 seconds East 705.96 feet; thence
North 75 degrees 58 minutes 54 seconds East 527.90 feet to the East-'
line of said Southeast 1/4 and there terminating except Oudot A of
the following described.
Starting at a point east 602.98 feet, as measured at right angles to
the east line, of the southeast 1/4 of Section 7, Township 116, Range
22, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying north of westerly extension of
the centerline of Kilmer Avenue as dedicated in the plat of Heritage
Park First Addition, thence north 3 degrees 27 minutes 23 seconds EAST
a distance of 38.35 feet; thence south 56 degrees 48 minutes 36
seconds east a distance of 114.52 feet; thence south 22 degrees 24
minutes 39 ',cond., west a distance 96.80 feet; thence south 10
degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds east a distance 82.46 feet; thence south
7 degrees 01 minute 57 seconds west a distance 80.16 feet; thence
south 32 degrees 00 minutes 49 seconds east a distance 98.23 feet;
thence south 15 degrees 50 minutes 01 seconds east a distance 84.76
feet; thence south 5 degrees 04 minutes 28 seconds east a distance
80.90 feet; thence south 4 degrees 53 minutes 20 seconds west a
distance 80.03 feet; thence south 16 degrees 08 minutes 12 seconds
west a distance 82.0 feet; thence south 3 degrees 27 minutes 23
seconds west a distance 30.0 feet; thence north 86 degrees 32 minutes
37 seconds west a distance 160.0 feet; thence north 3 degrees 27
minutes 23 seconds east a distance 30.0 feet; to the beginning.
THE RIDGE
PLATTING
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That part of the East 602.98 feet, as measured at right angles to the
East line, of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, Township 116, Range 22,
Hennepin County, Minnesota lying North of the Westerly extension and
south 30.0 feet of the centerline of Kilmer Avenue as dedicated in the
plat of HERITAGE PARK FIRST ADDITION and lying South of the following
described line: Commencing st the Northeast corner of said Southeast
IA; thence on an assumed bearing of Hest along the North line of said
Southessc 1/4 a distance of 1150.00 feet; thence South 520.00 feet to
the actual point of beginning of the line to be herein described;
thence South 56 degrees 48 minutes 36 seconds East 705.96 feet; thence
North 75 degrees 58 minutes 54 seconds East 527.90 feet to the East
line of said Southeast 1/4 and there terminating
The Ridge
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of
, 1986, by
Dirlam Development, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Deve
l
o
p
e
r
,
"
and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referre
d
t
o
a
s
"City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for a Zoning District Change from th
e
Rural District to the R1-13.5 District for 10.41 acres and preliminary pla
t
o
f
1
0
.
4
1
acres into 17 single family lots, situated in Hennepin County, State of M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
,
more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof
,
a
n
d
s
a
i
d
acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #19-86,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maint
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
said property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated April 9, 1986, reviewed and approved by
the City Council on April 15, 1986, and attached hereto as Exhibit
8, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein.
Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the
property in any other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Developer agrees to dedicate to the City Outlot A, as depicted on
Exhibit B, attached hereto, prior to release by the City of the
final plat.
4. Prior to release of the final plat by the City, Developer shall
secure temporary easements for construction traffic from the
southerly property line to T. H. #5. If that route is not feasible,
and it is determined that access must be via Kilmer Avenue and
Heritage Road, the Developer shall provide a letter of credit in an
amount to be approved by the City Engineer to rebuild those streets.
Rebulding shall include, but not be limited to, base reparies as
necessary and at least a two inch bituminous overlay over the length
of the streets.
Developer agrees to cooperate with the developer of the project to
the north and west, known as Donnay's Round Lake Estates, in order
to provide both developers use of the temporary easements from T. H.
#5 for construction traffic, only to the extent that such
construction traffic will not interfere with,.or damage, work on the
property as described in Exhibit A4 attached hereto.
5. Prior to issuance of any permit for grading upon the property,
Developer agrees to implement erosion control measures and adequate
protective measures for areas to be preserved and areas where
grading is not to occur, and to receive City approval of said
measures. Prior to approval by the City, the Developer must call
for on-site inspection of the property by the City, and defects in
materials and workmanship in the implementation of said measures
shall then be determined by the City. Defects in materials or
workmanship shall then be corrected by the Developer, reinspected
and approved by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit by
the City. Approval of materials and workmanship may be subject to
such conditions as the City may impose at the time of acceptance.
6. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City
Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water,
storm sewer, and erosion control for the property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or
cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit
C, attached hereto.
7. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours
prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property.
8. Concurrent with street and utility construction, Developer agrees to
construct, or cause to be constructed, an eight-foot wide bituminous
trail along the western and northern property lines, as depicted in
Exhibit 8, attached hereto.
1140
The Ridge
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-98
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 19-86 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 19-86 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of May,
1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 19-86, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 19-86 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on May 20, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
The Ridge
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 19-86
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 .AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
§.ELIMEX: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located northwest of
Kilmer Avenue, west of Atherton Way, from Rural to R1-13.5, subject to the terms and
conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance,
gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
( /s/John D. Frane
/s/Gary D. Peterson
City Clerk
Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
, 1986.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
tiga-
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Tract 0, Registered Land Survey No. 687, Hennepin County, Minnesota
HLI3
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area
300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612 291 -6359/TDD 291 -1VOt V ISe)
101
DATE: May 2, 1986
TO: I-494 Project Management Team
FROM: Connie Kozlak
SUBJECT: Interagency Agreement
Enclosed is a revised Agreement for the I-494 Corridor Study. As I mentioned
at our April 30 meeting, the Council lawyers and financial people had not
reviewed the draft. After receiving comments from them and some participants,
I have made a few revisions in the Agreement. The changes (other than
punctuation and minor legal language) are in Section 2 where the language on
proxy voting was eliminated and Section 6 where the reference to "accrued
interest" was dropped. Our finance department said that with payments being
made from communities in 3 parts and disbursed to the consultants monthly, the
balance in the account at any given time would, earn very little interest at
today's rates.
If any of you have questions about the changes or additional comments, please
call me as soon as possible since some participants have already scheduled
consideration by their elected officials.
JM1051
rig
AGREEMENT
for
I-494 CORRIDOR STUDY
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1986
by and between the Metropolitan Council, a political subdivision of the State
of Minnesota, hereinafter called the "Council," and the CITY OF
a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota.
WHEREAS, I-494 is reaching the end of its 20 year design period; and
WHEREAS, improvements to the freeway are needed in anticipation of the expected
development in the southern and southwestern portions of the Metropolitan Area;
and
WHEREAS, an I-494 Corridor Study is needed:
- To produce an ultimate design concept for the metropolitan roadways in
that corridor;
- To identify development levels and land-use types compatibile with the
proposed transportation infrastructure; and,
- To recommend a strategy (i.e., timetable and funding mechanisms) for
implementation of the proposed transportation improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein expressed,
the PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
Upon receipt of the fund share of Minnesota Department of Transportation,
Regional Transit Board, Hennepin County, Metropolitan Airports Commission and
the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Richfield and Minnetonka as
provided in Section 5 hereof, the Council shall act as lead agency and shall
contract on behalf of the parties with a consultant to be selected, hereinafter
called "Consultant," who shall prepare the Study for a cost not to exceed
$180,000.
SECTION 2
PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM ORGANIZATION AND PURPOSE
The parties shall establish a Program Management Team (PMT), which shall
supervise the Consultant in preparing the Study. The PMT shall meet at least
once each month to review and approve the Consultant's progress, findings, and
recommendations, and shall take actions upon majority vote of a quorum of
present and voting members. The PMT shall observe the requirements of the
Minnesota Open Meeting Law. The PMT shall report final recommendations
pertaining to the Consultant's findings to the parties no later than May, 1987.
SECTION 3
PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM
The PMT shall be made up of eighteen (18) members whom the parties shall
apppoint as follows:
Metropolitan Council Two (2) members
Minnesota Department of Transportation Two (2) members
Regional Transit Board Two (2) members
Bloomington Two (2) members
Eden Prairie Two (2) members
Edina Two (2) members
Richfield Two (2) members
Hennepin County Two (2) members
Minnetonka One (1) member
Metropolitan Airports Commission One (1) member
Each member shall designate an alternate who should be fully versed in the
agency's position and given the member's endorsement to speak and vote.
SECTION 4
CONSULTANT SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work, as prepared by the Council and performed by the Consultant,
shall be in general conformance with Attachment A to this Agreement.
SECTION 5
FINANCE
The Council shall receive funds from the parties as prescribed herein, and
shall deposit funds in an interest-bearing account which it shall manage.
Within ten (10) days after the effective date of the Consultant contract, the
parties shall furnish to the Council at least one-third (1/3) of their
respective share amounts. On a date three (3) months after the effective date
of the Consultant contract, the parties shall furnish to the Council at least
an additional one-third (1/3) of their respective share amounts. On the date
six (6) months after the effective date of the Consultant contract, the parties
shall furnish to the Council the final one-third (1/3) of their respective
share amounts. The Council shall disburse funds from the account in payment
for consultant services in accordance with billings received. Before
termination of this Agreement, the Council shall provide an accounting of
receipts and expenditures to each contributing party, and shall refund the
remaining balance to each contributor in proportion to that contributor's total
contribution.
The parties shall contribute the following shares of the Study preparation
costs:
Metropolitan Council
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Regional Transit Board
Hennepin County
City of Bloomington
City of Eden Prairie
City of Edina
City of Richfield
City of Minnetonka
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Total
SECTION 6
STAFF SUPPORT
$ 20,000
50,000
20,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
7,500
7,500
$180,000
In addition to the contributions provided in Section 5, the parties agree to
contribute sufficient staff support to ensure that the Study will be completed
expeditiously and that all actions pertaining to its development will be
documented and circulated.
SECTION 7
DISPOSITION OF DATA
The Consultant shall deliver original copies of all data, computations, working
papers, technical reports and recommendations to the Council, who shall retain
them and whose property they shall become.
SECTION 10
AGREEMENT TERMINATION
This Agreement shall terminate no later than fifteen (15) months after the
effective date of the Consultant's Contract with the Council.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year
first above written.
Approved as to Legal Form: (Name of City or Agency)
Signed By
Mayor
Date By
Executive Director
Approved as to Legal Form:
Signed
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
By
Chair
By Date
JM1049
Executive Director
Li ?
For more information
contact the Public
Information Office
612/291-6464
For Immediate Release:
Transportation Agencies Studying
Redesign of Interstate Hwy. 494
Ken Reddick
291-6422
Friday,
May 2, 1986
Persistent suburban traffic jams are beginning to appear along aging
Interstate Hwy. 494 southwest of Minneapolis.
If tall buildings continue to sprout along I-494--including offices,
shopping centers, hotels and restaurants--traffic may slow to what's sometimes
called "snarl and crawl."
Metropolitan Council planners already expect big increases in 1-494
traffic, the result of developments proposed for the former Metropolitan
Stadium site, the Homart office complex at France Av. and 1-494, and others.
To help the freeway handle the increased traffic, the Council and the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mh/DOT) are heading up a study team to
redesign 1-494. The team includes representatives of the affected cities of
Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka and Richfield.
The study promises to be an exercise in governmental cooperation. The
Council, Mn/DOT and the five cities will be joined by three other governmental
bodies. They are the Regional Transit Board, Hennepin County and the
Metropolitan Airports Commission.
The portion of 1-494 under study runs through some of the highest-priced
more
real estate in the region. The 20-mile segment from I-35E in Eagan to I-
394 in Minnetonka includes many areas developers believe are ripe for high-
density development.
Improvements to 1-494 may include adding new lanes and installing a High-
Occupancy-Vehicle (HOV) lane. (A HOV lane is reserved for vehicles with
two or more passengers.) Traffic entering the freeway on ramps may be metered
to even out the traffic flow. Another option includes developing
reliever roadways parallel to the freeway for people traveling short distances.
The study is scheduled to be completed by May 1987. Its cost, not to
exceed $200,000, will be shared by the 10 participating bodies. Before
reconstruction begins, Mn/DOT will prepare an environmental impact statement
and develop a final design.
-30-
ORDINANCE NO. 23-86
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REPEALING
CITY CODE SECTION 5.40:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code Section 5.40, entitled
"Gambling Devices," is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the 6th day of May
1986, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 20th
day of May , 1986.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
, 1986.
n 01
ORDINANCE NO. - /47
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY
CODE SECTION 4.02, SUBD. 4.0.; SECTION 4.14; SECTION 4.30; SEC-
TION 4.32, SUBD. 1; AND SECTION 4.51, SUBD. 5, AND ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 4.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code Section 4.02, Subd. 4.G.,
is hereby amended to read: .
G. Revocation, er Suspension [or Fine). The-Geun-
eiI-mayT-in-its-seie-diseretien-and-fer-amy-reasenabie-eaese,
reveker-er-suspend-Eer-a-peried-net-te-exeeed-sixty-daysT-any
lieense-granted-under-tile-previsiene-ef-this-Ghapter,.--The-Geeneil
shall-reveke-the-iieense-upen-eenvietien-ef-any-Iieensee-eE-agent
er-empleyee-ef-a-lieensee-fer-vielating-any-law-relating-te-the
sale-er-pessessien-ef-beerr-wine-er-iiquer-upen-premisee-ef-the
lieeneeer-er-if-eeeh-reveeatien-is-mandatery-lay-Statute7--4f-it
shali-be-made-te-appear-at-the-heering-thereen-that-sueh-vielatien
was-net-willEulT-the-Geeneii-may-erder-suspensient-previded7-that
_reveeatierirehaiI-be-erdered-upen-the-third-eueh-vielatien-er
eifenseT [Upon a finding that the licensee of any license granted
pursuant to this Section has failed to comply with any applicable
Statute, regulation or ordinance relating to intoxicating liquor,
the Council shall either suspend the license for a period not to
exceed sixty days, revoke the license or impose a civil fine on
the licensee not to exceed $2,000.00 for each violation.) No
suspension[, fine,) or revocation shall take effect until the
)K2
licensee (or permit holder] has been affordedan opportunity for
a hearing before the Council, a committee of the Council, or a
hearing examiner, as may be determined by the Council in action
calling the hearing. Such hearing shall be called by the Council
upon written notice to the licensee served in person or by certi-
fied mail not less than fifteen nor more than thirty days prior t
o
the hearing date, stating the time, place and purpose thereof.
The Council shall revoke the license upon conviction of any
licensee or agent or employee of a licensee for violating any law
relating to the sale or possession of beer, wine or liquor upon
the premises of the licensee, or if such revocation is mandator
y
by Statute. If it shall be made to appear at the hearing there
o
n
that such violation was not willful, the Council may order suspe
n
-
sion or a fine not to exceed $2,000.00; provided, that revocatio
n
shall be ordered upon the third such violation or offense.] As
additional restrictions or regulations on licensees under this
Chapter, and in addition to grounds for revocation or suspension
stated in the City Code or Statute, the following shall also be
grounds for such action: (1) that the licensee suffered or per-
mitted illegal acts upon the licensed premises unrelated to the
sale of beer, wine or liquor; (2) that the licensee had knowledge
of such illegal acts upon the licensed premises, but failed to
report the same to police; er, (3) that the licensee failed or
refused to cooperate fully with police in investigating such
alleged illegal acts upon licensed premises(; or, (4) that the
licensee failed to maintain financial responsibility required b
y
-2-
Section 4.14 of the City Code]. The Council may, in its discre-
tion, contract with the State of Minnesota for a hearing examiner
to hold such hearing.
Section 2. Eden Prairie City Code Section 4.14 is hereby
amended to read:
SEC. 4.14. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF LICENSEES.
Subd. 1. Proof. No beer, wine or liquor license shall
be issued(, maintained,] or renewed unless and until the appli-
cant has provided proof of financial responsibility imposed by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 340.95, by filing with the City:
A. A certificate that there is in effect an
insurance policy or pool providing minimum coverages of (1)
$50,000.00 because of bodily injury to any one person in any one
occurrence, and $100,000.00 because of bodily injury to two or
more persons in any one occurrence, and in the amount of $10,000.00
because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any
one occurrence, and (2) $50,000.00 for loss of means of support
of any one person in any one occurrence, and, subject to the
limit of one person, $100,000.00 for loss of means of support of
two or more persons in any one occurrence [(an annual aggregate
policy limit for dram shop liability of not less than $300,000.00
per policy may be included in the policy provision)]; or,
B. A bond of a surety company with minimum
coverages as provided in Subparagraph A of this Section; or,
C. A certificate of the State Treasurer that the
licensee has deposited with him $100,000.00 in cash or securities
-3-
which may legally be purchased by savings banks or for trust funds
having a market value of $100,000.00.
Subd. 2. Exception. This Section does not apply to
on-sale beer licensees with sales of beer of less than $10,000.00
for the preceding year, nor to off-sale beer licensees with sales
of beer of less than $20,000.00 for the preceding year, nor does
it apply to holders of on-sale wine licenses with sales of wine
of less than $10,000.00 for the preceding year. An affidavit of
the licensee shall be required to establish the exemption under
this Subdivision.
(Subd. 3. The liability insurance policy, bond or
certificate of the State Treasurer required above shall provide
that it may not be cancelled for any cause either by the licensee
or the insurance company, bond company or State Treasurer, without
first giving ten days notice to the municipality in writing of
intention to cancel it, addressed to the City Clerk.
Subd. 4. Every application for the issuance or renewal
of a license for the sale of intoxicating or non-intoxicating
liquor must include a copy of each Summons received by the appli-
cant under Minnesota Statutes, Section 340.951, during the
preceding year.)
Subd. g(5). Documents Submitted to Commissioner. All
proofs of financial responsibility and exemption affidavits filed
with the City under this Section shall be submitted by the City
to the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety.
-4-
Section 3. Eden Prairie City Code Section 4.30 is hereby
amended to read:
SEC. 4.30. BEER LICENSE REQUIRED. It is unlawful for any
person to sell, or keep or offer for sale, any beer without a
license therefor from the City. This Section shall not apply to
sales by manufacturers to wholesalers or to sales by wholesalers
to persons holding [licensed by the City to sell] on-sale or
off-sale beer lieenses-Erem-the-Gity [or intoxicating liquors,
nor shall this Section apply to sales to the public by persons
licensed by the City to sell on-sale or off-sale intoxicating
liquors].
Section 4. Eden Prairie City Code Section 4.32, Subd. 1, is
hereby amended to read:
Subd. 1. No gambling or gambling device shall be per-
mitted on any licensed premises, except such as are licensed
under the-€±y-Sede[Minnesota Statutes, Section 349, et seq.]
Section 5. Eden Prairie City Code Section 4.51, Subd. 5, is
hereby amended to read:
Subd. 5. No gambling or gambling device shall be per-
mitted on any licensed premises, except such as are licensed under
the-€y-Gede [Minnesota Statutes, Section 349, et seq.]
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Section 4.99 are hereby adopted in
their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
-5-
Section 7. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the _ day of
1986, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the
day of
ATTEST:
, 1986.
City Clerk May or
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
, 1986.
-6—
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY
CODE SECTION 7.01 AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1
AND SECTION 7.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code Section 7.01 is hereby
amended to read:
SEC. 7.01. MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTERS 169 AND171 ADOPTED
BY REFERENCE. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, or
in. Chapters 6 and 8 of this Code, the regulatory and procedural
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169 (commonly referred
to as the Highway Traffic Regulation Act) and Chapter 171, as
amended through Laws 1963 (1985), are hereby incorporated herein
and adopted by reference, including the penalty provisions thereof.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Section 7.99 are hereby adopted in
their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after itspassage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the day of
1986, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the
day of , 1986.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
, 1986.
.11517
day of
ORDINANCE NO. t")
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY
CODE SECTION 9.06, SUBD. 2.B.; SECTION 9.08; AND SECTION
9.31, SUBD. 5, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND
SECTION 9.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code Section 9:06, Subd. 2.8.,
is hereby amended to read:
B. Prohibitions.
1. Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. It is
unlawful for any person to use, or to possess with intent to use,
drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest,
manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test,
analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest,
inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled
substance in violation of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 152. [A
violation of this Section is a petty misdemeanor.]
2. Manufacture or Delivery of Drug Paraphernalia.
It is unlawful for any person to deliver, possess with intent to
deliver, or manufacture with intent to deliver, drug paraphernalia,
knowing, or under circumstances where one reasonably should know,
that it will be used to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest,
manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test,
analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest,
inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled
substance in violation of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 152. [A
violation of this Section is a misdemeanor.]
3. Delivery of Drug Paraphernalia to a
Minor. Any person eighteen years of age or over who violates
this Subparagraph B, by delivering drug paraphernalia to a per-
son under eighteen years of age who is at least three years his
junior is guilty of a speciai-offense [gross misdemeanor).
4. Advertisement of Drug Paraphernalia.
It is unlawful for any person to place in any newspaper, magazine,
handbill, or other publication any advertisement, knowing, or
under circumstances where one reasonably should know, that the
purpose of the advertisement, in whole or in part, is to promote
the sale of objects designed or intended for use as drug para-
phernalia. [A violation of this Section is a misdemeanor.]
Section 2. Eden Prairie City Code Section 9.08 is hereby
amended by adding a new Subd. 8 which shall read as follows:
[Subd. 8. Running at Large. It is unlawful for the
owner, or parents or guardian of such owner under eighteen years
of age, of a horse, pony or farm animal, except honey bees, to
allow such horse, pony or farm animal to run at large.)
Section 3. Eden Prairie City Code Section 9.31, Subd. 5, is
hereby amended to read:
Subd. 5. Loitering [and Improper Presence on School
Grounds]. It is unlawful for any person to loiter on any school
grounds or in any school building or structure or to fail to
or refuse to vacate or leave school premises after being lawfully
requested to do so orally or in writing by school personnel or any
law enforcement agent or official, or for any person to appear on
-2-
11b0
school property after being given written notice by school personnel
or any law enforcement agent or official to stay off school property
for any designated, reasonable length of time].
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 are hereby adopted in
their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the day of
1986, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the
day of , 1986.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
, 1986.
-3-
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-104
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
RED ROCK HEIGHTS 4TH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Red Rock Heights 4th Addition has been submitted in a
manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and
under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly
had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the
regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and
ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Red Rock Heights 4th Addition is
approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City
Engineer's report on this plat dated May 12, 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 May 20, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST
SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSAL:
HISTORY:
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician
May 12, 1986
RED ROCK HEIGHTS 4TH ADDITION
The Developers, William Bilk and Jerry Halmrast, have
requested City Council approval of the final plat of Red Rock
Heights 4th Addition. The proposed subdivision contains 10
lots on approximately 4.485 acres located west of Red Rock
Heights and south of Scenic Heights Road. The development of
this section of the Red Rock Heights site will comprise Phase
3 of a total 4 phases.
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on March
19, 1485, per Resolution 85-69.
Zoning to RI-13.5 was finally read and approved by the City
Council on May 7, 1985, per Ordinance 7-85.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was
executed on May 7, 1985.
VARIANCES:
A variance from the minimum lot size (City Code Section 11.50)
was approved by the City Council on May 7, 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.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
All municipal utilities and streets will be installed
throughout the addition by the developer in conformance with
City standards.
Page 2, Final Plat of Red Rock Heights 4th Addition 5/12/86
PARK DEDICATION:
The requirements for park dedication are covered in the
Developer's Agreement.
BONDING:
Bonding shall conform to City code requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Red Rack Heights 4th
Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the
Developer's Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of
$2,048.
2. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $250.
3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $400.
4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements.
DLO:sg
cc: Mr. Jerry Halmrast
Mr. William Gilk
Mr. Ron Krueger
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-107
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
THE RIDGE
WHEREAS, the plat of The Ridge 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 Eden Place Apartments is approved
upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's
report on this plat dated May 12, 1986.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified
copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the
above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on May 20, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST
SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSAL:
HISTORY:
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
?'
Jeff Johnson, Engineering Technician
May 12, 1986
THE RIDGE
Dirlam Development has requested City Council approval of the
final plat of The Ridge, a single family residential plat
located north of Hwy 5 and west of Atherton Way in the
southeast quarter of Section 7. The site contains 10.42 acres
to be subdivided into 17 single family lots and the dedication
of street right-of-way.
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on April
15, 1986, per Resolution 86-69.
The second reading of Ordinance 20-86, zoning the property to
RI-13.5, is scheduled for the May 20, 1985, City Council
meeting.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is
scheduled for execution on May 20, 1986.
VARIANCES:
All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
Municipal utilities and streets necessary to serve this site
are proposed for installation with Donnay's Round Lake
Estates. A 6" water main now exists on Kilmer Avenue which
would be looped through the site and connect with proposed
water main to be constructed with Donnay's Round Lake Estates.
This parcel has never been assessed for trunk sewer and water.
As part of the development process, approximately $29,000.00
will be levied against property at the fall assessment
hearing.
PARK DEDICATION:
Park dedication shall conform to City Code and Developer's
Agreement requirements.
Page 2 Final Plat Report for The Ridge 5/12/86
BONDING:
Bonding will conform to City Code requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of The Ridge subject to
the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement,
and the following:
1. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $1536.
2. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $230.
3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $680.
4. Subject to approximately $29,000 of trunk and water
assessments.
5. Second reading of Ordinance 20-86.
6. Execution of Developer's Agreement.
DLO:sg
cc: Mr. Dennis Dirlam
Westwood Planning & Engineering
Mr. Jim Richardson
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 86-105
RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer to the City Council
recommending the following improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-069, Drainage Improvements in Bluffs West 5th Addition
and Vicinity
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
I. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements in accordance
with the report and the assessment of property abutting or within said
boundaries for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement
pursuant to M.S.A. Section 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated - total
cost of the improvements as shown.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the
17th of June, 1986, 7:30 P.M., at the Eden Prairie School
Administration Building, 8100 School Road. The City Clerk shall give
published and mailed notice of such hearing on the improvements as
required by law.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 20, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
May 14, 1986
Bluffs West 5th Addition and Vicinity Drainage Improvements
Included with the agenda for the May 20, 1986, City Council meeting, is a copy
of the feasibility report for the drainage improvements for Bluffs West 5th
Addition and the surrounding vicinity. As you know, a public hearing was held
on this matter on February 19, 1985, at which time the Council ordered the
improvements and the preparation of plans and specifications. Subsequent to
that action, and prior to the preparation of plans and specifications, the
Bluffs Company asked that the improvements be postponed indefinitely because
they did not intend to pursue the development project which was the catalyst
for the drainage improvements.
Attached for your information is a letter dated May 7, 1986, which requests
that the drainage improvement project be initiated once again. The property
is in the process of being transferred to Argus Development, Inc., a home
builder. Unfortunately, this request comes more than one year from the date
of the public hearing on the feasibility study for the drainage improvements.
The State Statutes require that a contract be let for improvement project
within one year after the project being ordered. Therefore, it will be
necessary to have a new public hearing and reestablish current resolutions
ordering the improvements.
I have reproduced the original feasibility report for this project and it is
enclosed for your use. For planning purposes, you should assume that all the
construction costs and corresponding assessments should be increased by 5% to
reflect some inflation during the past year.
EAD:sg
May 7, 1986
Argus Development, Inc.
18133 Cedar Ave. So.
Farmington, Minnesota 55024
Eden Prairie City Offices
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Attn: Gene Dietz
Dear Mr. Dietz,
Argus Development is purchasing Bluffs West 5th Addition from the
Bluffs Company. Both partias hereby request a hearing on the storm
sewer for that area. Argus intends to develop it as soon as possible.
Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
I no
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 86-108
RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer to the City Council
recommending the following improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-272, Valley View Road Improvements
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements in accordance
with the report and the assessment of property abutting or within said
boundaries for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement
pursuant to M.S.A. Section 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated total
cost of the improvements as shown.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the
17th of June, 1986, 7:30 P.M., at the Eden Prairie School
Administration Building, 8100 School Road. The City Clerk shall give
published and mailed notice of such hearing on the improvements as
required by law.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 20, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
May 14, 1986
Valley View Road Feasibility Report
I.C. 51-272
The public hearing held for the feasibility report for Valley View Road was
conducted on March 5, 1985. Due to the two issues of soil conditions and the
uncertainty of the status of the railroad overpass, this project has been
delayed past the one year period within which a contract must be awarded after
the project has been ordered. To preserve the proper legal requirements for
special assessments, we are proposing that a new public hearing be held on the
project June 17, 1986.
In addition to maintain proper legal requirements, we will introduce the
changes as we anticipate them for the construction through the railroad right-
of-way. A copy of the original feasibility report for this project is
enclosed for your review and information. I would point out that we
anticipate the area from the creek to approximately 300 feet east of the
railroad right-of-way to be constructed in a temporary fashion which would
utilize the existing "graffiti" bridge and a temporary wooden trestle
immediately north of the "graffiti" bridge. The temporary trestle and extra
costs to provide the temporary connections are estimated to cost $140,000.
This compares to a proposed cost to completely replace the "graffiti' bridge
with a new overpass and the associated work of $635,000. While it may come to
pass that a new structure will have to be ultimately built at the location,
the risk to provide a temporary facility for a few years in hopes that the
railroad will be abandoned is small when compared to the entire project. For
planning purposes, the cost figures and corresponding assessments should be
assumed to be 5% higher than as shown in the feasibility report.
EAD:sg
Ira
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services-
April 29, 1986
SUBJECT: Sterling Field Association Request
Attached is an April 24, 1986 letter from Ron Stetter, President of the
Sterling Field Association, requesting the City to consider replacing the
playground equipment in Sterling Field Park. During the week of April 21st,
the park maintenance department removed the homemade playground equipment that
had deteriorated to a dangerous condition.
The Sterling Field neighborhood would like the City to replace the equipment
with a similar manufactured structure at a price of approximately $5,600.
This play equipment would be similar to the type of playground equipment that
is installed in various neighborhood parks and mini parks throughout the City.
The Community Services Department requests the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission and the City Council to approve the request and fund this
expenditure through cash park fees.
BL:md
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Monday, May 5, 1986 7:30 p.m., School Board Room
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Breitenstein, chairperson;
Bud Baker (late), Moe Cook,
Gary Gonyea, Karon Joyer,
Brian Mikkelson, Charles Shaw
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
COMMISSION STAFF:
Bob Lambert, Director of
Community Services
OTHERS PRESENT: None
I. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by chairperson,
Pat Breitenstein.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Cook moved to approve the agenda as mailed. Gonyea seconded
TETiiiiion and it passed 6-0.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1986
MOTION: Cook moved to approve the minutes as mailed. Mikkelson
seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. Shaw and Joyer abstained.
IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. Sterling Fields Association Request
Refer to memo dated April 29, 1986 from Bob Lambert, Director of
Community Services and letter dated April 24, 1986 from
Ron Stetter, President, Sterling Fields Association.
Lambert referred to a letter he received from Ron Stetter,
President of Sterling Fields Association. Lambert said that Sterling Park is the oldest park in the area and was started by the
association itself. The City was asked to take over the park about
two years ago and noticed that the playground equipment was
deteriorating. The equipment was removed and the association was
given equipment catalogs from which to choose new playground
equipment. The City usually spends between $5,000 and $6,000 on
equipment for this type of park. The association has picked out
similar equipment to what they had. Staff recommends approval of
the request.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 1986
-2-
Shaw asked how long it will take to install the new equipment.
Lambert said the City must get two additional quotes which will
take about two weeks and to order and install the equipment would
take an additional six to eight weeks.
Shaw said he feels the residents should be given an opportunity to
look at the quotes before a decision is made so they are aware of
what they will be getting. Lambert said this would not be a
problem.
Breitenstein commended the association for the many years they
maintained the park.
MOTION: Shaw moved to recommend approval of the Sterling Fields
Association request that the City purchase new playground equipment
for Sterling Park at a cost of $5,000 to $6,000. Cook seconded the
motion and it passed 7-0.
Cook asked if there are any signs showing that this is a community
park. Lambert said there are no signs near any of the mini parks
and he would hesitate to put up signs since the park is so small.
Cook asked if there is room in this park for a ballfield. Lambert
said there is a small field that could be used for T-ball only.
However, there is no off street parking.
V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. Hidden Glen 4th Addition
Refer to memo dated May 1, 1986 from Bob Lambert, Director of
Community Services and staff reports dated March 7, 1986 and
April 11, 1986.
Lambert reviewed the three parks, recreation and natural resources
issues on this site. They are neighborhood park acquisition,
Purgatory Creek conservation area acquisition, and trails and
sidewalks.
Lambert said the Hidden Glen proposal first came before the
commission in 1984 for the original PUD. At this time, the City
agreed to purchase the neighborhood park on a contract for deed at
a cost of $80,000 for eight acres. The developer also agreed to
grade the park and finish grade the topsoil. This agreement has
been held up because of the alignment of Dell Road and a decision
on which assessments would be paid by the City or the developer.
Staff recommends that the purchase agreement and contract for deed
be completed before any further final platting is done.
Lambert also said that in the original PUD, staff recommended the
City require dedication of the four acre outlot in the Hidden Glen
2nd Addition, Phase II which abuts the Purgatory Creek Conservation
Area. Staff recommends that the acquisition of this outlot be a
condition of the revised PhD.
Mimhtectixtts • Scasith Pout
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMNIISSION
P. 0. BOX 11700 • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111
OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • PHONE (612) 726-1892
May 6, 1986
Jean Johnson
Flying Cloud Advisory Canmission
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mt. Johnson:
This letter is to inform you that I am no longer the representative
member from the Metropolitan Airports Comnission to the Flying Cloud
Advisory Cannission. Upon my promotion to Assistant to the Airport
Director, Gary Schmidt was promoted to Manager of Reliever Airports
and will be the MAC representative.
Please address all correspondence regarding the Flying Cloud
Advispry Commission to Gary Schmidt, Manager, Reliever Airports,
600628th Avenuq South, Minneapolis, MN 55450.
OFFICE 1OCATION -6040 25th AVE. SO .-WEST TERMINAL AREA-MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-109
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO PUBLIC ACTIVITY AT FLYING CLOUD
SANITARY LANDFILL ON JUNE 1, 1986
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, the City Council, the Earth
Protector Group and the Citizens of Eden Prairie are against any and all
future expansion of the Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill;
WHEREAS, the final capacity of the Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill will
be exhausted when 5,261 a/F + 226 a/f = 5,787 of refuse plus the final
cover material are in place;
WHEREAS, the Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill poses a public nuisance
with litter, odor, and an increased threat to the environmental quality of
the surrounding area;
WHEREAS, the effects and consequences of the Flying Cloud Sanitary
Landfill will be felt by the surrounding public and environment for decades
to come;
WHEREAS, refuse must be hauled in a manner which promotes composting,
source separation, and recyclable programs rather than burning or
landfilling;
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie will support a Ring-
around-the-Landfill public rally on June 1, 1986 at the Flying Cloud Drive
In on Hwy. 169 in Eden Prairie next to the Flying Cloud Landfill at 1:00
PM.
ADOPTED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST
SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
rn
Edenvale Mini-Storage
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 17-86
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING FOR CERTAIN
LAND WITHIN THE 1-2 PARK ZONING DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing the amendment of
the zoning for the land within the 1-2 Park District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the zoning of the
land shall be, and hereby amended is within the 1-2 Park Zoning District.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of May 20, 1986, entered into between
Eden Land Sales, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, which
Agreement is hereby made a part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 1st day of April, 1986, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 20th day of
May, 1986.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
hi ?
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Outlot G, Edenvale Industrial Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Edenvale Mini-Storage
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of
, 1986, by
EDEN LAND SALES, INC., a Minnesota corpora
t
i
o
n
,
h
e
r
e
i
n
a
f
t
e
r
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
a
s
"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
h
e
r
e
i
n
a
f
t
e
r
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zo
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
the 1-2 Park District for construction of
a
m
i
n
i
-
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
u
s
e
,
s
i
t
u
a
t
e
d
i
n
i
n
Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fu
l
l
y
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
,
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
hereto and made a part hereof, and said acr
e
a
g
e
h
e
r
e
i
n
a
f
t
e
r
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
t
o
a
s
"
t
h
e
property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Cit
y
a
d
o
p
t
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
#
1
7
-
8
6
,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction
u
p
o
n
,
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
said property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in c
o
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
materials revised and dated , 19
8
6
,
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
n
d
approved by the City Council on April 1, 1986
,
a
n
d
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
h
e
r
e
t
o
as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modif
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
herein. Developer shall not develop, constru
c
t
u
p
o
n
,
o
r
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
the property in any other respect or manner tha
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
h
e
r
e
i
n
.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performa
n
c
e
a
n
d
o
b
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
e
b
y
Developer at such times and in such manner as
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
h
e
r
e
i
n
o
f
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
s
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
n
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part here
o
f
.
3. Prior to issuance of any building permi
t
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
Developer agrees to submit to the City Engi
n
e
e
r
,
a
n
d
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
t
h
e
City Engineer's approval of cross-sections o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
ditch for determination as to whether an
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
v
a
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
possible. If an easement vacation is not poss
i
b
l
e
,
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
a
g
r
e
e
s
to amend the site plan to remove that portio
n
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
the easement as depicted in Exhibit D, atta
c
h
e
d
h
e
r
e
t
o
a
n
d
m
a
d
e
a
part hereof.
4. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the
Director's approval of revised plans indicating the extent of
additional right-of-way required for Highway #5 by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation. Developer agrees that any revisions
shall also include revisions necessary to meet setback requirements
of the 1-2 Park District of the City Code.
5. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and the Minnesota
Department of Transportation, and receive the approval of the City
Engineer and the Minnesota Department of Transportation, for site
run-off calculations for determination of the adequacy of capacity
of said drainage ditch.
Upon approval by the City Engineer and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be
constructed, any changes to said drainage ditch, as approved by the
City Engineer and Minnesota Department of Transportation.
6. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City
Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water,
storm sewer, and erosion control for the property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or
cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit
C, attached hereto.
7. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and receive
the Director's approval of:
A. Detailed plans for lighting upon the property.
B. Samples of the exterior building materials and color
schemes.
C. Detailed plans, including elevations, for the pitched roof
on the most southerly building, as depicted on Exhibit B,
which is to be consistent with the roof of the existing
residence on the property. The roof shall be of a height
necessary to screen parking and bay doors from any sight
lines anticipated from the newly established road elevation
for Highway #5.
D. Detailed plans for the fence on the property.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
construct and implement, or cause to be constructed and implemented,
those improvements listed above as approved by the Director of
Planning.
8. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours
prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property.
Edenvale Mini-Storage
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT
TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
EDEN LAND SALES, INC.
AND THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1986, by
and between Edenvale Industrial Company, a Minnesota genera
l
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
,
hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the City of Eden Prair
i
e
,
h
e
r
e
i
n
a
f
t
e
r
referred to as "City:"
For and in consideration of, and to induce, City to adopt Ordinan
c
e
#
1
7
-
8
6
amending the zoning of the property owned by Owner within the 1-2 Pa
r
k
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
a
s
more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement en
t
e
r
e
d
i
n
t
o
a
s
o
f
, 1986, by and between Eden Land Sales, Inc., and
C
i
t
y
,
O
w
n
e
r
agrees with the City as follows:
1. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners,
their successors, heirs, and assigns of the property.
2. If the Owners transfer such property, owners shall obtain an
agreement from the transferree requiring that such transferee agree
to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
EDENVALE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
K. E. Schumacher, General Partner
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of
IV-15
Edenvale Mini-Storage
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-94
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 17-86 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 17-86 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of May,
1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 17-86, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 17-86 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph 8 herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on May 20, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
Edenvale Mini-Storage
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 17-86
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONI
N
G
O
F
C
E
R
T
A
I
N
LAND WITHIN THE I-2 PARK ZONING DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENC
E
C
I
T
Y
C
O
D
E
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
This Ordinance allows amendment of the zoning of the property located north of Highway #5, south and east of Martin Driv
e
,
k
n
o
w
n
a
s
Edenvale Mini-Storage, within the 1-2 Park Zoning District, subject to t
h
e
t
e
r
m
s
a
n
d
conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
,
gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane
/s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk
Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
, 1986.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Cle
r
k
.
)
;NAN construction company
April 23, 1986
APR 2 5 1986
Mr. Carl Jullie
City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: Request To Withdraw
Amendment To P.U.D. And Rezoning
City West Business Center - Phase 3
Dear Mr. Jullie:
On April 3, 1986, Ryan Construction Company submitted a request for
continuance of our proposal to amend a Planned Unit Development, and
requested re-zoning and site plan approval for the third phase of our
City West Business Center. This request was granted and our appearance
before the City Council was postponed for one month.
Since then, we have further reviewed our project in light of the current
office market, and have decided that our previously proposed single
story office concept is not the correct product for us to build at this
time.
We are currently designing a multi-story office building of approx-
imately the same size but of considerably higher quality than our single
story scheme. We are, therefore, requesting that our request for
rezoning and P.U.D. Amendment be withdrawn.
As soon as our new design is complete, we will submit a new request for
rezoning and P.U.D Amendment.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Robert J. Cutshall, Jr.
Project Coordinator
RJC/cjc/B2
cc: Chris Enger
700 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE. 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE 612/339-9847
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-99
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BLUFFS EAST 4TH AND 5TH ADDITIONS
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT
TO THE OVERALL BLUFF COUNTRY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions plans are considered
a proper amendment to the overall Bluff Country Planned Unit Development Concept;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the
request of Hustad Development for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall
Bluff Country Planned Unit Development Concept for Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions
and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on May 20, 1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions PUD Concept Amendment, being
in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in
Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment approval to
the overall Bluff Country Planned Unit Development Concept as
outlined in the application materials for Bluffs East 4th and 5th
Additions.
3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the
Planning Commission dated April 28, 1986.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 20th day of May, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-100
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive
Municipal Plan ("Plan"); and,
WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review
and comment; and,
WHEREAS, the proposal of Hustad Development for development of Bluffs East
4th and 5th Additions for Medium Density Residential use on 28.7 acres requires the
amendment of the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: approximately 28.7
acres located at the west of County Road #18, south of County Road #1, be modified
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 20th day of May, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
ni g
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #86-101
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFFS EAST 4TH AND 5TH
ADDITIONS FOR HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions for Hustad
Development, dated May 15, 1986, consisting of approximately 184 acres into 72
single family lots and nine outlots, 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 20th day of May, 1986.
Gary O. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
JOhn D. Frane, City Clerk
By
JOEL C. PUCKETT
Certified Public Accountant
Suite 538 West
Parkdale Plaza Building
1660 South Highway 100
Telephone
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
(612) 544-7101
May 13, 1986
The Honorable Gary Peterson, Mayor
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Mayor Peterson:
I am writing you on behalf of Eden River Bluffs, a
partnership owned by William Wilkie, Robert Wilkie, Leighton
Wilkie and myself. Eden River Bluffs owns a parcel of land
ajoining the property being developed by Rusted Development Inc.
(map enclosed). The Hustad proposal does not provide for street
access to our property.
I respectfully request on behalf of Eden River Bluffs that
street access be provided to Eden River Bluffs property in
accordance with Chapter 12 of the Eden Prairie Code of
Ordinances. I have enclosed copies of Section 12.30, Subdivision
2 and Section 12.30, Subdivision 3(L) for your review.
I have discussed this matter with Michael D. Franzen and he
is knowledgeable of our request.
I believe the most appropriate manner to provide us with
street access would be to grant a private easement to our
property.
I appreciate your consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
cc: William A. Wilkie
Robert Wilkie
Leighton J. Wilkie
il iq
• , )e.L. -zzt
g,
.iag--ab,
/0_•
AD a-e,
/ 6
to ,:it: cauncil, -jar. hr
.at.en Pr -.iric
e stro13 - or -.1:oaic ati.no -... colit:ctor road oit:-: tarou -.,11 our
nei:hboithocci fro:71 ;:cert7 - I .nd :-.ranlo to Ouiit' oc 1 and -anal'
if a. ninor cclaee..or iZ conztry.ct,..c1 it uZ
uza.:: a:. a rac:-; ti.ac : t2affic, . to
aio access to 1.(i'utuva a.occ.cc i .
,0 are tt -.;:ajer -.coa,1a, naaci I to tile noa
Cour.t7; .1o..c: 13 on -a.lc utt. c cannot conctivc o coli.:.:cto -....roL:d iacinr;
advanta. to',11e ane 'not 1-.,o i total...z unnecancer7,-
anci urndas to ac uc in intrusion no uot iiaza;:d to i. bcautii'il, quiet
/P
/21,-4..?„;
L 0 L;, .D.ad
/0y/0 cd Wed cA,44„,i
/02.1 1 sepece
/0-2,5 'Oty-1 2'ee.-
/01-is” ae,-, di/4_ 1...)
7 '$ F41-11.1
/0 V.ed ki.124-a
9/454s"
/"?7 t 10-u-e-Ld •24-4-.2-)
o eli,c.ar—aeck
3 y
if g o
5\So. 472"4. igaLpAzio ,v,111.4.Z.4411r411n21,
7;777
rAVA.1. •
'11°'144
RI- 115
PROPOSED SITE
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
TOUGH:
DATE:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
April 25, 1986
Bluff Country PUD
West of County Road #18, northwest of Bluff Road, and west of Franlo
Road
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Wally Hustad
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential
to Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 186 acres.
3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.15 acres with
variances for street frontage.
4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 38.15 acres.
5. Preliminary Plat of 186 acres into 72 single family lots and
nine outlots.
Background
Since the last Planning Commission
meeting, the proponents have pro-
vided additional and revised in-
formation in response to recommend-
ations of the April 11, 1986, Staff
Report. The revisions are as
follows:
_
• AREA LOCATION MAP
p9 1
Bluff Country PUD 2 April 25, 1986
1. Revise the preliminary plat to remove Lots 7 and 8, Block 1.
The requirement for the removal of these lots was based upon an expectation
that development on these lots would require a considerable amount of
grading and tree loss which would not be consistent to development in the
transition zone of Purgatory Creek. A detailed grading and access olan has
now been provided for Lots 7 and 8, which shows a common private driveway
and cul-de-sac. House pads have been located and grading is limited to the
top of the slopes. There will be tree loss on this property; however, the
heavily wooded areas on the lower portions of the slopes outside of the
siltation fence will remain. Since tree loss has been minimized and
appropriate access has been provided, development can occur on Lots 7 and 8,
but would require a variance under the Planned Unit Development for street
frontage.
2. Revise the grading plan for Lots 2 through 10, Block 1 to show pad
locations, site grading, and tree Toss.
The grading plan indicates that the location of building pads and proposed
grading will minimize tree loss on the slopes.
3. Revise the phasing plan to include a connection to Meade Lane or Franlo
Road as part of Phase 2.
The boundary lines for Phase 2 and Phase 3 have been modified. Phase 2 will
include a connection up to Meade Lane.
Lots 4, 5, and 6, do not meet the minimum street frontage requirement of 85
feet for the R1-13.5 zoning district. There is enough excess street
frontage on the adjoining lots to revise the plat to meet the minimum
requirement for these lots.
RI-135
PROPOSED SITE
04
--fttfN,t
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
April 11, 1986
Bluff Country PhD
West of County Road #18, northwest of Bluff Road, and west of Franlo
Road
Wally Hustad
1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential
to Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 186 acres.
3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.15 acres with
variances for street frontage.
4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 38.15 acres.
5. Preliminary Plat of 186 acres into 72 single family lots and
nine outlots.
TO:
FROM:
TFOUGH:
DATE:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER:
REQUEST:
Background
The Planning Commission previously
reviewed, at the January 24, 1986,
and February 21, 1986, meetings, a
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Concept for this area, which
consisted of 172, R1-13.5 lots; 75,
R1-9.5 lots; and, 140 multiple
family units (385 total). The
hearing was closed at the March 10,
1986, meeting, since the proponent
was preparing a completely revised
Planned Unit Development Concept,
and since issues related to
transition, traffic, circulation,
cul-de-sacs, street frontages, den-
sity, lot sizes, and architectural
control, were yet to be resolved.
• AREA LOCATION MAP
1193
Bluff Country PUD
2 April 11, 1986
Pud Concept Review
The new PUD compares with the previous PUD according to the following chart:
Total Open Space RI-13.5 R1-9.5
Multiple
Total Units Gross
Acres Acres Lots Lots
Units
Lots Density
Previous PUD 186
51
172
75•140
387
2.1
New PUD 186
51
202
43 140
385
2.1
The density and total units are comparable with a major change in the number of RI-
13.5 lots which has increased by 30 while the number of R1-9.5 lots has decreased by
32.
Minor Collector
The need for a minor collector to serve this PUD has been stated in previous Staff
Reports due to the total number of units and to provide an understandable street
pattern in the area. The PUD provides for a minor collector looping Franlo Road
back to County Road #1. This makes sense since the traffic study indicates that
when the loop is completed that 75% of the site generated traffic would utilized
this road and 25% using Bluff Road.
raffic - Phasing
The phasing plan for the PUD is tied to the traffic study. Phase 1 through 3 can
utilize Franlo Road and Bluff Road without affecting the capacity of the
intersections or require improvements such as turn lanes and/or signalization. The
study does indicate that the Bluff Road/County Road #18 intersection would be at
level of service C; however, the increase in traffic through the intersection from
the PUD is only 2%, since the major increase in traffic at this intersection would
be due to an increase in "background traffic" on County Road #18. This means that
the PUD could be built through Phase 3 without requiring the minor collector
connection back to County Road #1. At Phase 5, the traffic study recommends that
the Franlo Road intersection be signalized or the loop road completed. The loop
road should be completed concurrent with Phase 5 to more evenly distribute traffic
and provide a third access point for better internal circulation.
As the PUD develops, Bluff Road (unimproved) will see an increasing amount of
traffic from 200 cars per day at Phase 3, to 900 cars per day at full development,
yet the area along Bluff Road in the PUD is part of the last two phases of the
project, meaning traffic would utilize a dirt road until 1995. Until the last phase
is developed, a temporary lift should be put on Bluff Road where noted on Attachment
A and be completed concurrent with Phase I development.
Prior to Phase 5 development, the exact location of the intersection of the minor
collector and County Road #1 must be determined. The second part of the traffic
study is not complete (but will be done before Council review). It will analyze
he County Road County Road #18 intersection and the location of the minor collector
,n more detail. The traffic consultant has indicated at this time, that in all
likelihood, due to traffic increases and County plans for upgrading of County Road
Bluff Country PUD 3 April 11, 1986
18 in the future, the minor collector should be located farther west. Attachment B
indicates that the minor collector can be technically moved farther west just before
the pond. Otherwise the collector would have to be on the other side of the pond.
In this location, sight vision on County Road #1 is poor and would require a
realignment of County Road #1. The traffic study indicates that off-site traffic to
the north of County Road #1, which is guided Multiple Family and Commercial will
contribute more traffic effecting the location of the minor collector than trips
from the Bluff Country PUD.
Each phase of the PUD must operate with a loop road connection to avoid long, dead-
end cul-de-sacs, provide better internal circulation, and better emergency vehicle
access. Phase 2 boundaries must be revised to indicate a road connection to Meade
Lane or Franlo Road. See Attachment C.
Transition
Transition in the previous PUD included three areas: adjacent to the park, the
proposed multiple family outlot, and lots south of Bluff Road near County Road #18.
Lots adjacent to the park have been changed from R1-9.5 to R1-13.5 lots meaning
larger and fewer lots adjacent to the park.
Transition in the multiple family outlot was related to density and architectural
style. The outlot can be medium density but with contingencies that include a
density base of five units per acre with additional density possible subject to a
detailed review of site and architectural plans and based on performance criteria
thich would include:
1. The plans must show sensitivity to existing land forms and vegetation.
2. Heavy use of landscaping to decrease the scale of the buildings.
3. Primary building materials shall be brick, and the buildings shall be
residential in character.
4. The mass of the buildings shall be reduced through a specific architectural
treatment such as varying roof heights and building jogs.
Lot sizes north of Bluff Road were proposed for R1-9.5 zoning. The new PUD proposes
lot frontages between 100-130 feet and R1-13.5 zoning.
R1-9.5 Area
Contigencies for rezoning to R1-9.5 in the future must include meeting all ordinance
requirements, with a maximum density of 3.0 units per acre, grading which minimizes
tree loss, and architectural control, such that no two units would be alike side by
side, opposite, or diagonally across from each other.
Mass Grading
Overall site grading stays outside the Purgatory Creek Conservancy Area and works
with existing contours. Grading must limited to Phase 1 development only to
minimize erosion and dust over the entire site. No grading should be allowed
utside of Phase I until detailed zoning and platting requests are submitted for
review.
Bluff Country PUD
4 April 11, 1986
'till ties
Sewer and water service can be extended to serve the PUD. Sanitary sewer will be
extended from a lift station on County Road #1 near County Road *18. It would be
advantageous for the sanitary sewer to follow the minor collector road from County
Road #1; however, the City Engineer, based on a preliminary review, has indicated
that this would be the preferred route but an easement would work as well in this
location.
Storm water run-off is proposed to drain in two major directions; towards the pond
In the multiple family outlot, and towards Purgatory Creek. The pond in the
multiple family outlot currently has no storm water outlet. Storm water run-off
towards Purgatory Creek will be through surge basins. Surge basins are utilized to
help slow down the rate of water discharge, and limit the amount of sedimentation
discharged into the creek.
Concurrent with the final platting of the property, an overall master uitility plan
for sewer, water, and storm water run-off, with details, must be submitted for
Engineering review.
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to Multiple Family for the R1-9.5 Area and the
Multiple Family Outlot.
Commission must decide if substantial evidence has been provided to justify the
change to medium density where shown on Attachment D. If this is the case, then
lpproval should be based on the following criteria:
1. The density for the multiple family outlot would be with a base of five
units per acre with higher densities allowed subject to the performance
criteria as mentioned in the transition section.
2. Architectural control for R1-9.5 with specific unit types keyed to specific
lots such that no two units are alike side by side, opposite, or diagonally
across from each other.
3. All lots in the R1-9.5 area proposed for zoning must meet minimum ordinance
requirements with the maximum density of 3.0 units per acre.
4. Conservancy easements must be filed concurrent with final plat for all area
as shown on Attachment E.
Purgatory Creek Conservancy Area
At this time, the developer proposes a conservation area totalling 51 acres as an
outlot to be controlled by the Homeowners Association for the entire Bluff Country
project. Outlot A of Creek Knolls was approved in 1972 subject to land dedication
of 100 feet on both sides of Purgatory Creek and scenic easements. This land area
has not been dedicated, or scenic easements filed. Concurrent with the final
platting of the entire Bluff Country Pun, conservancy easements must be filed over
all land area where depicted on Attachment E.
-idewalks/Trails
The Franlo Road northern collector will be 60 feet of right-of-way. As part of road
intp
Bluff Country PUD 5 April 11, 1986
( onstruction, it should be required that a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk be
provided on one side, and an eight-foot wide bituminous trail be provided on the
other side. In addition, sidewalks should be provided within the PUD where shown on
Attachment F in order to provide an overall pedestrian system for the area.
Phase One Zoning Review
All lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-13.5 zoning district except Lots 7
and 8, Block 1, on proposed Branching Horn Road, which do not have frontage on a
public street and would require a variance. These lots are in the transition zone
of Purgatory Creek which is a "build with care" area. These lots are heavily wooded
with 12 to 18-inch oak trees. From a high point at about elevation 830 in the
center of the site, the topography drops off steeply in all directions. Due to the
steep slopes and heavy oak cover, a substantial amount of site alteration would be
necessary to provide building pads. The area proposed for driveway access is on an
existing 2/1 side slope meaning a lot of fill and retaining walls would be required.
In addition, since the lots are at a lower elevation than the sewer lines in
proposed Branching Horn Road, means that sewer must be pumped uphill.
Since no site grading or pad locations have been shown at this time, and site
grading is expected to be extensive, removing a significant number of trees and
requiring retaining walls, the variance should not be granted as part of the PUD
District Review and the plat revised to remove Lot 7 and 8.
Ate Grading Phase 1
Overall site grading is minimal in terms of cut and fill and follows the contours of
the land. Grading in spots is extensive especially along the west side of Antlers
Ridge Road. Upper portions of the rim along Purgatory Creek in the transition zone
are being filled to accommodate building pads. Tree loss is minimal since it is not
a heavily wooded area and grading is high enough on the rim not to disrupt the steep
slope character lower on the slopes.
Minimal or no grading is shown on either side of proposed Branching Horn Road at
this time. This is a problem for Lots 2 through 10 which are heavily wooded and
steeply sloped. The plan must be revised to show pad locations and site grading in
order to evaluate the extent of tree loss and site alteration. It is clear that any
development on these lots will result in tree loss. Prior to Council review, a
revised grading plan for this area must be submitted which shows the extent of
grading limits and the extent of tree loss.
Road Access Phase I
The realignment of Bluff Road creates Outlot C which blocks access to an existing
lot. Concurrent with final plat, road right-of-way on Bluff Road and Franlo Road
must be vacated, with the condition that Outlot C be given to the adjacent land
owners.
South of Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, below Bluff Road, is approximately three acres
If land in the transition zone which is part of a larger 80-acre parcel to the south
of the overall PUD. (See Attachment G) This site is currently landlocked by
proposed subdivision. Access to this area could be provided; however, the extent of
0:1
Bluff Country PUD 6 April 11, 1986
Jevelopable area is limited due to steep slopes and heavy tree cover. Extending a
public road to this area with a cul-de-sac would completely alter the land
character. This area would be better utilized as open space with a density transfer
over the entire 80 acres much in the same manner as the Bluff Country PUD.
Utilities Phase I
Sewer and water service can be extended to this area.
Storm water run-off is proposed to be directed towards Purgatory Creek. Two surge
basins are proposed adjacent to the creek, which in concept, are used to slow down
the rate of water run-off, minimize erosion, and limit siltation from entering the
creek. A detailed tree inventory, detailed grading plans, and the design capacity
of the surge basin must be submitted for Staff review prior to Council review.
These basins must be located and sized to minimize tree loss and slope alteration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres, Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 186 acres, Preliminary Plat of 186
acres into 72 single family lots and nine outlots, and a Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 on 38.15 acres subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report,
dated April 11, 1986, based on plans dated April 10, 1986, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Revise the Preliminary Plat to move Lots 7 and 8, Block 1.
B. Revise the Grading plan for Lots 2 through 10, Block 1, to show pad
locations, site grading, and tree loss.
C. Submit design details of the surge basin including capacity,
construction limits, detailed grading, and a tree inventory.
D. Provide a master utility and storm water run-off plan for review by
the City Engineer.
E. Provide a traffic study which analyzes the impacts at the County
Road County Road #18 intersection and the location of the minor
collector road with recommendations for improvements, if any.
F. Revise the Phasing plan to include a connection to Meade Lane or
Franlo Road as part of Phase 2.
G. Revise the PUD Concept Plan to include sidewalks/trails where
depicted on Attachment F.
2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
T1
Bluff Country PUD 7 April 11, 1986
B. Provide detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control
plans for review, by the City Engineer.
C. Concurrent with final platting, vacation of Bluff Road and Franlo
Road with Outlot C to revert back to the adjoining land owners.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of
grading.
C. Stake the grading limits with a snow fence. Any trees lost outside
of this area shall be replaced on an area inch per area inch basis.
D. Submit for review, conservation easements for the area depicted on
Attachment E, and provide evidence of filing before Building permit
issuance.
E. Submit the utility plans for review by the Fire Marshal.
4. The PUD approval for the multiple family outlot is based on a density base
of five units per acre with additional density possible subject to a
detailed review of site and architectural plans that are based on
performance criteria which include that the plans must show sensity to
existing land forms and vegetation, heavy use of landscaping to decrease the
scale of the buildings, primary building materials shall be facebrick and
the buildings shall be residential in character, and the mass of the
buildings shall be reduced through specific architectural treatment, such as
varying roof heights and building jogs.
5. The PUD for the R1-9.5 area shall be based on a detailed review of a zoning
request with all lots meeting the minimum requirements of the R1-9.5 zoning
district with a maximum density not to exceed 3.0 units per acre and
architectural control which keys specific unit types to lots such that no
two units are alike side by side, opposite, or diagonally across from each
other.
6. Construction of a temporary lift where shown on Attachment A along Bluff
Road/County Road #I8, according to Engineering standards with costs
allocated to the developer.
7. Trails and sidewalks to be provided within the PUD according to Attachment
F. Any sidewalks or trails within Phase I are to built concurrent with
street construction.
8. Setbacks for all lots in the PUD must meet minimum ordinance requirements.
W41141:4411WW/4",jI 44t1 BLUFF COUNT,ItY Paving Of Bluff Road Attachment A
BLUFF COUNTRY PUDi, CONCEPT PLAN PHASE DIAGRAM. PROPOSED ZONI Zona: anWmcs ao- AA.g (:Af !:1:,:• ••." 2;7 .tr .,DEN;nT±e. . . _ . • •- ; .4.1 , . IRA T. • • 'H ç4 ELM EC" IT Ow. • WE I/HE M wan. , .1 ' • • — W HEDLUND . ENGIEELIA2 - .t Minor Collector Road Alternatives Attachment B
, BLUFF COUNTRY PUI:),,,1 • f ;;;&;;n;;:;;;... • • -:). - "`!`1:7"`"°._7-.,• , oiNsiin§kpi #4 ,OV gt „ :,,i444!MEDTV,ITJItigHignii • `41,. • 4111,1X4.51t 4- , - /I4141I • I• AC II II III* *‘ • • •*4 •L ,•44/I. ; • LZ" DI AIND • _ I , • : Revised Phasing Plan Attachment C
CONCEPT PLAN 2. .7), ._ 1:,,,L4 - — '.,c...,:i'''±:'‘-'1' ..,...,-_. imp' •0"e'::\;:...-_ 1... 1 — • _ ,,till,:: / -sr %,4' . • 1,7,;,,.t.L. - • e ? 1 i .. . . . ..4 ..,.......,_•LpfV.2/4 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,:t .,..._ , I .. I I , . , ;,,i,',.." SOO, FAME, aPeA , . is • sc 7.''4''''2:s. .e.,, • ,,,,, ... . TA .. 1, ..... -,1:,-- .., ..: ,p.E.sitik,i_ ''''• --------,....- 14.: fiC .1 : . ';:: 3; if31 3 . -1 '27i1142i.'o' - ... !..j• AC ass Ipsts r , -Ws 0, , • II!("NEG.PlAIL rER° slinorrirs. P_. 1 , • ! • ,P '•t: •!.1 nci Comprehensive Guide Plan Change Area Attachment D
Conservancy Easement Area Attaehmant P
-T-rn-1-11111 \ I I I 41 BLUFF COUNTRY PUDimi. kg.F7,747.6 Overall Pedestrian Plan Attachment F
BLUFF COUNTRY PUD); CONCEPT PLAN • PHASE DIAGRAM. PROPOSED ZONING ".'0AN.., -77 /' • I - - - 4., • r -•,-Ztf---1" 1;11 ; - •11/;• ••••471--4, - • ARA F _ r 1 p d.r; '4'• .74t - L \. • -I'..‹..":„ „-- .1-;--,:_:-. '-';'--, '.. ..---',.t...t.r...a.--.— _• .; . 1 I ''€ i - - ----- - 1,Et_o:victuND . ---).--,-.;„.1.:1-.. '—: - - , AC 43 1.4, • '2 so AG p "AG.' ra toots i` AC SO Mall to 41111••• Adjacent Land Area To The South Attachment G
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
DATE:
PROJECT:
City Council
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
May 14, 1986
BLUFF COUNTRY PUD
The Council packet contains two Staff Reports on the Bluff Country PUD dated April
11, 1986, and April 25, 1986, which describe the request, outline the Staff
recommendations, and state revisions to be completed prior to Council review. Items
A through G of the April 11, 1986, Staff Report, described revisions and/or
additional information to be submitted prior to Council review. Items A, 8, and F,
have been addressed and resolved as indicated in the April 25, 1986, memo. Item C
and 0 refer to Engineering requirements for additional and more detailed information
to evaluate the overall utility and storm water run-off plans. Conceptual
information has been provided which indicates how the systems would work and how
they would tie into existing facilities; however, the details have yet to be
resolved. Typically, these details are addressed concurrent with the final platting
and construction drawings for improvements with the property. Item G refers to
revising the PUD Concept to include sidewalks and trails where noted on Attachment
F. This has not been completed but could be included as part of an exhibit with the
developer's agreement. Item E refers to the requirement for submitting additional
traffic information which analyzes the impacts of the County Road #18 intersection
and the location of the minor collector road. The detailed traffic study has not
been completed; however, Staff has been in contact with the consultant traffic
engineers, BRW, and understand at this point, that given the amount of traffic to be
generated around the intersection of County Road #1 and County Road #18, and County
long-term plans for a diamond interchange would indicate that the minor collector
road would have to be located a minimum of 650 feet west of the on-ramp to County
Road #18. The location of the minor collector road would more or less be through
the pond or on the west side of the pond. It is important to note that the traffic
studies submitted thus far does indicate that up to Phase 3 within the project could
be constructed and developed without affecting the capacities at the affected
intersections at Bluff Road and County Road #1. The study does indicate prior to
Phase 5 that the Franlo Road intersection be signalized or the loop road completed.
The loop road should be completed concurrent with Phase 5 to more evenly distribute
traffic and provide a third access point for better internal circulation.
There were three other issues raised at the Planning Commission meeting by adjacent
and concerned citizens regarding the extension of utilities and road improvements to
Bluff Road, access to the Wilkie property to the south of the project, referred to
on Attachment G, and the wetland status of the pond in Outlot A. Residents on the
south side of Bluff Road would like to have sewer and water improvements and an
improved roadway constructed concurrent with the project. The current phasing plan
I AO
Memo
May 14, 1986
Page Two
for the project would not make improvements to Bluff Road until Phase 5, which would
be approximately eight years in the future. Access to the Wilkie piece, to the
south of the project, could be provided through private easement and *a private
drive. The Staff Report of April 11, 1986, indicated that this was a very difficult
piece of property to develop, and to extend a roadway and cul-de-sac would
completely alter the steep slope and wooded character of the land. Since that
meeting, Staff has met with the representative of the Wilkie property, and studied
alternative ways that this property might be developed. Approximately 5,000 square
feet of land area exists at the top of the slope which could accommodate
approximately one building pad off the driveway easement. The other approach to the
Wilkie property would be to consider this land area as part of a density transfer
much in the same manner as the entire 55 acres of open space along Purgatory Creek
is considered in conjunction with the Bluff Country PUD. The pond area in the
multiple family outlot is a protected wetland by the Department of Natural
Resources. The mass grading plan indicates that the grading limits do not encroach
or fill in any portion of the pond. Conditions of approval for the overall grading
of the site has been limited to Phase 1 of the project only. This is to minimize
tree cutting and erosion across the entire site until such time that detailed site
and building plans have been submitted for the balance of the property.
Staff expects that the developer may take issue over requirements in the Staff
Report which depict a density restriction on the multiple family outlot to a base of
five units per acre with additional density possible subject to review and the
requirement for a temporary lift on Bluff Road. Use of the outlot for multiple
family makes sense because of the steep topography slopes in the ponding area.
Without the benefit of specific site development plans, it is difficult to analyze
whether or not this property can accoarodate the density as proposed by the
developer. 140 units, at a gross density of IO units per acre, would translate into
approximately 20 units per acre over the developable portion of the property. This
would likely result in apartment unit type construction which would be out of
character architecturally with the surrounding land uses which are proposed at a
much lower density closer to three units per acre. This was the primary reason why
a recommendation was made for a density base at five units per acre which would fit
in better with surrounding densities. The pond in the multiple family outlot is a
protected waters regulated by the Department of Natural Resources. It is not large
enough to qualify as a Public Water and provisions of the Shoreland Management
Ordinance would not apply. The Department of Natural Resources would require an
alteration permit for any work to be done within the wetlands. The mass grading
plan does not depict any grading or filling of the wetland area.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
May 6, 1986
Bluff Country PUD
This staff report is supplementary to the Planning Staff Reports of January
24, 1986, February 21, 1986, April 11, 1986 and April 25, 1986.
The parks, recreation and natural resource issues of the Bluff Country PUD
relate to preservation of the creek valley, park dedication, trails and
sidewalks.
The original recommendation from the Community Services Staff regarding the
Bluff Country PUD was to require land in lieu of park fees. Staff suggested
acquiring four of the parcels proposed for platted lots.
Upon review of the proposed park dedication, the developer requested the
Director of Community Services to walk the site and suggested a prominent
knoll on the east side of the creek be dedicated for public viewing of the
creek valley, rather than the knoll proposed on the west side.
The Director of Community Services met with the developer on the site and
agreed that the eastern knoll would serve as well for a public viewing area of
the Purgatory Creek valley. The Director of Community Services concurs with
the suggestion by the developer and recommends access to this area via a 30'
wide easement between lots 3 & 4, block 3 off Bluff Road. The trail should be
either a 6' wide asphalt trail or a 5' wide concrete sidewalk extending from
the sidewalk along Bluff Road to the top of the viewing area.
The access from the west should occur adjacent to the private drive serving
lot 8, block 1 of the Brown Farm property. This again should be either a 6'
wide asphalt trail or a 5' wide concrete sidewalk that should be constructed
adjacent to the private drive at least as far as lot 8. At that point, the
trail can split to the north and transverse down the slope for an eventual
creek crossing.
Staff would not recommend constructing a trail down the slope for the creek
crossing at this time; however, it is critical to get the hard surface trails
between the homes prior to the homes being constructed.
The Community Services Staff recommend the developer be required to dedicate
the trail easements as described, as well as a trail easement that would allow
a creek crossing and a trail easement adjacent to the creek for a possible
future trail along the creek valley. Futhermore, staff would recommend a
scenic easement over the entire creek valley that would allow the trail
construction as the only intrusion in the valley.
The developer has discussed the possibility of donating the entire creek
valley property as a gift to the City. If the City receives this property as
a gift, staff would recommend the City agree to a restrictive covenant on the
creek corridor for 15 years. The covenant would restrict trail construction
along the creek corridor during that period of time in order to determine if
it would be damaging to the environment and would cause a policing problem.
The restrictive covenant would not restrict the City from constructing the
trail across the creek valley in this location, as well as the one creek
crossing further to the north in the vicinity of Homeward Hills Park.
This arrangement would allow the City to acquire the land and maintain the
psosibility of a trail along the creek sometime in the future, if that trail
corridor is warranted in the future. It also gives the City a sufficient
amount of time to study the impact the housing development along the rim will
have on wildlife in the valley, as well as what impact a pedestrian path might
have on the valley environment.
The Community Services Staff futher recommend the developer pay the cash park
fees on the Bluff Country PUD.
The Community Services Staff recommends some sidewalks in addition to the
sidewalks proposed by the Planning Staff Report. The Community Services Staff
recommend the following:
1. The extension of the 8' wide asphalt hikeway/bikeway adjacent to Franlo
Road from its existing location southerly and easterly to County Road 18,
or the intersection of County Road 1 and County Road 18.
2. The construction of a 5' concrete sidewalk along the following roadways:
a. along rhe north side of the east/west road opposite the Franlo Road
Park entryway
b. along the south side of Bluff Road from County Road 18, westerly the
entire length of Bluff Road
c. along the south side of the extension of Meade Lane to Franlo Road
d. along the west side of the north/south road that connects the southern
most cul-de-sac in the Creek Knolls development to Frani° Road
e. along the short cul-de-sac in the Brown Farm leading to the westerly
access to the creek corridor
The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed this proposal
on May 5, 1986 and recommended as per the Planning Staff Reports subject to
the recommendtions of this memorandum.
BL:md
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 28, 1986
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Chairman Ed Schuck, Rich Anderson, Julianne Bye, Christine
Dodge (7:35 p.m.), Virginia Gartner, Charles Ruebling
Robert Hallett
Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnes,
Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded to Ruebling, to adopt the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--5-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of
the April 21, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as written.
Motion carried--3-0-2 (Bye and Gartner abstained)
(Dodge arrived at 7:35 p.m.)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BLUFFS EAST 4TH AND 5TH ADDITIONS, by Hustad Development. Request
for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on approximately 184
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with Zoning District
Change from Rural to RI-13.5, with variances, on 38.15 acres,
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on 28.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
approximately 184 acres into 72 lots and 9 outlots. Location: West
of County Road #18, west and south of Franlo Road, east of Homeward
Hills Road. A continued public hearing.
cW
Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 28, 1986
Mr. Bob Smith, representing proponents, reviewed the revised plans with the
Commission. He reviewed issues of traffic, sensitivity to Purgatory Creek,
the intersection of County Road #1 and County Road #18, blending of this
development with the existing lots along Bluff Road in the Creek Knoll
Addition, density of the development, and phasing.
Ms. Nancy Heuer, BRW, traffic consultant for proponents, explained the
results of the traffic study prepared for the development. She stated that
one of the conclusions was that through the development of Phase II
I
,
traffic at the intersection of Franlo Road and County Road #1 would be
a
t
Level of Service A, the best possible situation, with free-flowing traffi
c
.
She stated that this would change to Level of Service C with t
h
e
construction of the development through Phase V, and would include the nee
d
at that time for alternative access points and additional improvements
t
o
the intersection of County Road #18 and Bluff Road. Ms. Heuer stated th
a
t
the Hennepin County Department of Transportation and the Minnesot
a
Department of Transportation were still working on traffic projections fo
r
County Road #18.
Mr. Wally Hustad, proponent, stated that there was still no decision as t
o
the final form of the proposed multiple residential portion of th
e
development. He stated that he would prefer to have the density set at si
x
to ten units per acre as part of the Planned Unit Development Concep
t
Amendment, instead of five units per acre as recommended by Staff.
Regarding the Wilkie property, south of the proposed development, Mr. Hustad
stated that he was aware of concerns regarding provision of access to the
parcel and that he felt this could be worked out.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Staff Report of
April 25, 1986, with the Commission. He noted that the proponent had
reduced the amount of area proposed for R1-9.5 lots and increased the amount
of area proposed for R1-13.5 lots, thereby providing for better transition
between the larger lots on the north side of Bluff Road and the proposed
development.
Planner Franzen stated that the Staff's concerns had not changed regardi
n
g
the multiple portion of the proposed development since it had been fir
s
t
proposed. He stated that it was difficult to make further judgments abo
u
t
the proposed multiple portion of the development without greater detail
t
o
the plans for this area. He added that the developer could make a case f
o
r
greater density in the future, based on the merits of the plan proposed
a
t
that time.
Regarding traffic, Planner Franzen expressed concern with respect to th
e
need for signalization at the time of development of the fourth and fift
h
phases, and for the potential need for another intersection at County Roa
d
#1. He noted that the proponents were in the process of a second phase o
f
the traffic study at this time to answer more detailed questions regardin
g
the location of an intersection at County Road #1 with the propose
d
collector road through the development. This information was to b
e
available in time for the Council review of the proposal.
Ruebling asked about the proposed sidewalk and bituminous trail along Frani°
folv;i,
Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 28, 1986
Road. Planner Franzen explained that it was City policy to provide for both
types of pedestrian access along roads of this size in the community,
carrying large volumes of traffic.
Mr. Martin Diestler, 9905 Bluff Road, expressed concern about potential
traffic problems on Bluff Road as a result of this development. He also
expressed concern about the safety of the access of Bluff Road with County
Road #18.
Ms. Anara Guard, 10300 Riverview Road, asked about the level of use which
would be allowed in the area designated for park in the proposed
development. She expressed concern about the potential impact of the
development upon the wildlife in the area. Planner Enger stated that a
study of the Purgatory Creek corridor had been done several years ago. At
that time, the question was raised regarding whether the City should
purchase the property along the creek valley, or not. It was determined at
that time that the City would instead designate the valley areas as scenic
easements, rather than purchase the land. Also, it was determined at that
time that the City would not locate a trail within the valley. Planner
Enger stated that he had been informed that the Parks, Recreation, and
Natural Resources Commission would be reviewing this policy and, in
particular, the idea of a trail within the creek valley, at the meeting of
May 5, 1986, at which time this project would be reviewed by them.
Mr. Scott Gensmer, 9599 Bluff Road, stated that he was concerned about
traffic along Bluff Road as a result of the development. He also expressed
concern about accessing County Road #18, particularly north-bound, from
Bluff Road in the future. He stated that it was difficult and dangerous
now. Mr. Gensmer also expressed concern about the density of the
development and its potential impact on traffic, as well. He also stated
that he did not want to be forced to hook up to sanitary sewer and water and
asked if there was a procedure by which he could avoid doing so until he was
ready. Planner Enger explained that these issues would be decided at the
time an assessment hearing for the area was held by the City Council. He
noted that the City had offerred to defer assessments in some situation like
this, but that this was a Council decision.
Mr. Joel Pucket, representing the Wilkie family, owners of property south of
the proposed development, requested that access be preserved to the Wilkie
property for the future to avoid the property becoming land-locked. Planner
Franzen stated that he had spoken with representatives of the Wilkie family
and had discussed several alternatives for provision of access to the
property and potential development possibilities for the land, as well.
Bye expressed concern about the multiple portion of the development and
asked about the concerns of the Staff in greater detail. Planner Enger
explained that the portion of the property proposed for multiple residential
development had steep topography, making it difficult to assume the exact
location of structures. He added that there were not detailed plans
available about the structures at this time, either. Planner Enger stated
that the City had several examples of property such as this where
development at five units per acre had worked. However, he stated that it
was Staff's position that, even though the property made sense as a multiple
use in this area, the developer would have to prove a case for more than
Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 28, 1986
five units per acre with more detailed plans than what was available
a
t
t
h
i
s
time. Planner Enger stated that another possibility would be
f
o
r
t
h
e
developer not to proceed with the proposed Comprehensive Guide Pla
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
at this time for this portion of the property, and to provide more
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
plans for Staff review prior to City action on this portion of the
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
development. Mr. Hustad stated that he would prefer to receive a
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
five units per acre, rather than postpone action on the Comprehensiv
e
G
u
i
d
e
Plan at this time.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Anderson, to close the
p
u
b
l
i
c
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Pla
n
n
e
d
U
n
i
t
Development Concept Amendment Review of approximately 184 acre
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
Bluffs 4th and 5th Additions, based on revised plans dated April
2
5
,
1
9
8
6
,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 11,
1
9
8
6
.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Comp
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Residential on 28.7 acres for the Bluffs 4th and 5th Additions,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
revised plans dated April 25, 1986, subject to the recommendatio
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
Staff Report dated April 11, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Plan
n
e
d
U
n
i
t
Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural
t
o
R
1
-
13.5, with variances, for 38.15 acres, for Bluffs East 4th
a
n
d
5
t
h
Additions, based on revised plans dated April 25, 1986, subjec
t
t
o
t
h
e
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 11, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 5:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Council approval of the request of Hustad Development for Prelimina
r
y
P
l
a
t
of approximately 184 acres into 72 lots and nine outlots for Bluffs
E
a
s
t
4
t
h
and 5th Additions, based on revised plans dated April 25, 1986, sub
j
e
c
t
t
o
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 28, 1986
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 11, 1986.
Motion carried--6-0-0
Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 10, 1986
A. BLUFFS EAST 4TH ADDITION, by Hustad Development, Inc. Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 196
acres; Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on approximately 33 acres;
Planned Unit Development District Review with Zoning from Rural to
R1-9.5 with variances on 18.91 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 43.53
acres into 51 single family lots and two outlots. Location: West
of County Road #18, north and west of Bluffs Road, and west of
Frani° Road. A continued public hearing.
Planner Enger explained that proponents had not been able to provide t
h
e
requested traffic information in time for Staff review prior to thi
s
meeting. It appeared that the traffic study would not be completed by th
e
March 24, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, either.
After brief discussion, Commissioners concurred that the item should b
e
readvertised and scheduled for the April 14, 1986, Planning Commissio
n
meeting, pending receipt of the traffic information requested by the City.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing and
return the item to the proponents, without prejudice.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 24, 1986
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
Chairman Ed Schuck, Julianne Bye, Christine Dodge, Virginia
Gartner, Robert Hallett, Stan Johannes
Dennis Marhula
Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Michael Franzen, Senior
Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Kate Karnas,
Administrative Assistant
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBER ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to approve the agenda as
printed.
Motion carried--6-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to approve the minutes of
the January 27, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as written.
Motion carried--5-0-1 (Bye abstained)
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BLUFFS EAST 4TH, by Hustad Development. Request for a Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on approximately 196 acres and
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on approximately 33 acres and Planned
Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-9.5, with variances, on 18.91 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 43.53 acres into 51 single family lots and 2 outlots.
Location: West of County Road #18, north and west of Bluff Road,
and west of Franlo Road. A continued public hearing.
Ian
Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 24, 1986
Staff reported that they had met several times with the proponent to discuss
the unresolved items identified in the initial Staff Report and at the
Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 1986. It was noted that the
proponent was reluctant to accommodate changes that would introduce a minor
collector road into the project. Staff had received a number of calls from
the existing Bluff Road single family lot area, expressing concern about a
potential high-volume collector road that they understood the City was
proposing immediately adjacent to their subdivision.
-
Mr. Wally Hustad, proponent, reviewed two alternative plans with the
Commission. He stated that the "preferred plan" would be the one which
showed cul-de-sacs off the minor collector road, thereby eliminating
driveways to the minor collector road. Mr. Hustad noted that other changes
in the plans included the widening of lots along Bluff Road to 100 ft., a
smaller area was planned for R1-9.5 zoning, which created an increase in the
amount of area proposed for R1-13.5 zoning.
Mr. Hustad stated that the Hennepin County Transportation Department had not
yet completed there study of traffic in the vicinity of County Roads #1 and
#18. He noted that proponents were not concerned about the interchange, but
that they were concerned about the final location of the west frontage road
for County Road #18. Mr. Hustad stated that he did not feel it would be a
problem to have the west frontage road become the minor collector through
the property, meandering through the land to the west.
Mr. Hustad stated that he would like the City to consider action on the
single family portion, of the property at this time. He noted that the
project would be phased over a ten-year period for development. He stated
that this would mean there would be a minimum impact on traffic in this area
during that time, which would allow the County to finalize its decisions
regarding the alignment of the County Road #1 and #18 interchange and the
attendant frontage roads for County Road #18.
Regarding the storm water drainage situation for the area, Mr. Hustad stated
that he was under the impression that as long as there was progress taking
place in the direction of a solution for storm water drainage for this area,
that the July 31, 1986, deadline imposed by the Watershed District for
solution to the area situation would not be a problem.
Mr. Hustad stated that, with respect to a trail to be located along the
Purgatory Creek river bed, it was proponent's position that this not be
installed in this location for purposes of maintaining the pristene natural
areas along the creek. He noted that the slopes were also difficult in this
area.
Planner Franzen reviewed the "preferred plan" against the concerns of the
previous Staff Report of January 24, 1986, and the concerns raised at the
Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 1986. He stated that Staff was
concerned that the R1-9.5 District proposed be reduced in size, noting that
the original intent of the District was for provision of low and moderate
income housing opportunities in the community. He stated that proponents
had made their intentions clear regarding the values of the homes to be
included in this development, and that they did not intend to include low,
or moderate, cost housing.
Ina
Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 24, 1986
Planner Franzen noted that Staff was still concerned about traffic matters,
as well. He stated that while Staff understood that proponents did not need
to have the County's decision regarding the road system in order to begin
work on the single family portion of the development, Staff was still of the
opinion that an issue of the magnitude should not be left unresolved,
especially considering the size of the proposed development. Planner
Franzen stated that Staff would require additional traffic information and
redrafted plans in order to make a firm recommendation regarding the
development.
Gartner asked when the traffic information would be available from Hennepin
County. Planner Franzen stated that a traffic count would likely be
available within one week; however, long-range plans would likely not be
available that soon. Gartner asked if County Road #18 would be upgraded
without an interchange at County Road #1. Planner Franzen stated that this
was not known at this time.
Planner Enger stated that it would be irregular for the County to approve of
an intersection for a frontage road to be located approximately 300 ft. from
the interchange, itself, when standard spacing was 1,200 ft. from the
interchange. He noted that, on occasion, 600 ft. had been acceptable when
only using right-in and right-out turns. There would not be enough space
for stacking of vehicles within 300 ft.
Planner Enger stated that the traffic counts would help with this type of
decision as they would indicate how quickly the turn lanes would clear and,
therefore, how much stacking distance would be necessary.
Bye stated that she found the "preferred plan" acceptable, with the cul-de-
sacs in a revised location to provide less driveways onto the minor
collector road.
Johannes stated asked about the phasing of the development. Mr. Hustad
responded that phasing would be determined after the road information had
been completed by the County. He added that, based on the "preferred plan,"
proponents would likely begin with the R1-13.5 area along the west side of
the proposed development.
Hallett asked which plan was preferrable to the Staff. Planner Enger stated
that either plan would require modification, but that the northerly route of
the minor collector route would be preferrable to Staff.
Gartner stated that she liked the idea of the cul-de-sacs in the southeast
portion of the proposed development for purposes of keeping traffic out of
this area and not having the streets become a quick throughway for vehicles.
She asked if the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission had
reviewed the plan with respect to the proposal for a trail along the
Purgatory Creek river bed. Planner Enger responded that the City's position
on the trail had been that a trail was not desirable in this area because of
the wildlife in the valley. He stated that this had not been reviewed for
several years, but that it would be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and
Natural Resources Commission at the time of their review of this development
proposal.
GI.1c1
Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 24, 1986
Mr. Joseph Christensen, attorney, representing Mr. Martin Diestler, 9905
Bluff Road, reviewed Mr. Diestler's concerns regarding the access to his
property at the bend in Bluff Road as proposed by the development. It was
noted that the two parties were currently working on an agreement to resolve
this matter. Mr. Christensen stated that he felt it was important that the
City be aware of the situation. Mr. Christensen stated that Mr. Diestler
was in favor of a northerly alignment for a minor collector through the
property. Regarding assessments for utilities, Mr. Christensen stated that
Mr. Diestler preferred that the assessments be based on a linear foot
calculation, instead of an acreage calculation.
Mr. Martin Diestler, 9905 Bruff Road, stated that he did not believe that
only 12.5% of the traffic would use Bluff Road and that he was concerned
that it not become a through-way for the development. Mr. Diestler stated
that he would also prefer to see all of the proposed R1-9.5 lots eliminated
from the development plan.
Mr. Earl Houghton, 9795 Bluff Road, asked how deep the lots would be. Staff
responded that they were approximately 135 ft. deep.
Mr. Scott Gensmer, 9599 Bluff Road, stated that he felt there should be
better transition to the existing homes along Bluff Road. He noted that the
existing homes were on lots of five acres in size, or greater. Mr. Gensmer
also expressed concern about safety in terms of accessing County Road #18
northbound from this area. He suggested that a deceleration lane be
considered to alleviate this. Mr. Gensmer suggested that, if assessments
against the existing lots became a reality, that the assessments be deferred
for those lots, in particular, until such time as they would develop. Mr.
Gensmer stated that his other concern was that the density for the
development was too high.
Mr. Brian Gensmer, 9785 Brookview Circle, concurred that there was not
adequate transition being provided to the existing homes along Bluff Road.
He also expressed concern about density being too high for the area and that
additional traffic information be provided prior to decisions being made on
the proposal. Mr. Gensmer stated that he felt Mr. Hustad should be paying
for all the assessed utility costs which would be incurred with this
development, since the improvements were not wanted by anyone else. Mr.
Gensmer asked that the sanitary sewer and water be designed so that those
with larger lots could develop in the future, if it was to be designed at
all.
Mr. Barry Bain, 9845 Bluff Road, expressed concern about the traffic through
this area. He stated that he would prefer lots on the north side of Bluff
Road to be designated for R1-13.5 zoning, instead of R1-9.5. Mr. Hustad
responded that this area had been designated for Medium Density Residential
land use originally and was now proposed for the less dense R1-9.5 zoning.
Ms. Doris Brooker, 10164 Trotter's Path, asked if any trails would be
considered for this area. Planner Enger responded that the Parks,
Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission would be reviewing the need for
trails in this development at their meeting, when scheduled.
Mr. Diestler stated that he understood that there were plans for a park in
r ;
Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 24, 1986
this area at one time. Planner Enger responded that the City had considered
purchasing land along the creek at one time; however, the City had
determined that it would be better to designate this area along the creek
for preservation, instead. The City had been implementing the preservation
plan ever since.
Mr. Christensen asked if Outlots A and B of Creek Knolls would be required
to be within the Conservancy Area of Purgatory Creek, Mr. Hustad responded
that this had been done as part of the Creek Knolls development several
years ago.
Gartner explained to those who had raised questions about assessments that
the Planning Commission was not the group which would take action, or make
recommendation, about assessments, but that the City Council should be
contacted about such matters.
Gartner asked for a list of items which Staff felt to be necessary prior to
making a recommendation on this item. Planner Franzen stated that the list
would include, but not be limited to, revised platting, revised lot sizes,
revised phasing plan, and new traffic information. Gartner asked proponents
If these items could be completed within two weeks. Mr. Hustad stated that
he felt it was possible.
Planner Enger reiterated the importance of the traffic study for review by
the Staff. He questioned whether the study could be prepared and given to
Staff in time for review by the next Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to continue this item to
the March 10, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt of the
additional information requested by Staff and the Commission and adequate
time for Staff review and recommendation on the revised plans and data.
Motion carried--6-0-0
A2l
Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 27, 1986
C. BLUFFS EAST 4TH, by Hustad Development. Request for a Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on approximately 196 acres;
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on approximately 33 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review with zoning from Rural to R1-9.5, with
variances, on 18.91 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 43.53 acres into
51 single family lots and two outlots. Location: West of County
Road #18, north and west of Bluff Road, and west of Franlo Road. A
public hearing.
Mr. Wally Hustad, Sr., proponent, stated that the major factors involved in
this proposal had been under development for many years. He stated that
these factors included the upgrading of County Road #18, the upgrading of
County Road #1, and extension of sanitary sewer into the area. Mr. Hustad
stated that one of the situations which had precipitated planning of this
area at this time was the washout that had occurred on property adjacent to
this development. One of the requirements of the Watershed District for
repair of this washout was that correction of it take place by August, 1986.
Mr. Hustad stated that, because of this requirement to deal with the storm
water drainage for this entire area, development of this entire area was now
being considered.
Mr. Hustad stated that proponents had found that there was a strong market
for lower cost housing when proponents had developed the Bluffs East 1st,
2nd, and 3rd Additions, at County Road #1 and Franlo Road. He stated that
now, marketing research had shown them that there was a demand for higher
cost housing, which would include homes in the price range of approximately
$300,000. He pointed to the locations proposed for this type of housing in
the development.
Mr. Bob Smith, Hedlund Engineering, reviewed the site vegetation, location
of severe slopes, and the proposed utilities which would be constructed to
Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 27, 1986
service the site. He noted that soils throughout the site were sandy loam
in nature. Mr. Smith then reviewed the traffic patterns expected from
development of the property as proposed.
Mr. Hustad expressed concern about the Staff recommendation for connection
of Franlo Road to Bluff Road. He stated that he was concerned that it not
become a quick access, or through-way, to the major thoroughfares. He
stated that proponents felt this would provide for an undesirable traffic
situation within their development. Mr. Hustad stated that proponents were
anxious to meet with Staff to work out the situation.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Sta
f
f
Report of January 24, 1986. He noted that the overall density of t
h
e
project was at 2.1 units per acre. However, with removal of the creek ar
e
a
from the overall land area, the gross density for the development beca
m
e
2.92 units per acre. Planner Franzen noted that the major concerns of Sta
f
f
included the location of the collector road, minimization of driveway acces
s
to the collector road, elimination of unnecessary cul-de-sacs, the need f
o
r
a detailed traffic study, proposed multiple family development in an ar
e
a
designated as an outlot, width of the lots at the street frontage wi
t
h
respect to providing a variety of housing types, premature development of
a
portion of this area, transition to the existing developments in the are
a
,
and architectural controls in the proposed R1-9.5 areas.
Chairman Schuck accepted into the record a petition from the resident
s
living on the south side of Bluff Road regarding the development. Als
o
accepted into the record was a letter from Mr. Fred Warner.
Mr. Martin Diestler, 9904 Bluff Road, stated that he was concerned abou
t
lots being smaller than his on the opposite side of the road. He added tha
t
he was concerned about the safety of the "blind corner" on the east end o
f
Bluff Road.
Mr. Gene Briggs, 9715 Pioneer Trail, stated that, while proponents wanted
the property they were developing to be serviced by sewer, they had no
t
discussed the fact that the only access for sewer for their property was
through the Briggs property at the northeast portion of the site. He stated
that he and his family were not ready for development at this time and they
did not feel they should be forced into development because of this
proposal.
Mr. Barry Bain, 9845 Bluff Road, expressed concern for development of lots
that were 9,500 square feet across from lots which were an acre in size, or
greater. He questioned whether this would cause devaluation of his
property.
Mr. Earl Houghton, 9795 Bluff Road, stated that he concurred with M
r
.
Diestler's concerns.
Mr. Scott Gensmer, 9599 Bluff Road, stated that he would like to
b
e
considered part of the petition that was accepted into the record from t
h
e
residents living on Bluff Road. He stated that his major concern was t
h
e
proposed small lots across from lots much greater in size than the existi
n
g
lots and homes in the area.
v"1;
i • Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 27, 1986
Ms. Doris Brooker, 10164 Trotters Path, expressed concern about the proposed
collector road through the property. She stated that she felt the privacy
provided by cul-de-sacs was preferrable to a through-way and the traffic
that would be forced through her neighborhood.
Gartner stated that she felt Code requirements for minimum frontage along
cul-de-sacs should be maintained, not only for purposes of providing variety
of housing types, but for snow removal as well. She added that she felt
there were too many variances being requested by the proponents. Gartner
stated that she was not in favor of the density proposed by proponents, but
that she could see both sides of the issue regarding the connection of the
through-road through the property and that she would like additional
information on this issue.
Hallett stated that she supported Gartner with respect to the issue of cul-
de-sacs and street frontage on the cul-de-sacs. With respect to the
proposed connection of the collector street through the project, Hallett
stated that he felt people would not use it as a through road if the other
thoroughfares in the area were upgraded.
Marhula stated that he was concerned that the connection of the through-road
through the project not become a "race-track" through the subdivision. He
also expressed concern about the transition along Bluff Road to the existing
residence to the east. Marhula stated that, with respect to the commercial
area proposed, it appeared as if proponents had assumed that this area would
automatically be developed as commercial. He stated that he was unsure that
this was appropriate and suggested that proponents provide additional
information, if they wished this area to be developed as commercial.
Mr. Hustad stated that it had been his plan to propose development of this
commercial area at the same time as this residential area. However, due to
the requirement of the Watershed District for solution of the storm water
drainage problem in the area, this project came up first. He stated that
proponents were in the process of planning the 60,000 square foot shopping
center in this location at the northwest corner of County Roads #18 and #1.
Mr. Hustad stated that the development at this point included a medical
facility, service station, and development around the commercial area to
include elderly housing and apartment units.
With respect to the Briggs property, Mr. Hustad stated that the only
alternative to crossing the Briggs property with the sewer pipe was to
construct the sewer along County Road #18, which would be a much longer and
more costly alternative.
Mr. Gensmer stated that he was concerned that proponents seemed to be
planning the development of the adjacent residential lots owned by others,
as well as the development of this property. He stated that, based upon the
proposal of the developer, it appeared that the existing residents along
Bluff Road would be forced into development of their property.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to continue this item to the
I ‘ZZI
Planning Commission Minutes 8 January 27, 1986
February 24, 1986, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow proponent
opportunity to revise the plans in accordance with the concerns raised by
the Commission at this meeting, and those concerns listed in the Staff
Report of January 24, 1986.
Motion carried--64
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 1986
B. Bluff Country PUD
Refer to memos dated May 1, 1986 and May 5, 1986 from Bob Lambert,
Director of Community Services and staff reports dated January 24,
1986, February 21, 1986, April 11, 1986 and April 25, 1986.
Lambert said that the parks, recreation and natural resources
issues are the preservation of the creek valley, park dedication,
trails and sidewalks. Lambert met with the developer on Monday
morning and after walking through the area, changed some earlier
staff recommendations. He introduced Mr. Bob Smith of Hedlund
Engineering who was present at the meeting to review the Bluff
Country PUD proposal.
Smith showed the commission a phased diagram and proposed zoning
map. The site is located on 196 acres south of Pioneer Trail, west
of County Road 18 and northeast of Purgatory Creek. The plan shows
low density residential land uses of 2.1 units per acre with a
neighborhood park to the north, low density residential to the east
and south with open space and low density and open space to the
west. There was a 1977 PUD which divided the site into eastern and
western sections. The western section was approved and is
currently being developed, but the eastern section was not approved
at that time. Smith said the key issue of this proposal is the
preservation of Purgatory Creek.
Smith also reviewed maps showing vegetation, road alignments,
utility plans and grading plans.
Mr. Hustad of Hustad Development, Inc. was also present at the
meeting to review the proposed plan. The development will include
both high range ($300,000 to $1/2 million) and moderately priced
($100,000 to $125,000) housing. The average lot size is 12,000
square feet. There are 245 single family and 140 multi-family lots
included in the plan.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 1986
-4-
Lambert asked about park dedication. Rusted said they had met with
their attorney and the developer intends to dedicate open space to
the City.
Lambert said that the Purgatory Creek Study is the guide that is
being used for this development. It suggests being very careful
about putting any trails in this section of the creek valley
although plans are to make allowances for trails in the future.
Lambert said he feels there should be a rim trail and that
permanent knolls should be acquired for public use. A 15 year
restrictive convenant would insure that no trails would be built
along the creek for that amount of time.
Lambert again reviewed the major issues which are the preservation
of the creek valley with close monitoring both during construction
and later; park dedication - the developer will pay cash park fees
and the City will require a trail easement; trails and sidewalks -
an 8' asphalt trail will be constructed on the west side of Frani°
Road, 5' concrete sidewalks will be added on one side of the
east/west road opposite the Franlo Park entryway, along the south
side of Bluff Road from County Road 18 west the entire length of
Bluff Road, along the south side of the extension of Meade Lane to
Franlo Road, along the west side of the north/south road that
connects the southern most cul-de-sac in the Creek Knolls
Development to Frani° Road and along the short cul-de-sacs leading
to the scenic overlooks.
Joyer asked how the 15 year restrictive covenant was decided upon
and is it long enough. Lambert said that the maximum amount of
time for a restrictive covenant is 25 to 30 years, but he feels 15
years should be long enough to monitor the site.
Gonyea asked who will police or monitor the area both during
construction and afterwards. Lambert said the City has a full-time
inspection department who will closely monitor development on the
site.
Baker asked how changes will be monitored after the grading has
been done. Lambert said it will have to be the initiative of the
Community Services staff and the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission to develop some type of monitoring system for
different types of wildlife, etc.
Cook asked if a scenic easement would affect the gift by the
property owners. Hustad said that it would not.
Busted commented on the gift of land to the City. He said this is
the second time Brown's have done this and he feels that a
precedent has been established. He added that some type of trust
must exist between the City and the property owners involved.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 1986
-5-
Lambert recommended that the plan be approved with the following
conditions: changes on the trail and sidewalk system - trail
easement between Lots 3 and 4 off Bluff Road and west from the
Brown site and construction of a trail to Lot 8. The trail can be
either 6' asphalt or 5' concrete, but it should be hard surface. A
scenic easement should be required on steep slopes along with a
trail easement and a 15 year restrictive covenant which would
require the City to wait before any trail along the creek could be
constructed. The impact of a trail should be reviewed at regular
intervals and the appropriate cash park fees will be paid by the
developer.
MOTION: Baker recommended approval of the Bluff Country PUD per
staff recommendation and additional conditions above. Joyer
seconded the motion.
Cook said that his major concern is the water drainage on the site.
Lambert said that this will be reviewed by the Watershed District
along with the City planning and engineering departments.
Shaw asked if there is a similar drainage system in the area.
Hustad said there are several, but they are not on as large a scale
as this.
The motion passed 7-0.
7,:a
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-102
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FLAGSHIP ATHLETIC CLUB
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT
TO THE OVERALL EDEN PRAIRIE ATHLETIC CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Flagship Athletic Club plan is considered a proper
amendment to the overall Eden Prairie Athletic Club Planned Unit Development
Concept; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the
request of Flagship Athletic Club for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall
Eden Prairie Athletic Club Planned Unit Development Concept for the Flagship
Athletic Club and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City
Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on May 20, 1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Flagship Athletic Club PUD Concept Amendment, being in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A,
is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment approval to
the overall Eden Prairie Athletic Club Planned Unit Development
Concept as outlined in the application materials for the Flagship
Athletic Club.
3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the
Planning Commission dated April 28, 1986.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 20th day of May, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
1 '1 P ° 4.1 s
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #86-103
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF FLAGSHIP ATHLETIC CLUB FOR
FLAGSHIP ATHLETIC CLUB
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Flagship Athletic Club for Flagship Athletic Club,
dated May 15, 1986, consisting of approximately 31 acres into one lot and two
outlots, and road right-of-way for parking lot expansion, 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 20th day of May, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
t2FJ.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald Uram, Assistant Planner
TPOUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: March 25, 1986
PROJECT: Flagship Addition
LOCATION: South of Highway #5, west of Prairie Center Drive
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Flagship Athletic Club
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review on 20.4
acres.
2. Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on
4.4 acres.
3. Preliminary Plat of 27.4 acres into two lots, two outlots,
and road right-of-way.
Background
This site is located adjacent to the
Flagship Athletic Club along Prairie
Center Drive. It is currently
guided for Regional Commercial land
uses as are the surrounding
properties. The purpose of this
request is to allow for a parking
lot expansion to be used by members
of the Flagship Athletic Club. To
allow for parking facilities on this
site, the parcel must be zoned and
platted. The applicant is re-
questing a zoning district change
from Rural to C-Regional Service and
is platting the property.
Site Plan
The proposed site plan depicts a
parking lot expansion on the space
which was temporarily occupied by
the Flagship Athletic Club's sales
trailer. This parking area would
Flagship Addition 2 April 25, 1986
contain 188 parking spaces adjacent to Prairie Center Drive with room for the
addition of 60 more spaces to the west of this. A total of 248 parking spaces would
be possible. Staff recognizes the need for additional spaces to service the
Flagship Athletic Club, but would like to point out the specific Code requirements
for the installation of this facility. The site plan shows that the proposed
parking facility would not be on the same parcel of land. Section 11.03 5. (D) of
the City Code states that "all off-street parking facilities shall be on the same
parcel of land as the structure they are intended to serve". Because of this
requirement, the proponent would be required to submit a cross-access agreement for
parking to occur on this site. In order to alleviate this -situation, Staff
recommends that the preliminary plat be revised to reflect the elimination of the
lot line between Lots 1 and 2 and the entire 14.47 acres be platted into one lot.
Should the parcel to the north develop at some future date, a shared parking
(access) agreement will be required at that time. In addition, that section states
that space for the required facility shall not occupy the required front yard. The
site plan depicts a setback of 30 feet from the right-of-way line of Prairie Center
Drive. Code requires that this space be 35 feet. Also, the parking aisle widths
per Code are 63 feet. Although the site plan states that these requirements are
being met, the drawing does not scale correctly. Prior to Council review, the
proponent shall revise the drawings to reflect accurate dimensions.
Grading Plan
Primarily, the grading plan depicts the leveling of this site to allow for the
construction of the proposed parking lot. The site is relatively level and will not
require extensive grading. The plan also depicts a five-foot berm around the
perimeter of the site designed to help screen the parking lot.
The proponent will be required to install a catch basin system within the parking
lot to control drainage. Plans for this shall be submitted prior to City Council
review.
Landscape Plan
The proposed landscape plan depicts a total of 212 caliper inches of plant material
around the perimeter of the parking lot. In order to provide further screening of
the parking lot, Staff recommends additional coniferous plantings within the gaps
created by the undulating berms along Prairie Center Drive and along the northern
boundary of the parking lot.
Preliminary Plat
In conjunction with the proposed site plan and zoning district change, the proponent
is preliminary platting this and the adjacent property. The preliminary plat shows
a total of two lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way for Prairie Center Drive.
Lots 1 and 2 which are the location of the Flagship Athletic Club's buildings and
proposed parking lot expansion, contain 14.47 acres with the outlots containing
approximately 12.93 acres. Per Staff's recommendation, the lot line between Lots 1
and 2 shall be eliminated and the entire 14.47 acres be platted into one lot.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the request for Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment Review on 20.4 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional
11";.
Flagship Addition 3 April 25, 1986
Service on 4.4 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 27.4 acres into two lots, two outlots,
and road right-of-way based on plans dated April 22, 1986, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 25, 1986, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Modify the plans to reflect accurate dimensions for parking aisle
widths and front yard setback from Prairie Center Drive.
B. Modify the grading plan to depict a catch basin system within the
proposed parking lot.
C. Modify the preliminary plat to reflect the elimination of the lot
line between Lots 1 and 2.
D. Modify the landscape plan to reflect additional coniferous plantings
along Prairie Center Drive and the northern boundary of the parking
lot.
2. Prior to Final plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control
plans for review by the City Engineer.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
B. Provide a lighting plan for review. Lighting shall be 20-foot
downcast luminars.
4. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing.
12-a
Planning Commission Minutes
5 April 28, 1986
B. FLAGSHIP ATHLETIC CLUB, by Flagship Athletic Club. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment Review on 20.15 acres
,
Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional-Service on 2.45
acres and Preliminary Plat of approximately 31 acres into 1 lot and
2 outlots and road right-of-way for parking lot expansion. Location:
West of Prairie Center Drive at Singletree Lane. A public hearing.
Mr. Don Brauer, representing proponents, explained the reason
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
request and the need for additional parking area for the Flagship
A
t
h
l
e
t
i
c
Club. He noted that the intention was to have a shared access to t
h
e
m
e
d
i
a
n
cut in Prairie Center Drive with the use to be located north of the
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
parking lot addition. He stated that cross-easements could be arr
a
n
g
e
d
a
t
the time of review of the use to the north.
Planner Enger reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Sta
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
of April 25, 1986. He stated that Staff was concerned about th
e
c
r
o
s
s
-
easement arrangements proposed since the use to the north was not
k
n
o
w
n
a
t
this time. Also, City Code required that all off-street parking fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
be on the same parcel of land as the structure they are intended t
o
s
e
r
v
e
.
Because of this, Staff was recommending elimination of the lot line
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed preliminary plat at this time. Other
w
i
s
e
,
i
t
would be necessary for proponent to obtain a variance to allow for
t
h
e
o
f
f
-
street parking off the site from the Board of Appeals.
Gartner asked if there was any risk to the City in doing so. Plann
e
r
E
n
g
e
r
stated that the replatting of the property could take place in the
f
u
t
u
r
e
,
too, but there was the possible problem of setting a precedence by a
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
the off-street parking to be on another lot.
Anderson asked if the reasons for the platting as proposed were
m
a
i
n
l
y
financial for purposes of transfer of title, etc. Mr. Brauer stat
e
d
t
h
a
t
this was the case.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from membe
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public he
a
r
i
n
g
.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Council approval of the request of Flagship Athletic Club for Pla
n
n
e
d
U
n
i
t
Development Concept Amendment of 20.15 acres and Zoning District Ch
a
n
g
e
f
r
o
m
Rural to C-Regional-Service of 2.45 acres, based on plans dated
A
p
r
i
l
2
4
,
1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of April
2
5
,
1
9
8
6
,
eliminating item lc of the recommendations.
Motion carried--6-0-0
1P,14
Planning Commission Minutes
6 April 28, 1986
MOTION 3:
Move to recommend to the City Council approval of t
h
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
o
f
F
l
a
g
s
h
i
p
Athletic Club for Preliminary Plat of approximatel
y
3
1
a
c
r
e
s
i
n
t
o
o
n
e
l
o
t
,
two outlots and road right-of-way for a parking lo
t
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
plans dated April 24, 1986, subject to the recomm
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
a
f
f
Report of April 25, 1986, eliminating item lc of th
e
r
e
c
o
n
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Motion carried-6-0-0
;23S
MAY 20, 1986
185116.88
76486.00
53637.66
39941.87
400.00
600.00
74630.83
50000.00
24721.88
60745.86
31768.57
12445.50
12906.35
89534.94
2301.18
10 GENERAL
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT
S LIQUOR STORE-P V M
LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE
30 CASH PARK FEES
31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP
33 UTILITY BOND FUND
39 86 FIRE STATION CONSTRUCT
44 UTILITY DEBT FUND
45 UTILITY DEBT FD ARB
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD
55 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND ARB
73 WATER FUND
77 SEWER FUND
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND
$715237.52
MAY 20,1986
26801 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
f 902 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
",,017 VOID OUT CHECK
27062 HOPKINS POSTMASTER
27063 HOPKINS POSTMASTER
27064 MINNESOTA GAS CO
27065 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO
27066 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS
27067 AT & T COMMUNICATIONS
27068 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
27069 JASON NORTHCO PROPERTIES LIMITED
27070 SUPPLIES 7 HI ENTER INC
27071 BRETT ALPIN
27072 GINA CREVIER
27073 JUSTIN GRIFFITH
27074 JENNA KAHNKE
27075 BETSY RAKOCY
27076 JAN WESPLER
27077 MN DEPT OF HEALTH
27078 EAGLE WINE CO
27079 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO
27080 PRIOR WINE CO
27081 TWIN CITY WINE CO
27082 QUALITY WINE CO
27083 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO
27084 STATE TREASURER
?'085 VOID OUT CHECK
( 86 DANA GIBBS
2/087 KRISTI BUCHHOLZ
27088 LIA BUCHHOLZ
27089 DAVID CREVIER
27090 KIRK N. FRIEDLINE
27091 JEFF HARER
27092 SHANNON HARER
27093 JILL HERBERG
27094 SPENCER JOHNSON
27095 THEO JOHNSON
27096 JASON LUNDEN
27097 JESSE MORRIS
27098 MICHELLE OLSSON
27099 EMILY PAUMEN
27100 RYAN SCOTT
27101 JEFF THURK
27102 CHAD WAGNER
27103 SPENCER WERNESS
27104 INTL. CRYSTAL MANF. INC.
27105 VOID OUT CHECK
27106 OLMSTED COUNTY HIST SOC
27107 VOID OUT CHECK
27108 VOID OUT CHECK
27109 VOID OUT CHECK
27110 GRAND OLD MANSION
F 11 HUBBELL HOUSE RESTAURANT
.12 MN ASSOC OF ASSESSING OFFICERS
27113 EXECUTIVE SOFTWARE INC
3354892
MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION
MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION
BOND REFERENDUM MAILINGS
POSTAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
MAY RENT-LIQUOR STORE
RENT-LIQUOR STORE
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
PERMIT FEE-WATER DEPT
LIQUOR
WINE
WINE
WINE
WINE
WINE
RENEWAL CERTIFICATION-WATER DEPT
PACKET DELIVERIES
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-RACQUETBALL LEAGUE
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
EXPENSES-COMM SERVICES/FEES PD
RADIO INSTALLED-SURVEILLANCE VAN
TOUR EXPENSE/FEES PD
TOUR EXPENSES/FEES PD
TOUR EXPENSE/FEES PD
1986 DUES-ASSESSING DEPT
CONFERENCE-PLANNING DEPT.
12,V
9.75-
0.50-
275.00-
804.19
843.12
4508.90
17.86
831.75
4.47
6803.49
4525.82
4128.30
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
13.00
18.00
1000.00
1938.96
1959.07
508.29
3077.80
1678.14
124.46
15.00
0.00
65.00
9.00
12.00
14.00
4.50
13.00
16.00
16.00
45.00
11.00
16.00
16.00
3.50
7.50
4.00
12.00
16.00
17.50
21.18
0.00
91.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23.32
125.05
275.00
144.00
PAYROLL 5/2/86
PAYROLL 5/2/86
PAYROLL 5/2/86
PAYROLL 5/2/86
MAY 86 INSURANCE
MAY 86 INSURANCE
MAY 86 INSURANCE
PAYROLL 5/2/86
PAYROLL 5/2/86
PAYROLL 5/2/86
WITHHOLDINGS-EMPLOYEE PER COURT ORDER
MAY BILLING
PAYROLL 5/2/86
LIFE INS MAY 1986
PAYROLL 5/2/86
LAND-FIRE STATION
LAND-FIRE STATION
2 DUMP TRUCKS-STREET DEPT
CONFERENCE-MANAGER/ASSISTANT MANAGER
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
DUES-POLICE DEPT
CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT
CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT
CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT.
CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT
PROGRAM REG. CHANGE FUND-COMM. SERVICES
DUES-POLICE DEPT
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
EQUIPMENT REPAIRS-LIQUOR STORE
HIRE LOBBYIST FOR METRO COUNCIL MDIF
BEER
MIX
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
MIX
MIX
MIX
BEER
MIX
SERVICE
EXPENSES
BIKE REGISTRATIONS/FEES PD
LIQUOR
27114 -
27115
27116
27117
'118
-3119
27120
27121
27122
27123
27124
27125
27126
27127
27128
27129
27130
27131
27132
27133
27134
27135
27136
27137
27138
27139
27140
27141
27142
,"143 k 144
27145
27146
27147
27148
27149
27150
27151
27152
27153
27154
27155
27156
27157
27158
27159
27160
27161
27162
27163
27164
27165
27166
27167
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
STATE TREASURER
CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION
PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN
GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC
MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC
ICMA RETIREMENT GROUP
MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO
RP EBERSBERGER ATTORNEY
INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSN.
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
HENNEPIN COUNTY
J B & 0 INC.
LAKELAND TRUCK CENTER
HAMLINE UNIVERSITY
JANET KADING
MARY GRINNELL
SARAH MAENKE
MICHELLE OLSSON
JENNY PITSCH
MATTHEW ZIEBOL
HENNEPIN CTY CHIEFS OF POLICE
IACCI
KEYE PRODUCTIVITY CTR.
KEYE PRODUCTIVITY CTR.
SPRING CONFERENCE
PETTY CASH
MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCI
DANIEL BELFRY
A.J. RASHID
SHARON L. STODOLA
PHILIP WHITE
SPARKLING LINES
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BEER WHOLESALERS INC
COCA COLA BOTTLING CO
DAY DISTRIBUTING CO
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO
KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO
MARK VII SALES
PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO
REX DISTRIBUTING CO INC
ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CO
THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO
TWIN CITY HOME JUICE CO
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
PETTY CASH
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO
VOID OUT CHECK
21302.53
9092.05
16993.78
1952.13
13843.44
2286.95
7160.45
2150.00
10.00
5073.00
498.02
630.00
18573.21
666.27
76.38
28757.75
21242.25
71546.00
100.00
40.00
24.00
24.00
10.50
24.00
7.50
30.00
25.00
96.00
96.00
65.00
100.00
40.00
7.50
13.00
10.10
9.00
60.00
2000.00
4587.80
612.45
4341.60
8077.75
362.60
13553.22
483.50
492.45
220.95
12534.23
34.68
13.94
44.59
125.00
8696.80
0.00
( '881737
27168
27169
27170
y7171
( 172
d173
27174
27175
27176
27177
27178
27179
27180
27181
27182
27183
27184
27185
27186
27187
27188
27189
27190
27191
27192
'VOID OUT CHECK
PAUSTIS & SONS CO
MARK VII SALES
PRIOR WINE CO
TWIN CITY WINE CO
NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO
INC HOUSING
ASSOC OF MET MUNICIPALTIES
EAGLE WINE CO
QUALITY WINE CO
A COMMERCIAL DOOR CO
ACRO-MINNESOTA INC
AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO
AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK
JERRY ANDERSON
ROBERT ARNDT
ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC
ASSOCIATED WELL DRILLERS INC
AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS
AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS
AT & T COMMUNICATIONS
PATRICIA BARKER
BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC
BBC TOOL SUPPLY INC.
BEACON PRODUCTS COMPANY
27193 BERG BAG COMPANY
27194 BLACK & VEATCH
27195 BLAYLOCK PLUMBING CO.
/-196 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC
k, .97 ED BRION
27198 ANDREA BROSCH
27199 BROWN PHOTO
27200 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC
27201 MAXINE BRUELK
27202 BSN CORP
27203 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY
27204 WALLACE W. CARLSON COMPANY
27205 CATCO PARTS SERVICE
27206 CENTEX HOMES
27207 CERTIFIED RUSTPROOFERS INC.
27208 CHASE BRACKETT COMPANY
27209 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE INC
27210 NILES COLE
27211 COPY EQUIPMENT INC
27212 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC INC
27213 CURTIS INDUSTRIES
27214 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC
27215 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY
27216 DALCO
27217 CRAIG W DAWSON
27218 EUGENE DIETZ
WINE
WINE
WINE
LIQUOR
SERVICE
EXPENSES-MAYOR
CONFERENCE-CITY COUNCIL
LIQUOR
WINE
REPAIR OVERHEAD DOOR-STREET DEPT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
RUG SERVICE-LIQUOR STORE
BOND PAYMENTS
HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD
APRIL 86 CUSTODIAL SERVICE
BLACKTOP-STREET DEPT
STREET SWEEPING EQUIPMENT RENTAL
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
MILEAGE-ELECTIONS
AIR FILTERS/SPARK PLUGS/OIL-STREET DEPT
SAFETY GLASSES/GOGGLES/SHIELD-STREET DEPT
-NON-CAUSTIC FIELD LINING COMPOUND -
PARKS DEPARTMENT
WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE SANDBAGS-SEWER DEPT
SERVICE-WATER DEPT EXPANSION
REFUND PLUMBING PERMIT
SERVICE-HOMEWARD HILLS RD
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD
RACQUETBALL INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD
FILM PROCESSING
ROCK
MILEAGE & PARKING
SOCCER NET-PARK MAINTENANCE
SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE
PRINTING-COMMUNITY SERVICES
PIN KIT-STREET DEPT
REFUND BLDG PERMIT
RUSTPROOFING-PARK MAINTENANCE
SERVICE-MILLER PARK
-SPI TRANS/SEAL/OIL/GASKET BEARING/
FLYWHEEL/CORE EXCHANGE
REFUND-SOFTBALL REGISTRATION
XEROX BOND/XEROX VELLUM-PLANNING DEPT
CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT
-GLEAM-ALL/VYN-ALL/SPOT CLEANER/DRILL
BIT/FENDER COVER-STREET DEPT
SPRING/POINT SET/CONDENSER-STREET DEPT
QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT
CLEANING SUPPLIES-COMM. CTR/P/W BLDG
MILEAGE
APRIL 86 EXPENES
0.00
380.83
147.00
165.84
10010.75
3608.81
150.00
45.00
7574.32
2137.68
64.00
1416.19
9.05
72741.36
200.00
200.00
265.12
1650.00
61.85
1072.33
252.31
27.75
174.31
20.20
252.00
80.00
74550.08
82.00
80.75
140.00
91.00
144.15
2354.04
12.97
768.90
219.45
37.00
199.55
1998.20
273.00
600.00
305.42
210.00
33.84
130.85
320.16
28.00
1646.77
301.29
32.75
165.00
743187
27219' DIXIE PETRO-CHEM INC
27220 EDEN PRAIRIE TRASHTRONICS
27221 CITY OF EDINA
7 7222 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC
'223 EMPIRE-CROWN AUTO INC
27224 RON ESS
27225 JOHN FRANE
27226 G & K SERVICES
27227 G L CONTRACTING INC
27228 ROBIN GLABE
27229 GLUSCHENKO SPENCER SMITH INC
27230 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTERS
27231 TOM GUELCHER
27232 HALLOCK COMPANY INC
27233 HARMON GLASS
27234 HAYDEN MURPHY EQUIPMENT CO
27235 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
27236 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS
27237 HOFFER'S INC.
27238 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC
27239 HUDSON MAP COMPANY
27240 KURT HYSTER
27241 IBM CORP
27242 IBM
27243 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 01ST #272
27244 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC
i "245 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC
k, 246 JONAH USA LTD
27247 CARL JULLIE
27248 KARULF HARDWARE INC
27249 RAY KERBER
27250 RICHARD KNUTSON INC
27251 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC
27252 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER
27253 LA HASS MFG & SALES INC
27254 LANCE
27255 LANE INSURANCE INC
27256 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD
27257 DOUGLAS A LAWYER
27258 LEEF BROS INC
27259 DAVID LINDAHL
27260 M-V GAS CO
27261 RACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC
27262 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC
27263 MERIT/JULIAN GRAPHICS
27264 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
'54226
CHLORINE CYLINDER-WATER DEPT
APRIL 86 TRASH PICKUP
WATER TESTS
VINYL MESH VEST
-MUD FLAPS/BODY PUTTY-STREET DEPT/
PARK MAINTENANCE
HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PO
APRIL EXPENSES
-TOWELS/COVERALLS-PARK MAINTENANCE &
WATER DEPARTMENT
-SERVICES-VALLEY VIEW RD/MITCHELL &
FAIRWAY/SHADY OAK RD & WESTWIND CIRCLE
MILEAGE
SERVICES-RECRUIT HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOR
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS
WOOD CARVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD
SIGNAL RESET TIMER-WATER DEPT
REPLACE WINDSHIELD-STREET & WATER DEPT
RED AIR HOSE-WATER DEPT
VOTER REGISTRATION VERIFICATION POSTAGE
FILING FEES-ENG DEPT
FIELD MARKING
PARTS/FILTERS/OIL/PAPER/KIT-COMM. CTR.
STREET ATLAS-WATER DEPT
HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD
OFFICE SUPPLIES-BLDG DEPT
SERVICE-CITY HALL
APRIL CUSTODIAL SERVICES
SERVICE-POLICE DEPT
OFFICE SUPPLIES-SEWER DEPT
LUBE STICKS/STONES/PICK GUARDS-COMM CTR
EXPENSES-CITY MANAGER
-BATTERIES/PAINT/CONCRETE/SCREWS/FILTERS/
-FORKS/PLUGS/SANDING BITS/TURNBUCKLE/
-SNAP/ROPE/PAINT BRUSHES/DEGREASER &
U-BOLTS
10 BALES-PARK MAINTENANCE
SERVICE-ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY
GOLF BALLS/BASES/CLUBS/SCRAMBLER MARKER
TAPE/FRAMES/PAINT/NAILS/DRILL/BOLTS
-ASPHALT PATCHING BOX-STREET DEPT/
TOOL BOX-SEWER DEPT
LIQUOR STORE SUPPLIES
RENEWAL NOTARY BOND-ENGINEERING DEPT
LEGAL SERVICES-MARCH 86
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PO
RUG SERVICE-CITY HALL & P/W BLDG
EXPENSES
SERVICE-SENIOR CENTER
-SHAFTS/BEARINGS/CLAMP ANGLE/BRACE/
SPROCKET/CHAIN-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
TOWING SERVICE
ENVELOPES-CITY HALL
SERVICE
677.00
325.00
157.50
111.00
38.94
51.00
165.00
278.66
5288.55
3.55
1662.85
344.90
25.00
207.60
257.51
100.00
11.06
111.00
271.60
636.82
181.85
46.50
27.50
424.32
1904.93
121.12
47.29
188.95
53.38
674.63
22.50
26369.82
1281.79
104.40
5218.00
53.65
60.00
12136.65
84.00
252.40
5.89
216.00
1832.75
103.00
368.80
37.60
27265
27266
27267
/ '7268
/269
27270
27271
27272
27273
27274
27275
27276
27277
27278
27279
27280
27281
27282
27283
27284
27285
27286
27287
27288
27289
27290
27291
27292
27293
METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIP CO
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM
MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION
MID-CENTRAL FIRE INC
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP
MINNESOTA DAILY
MINNESOTA MAYORS ASSOCIATION MEME
MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO
MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC
MINNESOTA VALLEY WHOLESALE INC
MIRROR FACTORY
MODERN TIRE CO
NM MUELLER & SONS INC
NORTHWOOD GAS CO INC
NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS NA
OCHS BRICK & TILE CO
OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC
OPEN PLAN MARKETING INC
PENNSYLVANIA OIL CO
PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO
PETTY CASH
CONNIE L PETERS
JOYCE PHELPS
JOYCE PHELPS
PITNEY BOWES
PLAQUES PLUS INC
POWER BRAKE EQUIPMENT CO
PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC
(..)294 QUALITY HOMES
27295 R & R SPECIALTIES INC
27296 RECREONICS CORP
27297 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA
27298 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO
27299 ROGERS SERVICE CO
27300 ROOT-O-MATIC SEWER SERVICE
27301 ROBERT RYAN
27302 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC
27303 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC
27304 DALE SCHMIDT
27305 DALE SCHMIDT
27306 DONALD B SCHWARTZ
27307 SEARS ROEBUCK & CO
27308 SETTER LEACH & LINDSTROM INC
27 309 THE SKETCH PAD
27310 W GORDON SMITH CO
27311 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP
27312 SNAP PRINT-WEST
27313 SOUTHWEST AUTO SUPPLY INC
ANNUAL SERVICE & INSPECTION ON FIRE EXT
JUNE 86 SEWER SERVICE
4 TIRES - STREET DEPT
ADAPTERS & NOZZLES - WATER DEPT
BLACKTOP
MAY 86 PAGER SERVICE-WATER DEPT
NEWSPAPER AD
DUES
SUBSCRIPTIONS-COMMUNITY CENTER
ADS-LIQUOR STORE
TREES-FORESTRY DEPT
MIRROR-COMMUNITY CENTER
ADAPTERS/WHEEL ALIGNMENT/VALVE
GRAVEL-PARK MAINTENANCE -
SERVICE
BOND PAYMENT
CEMENT-PARK MAINTENANCE
SUPPLIES
ALL-STEEL FILE
MOTOR OIL-STREET DEPT
CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CTR
PETTY CASH RECEIPTS-POLICE DEPT
MILEAGE
SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD
SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD
SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER
PLAQUES & ENGRAVING-BANQUET
STROBE/VALVE
-BATTERY/DUST COVER/RECORDER/DESK TOP/
TRANSCRIBER-COMMUNITY CENTER
REFUND BLDG PERMIT
SHARPEN ZAMBONI BLADES
SOCKET CLOSURE CAP-COMMUNITY CENTER
CASH REGISTER PAPER-LIQUOR STORE
HOSES/SEAL KIT/VALVE/FITTINGS
ALTERNATOR & STARTER REPAIRS
SERVICE-SUNNYBROOK RD & OLYMPIC DRIVE
HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD
PORTABLE RESTROOMS-SENIOR CENTER
CAR WASH-STREET DEPT
EXPENSES-STREET DEPT
EXPENSES-STREET DEPT
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD
COVERALLS/CALCULATORS
SERVICE-CITY HALL PLANNING
CALLIGRAPHY-ELECTIONS
-BREAK SHOE/OIL SEAL/CAT KIT/PISTON/
DISC PADS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
LITE/REPLACEMENT TAPS/VALVE-EQUIP MAIN
-PRINTING FORMS-COMMUNITY SERVICES/
COMMUNITY CENTER
-FLYWHEEL/BATTERY/BRAKE LINES/SWITCH/
-IGNITION/TURN SIGNALS/FUSE HOLDERS/
-BEARINGS/SEALS/BELTS/FITTINGS/TIRE
PLUGS/HOSES/OIL PRESSURE GAUGE/LAMP
39.00
88039.96
251.00
504.00
2419.98
25.75
85.68
10.00
108.00
181.44
1709.05
86.08
41.95
10.19
45.58
24721.88
36.00
563.00
295.00
641.90
96.00
23.83
10.75
82.40
713.60
102.00
492.52
94.60
633.00
300.00
93.10
37.05
49.04
327.75
242.85
337.50
93.00
60.00
467.50
10.50
191.19
84.00
216.94
3889.99
5.00
2640.37
37.69
244.77
2257.70
13365008
27314
27315
27316
'7 317
3318
27319
27320
27321
27 322
27323
27324
27325
27326
27327
27328
27329
27330
27331
27332
27333
27334
27335
27336
27337
27338
27339
27340
27341
77342
( 343
'L/344
27345
27346
27347
27348
27349
27350
27351
27352
27353
27354
27355
27356
27357
27358
27359
27360
27361
27362
27363
27364
27365
27366
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC
SPORTS WORLD
EMMETT STARK
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SULLIVANS SERVICES INC
TOTE-A-TUB HOT TUB RENTALS
TURNQUIST PAPER COMPANY
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO
TWIN CITY TESTING
UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES
VALLEY VIEW ASSOCIATES
VESSCO INC
VIKING LABORATORIES INC
VIKING PRESS INC
WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP CO
KEITH WALL
WATER PRODUCTS CO
WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS
WINGFIELD PERFORMANCE ENGINEERING
WOLCYN TREE FARM
X-ERGON
XEROX CORP
JIM ZAIC
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
NIKKI L ANDERSON
RITA L ANDERSON
PRISCILLA A BAILEY
KENT BARKER
LEONE BARLA
VOID OUT CHECK
LEONE M BARTA
JOAN S BARTH
BARBARA W BERGAN
ADELINE M BRAMWELL
JOY BREKKE
CHERYL M BRIDGE
ROBERTA BRONSON
CAROL BURNETT
BARBARA GAIL
LINDA J CAMPBELL
ANN CHEATHAM
MILDRED H CLARK
LOUISE J DOUGHTY
PERRY FORSTER
HARLAN D FRITZ
VIRGINIA GARTNER
CHERYL HANSEN
HELEN HAUPT
ANNE R HAWKINS
CAROLE A HEDLUND
CAROL HEGGE
MARY HELFAND
BERNICE HOLASEK
ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER & COMM. SERVICES
SHORTS/JACKETS/RACQUETS/BALLS/VB NET
BAND DIRECTOR FEE-COMMUNITY SERVICE
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
SERVICE-SENIOR CENTER
HOT TUB RENTAL-COMMUNITY CENTER
TOILET TISSUE-COMMUNITY CENTER
OXYGEN-STREET DEPT
SERVICE-VALLEY VIEW RD
UNIFORMS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES
EJECTOR SPARE PARTS-COMMUNITY CENTER
CONNECTORS-WATER DEPT
CHEMICALS-COMMUNITY CENTER
LETTERHEAD-CITY HALL
RELAY-SEWER DEPT
MAY 1/1986 EXPENSE
4 2"METERS $1672.00/1 3'METERS $1266.00
WOOD CRIB SLATS-PARK MAINTENANCE
TRANSMISSION FILTERS-SQUAD CARS
TREES-FORESTRY DEPT
DRILL BITS/HACK SAW/TORCH-WATER DEPT
DUPLICATOR-CITY HALL
MILEAGE
1ST AID SUPPLIES-STREET DEPT
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
ELECTION JUDGE
230.15
396.75
325.00
2280.00
100.00
140.00
418.70
21.00
4300.00
1223.60
31.23
78.90
19.13
552.00
155.43
7.00
3174.23
780.00
76.00
105.00
226.88
457.38
21.50
37.45
77.63
72.00
75.38
11.25
6.75
0.00
6.75
22.50
72.00
90.75
74.25
75.38
73.13
74.25
104.50
76.50
74.25
28.13
72.00
11.25
76.50
19.25
74.25
69.75
74.25
76.50
76.50
78.75
76.50
'587823
iatla
27367 ALLENE HOOKOM
27368 ISABELL IVERSON
27369 ELAINE M JACQUES
t - '370 BILL JELLISON
‘_,371 LINDA JIRAN
27372 DORIS JOHNSON
27373 PATRICIA JOHNSON
27374 VIOLA M JOHNSON
27375 LYLE J JOHNSTON
27376 DELORES KLEIN
27377 JUDY KOBER
27378 SUE LANE
27379 ADELINE LEVIN
27380 ELEANOR LEVINE
27381 GEORGE-ANN LILLIE
27382 NANCY LITTLE
27383 WILLIAM D MCNEIL
27384 CAROLE MEIDINGER
27385 RUTH MITAL
27386 JOYCE MYHRE
27387 ALFRED L NELSON
27388 CAROLINE NELSON
27389 MARION NESBITT
27390 KATHLYN NICHOLSON
27391 JIM RARNOW
27392 LAURINA REIFF
27393 BETTY SCHAITBERGER
27394 DOROTHY SCHWARTZ
7 395 ANNE THOMAS
( 396 IDWAL THOMAS
-z36879
ELECTION JUDGE
90.75 ELECTION JUDGE
74.25
ELECTION JUDGE
72.00 ELECTION JUDGE
75.38 ELECTION JUDGE
90.75 ELECTION JUDGE
94.88 ELECTION JUDGE
74.25 ELECTION JUDGE
74.25 ELECTION JUDGE
72.00 ELECTION JUDGE
73.13
ELECTION JUDGE
73.13 ELECTION JUDGE
88.00 ELECTION JUDGE
74.25 ELECTION JUDGE
74.25
ELECTION JUDGE
93.50 ELECTION JUDGE
72.00
ELECTION JUDGE
75.38 ELECTION JUDGE
74.25 ELECTION JUDGE
75.38
ELECTION JUDGE
74.25 ELECTION JUDGE
72.00 ELECTION JUDGE
76.50 ELECTION JUDGE
89.38 ELECTION JUDGE
72.00 ELECTION JUDGE
96.25 ELECTION JUDGE
72.00 ELECTION JUDGE
76.50 ELECTION JUDGE
96.25 ELECTION JUDGE
76.50 ELECTION JUDGE
75.38
$7 15237.52
Nt1.3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor & City Council
FROM:
City Manager Carl J. Jullie
SUBJECT:
City Hall Options
DATE:
May 16, 1986
As directed by the City Council on May 6, the following is a listing of
options to be considered in order to address our continuing City Hall space
needs:
1. Lease some office space for the next 3 - 5 years,
beginning in January 1987. This option has several
advantages -
• Solves our immediate space needs
• Allows time to reevaluate alternate City
Hall sites.
. Allows time to work with the athletic
association and arrive at a mutually
agreeable timetable.
Under this option we would move all departmnts to leased
space, remove the double-wide unit and find some uses to
occupy the vacated space (seminars, Community Education,
PROP, Museum storage). We would also lease space for a
Council chambers. The boardroom works reasonably o.k. for
most Council meetings, but not for Planning Commission
meetings. As we will "infill" with our development, larger
crowds can be expected to attend meetings.
Estimated leasing cost = 22,000 S.F. @ $15/S.F. = $330,000/yr.
We will be prepared to fully document our space needs.
2. Move a portion of City Hall staff to leased space and
retain use of present bulding, minus the double-wide. This
option has the same advantages as option 1 plus a
substantial savings in annual leasing costs. The major
disadvantage is splitting up the City staff. A possible
split could be:
Move Stay
Administration Inspection/Conf. lower south Finance Engineering upper south
Community Services Planning upper & lower north
Assessing Lunchroom/storage old Council room
Council School Adm. Bldg.
We would lease about 8,000 sq. ft. under this option
@ $15 = $120,000/yr.
-2-
The leased space number is approximate. The actual square
footage would be dependent on the configuration and space
efficiency of a particular building.
3. Remodel present City Hall and construct an addition. Have
our architects review this option. Advantages are:
. Least costly in long term.
. Sufficient land is available and there is
flexibility to accommodate future expansion.
. "Spot" zoning question is a concern, but
surrounding property owners are apparently not
opposed.
. Staff is not split.
. Community would support.
A possible disadvantage is that it would be very difficult
to even move away from this site in the future. Also, much
disruption of staff during construction. May have to lease
space temporarily.
4. Purchase (condemn?) some additional land at the Mitchell Road
site and construct a smaller building (i.e. 30,000 sq. ft).
Expand building and build a parking ramp in future as
necessary. City's architects to verify feasibility and cost
estimate.
5. Purchase an existing building:
. AID Insurance building
(37,000 sq. ft.)
. Pheasant Run office
(27,000 sq. ft.)
. Others?
Under this option we would move all departments to new
building, remove the double-wide unit and find uses to
occupy the vacated space, or sell the present City Hall
(professional offices, daycare, etc). Has the advantage
of being a quick solution and probably very acceptable
to the public if the cost is less than our May 6 proposal.
6. Solicit a developer to build an office building to our
specs and City would lease space. This possibility doesn't
seem too likely, but still possible.
7. Hire a consultant planner (as the School District has) to
evaluate and make recommendations on a City Hall site.
Then hold a public hearing before a site is selected.
This process would also involve mailing or publishing a
questionnaire to all those who voted asking them why they
voted yes or no and what changes they support. Estimated
cost = $6,500.
There are probably other options which Councilmembers may wish to bring up
for discussion on Tuesday evening. After your review is completed, I
suggest that the Counc.1 direct staff to pursue Option 7, plus explore the
costs and opportunities of leasing or purhasing a building and to report
back to the Council at the June 17 meeting.
CJJ:jp laqS