Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 02/03/1987
AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1987 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOARDROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning Director Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES A. Joint City Council/Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission/ Pg. 152 Bond Referendum Committee Meeting held Thursday, January 15, 1987 B. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 20, 1987 Pg. 160 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List Pg. 174 B. Final Plat AAroyyaall for Welters Purgatory Acres 1st Addition Resolution No. B7-37- C. Resolution to Correct Street Name in Hidden Glen 3rd (Resolution Pg. 17S No. 87-30) D. Resolution No. 87-34, proclaiming February 9 through February Pg. 180 14 1987 as Vocational Education Week E. Resolution No. 87-35, proclaiming February, 1987 as Heart Month Pg. 181 F. Resolution No. 87-22 a ointin a Substitute Trustee (Gelco Pg. 182 Municipal Industrial Bond - 1 00.000) G. WILLIAMS MINI-STORAGE by Finn Daniels, Inc. 2nd Reading of Pg. 181 Ordinance No. 60-86, Rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Williams' Mini-Storage; and Adoption of Resolution No. 87-15, Authorizing Summary of Drdinance No. 60-86 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 2.67 acres into one lot for construction of a storage complex. i Location: East of Hwy. 169, south of the Modern Tire complex. (Ordinance No. 60-86 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 87-15 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) 1 City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,February 3, 1987 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. THE TREE FARM by Countryside Investments, Inc. Request for Pg. 191 Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on 11.3 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 33.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 33.6 acres into 72 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: South of County Road 1, west of Surrey Street. (Resolution No. 87-23 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Ordinance No. 1-87 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 87-24 - Preliminary Plat) B. CARMEL 6 & 7 by Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Pg. 215 Development Concept Amendment on approximately 58 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within an R1-13.5 zoning district on 16.26 acres with variances for lot frontage, zoning district change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.66 acres, and preliminary platting of 16.26 acres into 27 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: North of Fallbrook Road and east of Thornhill Road. (Resolution No. 87-25 - Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment; Ordinance 2-87-PUD-1-87 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 87-26 - Preliminary Plat) C. MITCHELL ESTATES by Ray Mitchell. Request for Zoning District Pg. 225 Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.04 acres and Preliminary Platting of 1.04 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast quadrant of Scenic Heights Road and Hiawatha Avenue. (Ordinance No. 3-87 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 87-27 - Preliminary Plat) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Pg. 229 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Fee Resolution (Resolution No. 87-09) Continued from January Pg. 230 20, 1987 B. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 4-87, pertaining to the Human Rights Pg. 248 & Services Commission C. Final Plat Approval for Bluffs East Fourth Addition, including Pg. 249 Wilkie Request for Access Resolution No. 87-29) VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Request from Prairie Lutheran Church to review the Board of Pg. P67 Appeals & Adjustments decision on Variance Request #B7-04 B. BIRCHWOOD LABS, INC. Request for Preliminary Platting of 16.5 Pg. P84 acres into four lots. Location: East of County Road 4, west of Fuller Road, north of Lincoln Lane. (Resolution No. 87-28 - Preliminary Plat) C. Receive request from Hoyt Development for extension of Golden Pg. 287 Trian le Drive and authorize preparation of a Feasibility Study Resolution No. 87-32) City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,February 3, 1987 VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members 1. Discussion on review of Major Center Area Land Use Pg. 290 B. Report of City Manager 1. Request for additional secretarial position Pg. 291 C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Planning E. Report of Director of Community:Services F. Report of Director of Public Works 1. Approve T.H. 5 Revised Layout Plan (Resolution No. 87-33) Pg. 292 XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION PARK BOND REFERENDUM COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1987 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOARDROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Pat Breitenstein, Chairperson; Raiford Baker, Moe Cook, Gary Gonyea, Karon Joyer, Brian Mikkelson, Charles Shaw REFERENDUM COMMITTEE MEMBERS Paul Salentine, Co-Chair; Pat Richard, Co-Chair; Dee Anderson, Jane Anderson, Larry Blagdon, Curt Connaughty, Moe Cook, Dick Emahiser, Doug Fell, Kathy Holcomb, Jon Jansson, JoAnnice Jensen, Tom Jenson, John Parrington, Jim Osten- son, John Reedy, Bill Schroedal, Lynn. Seppman, Gary Soderberg, Dave Sundeen PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Councilmember Anderson arrived at 8:05 PM. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. II. REPORT ON PARK BOND REFERENDUM PROPOSAL A. Report from Co-Chairs Salentine and Richard Director of Community Services Lambert said the members of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission and some of the members of the Bond Referendum Committee were here tonight to present to the Council the report regarding the proposed park bond referendum. He then introduced the Co-Chairs of the Park Bond Referendum Committee, Paul Salen- tine and Pat Richard. Pat Richard reviewed the process gone through by the Com- mittee to date. He noted that the continued growth of the community programs with the growth of the City has brought City Council Minutes -2- January 15, 1987 requests for more facilities. He said they developed a proposal for the Community Center addition, for the Miller Park acquisition and development, and for some other smaller projects, all of which would require $8 630,000 in funding. He said they tentatively proposed that $730,000 would come from cash park fees and $7.9 million would be funded by a referendum. Mr. Richard said the Committee then conducted four meetings in different quadrants of the community to solicit input from residents. As a result of those meetings he said they added a running track and a multi—purpose aerobics room to the Community Center expansion and some improvements to Prairie East Park. He said these three items would require an $8.4 million referendum or an increase in the commitment from cash park fees to $1,230,000 with the $7.9 million referendum. Mr. Richard then introduced Wally Daniels, architect with Setter, Leach & Lindstrom, who addressed the proposed addi- tion to the Community Center. Paul Salentine introduced George Watson of Brauer & Associ- ates who addressed the proposed development of Miller Park. COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON ARRIVED AT 8:05 PM. Lambert reviewed the other items proposed for the referen- dum which included the following: add a skating rink and a new park shelter/warming house at Preserve Park; put in two skating rinks, a park shelter/warming house and tennis courts at Red Rock Park; upgrade the existing softball field, expand the playground facilities and add a parking lot and park shelter at Prairie East Park; acquire and begin develop- ment of approximately 30 acres somewhere in the southwest area for an adult softball complex; acquire two acres for a major access to the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area in order to preserve that access for future development of a complex; and add four sections of trails to the existing trail system. Mr. Salentine then summarized the recommendations from the Park Bond Referendum Committee, as follows: 1. A single question referendum of $7.9 or $8.4 million on Thursday, March 19, 1987. 2. The City to commit to the scheduling of open gym during prime time at the expanded Community Center, ( similarly to the current policies regarding open swim and open skate. City Council Minutes -3- January 15, 1987 3. Approve a concept plan for the future expansion of Prairie East Park to upgrade that facility to neighborhood park status. 4. If the referendum is approved, the City to commit to paving of the parking lots and park roads in Miller Park and the addition of three racquetball courts at the Community Center as deduct alternates should the City obtain favorable bids. B. Report from Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission Pat Breitenstein, chairperson of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission, reviewed the recommendations of the Commission, noting that the Commission was unani- mous in its approval of all four recommendations. She asked the Council to approve the recommendations of the Parks Commission which concurred with the Committee's recom- mendations and set the amount of the referendum at $7.9 million. Pidcock asked that the Committee members present stand and introduce themselves. Those Committee members in attendance ( did so. Bentley asked Lambert to clarify the issue of a $7.9 mil- lion referendum versus an $8.4 million one. Lambert referred to his memo of January 2, 1987, regarding the status of the cash park fees fund and noted that the fund is fairly healthy. He said he would feel comfortable in recommending that addi- tional funds be spent from the cash park fees so that the referendum amount could remain at $7.9 million. Bentley asked if the drawings of the Community Center are the final renderings and if the plans and cost figures in- cluded accent brick or other material on the face of the structure. Daniels replied that consideration had been made for accent brick and that, while the drawings were not final, most of the discussion has centered around the renderings shown tonight. Lambert noted that there had been discus- sion among the Committee that the expansion and the existing building should be covered in brick, the color of which should compliment that used in the nearby High School build- ing. Peterson asked if there was a relationship between the proposed exterior covering of the Community Center and the discussions with the previous contractor. Lambert said there is and that we can now request an arbitration board to settle the matter with the previous contractor. Lambert i said our architects have indicated that the ultimate solu- tion to the water problems is to put a brick facade on the existing building. � 1 City Council Minutes -4- January 15, 1987 Bentley asked if there would be an appreciable cost figure for using accent brick on the exterior. Daniels said if it was just a different color for accent there would not be an appreciable cost increase, but if it were recessed or protruded brick for accent there probably would be an appreciable cost increase. Bentley then asked Lambert what the long term budgetary impact would be for such items as staffing, maintenance, and utilities if the referendum passes. Lambert said the Community Center expansion would require one additional maintenance person and numerous part-time personnel. He • added that they expect revenue at the Community Center to exceed expenditures by $50-$70,000 so there should be no impact on operating costs. As far as the impact on the parks, he said once all the facilities are operational, three additional full-time and 3-4 additional seasonal maintenance persons would be required. Bentley asked when the parks would be operational. Lambert replied that it would be 1991 before they are fully opera- tional. Bentley then complimented the Committee on their very thorough job on the specific issues and individual situa- tions to be looked at for this proposal. Anderson asked how we are going to compare with other simi- lar cities in the area when these facilities are completed. Lambert noted that in 1984 our standards were set and then compared with several other cities who had also set stan- dards. He said our standards were "right on" at that time. When the Committee began work, he said they determined what the projected needs were for 1990 and that these facilities will meet those needs in 1990. He said this proposal will take care of us for the next seven or eight years but that after that additional facilities will be needed. Harris commended the Committee for a very comprehensive report and asked what concerns or negatives were expressed at the neighborhood meetings. Salentine said that, while nobody questioned the need for the facilities, there was concern for the overall picture including the upcoming school bond referendum and the possible referendum for City Hall. He said he thought it will be important to stress the fact that the school referendum will not have a large cost im- pact on the individual taxpayer. Harris asked what the time frame is for the Community Center expansion. Daniels said it will be about 30 months for the entire project, including design and construction time. • 1• City Council Minutes -5- January 15, 1987 Harris asked what the capacity of the current arena is. Lambert said it is 1150 maximum, and that there were about 800 at the recent Edina game. Harris asked if this pro- vides adequate seating for the arena. Lambert replied that this had been a concern of the Committee and that they had done a study of Lake Conference schools which showed an average attendance of 800 with a peak of 1200. He said they had also asked about the possibility of expanding the current seating and had determined that the only pos- sibility would be to knock out the northeast wall at the end of the building. Anderson said his concern is whether you build to the average attendance or to the maximum. Lambert reviewed the maximum capacities for several of the Lake Conference schools. Anderson noted that if, in the next ten years, we have a contending team we will probably be consistently packed. He said he was concerned after having seen the confusion at the Bloomington facility when the crowd ex- ceeded the maximum capacity. Lambert said they had looked at many alternatives to ex- pand seating but the only possibility is the northeast end. Mr. Daniels noted that we are limited because the east and west walls of the arena support the roof. A discussion followed as to whether there is a requirement to provide seating unless there is a return on investment. Pidcock commended the Committee on their outstanding job and asked how many residents attended the neighborhood meetings. Lambert said there were 10 or 11 at the most at each meeting. Pidcock asked Lambert to name the specific grants for which we might be eligible. Lambert said he thought we might be eligible for a Lawcon or another state grant for the Riley Lake acquisition and development. Pidcock asked how much he thought we could get. Lambert responded that if the project were to total $500,000 we could probably get $250- $300,000 in grants. He also noted there are a lot of sources is for grants for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area proposal, such as state and federal Lawcon grants, Watershed District grants, or soil conservation grants. Pidcock asked if the lighted fields at Miller Park would affect the nearby residents. Lambert said they had calcu- lated a distance of 600 feet from the fields to the closest residence so that shouldn't be a problem. Pidcock asked what additional effect the school referendum will have on the tax levy beyond what is anticipated for this referendum. Lambert responded that the School adminis- tration believes there will be no increase in the mill levy City Council Minutes -6- January 15, 1987 from the school referendum because other school bonds are being retired. A discussion followed regarding the pos- sible effect of an increased assessed valuation on the actual increase in the tax levy for the parks referendum. Pidcock asked if they ever expect the Community Center to be cost effective or to pay its own way. Lambert said it currently pays its own way as far as operating costs and that it would more than pay its own way with the proposed addition. Pidcock asked what sort of access individuals will have to the facilities at the Community Center. Lambert said this question was raised at the neighborhood meetings and that is why the Committee recommended that open gym times be set up for the prime time hours. He noted that the Council now has to approve any changes to the open swim or skate times and would have to approve changes to the open gym times. He also noted that they recently imposed hours on the Fitness Center to meet liability insurance requirements. Harris asked if the items described for Miller Park that were not included in the Phase 1 development plan would be additions beyond the $7.9 or $8.4 million cost figure. Watson said that was correct. Peterson asked if all the Miller Park traffic will have to be in and out on the same road for an indefinite period of time. Lambert said there has been interest from developers in the adjacent area so we may be very close to another connection out to the south by the time the facility is completed. Anderson noted that the City Planning Director has said that we are now half built as far as residential is con- cerned, and asked where this proposal will put us as far as park and recreation facilities. Lambert pointed out the portions of the park system plan remaining, including the Riley Lake Park acquisition, a greenway corridor to Mitchell Lake, neighborhood parks in the southwest quadrant, the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, and the dump area. Ander- son then commented that it appears that we are 2/3 to 3/4 done acquiring land for the park system and that we have done a good job of following the plan to acquire park lands before all the prime land is taken. Regarding the Park & Rec motion stating that if the referen- dum is approved there would be some specific items that would be included in the proposal as deduct items, Bentley asked if the items had been prioritized. Lambert said he didn't think they had been prioritized, but that the City Council Minutes -7- January 15, 1987 4r racquetball courts would cost about $200,000 while the paving and curbing would be $400,000, so the costs and/or revenue potential might tend to determine which would be included. Peterson asked if they would come back to the Council with recommendations on the deduct items. Lambert said they would. Lambert said he had met with the School Board to review the Community Center expansion since it will be on school property and noted that there were three of their staff people on the Referendum Committee. He said the proposal doubles the size of the High School hockey team locker room and that they included plans for an office/supply room for the High School Physical.Education department so that the staff would use the facility more. He said there would have to be further discussion with the School staff before a final decision is made as to who will pay for what. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to hold a Bond Referendum on March 19, 1987, for an amount not to exceed $7.9 million to provide funds for the acquisition and development of land, buildings and facilities for pub- lic recreation. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, that the paving of parking lots and park roads in Miller Park and the addi- tion of three racquetball courts at the Community Center be included as deduct alternates if the referendum is approved and if favorable bids are obtained to allow completion of the deduct items within the proposed budget. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to accept the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission relative to regularly scheduled open gym time during prime time hours at the Community Center. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to accept the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission recommenda- tion for approval of a concept plan for future expansion of Prairie East Park in order to upgrade that facility to the standards of other neighborhood parks. Motion carried unanimously. Anderson said the City has traditionally been ahead in park and recreation facilities and this proposal will bring us close to meeting our goal for a well-planned community as far as park and recreation facilities are concerned. City Council Minutes -8- January 15, 1987 He cautioned that if the proposal doesn't pass, we will be in a position of trying to catch up. III. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pideock, to adjourn at 9:30 P . Motion carried unanimously. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1987 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BOARDROOM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning Director Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Councilmember Anderson arrived at 8:25 PM. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were added to the Agendas X. A. 1. Bentley - Request for formation of Special Task Force: XI. 1. Set Special City Council Meeting for Tuesday, Feb- ruary 10, 1987, for Interviewing Candidates for Board Posi- tions. After discussion as to the appropriate procedure, the consensus was to continue to the next meeting the consideration of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes of January 2, 1987. City Manager Jullie noted that Item VII. C. TECHNOLOGY PARK 7TH, could now be placed on the Consent Calendar as the developer has agreed to the previously-contested item in the Developer's Agreement and has signed the agreement. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to move Item VII. C. TECHNOLOGY PARK 7TH to the Consent Calendar as Item III. M. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Agenda and Other Items of Business as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, December 16, 1986 City Council Minutes -2- January 20, 1987 I City Manager Jullie said that, relative to the motion on page 13 to continue discussion of the trail system issue to tonight's meeting, Staff will bring this item back at a later meeting after further analysis and study is com- pleted. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Minutes of the regular City Council meeting held Tuesday, December 16, 1986, as published. Motion carried with Harris abstaining. B. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 6, 1987 The following change was made to the Minutes: page 4, paragraph 5 -- delete the entire paragraph and replace it with the following: "As a point of information, Mayor Peterson commented that the Community Health Services Act names the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners as the Health Board so it is no longer necessary for the City of Eden Prairie to appoint its own Health Officer. The present Health Officer appointed by the County Board is Dr. Richard Raile." MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Minutes o, the regular City Council meeting held January 6, 1987, as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Acceptance of Historical & Cultural Commission's Recommenda- tion on Holasek House C. Fee Resolution (Resolution No. 87-09) D. J & L Subdivision Special Assessment Agreement for Blossom Road and Bennett Place E. Plat approval for Westwood Industrial Park 3rd Addition (Bury Drive) Preliminary Plat - Resolution No. 87-10; Final Plat - Resolution No. 87-11 F. MWCC Permit Application for Well. House No. 7 Cooling Dis- charge Line (Resolution No. 87-19) G. SHADY OAK RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, by Joseph Ruzic, 2nd Reading of Ordinance #54-86, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for Shady Oak Ridge 2nd Addition; Approval of Developer's Agree- ment for Shady Oak Ridge 2nd Addition; and Adoption of City Council Minutes -3- January 20, 1987 Resolution #87-12, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #54-86, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 7,6 acres into 11 single family lots and one outlot. Location: West of Old Shady Oak Road, north of Rowland Road. (Ordinance #54-86, Rezoning; Resolution #87-12, Authorizing Summary and Publication) H. WELTER'S PURGATORY ACRES, by Crow/Chasewood Minnesota. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #57-86, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for Welter's Purgatory Acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Welter's Purgatory Acres; and Adoption of Resolution #87-13, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #57-86, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 52.4 acres for single family lots. Location: North of County Road #1, west of Bennett Place, south of Olympia Drive. (Ordinance #57-86, Rezoning; Resolution #87-13, Authorizing Summary and Publication) I. PRAIRIE ACRES, by Michael N. Sutton. 2nd Reading of Ordi- nance #59-86, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for Prairie Acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Prairie Acres; and Adoption of Resolution #87-14, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #59-86, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 6.24 acres into 13 single family lots. Location; Southwest quadrant of County Road #1 and Bennett Place. (Ordinance #59-86, Rezoning; Resolution #87-14, Authorizing Summary and Publication) J. EDEN POINTE, by Welsh Companies, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #61-86-PUD-9-86, Rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Park for Eden Pointe; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Eden Pointe; and Adoption of Resolution #87-16, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #61-86-PUD-9-86, and Ordering Publica- tion of Said Summary. PUD District Review on 60.85 acres, with variances, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park, on 2.84 acres into one lot for construction of a 32,700 square foot office/warehouse building. Location: West of Flying Cloud Drive, east of Highway #169. (Ordi- nance #61-86-PUD-9-86, Rezoning; Resolution #87-16, Author- izing Summary and Publication) K. Final Plat approval for Stenehjem Addition (Resolution No. 87-21) L. Set 1987 Board of Review Meeting date for Thursday, May 14, 1987, 7:30 PM, Eden Prairie City Hall M. TECHNOLOGY PARK 7TH, by Technology Park Associates. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #56-86, Amending Ordinance #36-85-PUD- 6-85, within the Office District; Approval of Addendum to Developer's Agreement for Technology Park 7th Addition; and Adoption of Resolution #87-20, Authorizing Summary of Ordi- nance #56-86, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. irCity Council Minutes -4- January 20, 1987 3.74 acres for construction of a 27,700 square foot office building. Location; East of future Golden Triangle Drive, north of Nine Mile Creek. (Ordinance #56-86, Zoning Dis- trict Amendment within Office District; Resolution #87-20, Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication) Regarding Item B, Acceptance of Historical & Cultural Commission's Recommendation on Holasek House, Pidcock re- ferred to the amount quoted in the Staff Memo of January 14, 1987 of $35,000-$40,000 to move the house to the Cummins-Grill Homestead. She questioned that amount be- cause the original cost to move the house to its present location was only $12,000, and the house is now all pre- pared for moving. She said she would like this matter re-examined. Pidcock further noted that houses such as those at Murphy's Landing have been moved and thus are not eligible for the National Register or for federal or state grants yet they are still very valuable and significant historical buildings. Director of Community Services Lambert said he had asked Mr. Depke, a long-time house mover from this area, about the cost to move the house and had received a quote of $35-$40,000 to move the house. He said that, if the His- torical & Cultural Commission was interested in the building, he would have gone out to get written quotes to move the house; however, he said the Commission felt they have enough problems caring for the two sites they have now and they did not want to take on a third one. He said he and Sandy Werts had inspected the building and reported back to the Commission on its condition. Peterson said if the Historical & Cultural Commission had no interest in it, he didn't know why we should want to study the issue further no matter what the cost to move it might be. Pidcock said she believed this has been looked at too briefly and she would like to see further study done on it. Bentley said he thought it must have been studied enough to determine it wasn't eligible for the National Register or for federal or state grants. He said he was concerned that the structure does not seem to have a place or a pur- pose, nor'is there anyone interested in dealing with it. Harris asked if there is any other purpose the house could be used for other than the Historical & Cultural Commission. Lambert said there have been a couple of Staff meetings City Council Minutes -5- January 20, 1987 with this item on the Agenda, and to date they have not arrived at any use for the building. He said perhaps the best proposal was to use it as an Art Center, but that would require extensive remodeling and renovation to make it useful. He said a new building could probably be con- structed for about the same cost as the cost to move and remodel this one. Bentley asked if there is any problem associated with con- tinuing the item in order to review the information discussed with the Historical & Cultural Commission and then return with a clearer recommendation. Lambert said the current owners have indicated that the building can be left where it is until spring, but that they do call every two weeks or so regarding the status of this. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to continue this item and refer it back to Staff for further review and study, with further review by the Historical & Cultural Commission if the Staff study uncovers new and relevant information. Motion carried unanimously. Pidcock said she had questions on Item C. Fee Resolution as to the amounts and increases in the fees. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to delete Item C from the Consent Calendar and add it as Item X. B. 2 on the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to approve Item A and Items D - M on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MEADOW PARK 3RD ADDITION, by J B & D, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on approximately 13.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, and Preliminary Plat of 31.5 acres into 29 single family lots and one outlot and road right-of-way. Location: Northwest quadrant of Home- ward Hills Road and Sunnybrook Road. Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 1986 (Resolution #86-292, Com- prehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Ordinance #58-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-293, Preliminary Plat) City Manager Jullie said this item was continued from the December 16th meeting to allow time for consideration of the response from the DNR regarding possible incursion to the wetland area on the northern balance of the property. ,•'r t City Council Minutes -6- January 20, 1987 Planning Director Enger said the DNR determined that four of the proposed lots encroached on the preserved waters area and the developer then dropped those four lots from the project. He said the Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval of the project. Bentley asked if the road on the north is still platted on the adjacent property. Harold Peterson, representing proponent, responded that this has been resolved with Mr. Williams, the adjacent property owner. He said pro- ponent has a verbal agreement whereby Williams will give them an easement and in return proponent will build the improvements at no cost to Mr. Williams. Mr. Peterson said the agreements will be written up and submitted as soon as possible. Bentley asked Director of Public Works Dietz if it is nor- mal policy to build a city-owned street with just an ease- ment. Dietz replied that we do have roads constructed on easements, including some in the Major Center Area, but the City does prefer to have title to the property. Dietz noted that when Mr. Williams' property is platted in the future, we would require dedication at that time. Bentley asked if this project can be built without the improvements to Sunnybrook Road. Enger said the improve- ments are required. Bentley then noted that Council action on the petition for Sunnybrook Road street and utility improvements that will be considered as a later item on the Agenda will have an impact on this project. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 86-292 amending the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on approximately 13.5 acres. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to give 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 58-86 for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to adopt Reso- lution No. 86-293, approving the Preliminary Plat of Meadow Park 3rd Addition for J B & D, Inc. Motion carried unani- mously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. City Council Minutes -7- January 20, 1987 Dietz noted that there had been discussion at the Public Hearing on December 2nd relative to the placement of a sidewalk along the west side of Homeward Hills Road from the housing area to Anderson Lakes Parkway. He said Staff has determined this would be difficult to build but that it can be done; however, it would have to be done with City funds. He said he does not have an estimate at this time and that it will have to be included in the budget at some future time. Bentley asked if Staff has recommended that proponent be asked to construct the sidewalk to the northern end of the property. Dietz said they would be asked to construct it to the point where the property is not buildable. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. B. SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK/PRESERVE MEDICAL BUILDING, by Supplee's 7-H.I. Enterprises, Inc. Request for Comprehen- sive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on 1.09 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 1 .09 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 1.09 acres into one lot for the construction of a two-story office building. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, west of County Road #18. (Resolution #86-305, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Ordinance #62-86, Rezoning; Resolution #86-306, Preliminary Plat) Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 1986 Planning Director Enger said proponent has requested a delay in their presentation to the Planning Commission; therefore, it would be appropriate to continue this item to the February 17th meeting of the Council. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to continue this item to the February 17, 1987 meeting of the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. C. Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements in Ridgewood West Plat 3 (S.E. corner of Cumberland Road and Knollwood Drive) Resolution No. 87-17 City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been published and property owners within the project vicinity had been notified. Bentley asked if this was primarily a housekeeping item. Jullie said it was. There were no comments from the audience. (r City Council Minutes -8- January 20, 1987 l MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 87-17, Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements in Ridgewood West Plat Three. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 32219 - 32449 Regarding Item 32230 to Mark VII Sales in the amount of $29.40 for wine, Harris asked why this is a much smaller amount than other such payments. Bentley suggested it could have been a special order. Jullie said he would check into it and get back at the next meeting. Regarding Item 32292, Peterson asked whether items such as these purchased from Chanhassen Lawn & Sports could not be purchased within Eden Prairie. Jullie said he would check on that also. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Payment of Claims Nos. 32219 - 32449. Roll call vote: Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and Peterson voted "aye." Motion carried unani- mously. VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS There were none. VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Receive Petition for Sunnybrook Road Street and Utility Improvements (west of Homeward Hills Road, adjacent to Meadow Park 3rd Addition) and authorize preparation of a Feasibility Report, I.C. 52-109 (Resolution No. 86-300) Continued from December 16, 1986 Director of Public Works Dietz said it was appropriate to receive the petition from proponents for Meadow Park 3rd Addition for improvements to Sunnybrook Road inasmuch as the project was approved tonight. He said Staff recommends the preparation of a Feasibility Report on the improvements. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adopt Reso- lution No. 86-300, authorizing preparation of a Feasibility Report for Sunnybrook Road Street and Utility Improvements (west of Homeward Hills Road, adjacent to Meadow Park 3rd Addition), I.C. 52-109. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request from Prairie Lutheran Church to appeal decision of Board of Appeals & Adjustments and set hearing date for Tuesday, February 3, 1987 ap City Council Minutes -9- January 20, 1987 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the request from Prairie Lutheran Church to appeal the decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments and to set a hearing date for Tuesday, February 3, 1987. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS There were no reports. IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of Councilmember to serve on the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Mayor Peterson noted that Councilmember Bentley has in- dicated a willingness to serve on the Cable Commission. MOTION: Peterson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to appoint George Bentley to serve on the Board of Directors of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission. Pidcock asked how often the Commission meets. City Manager Jullie said the full Commission meets once a quarter. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. Pidcock asked Jullie about the current activities of the Cable Commission. Jullie responded that one of the issues coming up is the establishment of an institutional network He described the proposed network and some of the questions and issues involved in such a network. He also noted that the School District has expressed concern about possible erosion of the cable company's commitment to public access and said we have asked the cable company to respond to that concern. A discussion followed regarding the relation- i ships of the School District and the City to the cable company. X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members 1. Bentley - Request for formation of Special Task Force Bentley noted that the PUD for the Major Center Area was put together in 1973-1974 and many things have happened in the meantime to impact the direction that was envisioned for the area. He said there is a lot of pressure for development on the undeveloped parcels in the Major Center Area and, under the current desig- nations, we have no concept control over development City Council Minutes -10- January 20, 1987 there except through the normal review control. He said there are also some on-going transportation con- cerns that should probably also be addressed. Bentley said he was proposing that we form a task force made up of two or three Councilmembers, the City Manager, the Planning Director and two other individuals that would: (1) review the existing Major Center Area PUD relative to how current development has impacted that PUD; (2) make an effort to draw input from the property owners in the Major Center Area as well as others as to what type of development is being envisioned; and (3) formulate our own ideas as to what types of development we would like to see occur, such as establishing a store-front type of shopping area or establishing some sort of special use area. He said this would also lead to looking at such issues as the need for intersection work at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Hwy. 5. Bentley said he suggested that the task force have no particular time-line placed upon it and that the meetings, be workshop-type meetings open to the public. He said they could then come back to the Council when a report is ready for review, go from there to the Planning Com- mission for a formal review process, and then return to the City Council for any ultimate action. Pidcock said she thought it sounded wonderful and that it falls under strategic planning. Bentley said, while it very likely does fall under strategic planning, he is concerned that some of the prerogatives we have in that area today may not be available if we wait for the strategic planning process to be completed. He said he thought it was an important enough issue that nothing will be hurt by pulling it out of the strategic planning process and putting it into this framework and, in addi- tion, might indicate the concern the Council has for what the development of this area will be. Pidcock said we could start the process with that. Peterson said that we would probably extract this from the strategic planning process anyway in order to look at it individually because of the magnitude of the project. Pidcock commented that she has wanted to get us working on a strategic plan for two years now. Bentley said this could plug into that as part of the process. Harris said she thought there was a certain immediacy about that area and, considering the complexity of City Council Minutes -11- January 20, 1987 developing that area, she thought it probably does warrant some special attention. She said she was not clear on where we are in the whole strategic planning process. City Manager Jullie said we have received a couple of proposals from facilitators of strategic planning and Staff is meeting with one of them in a couple of weeks to get more details. He said he would like to have some time to review the results of that meeting to make sure that is the best approach for us. Harris asked if it would take about two years before the final results were in place. Jullie said that going through the exercises and getting a plan in place would be six months or so, but we would then have to implement some kind of action plan. Peterson noted one of the most significant rationales for this proposal is that we might be able to make some more specific types of designation within the Major Center Area. He asked City Attorney Pauly what the legal parameters are in regard to specifying tYPes of development. Pauly said the Council would have to reverse the procedure used to date whereby the developer comes in and requests rezoning by taking the initiative and pre-zoning particular parcels for a specific class of use. Bentley said the purpose of the task force would be to review the current development, gather data, discuss it and then come back with some suggestions. He said in the process we may find some way of accommodating a third alternative. Peterson asked Enger and Jullie for their comments. Jullie said he thought it would be a good exercise but his primary concern would be the Staff time required for a real in-depth study. Jullie said he would suggest the possibility of consultant help for much of the tech- nical work and that such help might enhance the credi- bility of the work to the community. Bentley said he thought the best course might be to start with the task force committee and see if there is a need for a consultant. He said they could then come back to the Council and make a specific request for funding if it appears there would be large amounts of work to be done, City Council Minutes -12- January 20, 1987 Planning Director Enger said he would like to prepare a status report of current development in the Major Center Area because of what such a task force study might lead into, He said he felt the primary need for such a study is that since we have so little land left in the Major Center Area that isn't spoken for and planned, we should determine if we have specific uses in mind for the land that remains. He said he could get back to the Council at the next meeting with a report summarizing the composite view of the land use of the Major Center Area. COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON ARRIVED AT 8:25 PM. Harris said she liked Mr. Enger's suggestion and felt that such a report would give a point of reference to further discussion of the issue. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct Staff to prepare a status report of development in the Major Center Area to be presented at the next Council meeting as background for further discussion of the suggestion for establishing a task force on develop- ment of the Major Center Area. Bentley expressed his concern that because those prop- ' erties left are coming under intense pressure for development, any lengthy delay in making a decision on doing this might preclude our ability to do it. Pidcock said this may give impetus to our strategic planning. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. 2. Fee Resolution (Resolution No. 87-09) City Manager Jullie said he would like to continue this item to the next meeting so that the information could be presented to show last year's fees as well as the proposed fees for 1987. He said the changes for 1987 are fairly minor. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to con- tinue this item to the February 3rd meeting of the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. B. Report of City Manager 1. Authorization to remove house adjacent to the Public Safety Department on Mitchell Road City Council Minutes -13- January 20, 1987 City Manager Jullie noted that this is the house called the Schulz property south of the Public Safety building. He said the Public Safety officer who had been renting it has now moved out. While PROP was initially interested in using the property, he said they have since declined to pursue it. He said Staff believes it would be better in the long-term to have the house removed from the property because it is in need of major maintenance work. He asked for authorization to offer the house for sale. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to offer the house adjacent to the Public Safety Department on Mitchell Road for sale with the understanding that it will be removed from the property. Motion carried unani- mously. C. Report of City Attorney There was no report. D. Report of Director of Community Services There was no report. 1 E. Report of Director of Public Works 1. Award Contract from Homeward Hills Road, I.C. 52- 033A (Resolution No. 87-18) Director of Public Works Dietz reviewed the bids received for improvements to Homeward Hills Road and noted the recommendation to award the contract in the amount of $370,456.40 to Rice Lake Contracting as the lowest responsible bidder. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to adopt Resolution No. 87-18, accepting the bid of Rice Lake Contracting in the amount of $370,456.40 for I.C. 52-033A, Homeward Hills Road improvement. Anderson said he has some concerns about upgrading that road without a defined crossing area being established for the new elementary school on Ander- son Lakes Parkway. He said he would like to have this investigated to determine whether a signal light or underpass is required before the school opens/ Homeward 1Hills lRoad ewill dopen sthe pentire ncorridor City Council Minutes -14- January 20, 1987 up to Anderson Lakes Parkway and will increase the traffic around the new school. Peterson suggested that this issue be a separate motion. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and Peterson voted "aye." Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to review the issue of a safe crossing for the new elementary school and park on Anderson Lakes Parkway and to return to the Council with recommendations on where and how the crossing will. be effected. Bentley said he was not sure Staff understood what was expected of them. City Manager Jullie said he thought the reference was to some sort of signal device for an at-grade protected crossing in addi- tion to the existing underpass. Anderson said that was correct, and that he did not want to pay the bussing costs for children living across the street from the school when we can plan now to provide a safe crossing. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. Set Special City Council Meeting for Tuesday, February 10, 1987, for Interviewing Candidates for Board Positions MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Peterson, to set a Special City Council Meeting for Tuesday, February 10, 1987, at 7:00 PM in the School Administration Building Boardroom for the purpose of interviewing candidates for Board and Commission appointments. Motion carried unani- mously. XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST February 3, 1987 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) PLUMBING Deutsch Construction Cu. Budget Plumbing Corooration Hennepin Technical Centers Crosstown Plumbing, Inc. Homework Contractor Genz-Ryan Plumbing & Heating Koosmans Homes Sales, Inc. Robert Gibb & Sons, Inc. D. J. Kranz Co., Inc. Gruna Mechanical Contractors Langer Construction Company Hopkins Plumbing & Heating Met-Con Metro, Inc. Horwitz, Inc. Jim W. Miller Construction K & K Heating & Plumbing Gordon Phillips Construction Northern Plumbing & Heating William Poppenberger & Son The Plumbing Place United Properties Piper Plumbing, Inc. Weis Builders, Inc. Southwest Plumbing CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) GAS FITTER Air Seal Company Domestic Mechanical Cornerstone Builders of Wayzata Gas Supply - M-V Gas Estate Homes Genz-Ryan Plumbing Frontier Midwest Homes Robert Gibb & Sons Freudenberg Construction Horwitz, Inc. Mady Halverson J & H Gas Services Hipp's Construction Co. K & K Heating & Plumbing Hirsch Builders Minnegasco, Inc. Hopkins Masonary Northern Plumbing & Heating Jarip Builders Palen/Kimball Company Karkela Construction The Plumbing Place Kellett Builders, Inc. Seasonal Control Comoanv King Homes Snell Mechanical, Inc. Cecil M. Kloss Fred Vogt Company Laurent Builders, Inc. Ray N. Welter Heating Co. Lecy Construction Yale, Inc. Lenzen Construction Luse & Son, Inc. M. L. Realty & Construction HEATING & VENTILATING Metro Custom Homes, Inc. Joe Miller Construction Domestic Mechanical Noonan Construction Genz-Ryan Plumbing & Heating Palmer House Builders Robert Gibb & Sons, Inc. The Pemtom Company Hookins Plumbing & Heating David A. Williams Construction Horwitz, Inc. Wilson-Fisher Home Builders K & K Heating & Plumbing Wrase Builders,Inc. Palen/Kimball Comoany CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST page two HEATING & VENTILATING (CON'T) WATER SOFTNER Riccar Heating & Ventilating Culligan Water Service Co_ The Plumbing Place Seasonal Control Company Snell Mechanical, Inc. SCAVENGER Southtown Refrigeration, Inc. Fred Vogt and Company Roto-Rooter Services Company Ray N. Welter Heating Co. Yale, Inc. JtE FU SE.HAILER UTILITY INSTALLER Admiral Waste Management Clover Hill Co., Inc. K & K Heating & Plumbing TYPE B FOOD United 'Water & Sewer Co. Target Store WELL DRILLING CIGARETTE Leuthner Well Co, Target Store These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. Pat o ie, Licensing CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 87-31 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF WELTER PURGATORY ACRES 1ST ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Welter Purgatory. Acres 1st 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 Welter Purgatory Acres 1st Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated January 23, 1987. 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 arc hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on February 3, 1987. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT f TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works FROM: David L. Dlson, Senior Engineering Technician © DATE: January 23, 1987 SUBJECT: WELTER PURGATORY ACRES 1ST ADDITION PROPOSAL: Crow/Chasewood has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Welter Purgatory Acres 1st Addition. The plat is located south of Olympic Hills 6th Addition and west of Olympic Hills 5th Addition in the North 1/2 of Section 26. The proposed first addition containing 51.7 acres will consist of 28 single family residential lots and.three outlots. Outlots A and B, containing 16.1 and 19.0 acres respectively, will be replatted in future phases. Outlot C contains approximately 3.1 acres consisting of floodplain area and will be dedicated to the City. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on December 2, 1986, per Resolution 86-291. Zoning to RI-13.5 was approved by the Council on January 20, 1987, per Drdinance 57-B6. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed on January 20, 1987. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities and streets will be installed by the Developer in conformance with City standards, including final street connection at Bennett Place and Olympia Drive. The proposed street names "Bent Tree Lane" and Chasewood Drive" conflict with other names used in the City. These names must be changed on the plat prior to release. All proposed names are to be submitted to the Engineering Division for review. Item 3.A of the Developer's Agreement refers to the vacation of excess right-of-way for cul-de-sacs on Bennett Place and Olympia Drive. The Developer is to apply for the vacation and provide the necessary legal descriptions. The application, vacation fee and description must be provided prior to release of the plat. Page 2, Final Plat of Welter Purgatory Acres 1st Addition 1/23/87 I PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication will conform to the requirements of the City Code and the Developer's Agreement. Items 3, C and 3.D of the Developer's Agreement refer to the dedication of flood plain area (Outlot C) and a conservancy zone. An executed warranty deed for Outlot C must be provided prior to release of the plat. The conservancy zone is located in Outlots A and B which are to be platted for future additions. The Developer will dedicate the conservance areas concurrently with approval and recording of the future additions. BONDING: Bonding for municipal utilities and streets must be provided prior to release of the final plat and conform to City Code and Developer's Agreement requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Welter Purgatory Acres 1st Addition subject to the requirements of this report,the Developer's.Agreement and the following prior to release of the plat: 1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $475. 2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $45D5. 3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $1120. 4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. 5. Revision of street names. 6. Receipt of application, fee and descriptions for vacation of excess right-of-way. 7. Receipt of Warranty Deed for Outlot C. 8. City Engineer approval of final construction plans. DLO:sg cc: Mr. Harold Peterson, James R. Hill, Inc. Mr. Jim Ostenson, Crow/Chasewood CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 87-3D CHANGE STREET NAME IN PLATTED SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, The City of Eden Prairie has approved the plat of Hidden Glen 3rd; WHEREAS, it has been determined that there is a conflict with the street name therein and that said name should be changed; and WHEREAS, no one resides on the street at present. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: Street name of Larsena Court shall be changed to Pennington Court. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February3, 1987. Mayor Gary D. Peterson ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk i RESOLUTION NO. 87-34 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 1 Prot. tion 141REAS: Cooperative Vocational Education Leadership Clubs of America (Distributive Education (DEGA),Office Education (OEA), Vocational Industrial Fducatiat(VICA) and Work Experience Clubs) are national organizations for young-men and women enrolled in Hopkins High School Cooperative Internship Programs;and, 4ifrRFAS: The goal of Hopkins Vocational Fdi�cation Cooperative Internship Programs is to help students with interests in business, marketing, industrial, office, health or trades fields.beceme happy, mature and productive citizens; and.; WtISiEAS: Cooperative Vocational Education Intemship Prograns enphasize respect for the dignity of work, high standards in business,eahics, worlcmanship, confidence, self-esteem, scholarship and safety; and ' °'°'teceaseent IdERFAS: Cooperative Vocational Education Leadership Clubs strive to develop each student's social and leadership abilities as well as his/her skills; HOW, THCMEFORE, I, Mayor of do hereby proclaim.February 9 through February 14, • 1987 to be VOCATIONAL EDUCATION WEEK In Independent School District 270,comprised of the canmanities of Hopkins, Mirnnetcnka, Golden Valley, Eden Prairie, Edina, Plymouth, and St. louis Park. We urge all citizens to be aware of the excellent work dare by those engaged in Vocational Education work that betters the student and his/her comity, state, nation and world. IN WITNESS 11ERDOF, I_have here into set ay hand to be affixed;this twenty sixth day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eighty sewn. r µ"al � �.:":�:•i -. :. RESOLUTION NO. 87-35 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE - 4 lirriiriamattilin 1 r: 1 S r: r, • r; I Whereas;diseases of the heart and blood vessels are responsible for more deaths r' than all other causes combined—causing widespread suffering and often creating serious personal hardships in our homes and businesses. And Whereas; the Heart Association carries forward a relentless fight against t these diseases through its programs of reserch, education, and community r; service as made possible through public contributions to the ;r; r: iI NEIN • American Heart Association • Minnesota Affiliate,Inc. • THEREFORE:I proclaim February to be Heart Month within the jurisdiction of ?: • my office and call upon all our citizens to support the American Heart Association with their gifts and voluntary efforts. +: r• r. 4 r DATE SIGNATURE • • • /,' RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING THE APPOINTMENT OF A TEMPORARY TRUSTEE IN SUBSTITUTION FOR A RESIGNING TRUSTEE OF OUTSTANDING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: 1. The City has previously issued its Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Gelco Corporation Project) , Series 1978 (the "Bonds"), in the principal amount of $1,000,000.00 and loaned the proceeds of the Bonds to Gelco Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (the "Company") to provide funds to pay a portion of the cost of acquisition, construction and equipping of certain properties to be used by the Company for office space and vehicle parking in conjunction with the Company's headquarters facility located in the City. 2. Pursuant to an Indenture of Trust between the City and First Trust Company of Saint Paul, dated as of August 1, 1978 (the "Indenture"), First Trust Company of Saint Paul was appointed initial Trustee for the Bonds. 3. Pursuant to Section 9-6 of the Indenture, First Trust Company of Saint Paul, acting under its changed coprorate name of First Trust Company, Inc., has provided the City and the Company with notice of its resignation as Bond Trustee, such resignation to be effective upon appointment of a successor Trustee as provided in the Indenture. l 4. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) The City has received due notice from First Trust Company, Inc. of its resignation as Bond Trustee pursuant to Section 9-6 of the Indenture; (b) Pursuant to Section 9-8 of the Indenture, the City is authorized by resolution of its governing body to appoint a temporary Trustee to fill the Bond Trustee vacancy until a successor Trustee shall be appointed by the Bondholders in the manner provided in said Section 9-8; and (c) First Bank, N.A., Milwaukee, a national banking association with offices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is qualified to accept and act as a temporary Trustee as provided in Section 9-8 of the Indenture and has indicated its willingness to accept and serve as such temporary Trustee. 5. The City, by action of its City Council, does hereby approve and appoint First Bank, N.A., Milwaukee, as a temporary Trustee for the Bonds pursuant to Section 9-8 of the Indenture. Such appointment shall be effective immediately upon the written acceptance thereof by First Bank, N.A., Milwaukee. 6. The Mayor and City Manager and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to First Trust Company, Inc. and First Bank, N.A., Milwaukee, notice and directions regarding the appointment of First Bank Milwaukee, N.A. as temporary Trustee, and necessary assignments and transfers of related documents, records and trust estate assets as necessary to effectuate such appointment pursuant to Section 9-9 of the Indenture. • Williams' Mini-Storage CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 60-86 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 PRDVISIONS 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 I-2 Park 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 I-2 Park District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of January 20, 1987, entered into between Robert and Mary Williams, 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 2nd day of December, 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 January, 1987. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of ,i`f • Exhibit A Legal Description PLATTING & ZONING DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN STORAGE COMPLEX: That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, desc-ribed as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Southwest Quarter distant 600.00 feet southerly of the northwest corner of said Southwest Quartet; thence East- • erly, parallel with the north line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance.of 538.00 feet; thence Southerly, parallel with the west line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 175.00 feet; thence Easterly, parallel with the north line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 125.00 feet; thence Northerly, parallel with the west tine of said Southwest Quarter. a distance'.of 334.99 feet to the south line of the north 440.00 feet of said. North Half of the`South west-Quarter; thence Westerly along said south line to the west line of said Southwest Quarter; thence Southerly along said west line of the Southwest Quarter to the point of beginning :' Except the right-of-way of Trunk Highway No. 169 and No. 212 as now located and established.wh.ich lies westerly of a line run parallel with and distant 70 feet easterly of Line 1, described below: Line 1: Beginning at a point on the Easterly:extension of the East and West Quarter line of Section 22, Township 116 North, Range 22 11 est. distant 0. 12 feet East of the East Quarter corner thereof thence run Southerly at an angle of 91 degrees 01 minute 21 seconds from said Easterly extension !measured from West to South/ for 1370.63 feet and there terminating. Williams' Mini-Storage DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1987, by Robert H. and Mary E. Williams, 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 Zoning District Change from the Rural District to the I-2 Park District for 2.98 acres and Preliminary Plat of 2.98 acres into one lot for construction of a mini-storage complex, 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 #60-86, 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 December 2, 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 and 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. Developers shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property. 4. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developers shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, ( storm sewer (including an underground storm water drainage system along the south property line), and erosion control for the property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developers shall construct, or Ilr 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. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developers shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of: A. A revised landscape plan indicating replacement of the Juniper plantings with 6-8 ft. high Colorado Blue Spruce trees, and berming along Highway #169 at 6-8 ft. minimum in height. B. Plans and samples of the exterior materials to be used on the structure, including the brick, rock-face block, and fencing materials proposed to be used during construction. C. Plans and samples of materials to be used for screening of the mechanical equipment on the structure. D. Plans and samples of lighting for the property. The lighting affixed to the structure shall be downcast, cut-off luminars; all free-standing lights shall be a maximum of 20 ft. in height and shall be downcast, cut-off luminars. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developers agree to implement, or cause to be implemented, those plans and samples listed above, as approved by the Director of Planning. 6. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developers agree to submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of a revised site plan which indicates the following changes: A. A maximum building square footage for the one story buildings which shall not exceed a 0.3 Floor Area Ratio, or 38,892 sq. ft., based on 2.98 acres of property. B. A minimum building setback of no less than 50 ft. to the south property line. C. A maximum building square footage of 32,900 square feet within Phase I of the construction on the property. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developers agree to implement, or cause to be implemented, those dimensional requirements listed above, as approved by the Director of Planning. 7. Concurrent with construction of Phase I on the property, and prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the property, Developers agree to construction of buffer zone berm of at least 15 ft. in height. Said buffer zone must extend at least 85 feet east of the eastern boundary of the property. 8. Developers acknowledge that no specific conceptual approvals are granted herein to any proposed use outside of the property as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Developers acknowledge that further development beyond the property described in Exhibit A will require the extension of sanitary sewer and water main, road connections to Darnell Court, Sunnybrook Road, Homeward Hills Road and Highway #169 and consolidation of the driveway accesses between the Modern Tire site to the north and the property to the south with the driveway for the property described in Exhibit A. 9. Developers acknowledge that the Phase I development, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, includes buildings located partially outside of the property to be zoned I-2 Park, as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Developers agree, therefore, that, prior to issuance of any building permit for any structure which is located within the area zoned Rural, Developers shall submit to the City, and receive the City's approval of materials for rezoning.to I-2 Park for that portion of the property in Phase I and in Phase II which is still zoned Rural as of the date of this agreement. 10. Developers agree that there shall be no further development beyond Phase I until such time as the road is constructed from Highway#169 past the southern boundary of the site as depicted in the overall development plan of Exhibit B, attached hereto. `. William's Mini-Storage 4 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 87-15 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 60-86 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 60-86 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of January, 1987; 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. 60-86, 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. 8. 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. 60-86 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 January 20, 1987. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk I:::i • • • • Williams' Mini-Storage CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 60-86 AN OROINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LANO FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LANO IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN'PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, OROAINS:' S__um� miar..YY: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located east of Highway #I69, south of the Modern Tire complex from the Rural District to the I-2 Park Oistrict, 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 0. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHEO in the Eden Prairie News on the _ day of , 1987. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 87-23 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 Countryside Investments, Inc. for development of The Tree Farm for Low Density Residential use 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 5.41 acres located south of County Road #1, west of Surrey Street be modified from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of February, 1987. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk / ;; CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #87-24 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE TREE FARM FOR COUNTRYSIDE INVESTMENTS, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council`as follows: That the preliminary platplat of The Tree Farm, dated November 1, 1986, consisting of 33.6 acres into 72 single family lots and road right-of-way, 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, s and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 3rd day of February, 1987. awry D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John O. Frane, City Clerk 1 I / I / ( ' / \ - . t Engineering I \ • Land Surveying 1 - Landscape Architecture 1 1 Planning Rim Itreeger le Associates,Inc. 8080 Wallace Road Eden Prairie.Minnesota 55344 (612)934-4242 January 28, 1987 Mr. Don Uram City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Private forest management plan The Tree Farm, RKA Project #7626 Dear Don: Countryside Investments, Inc. has contacted Mr. Alan Olson, DNR Urban Forester, concerning the existing evergreen plantation at the proposed "The Tree Farm" subdivision in Eden Prairie. Ac- cording to Mr. Olson (Alan), a tree management plan cannot be completed and stated in report form. Therefore, a DNR forester is willing to mark individual trees and shrubs that should be removed so that the remaining trees can grow as healthy as possible. The exact date that a DNR forester will be at "The Tree Farm" is unknown. It is the intent of CountrySide Investments, Inc. to comply with all of the recommendations that the forester makes. If there are any questions, feel free to contact CountrySide Investments, Inc. or us here at Ron Krueger & Associates, Inc. Sincerely, Zit14.0#4141 Brian W. Olson, L.A. Director of Planning cc. CountrySide Investments, Inc. Alan Olson, DNR January 23, 1987 Mayor Gary Peterson Eden Prairie City Offices 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Subj: Countryside Investment Residential Proposal Near Flying Cloud Airport Dear Mr. Mayor: The Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission met January 7 and discussed the issue of the Countryside Investment Residential Proposal near Flying Cloud Airport. We would like to speak to the issue. If this development site cannot be purchased by MAC and if the development is considered by the Eden Prairie City Council please consider the following discussion items of the Advisory Commission: a. There will be an increase in airport traffic in the future; b. The project is located 3/4 of a mile from the end of the runway; c. Noise complaints from new residents will likely come to Eden Prairie and to Metropolitan Airport Commission; d. We suggest if the development is passed, that signs are posted in the area to warn prospective buyers of the potential noise problems before they consider purchasing a site; e. Presently Flying Cloud is running over 200,000 operations per year of which 80% are running over the proposed property sites. This could mean a flight approximately every 4 minutes over the site; f. There will be electrical interference to residents, TV, ham radio, etc. g. We feel that whatever steps can be taken to protect developers against building in areas that might be subject to noise should be taken. One avenue to be considered would be to delay a decision by the Council and consider a moratorium on present and future developments until such time that noise abatement monitors are available from MAC. These would aid in giving factual information to future noise problems and possible Zone ordinance dBA problems. We feel this could be a critical issue for the City of Eden Prairie. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, (-, • 1111 J Jean Bitter, Chair, And The Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission Sans Gary Schmidt, MAC Representative cc: Eden Prairie City Council MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: January 9, 1987 PROJECT: The Tree Farm LOCATION: South of County Road #1, west of Surrey Street APPLICANT: Countryside Investments, Inc. FEE OWNERS: Mr. and Mrs. George W. Jeppesen Mr. and Mrs. LeRoy Jedlicka Mr. and Mrs. David R. Durnbough REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on 5.41 acres. 2. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 29.39 acres. 3. Preliminary Plat of 33.28 acres into 72 single family lots, one out lot, and road right-of-way. 7. 36 — Background RI ►r i This is a continued item from the e; • r 41k'►l 3 �! ,:c November 24, 1986, Planning 1 ,, r ^ '�• �1eoti;y�-ni Commission meeting. At that time, rg *.r � `' Planning Commission and Staff had q.- A, ,r�., y��+'� �gl PUB expressed a number of concerns _ �� 0. -...,: „. regarding the project including thee_ �, 2g6 4 Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from : ��� � •� 6-4 Public Open Space to Low Density ' C. ' 'r •, ,n �: Residential, encroachment of the �� •h' :��< :��� • — i. proposed subdivision into Airport r. •+•+►'•++' IIIIil p �� 1/' ►••i'•+o•� 11111 Safety Zone B, and the proximity of , ,+++4,•++•+., Cu,,, the proposed residential development ,`�.��+�+��� °Iqp Z= to the landfill property. By •,%•.,•+o1►i IN Lax Commission direction, the plans were vv�..•4 =.; t returned to the proponent to address 27-8 +++y►+ice.% - '� those issues. ••++++•+++•/ '' :. PUB ,•••••+�:���i,sap. Airport Safety Zone R 14••••••••. One of the primary concerns stated ,rs in the previous Staff Report was the // location of approximately 20 single / PROPOSED SITE AREA LOCATION MAP 1 (" ( The Tree Farm 2 January 9, 1987 itfamily lots within Airport Safety Zone B. In response to this, the developer has had a number of meetings with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MCA) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation in an attempt to resolve this issue. A meeting was held on January 7, 1987, with members of Staff, MAC, and the developers. At this meeting, an interpretation of the following chart was given by the MAC. Site Area But Less Ratio of Site Builing Maximum Site at least Than Area to Bldg. Plot Area Population (Acres) (Acres) Plot Area (sq. ft.) (15 persons/A) 3 4 12:1 10,900 45 12:1 4 6 10:1 17,400 60 10:1 6 10 8:1 32,600 90 8:1 10 20 6:1 72,500 150 6:1 20 and up 4:1 218,000 300 This interpretation is as follows: Based upon a site area of at least 20 acres (Airport Safety Zone B contains 23.4 acres), the chart allows for a ratio of site area to building plot area of 4:1. Building plot area has been determined to be those lots of the proposed subdivision which are within Airport Safety Zone B. With a site area of 23.4 acres, and ratio 4:1, a total building plot area of 5.85 acres is allowed. The proposed plan depicts a total of 5.83 acres, including road right-of-way, within Airport Safety Zone B. This meets the minimum requirements of the Airport Safety Zane B use restrictions as interpreted by MAC and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Staff has sent revised plans to MAC and the Minnesota Department of Transportation for their review and comment and expects to receive a letter stating their approval of the proposed project prior to Council review. Site Plan Included within this packet is the Staff Report dated November 21, 1986. The plans on which this previous report was written are essentially the same plans which are being presented for your recommendation. The only exception is a slight revision to the amount of property contained within Airport Safety Zone B. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on 5.41 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 29.39 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 33.28 acres into 72 single family lots, one out lot, and road right-of-way, based on recommendations made in the Staff Report dated November 21, 1986, revised plans dated January 8, 1987, and subject to the following recommendations: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise Lots 1 and 11, Block 2, to reflect R1-13.5 minimum frontage requirements. (- The Tree Farm 3 January 9, 1987 B. Submit a plan and construction estimates for the proposed sewer extension from the development to the Homeward Hills interceptor. C. Submit a tree management plan and tree relocation plan for the proposed subdivision which details the preservation of the wooded areas and reflects additional pockets of trees around the perimeter of the site. D. Modify the plans to depict a five-foot concrete sidewalk along one side of the loop road system, a 20-foot trail easement and 10-foot wide graded area along the south side of County Road #1, and an eight-foot wide bituminous trail within the outlot and extending to the west property line. A trail connection shall be provided from the five-foot concrete sidewalk for access purposes. E. Revise the plans to reflect the removal of the center island located within the access road off County Road #1. F. Submit calculations regarding the cut and fill balance for the proposed grading plan. Any significant changes from the approved plan will require Cortmission and Council review. G. Hennepin County requires the dedication of an additional 17 feet of right-of-way shown on the plat making the right-of-way 50 feet from the center of County Road #1 and that all access onto County Road #1 must be via the internal streets. Additionally, Staff would like the opportunity to work with Hennepin County regarding the possibility of turn lanes or by-pass lanes at the County Road site, access road intersection. 2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. Stake all grading limits with a snow fence. Any trees lost outside of the limits shall be replaced on an area inch per area inch basis. B. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. /'. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner HR UGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: November 21, 1986 PROJECT: The Tree Farm LOCATION: South of County Road #1, west of Surrey Street APPLICANT: Countryside Investments, Inc. FEE OWNERS: Mr. and Mrs. George W. Jeppesen Mr. and Mrs. LeRoy Jedlicka Mr. and Mrs. David R. Durnbough REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on 8.42 acres. 2. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 33.6 acres. 3. Preliminary Plat of 33.6 acres into 72 single family lots, one outiot, and road right-of-way. 7--36 — Background RI 'An The Comprehensive Guide Pian cur- 1 "�a� Pis-in rently depicts this site as guided prt ,tir.,,fr•-•' i �� . for Low Density Residentiai and ~ to\o'-44� �•/�• '�- � Public Open Space. Surrounding 5-'� ;��Ai PUB properties to the east, west, and 4 . -R�- 1► north, are also guided for Low �3� : i, '2 _ x , '' Density Residential, while ile the r- .l '�,+ n2 4 propertyto the south is guided for i -�. 4 �' • Public Open Space. Specific land AP , •-�i • �� uses in the area include the r,► •;+�+,•++++++ inn Creekwood Estates 1st and 2nd . 0 ��� ifirr,' ►•401"•++•• in.. Addition, zoned R1-13.5, and the 1 •+•+++o•:qp visaing •A..*+o Pheasant Hiii Cemetery to the north; p+o�+++•o�1 !L Homeward Hills Park and the Woodiake '•o`;�++�+� milr r,� SanitaryService, +++++� Inc. landfill 27-8 ++'�++++� �. property to the south; Hillsborough +�+�+.+.� �im 2nd Addition, zoned R1-13.5 to the PUB *+++++vim.+. ` „n east; and, large lot single family ;•+���•�+� development and Metropolitan Airport ;:•;++�".•.' Commission property to the west. '.: The proponent is currently re- questing a Comprehensive Guide Plan PROppSED SITE / AREA LOCATION MAP! The Tree Farm 2 November 21, 1986 Change, Zoning District Change, and Preliminary Platting of approximately 34 acres to allow for the development of 72 single family lots. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts this site as guided for Low Density Residential and Public Open Space. The proponent is requesting that approximately 8.42 acres along the southern portion of this site be changed from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential to allow for single family residential development. Adjacent properties and land uses include Homeward Hills Park and the BFI Landfill along the southern property line, and property owned by the Metropolitan Airport Commission (Flying Cloud Airport) along the western property line. Typically, in reviewing a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, the proponent is required to address the following five questions: 1. What impact does the requested Guide Plan Change have on the balance of land uses in the City; 2. What impact does the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change have on surrounding land uses; 3. What impact does the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change have on site; 4. What impact does the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change have on City services, such as sewer, water, storm water run-off, and roads; 5. Is the requested Guide Plan Change a better use of the land. For this request, Staff has focused on a slight variation of question #2 and question #5. Instead of what impact does the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change have on the surrounding land uses, what impact would a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change have on this specific land use. Staff is quite concerned about changes in the guide plan to allow for the encroachment of single family residential development in marginal areas including Safety Zone B designated by the Metropolitan Airport Commission and closer to the landfill where the possibility for expansion and the negative impacts on the area are uncertain at this point. The current Comprehensive Guide Plan boundary follows the approximate line of Safety Zone 8 designated by the Metropolitan Airport Commission. Land use safety zones have been created by the Metropolitan Airport Commission in order to restrict those uses which may be hazardous to the operational safety of aircraft operating to and from the Flying Cloud Airport, and furthermore to limit population and building density in the runway approach areas, thereby creating sufficient open space so as to protect life and property in case of an accident. The area contained within Safety Zone B is approximately 7.5 acres and effects a total of 20 lots in this area. Within the Comprehensive Guide Plan are specifications for development within Safety Zone B which are as follows: Zone B - shall be restricted in use as follows: a. Each use shall be on a site whose area shall not be less than three acres. The Tree Farm 3 November 21, 1986 b. Each use shall not create, attract, or bring together a site population that would exceed 15 times that of the site acreage. c. Each site shall have no more than one building plot upon which any number of structures may be erected. d. A building plot shall be a single, uniform and non-contrived area, whose shape is uncomplicated and whose area shall not exceed the following minimum ratios with respect to the total site area: Site Area But Less Ratio of Building Max. Site at least Than Site Area to Plot Area Population (acres) (Acres) Bldg. Plot Area (sq. ft.) (15 persons/A) 3 4 12:1 10,900 45 12:1 4 6 10:1 17,400 60 10:1 6 10 8:1 32,700 90 8:1 10 20 6:1 72,600 150 6:1 20 and up 4:1 218,000 300 e. The following uses are specifically prohibited in Zone B: Churches, hospitals, schools, theaters, stadiums, hotels and motels, trailer courts, camp grounds, and other places of frequent public or semi-public assembly. A recent interpretation of these restrictions by the Metropolitan Airport Commission has ruled that for each single use within Safety Zone B requires a minimum lot size of three acres. Based on a total lot size of 7; acres, a maxinum of two lots could be developed within Safety Zone B. Some question remains as to how this would affect the development of this property. In addition, another apparent reason for the Public Open Space designation along the southern portion of the site is due to the adjacent landfill property. Currently, the active landfill is located to the southwest of the property approximately 1,200 feet. The proposed expansion limits, however, reduce this distance to approximately 700 feet to the southern property line and 1,000 to the nearest residence. The nearest residence at this time is approximately 1,650 feet. According to the City Attorney, there is no definite answer as to whether or not the landfill will be allowed to expand in the future. The current status of the landfill is that they have an application pending with the Metropolitan Council and the Pollution Control Agency. If a permit is approved, according to State law, after 1990, no unprocessed garbage shall be disposed in open landfills. Because of that and the burning and recycling program which shall be in effect, ashes are proposed to be buried at the landfill. If that were the case, the landfill could possibly remain open for many years. Based on the number of complaints and the situation surrounding the current permitting process, Staff is questioning the feasibility of locating any additional lots closer to the landfill than what currently exists. This, in turn, with the location of the Airport Safety Zone B, questions the validity of changing the guide plan in particular for this location. The Tree Farm 4 November 21, 1986 Site Plan The site plan, which contains approximately 32.4 acres, depicts the subdivision of this parcel into 72 single family lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way. The outlot, which is located along the southern property line, is being proposed primarily as a buffer from the landfill and as a trail corridor from Homeward Hills Park to the western property line. Based on a site size of 32.4 acres and an outlot containing 2.88 acres, gross density has been calculated at approximately 2.25 units per acre with a net density of 2.47 units per acre. The proponent is requesting the R1-13.5 zoning district. The majority of the lots meet the requirements of this zoning district, however, Block 2, Lots 1 and 11, do not meet the minimum lot frontage requirement. At a minimum, plans shall be revised to reflect the requirements of the R1-13.5 zoning district. Average lot sizes within the proposed subdivision with the exception of the large lots fronting on County Road #1, are approximately 14,600 square feet. Lot sizes range from a minimum of 13,500 square feet to a maximum of 42,000 square feet which is the location of an existing residence. In comparison, the adjacent single family development (Hillsborough 2nd Addition) has been developed at a gross density of approximately 1.87 units per acre and a net density of approximately 2.1 units per acre. Because of the parcel size, the project has been designed in basically a grid pattern with a loop street providing access and a four-tier lotting design. One major access point has been allowed from County Road #1 directly opposite Woodridge Drive which is acceptable to Hennepin County and a secondary access provided from Surrey Street. Hennepin County requirements include that the developer dedicate the additional 17 feet of right-of-way shown on the plat making the right-of-way 50 feet from the center of County Road #1 and that all access onto County Road #1 must be via the internal streets. Additionally, Staff would like the opportunity to work with Hennepin County regarding the possibility of turn lanes or by-pass lanes at the County Road site access road intersection. There are two cul-de-sacs incorporated within the project; one is located in the northwest corner, which for a number of reasons, including the desire to eliminate driveway access onto County Road #1, and because of grades, appears resonable while a second cul-de-sac is located in the southeast corner of the site designed to provide access to the high area adjacent to Homeward Hills Park. The proponent is stating that because of a section of poor soils located directly to the west of the southerly-most cul-de-sac, a loop road cannot be provided to service this property. Depending upon the validity of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, the extension of this cul-de-sac may or may not be substantiated. The proponent has provided a design scheme which depicts a street connection to the property to the west. Based on a grading and lotting plan submitted by the proponent, it appears that a road connection can be made and the development of the adjacent property is possible. Grading High points on the site include one at an elevation of approximately 878 adjacent to County Road #1 in the northeast corner and another located in the southeast corner at an elevation of approximately 807.5. A low point is located along the southern property line directly west of the proposed cul-de-sac at an elevation of 794. The site slopes in a southeasterly direction from the adjacent properties at a grade of approximately 7%. The overall grading plan attempts to take into consideration the southeasterly slope in the design of the streets and building pads. The plan has The Tree Farm 5 November 21, 1986 depicted that 58 of the 72 lots will be graded for rambler style housing. A previous grading plan, which required approximately 70,000 cubic yards of fill, had depicted a total of 44 lots for rambler style housing. It has been Staff's observation and experience with individual builders that a rambler style house is not the most popular and changes are made in the field to accommodate walk-out units. Grades have been changed from two to six feet, which in turn, create drainage problems. Because of this and the lack of information regarding a cut and fill balance, Staff is uncertain as to whether or not the proposed grading plan can be implemented. The majority of the grading is taking place around the perimeter of the site designed primarily to allow for the installation of the road system and adjacent building pads. The center portion of the site (Block 3) shall not be graded because of the amount of trees which are located in this area. The proposed grading plan includes approximately 10 feet of cut from the northwest corner of the site adjacent to County Road #1 and approximately 10 feet of fill at the southeast corner of the loop road. Utilities Water and sanitary sewer services are available to this site. Connections will be made for water service to a 6-inch water line located within Surrey Street and a 16- inch water line located along the north side of County Road #1 and looped through the entire site. Preliminary plans depict the extension of the sanitary sewer service approximately 1,300 feet in an easterly direction to a 66-inch interceptor located within Homeward Hills Road. Staff is requiring that the proponent submit a conplete plan depicting how the sanitary sewer line shall be extended including cost estimates, any easements required, and whether or not they are going to petition the City for construction. A storm sewer system has been designed within the proposed streets with discharge to the south in three different locations. The ultimate discharge of the site will be into Purgatory Creek Watershed. The proponent will supply detailed utility, erosion control, and storm water run-off plans to the City Engineer and Watershed District. Tree Replacement Policy Based on a tree inventory submitted by the proponent, a total of 436 caliper inches of trees, all of which are of a species not requiring a replacement are being removed and approximately 296, 30-foot evergreens are proposed to be relocated. Located within the center portion of the site, they've depicted a stand of approximately 2,600 evergreen trees averaging 25 feet in height. All of these trees have been designated as being saved. The relocation plan shows a number of these trees being planted adjacent to the landfill property, and County Road #1 which can provide visual relief and act as a sound barrier. The relocation plan shall be revised to reflect additional pockets of relocated trees around the entire perimeter of the site designed primarily to maintain the overall wooded site characteristics. Due to the unusual character of the site, Staff conducted an on-site inspection of the trees including size and species. Based upon personal observation and the professional opinion of the City Forester, Staff came to a general conclusion that there are twice as many trees located within the center portion of the site than what there should be for optimum growth and health. Because of this, Staff is The Tree Farm 6 Novenber 21, 1986 recommending that a professional evaluation be done in this area to insure the preservation of a very significant site characteristic. It is the City Forester's professional opinion, and Staff's recommendation, that a tree management plan be required for this site. Pedestrian Systems The Community Services Department is requiring that an eight-foot bituminous trail, located in Homeward Hills Park, be extended into the site within the southern outlot and the extension made to the western property line. Also, the master trail plan shows that an eight-foot bituminous trail along County Road #1. A 20-foot easement will be required from the proponent and he will also be required to grade a ten-foot level area for the installation of this area. The plan shall be revised to.reflect this. In addition, the City Council is considering the requirement of sidewalks along both sides of any proposed streets within subdivisions. This project may be required to install sidewalks in these locations. At a minimum, Staff would recommend that a sidewalk be placed along one side of the loop street. Conclusions In summary, Staff feels that the site plan, as submitted, has not addressed the significant issues and that a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change has not been substantiated. Staff's primary concerns are the relationship of the proposed single family residential development to the adjacent landfill site and Airport Safety Zone B. Because of this, Staff recommends that the plans be returned to the proponent to ( allow them the opportunity to revise the site plan in accordance with the Staff Report recommendations and Commission concerns. UNAPPROVED MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1987 B. THE TREE FARM, by Countryside Investments, Inc. Request for Com- prehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on 11.3 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1- 13.5 on 33.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 33.6 acres into 78 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: South of County Road #1, west of Surrey Street. A continued public hearing. Planner Enger explained that, at the November 24, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission determined that the relationship of this project to the Flying Cloud Airport Safety Zone B was a primary consideration. The Commission continued the item to allow time for resolution of the conflict with Safety Zone B. Subsequent to that meeting, the proponent revised the subdivision, removing all lots within the area designated as being within Safety Zone B. They also continued discussions with the Metropolitan Airports Connnission (MAC) staff. It was the determination of the MAC staff that the proposed development did, in fact, meet the intent of the model ordinance in terms of density and, therefore, intensity of development acceptable within the Safety Zone B area. This was approved by their governing agency, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, as well. A letter would be forthcoming acknowledging this. Planner Enger stated that the possibility of MAC purchasing the property was also discussed. It was determined that MAC was not interested in purchasing the land. Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, asked if it would be necessary for the proponents to construct the trail along County Road 41 at this time. He pointed out that the trail would not be connecting to any other trail to the east, or ,•rest, at this time. In addition, even it were built, an asphalt trail, unused, would likely become unsightly due to the growth of weeds and grasses through the asphalt over a short period of time. Bye stated that the City had encountered difficulties in neighborhoods where UNAPPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 12, 1987 trails were installed after the homeowners were moved into their homes. She stated that the trail was necessary, eventually, along County Road #1 and that it would be important to inform the future residents of this subdivision that this trail would be installed. Hallett asked if the City would be responsible for construction of the trail if it were not built at this time. Planner Enger stated that this could be the case, but that it was also possible that the City could require the developer to provide a bond for future construction of the trail, instead. Gartner asked if it would be possible to place signage in the area indicating the location of the BFI landfill and the Flying Cloud Airport in close proximity to this property. She stated that she felt it would be appropriate to notify the future and potential residents of this area of what type of neighbors they had from the beginning. Planner Enger stated that the City could provide for directional-type signs indicating this information. He noted that this had been done in the Bluffs West 2nd Addition. Bye added that she felt this should possibly be done for the future trail, as well. Mr. Al Lange, 13801 Pioneer Trail, manager of Elliott Beech Craft, one of the business operations at Flying Cloud Airport, expressed concern that this property was located within the "noise footprint" of the airport. He stated that he felt the airport was a public asset to the community, a sizable employer, and that he felt residents should be given fair warning as soon as possible that they would be in close proximity to the airport. He stated that he felt this was a pre-existing condition, along with the landfill, and Highway #169, that the future residents should be made aware of up front, prior to purchase of their property. Mr. Denny Daugaard, 12390 Surrey Street, asked for a detailed explanation of the changes to the plan from the previous proposal. Mr. Krueger reviewed the changes and noted the area where several lots had been eliminated. Mr. Gary Schmidt, MAC staff representative, stated for the record that MAC was now of the opinion that the plan, as currently proposed, met the intent of the model ordinance for Safety Zone B. He stated that he was certain that the letter confirming this would be in the hands of the City prior to review of this matter by the City Council. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Countryside Investments for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on 11.3 acres for the Tree Farm, based on plans dated January 8, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated November 21, 1986, and January 9, 1987, and with the added direction that the City be responsible UNAPPROVED MINUTES { Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 12, 1987 for providing directional signage regarding the location of the BFI landfill, the Flying Cloud Airport, the future trail, and that the proponent be responsible for providing this information about pre-existing conditions to the future residents of the development in writing. Motion carr ied--5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to reconnend to the City Council approval of the request of Countryside Investments for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 33.6 acres for the Tree Farm, based on plans dated January 8, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated November 21, 1986, and January 9, ; 1987, and with the added direction that the City be responsible for providing directional signage regarding the location of the BFI landfill, the Flying Cloud Airport, the future trail, and that the proponent be responsible for providing this information about pre-existing conditions to the future residents of the development in writing: Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 4: { Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Countryside Investments for Preliminary Plat of 33.6 acres into 72 single family lots for the Tree Farm, based on plans dated January 8, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated November 21, 1986, and January 9, 1987, and with the added direction that the City be responsible for providing directional signage regarding the location of the BFI landfill, the Flying Cloud Airport, the future trail, and that the proponent be responsible for providing this information about pre-existing conditions to the future residents of the development in writing. Motion carried--5-O-0 ;:i Planning Commission Minutes 10 November 24, 1986 4 C. THE TREE FARM, by Countryside Investments, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Low Density Residential on 11.3 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 33.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 33.6 acres into 78 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: South of County Road #1, west of Surrey Street. A public hearing. Planner Enger explained that there were two special considerations with respect to this development, which were unusual. First, according to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), a portion of the property was located within an area designated as Safety Zone B, which involved restrictions as to land use due to airplane traffic. Second, the property was in close proximity to the Browning Ferris Industries sanitary landfill, with the closest lot proposed to be 1,200 ft. from the existing landfill and 700 ft. from the proposed landfill expansion area. Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, reviewed the plans with the i( , Commission. He showed the location of the property with respect to the landfill. Mr. Krueger then reviewed the site features, noting the wooded area where the majority of the pine trees were in excess of 30 ft. in height. He added that the design of the subdivision allowed for access to • Planning Commission Minutes 11 November 24, 1986 the property to the west, as well. Mr. Krueger referred to that portion of the property which had been designated as Public Open Space according to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He reported that he had discussed this with the Community Services Department and found that there was no need for park in this area, other than pedestrian trail routes. He stated that this was one of the major reasons for applying for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for this portion of the property. With respect to Safety Zone B, as designated by MAC, Mr. Krueger noted that the rooftops of the proposed housing units would be at least 80 feet below the elevation of the airplanes enroute to the airport within the safety zone. Mr. Krueger reviewed the proponent's plan for transplanting of trees to screen the property from County Road #1 traffic and from the landfill to the south and west. Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of November 21, 19B6, with the Commission. He noted that the majority of the property was guided for Low Density Residential land use according to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, with the most southerly eight acres guided for Public Open Space. Planner Uram explained that Staff generally reviewed requests for Comprehensive Guide Plan changes in terms of how the proposed change may impact the surrounding land uses. However, in this case, he explained that the major concern was what impact the surrounding land uses would have on the eight acres of the property proposed for Comprehensive Guide Plan change--specifically, the landfill and the airport. Planner Uram explained that there were concerns about the interpretation of Safety Zone B regulations as would impact this property. He noted that the density per acre was allowed to be 15 people per acre, with a minimum lot size of three acres, according to the applicable MAC regulations for this area. However, he stated that it was unclear how the density was applied. Regarding the landfill, Planner Uram stated that, according to the City Attorney, it was expected that the request for expansion of the landfill would be revived some time after January 1, 1967. He pointed out that the active part of the landfill was currently 1,200 feet away from the property. Expansion of the landfill as requested by BFI would bring it within 700 feet of the property. Planner Uram noted that the common complaints in this area of the City with respect to the landfill involved debris and dust generated by operation of the landfill. With respect to the site plan, Planner Uram stated that the lots within the proposed development were generally in conformance with the requirements of the R1-13.5 Zoning District, with only minor adjustments necessary. He added that the developer still needed to provide the final calculations for the grading plan regarding the amount of cut and fill that would take place on the property. Planner Uram stated that he had reviewed the property with the City Forester, Stuart Fox, as part of the City's review of the development. He • Planning Commission Minutes 12 November 24, 1986 4r stated that it was the City Forester's opinion that approximately half of the trees from the center of the site must be removed in order to allow the forest to mature. Regarding pedestrian systems, Planner Uram stated that there would be a connection from Homeward Hills Park to the west, with a minimum of one side of the street supporting a sidewalk for pedestrian access. • Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator and liaison to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, reported that the City had been approached in the late 1970's about expansion of the airport, and that in the 1980's the idea of Safety Zones was established. The City, at that time, was requested to incorporate the Safety Zones into the Comprehensive Guide Plan and to adopt the attendant regulations for the various zones. Ms. Johnson noted that MAC continually receives noise complaints regarding the airport traffic. She stated that it was the opinion of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission that a density transfer should be considered in this case, thereby allowing for the development of the property, but which would also allow for the mitigation of any problems which may arise from the property being located within Safety Zone B. Planner Uram summarized the concerns of the Staff, stating that the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment had not been substantiated and that Staff's primary concerns were the relationship of the proposed single family residential development to the adjacent landfill site and Airport Safety Zone B. Mr. Gary Schmidt, representative from MAC, explained that MAC interpreted the regulations for Safety Zone B to mean that each use must be on a site of no less than three acres. Mr. Schmidt stated that MAC tries to review the overall compatibility of a site with respect to its proximity to the airport. He stated that, in the case of Flying Cloud Airport, the two parallel runways, the flight path for which would be over this property, receive approximately 70% of the use of the airport. Mr. Schmidt added that Flying Cloud Airport was one of the ten busiest airports in the country. He noted that it is expected that this record pace for use of the airport would continue to increase. Mr. Schmidt stated that MAC was concerned that there would be a significant number of noise complaints, if the development of this property was allowed within the area designated as Safety Zone B. Anderson stated that he was concerned about traffic in this area, noting that County Road #1 was currently a busy road. He asked when Homeward Hills Road would be completed. Planner Enger responded that the City Engineering Department predicted that it would be completed in the Fall, 1987. Hallett asked for a more detailed explanation of how this site was impacted by the designation Safety Zone B across a portion of the property. Ms. Johnson explained that the noise safety zones were in the process of being established at this time. She noted that the safety zones were considered part of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, Airport Chapter at a concept level; however, the regulations regarding density and lot size minimums had not yet been adopted by the City. Reubling stated that he did not feel that the Commission should make a • Planning Commission Minutes 13 November 24, 1986 recommendation to the City Council on this project at this time given the problems presented by the Airpuri. Safety Zone B considerations and the unknown outcome of the landfill expansion proposed by BFI. Chairman Schuck concurred with Reubling. He stated that market trends seemed to indicate that detached single family homes were popular now, which would make development of this site as single family homes an attractive proposition. Chairman Schuck stated that clustering of units, or lots, may be a more appropriate land use, considering the airport and landfill situations. Hallett stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to prohibit the development of this property. He stated that he would consider a transfer of the density from the Airport Safety Zone B designated area as a possibility. Hallett asked if the City required the property for any park, or open space, purpose. Planner Dram responded that the Director of Community Services had informed Staff that the property was not necessary for any park element, with the exception of trail connections. Planner Enger noted that the City had not yet adopted the regulations proposed for Airport Safety Zone B; therefore, these regulations were not in full force, or effect, for this property at this point in time. He stated that it was unclear as to how the proposed regulations would relate to density assigned to this property. For example, one interpretation would indicate that for that portion of the project within Safety Zone B, approximately eight acres, only two lots would be allowed, or considering an average of three persons per household, six people would be allowed to "occupy" those eight acres affected. If the eight acres affected were to be developed at Comprehensive Guide Plan densities allowable for Low Density Residential development at 2.5 units per acre, approximately 20 units, or 60 people would be allowed to "occupy" the affected acreage. However, if the affected acreage was allowed to be developed at the densities allowable for High Density Residential development which permitted up to 17 units per acre according to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, then a multiple family structure for approximately 120 people (15 people per acre, multiplied by eight acres) would be allowed by MAC regulations. Planner Enger stated that it appeared that the multiple family development would be acceptable to MAC, but the City's standard single family development of the property would not, despite substantial difference in density between the two. He added that it was unclear whether the proposed MAC regulations for Safety Zone B meant that each land use shall be developed on no less than three acres, or that each building, or structure, shall be on a site of no less than three acres. He stated that it was Staff's opinion that the location of Safety Zone B was somewhat arbitrary in that planes did not fly strictly within the designated Safety Zone boundaries. Planner Enger pointed out that the two most critical questions for the Commission were: 1) How is this site impacted by the MAC designation of ( Safety Zone B; and, 2) Should this site be developed in such close proximity to the landfill. Staff presented different development alternatives for the property with the Safety Zone B and Park and Open Space areas eliminated from the developable acreage. The proposed alternatives would reduce the Planning Commission Minutes 14 November 24, 1986 - number of units to be developed on the property. Hallett asked about the proposed ownership for the area designated as Park, Open Space. Planner Enger stated that this had not been decided. He noted that the purpose of this area being designated as Park, Open Space was to provide for a buffer to the landfill. Hallett stated that he felt that if the property was designated as a buffer for purposes of protection from the landfill, or the airport, that the landfill owners, or the airport, should be prepared to purchase the property and not have the property become a burden to the current owners, preventing them from developing their property to its highest and best use. Reubling asked if there was any possible City use for the eight acres in question. Planner Enger stated that the City had no need of the property for any purpose such as park development, etc. Anderson asked what would happen if the landfill closed. Planner Enger stated that there possibly would be more "usable" land after the closure of the landfill. At one time, a golf course had been proposed for the final use of the landfiii property. However, a question still remained as to what an appropriate and safe final use of the landfili property would be. He noted that the City was currently considering ballf ields for the final land use to meet the City's needs for these facilities in this area. Mr. Krueger stated that the use of density transfer should be considered from the point of view of the natural resources on the property; for example, it would likely be necessary that many more trees would need to be removed if density was transferred to the northern portion of the property because this portion of the property was so densely treed. Mr. Krueger noted that it would difficult to provide for clustering of units due to the density of the trees, also. Chairman Schuck expressed concern regarding whether the Commission should act on the proposal at this time considering the unanswered questions with respect to the landfill, airport, and trees. He stated that he felt it would be difficult to develop the property to its highest and best use without these questions being answered. Chairman Schuck added that he concurred with other Commissioners regarding the statement that the restrictions of the landfill and/or the airport Safety Zone B designation should not be the burden of the land owners, but that other alternatives should be explored in order to allow for development of this property. Mr. Krueger stated that the proponents would be willing to work with Staff on any of the alternative site plans, or variations thereof, in order to mitigate the concerns of the Commission. Gartner stated that she felt it would be a mistake to do anything with the south half of this property without knowing what outcome of the landfill litigation is at this time. Anderson stated that he concurred with Gartner. Hallett stated that he felt a compromise could be reached in order to allow the property owners to develop the property. He stated that he felt the -landfili owners, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, or the City, should be prepared to purchase any property that could not be developed due to any Planning Commission Minutes 15 November 24, 1986 restrictions placed on the property by any of these agencies. Bye stated she did not feel the City should "invite" problems to this new neighborhood by approving a development that was located too close to the airport, or landfill. She stated that she did not feel the City should place itself in the position of inviting such complaints, either, if it was known in advance that problems existed. Bye added that she felt answers to the airport and landfill questions were needed prior to recommending any action on this item. Ruebling stated that he concurred with Bye regarding allowing development in an area where problems were anticipated. He stated that also concurred with Hallett with respect to the owners of the property being allowed to develop their property, and with the suggestion that any agency denying the development being required to purchase the property in question, instead of placing such a burden on the landowner. Mr. Denny Daugaard, 12390 Surrey Street, stated that his main concern was the type of development, that the property be developed as single family, instead of some form of multiple residential development. He noted that he was happy to see that the trees were being preserved. Mr. Daugaard asked about the proposed value of the homes. Mr. Krueger responded that the homes would be in the $125-150,000 range. Mr. Arvid Schwartz, Countryside Investments, stated that the proponents were concerned about the various interpretations of what was allowable in terms of development upon this property. He stated that they were willing to cooperate with the City and other agencies, but that it was difficult to do without knowing what the restrictions were on the property. Mr. LeRoy Jedlicka, 12501 Pioneer Trail, one of the proponents, stated that his portion of the property did not have a problem with debris from the landfill. He added that, since 1968 when he moved to this location, he had been bothered by only one airplane "buzzing" his property, but otherwise would not complain about airport noise. Mr. Tom Thoensen, 9549 Yorkshire Lane, stated that, as a pilot, he flew over this property on approach to Flying Cloud Airport. He stated that he felt the airport was an asset to the City and that perhaps the property should be considered for other than residential development. Mr. Stan Hamerski, representing George and Marge Jeppeson, part-owners of the property being reviewed, indicated the concern of the Jeppesons for the "developability" of the property. He stated that they felt the property should be purchased by any agency that would not allow it to be developed due to any restrictions. Hallett stated that it may be appropriate for all three groups, the City, MAC, and the landfill owners, to purchase this property. Planner Enger reiterated that the Safety Zone B regulations had not been adopted by the City, therefore, those restrictions were not legal requirements of this development. He stated that Staff's opinion was that the appropriate use of the property would be single family residential, with Planning Commission Minutes 16 November 24, 1986 the interpretation of the density imposed by Safety Zone B regulations used as a minimum size of the overall land use, instead of the minimum size of lot for each structure. Planner Enger stated that the next question for the Commission to answer would be whether it made sense to place homes within the area designated as Safety Zone B. He stated that there appeared to be room for compromise between what MAC wanted and what the City would require of the developer. With respect to the landfill, Planner Enger pointed out that there had been no resolution of this matter as of this point in time. He stated that there were currently no ordinances in effect which prohibited development adjacent to the landfill. He stated that Staff was looking for direction from the Commission on both of these items with respect to this development. Planner Enger discussed options available to the City and the developer regarding the property. Density transfer was one of the options discussed. There was also the possibility that the proponents could develop only the north half of the property at this time, with the south half to be developed upon resolution of the two issues. He stated that it was likely that the Safety Zone B regulations would be adopted by the City in some form, or another, within the near future. As a point of clarification, Planner Enger stated that the City did not ( derive very much revenue from the airport. The revenue received by the City from the landfill was used for things other than the purchase of property, as well. Planner Enger pointed out that the owners of the landfill had already purchased property under these conditions, where development may not be suitable due to the proximity of the property to the landfill. He stated that it was Staff's opinion that there was rationale for one, or both of the groups (MAC and BFI) to purchase a portion of this property. Gartner stated that she felt it would not represent "good planning" to place single family homes within the designated Safety Zone B area of the airport, or within such close proximity to the proposed landfill expansion. Reubling stated that he concurred. Hallett stated that he, too, concurred with Gartner. He added that he felt it was important to provide direction to the proponents at this time regarding development of the property and what type of development would represent "good planning" of the property. Gartner stated that she did not feel that it was clear whether these issues could be resolved at this time, or in the near future. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt it was possible that a compromise solution could be reached. He suggested that the proponent might work with the City Staff to explore possibilities for compensation of any portion of the property which was designated as "undevelopable." Bye stated that she would prefer to see development of the property kept to the north portion of the land as much as possible. She added that she, too, Planning Commission Minutes 17 November 24, 1986 It I would encourage purchase of the property by the owners of the landfill and/or MAC, if they were responsible for restrictions of development for the property. Mr. Krueger asked if the Commission would:consider-a positive recommendation for the development, if all matters except the landfill and airport issues were resolved. Chairman Schuck stated that he felt the landfill and airport issues were the main considerations regarding development of this property, not the trees, or site plan relationships as was often the case. Gartner stated that she would not be in favor of development of the south half of the property, if the proponents did return without the landfill and:airport issues resolved. Reubling asked if County Road #1 was of adequate capacity to handle the traffic projected from a development of this size. Planner Enger stated: that it was of adequate design capacity. He added that Staff would be working with the Hennepin County Transportation staff to determine the need for turn lanes and bike trails as necessary. He pointed out that the most significant problem was the number of churches along County:Road #1.at this time, but that the City,and County were working on plans for widening of the road to four lanes as needs indicated. MOTION. Motion was made by Hallett, seconded by Reubling, to continue this item to the January 12, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt, by the city and review by the Staff of additional information regarding the airport and landfill issues as affect this proposed development. Bye stated that she was reluctant to support the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Public, Open Space to Low Density Residential given the Safety Zone B considerations. Anderson stated that he concurred. Motion carried--6-0-0 , f i CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESDTA 411 RESOLUTION NO. 87-25 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CARMEL 6 & 7 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT .AMENDMENT TO THE OVERALL CARMEL 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 Carmel 6 & 7 development is considered a proper amendment to the overall Carmel Planned Unit Development Concept; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the request of Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Carmel Planned Unit Development Concept for the Carmel 6 & 7 development and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on February 3, 1987; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Carmel 6 & 7 development 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 PUn Concept Amendmentapproval to the overall Carmel Planned Unit Development Concept as outlined in the application materials for Carmel 6 & 7. 3. That the PUO Concept Amendment meets the ecomnendatinns of the Planning Commission dated January 9, 1987. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of February, 1987.. Gary O. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John 0. Frane, City Clerk `J r' CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #87-26 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CARMEL 6 & 7 FOR HMS HAGEN HOMES, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Carmel 6 & 7 for Hans Hagen Homes, Inc., dated December 30, 1986, consisting of 16.26 acres into 27 single family lots and road right-of- way, a copy of i o a C h is undt the provisions whofch theis Ednen file Prairie the Zoningity andHal Plattingfo ordinancestobein, andconformance,amendmewinhts. thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 3rd day of February, 1987. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor -- ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 1.6 STAFF REPORT ( TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: January 9, 1987 PROJECT: Carmel 6th and 7th Addition LOCATION: North of Fellbrook Road and east of Thornhill Road APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 58 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review within an existing R1-13.5 zoning district on 16.26 acres with variances for lot frontage. 3. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.66 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of 16.26 acres into 27 single family lots with road right-of-way. Background J - - • • •SED. 0•••• i•••.•Y 'Y3► This property is currently guided ,,•.�•• .•••','� Low Density Residential. This site . �••.�'1_8,,•�••J� is part of a 1984 approved Planned =•�t_�_13:o��1$ Unit Development and Zoning District . ••••••�• Change to R1-13.5 with a platting of � �•�•�•�� 87 lots on 58 acres of land for a ►�•:•:• a ' development known as Carmel. ' g • �, ,gam� A Preliminary Plat ~ "'� a h►nW"W�►' 12-8• • Attachment A indicates the previous '. * preliminary plat for Carmel \ Addition. The new plat is different 11-E in the following ways: �° 1. The temporary cul-de-sac is ..,a ,; now a permanent cul-de-sac t. -„,,k, with lots abutting the park. The reconfiguration of the �"' , 1 roadway and the abutting ", ,w, $; c— lots requires a land ex- a ri c 4 '% change. The City gained �: ix -. parkland in the northwest 4,°' -11,*' ,11'a `N AREA_ LOCATION MAP_ Carmel 6th and 7th Addition 2 January 9, 1987 corner of the site in exchange for 0.66 acres of existing park property which will now be part of proposed Lots 6 and 7. This 0.66 acres of land will require rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5. See Attachment B. 2. One additional lot has been added to the subdivision. 3. The proposed access road into the Pavelka property has changed location within the Carmel boundaries, but does meet the original point of contact on the Pavelka property. 4. Outlot A was originally contemplated to provide access to the Holasek piece to the west; however, it has been determined that access would be from Rowland Road because of severe topography. Street frontage variances are requested through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Review for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1; Lots 3 and 4, Block 2; and, Lots 1 and 2, Block 4. The variances would be consistent with the lot frontages approved with the PUD. At the time of the previous PUD approval, the minimum lot frontage was 70 feet in the R1-13.5 zoning district. The lot frontages will be no less than 80 feet. The park area should be platted into an outlot at the time of final plat approval. Grading The grading plan has not changed appreciably from the approved preliminary grading plan. The developer will be required to provide a graded parking area for parking and manuevering of ten cars for the City park. This will be located off the north side of the new road alignment connecting Carmel with property to the east. Tree Replacement A tree inventory was conducted for the old and new alignment of the roadway into the Pavelka property. The new alignment would remove more trees; however, only the Burr Oak would require replacement. Under the City's new tree replacement policy, a total of 42 caliper inches of oak must be replaced. Prior to Council review, the proponent must submit a tree replacement plan for review. A possible location for the tree replacement would be at the entrance of the parking area to the park. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff would recormend approval of the PUD Concept Amendment, PUD District Review, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, and a Preliminary Plat of 16 acres into 27 single family lots based on the Staff Report dated January 9, 1987, and subject to the following recommendations: 1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall: A. Submit a tree replacement plan for 42 caliper inches. No trees shall be less than three-inch caliper and the primary tree replacement species shall be oak. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: fr; A. Submit for City Engineer review, a detailed storm water run-off, grading, and utility plan for review. 3 _ ��l Carmel 6th and 7th Addition 3 January 9, 1987 B. Submit for Watershed District review, a detailed grading, storm water run-off and erosion control plan. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Stake the proposed construction limits with a snow fence. Any trees lost outside of the snow fence area shall be replaced on an area inch per area inch basis. C. Submit the tree replacement plan and bond for review by the Planning Staff. 4• Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 5. Submit plans for review by the Fire Marshal. 6. Grade an area subject to City approval for a.10-car parking lot for the City park. This shall be done at the time of grading of the lots in this add i t ion. 7. The road connection to the east shall be constructed concurrent with other road improvements for the subdivision. 8. The land being platted as park must be clear of all mortgages, assessments, liens or other incumbrances. • 7i rw I 1 1 1\t•-•'•,*''''-'''',`'..%. , , s'(,•_!,,..... ___ _ ;-•,-,-i---i-- • . t ' \., 'i ;l1 i vi• L mot,, '' • �, •�� ```[/ s ,, /,/ \iv2 1/ ! a en '7 P, '' J ' i .. 4j`j�....- r r j (� + nll�� , -. z `���� 1I 6 ._. ,l 1 .r . ,. z,,..,_,,,,,,,,....,,..i ., ,-.- ,,,.. . , Y_i /ice 4..r i;, /,, l 1 : ( �:N p � S 4 • �.A I a;v. (rM fl• j, °• ' 1:. 8 -"�. .- r /•i ,ice.. . _... _ ' L 9 �' i 1. I\i f I /� ' ar t��" •� P� ✓�� �� vim/ /,/� � ���' �v, `� '7.\• ,_ l • \ 'A "� �!. +�/.v L' tar.• t 42 et ��£.4a.�3G•-+ �a-. .rf' A LEFT it 7/ o.• T i ,A ..\\�Yy \�', rt` -5�7N� [ �A,fit, a\ 1, \_ f 4I t t� , l• 7* ffid , . j 11 �rk., 1 `,• ci � ; .1, 11�,� ^•9 rys,, :. or.C4Rp3E'' I I/Y,,If. -P 1\,<j9 //��411 @•I 1 \\"'' `, /; „ii l'o,i'ldir 1,. , , 1 i!t!t.,Z la;4,i,:....',...4.,.t,,p...'., 1 (h 4nr J, 5-,', 1 •, 480 P49 2 ._ /" �,.: 1p 1'' B. \ �/ \ I!aay. \ 7 r x' `t M 1 I''':.; x oR 1flp,r'. vt,27') 25-,%w75 ;;,, I t., v /\, .'' t ,�! / , 1 j 1 1 Old Carmel Plat .aka/i.Im,erri-A New Parkland: r. � `` I' I. � -anTE�c ttge ••• r a .5 Existi ;Sf �s r lat.14 r • t 'PAC -.rat1�°0=�,. t nail � �,:,�• + (\ 4 �; f) rtrk\\ yet l n: F: • C� ' • 1 i • , • I .,r S /�., � aft,• _ • • • New Carmel Plat .� a - �►+ UNAPPROVED MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1987 F. CARMEL 6 & 7, by Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 58 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within an R1-13.5 Zoning District on 16.26 acres with variances for lot frontage, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 0.66 acres, and preliminary platting of 16.26 acres into 27 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: North of Fallbrook Road and east of Thornhill Road. A public hearing. Mr. Hans Hagen, proponent, explained that there were several changes to the previously approved Carmel Addition preliminary plat which required the review of the Planning Commission due to the extent of the changes involved. Mr. Hagen explained that, due to the grade of the property, it was not possible to provide the connection to the Ward Holasek property to the west as was presented in the orininal preliminary plat. Alternative access had been provided to Mr. Holasek's site. The 50 ft. wide right-of-way for access to the east was, therefore, eliminated. UNAPPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes 10 January 12, 1987 Secondly, Mr. Hagen stated that there was one lot in the northeast area of the subdivision which had been designed to have road frontage on three sides. In reviewing the platting in greater detail, it was found that a slight realignment of the road would provide for the lot to be a "normal" corner lot, eliminating one of the road frontages for that lot. Lastly, after detailed discussions with the Director of Community Services, it was determined that it would be appropriate to "swap" small parcels of property between the park and the developer in order to provide for better access to the park and better design of lots for the proponent. Therefore, this change was also being requested at this time. Mr. Hagen noted that a 20 ft. wide easement for vehicle access to the park was also being provided with this revised platting. Mr. Hagen stated that, overall, the elimination of the 50 ft. right-of-way access to the property to the east, the realignment of the road, and the swapping of property with the City resulted in the addition of a portion of property back into the subdivision, which provided for one more lot, overall, within the Carmel development. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hans Hagen Homes for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of approximately 58 acres for Carmel 6th and 7th Additions, based on plans dated December 30, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 9, 1987. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Hans Hagen Homes for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District for 16.26 acres, with variances for lot frontage, and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 for 0.66 acre, for Carmel 6th and 7th Additions, based on plans dated December 30, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of January 9, 1987. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to theCity,it Y UNAPPROVED MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes 11 January 12, 1987 11. Council approval of the request of Hans Hagen Homes for Preliminary Plat of 16.26 acres into 27 single family lots for Carmel 6th and 7th Additions, based on plans dated December 30, 1986, subject to the recomnendations of the Staff Report dated January 9, 1987. Motion carried--5-0-0 V. OLD BUSINESS None. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Hallett, seconded-, by Bye. Chairman Schuck adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. �4i MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: January 30, 1987 SUBJECT: Supplementary Staff Report to the January 9, 1987 Planning Staff Report Regarding Carmel 6th and 7th Addition The parks, recreation and natural resources concerns regarding the Carmel proposal relates to the proposed land trade, park access, and sidewalks. As is pointed out in the January 9th Planning Staff Report, the proposal indicates a change from the original site plan. The four changes,are described on pages 1 and 2 of the January 9th Planning Staff Report. The major change regarding the park relates to the proposed exchange for .66 acres of existing park property for approximately .91 acres of new parkland. The .66 acres was lowland, unusable area. The .91 acres of new proposed parkland is part of a steep wooded hillside and part of a higher knoll located in the northwest part of the park. The proposed land exchange is most clearly seen on Attachment B of the Planning Staff Report. The original park access for maintenance vehicles, as well as for limited automobile access, was at the north end of Fallbrook Road. The revised plan would provide parking for 8 cars on the southeast portion of the park just off the revised road that connects this site to the Pavelka property. The revised plan also provides a pedestrian bicycle access at the north end of Fallbrook Road, and at the location of the parking lot in the southeast corner of the park. In the original PUD, the City required a sidewalk on the east side of Falibrook Road, from Rowland Road all the way north to the park, as well as on the north side of Thornhill Road. The Community Services Staff recommend construction of these sidewalks concurrent with road construction and extending the sidewalk from Thornhill Road, north and east to the park access road. The sidewalk along Fallbrook Road should extend between the two lots to the park. The Community Services Staff recommend approval of the PUD Concept Amendment, the Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, and preliminary plat of 16 acres into 27 single family lots subject to the recommendations of the January 9th Planning Staff Report and the reference to the sidewalks in this report. BL:md CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION#87-27 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MITCHELL ESTATES FOR RAY MITCHELL BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City. Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Mitchell Estates for Ray Mitchell, dated December 29, 1987, consisting of 1.04 acres into two lots and.:road right-of-way, a-copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 3rd day of February, 1987. Gary D. oeterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner HR UGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: January 9, 1987 PROJECT: Mitchell Estates LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of Scenic Heights Road and Hiawatha Avenue APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Ray Mitchell REQUEST: 1. Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.04 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 1.04 acres into two lots. Background This site is currently guided Low lilt "' Density Residential. Surrounding ., land uses are Low Density Res- 161 K�®_ IF idential to the east, south, and I5 PRK west of the site, with a church / I-`. designation to the north across //` `1 Scenic Heights Road. The site is -t6 \ " currently zoned Rural. There is an ` ��' " —`' existing one-story, single-family 1L7^• — �K'sa� home on proposed Lot 1. ` 79-0- a niiet Preliminary Plat .6 1 �716-9,16-10' A total of 1.04 acres is proposed to tt PUB • be subdivided into two lots. Both /lots meet the minimum lot size and 'V �-- :;: �® street frontage requirements for R1- �i �1�, 984 �� 13.5 zoning. There is 27 feet of 21 95 —;R���z,sv° 7 , "r land area proposed to be dedicated PROPOSED SIT '7000 �//for right-of-way purposes along , e ' ,. •,V_wh 4 A, Hiawatha Avenue. The existingr� _ single family house will have a 20 VW; 2.1°` , ° ��r foot setback from the new right-of- i�� ��' . way line. Since the Code require- ��I 4 „ ♦ - ment is a 30-foot setback, a ♦ $a 78 17 �_ .. t variance will be needed from the ` ��` �"4%,' ' '-•• \' �. Board of Appeals. �� _�'CO�000.5 ... ` p A Hennepin Vo-Tech manufactured home T[��.n000 I ��/�� ,AREA LOCATION MAPL Mitchell Estates 2 January 9, 1987 is proposed to be moved onto Lot 1. Since the structure has a Minnesota Manufactured Housing seal, no variance for house moving will be required by the Board of Appeals. However, the structure will require a house building moving permit, Utilities Sewer and water service is available from Hiawatha Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the request for Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and a Preliminary Plat of 1.04 acres into two lots, based on plans dated September 23, 1986, subject to the recommendations in the Staff Report, dated January 9, 1987 and subject to the following recommendations: 1. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: a. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. b. Obtain a building moving permit. t ,, J UNAPPROVED MINUTES JANUARY 12, 1987 E. MITCHELL ESTATES, by Ray Mitchell. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.04 acres and preliminary platting l of 1.04 acres into two lots and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast quadrant of Scenic Heights Road and Hiawatha Avenue. A public hearing. Planner Enger explained that this was a "simple subdivision," wherein Mr. Mitchell was requesting the splitting of his relatively large lot to build another home on the property. Mr. Ray. Mitchell presented a plan for the home to be built on the property, " indicating that he felt it would blend well with the existing homes in the neighborhood. Chairman Schuck asked for comments, or questions, from members of the audience. There were none. MDTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to reconinend to the City Council approval of the request of Ray Mitchell for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1.13.5 on 1.04 acres for Mitchell Estates, based on plans dated December 29, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff.Report dated January 9, 1987. Motion carried--5-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Dodge, to recommend to. the City Council approval of the request of Ray Mitchell for Preliminary Plat approval of 1.04 acres into two lots for residential development to be known as Mitchell Estates, based on plans dated December 29, 1986, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 9, 1987. Motion carried--5-0-0 rl FEBRUARY 3,19B7 31744 VOID OUT CHECK 261.00- 32131 VOID OUT CHECK 315.00- "369 VOID OUT CHECK 705.64- I r5O BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER 4055.35 .$2451 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 891.15 32452 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 5178.70 32453 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER I0896.B5 32454 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 547.42 32455 MARK VII SALES BEER 14187.55 32456 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO MIX 558.85 32457 ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CO MIX 194.80 3245B THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 15363.60 32459 TWIN CITY HOME JUICE CO MIX 36.60 32460 DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATER USE FEE-PUBLIC WORKS 45.00 32461 OPUS CORPORATION SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD DRIVE 559B.99 32462 LISA AMATO REFUND-EXERCISE CLASS 12.75 32463 TONY BOTTOLENE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 24.00 32464 STEVE CHERNE REFUND-RACQUETBALL TOURNAMENT 15.00 32465 AMY COFFMAN REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 5.34 32466 RICHARD COFFMAN REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 5.34 32467 DEBBIE DALBEC REFUND-EXERCISE CLASS 15.00 3246B JEFF EASTON REFUND-RACQUETBALL TOURNAMENT 15.00 32469 PAM HANSON REFUND-RACQUETBALL LEAGUE 5.00 32470 ERIN HAPP REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.00 32471 CHRISTOPHER HOLDEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.00 32472 HAYLEY HOUGH REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 13.00 32473 MARK HUSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 11.00 32474 ANDREA JOHNSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 11.00 175 SUSAN LIVENGOOD REFUND-EXERCISE CLASS 12.75 .76 ROBERT MACKE REFUND-MEMBERSHIP 10.50 32477 LYNN MARTIN REFUND-AEROBICS CLASS 3.00 32478 SARAH OLSEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.00 32479 TONY SPANDL REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.00 32480 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DECEMBER 86 SALES TAX 22741.05 32481 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DECEMBER 86 FUEL TAX 129.54 32482 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSOC SPORTS RULE BOOKS-COMMUNITY CENTER 4.00 32483 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSOC SPORTS RULE BOOKS-COMMUNITY CENTER 8.00 32484 MILE SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT 135.00 32485 MN CRIME PREVENTION OFFICERS ASSO MEETING EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 30.00 32486 SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COU MEETING EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOR 8.00 32487 AT & T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 113.43 32488 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 1155.94 32489 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 70.10 32490 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 18098.03 32491 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 3707.80 32492 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP RENTAL OF 10 PAGERS-POLICE DEPT 80.00 32493 A-1 PRINTERS INC CHAPTER 11 PRINTING-PLANNING DEPT 519.75 32494 CITICORP INDUSTRIAL CREDIT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 656.81 32495 STATE OF MN-DOCUMENTS DIV TRAINING SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 658.00 32496 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 705.36 32497 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 1-9-87 I5952.92 32498 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 1-9-87 7139.07 32499 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS CORRECTED SOCIAL SECURITY 1985 & 1986 1142.30 "500 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 1-9-87 I4457.86 01 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 1-9-87 147.06 14414792 0209� FEBRUARY 3,1987 32502 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN JANUARY HEALTH INSURANCE 13199.51 32503 GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC JANUARY HEALTH INSURANCE 2286.95 (504 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC JANUARY HEALTH INSURANCE 6903.25 505 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 1-9-87 4907.00 32506 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP PAYROLL 1-9-87 6306.20 32507 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO JANUARY LIFE INSURANCE 712.52 32508 PERA JANUARY LIFE INSURANCE 108.00 32509 COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE JANUARY LIFE INSURANCE 220.05 32510 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG PAYROLL 1-9-87 693.00 32511 PERA PAYROLL 1-9-87 15130.95 32512 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 1-9-87 1463.21 32513 CONSTANCE FLEAGLE REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 17.00 32514 CHRISTOPHER NORGUAL REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 13.00 32515 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSN -VOLLEYBALL & BASKETBALL REGISTRATIONS/ 645.00 FEES PD 32516 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 614.43 32517 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY MANUAL-WATER DEPT 30.00 32518 MILE SEMINAR-POLICE DEPT 135.00 32519 CONSOLIDATED COACHES BUS SERVICE-SKI TRIP/FEES PD 260.00 32520 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 844.50 32521 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 6.75 32522 AT & T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 4.75 32523 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 796.23 32524 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 6.97 32525 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 81.58 32526 DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1986 WATER PERMIT 500.00 32527 MINN POST BOARD LICENSE FEE-POLICE DEPT 5.00 /9528 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 14902.69 )29 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 90.12 s[530 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 13.80 32531 JASON-NORTHCO PROPERTIES FEBRUARY RENT-LIQUOR STORE 5051.86 32532 MCDONALDS EXPENSES-SPECIAL EVENT-COMMUNITY CENTER 18.04 32533 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY CONFERENCE-PLANNING DEPT 50.00 32534 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 102.58 32535 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SEWER PERMIT APPLICATIONS-SEWER DEPT 1280.00 32536 MARCIA ABRAHAM REFUND-AEROBICS CLASS 2.00 32537 FERN M CONOR REFUND-ADULT OUTING 16.00 32538 MARJORIE HITCHCOCK REFUND-ADULT OUTING 14.00 32539 VERDA HOPSTER REFUND-ADULT OUTING 14.00 32540 BRETT LOBBEN REFUND-SKI TRIP 6.50 32541 KATHERINE LUNDSTEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 40.00 32542 EVELYN WILDERMUTH REFUND-ADULT OUTING 16.00 32543 KELLY ZADACH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 11.00 32544 AB DICK COMPANY XEROX PAPER-CITY HALL 80.40 32545 ACME TYPEWRITER INC 1987 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT 170.00 32546 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 412.88 32547 ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT INC JANUARY 87 TRASH DISPDSAL-PUBLIC SAFETY 51.75 32548 AGENCY 494 INC JANUARY 87 SERVICE-SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSIT 81.24 ' 32549 AIRLIFT DOORS INC -GARAGE DOOR REPAIRS-PARK BUILDING & 328.08 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 32550 ALLEN COMPANY SAW BLADE SHARPENING-PARK MAINTENANCE 32.60 3255I ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO VIDEO CASSETTES-POLICE DEPT 777.00 32552 ORRIN ALT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 100.00 s53 AMERI STAR LIGHTING LIGHT BULBS/BALLASTS-PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING 233.35 .,54 AMERICAN HEAT 1987 SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT 650.00 8043674 �0 9/ FEBRUARY 3,1987 32555 AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 70.40 32556 AMERICAN STEEL & INDUSTRIAL SUPPL SQUARE TUBING-FLAT BAR-PARK MAINTENANCE 105.22 �557 THE AMERICAN STORES TRAILER HITCH-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 83.41 '358 EARL F ANDERSEN 8 ASSOC INC SIGNS-STREET DEPT/PARK DEPT/SEWER DEPT 3244.07 a1559 FIRE CHIEF HOWARD ANDERSON 19B7 DUES-FIRE DEPT 25.00 32560 ARMOR SECURITY INC -4TH QTR B6 AND 1ST QTR 87 SECURITY 278.00 SYSTEM-SENIOR CENTER 32561 ASPEN CARPET CLEANING CARPET CLEANING-PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 615.00 32562 AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEMS INC 1986 CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO-POLICE DEPT 8700.00 32563 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -ROTOR/WINDSHIELD WASHER FLUID/BRAKE 279.63 -FLUID/HEAD LIGHTS/FUSES/HOSE CLAMPS- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 32564 BRIAN BENICK CHAPERONE FOR SKI TRIP/FEES PD 15.00 32565 BLACK 8 VEATCH SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION 8444.28 32566 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH CO -LOCK REPAIRS-PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & 123.95 FIRE STATION 32567 LOIS BOETTCHER -PARK & REC COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR 69.00 1-5-87 32568 LEE BRANDT HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 173.00 32569 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC SERVICE-RIVER VIEW ROAD 2004.30 32570 BRAUER 8 ASSOCIATES LTD SERVICE-MILLER PARK 2000.00 32571 BROADWAY EQUIPMENT CO CLEANING SUPPLIES-PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 100.86 32572 BSC MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS FURNACE REPAIRS-PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 325.00 32573 BURTON EQUIPMENT INC ALUMINUM STEP LADDER-WATER DEPT 141.00 32574 BUSINESS FURNITURE INC 3 FILE CABINETS-PLANNING DEPT 732.00 32575 B R W INC -SERVICE-ANDERSON LAKES PKWY-TH169 TO 14147.73 MITCHELL RD/VALLEY VIEW RD-MITCHELL RD TO COUNTY ROAD 4 /"576 CALIBRE PRESS INC BOOK-POLICE DEPT 37.95 \, ,77 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC SERVICE-EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 767.50 32578 CENTURION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS INC -REPAIR SQUAD CARS & FIRE TRUCKS-PUBLIC 678.27 SAFETY 32579 CHAPIN PUBLISHING CO LEGAL ADS-PUBLIC WORKS 193.20 32580 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC -FOAM NOZZLES/FOAM ENDUCTDRS/3 SECTION 4080.82 SAFETY LADDER-FIRE DEPT 32581 CONCEPT MICROFILM INC -MICROFILM PRINTER/MICROFILMING-PUBLIC 4922.07 WORKS DEPT 32582 CONTECH CONSTRUCION PRODUCTS INC -STEEL GALVANIZED PIPE/CHANNEL BANDS- 260.00 DRAINAGE 32583 CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY INC -FIRE BOX KEYS/FACEPIECE/BREATHING TUBE/ 444.00 BOOTS-FIRE DEPT 32584 DAVE CORNELIUS BROOMBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 54.00 32585 CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC JANUARY 87 INSURANCE CONSULTANT 400.00 32586 JEFF CORRIGAN BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 27.00 32587 COUNTRY CLUB MARKET INC EXPENSES-CITY HALL 8 FIRE DEPT 357.58 32588 CROWN/AUTO INC TOOLS-FORESTRY DEPT 52.59 32589 CULLIGAN SERVICE-SENIOR CENTER & STARING LAKE PARK 25.10 32590 CURTIS INDUSTRIES TOOLS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 59.94 32591 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS INC -CONVERSION OF FORD PICKUP TO GRASS FIRE 12934.50 FIGHTING UNIT-FIRE DEPT 32592 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 1673.81 32593 DALCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES/TOWELS/MATS-PUBLIC 726.06 SAFETY BUILDING 32594 CRAIG W DAWSON MILEAGE 23.50 95 FRANK DEFUSCO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 52.00 6944674 2a9'6 FEBRUARY 3,1987 32596 DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SNOWMOBILE SAFETY COURSE/FEES PD 115.00 32597 DIXIE PETRO-CHEM INC CHLORINE-WATER DEPT 677.00 598 JENNIFER DRESSEN CHAPERONE FOR SKI TRIP/FEES PD 15.00 c 99 EAGLE SNACKS INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 42.24 600 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXPENSES-CITY HALL 108.00 32601 E P FLORIST 1986 AWARDS BANQUET 205.11 32602 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT CONFERENCES-FIRE DEPT 956.00 32603 EIDE SAW SERVICE BLADE SHARPENING-FORESTRY DEPT & PARK DEPT 36.00 32604 ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD 3 YEAR SUBSCRIPTION-PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR B3.00 32605 RON ESS HOCKEY DFFICIAL/FEES PD 119.00 32606 CHRIS ENGER JANUARY 87 EXPENSES 165.00 32607 FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL TESTS-POLICE DEPT 40.73 32608 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MN SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 20.00 32609 FIRST CALL FOR HELP BOOKS-SENIOR CENTER 22.00 32610 FIRST MINNESOTA SERVICE 1.50 32611 FITNESS ASSOCIATES INC STRESS TESTS-POLICE DEPT 280.00 32612 FITNESS STORE -WEIGHTS/WEIGHT RACK/HEART RATE CHART- 475.00 FITNESS CENTER/COMMUNITY CENTER 32613 FLAHERTY'S HAPPY TYME COMPANY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 108.00 32614 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 484.64 32615 FOX MCCUE & MURPHY 1986 AUDIT SERVICE 15D0.00 32616 FRANZ ENG REPRODUCTIONS INC BLUEPRINTS-ENGINEERING DEPT 230.25 32617 LYNDELL FREY MILEAGE 102.00 32618 G & K SERVICES TOWELS-PARK MAINTENANCE 21.54 32619 GA8 BUSINESS SERVICES INC LIABILITY INSURANCE 1119.70 32620 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC -RADIO REPAIRS-FIRE DEPT & EQUIPMENT 356.74 MAINTENANCE 32621 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTERS TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 2832.53 ! '22 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC 1987 DUES-FINANCE DIRECTOR 90.00 .,23 GRAPHIC CONTROLS CORP 24 HR CIRCULAR CHARTS-WATER DEPT 80.86 32624 GROSS OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT & FIRE DEPT 1029.07 32625 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC WIRE RECEPTACLE ON POLE-ROUND LAKE PARK 590.81 32626 HACH CO FLUORIDE/CHORINE-WATER DEPT 202.28 32627 HALE COMPANY INC AIR COMPRESSOR TANK-STREET MAINTENANCE 19D0.00 32628 MICHAEL HAMILTON -VOLLEYBALL/BROOMBALL/BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/ 131.00 FEES PD 32629 CHUCK HARDY VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 104.00 32630 HARMON GLASS SAFETY GLASS-PARK MAINTENANCE 50.40 32631 HEALY RUFF CO -SIREN DECODER-$1806.00/25% OF 1985 CIVIL 6331.50 DEFENSE CONTRACT $4525.50 32632 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE 48.25 32633 HENNEPIN CTY CHIEFS DF POLICE SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT 1D35.00 32634 HENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC 1987 DUES-FIRE DEPT 10.00 32635 HENN CTY DEPT OF PROPERTY TAX POSTAGE-VOTER REGISTRATION VERIFICATION 142.66 32636 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS FILING FEE-ENGINEERING DEPT 172.00 32637 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT NOVEMBER & DECEMBER 86 BOOKING FEE 146.78 32638 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT -RADIO EQUIPMENT LEASE-POLICE DEPT & 22246.12 FIRE DEPT 32639 HENNEPIN CDUNTY TREASURER NOVEMBER 86 BOARD OF PRISONERS 1380.75 32640 HENNEPIN PARKS SERVICE-WINTER DAY CAMP PROGRAM 45.00 32641 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS SCHODL-FIRE DEPT 860.00 32642 EUGENE HICKOK & ASSOCIATES -DECEMBER 86 SERVICE-PURGATORY RECREATION 8985.77 AREA 3/643 JAMES R HILL INC REFUND-DEPOSIT FOR PLANS & SPECS 25.00 14 HONEYWELL INC 1987 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-WATER DEPT 7774.00 6349723 as 9C 3 FEBRUARY 3,1987 32645 HOPKINS PARTS CO CHOKE KIT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 27.67 32646 HYDRAULIC SERVICES INC REBUILT CYLINDER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 337.98 647 IBM FEBRUARY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 181.00 -t648 IDEAL ELECTRIC COMPANY -REPAIR PUMP CONNECTIONS/REPLACE EXTERIOR 441.12 LIGHT-WATER DEPT 32649 IDENTI KIT COMPANY INC EQUIPMENT RENTAL-POLICE DEPT 408.00 32650 INTL ASSOC OF ASSESSING OFFICERS 1987 DUES-ASSESSING DEPT 85.00 32651 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 -DECEMBER 86 CUSTODIAL SERVICE-CITY HALL/ 3819.74 TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNITY CENTER 32652 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC -DECEMBER 86 & JANUARY 87 MAINTENANCE 164.72 AGREEMENTS-PUBLIC SAFETY 32653 J & R RADIATOR CORP HEATER CORE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 42.93 32654 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT & FIRE DEPT 174.95 32655 JUSTUS LUMBER CO PLYWOOD-STREET MAINTENANCE 19.72 32656 MARY KOTTKE BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 80.00 32657 JERRY LADEN DISTRIBUTOR 1987 SERVICE AGREEMENT-FINANCE DEPT 135.00 32658 LA HASS MFG & SALES INC -ASPHALT PATCHING BOX/MOUNTED & PAINTED- 4450.00 STREET MAINTENANCE 32659 LAKEVILLE MOTOR EXPRESS DELIVERY OF AIR TANK-STREET MAINTENANCE 83.10 32660 LANDEY'S CAMPING CENTER ROOF VENT-FIRE DEPT 19.19 32661 THE LANGE GROUP E P SCHOOL DISTRICT BASE MAP-FIRE DEPT 75.00 32662 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD DECEMBER 86 SERVICE-DORENKEMPER LITIGATION 405.00 32663 LEFEVERE LEFLER KENNEDY DECEMBER 86 LEGAL SERVICE 58.50 32664 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC -SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD SANITARY LANDFILL B221.27 FEASIBILITY STUDY 32665 LINHOFF COLOR PHOTO FILM PROCESSING-FORESTRY DEPT 29.50 32666 KEVIN MAAS BROOMBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 108.00 '9667 MACDONALD AND MACK PARTNERSHIP SERVICE-J R CUMMINS HOMESTEAD RESTORATION 710.00 ( 368 MIKE MARUSHIN -TIRE GAUGE/MAGNETIC HOLDER/TEST LIGHT/OIL 151.20 -FILTER WRENCH/CHISEL SET/WRENCHES- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 32669 MARTIN JONES VISIDN CENTER 15 PAIRS OF SAFETY GLASSES-FIRE DEPT 900.00 32670 MASYS CORPORATION -FEBRUARY 87 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/UPGRADE 9766.00 SOFTWARE-POLICE DEPT 32671 PHILIP MATHIOWET2 CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 51.08 32672 MCGLYNN 8AKERIES INC EXPENSES-CITY HALL & PU8LIC SAFETY 42.35 32673 TIM MCGOVERN HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 44.00 32674 MN CRIME PREVENTION OFFICERS ASSN 1987 DUES-POLICE DEPT 25.00 32675 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 52.08 32676 MERIT/JULIAN GRAPHICS FORMS-BUILDING DEPT 136.70 32677 METRO FONE COMM INC FEBRUARY 87 PAGER RENTAL-SEWER DEPT 10.50 32678 METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIP CO DRY CHEMICALS/RELIEF VALVE-FIRE DEPT 80.35 32679 METRO PRINTING INC ENVELOPES/FORMS-PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT 656.00 32680 MIDWEST FENCE SUPPLIES-CANINE UNIT 500.00 32681 M & I INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC -VISE GRIPS/CLEANING SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT 60.90 MAINTENANCE 32682 MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORP GRINDER REPAIRS-PARK MAINTENANCE 44.35 32683 MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO SUBSCRIPTION-CITY MANAGER 17.55 32684 MN CELLULAR TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 37.54 32685 MINNESOTA CHAPTER IAAI 1987 DUES-FIRE DEPT 10.00 32686 MN DEPT OF P/S SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 150.DO 32687 MN POLICE & PEACE OFFICERS ASSN 1987 DUES-POLICE DEPT 261.00 32688 MINNESOTA REC & PARK ASSN 19B7 DUES-COMMUNITY SERVICES 85.00 189 MN RESCUE & FIRST AID ASSN 1987 DUES-FIRE DEPT 10.00 ,90 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS-LIQUOR STORE 75.66 3324465 Q J-CQI FEBRUARY 3,1987 32691 M-V GAS CO SERVICE 266.00 32692 MODERN TIRE CO ALIGN WHEELS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 19.95 (693 R E MOONEY & ASSOC INC PAINT-WATER DEPT 45.22 394 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIRS-POLICE DEPT & FIRE DEPT 431.02 695 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO CABLES/SHOE LINING-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 280.83 32696 NORTH STAR TITLE REFUND-OVERPAYMENT ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 117.94 32697 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO 4TH QUARTER 86 SERVICE 59.62 32698 NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS NA BOND PAYMENTS 3063058.86 32699 LEE OBERG HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 153.00 32700 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC -DISK DRIVE-PLANNING DEPT & PRINTER- 2140.00 ASSESSING DEPT 32701 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC TREE SKIDDER CABLE-FORESTRY DEPT 37.50 32702 HARRY ORTLOFF HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 78.00 32703 CATHY PERIA EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 39.00 32704 PET CREMATION SERVICE SERVICE-ANIMAL CONTROL 20.00 32705 DONALD PETERSON EXPENSES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 15.00 32706 PETTY CASH-PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 36.07 32707 PITNEY BOWES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-COMMUNITY CENTER 392.81 32708. PLUNKETTS INC SERVICE-SENIOR CENTER 85.00 32709 KEITH POKELA VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 104.00 32710 POMMER MFG CO INC RACQUETBALL TROPHIES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 99.00 32711 POWER PROCESS EQUIPMENT INC FLOWMETER REPAIRS-WATER DEPT 144.72 32712 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -REPLACE PADDLE FANS/LAMPBALLASTS-PUBLIC 437.60 SAFETY BUILDING 32713 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN LAWN MOWER REPAIRS-PUBLIC SAFETY 104.75 32714 PRENTICE HALL INC BOOK-HUMAN RESOURCES 61.20 32715 PUMP & METER SERVICE INC SIGN-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 32.54 32716 REGIONAL MUTUAL AID ASSN 1987 DUES-ENGINEERING DEPT 10.00 /^'717 ROBBINSDALE PET SUPPLY CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 384.65 18 RUFFRIGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO PUMP REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 274.55 32719 RUSSELL SMITH ASSOCIATES INC -SERVICE-WESTWIND DR & SCOTCH PINE COURT/ 2200.00 PRESERVE BLVD & ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY 3272D SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 8.00 32721 SAYLORS SDFTWAREFIRST COMPUTER DATA BASE-PUBLIC WORKS 2500.00 32722 SETTER LEACH & LINDSTROM INC -NOVEMBER 86 SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER 11368.09 EXPANSION & NEW FIRE STATION 32723 SHAKOPEE FORD INC -SWITCH/MIRRORS/SOCKETS/SQUAD CAR REPAIRS- 779.85 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 32724 STEVEN R SINELL JANUARY 87 EXPENSES 191.50 32725 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC CAMERAS & FILM-POLICE DEPT 124.93 32726 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC -EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING-CITY HALL & 144.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 32727 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ NARCOTIC TEST KITS-POLICE DEPT 65.50 32728 STS CONUSULTANTS LTD SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT ADDITION 1399.42 32729 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC PUMP TANK-SENIDR CENTER 50.00 32730 SUPERIOR PLASTICS CORP SOCKET FITTINGS-WATER DEPT 33.69 32731 NATALIE SWAGGERT JANUARY 87 EXPENSES 165.00 32732 SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC FILM RENTAL-COMMUNITY CENTER 263.90 32733 TENNESSEE CHEMICAL CO CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 1340.37 32734 THOMPSON PLUMBING REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT 129.00 32735 TIRE TOWN INNER TUBES-COMMUNITY CENTER 105.00 32736 TK ASSOCIATES OF MPLS INC -SERVICE-SURVEY OF RESIDENTS REGARDING 1625.00 NEW CITY OFFICES 32737 TOTAL TOOL CHAIN VISE/PIPE EXTRACTOR-WATER DEPT 261.92 '38 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS -SUPPLIES FOR HOLIDAY SALUTE TO EDEN 43.75 PRAIRIE-COMMUNITY CENTER 309172775 • 32739 TUPCO INC WASTE DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT 10.00 32740 TURF SUPPLY CO FERTILIZER-PARK MAINTENANCE 2812.32 32741 BRUCE TWADDLE BROOM8ALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD: 54.00 32742 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO -OXYGEN/NOZZLE/DIFFUSER-EQUIPMENT 27.42 MAINTENANCE - \..c743 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 516.25 32744 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-FIRE DEPT 347.85 .32745 UNITED LABORATORIES INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 398.26 32746 VOSS ELECTRIC CO LIGHT-BULBS/REPAIRS-PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 552.45 :'327.47 KEITH WALL MEETING EXPENSES 8.00 32748 JIM WALTER PAPERS XEROX PAPER-CITY HALL & PUBLIC SAFETY 398:12 32749 WILLIAM WARNER HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD • 93.00 32750 WATER PRODUCTS CO -8ALL CHOKE VALVE @$393.00/10 BACKFLOW 12091.58 -PREVENTERS FOR CONSTRUCTION METERS -@$4755 EA/3 CHAMBER COUPLINGS @$90.00 EA/24-CHAMBER-COUPLINGS-@$30.60 EA/ -STRAINER/GASKETS/3 1 1/2 1000 GAL MTR -@$295.00 EA/2.1"X1 1/4 1000 GAL MTR -@$145.85 EA/102..5/8 X 3/4;100 GAL MTR -@$45.89 EA/102 3/4..PRESSURE REGULATORS @$27.10:EA/100 N2 COPPERHORN..@$13:10 EA 3275I LYNNETTE WEISGRAM VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD '" • "" 80.00 32752 DON WENDLING 3 2-WAY RADIOS/800STER AMPLIFIER- 1575.00 POLICE DEPT 32753 SANDRA F WERTS MILEAGE 102.05 32754 X ERGON 1ST AID SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 222.09 32755 XEROX CORP -NOVEMBER 86 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-PUBLIC 190.50 SAFETY/LABELS-CITY'HALL . 32756 ZEP MANUFACTURING CO CLEANING SUPPLIES-PUBLIC`WORKS BUILDING 275.20 ^757 JEFF BARBER EXPENSES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 20.00 58 IBM CORP TONER FOR COPIER-CITY HALL .308.00 2008209 $35025B3.12 • • ,. i • DISTRIBUTIONS BY FUND C 10 GENERAL 2219B6.45 11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 39692.47 12 CERTIFICATE DEBT FD 215490.00 15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 51077.46 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 27314.49 25 TRANSIT SYSTEM -17B.57 31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 10391.66 33 UTILITY BOND FUND 19047.67 39 86 FIRE STATION CONSTRUCT 2976.43 44 UTILITY DEBT FUND 497258.83 45 UTILITY DEBT FD ARB 40607.50 47 80 G 0 DEBT FUND 313922.73 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 23951.02 55 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND ARB 216591.25 56 ROAD IMPROVEMENT DEBT FD 150312.40 73 WATER FUND 38550.54 77 SEWER FUND 3886.70 87 CDBG FUND 710.00 91 T I F DEBT FUND 162B994.09 $3502583.12 aa9 6 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS 117 FROM: JOHN FRANE DATE: JANUARY 29, 1987 SUBJECT: Explanation of Fee Resolution changes. 2.5 Adds a license fee of $4.00 for each dog over 3 dogs. 2.6 Adds a fee of $200.00 for an indoor theater. 2.12 The $200.00 annual fee..for a setup license has been removed. We do not issue licenses for setups. 2.13 Deletes the $25.00 amusement center fee. Recent court decisions have held such fees to be illegal. 2.23 Installation of L.P. tanks. The old fee was $25.00 for a permanent tank and $10.00 for a temporary tank. There is:no difference in the inspection process and both fees are now $25.00. 2.23 Burning permits. The old fee was. $10.00 for residents and $50.00 for non-residents. There is no difference in the inspection process and both fees are now $50.00. There is now a limit of 2 days per week. 2.26 Incinerators: fee was $20.00 now is $25.00. Keeps fire, inspection permits at the same cost. 2.39 System access charges (charges to connect to the city's water and sewer system). B. Adds $25.00 to each charge except the $105.00 charge. This change is in conformity with the city's plan to recover the costs of the trunk water and sewer system with.a combination of special assessments, connection charges, and user fees. The connection charge should increases yearly. 3.3 Adds a charge of $50.00 for an administration land division. ) • C. 3.8 A. Ice Rental Prime time from $70.00 to $75.00 per hour. • School education classes from $17.50 to $20.00 per hour. Community groups booking 100 hours or more of time. Prime time from $65.00 to $70.00 per hour. Non-prime time from $32.50 to $35.00 per hour. Hockey games from $70.00 to $72.50 per hour. 3.9 Park Facility Fees Were: • ! of persons Fee 25-50 $ 25.00 51-100 50.00 • 101-150 75.00 151-200 100.00 201-300 150.00 No group over 300 can reserve facilities except at Staring Lake Park which is 150. Changes recommended by the Park, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission was incorporated into the 1987 budget. • • • • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 87-09 A RESOLUTION REGULATING FEES AND CHARGES FOR BUSINESS LICENSES PERMITS AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie resolves as follows: INDEX SECTION 1 FEES, CHARGES AND RATES AUTHORIZED AND DEFINED SECTION 2 FEES, RATES AND CHARGES PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 3 OTHER FEES, RATES AND CHARGES SECTION 1. FEES, CHARGES, AND RATES AUTHORIZED AND DEFINED The fees, charges and rates imposed for the purposes set forth in this Resolution for licenses, permits and municipal services shall, after adoption hereof, be in the amounts set forth in the following sections. SECTION 2. FEES, RATES AND CHARGES PURSUANT TD CITY CODE The following fees, rates and charges required to be fixed and determined by Resolution of the City Council pursuant to the City Code and for other licenses, permits and municipal services are hereby fixed, determined and adopted as hereinafter set forth. Business Licenses: 2.1 CIGARETTES (section 5.35) Annual $12.00 2.2 CONTRACTORS (Section 5.33) Annual One & two family $15.00 Multi-family & commercial $25.00 2.3 DANCE HALLS (Section 5.31 & 5.32) Annual Public Shows or Dances $400.00 if live musicians are employed. $100.00 where music is provided exclusively by electrical or mechanical device(s). Incidental Shows or Dances $300.00 if live musicians are employed. $50.00 where music is provided exclusively by electrical or mechanical device(s). $25.00 when live musicians are employed and when the applicant is a religious, charitable or other non-profit organ- ization and the permit is for a special event or limit- ed period; when music is to be provided exclusively by electrical or mechanical means for such non-profit organization, the fee shall be $10.00. No fee is required for dances conducted by the Park and Recreation Department, any agency of the Eden Prairie School District, or the Eden Prairie Foundation. 2.4 DOGS (Section 9.07) License: Male Annual $4.00 Female Annual $4.00 Impounding fees: $25 - 1st offense/year $50 - 2nd offense/year $100 - 3rd offense/year Boarding fee: $7.50 per day Euthanasia fee: $5.00 2.5 DOG KENNELS (Section 5.60) Annual Commercial $50.00 Private $25.00* *Includes three individual dog licenses and tags. An additional $4.00 for each dog over three dogs. 2.6 DRIVE-IN THEATERS (Section 5.31) Annual $300.00 Theaters Annual $200.00 2.7 FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS (section 5.38) A. Restaurants, stores, supermarkets, manufacturing and processing plants, etc. $225.00 Supplementary areas: bar, kitchen, meat market, bakery, grocery store, other. each $ 15.00 B. Bottled soft drinks and packaged products sold in prepackaged form each $ 40.00 supplementary area $ 10.00 C. Other food establishments not in "A" each $175.00 supplementary area $ 15.00 Itinerant food establishment first day $ 50.00 each additional day $ 10.00 Temporary food license $ 35.00 Retail candy shop - when operated in connection with another licensed food establishment $ 10.00 Retail candy outlet $ 55.00 Readily perishable food vehicle, first truck $ 50.00 including bakery food vehicle additional $ 30.00 Vending machines for food or beverage each $ 15.00 Catering food vehicle $100.00 2.8 GAMBLING (see Ordinance No. 1-83) Annual Fee $300.00 Temporary Fee $ 40.00 2.9 GAS FITTERS Annual Class A $ 15.00 2.10 GRAVEL MINING (Section 11.55) Application Annual Performance fee license bond Land alteration incidental mining (0 to 25,000 c.y.) total plan volume $ 200.00 $100.00 $1,000.00 Borrow pit, with 25,000 - 75,000 c.y. annual plan volume $2,000.00 $300.00 $10,000.00 Borrow pit with more than 75,000 c.y. annual volume 52,500.00 $750.00 $10,O00.00 2.11 HEATING & VENTILATING Annual $ 15.00 2.12 LIQUOR (Chapter 4) Non-intoxicating malt liquors Annual Application fee $100.00 On-sale $ 50.00 Off-sale $ 10.00 '.` Liquor On-sale Annual $7500.00 Investigation fee $50000* Liquor On-sale - fraternal Clubs - Annual $100.00 Investigation fee $500.00* non-fraternal Clubs-Annual- 50% of annual on-sale fee Investigation fee $500.00* Liquor On-Sale - wine Annual $2000.00 Application fee $250.00 Sunday Liquor Annual $200.00 Employee License Annual $ 10.00 *An investigation fee not to exceed $500 shall be charged an applicant by the City if the investigation is conducted within the state, or the actual cost not to exceed $10,000 if the investigation is required outside the State, shall be charged an applicant by the City. 2.13 MECHANICAL AMUSEMENT DEVICES & AMUSEMENT CENTERS (Section 5.30) For each of the first three machines/devices ("A") $ 25.00 Juke boxes, kids rides, etc. per machine ("B" &-"C") $ 25.00 2.14 PEDDLERS (Section 5.37) Annual-evidence of State License E 5.00 2.15 PLUMBING LICENSE No fee - State Bond/Insurance required 2.16 PUBLIC SERVICES Refuse & garbage collectors (Section 5.36) Annual 1st vehicle $ 30.00 Each additional vehicle $ 15.00 Scavengers (Section 5.34) Annual $ 10.00 2.17 WATER SOFTENING & FILTERING No fee - State License required 2.18 WELLS No fee - State License required 2.19 BUILDING PERMITS (Section 10.06) Total Valuation Fee $1.00 to $500.00 $10.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $10.00 for the first $500.00 plus $1.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $32.50 for the first $2,000.00 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $170.50 for the first $25,000 plus $4.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof,to and including $50,000.00 $50,000.01 to $100,000.00 $283.00 for the first $50,000 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,000.00 and up $433.00 for the first $100,000 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof. PLAN CHECKING FEES: Plan checking fee shall be 65% of the building permit fee. 2.20 DEMOLISHING OR RAZING BUILDINGS (Section 10.05) $ 25.00 2.21 EXCAVATION & GRADING (Chapter 70, U.B.C. 1986 & City Engineer's approval) Plan Checking Fees Fee 101 to I000 cubic yards $22.50 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards $30.00 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $30.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $15.00 for each addi- tional 10,000 cubic yards or frac- tion thereof. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $165.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $9.00 for each additi- onal 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 200,001 cubic yards or more $255.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards, plus $4.50 for each additi- onal 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Other Inspections and Fees Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approve plans: (minimum charge = one half hour) - $30.00 per hour. Grading Permit Fees 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $22.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $10.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards plus $9.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $40.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 or more $562.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards plus $22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Other Inspections and Fees Inspections outside of normal business hours $30.00 per hour* (minimum charge = 2 hours) Reinspection fee assessed under provisions of $30.00 each* Section 305 (g) Inspection for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge = one-half hour) $30.00 per hour* Additional plan review required by changes, additions, or revisions to approved plans (minimum charge - one-half hour) $30.00 per hour* *or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. 2.22 EXCAVATION OF STREETS (Section 6.07) $10.00 1 2.23 FIRE PREVENTION PERMITS (Section 9.05) Storage & handling of flammable liquids $25.00 Storage & handling of corrosive liquids $25.00 Dry cleaning establishments $25.00 Hazardous chemicals $25.00 Resurfacing & refinishing $25.00 Installation of LP tanks $25.00 Installation of flammable & combustible liquid tanks $25.00 per tank Tents $25.00 Grease vapor removal system cleaning (per cleaning) $25.00 Fireworks $25.00+ (+ = standby firefighters at present hourly rate) Explosives, storage or handling $25.00 Burning permits, limit 2 days per week $50.00 per week Fire alarm system (10.06) - based on valuation - see 2.19 2.24 HEATING & VENTILATION (Chapter 10) A fee for the issuance of a permit for work and for making inspect- ions pursuant to applicable ordinances shall be as set forth in the sections which follow, except as provided in the State Building Code. A. Job Valuation 0 to $1,000 2% (.02) of job value - minimum of $10 $1,000 to $10,000 $20 for the first $1,000 plus $1.25 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof to and including $10,000. $10,001 to $50,000 $132.50 for the first $10,000 plus $1.00 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000. $50,001 and up $532.50 for the first $50,000 plus $7.50 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof. B. Gas Piping For 3 openings on gas up to 2" $3.00 Each additional opening $1.00 Over 2" $7.50 Each additional opening' $1.00 C. Reinspection Fee $30.00 each D. Double Fee - all work started without a permit C 2.25 HUNTING flr Landowner free Resident $ 5.00 Non-resident $10.00 2.26 INCINERATORS (Section 9.05) $25.00 2.27 MOVING A BUILDING (Section 10.05) $1,000 deposit each from the owners of the building and building mover. Moving a building $250.00 Moving a garage only $50.00 2.28 PLUMBING (Chapter 10) Fixtures - each $ 5.00 Rough-in fixtures $ 5.00 Setting fixtures on previous $ 5.00 Electric water heater $ 5.00 New ground run for existing building $ 5.00 Sump and receiving tank $ 5.00 Water treating device (softener) $ 7.50 Washer openings $ 2.00 Silicocks $ 2.00 For extending water lines 5.00 $ Sewage disposal (individual) $1 .00 Municipal sewer per 100 feet $10.00 Municipal water per 100 feet $10.00 Meter inspection and sealing $15.00 Inside change over - sewer, water or both $ 7.50 For 3 openings on gas up to 2" $ 3.00 Each additional opening $ 1.00 Over 2" $ 7.50 Each additional opening $ 1.00 Storm sewer & sub soil drains per 100 feet $ 7.50 Gas stove $ 5.00 Bar-b-que $ 5.00 Incinerator $ 5.00 Minimum permit fee $ 7.50 Other Inspections and Fees Reinspection fee $30.00 each Double fee - all work started without a permit 1 2.29 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS (Section 9.05) tir 1 - 5 heads $15.00 6 - 25 heads $15.00 first 5 heads plus $10.00 each additional 10 heads or fraction thereof. 26 - 50 heads $35.00 first 25 heads plus $ 7.50 each additional 10 heads or fraction thereof. 51 - 200 heads $57.50 first 50 heads plus $ 5.00 each additional 10 heads or fraction thereof. 201 and up $132.50 first 200 heads plus $ 2.50 each additional 10 heads or fraction thereof. Relocate sprinkler heads, piping or appliances - fees are the same as described above for new installations. Standpipes 1- 3 floors $15.00 each stairway $10.00 each additional floor or fraction thereof for each stairway 2.30 SIGNS (Section 11.70) Up to 33 square feet in size $12.00 33 square feet through 60 square feet in size $15.00 61 square feet to 100 square feet in size $18.00 Each additional 100 square feet or portion thereof not exceeding 300 square feet additional - per year $ 2.00 Each additional 100 square feet or portion thereof over a total of 400 square feet additional $ 2.50 Fees shall not be pro-rated for a period of time less than shown. The surfaces of double or multi-faced signs shall be combined for the purpose of determining the amount of the fee. 2.31 SEPTIC SYSTEM PUMPING (Section 10.02) $ 5.00 2.32 WATER SOFTENING AND FILTERING (Chapter 10) $ 5.00 2.33 WELLS (Section 10.04) $15.00 Development Fees 2.34 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) (Section 11.40) $300 minimum or $5/acre - whichever is greater. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT $300 minimum or $5/acre - whichever is greater. 2.35 ZONING (Section 11.77) $300 minimum or $5/unit (residential) - whichever is greater. $300 minimum or $25/acre (commercial, industrial, office, public) whichever is greater. 2.36 PLATTING (Section 12.04) $200 minimum or $5/lot (residential - whichever is greater) $200 minimum or $25/acre (commercial, industrial, office, public)- whichever is greater. SITE PLAN REVIEW $300 minimum or $5/acre - whichever is greater. 2.37 CASH PARK FEES (Section 12.40) Single family unit $420.00 All other residential $320.00 per unit Office, commercial, industrial $2300.00/acre 2.38 SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE PERMITS (11.50) Temporary structure in public waters $1D.00 Change in structure in public waters $10.00 Multiple dock or dock in excess of 75' $10.00 Variance request for dock in authorized dock use area $10.00 Utility Charges (Section 3.02) 2.39 SYSTEM ACCESS CHARGES A. For Metropolitan sanitary sewer: as established by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. B. For sanitary sewer - $175 per R.E.C. plus $105 $350 each Metro SAC for industrial, public, office - plus $105. $525 each Metro SAC for commercial - plus $105. For water - $375 per R.E.0 $ 750 each Metro SAC for industrial, public, office. $1125 each Metro SAC for commercial. 2.40 USER CHARGES A. Sanitary sewer $1.35 per 1,000 gallons subject to a minimum of 5,000 gallons per quarter per R.E.C. B. Water - $.95 per 1,000 gallons subject to a minimum of 5,000 gallons per quarter per R.E.C. C. The minimum monthly use charge for uses other than residential shall be the same as 1 R.E.C. D. A residential equivalent connection (R.E.C.) is one dwelling unit. E. In addition to the charges in A., B., C., and D. each R.E.C. will be billed: $6.25 fixed charge for water and $6.25 fixed charge for sewer per quarter. F. Unmetered residential sewer only use charges are $20.65 per quarter per R.E.C. plus a $6.25 fixed charge. G. Penalty for billed charges: 1% per month on account not paid within 30 days of billing. 2.41 WATER/SEWER CONNECTION FEE (Section 3.07) A. In addition to applicable charges listed above, a connection fee of $7400 per single unit is applicable if the property has not participated in the cost of the utilities by other methods. ( SECTION 3. OTHER FEES, RATES AND CHARGES 3.1 GUIDE PLAN CHANGE $300 minimum or $5/acre - whichever is greater. 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (E.A.W.) $300 minimum or $5/acre - whichever is greater. 3.3 ENGINEERING SERVICES TO LAND DEVELOPERS For consultations, utility and street plans and specifications, general and final inspection of improvements and special assessment division (collected at time of final plat): Residential Per unit $40.00/unit (minimum $250.00) Commercial, Industrial, Office and Public Per acre $100.00 per acre (minimum $250.00) Plus cost of review by special consultants necessary as determined by the City Manager. Deposit required. Administrative Land Division $ 50.00 4 3.31 CHARGES FOR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENT VACATION FEE Application fee per each transaction for vacating the City's interest in real property, including right-of-way and easements (for consultation, review, notice mailing, publication of notice, and recording). $100.00 3.4 APPEAL TO BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS $ 20.00 3.5 ZONING AMENDMENT AND ZONING APPEAL (Appealing to Building Code Board of Appeals) Zoning amendment $200.00 Residential (includes building additions, decks, and Code interpretations) $ 75.00 Other (includes variances associated with office, industrial, commercial development and variances associated with new construction) $125.00 Plus cost of review by City Staff and/or special consultants necessary as determined by the City Manager. Deposit required. 3.6 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SEARCHES $10.00 per parcel. No charge for Eden Prairie residents on searches of their homesteaded property. 3.7 MAPS AND PRINTING $ .50 per square foot for miscellaneous printing. $3.00 each for small size (2' x 3' or less) City maps. $5.00 each for large size City maps. $12.50/acre for Mark Hurd Co. topography maps previously purchased by the City, except $5.00/sheet if topo map purchased by other than City and with original purchaser's permission. New order through Mark Hurd Co. - their original charge plus $.50/acre. Duplicating costs: $.50 for the first 5 pages of any file and $.25 for each additional page, plus postage, if any. $75 annual charge for City Council Minutes (pro-rated) $50 annual charge for Planning Commission minutes (pro-rated) 3.8 COMMUNITY CENTER A. Ice Arena Rental - prime-time = $75.00/hour (with applicable tax) Non prime-time = $65.00/hour (3 a.m. to 2 p.m. on days when school is in session.) School District Educational Classes = $20.00/hour School District Hockey Team practice, Hockey Association of Eden Prairie, Eden Prairie Figure Skating Club and any other Com- munity Group that books a minimum of 100 hours of ice time: prime-time = $70.00/hour, non-prime time = $35.00/hour. Hockey games = $72.50/hour (personnel required to run the games supplied by others - school keeps 100% of the gate minus ice time and personnel costs.) Individual open skating fees 17 years and under = $1.00 18 years and older = $2.00 Family skate = $4.00/family Recommended open skating times: Monday, Wednesday & Friday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; Friday nights from 8 - 11 p.m.; Saturdays from 1 - 4 p.m. and 8 - 11 p.m.; and Sunday after- noons (family skate) from 1 - 4 p.m. B. Swimming Pool Residents: Rental fee - group reservations: 25 participants or less is $27.50/hour with 1 Staff person; 25 - 50 participants is $34.50/hour with 2 Staff persons; and over 50 participants is $42.50/hour with 3 Staff persons. Non-Residents: $70.00/hour plus $5.00/hour/lifeguard School District Educational classes = $17.50/hour School District/Foxjet after school use (team practice) = $20/hour School District/Foxjet swim meets = $22.50/hour Individual open swimming fees: 19 and older = $2.00 5 - 18 years = $1.00 Tots 4 years and under = $.50 (accompanied by an adult) Recommended open swimming times: Open family and adult swim- ming times would be spaced throughout the day Monday through Friday. Longer sessions would be available on Saturdays and Sundays. Hours would range from 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours Monday through Thursday. Friday, Saturday and Sunday would range from 1 1/2 - 4 hours to accommodate family recreational swimming. C. Racquetball Courts Rental fee - School District use = $12/hour for 3 courts (includes use of available racquets and eye protectors.) D. Fitness Center Rental $35.00/hour Individual use = $1.00 E. Meeting Rooms Only private profit-oriented groups will be charged for use of meeting rooms. Room #1 = $10.00 per hour - first floor Room #2 = $10.00 per hour - first floor Rooms #1 & #2 = $20.00 per hour - first floor Room #3 = $15.00 per hour - second floor F. Lockers There is no charge for lockers, but members/guests must provide own locks. G. Membership Fees All memberships become due January 1st of any given year; member- ships purchased after January 1st are pro-rated on a monthly basis. Non-resident fees are approximately 150% of those charged for residents. Swimming & Fitness Membership Family = $85.00 Individual = $50.00 Scheduled open swims are free; free use of fitness center. Fitness Membership Family = $40.00 Individual = $25.00 Free use of fitness center. Racquetball & Fitness Membership Family = $85.00 Individual = $50.00 $2.50 per member for racquetball court; free use of fitness center. Swimming, Skating and Fitness Membership Family = $120.00 Individual = $80.00 Scheduled open swims are free, scheduled open skating is free, free use of fitness center. Swimming, Racquetball & Fitness Membership Family = $135.00 Individual = $85.00 Scheduled open swims are free, $2.50 per member for racquetball court, free use of fitness center. H. Daily Use Fees Ice Arena - open skating 19 and over = $2.00 18 and under = $1.00 Family skate = $4.00 per family Swimming Pool - open swim 19 and over = $2.00 5 - 18 years = $1.00 4 and under (accompanied by paying adult) _ $.50 Fitness Center $1.00 per day Racquetball Courts Live or work in Eden Prairie (proof required) _ $3.50 per person per hour. Anyone outside of Eden Prairie = $4.25 per person per hour Persons with racquetball memberships will pay $2.50 per person per hour. Maximum court fee = $10.00/hour I. Policy of Group Rates and Liabilities Supervision will be at the discretion of the Center Management. This will be based on the number of people to be using the Center as well as the age and type of group. Necessary life guards, building supervisor(s) and people to operate specialized equipment will be provided. Fees are $500 for City residents/groups; $650 for out of town groups. Fees are based on use of the Center from 11:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. on a lock-in basis. An insurance policy for liability is also required. The maximum number in a group is 600. Liability limits are $500,000 - bodily injury; $100,000 - property damage; and $500,000 - personal injury. 3.9 PARK FACILITY FEES Fees are based on the number of people in attendance. Eden Prairie Public service groups will not be charged a fee. Groups or companies outside of Eden Prairie may reserve facilities after June 1 of the current year only if they have a branch office in Eden Prairie or have Eden Prairie residents as employees. Facility Use Fee Deposit Indoors Outdoors Round Lake Park Bldg $ 50.00 $ 50.00 60 150 Round Lake Park Pavilion $ 25.00 $ 50.00 75 150 Staring Lake Park Bldg $ 50.00 $ 50.00 60 150 Outdoor Center $150.00 $100.00 50 100 Fireplace Wood (Staring) $ 10.00 12 logs Pig Roast (exterior electric) $ I0.00 Dunk Tanks (Approval required)$ 10.00 Picnic Kit $ 15.00 Outdoor Hockey Rink 9 - 10 P.M. (Sunday - Thursday) $ 30.00/hour No private group of over 300 will be allowed to reserve facilities at any park. (Maximum number at Staring Lake Park will be 150.) 3.10 ASSESSING FEES Abatement fee = $5.00 per parcel per year. Copy of Appraisal/Field Card = $2.00 3.11 CITY CODE City Code - bound copy = $25.00 City Code — Chapter 1I = $ 4.00 City Code - Chapter 12 = $ 3.00 3.12 TAX EXEMPT FINANCING CHARGES $800 application fee 1/8 of 1% per year on the unpaid principal balance Fees not stated in this Resolution may be set by the City Manager. All Resolutions of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, relating to fees heretofore adopted are hereaby repealed. ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of 1987. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk MEMORANDUM lir TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Natalie J. Swaggert, Director of Human Resources FROM: Elizabeth Kelly, Chair, Human Rights and Services Commission SUBJECT: Ordinance 4-37 DATE: January 29, 1987 Section 2.16 of the City Code deals with the Human Rights and Services Commission. This section has been reviewed and updated by the Commission to better reflect its focus in dealing with human rights and services in the City of Eden Prairie. Specific changes and the rationale for those changes are as follows: Section 1. Subd. 1. Change Commission composition from 7 to 9 members to better reflect the 13 designated areas of human service activities and specialization as outlined in Section 2. Subd. 2. F. Section 2. Subd. 2. A. Paragraph has been modified to remove unnecessary wording. Subd. 2. B. Paragraph has been updated to reflect current legislation. Subd. 2. C. Additional language added to clarify the Commission's role in carrying out the State mandate. Subd. 2. D. [old] Original language too vague -- lacked meaningful interpretation so paragraph was eliminated. Subd. 2. D. [formerly Subd. E.] Rewritten to focus the scope of the Commission's influence and recognize the advisory nature of the Commission's role. Subd. 2. E. [new] Paragraph added to define the Commission's role in working with other agencies to ensure that the City's human service needs are addressed. Subd. 2. F. [old] Paragraph was unnecessary because of expansion of Paragraph 2. B. Subd. 2. F. [new] Paragraph was added to better focus on the areas of human services to be addressed by the Commission in its advisory role to the City Council. Subd. 2. G. [old] Deleted because focus was only on group homes. Subd. 2. G. [new] Paragraph added to define the Commission's role in working with consultants hired to perform work in the area of Human Services planning and delivery within the cortmunity. Subd. 2. H. II. [old] Paragraphs deleted as they addressed only group homes. Subd. 2. H. [new] Changes reflect current terminology. Subd. 2. 0. - Q. [old] Paragraphs deleted as they focused only on group homes. Paragraph Q. refers to a Human Services Needs Board which is no longer in existence. Section 3. Subd. 3. Paragraph reflects wording recommended to Commission by City Attorney. In Summary The Commission voted to recommend to the City Council approval of the changes as outlined in the attached Ordinance 4-87. NJS:km 1 ORDINANCE NO. 7-t AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2.16 BY AMENDING SECTION 2.16, SUED. 1 AND SUED. 2 AND ADDING SECTION 2.16 SUED. 3. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code Section 2.16, Subd. 1 is hereby amended to read: Subd. 1. Establishment and Composition. A Human Rights and Services Commission, composed of seven--(9} [nine (9)] members, is hereby established for the purpose of securing for all citizens equal opportunity in employment, housing, public accomodations, public services and education and full participation in the af- fairs of the City by assisting the Minnesota Department of Human Rights in implementing State laws against discrimination and by advising the [City] Council in long-range programs to improve eommunitp-relations-in-the-City [ensure human service needs are Net] . Commission members shall serve staggered three-year terms. Section 2. Eden Prairie City Code Section 2.16, Subd. 2 is hereby amended to read: Subd. 2. Duties. Duties of the Human Rights and Services Commission are to: A. Adopt by-laws end-rules for the conduct of its affairs including-the-election;-assumption-of-duties-end-definition of-responsibilities-of-officers-and-committees. B. Maintain-a-memorandum-of-agreement [Perform the re- sponsibilities assigned to it in any current work share agreement which it has entered into] with the State Department of Human Rights for-the-purpose-of-determining-regulatory-and-enforcement-procedures. C. Enlist the cooperation of agencies, organizations and individuals in the community in an active program directed to create equal opportunity and [to educate the community in order to] elimin- ate discrimination and inequalities. B---Formulate-e-human-relations-pregrem-for-the-city-to give-inereesed-effectiveness-end-direction-to-the-work-of-aii-indi- viduels-end-agencies-addressing-themselves-to-pienning;-pe+icy-making end-educational-programming-in-the-area-of-civil-end-human-rights:. E- [D.] Advise the Mayor, the Council and other agencies of the government on human relations and civil rights [issues and] problems. Act in an advisory capacity with-respect-to-planning-or operetior.-of-any-city-department [to the City] on issues of civil and human rights end-recommend E. Recommend] the adoption of sueh specific policies of actions as are needed to provide-for-full [ensure] equal opportunity in the community. (E. Assist in the development, formulation and implemen- tation of a comprehensive plan to serve as a guideline to ensure that the human service needs of the community are defined and met.] F---Develop-in-cooperation-with-the-State-Bepartment-of Human-Rights-sneh-programs-of-formes-end-informei-eduention-es-will assist-in-the-impiementetion-of-the-Minnesota-State-Act-Against-Bis- eriminetion-anal-provide-for-the-eommissionls-assumption-of-leadership in-recognizing-and-resolving-potential-problem-areas-in-the-community- [F. Review and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council on the development of and/or funding of activities, programs, agencies, and facilities related to but not limited to the following areas of human services: -2- r . ir • 1. child/adult protection 2. personal/public health 3. senior citizen services 4. chemical dependency services 5. youth services 6. mental health services 7. community/public education 8. financial/emergency assistance 9. handicapped services 10. transportation 11. child care/day care 12. housing (for special populations) 13. information/referral and coordination] 6:--eentinne-evainatien-ef-city-eede-previsions-and-pro- eednres-in-order-te-accommodate-city-grenp-homes-experience- (G. Recommend to the Mayor and City Council the use of consulting services and resources to address specific human rights and services projects. Participate in selection of consultants and review project progress and recommendations.] H---Maintain-an-np-te-dote-inventory-of-grenp-home-leea- tiens7-and-passibirerees-fer-heme-locations-that-may-be-available- i---eversee-the-relationship-between-facilities-and-its neighborhood-environment;-and-suggest-and-eneenrage-eemmnnieatien between-grenp-homes-and-the-eemmnnity-and-initiate-if-necessary: 3---Review-e}}-appiicatiens-far-grenp-homes-in-eenferm- ante-with-the-requirements-ef-the-Bening-ehapter7-end-prepare-a repart-which-deteiis-hew-each-home-meets-city-eede-and-State-law previsions- KT--Estebiish-iiaisan-with-appropriate-State-agencies- and-eemmnnity-grasps-that-provide-services-for-grenp-home-residents er-are-involved-in-their-regniatien:--To-net-as-e-mediator-te-resolve problems-or-misunderstandings-between-homes-end-neighbors-cc-State agencies- ' ,IL -3- b---Resign-and-recommend-implementation-of-neighborhood and-eomminity-wide-eddeatien-programs-to-enable-eitizens-to-better understand-the-needs-and-eapaeilities-of-group-heme-residents-and enable-gran,-home-residents-to-better-understand-opportunities avaiiabie-to-them-within-the-Eity- M---Work-with-the-State-and-Eounty-agencies-involved-with deinstitdtionalization-policies-to-give-Eden-Prairie-deeision-makers correct-and-advanced-knowledge-of-new-programs-or-regulations: N- [H.] Provide a forum for all citizens to express ideas concerning the-community-based-services-concept [human rights and services within the community] . A---Reveler)-ways-that-group-home-residents-can-better-atil- lee-Eityfreiigioasfseheeifeivie-organizations-services: P---Piet-as-coordinator-of-all-group-and-foster-homes-to maximize-their-eemmunication-enabiing-better-eeenemie-effieieney-and program-eempatibiiity- @---Assist-ail-supervised-residential-programs-or-soeiei rehabtlitation-programs-and-perform-aii-functions-that-might-be-per- formed-by-a-Human-Services-Needs-HoardfEommittee- Section 3. Eden Prairie City Code Section 2.16, Subd. 3 is hereby adopted to read: [Subd. 3. Removal. Commission members may be removed by the City Council pursuant to City Code, Section 2.10. Just cause for removal includes, but is not limited to, three or more absences from s: Commission meetings which have not been excused by the Chairperson {> of the Commission during a 12-month period.] -4- • CSection 4. 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 , 1985, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of 1985. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1985. _-5- CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 87-29 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BLUFFS EAST FOURTH ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Bluffs East Fourth Addition has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of—the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY • OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for Bluffs East Fourth Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated January 26, 1987. B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said engineer's report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on February 3, 1987. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL , John D. Frane, Clerk , ��' CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THRDUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician DATE: January 26, 1987 SUBJECT: BLUFFS EAST FOURTH ADDITION PROPDSAL: Hustad Development Corporation has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Bluffs East Fourth Addition located south of Bluffs East Third Addition and north of Creek Knolls in the North 1/2 of Section 36. This plat contains 186 acres to be divided into 57 single family residential lots and 9 outlots. Dutlots A, B and C, containing 4.66, 10.21 and 6.68 acres respectively, consist of flood plain and steep slopes adjacent to Purgatory Creek and may eventually be dedicated to the City. Outlots F, G and I, containing 0.88, 29.27 and 45.44 acres respectively, are intended to be / developed and replatted in the future. Dutlots D, E and H l contain D.D9, 0.004 and 0.20 acres respectively and may be included with adjacent parcels. At this time, the ownership of Dutlots D through I will be retained by the Developer. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on May 2D, 1986, per Resolution 86-101. Zoning to RI-13.5 and PUD approval for 186 acres was approved by the City Council on August 19, 1966, per Ordinance 24-86- PUD-3-86. The Developers Agreement referred to within this report was executed on August 19, 1986. VARIANCES: A variance from the requirements of City Code 12.70 Subd. 2.A, waiving the maximum six month 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 utilities and streets to be municipally owned and maintained will be installed through Improvement Contract 52- 096. Page 2 Final Plat Bluffs East Fourth Addition 1/26/87 I The street names "Red Fox Lane" and "Mallard Court" conflict with existing street names. Revised street names must be submitted to and reviewed by the Engineering Division prior to release of the plat. The new names must appear on the record plat. Item 7 of the Developer's Agreement refers to the vacation of Franlo and Bluff Roads. Vacation Request 86-02, vacating these roadways, is scheduled for.City Council review on February 17, 1987. Attached to this plat report is a memorandum from the City Attorney addressing a request from an adjacent property owner for dedication of a public access. PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication requirements are covered in the Developer's Agreement. Scenic or conservation easements, conforming to the requirements of the Purgatory Creek Study, must be provided I prior to release of the plat. BONGING: '- Bonding shall conform to the requirements of the City Code and Oeveloper's Agreement. All municipal utilities and streets for this project are to be installed under Improvement Contract 52-D96. RECDMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Bluffs East Fourth Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developers Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $1495. 2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $8141. 3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $2280. 4. Revision of street names. 5. Receipt of scenic or conservation easements. 6. Receipt of Deeds that transfer ownership of Outlots 0, E, and H to the adjacent property owners. 7. Proper vacation of segments of roadways prior to plat release. OLO:sg cc: Mr. Jeff Lindgren, Hedlund Engineering Mr. Wallace Hustad, Hustad Oevelopment , I . JoHN G. RosrIOLT ATTORNEY AT LAW 1000 FIRST BANE PLACE WEST 120 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 tele)330-12O0 January 27, 1987 The Honorable Gary Peterson Mayor of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Bluffs East, 4th & 5th Additions Dear Mayor Peterson: I understand that the developer will be seeking final plat approval for the above subdivision at the February 3 Council meeting. As you will recall I represent the Wilkie family, owners of 8.1 acres lying between Purgatory Creek and the proposed subdivision. If the plat is approved the Wilkies will have no access to their land as shown below. WA.x.r..y I am writing to reiterate the Wilkies' opposition to the plat, to outline its harsh and unjust consequences, and to suggest a way for the Council to resolve this unfortunate 5 situation. But before doing so, I would like to introduce my clients and place their predicament in its historical context. Wilkie Family The Wilkies are the three sons of James and Agnes Wilkie, who lived in Eden Prairie from 1939 until their recent deaths. The senior Wilkies were prominent members of this community. They are remembered for their interest in land conservation and public-spirited generosity. The family gave 1 ,100 acres for the James J. Wilkie regional park and arranged for a bargain price acquisition of 900 acres on Cleary Lake for a park there. The Wilkies share a legacy of respect for the land and an understand- ing of the public interest in both publicly and privately held land. The Honorable Gary Peterson January 27, 1987 Page 2 The Wilkies were disappointed when they saw the proposed plat for Bluffs East, 4th & 5th Additions. While the plan has a number of environmentally attractive features it does not maximize the public's ability to enjoy the Purgatory Creek valley. If Bluff Road were placed along the valley's ridge, the public would have a dramatic vista to enjoy while walking or driving in the area. Instead, the plan calls for lots between the road and the creek. Enjoyment of the valley's beauty will be confined to those who buy adjacent lots. The plan having foreclosed the Wilkies' option of leaving their land as it is for the public's enjoyment, they turned their attention to its residential potential. The Wilkies are not developers but they recognize that the Bluffs East plan requires that they either sell their land as residential lots or see its value disappear. It was that recognition, rather than a desire for profit, that led them to explore the possibility of residential use. The attached plans, which were developed by Krueger & Associates engineers and have been reviewed by Chris Enger, show that the land is sufficiently large for either one or two lots. Three aspects of the plans should be noted. First, they conclusively show that the Wilkie land has value as residential property. Second, they represent full conformity to Eden Prairie zoning ordinances. Third, they would not require any change in Bluff Road or diminish the number of lots in the proposed subdivision. The Issue Fundamentally the issue before the Council is whether the Wilkies are to be treated equally with the Bluffs East developer. Will the Council approve a plat giving full access to the land owned by Hustad Development Corporation, so that it might maximize its development value, while denying access to the Wilkies' land and thereby rendering it valueless? Or, will the Council recognize that basic notions of fairness preclude an action which would result in a developer's profiting at the expense of its neighbor? Wilkies Are Entitled To Access The unfairness of depriving someone of access to their land, and thereby depriving them of its value, is an obvious proposi— tion. It is also reflected in the Eden Prairie ordinances. The Honorable Gary Peterson January 27, 1987 Page 3 Section 12.30 (Minimum Subdivision Design Standards), subd. 2, provides that "where adjoining areas are not subdivided, the arrangement of streets shall make provision for the proper projection of streets into adjoining areas." And Section 12.30, subd. 3(L), states: (L) Hardship to Owners of Adjoining Property Avoided. The street arrangements shall not be such as to cause hardship to owners of adjoining property in platting their own land and providing convenient access to it. The Bluffs East plat does not meet those requirements. Not only does the Bluffs East plat deprive the Wilkies of the value of their land, it appropriates that value for the developer. If the Wilkies' land were left inaccessible, it would serve as a private park for those buying the developer's lots, thereby enhancing the value of those lots. Thus, the effect of approving the pending plat would be to enable the developer to appropriate the value of its neighbor's property. Council Can Prevent That Result When the Council gave preliminary approval on May 20, 1986, its members expressed the hope that the developer and the Wilkies could work out some way to provide access. The Wilkies took the initiative in trying to solve the problem. Even though the Wilkies believe that the Eden Prairie ordinances require that they be given access, they have offered to buy an easement from the developer. The developer has categorically refused to even negotiate the sale of an easement. Perhaps there is no reason why it should. If the developer can get final approval it will have appropriated the value of the Wilkie land--a much more valuable thing than compensation it would receive for an easement. There is nothing to encourage the developer to deal fairly with the Wilkies. But, the Council is not obligated to grant final plat approval. In the first place, the developer has not complied with the condition expressed by the Council when preliminary plat approval was given last May, i.e., that the developer work out a solution to the access problem with the Wilkies. Secondly, the preliminary plat approval granted last May has expired. Section 12.20, subd. 2, of Eden Prairie Ordinances provides: The Honorable Gary Peterson January 27, 1987 Page 4 The owner or subdivider shall file eighteen (18) copies of a final plat covering all or a portion not later than six (6) months after the date of approval of the preliminary plat; otherwise, the preliminary plat approval will be considered void.... No extension having been granted by the Council within six months after preliminairy plat approval, the Council is able to reconsider its preliminary plat approval or attach conditions to a final plat approval. One alternative would be to simply deny approval of the final plat on the basis of Section 12.20, subd. 2. That would have the effect of requiring the developer to repeat the preliminary plat approval process, which would afford an opportunity to solve the access problem through the staff and planning review process. A second alternative would be to condition final plat approval on the proponent's solving the problem. Attached is a draft for a resolution which would employ that approach. Conclusion The Wilkies are threatened with the confiscation of the value of their land. They think they are legally entitled to the access which would preserve that value. The Council's adoption of a resolution along the lines of the attached proposal would efficiently resolve this controversy. More important, it would represent a just and equitable solution. Sincerely yours, • ohn C. Rosholt JCR:sm Enclosures: 1 . Plan for one lot 2. Plan for two lots 3. Resolution cc: Roger Pauly Chris Enger Wallace Hustad, Sr. • ii I I1, 1 ,I\II\'/.../..,)._'.._._:;.-: :NI 111'2/ )1,' 1:--.j'''-•_-.7 ii:;;-:,.., z; ,/j,•,- -rlp'1\'1•-•,17 1,3".7,7-;7 l' Hr .,...; i •••• ...___ 1:\ ' fr /,. i.r. /...---"' ,,,.... ',../.il 10.,.-•./7: j. .....I., :J....* ��t1 �1 ( // ////1 r. 17 :' i ;`. '/fir_• \,.., I I 'j IV 'I r I , I . '' II � ('� : ' ' ' , \ ((il/ i , 1 i . 4 '4 II' y •� .Ili ' I ,,', .I • (,'� r I I" d . ' ,F NIt 3 / ,, / iiiii ` // �.. ; ) f- • I . < r. ,. _. : !1I \ N ' • i �-- �j%/ �� t,., 4!/fir.'• ;. i . _l :,. /,..,.'' ., ; , %:.rat —.1 1 • EDEN RIVER BLUFFS I, ' I^+I 61 }I -- CONCEPT PLAN •'=c___ _ I(I !son RTYOQQP I=� o c _ = Asociates,Inc. m I EDEN PRAIRIE,T WILKI -ft i,�=�i,. ;!: .r,",.....„�,.,..w���+ •� m I EDEN MN. • • r ,,P-•Ii j, -• „.,I i•'. ‘' I.-V•T • it _� 41j „}}'l�;' Ho f , f - .4.s }.�r�M♦ . +� ,,�1 � o.r 1 !] I rrrrr ra :l'`*,Lcr-r� •.. �( �)ti�• tH 1,1 .I��.. d'] I� j. ", "�`I I� r�9'�'1' 1�i{4 I ' �L •.�sw l 'ti 1} Fy / I t11 ; 1 a,1 } 111 , iI r ft { ,\ .i /% r.1;, \ V . 1 Sri 1:' P u . j \"."• .• N; i ) , ; • . ••••. : .' i ..'7 .;k;!-1.. ''''s'''' . . ' it-"-1_-7 i' ";:--,;'1•,‘ ' s'll/V•••• -- i '-, .1! ".:;:•i . I.' , 1 r.,r4 1 ./ ..- . l',. / 1 .i�l� r•r II `—// o ,f/I/ rr ,',.,r r. yr ( -I ../.'./'‘,',,.' ., ,-. eee° (yet .315 j t 1 :/1' />/ . • - ' Jr 1_ ,( r i ' HO Il IIf l Ai.'1,.i',1 41 `,t i...'•=1 "• --, '° r t • •o,N • i i EDEN RIVER BLUFFS / r ti 1 ,I I - CONCEPT PLAN Ron MrnegOP B m�,.,e,_,,,z o 'a 1 .I -- I Assoclatcs,tnc..�>r.�_—_+ ,, m ROBERT WILKIE J+//l"'«- ill . -.-.—,""'"'own '+ ' o i EDEN PRAIRIE,►1N. .,,_ - 1 r ...,.. o - �1. .ro yea.o'ae.+.-T-�•.---- 1 • • • PROPOSED RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Council gave preliminary plat approval to a proposed plat for Bluffs East, 4th & 5th Additions, on May 20, 1986, and • WHEREAS, final plat approval was not given within six months of that date, and WHEREAS, the proponent of said,plat, has requested an extension of time within which to seek final plat approval, and WHEREAS, it is desirable that the plat of said proposed addition provide for access to certain adjacent.,land known as the Wilkie property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that 1. The proponent of Bluffs East, 4th & 5th Additions, shall have until May 20, 1986, to seek final plat approval. 2. Final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the plat providing a public road for access from.Bluff-Road to the Wilkie property or an easement for that purpose. • • • • .i MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THROUGH: Carl R. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Roger A. Pauly, City Attorney DATE: December 29, 1986 RE: Bluffs East 4th and 5th Addition FACTUAL BACKGROUND On May 20, 1986 the Council approved the preliminary plat of Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions ("preliminary plat"). Prior to approval, the owners of a parcel of land ("Wilkie parcel") abutting ( the land within the preliminary plat ("platted land") requested that the City require as a condition to final Council approval of the plat that the Developer of the platted land provide a public street over the platted land to the Wilkie parcel. In the alternative it was requested that the City require that the Developer provide a private easement over the platted land to the Wilkie parcel for access to a public street. The Wilkie parcel abuts the platted land along its Northerly and Easterly boundaries. Its Southeasterly boundary abuts Purgatory Creek. While the Wilkie parcel is a part of a large tract which has access to a public road, access to the road from the Wilkie parcel is physically difficult if not impractical because it is bi- sected from the rest of the tract by Purgatory Creek, the banks of which are steep in this area. The owners of the Wilkie parcel Memo to Mayor and Council December 29, 1986 Page Two apparently do not have and never have had an easement over the platted land for access to a public road. The matter of access to the Wilkie parcel was discussed or noted in the April 11, 1986 Staff Report to the Planning Commission, the hearing before the Planning Commission on April 28, 1986, the Staff Report to the City Council on May 14, 1986 and the hearing before the Council on May 20, 1986. During the discussion of the Wilkie's request before the Council on May 20, 1986 it was stated that construction of a cul-de-sac on the Wilkie parcel required as a part of a public road over the platted land would result in the reduction of that part of the Wilkie parcel on which a house could be built to a size which would preclude such a building without variances from the City Code's provisions relating to zoning. The Planning Commission recommended approval and the Council approved the preliminary plat without requiring the dedication and construction of a public street or the granting of a private easement. The Planning Commission also recommended approval and the Council approved a Planned Unit Concept Plan for the platted and other land, and first reading of a PUD and zoning for the platted land. The Council gave final reading for the PUD and zoning on August 19, 1986, together with a Developer's Agree- ment. None of these actions were conditioned upon a provision for a private or public access to the Wilkie parcel. Final approval of the plat has not yet been granted. The Wilkie's now renew their request for a public street or a :r i Memo to Mayor and Council December 29, 1986 Page Three private easement over the platted land. In support of their request they have provided drawings, one showing the placement of a public street and the other a private easement over the platted land. The drawing showing the public street depicts a substantial portion of the cul-de-sac to be placed on the platted land with the balance on the Wilkie parcel. Representatives of the owners of the Wilkie parcel claim the cul-de-sac can be constructed on the Wilkie parcel, but no drawing has been presented at this time depicting such an arrangement. QUESTION Can the City require the Developer to provide a public access to the Wilkie parcel on and over the platted land? ANALYSIS M.S. Sec. 462.358, Subd. 2b, provides that municipal subdivision regulations may require a reasonable portion of any proposed sub- division be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as streets, roads, ... and improvements. The City Code Sec. 12.30, Subd. 2, addresses the requirements for public roadways within a subdivision as follows: "The arrangements of all streets shall conform to the City Plan and provide a continuation of existing and planned streets within and outside of the proposed subdivision, provide for a reasonable circulation of Memo to Mayor and Council December 29, 1986 Page Four traffic and shall be appropriately located in relation to topography, run-off of storm water and to proposed uses of land to be served. Where adjoining areas are not subdivided, the arrangement of streets shall make provision for the proper projection of streets into adjoining areas." In Collis vs. City of Bloomington, 246 NW2d 19 (Minn. 1976), the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the statute which gives municipalities the right to require developers to dedicate to the public, a portion of the land being subdivided. The plaintiff claimed the statute was an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation and that it was an unconstitutional dele- gation of power to municipalities. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the statute was not an unconstitutional taking, that it was not an unconstitutional delegation of power and that the particular City ordinance in question was within the scope of the enabling Legislation (the ordinance required land dedication for parks). In Middlemist vs. City of Plymouth, 387 NW2d 190 (Minn. Ct. App 1986), the City Council granted preliminary approval of a sub- division plan, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended that the developer grant a portion of the subdivision land to the City for a future county road right of way. The developer challenged the dedication requirements. The trial court granted a summary judgement for the developer, holding that the dedication requirement violated the Memo to Mayor and Council December 29, 1986 Page Five • equal constitutional protection clause because parties, other then subdividers, did not have to dedicate land to the public. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the City could require a subdivision developer to dedicate a reasonable portion of a proposed subdivision for public use. The court noted its approval of the Collis test for reason- ableness as follows: A "reasonable portion" is construed to mean that portion of land which the evidence reasonably establishes the municipality will need to aquire for the purposes stated as a result of approval of the subdivision. This is, of necessity, a facts-and-circumstances test, but it is the only kind of test that will consider the myriad of factors which may bear on a municipality's needs for certain kinds of facilities and the relationship of a particular sub- division to those needs. Collis, 310 Minn. 5 17-18, 246 NW2d 19, 26 (Minn. 1976). The statutes and the court have given municipalities dis- cretion to require dedication of a reasonable portion of sub- divided land for streets and other public purposes. Under the Collis test above, the Council must determine the "reasonableness" of the requested dedication under the existing facts and circum- stances. Factors which would support a decision to require a street and cul-de-sac to the landlocked lot in this case are: The pro- posed subdivision will leave a parcel without a practical access to a public road. The consequence may be that the parcel can not be built upon and may result in a tax forfeiture. Furthermore, City Code Sec. 12.30, Subd. 2 states that, "(w)here adjoining Memo to Mayor and Council December 29, 1986 Page Six areas are not subdivided, the arrangement of streets shall make provision for the proper projection of streets into adjoining areas." and Sec. 12.30, Subd. L states, "[t]he street arrange- ments shall not be such as to cause hardship to owners of adjoin- ing property in platting their own land and providing convenient access to it." Procedurely, City Code Sec. 12.20, Subd. 2. A. provides in part, "The ... subdivider shall file ... a final plat ... no later than six (6) months after the date of approval of the preliminary plat; otherwise, the preliminary plat approval will be considered void unless an extension is requested in writing by the subdivider and for good cause granted by the Council." It has not been un- common for the Council to grant such extensions. Given these factors and directives, one could conclude that the Council could reasonably require the Developer to extend public access to property which would otherwise be landlocked and unbuild- able. Alternatively, there are a number of factors which would support a decision to affirm the subdivision plan as is and not require the developer to dedicate a street and cul-de-sac. Under the Collis 'reasonableness' test, the evidence must reasonably establish that the land to be dedicated is needed for public purposes "as a result of approval of the subdivision." In this case the need for a street and cul-de-sac did not necessarily arise as a result of approval of the subdivision. Memo to Mayor and Council December 29, 1986 Page Seven Certainly there can be no need for the dedication of land by the Developer for the cul-de-sac as a result of the Developer's sub- division. That need is created by the desire of the owners of the Wilkie parcel to have an alternative public access to their parcel. The Wilkie parcel never had any access to a public road. It was purchased without any easement. The purchase price of the land presumably reflected that lack of accessability. Since the owners never did have public access, they can't claim that the subdivision plan caused their problems. In addition, any "hardship" they may claim appears to fall under the "self imposed hardship doctrine." Under this doctrine, one can not seek to alter zoning regulations and decisions on the basis of "hardship" if the hardship is self-created. 8 McQuillan 3rd Sec. 25.168 (1983). In this case the owners of the parcel purchased it without an easement over the Developer's land for access. It is not the responsibility of the City to assist them out of this dilema. Probably the most significant factor, however, is that the City not only has already given preliminary approval of the plat, it is a party to a Developer's Agreement which requires the Developer to develop the project which includes the "platted land" in conform- ance with the plans reviewed by the Council on May 20, 1986 and :so - Memo to Mayor and Council December 29, 1986 Page Eight attached. Those plans do not provide for access to the Wilkie parcel through the platted land. CONCLUSION . In conclusion it is my opinion that the better legal posi- tion of the City is that approval of the final plat not be made conditional upon the Developer providing access to the Wilkie . parcel. • MEMORANDUM TD: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Steve Durham, Zoning Administrator HR UGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: January 28, 1987 RE: VARIANCE REQUEST #87-04 APPEAL Hi story Prairie Lutheran Church was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council to develop a church site south of Pioneer Trail and west of Bennett Place in the fall of 1986. The proponents requested a variance to permit exterior building material of 100% wood. The Board reviewed the request on September 11, 1986, and granted a variance to permit 65% exterior building material of brick, stone, or glass, and 35% wood. Prairie Lutheran Church submitted an appeal letter in November of 1986; however, did not meet the 45-day time frame in which to appeal a decision by the Board. On January 8, 1987, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed a second request by Prairie Lutheran Church to permit exterior building material of 70% wood and 30% brick. The proposal called for initial construction of 100% wood with brick to be added within five years. After a lengthy discussion, the Board granted a variance to permit 70% wood exterior and 30% brick which is to be installed with initial construction. Prairie Lutheran Church request the City Council to review the Board's decision. The request is for 100% wood exterior building material. Attached please find the following information: 1. Letter from Prairie Lutheran Church dated January 12, 1987. 2. Staff Report dated September 4, 1986. 3. Board of Appeals minutes dated September 11, 1986. 4. Final order dated September September 15, 1986. 5. Staff Report dated January 2, 1987. 6. Board of Appeals minutes dated January B, 1987. 7. Final order dated January 8, 1987. C C Prairie Lutheran Church N. ' 10631 lee Drive•Eden Prairie MN 55344•Phone 829-0525 • Pastor Merrill Donning•Phone 829-0324 January 12, 1987 City Council Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Members of.the Council: We wish to appeal the decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments during their meeting of January 8, 1987, in which they required Prairie Lutheran Church to use brick as the primary exterior building material for 30% of the exterior of the church to be built on County Road One. Following are several reasons why this appeal is being brought to your,.attention: 1. In the staff report outlining the variance requests submitted earlier, it was indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council had reviewed the development proposal and were aware that the structure was being proposed with less than 75% brick as a primary building material. That report indicated,° "Staff has pointed out a negative characteristic of maintenance with wood siding, but has also pointed out a positive characteristic in which the wood siding compliments the surrounding residential land use." In that area the first unit for the church is equivalent to a 'large' home, and would be ( in keeping with the architecture and esthetics of the surrounding hones. 2. The bids for the church construction have been received and are considerably higher than budgeted. The cost of the brick, material and labor, is nearly 14% of the original budget. The Building Committee is reviewing all areas where cost reductions or design considerations can reduce the cost. If brick is required, it will be a prohibitive factor in continuing our building plans. 3. A church provides a service to the community it serves, (There is no other Lutheran Church in the southeastern quadrant of Eden Prairie), and a building requirement of this nature should not restrict the church's ability to serve the residents of Eden Prairie. We respectfully request that this appeal be addressed by the City Council at the earliest possible opportunity. Sincerely, Merrill Ronning, Pastor Prairie.Lutheran Church • 1�} T-►., Kck' j P.ri1 Page 6 Sc f l: '� i`18 ) Request #86-39, submitted Prairie Lutheran Church for property located south of County Road 01, north of Blossom Road and east of Bennett Place. The request is for a variance from City Code, hapter-11, 1) Section 11703, Subdivision-17 K, to permit the construction of a chu7E1 with wood as a primary exterior building material, (City Code does not permit wood exterior building materials to exceed 25% of a building's exterior).- 2T Section 11.03, Subdivision 2, 8 to permit a structure at 41' in height, (City Code maximum height is 367) Background - The proposed development was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on August 11, 1986. The development received first reading from the City Council on September 2, 1986 and is scheduled for second reading on October 7, 1986. The development proposal required a guide plan change from low density to public, which the proponents have sufficiently substantiated to the Planning Comnssion and City Council. Surrounding land use is guided for low density residential to the north, south, east, and west. The site plan involves the first phase construction of a church building • with 7,200 square feet and a seating capacity for 225 people. Furture second phase construction includes a building addition of 10,000 square feet and total seating capacity of 400. The site plan meets all City Code requirements except for building height and exterior building material. Building Height - The first variance request is building height. In the Public Zoning District, the maximum building height is 30' and the applicants are proposing a building height of 41'. Not uncommon in a church sanctuary is a vaulted ceiling which in most cases exceeds the maximum height reuirement for public zoning. The proposed structure will rise up to 41' at the northeast portion of the site adjacent to Pioneer Trail. The building height will be visible from County Road #1, from Olympic Hills 4th Addition, Prairie East 6th Addition, and portions of the Olympic Hills golf course. The variance request may have merit considering the following. 1) The property will be zoned public which is appropriate for a church building. Church sanctuarys traditionally have building heights in excess of 30', which is required for acoustical design. 2) The character of the proposed building includes some residential characteristics including a sloped roof design and wood siding. Exterior Building Material - The applicants are proposing a structure with 75%+ wood as a primary exterior building material. City Code requires 75% of exterior building materials in the public zoning District to be glass, stone, or brick. Twenty-five percent of the building material may be wood, metal, or stucco. Glass, stone or brick building material are required in the public zoning district, primarily due to their longevity and maintenance free characteristics. Brick, stone, or glass maintain a clean kept up appearance after several years. Wood is subject to peeling, rotting, and a higher degree of maintenance than the district's approved materials. ,1 • ( ( • Page 7 Use of wood as a primary exterior building material may have merit for this site location when considering the surrounding residential land use which �' characterizes wood as primary exterior building materials. The proposed wood exterior may be appropriate in blending the building into the existing neighorhood. An alternative would be to build the structure using an approved building material. Conclusion - The Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed the development proposal and are aware that the structure is being proposed with 75%+ wood as a primary building material. Staff has pointed out the negative characteristic of maintenance with wood siding, but has also pointed out a positive characteristic in which the wood siding compliments the surrounding residential land use. For comparison sake, the Board may want to compare this development proposal with the existing St. Andrew Lutheran Church, which is 75%+ wood as a primary building exterior. The Board may choose one of the following options: 1) Approve Variance Request #86-39 as submitted with the following findings: a) The exterior building material compliments the surrounding residential land use. ( b) The building height requested is not uncommon for a sanctuary building. 2) Approve Variance Request #86-39 for a building of 41' only and require an approved building material. 3) Deny Variance Request #86-39. 1 Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - September 11, 1986 m w( s Feffer said that the error wasn't caught in the title because it is a newly created legal description. It was an unplatted piece. Longman questioned what the next step would be if the variance were not granted. Feffer said that the whole project would have to be redesigned and then reviewed by City Staff. It would create a hard- ship financially. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Arockiasanly made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-38 submitted by Investment Services Group, Inc, with the following findings: 1) The Floor Area Ratio does not create additional variances for building setbacks, 2) The ten parking stalls encroaching into the 50' front yard setback will be screened with plant material and a six foot berm. Dean seconded the motion, Motion carried 3-0-1. Lynch abstained, Request #86-39, submitted by Prairie Lutheran Church for property located south of County Road #1, north of Blossom Road and east of Bennett Place. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter r 11, 1) Section 11.03, Subd. 3, K, to permit the construction of a church with wood as a primary exterior building_material, (City Code does not permit wood exterior building materials to exceed 25S of a building's exterior). 2) Section 11.03, Subd, 2, B to permit a structure at 41' in height, (City Code maximum height is 30'.) Roger Sjobeck, architect for Prairie Lutheran Church, presented the request to the Board. A model of the proposed church was displayed. Sjobeck stated that the neighborhood is residential in character and wood as a primary exterior building material (redwood or cedar) seemed appropriate. Sjobeck said that if they did not have a walk-out basement, the height of the structure would be 31', Longman felt that the height request could be a factor of hardship for a church. Longman did not see a hardship in asking for a structure with wood as a primary exterior building material versus brick. Sjobeck said that some of the walls could adapt to masonry. Sjobeck stated that Pax Christi got around the wood/masonry problem by having the roof come down to a height of 10 feet. Sjobeck noted that St. Andrew Church is all wood. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - September 11, 1986 Lynch said that he not comfortable with the wood request. The long term maintenance factor is too great. Merrill Ronning, pastor of Prairie Lutheran Church, inquired if there was objection to the color of the wood. Lynch said no, the Board was concerned about the maintenance of the wood. There were no comments from the audience. Longman asked how the two different issues were to be dealt with. Durham stated that a portion of the variance could be approved or else the proponents might choose to come back with another design. There was discussion among the proponents regarding the exterior building materials. Lynch asked what the percentage of wood was planned for the structure at the beginning of the meeting and after their discussion. Sjobeck said that the percentage of wood planned at the beginning of the meeting was approximately 100% and after discussion was 35% wood. Sjobeck said that they could plan on 35% wood and 65% brick. MOTION: Longman made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-39 submitted by Prairie Lutheran Church with the following findings and conditions: l 1) The height is not uncommon for a church structure. 2) 65% of the exterior building material shall be masonry, glass or other acceptable material. 3) 35% of the exterior building material shall be wood. 4) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Arockiasamy seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, D. Request #B6-40, submitted by CSM Corporation for property located north of Timber Lake Drive, west of County Road 04, south of Terrey Pine Drive and east of Mitchell Lake. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chanter 11, Section 11.50, Subd. 7, B, to permit construction of a residential building 37' in height (City Code maximum building height adjacent to protected waters is 30'). James Cooperman, architect, representing CSM Corporation, reviewed the request with the Board. Plans were displayed. The proposed complex is located within the Mitchell Lake PUD. The land use for the site is a medium density residential. A gable roof is requested which will blend in with the surrounding architecture. Durham noted that the property is zoned RM 2.5. A developer can core 1-' CITY( EDEN PRAIRIE VARIAt( #86-39 BOARD DF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS FINAL ORDER RE: Petition of Prairie Lutheran Church • ADDRESS: South of Co.Rd. #1, north of Blossom Rd. & east of Bennett Place. VARIANCE REQUEST: See Attached: The Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular (special) meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file therein does hereby find and order as follows: 1. All procedural require^ants necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (YES x ND ). 2. There are circumstances unique to the property under consideration, and granting such variances does not violate the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning and platting Code. 3. Variance Request Jt 86-39 is herein Granted x , Denied _ ( 4. Conditions to the granting x , Denial , of said variance are as follows:SEE ATTACHED: 5. This variance shall be revoked within 15 days after notice of failure to meet the required conditions has been given. 6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the City Clerk. 7. This order shall be effective Sept. 11, 1986; however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alternatives permitted shall occur within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. 8. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council review. BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUST CENTS BY: `�(I """""'C'�� tiwv 'DATED: Q-/5-g(O • c VARIANCE REQUEST #86-39: A variance from City Code, Chapter 11, 1) Section 11.03, Subd. 3, K, to permit the construction of a church with wood as a primary exterior building material, (City Code does not permit wood exterior building materials to exceed 25% of a building's exterior). 2) Section 11.03, Subd. 2, B, to permit a structure at 41' in height, (City Code maximum height is 30'), CONDITIONS TO THE GRANTING OF VARIANCE REQUEST #86-39: 1) 65% of the exterior building material shall be brick, stone or glass. 35% of the exterior building material shall be wood. 2) This variance request must be utilized within one year. 3) To permit a structure not to exceed 41' in height. • • -'I I�I 1 • tlxs1.1 �R/r Page 11 l 1-$-87 F. Variance Request #87-04, submitted Prairie Lutheran Church for property 111 oc1 oted south of County Road #1, north of Blossom Road and east of Bennett apfce. lie request is for a variance from City Co ea -Cfiapter I1 ection 11.03, Subdivision 3 K,to permit construction of a church building with 70% wood as a primary exterior building material 7City Code does not permit wood eete it or building materials to exceed 25% of a building's exterior Background - Prairie Lutheran Church, in the fall of 1986, received approval from the Planning Commission and City Council to construct a church building in Eden Prairie. The building will be constructed in two phases. First phase construction includes a 7,200 square foot sanctuary and classroom building with seating capacity for 225 people. Second phase construction includes a building addition of 10,000 square feet with a total seating capacity for 400 people. In September of 1986, the applicants were before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals with Variance Request #86-39. The request was to permit a building height of 41', City Code permits 30' , and to permit 100% wood as an exterior building material. City Code permits up to 25% wood as exterior building material. The Board granted the variance request for building height and permitted wood as a primary building material not to exceed 35%. The Board was not in favor of 100% wood as a primary building material, because the long term maintenance factor is too great. Current Request - The applicant wanted to appeal the Board of Adjustments and Appeals decision to the City Council, however, did not meet the 45 day time frame in which to do so. The architect for Prairie Lutheran Church has been working on an alternative to the approved variance which is now before the Board for review. The current church building proposal includes initial construction of 100% redwood or cedar siding, in lieu of the approved 35% wood, 65% brick. During initial construction, Prairie Lutheran Church will install a brick ledge for future installation of brick walls as shown on building elevations in your packet. Brick would be installed on areas indicated with. construction of the second phase, but not later than 5 years from the issuance of the first phase occupancy permit. The building is currently proposed with a basement. If constructed with a basement the exterior building material ratio would be 32% brick and 68% wood exterior siding. If the church is built without the basement, the ratio of exterior building material is 30% brick and 70% wood. In the Public Zoning District City Code requires exterior building materials to be at least 75% to be brick, stone, glass or concrete panel and not more than 25% wood, metal or stucco. Glass, stone, or brick building materials are required in the Public Zoning District, primarily due to their longevity and maintenance free characteristics. Page 12 ir As pointed out in the previous report, use of wood as a primary exterior building material may have merit for this site location when considering the surrounding residential land use, which characterizes wood as a primary exterior building material. The proposed wood exterior siding with the use of brick, may be appropriate in blending the building into the existing neighborhood. The submitted request of 70% wood exterior, siding and 30%brick is an alternative to the approved plan of 35% wood and 65% brick. Conclusion - Basically, the applicants have come back to the Board with an alternative from the approved plan. The plan will utilize a combination of brick and wood at a ratio of 30% brick 70% wood. Initial construction would include 100% wood for a 5 year time period. The means to install. brick after a five year period, from the date of occupancy permit, are taken care of through the construction of a brick ledge to support the brick. In review, the Board may choose one of the following positions: 1) Approve Variance Request #87-04 as submitted with 30% brick 70%:wood as a primary building material with the following conditions: a) A brick ledge be installed with initial construction to provide means for application of future brick. b) 30% brick be applied to structure according to plans submitted within five years from. issuance of occupancy permit. 2) Approve Variance Request #87-04 with a variation to the submitted) variance request. 3) Deny Variance Request #87-04 • UNAPPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 1987 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG., ROOM 205, 8100 SCHOOL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, William Arockiasamy, Roger Sandvick, Lyn Dean, Hanley Anderson and,Steve Longman BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: Longman, Arockiasamy, and Anderson were absent. 1. MINUTES A. Minutes of December 11, 1986. ;I MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Krueger to approve the minutes of December 11, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES F. Request #87-04 submitted by Prairie Lutheran Church for property located south of County Road gl, north of Blossom Road, and east of Bennett Place. The request is for a variance from City Code. Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 3, K, to permit construction of a church building with 70% wood as a primary exterior building material, (City Code does not permit wood exterior building materials to exceed 25%,of a building's exterior.) Merrill Ronning, pastor of Prairie Lutheran Church, reviewed the history of the variance request to this point. Prairie Lutheran Church was before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments on September 11, 1986. The Board approved a structure of 35% wood and 65% masonry, glass, or other acceptable material. Ronning stated that 80 letters were mailed out to the surrounding neighborhood, A neighborhood meeting was held at Pax Christi Catholic Church. Concern was•not that the church be brick or wood, but that the church be an attractive building and not detract from the neighborhood. Prairie Lutheran Church was not against the issue of brick. There was no argument other than a money problem. Bids received were $200,000 over expectations. Ronning said that Prairie Lutheran Church now proposes to initially use all wood for siding. A brick ledge would be installed for future brick. The brick would be installed no later than five years from the issuance of the Phase I Occupancy Permit. Before the building is constructed, the basement may be eliminated, which would result in a lower percentage of future brick. Lynch wondered if the ordinance is right for manufacturing concerns, apartment buildings, industrial and commercial operations, why it isn't right for churches. Ronning said that the money factor would be solved in a few years as the congregation grows. Money is borrowed from the national church at 8%. In five years, the debt would be considerably paid off. Lynch remarked that St. Andrew was not a sterling example of a wood structure and was a mistake. Ronning said that they would not make a mistake as brick would be added. Krueger inquired how the City guarantees that brick would be put on. Durham said that it is done through a bond or a letter of credit. Ronning stated that the difference in cost of wood and brick or masonry is $45,000 based on 65%. Ronning noted that a church is in a residential area where wood is the primary material. It would complement the surrounding residential land use. . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - January 8, 1987 Lynch said that the ordinance was written because of the maintenance factor for a permanent type structure. A stain would have to be put on similar to St. Andrew, which was a mistake. Also, similar variance requests other than for churches that came before the Board were turned down. Ronning stated that many people feel that St. Andrew is a beautiful structure. It is a matter of choice and opinion. Lynch inquired is Prairie Lutheran would build a square brick structure if the proposed building were denied. Ronning said that the church is needed so that it would be built. If brick is the issue, 'the architects design would be changed. Lynch said that looking at $45,000 would be $150,000 five years from now. There is an inflation factor to deal with. Krueger inquired about the rest of the church facilities. Roger Sjobeck, architect, said that a change in design plans had moved the building further uphill and raised the grade which had provided less exterior surface. Krueger said that the City tries to eliminate putting conditions on things that could come up in the future and cause potential problems. The City does not want to be policeing. Krueger stated that the reason for granting a variance is an unusual hardship. The Board tries to get away from granting variances on a financial basis. Everyone would want a variance that had financial difficulties. Ronning said that a couple of variance requests this evening had a financial issue. Lynch disagreed. Lynch said that the issue is that the City has ordinances that state a percentage of permanent material needed on a portion of a building. If the ordinance is wrong, it should be changed. Sandvick said that the spirit of the ordinance was put in primarily for commercial use. The church sits in a residential area, has aesthetic values and is not considered a commercial building per se. Part of the ordinance doesn't address every single part of the community, The Board must weigh the request on an individual basis and individual merits, Sandvick felt that the bottom line could be dollars. Lynch asked if the ordinance could be rewritten to deal with commercial and industrial buildings. Sandvick said that there had to be some clarification. Sandvick said that the proponent had made efforts to bring the request up to the ordinance. The grades had been moved up which had reduced the percentage. Sandvick mentioned the five year plan. Lynch felt that the five year plan had no possibilities. � J Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - January 8, 1987 Sjobeck said that when the addition is put on, brick would be added which would be no later than five years. Sandvick asked if that would bring it up to the ordinance. Durham said no, that mould be 68% wood and 32% brick with the basement in. Sandvick inquired what the percentage of wood was. Sjobeck said that it would be 60% with the addition. Krueger felt that it was not fair for other people who had to build their churches according to the ordinance. Durham read from the City Code book, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Sub- division 3, Section K, Design Standards: "All sites and structures within all Districts except the Rural, R1-44, R1-22, R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and RM 6.5 shall be developed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a registered professional landscape or building architect respectively. Exterior building finishes in these Districts shall consist of materials comparable in grade and quality to the following: 1) face brick; 2) natural stone; 3) specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture; Sandvick asked if the word "commercial" was used. Durham said that it stated "all sites and structures within all Districts." Durham said that the property in question is zoned Public. Sandvick noted that commercial is entered into the interpretation then. Sjobeck said that maybe the Code should be studied. When Prairie Lutheran Church started out, they had to change the Guide Plan and rezone the piece of property from Residential to Public. In a sense, it is "spot zoning." There is no piece of property in the City that is included in the Guide Plan as "church". The only way that a church can be built in Eden Prairie is to change the Guide Plan and the zoning. Durham said that there were approximately two church sites that are on the Guide plan. Sjobeck stated that the church is located in a predominately residen- tial zone because that is where the people are. It is totally different from an apartment, office or an industrial building that is located in a zone that is set aside for that function. A model of the proposed church was displayed. Krueger said that he would like to see some brick. He is concerned with what the building is going to look like. Lynch stated that the building must be aesthetically pleasing. At the September 11, 1986 meeting 65% masonry was approved. Possibly,50,% masonry would be the correct percentage to make the building architect- urally correct. Lynch asked what percentage Prairie Lutheran had calculated. Sjobeck said that they planned on 32% brick,including a basement and 30% brick with no basement. This would depend on cost negotiations. y., Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - January 8, 1987 Krueger asked when they planned to start building. Sjobeck said that they planned to start construction the end of March. Krueger said that he had no problem with the numbers, but would like to see a plan, Sjobeck said that a plan could be furnished, There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #87-04, submitted by Prairie Lutheran Church with the following findings: 1) 30% of the building be brick according to .thy architects plans dated December 11, 1986. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Lynch pointed out that the proponent had the opportunity to appeal the Boards decision to the City Council. • CITY EDEN PRAIRIE VARIAr # 87-04 BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS FINAL ORDER RE: Petition of Prairie Lutheran Church ADDRESS: South of County Road #1, north of Blossom Rd. & east of Bennett Place. VARIANCE REQUEST: A variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Sec. 11.03, Subd. 3, K, to permit construction of a church building with 70% wood as a primary exterior building material, (City Code does not permit wood exterior building materials to exceed 25% of a building's exterior), The Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular (special) meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and after hearing and examining all of tie evi er.ce 'resented and the file therein does hereby find and order as follows: 1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (YES x NO ). 2. There are circumstances unique to the property under consideration, and granting such variances does not violate the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning and platting Code. 3. Variance Request # 87-04 is herein Granted x , Denied 4. Conditions to the granting x , Denial , of said variance are as follows: 1) 309E of the building be brick and 70% of the building be wood according to architects plans dated December 11, 1986. 5. This variance shall be revoked within 15 days after notice of failure to meet the required conditions has been given. 6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the City Clerk. 7. This order shall be effective Jen,8 , 1987 ; however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alternatives permitted shall occur within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. 8. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council review. BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS BY: (' �+v DATED: ., CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #87-28 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BIRCHWOOD LABS, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Birchwood Labs, Inc., dated January 20, 1987, consisting of 16.5 acres into four lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 3rd day of February, 1987. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John O. Frane, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT ( TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner T5UGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: January 23, 1987 PROJECT: Birchwood Labs LOCATION: East of County Road #4, west of Fuller Road, north of Lincoln Lane APPLICANT: Birchwood Labs, Inc. REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of approximately 16.5 acres into four lots. Background This 16.5-acre tract of land was , ,..�... — �M11r� zoned I-2 in 1969 and is the 1 -13 - 0� location of Birchwood Labs, Inc. 1-22 = i 1" MIN Di; Currently, there is a series of P11 4! =.]!Al111 immi I III ; mini-storage buildings under con- ► ei!"'�" �� struction adjacent to County Road #4 1 M.�e 8-12 odkIn�3e�?n' ' . , on Lot 1 as depicted on the i � PUB .�R��I% III/ , preliminary plat. Since this parcel ri AWA'IS, •"'� of land was correctly zoned I-2, a ,UB 8.20 �� ' building permit was issued following ►R 4 Ig.COMM �'� .o c;\ Staff r Sowne that time, it ,FF. 8 • - 1w • Air' is thepropertyowner's intention to sell that portion of the site to the �jF °' o+ 79-17 developer of the mini-storage -P ''Mr'�1"'!I I complex and thus a preliminary and 322 1- I i•; ' -2 Alltow // final plat is required. _ ���y�►.'-• PRK , ` , lt? 326_ •!4.442-8: ,, ' Preliminary Plat •.;�..a!*, J y2,5 6,,,,w,,;••9•••••••• • • 4' ' The proposed preliminary plat meets II •:444 the requirements of the I-2 zoning �.� ` ''"y-j • /' district with the exception of lot PROPOSED SITE frontage on Lot 4. Access to the me. / rear of this property, Lots 3 and 4, ". °' 16-6 is currently provided with a '""' driveway off Fuller Road. With the �2. 71 / PUB proposed subdivision, Lot 4 does not R r-6 5 // L have access to a public street. Prior to the release of the final plat, the proponent will be required l to apply for and receive a variance ~�� I I,AREA� LOCATION MAP, Birchwood Labs 2 January 23, 1987 Ifor lot frontage from the Board of Appeals. In addition, the owner of Lot 3 shall be required to file cross-access agreement in order to provide access to Lot 4: As part of the subdivision process, the proponent is required to pay a cash park fee. With the development of Birchwood Mini-Storage, the proponent has paid a cash park fee for Lot 1, or 2.2 acres. The proponent will be required to pay a cash`,park fee for the remaining lots prior to any building permit issuance. Birchwood Mini-storage The buildings currently under construction are located. on Lot 1 with a lot area containing approximately 2.254 acres. The proposed-. mini-stor a buildings contain' approximately 27,500 square feet with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)" of 28%. The site plan meets the minimum requirements of the I-2 Park zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning,Staff would recommend approval of the request for the Preliminary Plat of approximately 16.5 acres into four lots based on plans dated January 20, 1987, based on the Staff Report dated January 23, 1987, and subject .to the following recommendations: 1. Apply and receive a variance for lot frontage on a public street for Lot 4. 4 2. Proponent shall file a cross-access agreement for.Lots 3 and 4 in order to provide access into Lot 4. 3. Proponent shall agree that any access to Lot 2 will be from Terry Pine Court and no direct access will be allowed on County Road#4. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for Lots 2 and 4, the proponent will be required to pay the cash park fee. r CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 87-32 RESOLUTION ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve Golden Triangle Drive between West 74th Street and Technology Park 3rd Addition (I.C. 52-110) and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements, pursuant to M.S.A. 429.011 to 429.111. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study with the assistance of RCM and that a feasibility report shall be prepared and presented to the City Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment and feasibility of the proposed improvements. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 3, I987. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk .1 t TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works' DATE: January 29, 1987 The attached letter from Hoyt Development requests that Golden Triangle Drive be extended through the Helle property. You should note that the letter'does not constitute a valid petition since it is not signed by 35% of the.property owners. Therefore, if you choose to proceed, all, motions::must be approved by a 4/5 majority. Hoyt and Helle have been advised that this is on the agenda and will be discussed at the meeting. EAD:sg y y Hoyt Development,8300 Grand Avenue South,Minneapolis Minnesota 55420(612)884.4338 I January 14, 1987 City Of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ATTN: The Mayor and City Council Members of the Council: Due to our concerns regarding inadequate access to the Technology Park area we are hereby making formal request for completion of the Golden Triangle Drive connection between 76th Street & 74th Street and ask that you consider this a petition for same. The connection will provide an additional water main loop to the Valley View Road area and the Helle property. This loop will then be complete, forming a ring around Washington Avenue, Viking Drive, Golden Triangle Road, and Valley View Road. In addition, it will provide an alternate route for north-south travelers presently using Washington Avenue. We are presently beginning construction on the Golden Triangle Creek crossing, and anticipate its completion in October of 1987. We are concurrently submitting a final planned unit development stage submission for the balance of Technology Park. A component of that submission will be the necessary traffic figures for conducting a feasibility study. In consideration of the fact that the Technology Park project will be fully complete by late 1988, and that the Vantage Southwest Crossing project is experiencing some lease-up, we feel that this connection will become vital to circulation within the Golden Triangle Industrial area. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, HOYT DEVELOPMENT Bradley A,.)i% --=� Technology Park; ssocta<tes plv i MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Enger, Oirector of Planning THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager OATE: January 30, 1987 SUBJECT: Major Center Area The following documents, policies and procedures make up the existing framework for review of development in the Major Center Area (MCA): Comprehensive Guide Plan The Comprehensive Guide Plan in place when the original MCA Planned Unit Oevelopment (PUD) was adopted in 1973 was the 1968 version of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. This document was fairly general, showing a combination of Commercial Regional Service land use and Commercial Regional Retail land uses surrounding the interchange of I-494, #169, and #5. The Commercial area was ringed by a band of residential land use and institutional uses. In 1973, the MCA PUO was adopted by the City Council after a MCA Task Force report. This report made recommendations regarding land use within the MCA. It also defined the geographic area that was to be known as the MCA. As one of its main goals, the MCA report supported the idea that a balance of jobs and households would be provided within Eden Prairie and within the MCA to allow people to live, work, and play in the same community. The goal at that time was to provide one job per household. This compares to a current proportion of one job per resident. In other words, the proportion of jobs has expected risen about two and one-half times beyond the 1973 goal. Population estimates for Eden Prairie in 1973 ranged from 120,000 to 160,000 people, with 80,000 people expected to be located within one mile of the core of the MCA. Because of the high intensity of uses and density of housing expected in the MCA, the expectation was that the critical mass would permit mass transit as the main mode of transportation within the MCA, and in Eden Prairie as a whole. • Since the population of 120,000 to 160,000 will not be realized, but perhaps a population of 60,000 will occur, and since the housing within the MCA does not seem to be materializing, at least in any quantities as expected, mass transit will not save the MCA from severe traffic problems. The original MCA density of development was dependent upon a viable mass transit system. It was known in 1973 that road improvements, alone, could not be relied upon to support the intensity of use within the MCA. It is critical that we now evaluate development to assure that a road system can handle the traffic without the expectation of being saved by mass transit. • The MCA land use report is fairly general and designates a whole potpourri of land uses that may occur in each quadrant of the MCA. If the land use plan for the MCA were the only document Eden Prairie used to control land use within that area, it would be too general to be of any help. Zoning Ordinance Eden Prairie's Zoning Ordinance contains performance standards for development throughout the community. The original MCA PUD called for a formulation of a special zoning ordinance for the MCA that would be less restrictive than the overall City ordinance. This is one aspect of the plan which has not occurred, but which has worked to the City's advantage. Since the overall Zoning Ordinance is somewhat more restrictive than expectations of development in the MCA, it has allowed the City to review large plans through a PUD process, or a variance procedure, and to interject far reaching requirements with regard to design standards and performance standards. In addition, new criteria have been added to the Zoning Ordinance within the last three years. These new criteria have worked well throughout the City, but were specifically targeted for the MCA. The performance standards adopted include the proportioning of landscaping to the size of buildings and the requirement of 75% brick, or better, materials for the exterior of structures. Performance standards currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission as ordinance amendments include changes in parking standards for commercial and office buildings, revised signage ! setbacks, and a proportioning of the building setbacks to building height. City Policies In addition to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, MCA PUD, and Zoning Ordinance, the City has also adopted policies, both formal and informal, for use in reviewing development within the MCA. These policies seek to assure design continuity for a project as it occurs adjacent to other development within the MCA. The policy includes requirements for matching exterior parking lot lighting, consistency of landscaping, matching of pedestrian systems, and matching of textures and colors of exterior materials, as well as comparison of architectural styles within a given area. An example of this design continuity policy being applied to an area otherwise not governed by a design framework would be the Rocky Rococo and Goodyear Tire area along Highway #169. The landscaping and parking and pedestrian ways were coordinated and the buildings were tied together architecturally through the use of identical brick as an exterior material and color. Through the process of Planned Unit Development Concept and Planned Unit Development District Reviews, the City has also utilized the concept of design framework manuals being supplied by developers to govern a particular area. An example of this would be the Area G of the Preserve, which occurs at the northwest quadrant of Prairie Center Drive and Highway #169. The buildings in that area include Burger King, Skippers, Prairie Veterinary Clinic, the Car Care Center, and the TJH Office Building. The exterior materials, landscaping, and exterior lighting, as well as signage, have been coordinated in this area. Purgatory Creek Recreation Area (. The Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Study, which was commissioned by the City two years ago, defined uses and a design for development of the Purgatory Creek basin. During the review for that study, the City also looked at adjacent land uses for compatibility with the expected development of the Purgatory Creek floodplain. In the southwest quadrant of the MCA, uses would be reviewed as to their appropriateness adjacent to the Purgatory Creek Area, in addition to review against other goals and policies. Uses would have to be complementary to, and benefit from, the development of the Purgatory Creek floodplain area. Flagship Athletic Club is one example of a compatible use with the future recreation area. Other examples would be housing, office buildings, hotels, first-class restaurants, outdoor shopping boutiques, etc. Examples of uses which would not be compatible with that area would be such uses as discount centers, auto dealerships, or other uses which are not benefitted by being adjacent to a major developed recreation area. 1985 8RW Traffic Study In I985, the City commissioned a traffic study in the MCA and Smetana Lake area. This study was completed by BRW and represents the analysis of traffic generation for all of Eden Prairie's Regional industrial, office, and commercial uses consolidated in this area of the City. This study was based upon land use expectations on particular sites. The purpose of the study was to determine where potential problems would occur in the traffic system in the future and suggest potential solutions to those problems. This study has been an effective tool in evaluating the correct uses and anticipated uses in various parts of the MCA and should be kept up to date in order to assure that traffic improvements are made in a timely manner and that land is not overburdened in an area where traffic improvements cannot solve the traffic problems. It is important that the traffic study be kept up to date. Also, it would be appropriate to design a capital improvements program for the orderly improvement of the road system from now until full development of the MCA. This would help assure that traffic improvements were made in a timely manner based upon priority need. Major Center Area Today A look at the development of the MCA as it occurs today allows us to evaluate what is needed by the City in the future and to assign those land uses to the remaining parcels which would assure that the community as a whole is served. Review of the existing uses within the MCA, for example, brings about the conclusion that because the employment base in Eden Prairie is so strong, the majority of commercial development within the MCA has been mostly driven and supported by the day time Eden Prairie employee. Examples of that include the prolification of quick-stop strip malls, car care centers, fast food restaurants, etc. These uses are tailored toward the services necessary by the working population. Eden Prairie's resident population is just now reaching the size that would help support not only day time, but night time full service uses, needed by Eden Prairie residents. There are 87 parcels of property in the MCA currently developed, totalling 710 acres. There are nine different Planned Unit Developments and approved Planned Unit Development Concept plans in the MCA, totalling 511 acres, including 198.5 acres of u ,i 0 developed property. There are nine different areas of contiguous parcels remaining in the MCA which do not have a specifically approved plan, totalling 287 acres. There are four different individual parcels which do not have approved plans, totalling approximately six acres. Land Use Suggestions The Planning Staff has collected information on the types of services provided in other regional centers throughout the Twin Cities Area. We are giving suggestions at this time as to types of uses that are still needed by the City to begin the process, and to show how this could be Implemented. This is the part of the study which would be most appropriate for input from different groups, such as the Development Commission, Planning Commission, Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce, and City Council. Once the list of needed developments and services has been completed, the City can assign a use, or a number of uses, to the undeveloped parcels in the MCA. This would be much the same as was utilized in the original MCA report. However, the universe of possibilities is smaller than at that time, and much more information is known; therefore, the uses can be much more specific. Once these designations are made market conditions would determine the exact use of a particular parcel. Design standards, of course, would continue to be important and new suggestions for exterior materials and other types of performance standards such as height, mass, design continuity, color, style, etc., would be welcome. Pedestrian System The last item that the MCA originally called for was the creation of a pedestrian system throughout the MCA linked to vest pocket parks, urban plazas and spaces, and transit stops. It may be appropriate for the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission to review current conditions in the MCA and possibly suggest standards, or a plan, for implementation of that original goal. Recommendation for action: 1) Review and amend the land use list 2) Review and amend the land use assignments 3) Prepare and adopt a Capital Improvements Program for road improvements 4) Keep the April, 1985 BRW Traffic Study current with ongoing development proposals to assure adequate road capacity balanced with land uses 5) Adopt pending zoning ordinance changes 6) Require coordination of individually proposed uses with surrounding properties to assure compatible design elements -,r9cC Attachments: I) A current list of uses, including locations and sizes of the uses 2) Illustration showing unapproved areas and suggested land uses Attachment 1 ( RA30R CENTER MEI IAA,USE 3ANUARI 27•I1/7 1011016 ACRES STATUS DEVELOPMENT SAE OFFICE COMERCIAL INOUSIRIAI PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL OFFICE CONAEACIAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL SR/FT 50/F1 50/FT SO/FT UNITS 1 EDENVALE APARTNEEIS 1 171 17.1 • 2 11014111117 DADA 3940. 2.5 3 1EN TE5111311 CIAMOI 17463 6.2 4 CROVN AUTO 7463 1.06 • 3RENARDO 72400 13 • 6 F07/NARK 26206 4.1 7 1NEAVALLE- 165000 36.46 • 8 11111117 UN(E/LAKFRIOSE 57133 11.73 • 4 2251 R1110.STATION 4116 14.51 • 10 VIKINS TRAIN1118 CEIrtER 33500 15 • II CA111011.OFFICE 50000 17 12:DER1E:. 15060 5.5 • 13 NORIIAESIEW SELL 7844 1.44 - 14 BELCO 320000 60 • 13 HARTFORD INSIBANCE 200000 10.3 14 AID.INSURANCE 40000 5 17 EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER 760000 16.13 11 SUNIA01N1 NATIONALOAN* 25500 2.4 19 COEN PRAIRIE HEALTH CLINIC 6000 4.83 20 CASTLE RIO5E 120 3.3 • �.. 21 SOVIET(VEIERDIART CLINIC 2520 0.33 • 22 Uo9ARELLE OFFICE 8000 0.07 • 2 '^TREE OFFICE 24406 2.14 24' _PAS STATION 2317 0.92 25 COUNTRY K110E3UAOIII 3744 1.7 • 28 1Elf/0 T FRIER CNIDIOI 2686 0.85 - 4 27 NAROEES 1007 1.1 • .:.. 28 AIIMESOTA PROTECTIVE UFE 73113 5.9 29 EDEN PNAIAIE FINE NOISE - 3834 30 ROSEMOUNT ER111EERKNO 208998 33.39 • 31 FACTERY 11U11ET CENIE0 151377 18.2 . • 321E1S81301611111001101 10000 1.5 • 33 MERICAO DAPTISI HONES 4431 I • 34 TARGET 100000 13.3 • 35 S1E8MT Nl1W@5 106 3.19 • 36 I.S.D.CENTER 33919 1.45 • 37 TEAK 1851108E100 44000 3.26 •- 38 EDEN GLEN CENTER 11000 1.63 39 KINDER CARE 4100 0.71 v. 40 13N CFF10E 8800 0.01 - • 41 IUA6E11 1188 2531 1.21 - • 42 VALLEY CURVE 80 37 •. ... 43 601E4E55011 501006. 6000 0.75 • 14 IR0ANI LAKE OFUIECN GOITER 17628 2.9. • 43 E.P.PRESIITEAIM 01N01 8200 3 , 46 EDEN PRAIRIE RID p01 3160 1.29 • 17 500111 CASSSIN1 PHASE 1 245000 8 • 18 5511014 CROSSING PHASE 11 109300 10.2 19 PRAIRIE IRS* 17870 1.36 50 VALLEY VIES NAR0R MSS 112 19.41 • 51 FIRS1 STATE SAE 42405 3.36 • -- 52 SUPER I HOTEL 25000 63 1.29 • 13 NE8N0PEN COUNTY L16811 10000 2.53 4 51 EDEN PRAIRIE CM CARE 19064 4 • 55 1" RESIDERCE INN 88000 120 4 36 1 NY 163080 12.35 .• aG� t. 1011111 ACRES STATUS IE90.OP1Ep 1ANE OFFICE COIKi01. EB100TIUN. PIIIIIC RESIDENIIM OFFICE CONIEICIAI 110091/161 PBRIC BEl1➢01712/ c.. _. SO/F7 SO/FT IO/fl 50/11 08115 ''.. 51 EOOF0AE 11 70 9.11 • .51 80010W1105. . . 76482 10.13 • St 80CBT:10CICOI 3901 1.53 • 6000009E801118E:0E11ER 6800 /.89 61 ERN PIA18IE 1118F71C C110 .10500 `16.8. • .:.:62 S0S$110A$S C317E1 27700 -2.99. 63 COEN MA117E CON.CENTER 15750 2.3 • N INNARDS E19A85111 14808 1.34 • 65 AL151AIE: 25001 1.i • 66 EDEN SO/IN 117500 - 61 PRAIRIE VIER CENTER 127519 it _ 01EP11110 TREE 6000 "5.46 ... • .. ;:if R1PISIT 2i29 0.53 • 70 181R106 01N-:. 38000 - 175. 3.19 :: • .:: :...;71 010A100 E*M: 100270 157 72 EW080121 111 8150 • 73 GI571EIO010iF70E -29200 :...fl 1,Al1E7 PIES PIMA - 46000 P 7S COWI01EP0T ,'... 27000: 5.7 _ 74 1 1000JI P63818K I 30000 5./ 77 VALLEY UOE 105.--OFFICEs 71 EZENV8E 21ECP600 - 110992-...: .9.71: • +.� 791ON1PACIFIC - 61000 `A.AA. • 12.21 • � II FIRESTOE(CENTE8. 7000 0.89 :`. : • :. 12-01711111 UXE INC/TECH-CON 11 91000 83 101E1111 310 4001110N 19000 .. ( 71S 8E610141 0E0001007015 33000 S.2 \ $111781 1F0.11118.. - 209000 16 ma C088115 196 - - 12.5 • 17 E001 P8ITIE OFF7CE/eAAEN0000 32700 101A0S,�a,,.:,n..,� 1808312 1902548 nd 912166 39502 tl158 8N 011115�••�,•xy3i245 38 -•222.85 126.05 •13.73.. . 101.90-n•` 100 BED' -:.... ,... N11851116 0000 2aoF Attachment 2 LAND USE GROUPINGS Area A dots - 17 acres RM - 17 acres Area 8 T lots - 34.79 acres RC - 34.79 acres Area C - 66.02 acres RC/P - 66.02 acres Area 0 8 lots - 45.46 acres RC - 25.16 acres RC/ID - 20.30 acres Area E - 29.66 acres RC - 4.49 acres RC/P - 25.17 acres Area F moots - 8.61 acres NC -8.61 acres Area G lots - 19.01 acres NC - 6.86 acres RH - 4.85 acres RL - 0.90 acres RC - 6.4 acres Area H 18 lots - 15.06 acres RC - 15.06 acres Area I 8 lots - 51.51 acres P - 6.46 acres RL - 7.85 acres P/RL - 25.87 acres RH/ID, P - 11.33 acres Total 70 lots RC - 85.90 acres NC - 15.47 acres RM - 17.00 acres RH - 4.85 acres RL - 8.75 acres RC/ID - 20.30 acres RH/ID,P - 11.33 acres RC/P - 91.19 acres P/RL - 25.87 acres P - 6.46 acres 287.12 acres Individual Lots Lot 3 RC - 3.17 acres 74 OFC - 1.00 acres 75 OFC - 0.91 acres 76 OFC - 0.67 acres Total 4 lots 5.75 acres aO1 SUGGESTED LAND USE .: 1) First Class Restaurants 2) Family Restaurants 3) Fast Food Restaurants (Drive-thru) 4) Hotel - Hotel Convention Center 5) Institutional - Hospital, Medical/Surgical Center, Government Center, Museum, Post Office 6) Housing (Owner/Rental) High Density 7) Housing (Owner/Rental)(Medium Density) 8) Sports Club 9) Regional Office/Corporate Headquarters 10) Service Office 11) Financial Institutions 12) Service Retail (Free Standing & Shopping Center) 13) Major Retail Stores (Furniture, Appliance, Department Clothing, Electronic, Etc. 14) Discount Stores (Off Price/Outlet) 15) Grocery Stores 16). Garden Center 17) Auto Sales 18) Fashion Center 19) Mixed Use 20) Research and Development 21) Theatres (Etc.) LOCATIONS ( Area A 6, 7, 19 Area B 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 19 Area C 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, B, 9, 18, 19 Area 0 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21 Area E 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19 Area F 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 19 Area G 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 Area H 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 1D, 11, 12, 13, 19 Area I 6, 7, 9, 19, 20, J11 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie SUBJECT: Secretarial Position DATE: January 27, 1987 When the City Hall staff moves to our new location, Beverley Miller, Southwest Metro Transit Administrator, will move from her temporary offices at the Eden Prairie Center into space we will provide within the Administration/Human Resources departmental offices. The City will also be providing secretarial/clerical services for Ms. Miller. The cost to the City to provide such space and services will be reimbursed by Southwest Metro. In:order to provide the needed services to Ms. Miller and Southwest Metro, it will be necessary for us to hire an additional staff person. 'It is possible that we could hire a part-time person to :fill this position and satisfy the needs.of Southwest Metro; however, we do have an ever- increasing secretarial workload within the Administration and Human Resources departments. Accordingly, I request Council authorization for this position with the following understanding: Salary Range - $15,500 to $16,500 Approximately 20 hours per week for Southwest Metro Approximately 20 hours per week secretary/receptionist support for Administration and Human Resources, including Human Rights & Services Commission. The funding for this position to come from Southwest Metro (50%) and the City's General Fund Surplus (50%). CJJ:jdp CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 87-33 TH 5 LAYOUT APPROVAL (Wallace Road to Fuller Road) WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Department.of Transportation has prepared a preliminary layout for the improvement of a part of Trunk Highway #121, renumbered as Trunk Highway #5, within the corporate limits of the City of Eden Prairie, from Fuller Road to Wallace Road, and seeks the approval thereof; and WHEREAS, said-preliminary"layouts are on file in the office of the"Departmer.t of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota,;being marked, labeled, and idenified as layout # 4A S.P.27D1-24 (5=121) from Fuller Road to Wallace Road including Alternate A option if railroad is abandoned prior to construction. NOW, THEN, BE IT RESOLVED that said preliminary layouts for the improvement of said Trunk Highway within the corporate limits be and hereby are approved. subject to the following: A. The City recognizes that abandoment of the C & NW railroad tracks will affect the proposed layout plan #4A. If the abandoment is certain, the installation (on a temporary basis) of crossing gates is acceptable. However, if uncertainty exists, the City is concerned about the length of time the crossing gates might remain in place on a roadway that will have over 30,000.ADT. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 3, 1987. Mayor Gary D. Peterson ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk