HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 05/05/1987 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1987 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAM8ERS
7600 Executive Drive
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, Director of Planning 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 OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 21 1987 Page 918
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List Page 942
B. DEER CREEK 2ND ADDITION, by Thomas M. Carmody. 2nd Reading Page 943
of Ordinance #8-87-PUD-2-87, Rezoning Planned Unit Development
District Review on 80 acres with variances and Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 10.5 acres; Approval of
Developer's Agreement for Deer Creek 2nd Addition; and Adoption
of Resolution #87-102, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance
#8-87-PUO-2-87, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary.
12.6 acres into 31 single family lots and one outlot. Location:
West of Anderson Lakes Parkway, east of Carmody Drive.
(Ordinance #8-87-PUD-2-87, Rezoning and PUD; Resolution 87-83
Authorizing Summary and Publication)
C. CARDINAL RIDGE, by Countryside Investments, Inc. 2nd Page 944
Reading of Ordinance #16-87-PUO-3-87, Planned Unit Development
District Review, with Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 with variances
on 23.1 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Cardinal
Ridge; and Adoption of Resolution #87-80, Authorizing Summary of
Ordinance #16-87-PUD-3-87 and Ordering Publication of Said
Summary. 23.1 acres into 37 single family lots and road right-of-
way. Location: East of Baker Road and Edenvale Boulevard
intersection, west of Interstate I-494. (Ordinance #16-87-PUD-3-87,
Rezoning and PUD; Resolution #87-80, Authorizing Summary and
Publication)
0. Final Plat Approval for The Tree Farm (South of CSAH 1= West Page 945
of TH FOT Resolution No. 879
E. Final Plat Approval for Welter's Purgatory Acres 2nd (North Page 948
of CSAH 1 West of Bennett ) Resolution No. 87-107
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,May 5, 1987
F. Final Plat Approval for Deer Creek II (Extension of Carmody Page 951
Drive, West of Anderson Lakes Parkway) Resolution No. 87-108
G. Receive 100% Petition for Public Improvements for Nemec Knolls Page 954
and Order Preparation of Plans and Specifications, I.C. 52-121
Resolution No. 87-11DF
H. Authorize Conveyance of Right-of-Way for Baker Road Project to Page 957
Hennepin County
I. Adopt Resolution Requesting Speed Study for CSAH 1 between CSAH Page 963
18 and TH 169 (Resolution No. 87-111)
J. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 14-87, Regulating the Possession, Page 964
Service and Consumption of Liquor, Beer Kegs, Beer and Wine in
ub�lic Parks
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN Page 967
PRAIRIE VIEW AND ST. ANDREW DRIVE I.C. 52-104 (Resolution No.
87-92) Continued from Aprils 1987
B. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SUNNYBROOK ROAD AND UTILITY IMPRDVE- Page 968
MENTS, I.C. 52-1DgTResolution No. 87-68)
C. EASEMENT VACATION, WILLOW CREEK 2ND ADDITION (Resolution No. Page 969
B7-113)
D. ANDERSON'S GARDEN SHOPPE, by Don C. and Rita L. Anderson and Page 970 '
H.J. Nyhammer. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial on 2.2
acres, Zoning District change from R1-22 to C-Commercial on
1.6 and from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 1.86 acres, with variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat
of 3.1 acres into six lots and road right-of-way. Location:
Southeast corner of County Road #4 and Valley View Road,
west of Westgate Lane.
E. LUNDS CENTER, by Commercial Partners, Inc. Request for Zoning Page 1019
District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 6.1 acres with
variances to be reviewed by Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting
of 6.1 acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction
of 5B,108 square feet of commercial uses. Location: Southeast
corner of Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive. (Ordinance #17-87,
Rezoning from Rural to C-Reg-Ser; Resolution #87-102, Preliminary
Plat)
F. EDEN PRAIRIE ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, by Brody Associates, Inc. Page 1044
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 15.2
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances
on 15.2 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-
Service on 1.42 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the C-
Reg-Service District on 5.0 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.42
acres into one lot for construction of a theater/restaurant
complex. Location: Southwest quadrant of Eden Road and Glen Lane.
(Resolution #B7-103, PUD Concept Amendment of Eden Glen PUD;
Ordinance #18-87-PUD-4-87, Rezoning from Rural to C-Reg-Ser and
Zoning District Amendment within C-Reg-Ser District and PUD
District Review; Resolution #87-104, Preliminary Plat)
Cicy Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,May 5, 1987
G. BRYANT POINTE, by Jyland Development, Inc. Request for Zoning Page 1056
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 20.7 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 20.7 acres into 28 single family lots and
road right-of-way. Location: Southeast corner of Hennepin
County Highway #62 and Rowland Road. (Ordinance #19-87,
Rezoning; Resolution #87-105, Preliminary Plat)
•
H. ALPINE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, by R. M. Feerick Associates. Request Page 1062
for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 8.4 acres,
and Preliminary Plat of 8.4 acres into 14 single family lots and
road right-of-way. Location: East of Alpine Trail, south of
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad. (Ordinance #20-87,
Rezoning; Resolution #87-106, Preliminary Plat)
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS Page 1074
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Receive Petition for Sanitary Sewer Improvements to Serve Page 1080
Alpine Estates 2nd Addition and Authorize Preparation of a
easibility tudy (Resolution No. 87-114)
•
•
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
1. Discussion on City Policies Relating to Pending Special
Assessments
B. Report of City Manager
C. Report of City Attorney
D. Report of Director of Planning
E. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Page 1081
F. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Authorize Update for MCA Traffic Study la BRW, Inc. Page 1084
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
1
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1987 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
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, Director of Planning
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: All members were present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were added to the Agenda: I. A. Presenta-
tion on Ice Show at Eden Prairie Community Center; X. A. 1.
Peterson - Proposed Proclamation from the Optimist Club;
X.A. 2. Peterson - Rescind Previous Motion on Strate0ic
Planning; X.--K. 3. Harris - Discussion of Memo Regarding
Referendum Flyer; X. A. 4. Anderson - Request for Speed
Limit Change on County Road 1; X. B. 3.Meeting to Deal with International School.Set a Special
MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the
Agenda and Other Items of Business, as amended and published.
Motion carried unanimously.
A. Presentation Ice Show at Eden Prairie Community Center
Rick Bolinski, Superintendent of Recreation, presented Council-
members with tickets to the upcoming Ice Skating Show at the
Eden Prairie Community Center on May 2 and 3, 1987. He said
the figure skating program has grown from 50 members to 400
members in just one year.
II. MINUTES
A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 24, 1987
The following change was made to the Minutes: page five,
paragraph six, sentence three -- change "McDOT" to "MnDOT".
7
City Council Minutes -2- April 21, 1987
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve
the Minutes of the Special City Council meeting held
March 24, 1987, as amended and published. Motion carried
unanimously.
B. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 7, 1987
MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve
the Minutes of the regular City Council meeting held on
April 7, 1987, as published. Motion carried unanimously.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List
B. Resolution No. 87-100, Proclaiming the week of April 21 -
25 as Local Chamber of Commerce Week
C. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 11, CITY CODE. 2nd Reading of
Ordinance No. 9-87 Amending City Code Chapter 11, Entitled
Land Use Regulation (Zoning), and Readoption of City Code
Chapter 11 in its Entirety as Amended Herein, 1) by Re-
numbering Several Paragraphs Under Definitions; 2) by
Including Definition for a Maximum Base Area Ratio; 3) by
Changing Special Requirements for Filing and Recording of
Legal Descriptions and Zoning District Changes; 4) by
Including a Column Designating Maximum Base Area Ratios
5) by Amending Mechanical Equipment Screening Standards;
6) by Including Provisions for Required Landscaping in
Residential Districts; 7) by Changing Provisions Relating
to Off-Street Parking Space Requirements for Office Use
and Amending Exterior Material Design Standards to Omit
Factory Fabricated and Finished Metal Framed Panel Con-
struction; 10) by Adding Golf Courses as Permitted Uses
in Rural Districts Exclusively; 11) by Providing for a
Maximum Square Footage Requirement for Supporting Commercial
Sales and Services to Office Users within Large Office
Structures; 12) by Adding a Requirement Limiting the
Square Footage Maximums for Neighborhood Commercial Serv-
ices and Community Commercial Services; 13) by Providing
for a Maximum Percentage of Gross Building Area That
Supporting Minor Commercial Uses Can Occupy in Industrial
Districts; 14) by Adding a Requirement to Specify "End
Land Use" After Land Alteration Occurs and Identify Zoning
of Property After Land Alteration Occurs Under Section
Entitled Mining Operation and Land Alteration Regulations;
15) by Providing for a Maximum Size of Name Plates as
Permitted Under Home Occupation Code; 16) by Renumbering
Several Paragraphs Under Subdivision 2, Entitled Sign
Permits; 17) by Adding a Definition for Sign Base; 18)
by Adding Area Identification Regulation Criteria Under
L
1
City Council Minutes -3- April 21, 1987
Subdivision 3 Entitled General Provisions; 19) by Adding
Sign Base Criteria Under Residential Districts; 21)
by Amending That Portion of the Commercial Sign Ordinance
by Consolidating Permitted Commercial Sign Criteria Under
One Heading for All Commercial Districts; 22) by Deleting
Paragraph D of Subdivision Four of Section Entitled Sign
Permits; 23) by Amending That Portion of the Office Sign
Ordinance by Including Provisions for Wall Signs for Each
Elevation and Including Sign Base Criteria; 24) by Adding
Sign Base Criteria to Industrial Districts; 25) by Adding
Sign Base Criteria to Public Districts; 26) by Relettering
Paragraphs under Section Entitled Sign Permits; 27) by
Adopting Zoning Map Entitled "Zoning Map of the City of
Eden Prairie," dated January, 1987; and 28) Readoption of
City Code Chapter 11 in its Entirety as Amended Herein.
D. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 13-87, Repealing Section 2.12
Entitled "Development Commission", of the City Code
E. TOPVIEW ACRES NTH ADDITION by Jerrold T. Miller and Cris R.
Miller. Approval of Amendment to Developer's Agreement for
Topview Acres. 3.7 acres into six single family lots and
one outlot. Location: Northwest quadrant of Gerard Drive
and Beehive Court.
F. PRAIRIE VIEW CENTER 2ND ADDITION by Prairie View Associates.
Approval of Amendment to Developer's Agreement for Prairie
View Center. 14.6 acres into two lots. Location: North
of Plaza Drive, east of Prairie Center Drive.
G. Change Order No_2, Valley View Road Improvements, I.C.
51-2Z2
H. Preliminary and Final Plat Approval for Willow Creek 3rd
Addition for approximately eight acres; Approval of Amend-
ment to Developer's Agreement for Willow Creek Farm.
Loc ations Wiest of U.S. Hwy. 169 and south of Willow
Creek Road) (Resolution No. 87-91 - Preliminary and Final
Plat Approval)
I. Final Plat Approval for Edenvale 21st Addition (SE Corner
of Woodland Drive and Edenvale Boulevard) Resolution No.
87-94
J. Final Plat Approval for Topview Acres 5th Addition (Beehive
Court—Resolution No. 87-96
K. Final Plat Approval for Meadow Park 3rd Addition (NW corner
of Homeward Hills Road and Sunnybrook Road) Resolution No.
87-97
L. Receive Southwest Suburban Cable Commission's (SWSCC)
Annual Report for 1986
r
City Council Minutes -4- April 21, 1987
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve
Items A - L on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried
unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BLOSSOM RIDGE ADDITION by G. W. Pearson. Request for
Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 1.7 acres,
and Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres into four single family
lots and one outlot. Location: South of Blossom Road,
east of Bennett Place. (Ordinance No. 15-87 - Rezoning;
Resolution No. 87-86 - Preliminary Plat)
City Manager Jullie said proponent has requested that this
be continued to the May 19, 1987 meeting of the Council.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to continue
this Public Hearing to the May 19, 1987 meeting of the
City Council. Motion carried unanimously.
B. CARDINAL CREEK RIDGE by Countryside Investments, Inc.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium
Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 23.1
acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 23.1
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with
Zoning from Rural to R1-13.5 with variances on 23.1 acres,
and Preliminary Plat of 23.1 acres into 37 single family
lots and road right-of-way. Location: East of Baker
Road and Edenvale Boulevard intersection, west of Inter-
state I-494. (Resolution No. 87-87 - Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 87-88 - PUD Concept; Ordi-
nance No. 16-87-PUD-3-87 - Rezoning and PUD District
Review; Resolution No. 87-89 - Preliminary Plat)
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing
had been published and property owners within the project
vicinity had been notified.
Ron Kruger, representing proponent, addressed the proposal.
Planning Director Enger said the Planning Commission re-
viewed this item at the March 23rd meeting and recommended
approval on a 6-0 vote, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report of March 20th and based on plans dated
March 6, 1987. Since that time they have received revised
plans dated April 1, 1987.
Enger noted this is a difficult site to develop and the
decision to develop it as single family has ramifications
as to the natural features on the site. He said the site
has a combination of steep-sloped hills, mature oak woods
and a pond. In accordance with the tree replacement
11 j
.IP I
City Council Minutes -5- April 21, 1987
policy established by the Council, proponent will have
to replace approximately 50% or roughtly 1700 caliper
inches of the trees.
Enger said proponent is required to provide for the right-
of-way needed to construct the east-west cul-de-sac on
the property line to the north, prior to final plat.
Director of Community Services Lambert said the Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Commission reviewed this
item at the April 6th meeting and, on a 7-0 vote, recom-
mended approval per the Planning Commission and Staff
recommendations.
Pidcock asked Enger if he was saying that a medium density
project would be less impactful on this site. Enger res-
ponded that an alternate approach to development on this
site would be to build primarily in the clear areas, and
that would most likely mean development as townhouses or
cluster-type housing.
Anderson said he was concerned about the amount of grading
and asked for further details on the amount of grading
and fill proposed for the site. He said a lot of work was
done with the County to not cut back the banks of some of
the hills and to put in retaining walls, and he hoped
those efforts would not be wasted by development of this
project. Enger said there will be a couple of hundred
feet of woods that will be saved between the road, the
retaining walls on Baker Road and the subdivision.
Anderson asked if the 20-foot cut through the project is
necessary to make this project work. Enger replied that
Staff had suggested a different land use but proponent
wanted to pursue single family. He said they then suggested
that the end of the cul-de-sac on the east be pulled back
in order to save more trees on the southern knoll and that
there he fewer but larger lots. Staff had also suggested
that the R1-44 zoning district be used in this development
in order to save more of the natural features. He said,
however, that the project tonight is the program proponent
chose to pursue.
Anderson asked if there are any assurances from the
developer regarding the maintenance of the water level
in the pond. Mr. Kruger said there won't be an outlet
installed; so it will remain as it is. Anderson said that
means, then, that the pond will just be allowed to dry up
during dry weather.
City Council Minutes -6- April 21, 1987
0._
Dick Burry, representing the owner of property on the
west of the development, said their piece of property is
being chopped up. He said they had suggested to the
proponent that their property be combined with this devel-
opment to make more lots. He said this development will
leave 1-1/2 acres of their property as an isolated
island.
Art Roberts, representing the Cardinal Creek Homeowner's
Association, said they are generally enthusiastic about
this proposal, but they do have some concerns about traf-
fic safety and traffic flow as well as duplicating the
name Cardinal Creek for any streets or for the name of
the development itself.
Bentley said he thought the issue comes down to whether
this is an appropriate land use. He said in light of
surrounding development to the south and the southeast,
this does become an appropriate use; therefore, we take
on the additional responsibility of allowing a greater
amount of cut, fill and tree loss than would occur with
a multiple type of development. He said, while he under-
stood Mr. Burry's dilemma, he did not feel there is much
that can be done at this time as there are no alternate
proposals before the Council.
Enger said that access to Mr. Burry's property would prob-
ably best be provided off this subdivision, but it would
create a considerable amount of damage in that area,
particularly to the trees. Mr. Kruger said they had looked
at the property but it didn't fit into their proposed lot
size.
Pidcock asked what the price range will be. Mr. Kruger
said the lots start at approximately $75,000.
Anderson said he was concerned about the visual impact of
large two-story houses, as they may be noticeable above the
tree line from surrounding neighborhoods. Kruger said
the trees are white oaks and as such are not as high as
red oaks; however, all of the roofs in the subdivision
will be constructed of cedar shakes so there will be no
color variation from house to house. He said the covenants
will specify cedar shake roofs.
Pidcock asked if we have a copy of the covenants and if
they will be part of the Developer's Agreement. Enger
said we have a copy and they will be part of the Developer's
Agreement.
City Council Minutes -7- April 21, 1987
MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the
Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 87-87 approving
the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, subject to approval
by the Metropolitan Council. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adopt
Resolution No. 87-88 approving the PUD of Cardinal Creek
for Countryside Investments, Inc. Motion carried unani-
mously.
MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Bentley, to give 1st
Reading of Ordinance No. 16-87-PUD-3-87 for rezoning from
Rural to R1-13.5 for 23.1 acres and for PUD District Re-
view. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt
Resolution No. 87-89 approving the Preliminary Plat of
Cardinal Creek Ridge for Countryside Investments, Inc.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to direct
Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating
Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried
unanimously.
C. Feasibility_Study_for Prairie View Drive/St. Andrew Drive
Improvements, I.C. 52-10l Resolution No. 87-92)
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing
had been published and property owners within the project
vicinity had been notified. He said the purpose of the
Hearing is to determine if the Council wishes to order
in the proposed improvements. If the decision is made
to go ahead with the improvements, the final cost to be
assessed will be the subject of a future Public Hearing
held after the completion of the project.
Director of Public Works Dietz noted that a petition for
the improvements was received last year from the majority
of the property owners along Prairie View Drive. As a
result of the feasibility study, Staff determined it would
be beneficial to include St. Andrew Drive in the project.
He reviewed the improvements proposed and said the total
cost for the project is approximately $448,000. He then
reviewed the Preliminary Assessment Roll for the project
and the alternative methods of assessing the project costs.
Dietz said 13 people attended the informational meeting
held last week. Discussion at that meeting centered
around the merits of special assessments and if there was
a benefit to the properties as a result of this project.
He said he had determined that the properties on Prairie
City Council Minutes -8- April 21, 1987
View Drive are scheduled for reappraisal for the January,
1988 assessment; therefore the proposed project, if com-
pleted, would very likely affect the valuation of the lots
to some extent. He noted that the average cost to connect
the homes to the service stubs would be about $2,000.
Dietz said the City has a policy established in the early
1970s to give a $1,000 credit to homesteaded property
built prior to June, 1971 in order to recognize that
those properties would lose some value for their septic
and well systems.
Peterson asked what the improvements are to St. Andrew
Drive. Dietz replied the improvements to both streets
would be concrete curb and gutter, gravel-based bituminous
street surface, and the installation of storm sewer.
Pidcock asked what is the average assessed valuation of the
properties there. Dietz said he didn't know.
Paul Shee, 7288 Prairie View Drive, said the homes in
the area are generally $100,000 or less. He expressed
concern that the process of notification for the Public
Hearing and the informational meeting did not clearly
indicate what would happen and when. Dietz responded that
Staff decided to send out the official notification within
the assessment booklet.
Peterson asked if a booklet which includes a letter notify-
ing residents of a Public Hearing is legally acceptable.
City Attorney Pauly said he thought that was sufficient,
although it might not be as clear. Peterson said he
thought that wasn't a very effective way of handling
notice of Public Hearings.
Peterson asked if there are a number of residents who are
not aware of this meeting tonight. Mr. Shee said he had
gone around the neighborhood yesterday reminding people;
however, his concern was with the question of whether
there would be formal action taken that would constitute
a levy assessment. Peterson said this is not an assess-
ment hearing, but he wanted to be sure that the neighbor-
hood was properly notified.
Bentley noted that the Feasibility Study presents estimated
costs only, and the actual costs may be higher or lower.
He said the purpose of this meeting is to determine whether
the project should be ordered in. If it is ordered in, then
at some point someone will have to pay for it and that
determination will be made at a separate Public Hearing
for all the Special Assessment issues that have occurred.
��l
City Council Minutes -9- April 21, 1987
Pidcock noted that if this project is approved tonight,
all property owners will have a pending assessment against
their property.
Peterson said he wanted to resolve the propriety of the
Public Hearing notice. He said he didn't know if there
was any way to determine if there are people not present
tonight because of not knowing about the meeting. Mr.
Shee said that he had tried to contact several people
who are not here tonight.
Anderson asked if there would be any problem with continu-
ing this item for two weeks. Dietz said there would be no
problem, but noted that by sending out the report and
offering an informational meeting more effort had been
spent on this project than on any previous feasibility
study. He said the notice of the Public Hearing was in
the report and was properly published in the newspaper.
Peterson said no one is questioning the intention of the
Staff, but if several people couldn't find the notice in
the booklet, then we have to believe that the best inten-
tions of Staff weren't successful.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to continue
this Public Hearing until the next meeting of the City
Council and to direct Staff to send a letter to all
property owners affected informing them of the continu-
ance of this Public Hearing to May 5th. Motion carried
unanimously.
D. Feasibility Study for Bennett Place and Blossom Road
Improvements LI.C. 52-105 Resolution No. 87-93)
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing
had been published and property owners within the project
had been notified.
Peterson asked those residents present for this hearing
if there were any problems with the notices. There were
none stated.
Director of Public Works Dietz reviewed the details of
the proposed improvements for Bennett Place and Blossom
Road and pointed out the location on a map. He said the
City received a petition from the property owners of
Bluestem Hills and others for the construction of Bennett
Place and the improvements that would go with it. After
discussion it was agreed that the Blossom Road improve-
ments should be included in the feasibility study.
Dietz said they are suggesting Bennett Place be constructed
as a 28-foot wide street with a 50-foot right-of-way after
City Council Minutes -10- April 21, 1987
the intersection with Blossom Road because of the steep •
grade and vegetation. He said after much discussion on
the alternatives, they are recommending that Blossom
Road be realigned onto County Road 1 rather than terminat-
ing it in a cul-de-sac. He reviewed the other details of
the project and said the total cost will be approximately
$533,000.
Dietz then distributed a revised Preliminary Assessment
Roll for the project and reviewed the alternative methods
for assessing the project. He also distributed copies of
a letter from Mr. Ray N. Welter, Jr., dated April 13, 1987
objecting to the realignment of Blossom Road. (Attachment
AMrs. Moorhead, 9969 Bennett Place, said it is the developers
who are requesting that these improvements be made. She
said with her proposed assessment of $31,000 she will be
forced to sell the property to another developer or not
be able to pay the taxes. She was concerned that there
were so few of them to absorb the costs just for the
benefit of the developers.
Ray Welter, Jr., 11650 Pioneer Trail, said his house will,
in effect, become an island in the middle of tar and cars
if this project is completed. He said he thought the
alternative of a cul-de-sac was a much better idea.
Sharon Holand, 11231 Creekridge Drive, asked why there is
no assessment for Lot 29. Dietz said that with the con-
struction of Bennett Place there was an extremely heavy
assessment to the adjoining properties and that particular
lot was included in the previous improvements to Bennett
Place.
Carol Burnett, 9940 Bennett Place, said she will be assessed
$43,000 and is concerned about how much extra it will
cost her to hook up to the sewer and water once it is
available.
Harold Johnson, 9995 Bennett Place, said he was involved
in developing a portion of his property and didn't believe
he should be assessed for the entire three acres. Dietz
said this had been discussed, and there are no assessments
accruing to this property because of water or sanitary
sewer construction on Blossom Road.
Bentley noted that the actual assessments to be levied
and the conditions of the assessments would be determined
after construction is completed at the Special Assessment
hearing. He then noted that such conditions might possibly
1 r
City Council Minutes -11- April 21, 1987
include provision for deferring the assessments on those
properties that would probably be subdivided in the
future until such time as the properties were hooked up
or were subdivided or provision for placing a cap on the
amount of interest that would accrue on the assessment.
He then said the question of Mr. Welter's house will have
to be dealt with before we can take action this evening.
Pidcock asked if the Moorhead property of 1.85 acres will
be given one hookup or will it be done so that it could
be subdivided. Dietz said it will be done so that it can
be subdivided in the future. He said the feasibility
study provides that we will put services at all locations
where it appears there will be some type of development
in the future.
Justin Moorhead, 9969 Bennett Place, expressed concern
about a draft plan of development for his property. Dietz
said that the Planning Staff had asked for and received
a proposal from the developer about what could be done
in that area, but that it was a draft only.
Peterson said the residents would have an opportunity
to work with Staff on the details of the improvements, and
they would also have the benefit of the Assessment Hearing
to have input in that process.
Don Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road, noted that all
assessments will have to be paid by someone, even though
assessments may be deferred or otherwise dealt with, and
the City may ultimately have to pay for such deferred or
non-assessable items.
Pidcock asked Dietz what he would propose for Mr. Welter's
property. Dietz responded that, concurrent with the
development of construction plans, we should get appraisals
of the property to see what the cost will be to build the
road as we show it, and then return to the Council for a
final determination to see if it will be worth the cost.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to adopt
Resolution No. 87-93, ordering preparation of plans and
specifications for I.C. 52-105, Bennett Place and Blossom
Road Utility and Street Improvements.
Bentley noted that the Council has been aware of the need
for improvement of Bennett Place and Blossom Road for some
time and, regardless of the action here tonight, the
properties in that area will ultimately be developed in
some other manner.
u�l
City Council Minutes -12- April 21, 1987
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 34032 - 34362
Pidcock asked about Item No. 34035 to the Mn. Dance Theatre
for $1200. Director of Community Services Lambert said
this was for a concert by that group at the High School
sponsored by the Historical & Cultural Commission. She
then asked about Item 34059 to the City of St. Anthony for
$93.50. Natalie Swaggert said this was for a dinner with
guest speaker for City employees sponsored by the League of
Minnesota Cities.
Pidcock asked about Item No. 34161 to Dorsey & Whitney for
$5300. Bentley said that item was for a bond issue. She
then asked about Item No. 34170 to E. P. Liquor #1 for
$54.46. City Manager Jullie said that was for pop for the
employees on moving day.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the
Payment of Claims Nos. 34032 - 34362. Roll call vote:
Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and Peterson voted "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. CARDINAL HILLS by New American Homes Corporation. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 6-87, Rezoning from Rural to
R1-13.5; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Cardinal
Hills; and Adoption of Resolution No. 87-58, Authorizing
Summary of Ordinance No. 6-87 and Ordering Publication
of Said Summary. 39.5 acres into 59 single family lots,
three outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: North of
Cardinal Creek Road, west of I-494 (Ordinance No. 6-87 -
Rezoning; Resolution No. 87-58 - Authorizing Summary and
Publication)
City Manager Jullie noted that typically 2nd Reading of
a project is handled on the Consent Calendar; however
the question of access was of primary concern on this
project so it is being considered as a separate item.
He said the documents are in order except that the Owner's
Supplement to the Developer's Agreement has not yet been
signed.
Bentley asked if this can be given 2nd Reading, subject
to final signing of the Developer's Agreement on the part
of the developer. Jullie said it might be appropriate
to grant approval and direct Staff to not issue any per-
mits until that document is in hand and that the proponent
acknowledge this evening that that will be the case.
Mr. Kramer, representing proponent, said they concur with
that.
City Council Minutes -13- April 21, 1987
Pidcock asked about it being called Cardinal Hills rather •
than Cardinal Creek Hills. Planning Director Enger said
the name of the subdivision has been changed to Cardinal
Hills.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to give 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 6-87 for rezoning, with the
understanding that no permits will be issued until such
time as all necessary signed documents are received from
the developer.
Pidcock asked City Attorney Pauly for his opinion. Pauly
responded that his personal view is not to approve things
on condition because fulfillment of the conditions is
not a part of the record and the undoing of a zoning
statute requires certain procedures. A discussion followed
as to the best method of proceeding on this matter.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by
Harris, to amend the motion to add "and with the under-
standing that Staff will provide a Resolution at the next
Council meeting indicating that all documents relative
to this project have been approved."
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: Motion carried with Bentley opposed.
VOTE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt
Resolution No. 87-58, authorizing the Summary of Ordinance
No. 6-87 for Publication. Motion carried unanimously.
B. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 14-87, Regulating the Posses-
sion, Service and Consumption of Liquor, Beer Kegs, Beer
and Wine in Public Parks
City Manager Jullie reviewed the proposed ordinance re-
garding the use of alcohol in public parks.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to give
1st Reading of Ordinance No. 14-87, Regulating the Posses-
sion, Service and Consumption of Liquor, Beer Kegs, Beer
and Wine in Public Parks.
Anderson said he thought the people who use the beverages
are part of the problem. He said he believes the greatest
cause of complaint is about softball teams using the parks.
He said he would like to see stronger enforcement of those
groups of people who do not handle alcoholic beverages
well. Director of Community Services Lambert said there
are City ordinances regarding drunk and disorderly conduct
City Council Minutes -14- April 21, 1987
as well as the use of foul language, but enforcement is •
a difficult thing. He said people should talk to the
Park Ranger if they feel offended.
Harris said she understood this to read that liquor is
prohibited without exception and that wine is prohibited
only in Round Lake Park. Lambert said the intent was to
allow beer and wine everywhere except at the Flying Cloud
Athletic Fields and the part of Round Lake Park that is
north of Valley View Road. A discussion followed regard-
ing the interpretation of the proposed ordinance.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously.
VII. PETITIONSS REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from CSM (Fountain Head Apartments) for an exten-
sion to November 1, 1987 to start develo went of up to
495 units ($39 00,000) Resolution No. 87-90
City Manager Jullie said the CSM project is a multi-family
residential project along Hwy. 169 south of Prairie Center
Drive. He said they have requested an extension of the
construction date in the bond agreement from May 1 to
November 1, 1987. He also noted they have reduced the
project so that it would go up to 495 units. In December,
1985 the City Council approved issuance of $64,000,000
in Housing Revenue Bonds; however, proponent now foresees
the use of $39,600,000 of the HRBs,so the balance of the
bonds will be called.
Bentley said one of the initial concerns on this project
was the intensity of development proposed; however, the
project is obviously being scaled back at this point. He
said his only question is whether we can legally grant an
extension of HRBs when they are technically not being
allowed on a tax exempt basis. City Attorney Pauly replied
that these bonds have already been placed so the sale has
already occurred and it is just a question of refunding
them.
Bentley asked if it could be impacted under the new tax
laws by the fact that the construction has not yet taken
place; therefore it might be determined that the bonds
are no longer tax exempt. Finance Director Frane said
the reduced scope of the project is acceptable and the
temporary sale of the bonds with expected resale in the
future is okay. He said the dates for calling of the bond
issue were dates imposed by the City.
Harris expressed concern about the delay and asked if we
have assurances that the project will go forward.
��i
City Council Minutes -15- April 21, 1987
Gary Holmes, President of CSM, said the delays have •
occurred because it is a difficult site with a number
of issues involved such as proposed roads in the area,
wetlands, and the terrain. He said it will take from
now until November to get through the process and begin
construction. He said that they have spent in excess of
$1.2 million on this project already so he would certainly
hope the project would continue.
Pidcock asked if they have closed on the property.
Holmes said they have not.
Bentley noted that this issue was granted at a time when
it appeared there would be a dramatic change in the tax
law,and there was a big rush for a lot of HRBs. He said
it was understood on our part that the project was specu-
lative in nature.
A discussion followed regarding the reason for delays in
this project when other projects have gone ahead. Holmes
said the scope at the start was an 800 unit project with
larger acreage. He said the process of dealing with
several property owners, proposed roads, working with the
Planning Staff and arranging financing has taken several
months to put together. He said the bond financing alone
is very complicated; however, they now have commitment
from a lender and are ready to go.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt
Resolution No. 87-90 extending the construction date
required in the bond agreement to November 1, 1987.
Motion carried with Harris abstaining.
B. Concept Plan Approval for T.H. 212 Corridor/Official
Mapping Process
Director of Public Works Dietz reviewed the alignment of
the proposed T.H. 212 corridor concept plan. He said it
is only a concept plan that was drawn from an aerial flight
in the area. He said the State is asking that we adopt a
resolution approving the concept plan. They will then
develop the necessary surveying data to go through the
final mapping process. He also reviewed the changes pro-
posed by the Planning Staff on the western portion of the
corridor plan and noted that those changes had been dis-
cussed with the State.
Bentley asked if by approving this concept plan, we are
approving the intersection configurations. Dietz replied
that as a result of this concept approval, they will get
City Council Minutes -16- April 21, 1987
legal descriptions of the area to be encompassed; there-
fore we would be approving the configurations, with some
possible future flexibility. He said the purpose of this
is to protect a corridor for the highway.
Bentley said he thought the concept for the intersection
of Prairie Center Drive is the most expensive one that
can be put together in terms of soil correction and other
items. He said he also thought a folded diamond intersec-
tion makes very poor use of the land and makes for very
poor traffic flow. He said he thought we should be care-
ful about committing ourselves to a particular type of
intersection.
Dietz said the process is really just beginning and the
environmental work has yet to be completed on the project.
He said the Met Council will have something to say on
intersection location and design.
Planning Director Enger said Staff worked with MnDOT to
suggest the folded diamond intersection when it was de-
cided to hold the opportunity for an intersection there
after the Met Council refused to extend the MUSA line
and Dell Road had to be moved to the east within the cur-
rent MUSA line. He said it was possible that there might
be further discussion of not having that intersection at
all.
Anderson said the concept is the important part and we
must recognize that we have to preserve the right-of-way
somewhere along the line. He said he believed this is
the proper time to approve the T.H. 212 concept plan.
City Attorney Pauly said the alignment will ultimately
have to go through the Planning Commission and a Public
Hearing must be held prior to the final adoption.
Peterson asked if we have any sensing as to how Chanhassen
might go on this. Dietz said that Chanhassen wants the
road and their staff feels this alignment does more for
their downtown improvements than the southern alignment
would.
Peterson then asked if our approving of this concept would
limit the people and the staff in Chanhassen in their
deliberations. He asked if we should have any formal
conversation with the staff in Chanhassen prior to any
formal approval of the concept plan.
Bentley said historically Eden Prairie's position has not
been in favor of the route that goes south of Lake Riley
J�
( City Council Minutes -17- April 21, 1987
�6
as that would have a detrimental effect on our park
development, but rather has been in favor of the northerly
alignment. He said he felt this is really a reaffirmation
of previous action by the Council which set the corridor
after a large hearing was held on the subject.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt
Resolution No. 87-95, T.H. 212 Concept Approval. Motion
carried unanimously.
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
There were no reports.
IX. APPOINTMENTS
A. Appointment of Steve Cwodzinski to the Bicentennial of
the U.S. Constitution Committee
MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to appoint
Steve Cwodzinski to the Bicentennial of the U.S. Consti-
tution Committee. Motion carried unanimously.
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
1. Peterson - Proposed Proclamation from the Optimist
Club
Peterson referred to the letter from the Optimist
Club of Eden Prairie dated April 18, 1987 with an
attached Proclamation. He said they wanted to call
attention to their "Just Say No" Program and, after
discussions with Rick Bolinski, decided to join with
the City on the Arbor Day Walk.
Peterson said he would prefer to reword the fifth
paragraph of the draft proclamation as he felt it
implies a joint-sponsorship of the Arbor Day Walk.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley, to adopt
Resolution No. 87-101 declaring May 2, 1987 as "Just
Say No" Day in the City of Eden Prairie, with the
fifth paragraph of the Resolution to read as follows:
"WHEREAS, The Eden Prairie Optimists have planned
a "Just Say No" Walk against drugs in
the City of Eden Prairie, in conjunction
with the City's Arbor Day Walk;"
Motion carried unanimously.
6
City Council Minutes -18- April 21, 1987
2. Peterson - Rescind Previous Motion on Strategic
Planning
Peterson noted that at the April 7, 1987 meeting
the Council moved to retain a consultant for Strate-
gic Planning and to schedule meetings to begin the
process. Subsequently the Councilmembers had decided
not to proceed at the present time and to reschedule
this for the fall.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to
rescind the action of the Council at the April 7,
1987 meeting regarding the Strategic Planning process
and to reschedule this item for the fall of 1987.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Harris - Discussion of Memo Regarding_Referendum
Flyer
Harris said she was struck by the memo from Mr. Lambert
which addressed the issue of a flyer that was circu-
lated during the recent Park Bond Referendum. She said
she was not aware of the flyer at the time of the
referendum; however, she thought it was important to
correct the record for those who may have been mis-
guided by this misinformation.. She said she thought
there should be some indication in the official City
newspaper calling attention to the fact that there
was misleading information circulated via this flyer
and explaining what the correct information is.
While it may not be possible to identify the individu-
als involved in perpetrating what she considers to be
fraudulent information, Harris urged that the Council
take a position publicly by identifying the action, the
inaccurate information and the correct status regarding
the park system.
Bentley said he would support what Mrs. Harris suggested
but would further suggest that, per Mr. Pauly's memo,
the election does fall under the definition of special
elections in the State laws and therefore the dis-
semination of unsigned literature by persons unknown
is a violation of the law. He said he would urge that
the City Manager be directed to ask Public Safety to
mount an investigation of the identity of individuals
involved and, if so identified, that the proper prosecu-
tion be undertaken.
Anderson said he would strongly concur as he was ex-
tremely irritated by the erroneous information contained
City Council Minutes -19- April 21, 1987
in the flyer. He said he believes such a letter or
flyer is misleading and is dishonest.
Bentley said he doesn't discourage anyone from speak-
ing out in opposition to anything, but he is irritated
when people make misleading statements that could poten-
tially impact an election,and thereby influence public
policy without identifying themselves.
Peterson said the issue is the requirement that we
expect literature or expressions to come with the
force of a person, not whether a person is accurate
or inaccurate.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to
direct Staff to work with the City newspaper to make
known the position of the City Council regarding the
misleading information about the Park Bond Referendum
circulated prior to the referendum and to make known
the correct information regarding the Eden Prairie
park system: further, to direct the City Manager to
work with Public Safety to mount an investigation of
the identity of the individuals involved and, if so
identified, to undertake the proper prosecution of
those individuals. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Anderson_ Request for Speed Limit Change on County
Road 1
Anderson noted that the speed on County Road 1 is
presently 50 MPH and that a six year old girl was hit
by a car on that road last week. He said this is
essentially a residential area from Hwy. 169 to Hwy. 18
and there is a heavy amount of pedestrian traffic as
well as some churches in the area. He said he thought
we should contact the County and request that the speed
limit be lowered to 40 MPH.
Director of Public Works Dietz said we could bring a
resolution back at the next meeting. He said, however,
that there is a chance that they might actually raise
the speed limit. Anderson said we don't have sidewalks
or wide shoulders along the road in that residential
area and, as a Council, we really have to look out for
the welfare of the residents.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to
direct Staff to prepare as strong a resolution as
possible requesting that the speed limit on County
Road 1 be lowered. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -20- April 21, 1987
Pidcock commented on the lack of lighting in the
parking area at the new City Hall facility. Jullie
noted that we are checking into the installation of
lighting but noted that the City will probably have
to pay for it.
B. Report of City Manager
1. Restructuring of Benefit Program
City Manager Jullie noted that about a year ago James
Bissonett & Assoc. came to the City with a study they
had done of employee benefits in other cities and
suggested that it might be good for the City to review
some changes and perhaps go away from the County system.
Referring to the memo of April 16, 1987 from Ms
Swaggert, Jullie said the benefit feasibility study is
complete and the proposed restructured program is
summarized in the attachment to the memo. Jullie
said there will be a substantial savings to both the
City and the employees from the restructured program.
Bentley said he thought the proposal looks good and
asked who is the carrier of the disability program.
Mr. Azen, of James Bissonett & Assoc., said the carrier
is Mutual Benefit. Bentley then asked what their defini-
tion of disability is. Mr. Azen replied it is the
inability to perform the duties of your occupation.
A discussion followed regarding the details of the
disability provisions.
Bentley asked who is the carrier of the life insurance
under the basic provision and if it is level term.
Azen said it is level term and the carrier is Guarantee
Mutual.
Anderson asked if the City Staff has been surveyed on
these changes and noted that changing medical coverage
can be a traumatic experience for some people. Jullie
said there has been substantial discussion with Staff
and that the major impact is to the 14 employees now
enrolled in Group Health who will no longer have that
option; however, he didn't anticipate a serious problem
with that. Bentley asked if there would be a pre-
existing condition clause that would affect those 14
employees. Azen said neither MedCenter nor PHP will
subject them to a pre-existing condition clause.
Pidcock asked if the providers are Minnesota companies.
Azen said that, while Minnesota companies were asked
CCity Council Minutes -21- April 21, 1987
to bid, the providers of the disability and life
insurance are not Minnesota companies.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to author-
ize the City Manager to proceed with the implementa-
tion of the restructured benefit plan, in accordance
with the memorandum of April 16, 1987 from the Director
of Human Resources. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Recommendation for Consultant on Human Services Model
Referring to the memo of April 17, 1987 from Natalie
Swaggert, Peterson commented that the report prepared
on this subject was well done and well presented.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock, to accept
the recommendation to select Michael Groh as the
consultant to conduct a study of human services needs
in Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Set a Special Meeting to Deal with International School
City Manager Jullie noted that the Council had deter-
Cmined not to have 2nd Reading of the International
School until the school had all of the negotiations
worked out with the Met Council and Hennepin Parks.
He said they expect to complete those negotiations
prior to May 1 and have requested a special meeting
of the Council in order to complete the process prior
to their closing date on May 1, 1987.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to set
a Special Meeting of the City Council for Thursday,
April 30, 1987 at 4:00 PM in the Council Chambers.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Report of City Attorney
There was no report.
D. Report of Director of Planning
There was no report.
E. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Request Authorization for 1st Phase Development of
Willow Park
Director of Community Services Lambert referred to his
memo of March 12, 1987 regarding the development of
t kjj
I
City Council Minutes -22- April 21, 1987
of Willow Park. He said they have been preparing
this site for a number of years and it is now ready
for finish grading and seeding. He said it would be
funded through cash park fees.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to
approve the development of the 1st phase of Willow
Park. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Award Bids for Bituminous Overlay on Tennis Courts
at Round Lake Park
Referring to his memo of April 15, 1987, Lambert said,
while this item was not included in the budget, the
condition of the tennis courts is deteriorating and
they should be resurfaced now. He said bids were
received for this project and Staff is recommending
that the bid of Plehal Blacktopping for $34,679 be
accepted. He also noted that an agreement with the
School District provides for their contributing 50%
of maintenance costs for the courts.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to
accept the bid received from Plehal Blacktopping in
the amount of $34,679 for the overlay and color coat-
ing of the Round Lake tennis courts. Roll call vote:
Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and Peterson voted
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
Harris asked if the School District had been made
aware of the possibility of this action. Lambert
replied that they are aware of it and will reimburse
the City after their July 1st fiscal year.
F. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Award 19 E Seal Coat Pro'ect I.C. 2-11 (Resolu-
tion No. 87-98
Director of Public Works Dietz reviewed the bids
received for the 1987 seal coating and noted the Staff
recommendation to award the contract to Allied Black-
top Company, Inc.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to
adopt Resolution No. 87-98 accepting the bid of
$121,898.15 from Allied Blacktop Co., I.C. 52-113,
1987 Seal Coating. Roll call vote: Anderson,
Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and Peterson voted "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
gad
City Council Minutes -23- April 21, 1987
XI. NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris, to adjourn the
meeting at 11:28 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
a4o
(ATTACHMENT A)
Ray N. Welter, Jr.
1165D Pioneer Trail
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
April 13, 1987
Sharon Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Blossom Road - Lots 22 8 23 -- Public Works Inprovements -- I.C. 52-105
Dear Council Members,
As a young boy, I played on the hilltop lot where in 1965 I built my house and
started raising a family. This has always been a nice hilltop lot with many trees.
Red oaks, ash and woods of elm made it a great two lots.
Now for no good reason RCM thinks all this should be wrecked so a road can go from
nowhere to nowhere.
Another house could be built on Lot 22 with some small changes. They are wrong
when they say a house could not be built there.
They plan to widen the road which will take 8 more feet off my front yard. No
one in their right mind would live in a house with the road that close to their
front door. They would have a hard time parking a station wagon in the driveway
without it sticking into the road. You would not be able to buy a small enough lawn
sprinkler
If you OK this RCM plan, I will end up with a road in front of the house (Blossom), • j
a road on the side (Blossom revised and extremely close here, too) and County Rd #1
to the back of the lot. The parking lot of the church will be on the other side.
No one wants to live on an island in the middle of tar and cars.
This plan makes the house worthless and useless.
RCM, in my view, has never been very intelligent in their figuring or thinking. I
think someone else should review this plan. I have worked with them before and
they leave a lot to be desired.
Please consider a cul-de-sac in this area. It is really the only way to go. The
church can still get it's people out at Bennett Place, and where the new road goes
out through the Bluestem Hills Development. A stop sign at Bennett and County
Road #1 would be better than two roads dumping onto County Road #1 and then neither
road being able to empty onto County Road #1 because they conflict with each other.
Thanks,
r Ray N. Welter, Jr.
RNWjr/pld
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
May 5, 1987
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) GAS FITTER
Great Plains Supply Company Raymond Haeg Plumbing
Loeffel - Engstrand Company Midland Heating & Air Conditioning
Hammersaw Construction, Inc. Tom Motzko Plumbing & Heating
M. L. Design Sedgwick Heating & Air Conditioning
Wenzel Plumbing & Heating
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY)
Fred Cool Construction HEATING & VENTILATING
Emerald Remodel ing
Jeremiah Construction Midland Heating & Air Conditioning
Landmark Homes, Inc. Sedgwick Heating & Air Conditioning
Stephen Longman Builders Unique Indoor Comfort
Gene Mace Construction
Richard Marple Builders SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Midwest Fence & Mfg.
Post Construction Company Larry's On Site Septic System
Ivan Priem
R.C.L. Company TEMPORARY BEER
Resitek, Inc.
Reus-Bottema Construction Eden Prairie Lions Club
Timberwall Landscaping, Inc. Schooner Days May 29,30,31
Valley Pools, Inc. July 4th
Zackoski Construction Corn Feed August 8
Zahner Construction
3.2 BEER ON SALE
PLUMBING
T.J.'s Restaurant
Ambrose Brown Plumbing
Heating Consultants TYPE C FOOD
Marty's Plumbing $ Excavating
Mevissen Plumbing Mark's Eden Prairie Amaco
Moengen Plumbing PDO Food Store
Tom Motzko Plumbing CIGARETTE
N. S. Services
Northridge Plumbing Co. Mark's Eden Prairie Amaco
TYPE 8 FOOD
FP—Food Store
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
Pat So ie, Licensing
Deer Creek 2nd Addition
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 8-87-PUD-2-87
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, ANO, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development 2-87-
R1-9.5 District (hereinafter "PUD 2-87-R1-9.5").
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of May 5, 1987, entered into between
Thomas and Grace Carmody, husband and wife, and the City of Eden Prairie. The
Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD 2-87-R1-g.5, and are
hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD 2-B7-R1-9.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan
of the City.
B. PUO 2-87-R1-9.5 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of
the City Code, which are contained in PUD 2-87-R1-9.5, are justified
by the design of the development described therein.
D. PUD 2-87-R1-9.5 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement
that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a
complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit.
Section 5. 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
Planned Unit Development 2-87-R1-9.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in
each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B,
shall be and are amended accordingly.
Section 6. 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.
Li 2,
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
qk passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 3rd day of March, 1987, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 5th day of
May, 1987.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of .
A
Exhibit A
Legal Description
}} PUD Concept Amendment & District Review:
"l The South Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, and the
South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, and the
Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, all in Section 15, Township 116,
Range 22W, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Zoning:
That part of the South Half of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter,
Section 15, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that lies
easterly of Deer Creek and that lies westerly of Anderson Lakes Parkway
Platting:
That part of the South Half of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter,
Section 15, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota that lies
easterly of Deer Creek.
Deer Creek 2nd Addition
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1987, by
Thomas and Grace Carmody, 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 Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on 80 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with
variances for lot sizes of less than 9,500 sq. ft. for twelve lots, rezoning from
the Rural District to the R1-9.5-PUD-2-87 District, on 10.5 acres, and preliminary
plat of 12.6 acres into 31 lots and one outlot, for construction of single family
homes, 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 #8-87-PUD-2-
87, 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 February 26, 1987, reviewed and approved
by the City Council on March 3, 1987, and attached hereto as Exhibit
8, 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. Prior to issuance of anybuilding g permit upon the property,
Developers shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City a{
6
Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water,
storm sewer, and erosion control for the property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developers shall construct, or
cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit
C, attached hereto.
4. Prior to issuance of any grading permit upon the property, Developer
shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's
aproval of, a tree replacement plan for 107 caliper inches of trees
to be replaced on the property.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
implement, or cause to be implemented, said tree replacement plan,
in accordance with the tree replacement policy of the City, attached
hereto as Exhibit D, and made a part hereof.
5. Developer agrees to notify the City and the Watershed District at
least 48 hours in advance of any grading, or tree removal, on the
property.
Prior to issuance of any permit for grading upon the property,
Developer agrees to implement erosion control measures and adequate
protective measures for areas to be preserved and areas where
grading is not to occur, and to receive City approval of said
measures. Prior to approval by the City, the Developer must call
for on-site inspection of the property by the City, and defects in
materials and workmanship in the implementation of said measures
shall then be determined by the City. Defects in materials or
workmanship shall then be corrected by the Developer, reinspected
and approved by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit by
the City. Approval of materials and workmanship may be subject to
such conditions as the City may impose at the time of acceptance.
6. Developer agrees to confine grading to that area of the property
within the construction limits as shown on Exhibit B. Developer
shall place snow fencing at the construction limits within the
wooded areas of the property prior to any grading upon the property.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Developer shall submit to
the Director of Planning and receive the Director's approval of a
tree inventory of those trees within the construction area and
within 25 ft. outside of the construction area, indicating the size,
type, and location of all trees twelve (12) inches in diameter, or
greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground level.
If any such trees are removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the
construction area, Developer agrees that prior to issuance of any
building permit for the property, Developer shall submit to the
Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of a
reforestation plan for all trees removed, damaged, or destroyed
outside of the construction area. Developer further agrees that
said trees shall be replaced by similar tree species and that the
-1(- L)
trees used for reforestation shall be no less than six inches in
diameter. The amount of trees to be replaced shall be determined by
the Director of Planning, using a square inch per square inch basis,
according to the area of the circle created by a cross sectional cut
through the diameter of a tree as measured 4.5 feet above the
ground.
If a reforestation plan is required, Developer agrees that, prior to
issuance of any building permit, Developer shall submit a bond, or
letter of credit, guaranteeing completion of all reforestation work
as approved by the Director of Planning. The amount of the bond, or
letter of credit, shall be 150% of the approved estimated cost of
implementation of all reforestation work and shall be in such form
and contain such other provisions and terms as may be required by
the Director of Planning. Developer agrees to prepare and submit
for approval to the Director of Planning a written estimate of the
costs of the reforestation work to be completed.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed
above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning.
7. Concurrent with construction of utilities and streets, Developers
agree to construct, or cause to be constructed, a five-foot wide,
five-inch thick concrete sidewalk along the north side of Carmody
Lane, connecting to Anderson Lakes Parkway. Developers further
agree that said sidewalk shall be constructed in accordance with the
terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
8. 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 plans far architectural variety in
housing construction on the property. Said plan shall provide that
no two substantially similar housing units shall be substantially
alike and located directly adjacent to each other, directly across
from each other, or diagonally across from each other.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developers agree to
implement, or cause to be implemented, the architectural variety in
housing construction listed above, as approved by the Director of
Planning.
4Ua`
CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE Deer Creek 2nd Addition
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 87-83
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE #8-87-PUD-2-87 AND DRDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS,
Ordinance
regular meeting oftheCity Council 87ofUthe City aof s EdenePrairierdon d an oere dthebl5thedaytofa
May, 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. 8-87-PUD-2-B7, which
is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that
said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of
said ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
r 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. 8-37-PUD-2-B7 be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on May 5, 1987.
Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
i
Deer Creek 2nd Addition
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 8-87-PUD-2-87
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FRDM DNE
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 PROVISIDNS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located west of
Anderson Lakes Parkway, east of Carmody Drive, from the Rural District to the PUD-2-
87-R1-9.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement.
Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this
property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
/ ATTEST:
l
/s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED 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.)
f t
4
Cardinal Ridge
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 16-87-PUD-3-87
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development 3-87-
R1-13.5 District (hereinafter "PUD 3-87-R1-13.5").
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of May 5, 1987, entered into between
Countryside Investments, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden
Prairie. The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD 3-87-
R1-13.5, and are hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD 3-87-R1-13.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan
of the City.
B. PUD 3-87-R1-13.5 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable
and unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of
the City Code, which are contained in PUD 3-87-R1-13.5, are
justified by the design of the development described therein.
D. PUD 3-87-R1-13.5 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement
that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a
complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit.
Section 5. 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
Planned Unit Development 3-87-R1-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land
in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph
B, shall be and are amended accordingly.
Section 6. 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 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 21st day of April, 1987, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 5th day of
May, 1987.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
•
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That part of the North half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter lying westerly of
the westerly right of way line of Interstate Highway No. 494,
That part of the East half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter lying South of the
North 337.00 feet thereof, except roadway,
The North 337.00 feet of the East half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and
that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter described as beginning at a point on
the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant 1133.14 feet East from
the Southwest corner thereof; thence northerly at right angles to said South line a distance of
12.00 feet; thence westerly , parallel with said South line thereof, a distance of 315.95 feet;
thence northwesterly, deflecting to the right 59 degrees 00 minutes to the southeasterly right
of way line of County Road No. 60; thence southwesterly and westerly along said right of way
line to the South line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence easterly along
said South line to the point of beginning,
•
All in Section 3, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota according to the Government
•
Survey thereof. •
That part of the following descrbed parcels of land:
The East half of the Southeast Quarter except that part thereof embraced within the Plats of
Cardinal Creek 2nd and 3rd Additions; the South half of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter except that part thereof lying Easterly of the Easterly right of way line
of U.S. Highway Number 494 as set forth in Final Certificate Document Number 907830; and that
part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter described as follows: Commencing at
the Northeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence West along
the North line thereof 165 feet: thence Southeasterly to a point on the East line of said
Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 165 feet South from the point of
beginning, thence North along said East line to the point of beginning, Section 3, Township
116, Range 22.
described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter; thence
on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 25 minutes 03 seconds West, along the West line of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 220.01 feet; thence South 54
degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 97.00 feet; thence South 13 degrees 05
minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 293.19 feet; thence North 80 degrees 53 minutes 51
seconds West a distance of 31.95 feet; thence northwesterly, along a tangential curve concave •
to the northeast, said curve having a radius of 211.07 feet and a central angle of 10 degrees •
02 minutes 24 seconds; thence North 45 degrees 25 minutes 48 seconds West, not tangent to
said curve, a distance of 152.10 feet to the North line of said Northwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 31 minutes 52 seconds East, along said North line,
a distance of 165.00 feet to the point of beginning.
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 116, Range
•
22, Hennepin County, Minnesota except that part of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter described as beginning at the Northeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter; thence West along the North line thereof 165 feet; thence southeasterly to a
point on the East line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter distant 165 feet South
from the point of beginning; thence North along said East line to the point of beginning; all •
described as follows;
Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence
on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 31 minutes 52 seconds West, along the North line
thereof, a distance of 503.69 feet; thence South 52 degrees 31 minutes 12 seconds East a
distance of 160.12 feet; thence North 45 degrees 37 minutes 41 seconds East a distance of
142.00 feet; thence South 44 degrees 22 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 134.30 feet;
thence easterly a distance of 172.81 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northeast,
said curve having a radius of 271.07 feet and a central angle of 36 degrees 31 minutes 32
seconds; thence South 80 degrees 53 minutes 51 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a
distance of 31.95 feet to the East line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 3; thence North 0 degrees 25 minutes 03 seconds West, along said East line, a
distance of 181.40 feet to the point of beginning.
:a,!h
Cardinal Ridge
PUD-DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1987, by
Countryside Investment, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential, Planned Unit
Development Concept, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances and
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, and Preliminary Plat into 40 single
family lots, all for 23.10 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota,
more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said
acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #16-87-PUD-
3-87, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and
maintenance of said property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated May 5, 1987, reviewed and approved by
the City Council on April 21, 1987, and attached hereto as Exhibit
B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein.
Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the
property in any other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Prior to release of the final plat by the City, Developer shall
submit to the City Engineer and receive the City Engineer's approval
of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, and
erosion control.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct,
or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above, as
approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with the terms and
conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
4. Prior to release of the final plat by the City, Developer shall
submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's
approval of a fully executed easement for the right-of-way necessary
to construct the east/west cul-de-sac on the property line between
the property and the land known as the Holasek parcel, located east
of the property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct,
or to cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above, as
approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with the terms and
conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
5. Prior to issuance of any grading permit upon the property, Developer
agrees to execute a declaration of restrictions, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit D, and made a part hereof, for purposes
of minimizing erosion and tree loss, while providing positive
drainage from each lot.
Developer agrees to file said declaration of restrictions on the
property with Hennepin County and shall provide proof of filing to
the City prior to issuance of any building permit for individual
structures on the property.
6. Developer agrees to notify the City and the Watershed District at
least 48 hours in advance of any grading, or tree removal, on the
property.
7. Prior to issuance of any grading permit upon the property, Developer
shall submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the Director's
approval of, a tree replacement plan for 2,218 caliper inches of
trees. Developer agrees that no trees used for replacement shall be
less than three caliper inches in diameter. Developer shall submit
a bond for the tree replacement improvements on the property in
accordance with the terms and of the Tree Replacement Policy of the
City, attached hereto as Exhibit E, and made a part hereof.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
implement, or cause to be implemented, said tree replacement plan.
8. Prior to issuance of any permit for grading upon the property,
Developer agrees to implement erosion control measures and adequate
protective measures for areas to be preserved and areas where
grading is not to occur, and to receive City approval of said
measures. Prior to approval by the City, the Developer must call
for on-site inspection of the property by the City, and defects in
materials and workmanship in the implementation of said measures
shall then be determined by the City. Defects in materials or
workmanship shall then be corrected by the Developer, reinspected
and approved by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit by
the City. Approval of materials and workmanship may be subject to
such conditions as the City may impose at the time of acceptance.
9• Developer agrees to confine grading to that area of the property
within the construction limits as shown on Exhibit B. Developer
shall place snow fencing at the construction limits within the
wooded areas of the property prior to any grading upon the property.
All snow fencing shall remain on each lot of the property until the
occupancy permit has been issued for the individual lot.
10. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Developer shall submit to
the Director of Planning and receive the Director's approval of a
tree inventory of those trees within the construction area and
within 25 ft. outside of the construction area, indicating the size,
type, and location of all trees twelve (12) inches in diameter, or
greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground level.
If any such trees are removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the
construction area, Developer agrees that prior to issuance of any
building permit for the property, Developer shall submit to the
Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of a
reforestation plan for all trees removed, damaged, or destroyed
outside of the construction area. Developer further agrees that
said trees shall be replaced by similar tree species and that the
trees used for reforestation shall be no less than six inches in
diameter. The amount of trees to be replaced shall be determined by
the Director of Planning, using a square inch per square inch basis,
according to the area of the circle created by a cross sectional cut
through the diameter of a tree as measured 4.5 feet above the
ground.
11. If a reforestation plan is required, Developer agrees that, prior to
issuance of any building permit, Developer shall submit a bond, or
letter of credit, guaranteeing completion of all reforestation work
as approved by the Director of Planning. The amount of the bond, or
letter of credit, shall be 150% of the approved estimated cost of
implementation of all reforestation work and shall be in such form
and contain such other provisions and terms as may be required by
the Director of Planning. Developer agrees to prepare and submit
for approval to the Director of Planning a written estimate of the
costs of the reforestation work to be completed.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed
above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning.
12. Developer agrees that, concurrent with construction of streets and
utilities on the property, Developer shall construct a five-foot
wide, five-inch thick concrete sidewalk along the north side of
Cardinal Hills Road, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Said construction shall be in accordance with the terms and
conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
13. Developer agrees that the roofing materials for the structures on
Lots 1-8, Lots 11 and 12, Lots 18-33, and Lots 36 and 37, shall be
cedar wood shakes, as provided in the declaration of restrictions in
Exhibit D, attached hereto.
14. No occupancy permits shall be issued for Lots 1-B and Lots 11-32, as
depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, until the County has
completed construction on the realignment of Baker Road along the
west boundary of the property.
15. In implementation of the Planned Unit Development District Review,
and as variance from certain provisions imposed by City Code Chapter
11, City authorizes the following variances for the property:
Front yard setback of 25 ft. shall be allowed for Lots 1-B and Lots
11-2B, Block 1, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Cardinal Ridge
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN CDUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ND. 87-80
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE #16-87-PUD-3-87 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 16-87-PUD-3-87 was adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 5th day of
May, 1967;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 16-87-PUD-3-87, which
is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that
said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of
said ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 16-87-PUD-3-87 be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on May 5, 1967.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
•
Cardinal Ridge
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN CDUNTY, MINNESDTA
ORDINANCE NO. 16-87-PUD-3-87
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMDUING CERTAIN LAND FRDM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANDTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTIDN 11.99,
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located east of
Baker Road and Edenvale Boulevard, west of I-494, from the Rural District to the
ragreementRl ExhibitstA,ctincludedt to withhethisrms nd Drdinance, gives tions ofthea full legal developer's
description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1987.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
•
1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 87-109
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
THE TREE FARM
WHEREAS, the plat of The Tree Farm 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 THE TREE FARM is approved upon compliance
with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat
dated April 27, 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 are hereby authorized to execute
the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon
compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on May 5, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
j
1 ( i.;.
ly j
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician
DATE: April 27, 1987
SUBJECT: THE TREE FARM
PROPOSAL: Countryside Investments, Inc., has requested City Council approval of
the Final Plat of The Tree Farm located south of County Road 1
(Pioneer Trail) and west of Hillsborough Second Addition in the North
1/2 of Section 26. The plat, containing 33.28 acres, will be divided
into 72 single family residential lots and one Outlot. Outlot A
containing 2.35 acres is to be dedicated to the City for open space
purposes concurrent with recording of the plat. Lot 10, Block 4
contains an existing home and accessory structure and will remain in
place.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on February 3,
1987 per Resolution 87-24.
Zoning to R1-13.5 was finally read and approved by the Council on
March 3, 1987 per Ordinance 1-87.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed
on March 3, 1987.
VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals
UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities and streets will be installed
throughout the development in conformance with City standards.
The street name "Appaloosa" has been used on two roadway segments.
Dne segment must be renamed prior to release of the plat. All
proposed street names must be approved by the Director of Public
Works.
PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication must conform to City Code requirements and
are additionally defined in the Developer's Agreement.
A warranty deed for Outlot A must be provided prior to release of the
plat.
1 �?v
PAGE 2 THE TREE FARM APRIL 27, 1987
BONDING: Bonding must conform to City Code requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the Final Plat of The Tree Farm subject
to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the
following:
1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $923.00
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $9728.D0
3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $2,88D.00
4. Revision of street names
5. Receipt of warranty deed for Outlot A
6. Satisfaction of bonding requirements
cc: Mark Leisner, Country Side Investments
Peter Knaeble, Ron Krueger & Associates
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 87-107
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
WELTER PURGATORY ACRES
WHEREAS, the plat of WELTER PURGATORY ACARES 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 is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat
dated April 29, 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 are hereby authorized to execute
the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon
compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on May 5, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
qui
{ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician .
DATE: April 29, 1987
SUBJECT: Welter Purgatory Acres 2nd Addition
PRDPOSAL: The Oeveloper, Crow/Chasewood, is requesting City Council approval of
the Final Plat of Welter Purgatory Acres 2nd Addition. The Plat is
located south of Olympic Hills 6th Addition and west of Olympic Hills
5th Addition in the North Half of Section 26. This plat is a re-plat
of Outlot A of Welter Purgatory Acres 1st Addition. The proposed
plat contains 16.1 acres to be divided into 26 single family lots and
right-of-way dedication for street purposes.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council December 2,
1986, per Resolution 86-291.
Zoning to RI-13.5 was approved by the City Council January 20, 1987,
per Ordinance 57-86.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed
January 2D, 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.
A temporary cul-de-sac will be installed at the northwest corner of
the plat with the intention of a future extension through to
Sunnybrook Road.
Prior to release of the Final Plat, Lot 13 Block 1 and Lot 5 Block 2
shall be revised to meet code requirements for lot dimensions.
PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication will conform to the requirements of the City
Code and Developer's Agreement.
An outlot for a trail corridor to the Purgatory Creek Floodplain
shall be conveyed to the City via warranty deed prior to release of
the final plat. This outlot shall be 20 feet in width centered on
the common lot line between Lots 2 and 3, Block 3. Additionally, a
15 foot drainage and utility easement shall be shown on the plat on
either side of the outlot.
1 •)4Vi
PAGE 2
WELTER PURGATORY ACRES APRIL 29, 1987
BONDING: Bonding for municipal utilities and streets must be provided prior to
release of the Final Plat and conform to City Code and the
Developer's Agreement requirements.
RECOMMENOATION: Recommend approval of the Final Plat of Welter Purgatory Acres
2nd Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the
Develper's Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of street sign fee of $312.00
2. Receipt of street lighting fee of $3,840,00
3. Receipt of engineering fee of $1,040.00
4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements
5. Receipt of easement documents for temporary cul-de-sac
6. Assignment of street names
7. City engineer approval of final construction plans
8. Dimensional revisions to Lot 13 Block 1 and Lot 5 Block 2 to
meet code requirements
9. Receipt of Warranty Deed for outlot for trail purposes.
JJ:ss
cc: James Ostenson
J.R. Hill & Associates
2
q,-(j
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 87-108
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
DEER CREW: TWO
WHEREAS, the plat of DEER CREEK TWO 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 DEER CREEK TWO is approved upon compliance
with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated
April 29, 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 are hereby authorized to execute
the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon
compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on May 5, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician y • �
DATE: April 29, 1987
SUBJECT: DEER CREEK TWO
PROPOSAL: The Developer, Thomas L. Carmody, is requesting City Council approval
of Deer Creek Two, a single family residential subdivision located
southwest of Anderson Lakes Parkway east of Carmody Drive in the
South half of Section 15. The plat contains 12.6 acres to be divided
into 31 single family lots, one Outlot, and road right-of-way.
Outlot A contains 2,14 acres. The Developer will retain ownership of
Outlot A for future development.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council March 3, 1987,
per Resolution 87-55.
Second reading and final approval of Ordinance B-87-PUD-2-87,
changing zoning from rural to R1-9.5, is scheduled for the May 5,
1987 City Council meeting.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled
for execution at the May 5, 1987 City Council meeting.
VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities are available for extension to
serve the site. All municipal streets, sidewalks and utilities will
be installed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement and City
specifications.
PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication will conform to the requirements of City Code
and the Developer's Agreement.
BONDING: Bonding for municipal utilities and streets must be provided prior to
release of the Final Plat and conform to City Code and the
Developer's Agreement requirements.
1 1
PAGE 2 DEER CREEK TWO APRIL 29, 1987
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the Final Plat of Deer Creek Two subject
to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the
following:
1. Receipt of street sign fee of $442.00
2. Receipt of street lighting fee of $3,584.00
3. Receipt of engineering fee of $1,240.00
4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements
5. City engineer approval of final construction plans.
JJ:ss
cc: Thomas L. Carmody
Ray Brandt
CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 87-110
RESOLUTION RECEIVING 100% PETITION,
ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS & PREPARATION
OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIAONS FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
I.C. 52-121
Street & Utility Improvements for Nemec Knolls
BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
1. The owners of 100% of the real property abutting upon and to be
benefitted from the proposed street and utility improvements have
petitioned the City Council to construct said improvements and to
assess the entire cost against their property.
2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, and upon recommendation of the
City Engineer, said improvements are hereby ordered and the City
Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for said improvements
in accordance with City Standards and advertise for bids thereon,
with the assistance of Hanson, Thorp, Pellinen & Olson.
3. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the City Clerk is hereby
directed to publish a copy of this resolution once in the official
newspaper, and further a contract for construction of said improve-
ments shall not be approved by the City Council prior to 30 days
following publication of this Resolution in the City's official
newspaper.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on May 5, 1987,
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
1 A,,4
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works/a,
DATE: April 28, 1987
RE: 100% Petition for Nemec Knolls
The City Council recently approved a small division called Nemec Knolls, which
is located at the corner of Creek Knoll Road and Sunnybook Road. The proponent
has petitioned the City to install the public improvements in the subdivision.
In accordance with our policy, we have received the appropriate deposit for
preparation of the plans and specifications, and appropriate approvals have
been granted.
If the City Council approves the Sunnybook Road improvement project, it would
be my intention to include the Nemec Knolls project as part of that contract.
If the Sunnybrook Road project is not approved or is delayed in some fashion,
we can do this project independently, even though it is quite small. I
therefore recommend adopting the resolution that orders the improvement and
authorizes preparation of plans and specifications.
EAD:ss
• CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
• ]00% PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS
•
- .
. TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
The undersigned are all the fee owners of the real property described
below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to pinceed• with making the following described improvements:
(General Location) •
•
X Sanitary Sewer Nemec Knolls Creek Knoll Rd, Eden Prairie, MN
X l:atermain Nemec Knolls Creek Knoll Rd, Eden Prairie, MN
X Storm Sewer Nemec Knolls Creek Knoll Rd, Eden Prairie, MN
—
X Street Paving Nemec Knolls Creek Knoll Rd, Eden Prairie, MN
Other
Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the undersigned hereby waive any •
public hearing to be held on said improvements, and further state and
agree that the total cost of said improvements shall be specially as-
sessed against the property described below in accordance with the
. City's special assessment policies. We further understand that the
preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements is •
Street Address or other Legal • • Names and addresses of rotitioners
Description of rroLerty to be Served (Must be{ owwnern of :r.ro d)
• 6. _
•
•
4•ill
(For City Use)
nate Roccived "9412 N /2,/987 C C<ieyt k �d CYd. y/ll��d
rrojcct No. .YZ_/2/—_
►A 1
Cnunei1 con:id'i ation A111 5: /987__ -_ ._
CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN, MINNESOTA
TO: Mayor and City Council •
FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Oirector of Public Works
�,�i)
DATE: April 28, 1987
RE: Conveyance of Right-of-Way to Hennepin County
Baker Road Improvement Project
As discussed previously, the Baker Road Improvement Project as proposed by
Hennepin County will straighten the curves that presently exist in the
alignment. The southerly curve which begins at Holly Road requires property
being acquired from the park area adjacent to Forest Hills School. The
standard procedure for Right-of-Way acquisition for county road improvement
projects requires that the City pay 50% of the cost. Therefore, rather than
having the parcel appraised and receiving only half of the value of the land,
we limited our negotiations to upgrading the park facility to the same level
that exists prior to the project being constructed.
The attached letter from Hennepin County summarizes the agreement that City
Staff has reached with the county and includes the following:
1. The County will realign and reconstruct the access road to the park
and lies west of Cardinal Creek Road;
2. The County will rough-grade the entire ball field area; and
3. The County will reimburse the City for the following:
a. Fine grade, seed and mulch ball field;
b. Installation of in-field;
c. Install back-stop;
d. Install fence along right-of-way line from access road to
the park to pedestrian underpass railing; and
e. Reimburse City for Staff time involved with administrating
these improvements
Staff has reviewed these considerations and recommend that Council authorize
the execution of the easement document by the Mayor and City Manager.
EAD:ss
{
1
71- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
320 Washington Av. South •; ��
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 •,r
HENNEPIN
935-3381
J-L ny 935-6433
April 21, 1987
Mr. Eugene Dietz
City of Eden Prairie •V ' "_
7600 Executive Drive `��,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Our Project No. 60-8312-2 •
Dear Gene:
This is to confirm our conversation of this morning with regard to the
reconstruction of County Road 60.
As we discussed, in return for the right of way for the road, Hennepin
County will relocate the school access road opposite Cardinal Creek Road,
and do the rough grading for the ballfield that will be disrupted by
construction.
The City of Eden Prairie will reinstall the chain link fence that runs from
the edge of the new road to the guard rail (approximately 300 feet); and
will restore the ballfield to its original condition, including seeding and
reinstallation of the backstop and benches. The City will be reimbursed for
their costs in completing said work by the Hennepin County Right of Way
Division. Said costs will include a charge to the County of 17% of the
City's design and Administrative costs for the work.
All costs shall be reasonable and are estimated to run between $10,000 and
$15,000.
It's my understanding that the Quit Claim Deed for right of way that I
brought out to you this morning will be presented to the City Council on the
first Tuesday in May and we will be receiving the signed deed shortly
thereafter.
Enclosed is a copy of the Right of Way map for the project.
Sincerely,
Bernice B. Johnson
Right of Way Agent
BBJ/jrh
Enclosure HENNEPIN COUNTY
CC: Al Herzog
Dave Swenson an equal opportunity employer
Bob Lambert a+.�
I 1 I I 1 I I• t 15-1----",„a,
Ficy -ROAD
.Nc,...7.;.._.L__..,j__I_.,t_94. . - •.. .._..t=......__...
. ... „;
't
Alk----------QY
\%
',,
,—.... •//
.N. a 7 . ,,.1.-.• ,:. . ,
,, L------,
• :..,••, ,, ..,,
.. ,,
• ''•''..,'-‘,••• .,.. / .,.' .•r' . .-7/ - 4
rJOF D/ei/..'
'-L(',.•-,*7..1.
0I • / 1 \*.\/ / A , ''
-4—/
°
„ /2' -2„-------•--I
, ,
\'-
•
•\\ (\
0
..
/
-,- --.) - ,
, -A
i/ I
''.17_- ---
....
% a ---i i
‹... .
' :'''''s l' 0 r-(32'1) if." 'i c''.*:%:;:l'-'7•••.- -- - V
. \
1 r .
Pt, • I
0
i i".. I ' ..: \ .s 0..„. •
'
a /I ii, 111 1 11 I 0 to 1
0 , tft, - 1 0 1 0 ID, •.
/ .,, ..a / / .
\;
p
/ ' k .
I a 1 / c.,
li p C)
i i /
i 1 i 0 0
11 I
0
11 I tt IfIl /j9i''' ILTO ,,z,
11 ' — I .y.'‘' ao :"
,....'rr
ti (°J ,I I ts
C.":".2 -., . ip
"a 0
7'
' • ./' '
-.
11 \''. I- : I I
• I 11 I M ,-
'- ' 1° ' _ ,,,'
01(11.
' ... , . , ::: i
,i ...•. , , ; of, - \ .,41:IT yiN....:1L.........5 ..... •I ,
tl t ..' ii • A
I
\ ‘,..
7.7 ) 1 11 lo. ,..-
•••• , ot t t- -- ----____
.4 ! '. l'C' `,., •-.10..f0X)
• G 1 .mmW
T�IU 3 itb£Iltur£, ,Iladc this day of , 1987 ,
betweenCity of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota..municipal Corporation
axttapxxxAconxaxdwx4dnkaaK•migitec0adoo kxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Party,/the first par!,and
the_County...of...Hennep.in,_a.body.po.11t.ic..and corporate •
e e xx'Rkivx under the laws of the State of Mi nnesota._
party of the second purl,
TlThtitfgaftft, That the said party of the first part, in consideration of the sum of
One Dollar and other..valuable.._cons.ider.atiart DOLLARS,
to it in hand paid by the said party of the second part,the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,
dged,
dons hereby Grant, 13ardain., Quitclaim,and Convey unto the said party of the second part, its successors
and assigns, Forever,all the tract or parcel of land lying and being in the County of
_Hennepin._..___ and State of Alinnesola.,described as follows,to-wit:
A permanent easement for highway purposes over all that part of the following
described tract:
Outlot A, Tanager Creek, according to the duly recorded plat thereof,
and
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the
west half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 116 North,
Range 22 west of the 5th principal meridian, described as follows:
Ccumnencing at a point on the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 3, a distance of 16.5 feet North of the
Southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter,
thence on an assumed bearing of North along the West line thereof a
distance of 1289.25 feet, more or less to the Northwest corner of the
Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 3; thence
Southeasterly along a curve concave to the Southwest, having a radius
of 573.68 feet, a central angle of 30 degrees 14 minutes 20 seconds,
and a chord bearing of South 75 degrees 35 minutes 11 seconds East, an
arc distance of 302.77 feet to a point of tangency; thence South 60
degrees 28 minutes 1 seconds East a distance of 471.05 feet to a point
of tangential curve to the right; thence along said curve, having a
radius of 479.73 feet and a central angle of 27 degrees 24 minutes 45
seconds, an arc distance of 229.52 feet to a point of tangency; thence
South 33 degrees 3 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 80.48 feet to
a point of tangential curve to the left; thence along said curve,
having a radius of 499.69 feet and a central angle of 64 degrees 8
minutes 34 seconds, an arc distance of 559.4 feet to a point of
tangency; thence North 82 degrees 48 minutes 10 seconds East a
distance of 70 feet to a point of tangential curve to the right;
thence along said curve, having a radius of 264.5 feet and a central
r--.` angle of 54 degrees 30 minutes 44 seconds, an arc distance of 251.65
i! \ feet to a point of tangency; thence South 42 degrees 41 minutes 6 /'r`�`+
/ \seconds East a distance of 45.74 feet more or less to the / THE
northwesterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 60; thence
7Southwesterly along said right-of-way line to its intersection with a i t. ct rAC:
iryr/line drawn parallel with and 16.5 feet North of the south line of the 1. Of Tilt.;
Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, thence \iilyiRUMi:N
westerly along said parallel line to the point of beginning, excepting '..../
therefrom a tract of land described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 3, a distance of 49.5 feet North of the
Southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, ,�A,,U
said point being on the Northerly right-of-way line of Holly Road;
',line drawn parallel .,ith and 16.5 feet North of the south line of the \ ,i i:,.;
Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, thence \ti::iiRuMEN
Westerly along said parallel line to the point of beginning, excepting
therefrom a tract of land described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 3, a distance of 49.5 feet North of the
Southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter,
said point being on the Northerly right-of-way line of Holly Road;
thence Easterly along said Northerly right-of-way line, a distance of
973.85 feet; thence deflect to the left 45 degrees 00 minutes 00
seconds, a distance of 237.60 feet; thence deflect to the left 90
degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 95.00 feet to the actual
point of beginning; thence deflect to the right 90 degrees 00 seconds
00 minutes, a distance of 144.00 feet; thence deflect to the left 90
degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance 444.0 feet; thence deflect
to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 292.00
feet; thence deflect to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a
distance of 444.00 feet; thence deflect to the left 90 degrees 00
minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 148.00 feet to the point of
beginning.
which lies easterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 50 feet westerly of
the following described Line "A":
Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3,
Township 116 North, Range 22 West; thence run east along the north
line of said Southeast 1/4 for a distance of 621.90 feet to the actual
point of beginning of the line being described; thence deflect right
at an angle of 94 degrees 37 minutes 24 seconds for a distance of
318.22 feet; thence deflect right along tangential curve having a
radius of 763.94 feet (delta angle 42 degrees 12 minutes 47 seconds)
for a distance of 562.84 feet; thence tangent to said curve for a
distance of 176 feet; thence deflect left along a tangential curve
having a radius of 763.94 feet (delta angle 46 degrees 21 minutes 42
seconds) for a distance of 618.16 feet and there terminating.
Also a permanent easement for drainage purposes over all that part of
the above described tract which lies within 12.5 feet on each side of
a radial line, 88 feet in length, drawn northwesterly from a point on
the above described Line "A", distant 639.59 feet southerly of the
actual point of beginning of said line, as measured along said Line
"A".
Also a permanent easement for drainage purposes over all that part of
the above described tract which lies within 12.5 feet on each side of
a radial line, 84 feet in length, drawn northwesterly from a point on
the above described Line "A", distant 819.59 feet southerly of the
actual point of beginning of said line as measured along said Line
"A".
`'lfl�
• — - - -
ofbabe anb to Thelb Me tune, Together with all the hereditaments and appurtenances there.
unto belonging or in anywise appertaining,to the said party of the second part,its successors and insigne,
Forever.
In Testimony Mimed. The said first party has caused then
presents to be executed in its corporate name by its
hPresident and its and its corporate seal to
be hereunto affixed the day and year first above written.
City_of_fden_Prairie
fly
Its President
Its
96).
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 87-1I1
RESOLUTION REQUESTING SPEED STUDY FOR
PIONEER TRAIL (CSAH 1) FROM CSAH 18 TO TH 169
WHEREAS, CSAH 1 in Eden Prairie was designed and constructed at a time when
the entire area was rural in character;
WHEREAS, the rapid growth in Eden Prairie has resulted in a major
transformation of the land uses along CSAH 1 to urban uses;
WHEREAS, the posted speed limit for the roadway has remained unchanged
throughout this urbanization process; and
WHEREAS, the recent pedestrian accident involving a six year old child served
to focus attention on an ever-increasing safety problem in the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that the
Hennepin County Department of Transportation is hereby requested to initiate
appropriate safety and speed studies for CSAH 1 between CSAH 18 and TH 169
with the specific intent of lowing the speed limit to an urbanized standard.
FURTHERMORE, the City urges Hennepin County to perform these tasks with all
convenient speed to ensure a timely resolution of this major safety problem.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 5, 1987.
Mayor Gary D. Peterson
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
g1,3
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: CARL JULLIE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROGER A. PAULY, CITY ATTORNEY
RE: ORDINANCE 14-87 RELATING TO THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES ON PARK PROPERTY
DATE: APRIL 30, 1987
At the first reading of the above-referenced ordinance, I
believe I indicated to the Council that the ordinance, as drafted,
would permit the consumption of wine on park property. In
reviewing this matter later, particularly the definition of liquor,
I find that my advice was in error. Accordingly, I have revised
the ordinance to except from the prohibition beer or wine,
including strong beer. Public Safety Department and our office
believe that a distinction between 3.2 beer and strong beer would
be very difficult to enforce and, therefore, should not be made.
The ordinance, as revised, continues to require a permit for keg
beer and for beer or wine in that part of Round Lake Park situ-
ated North of Valley View Road and on the Flying Cloud Athletic
Field.
RAP:cw
1. ORDINANCE NO. 14-87
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 9, SECTION 9.04, SUBD. 4, RELATING TO PUBLIC
PARKS, BY ADOPTING PROVISIONS WHICH REGULATE THE POSSESSION,
SERVICE AND CONSUMPTION OF LIQUOR, BEER KEGS, BEER, AND WINE IN
PUBLIC PARKS AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND
SECTION 9.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code Chapter 9, Section 9.04,
Subd. 4.Q. shall be and is amended to read as follows:
Q.[(1)] Serve, possess, or consume any alcoholic beverage #e
arc prohibitcd by the Directory, neb#Iee ef which #e pasted #e
eueb arcao; [liquor, except beer or wine (included in this
exception is beer which contains in excess of 3.2 percent of
alcohol by weight); (2) possess a beer keg or serve or consume
beer from a beer keg, unless a permit has been obtained therefore
from the City; (3) serve, possess or consume beer or wine
(including beer which contains in excess of 3.2 percent of
alcohol by weight) in that part of Round Lake Park situated north
of Valley View Road and in the Flying Cloud Athletic Field,
unless a permit has been obtained therefore from the City.]
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty For Violation" and Section 9.99 are hereby adopted in
their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
Y
City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1987,
and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of
, 1987.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
Published in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
, 19
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 87-92
RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 3rd day of March fixed
the 5th day of May, 1987 as the date for public hearing on the following
proposed improvements.
I.C. 52-104 - Prairie View Dr./St. Andrew Dr.
Utility and Street Improvements
WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for making
of this improvement were given ten days published notice of the Council hearing
through two weekly publications of the required notice and the hearing was held
and property owners heard on the 5th day of May, 1987.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE:
1. Such improvement as above indicated is hereby ordered.
2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for this project
and is hereby directed to prepare plans and specifications for the
making of such improvements with the assistance of RCM, Inc.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 5, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
1 a(/1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 87-68
RESOLUTION DRDERING PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 7th day of April fixed
the 5th day of May, 1987 as the date for public hearing on the following
proposed improvements.
I.C. 52-109 Sunnybrook Road
Road and Utility Improvements
WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for making
of this improvement were given ten days published notice of the Council hearing
through two weekly publications of the required notice and the hearing was held
and property owners heard on the 5th day of May, 1987.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE:
1. Such improvement as above indicated is hereby ordered.
2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for this project
and is hereby directed to prepare plans and specifications for the
making of such improvements with the assistance of Hanson, Thorp,
Pellinen and Olson.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 5, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
1'
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 87-113
VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN
WILLOW CREEK 2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain drainage and utility easements
described as follows:
All drainage and utility easements as platted in Willow Creek 2nd
Addition, recorded in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin
County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 5, 1987 after due notice was
published and posted as required by law;
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said easements are not necessary and
have no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
1. Said drainage and utility easements as above described are hereby
vacated.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceed-
ings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 5, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
r I
1 �iv�
Hoisington Group Inc.
t.ana use Conc.,ttants
April 29, 1987
Eden Prairie City Council
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: Anderson's Garden Shoppe
Attention: Carl Jullie
In light of the Planning Commission's recommendation and the
need to respond to its and Staff's concerns, we will not be
sufficiently prepared to present the Anderson proposal to
the City Council on May 5, 1987 as scheduled. We,
therefore, respectfully request a continuation of the public
hearing on the Andersons Guide Plan Amendment, rezoning and
subdivision to May 19, 1987.
Thank You.
HOISINGTON GR0 P INC.
•'
Fr•d Hoisington •
Consulting Planner
cc: Don and Rita Anderson
:oo Met,(,F va
S:;ne 525
Fc:;na MN 5.435
!f12 6=5 o960
f
/ Hdisington Group Inc.
•
Land Use Consultants April 10, 1987
}
Eden Prairie Planning Commission CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive APE
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 � A PLAN
Re: Anderson's Garden Shoppe
DATE R 1 p 1987
Planning Commission Members:
This supplementary letter is submitted in response to the
concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the March 23, 1987
Planning Commission Meeting regarding the request by Anderson's
- Garden Shoppe for a Guide Plan Amendment and Rezoning at 7424
Eden Prairie Road. We understand the Planning Commission's
concerns and will address each point in the narrative that
follows. We will also address the issues raised by the March 20,
1987 Staff Report.
Traffic, Access and Parking
Based on the Planning Commission's concerns for traffic and
parking, the Andersons have surveyed four comparably sized garden
shops in the region and have made a detailed evaluation of their
own business receipts. TABLE 1 represents a summary of the
garden shop survey findings.
TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF SMALL GARDEN SHOPS
Garden Shop Gross Parking Site Retail
Sales Provided Size Space
Southview Garden $150,000 11 1.0 ac 2,600
West St. Paul
The Tree House . 100,000 30 1.5 ac 2,560
Hastings
Boulevard Garden 400,000 1) 20 1.0 ac 6 000
St. Louis Park +
Buells Garden 350,000 1) 30 2.0 ac 6,430
West St. Paul
Averages $250,000 23 1.4 ac 4,400
Anderson's Garden $150,000 2) 19 3) 1.3 ac 3,000
1) Includes Garden and Floral
7300 Metro 8lva. 2) Forecasted sales in 5 years
Suite 525 (present volume is $100,000)
Edina.MN 55435 3) Proof of Parking = 34 spaces
(612)835-9960
a�/
Based on actual cash register receipts for the present Garden
Shoppe, the Andersons had an average of 75 receipts per day
during the peak month of May, 1986. The store averaged 24
receipts per day throughout the entire year of 1986. With
present gross sales, the store will generate approximately 135 to
170 ADT during May and approximately 50 to 60 ADT year-round.
Assuming an increase in gross sales of 50% over five years, the
Garden Shoppe will generate approximately 200 to 250 ADT during
the month of May and 75 to 90 ADT throughout the year.
Since the Garden Shoppe generally serves Eden Prairie residents
(90%), the following traffic split is anticipated with an
increase in gross sales of 50%:
Direction of Approach High Annual
Month ADT
ADT
Southbound on Eden Prairie Road 12% 24 9
Northbound on Eden Prairie Road 34% 108 41
Eastbound on Valley View Road 9.5% 19 7
Westbound on Valley View Road 24.5% 49 18
100% 200 75
Approximately 88% of all trips co the Garden Shoppe will approach
via Valley View Road and south Eden Prairie Road. Those
approaching from the south (54%) will utilize one or the other of
the driveway entrances and will exit via Little Red. Virtually
all of the traffic approaching from the south, east and west will
have multiple ingress and egress opportunities. A very few may
also exit these driveways and make a U-turn at Valley View Road
to return to the south.
The most critical movement will involve the southbound Eden
Prairie Road patron who may have a higher than normal tendency to
pass the Garden Shoppe, at least until familiar with the
alternatives, and may make a U-turn at Westgate Drive to access
the subject site. This is a very low volume maneuver and one
that can easily be accommodated by U-turns. Hennepin County has
stated that the intersection is specifically designed to
accommodate this movement (see letter from County Traffic
Engineer Dennis Hansen, attached).
2
;.,
•
Approximately nine trips (4.5 cars) per average day will
approach/depart the Garden Shoppe via North Eden Prairie Road.
These will have the option of making a left turn at Valley View •
Road or a U-turn at Westgate Drive. Since the intersection and
roadway are designed to accommodate this maneuver and because the
Garden Shoppe traffic is spread evenly throughout the day, it
will have little or no adverse impact on traffic patterns in the
area. The County Engineer supports this position.
Noise
As stated in the Guide Plan Amendment Application, heavy
equipment will not operate at the Garden Shoppe site after the
initial construction is completed. The Grovers expressed
concerns for additional noise attributable to the slamming of car
doors. In discussing the situation with our noise consultant, he
is not aware of any noise studies having been completed for door
slamming. In any case, he explained that state standards do not
deal with impulsive sounds such as bells, barking dogs, gun shots
or slammed car doors. He further stated that PCA standards do
not come into play unless the frequency is such that standards
are exceeded more than 10% of the time. If the PCA daytime
standard (65 dBA) is exceeded more than 100 of the time, a
violation could be found to exist.
If we assume 1) an average of 1.5 persons per auto (three slams
per trip), 2) every slam exceeds 65 dBA at the nearest receptor
(the house), 3) each slam will be discretely heard and will not
be muted by existing background noise, and 4) each slam has a
duration of one second, it will take a volume of 120 cars per
hour to exceed the PCA daytime noise standard at the receptor.
Since the average is closer to three cars per hour, these
standards will not be exceeded and the structures themselves will
substantially attenuate indoor noise levels associated with door
slamming.
Whether or not a violation exists, we agree that some small
amount of additional noise from door slamming may be perceptable
to the Grovers when they are utilizing their back yard. In order
to minimize noise, the Andersons propose to construct a solid six
foot high fence a distance of two to ten feet from the property
line and to supplement it with landscaping as a means to
attenuate noise levels.
It is important to note that traffic background noise will be
ever present for the Grovers because of their nearness to Eden
Prairie Road. Existing background noise will have the effect of
muting impulsive noises attributable to door slamming.
3
Land Use Transition
The need for a land use transition is being dealt with in several
ways to insure neighborhood compatibility. The Garden Shoppe
itself is a natural transitional use which consists, to a great
extent, of open space and landscaping. Furthermore, it is a very
low intensity use with an FAR that is considerably lower than
otherwise permitted by the C-COM District.
The land use plan calls for a transitional residential use
consisting of four R1-13.5 lots to be established between the
Garden Shoppe and the R1-22 lots along Westgate Lane. These will
provide an excellent transition between differing land uses
especially since the homes will be higher in value to those
already present on Westgate Lane. There will be absolutely no
need for any additional use or lot size transition to buffer the
homes to the east.
A landscaped buffer plus fencing is proposed to establish
compatibility with the homes to the south. This will include a
six foot high solid wood fence that will be irregular in
alignment. It will vary in distance from the property line from
two to ten feet and will be supplemented with conifers up to
eighteen feet high to interrupt sight lines plus as an assortment
of shrubs and bushes to provide variety. Conferous trees will
also be planted so as to fill sight line gaps along the immediate
south side of the driveway and parking lot to totally screen
these from the Grovers view. This buffer will visually close the
existing neighborhood off from the Garden Shoppe and will
represent a substantial improvement over the present situation
which provides no screening.
Guide Plan Amendment
The Staff Report indicates that there is lack of justification
for a Guide Plan Amendment on the basis of a perceived future
incompatibility between the proposed commercial and adjoining
residential properties, a situation that will be substantially
mitigated by effective landscaping and screening. Every
conceivable effort has been and will continue to be made to
effectively screen the Garden Shoppe parking lot so that it will
not be visible from the residences to the south. The proposed
R1-13.5 residential buffer is also provided to strenghten, not
detract from, the existing neighborhood to the east.
4
any
Certainly, this proposed Guide Plan Amendment pales in comparison
with others that have been approved by the City where
justification was not demonstrated and the City's land use
balance was, in fact, substantially changed. We do not wish to
criticize the City for having made unjustified amendments because
they may have been warranted on the basis of perfectly acceptable
rationale other than the Guide Plan. On the other hand, when the
logical extension of a zoning district boundary, such as proposed
by the Andersons, is threatened with denial on the basis of Guide
Plan sanctity while other requests for substantial reductions in
density are approved with little regard for the City's land use
balance, one has to question the veracity of the Guide Plan.
The Andersons have designed the Garden Shoppe so that it will be
highly compatible with and a complimentary part of the
neighborhood. It will consist primarily of landscaping and open
spaces and will have a decidedly residential appearance and
scale. It solves the problem of a site for which a more
appropriate and compatible use will be hard to find. And, the
rezoning represents the logical extension of the existing C-COM
District while offering no threat of a domino effect.
Unfortunately, the Guide Plan essentially encourages the
maintenance of the status quo and the use of the existing house
as a rental unit because it is not feasible to develop the parcel
in accordance with the present zoning. Does this policy reflect
the best interests of the City and neighborhood? What about
Little Red which is zoned but not Guided for commercial usage?
Obviously, the Guide Plan has failed entirely to deal with this
important use. Does this suggest that the Guide Plan is
sacrosanct? How does the Guide Plan address smaller freestanding
commercial uses that serve Eden Prairie residents but do not fit
into a shopping center setting?
Enough questions. The point is that as important as the Guide
Plan is, it is just that, a guide. It is not chiseled in stone
and it cannot be expected to establish a clear land use policy
for every single parcel of land in Eden Prairie. Sometimes
common sense must be employed in lieu of established policy
especially in a case where a request represents the logical
extension of an existing zoning district boundary and the
proposed use is, or can be made to be, highly compatible with its
surroundings.
5
1 � t
1. . cc
,i,
F- IjiiI !
Q 4
Li ji „i i•► 1 'Ijh , J / .
).
/ 1 / • --. N»jsf __ t
/i ( ` iII
,.
�, I ik I
.
),
• . k
a
I
1 •
i PEt- I i e
it &�., ' f
W
V ° L
I X
___..CIibz�CI►O—..- 1! , � . pCa��i s^-'_ 4.
I bl I /
), P. '' ' '-
lir
11,.. • I\ .,'�
/ m t \ 0 epsw
n
! ! Y = 1I' :; . ' ate\ :,;
•
..:,ii G1t'!74 ii73
'4 I W I
s
Alternative Uses
Based on the Staff Report's recommendation that the entire
Anderson site be platted for R1-22 lots, we have done an
evaluation to establish whether or not such a proposal is
feasible. FIGURE 1 represents an R1-22 three lot proposal that
meets all ordinance requirements. TABLES 2 and 3 represent the
results of the evaluation.
Given what the Andersons will have in the property (TABLE 2) in
terms of land cost, improvements, etc., the three lots will have
to sell for something in the neighborhood of $58,000.00, an
amount that suggests a home/lot sale price of $233,000. If the
City were to grant variances to allow a forth lot, each would
have to sell for $43,750 and the home/lot value would need to be
$175,000. Homes adjacent to Little Red and backing up to Eden
Prairie Road will not sell in this price range. In fact, the
present homes adjacent to the site have an average market value
of closer to $100,000 which further suggests the
inappropriateness of building homes of such high value.
Working backwards (TABLE 3) and starting with homes appropriately
valued for the setting ($100,000 on average), a developer may be
willing to pay up to $13,000 for the land to accommodate three
lots. Assuming a four lot plat, he may be willing to purchase
the site for up to $35,000. Does this suggest that the land will
be developed for R1-22 usage? No. It suggests that the present
house be used as a rental property or some other request for
rezoning will be forthcoming.
What alternative uses are both feasible and make appropriate use
of the site? This site serves as a transition between Little Red
and the existing residential areas to the south and east. It
therefore requires a use that appropriately and compatibly serves
this function. Certainly a small office or apartment building
would be considered an appropriate transitional use for the site,
both of which would generate more traffic than the Garden Shoppe.
We believe the Garden Shoppe is not only highly compatible with
the neighborhood but that it also represents the best
transitional use for a site that requires a great deal of
development sensitivity. The Andersons recognize the sensitivity
of the situation and propose to do everything within their power
to develop and maintain the property in a manner that enhances
the neighborhood.
7
TABLE 2
FEASIBILITY OF 3 RI-22 LOTS
BASED ON ACTUAL COSTS AND CUL-DE-SAC EXTENSION
WITH NO PROFIT •
COSTS
LAND $105,000.
DEMOLITION 4,000.
FINANCING 5,000.
FEES (CITY/APPROVALS) 15,000.
APPLICATION FEES 900.
IMPROVEMENTS (STREETS & UTILITIES) 45,000.
TOTAL COST - 3 LOTS $174,900.
SALE PRICE PER LOT $58,300.
PROBABLE HOME/LOT SALE PRICE $233,200. Min. *
* Assumes a Home to Lot Value Ratio of 3:1
f i
L,
TABLE 3
FEASIBILITY OF 3 R1-22 LOTS
SALE PRICE CONSISTENT WITH SETTING
(INCLUDING CUL-DE-SAC EXTENSION)
SALE PRICE HOME & LOT $100,000. Ave.
SALE PRICE PER LOT 25,000. *
SALE PRICE 3 LOTS 75,000.
MINUS IMPROVEMENTS 45,000.
MINUS DEMOLITION 4,000.
MINUS FINANCING 5,000.
MINUS APPLICATION FEES (SUB) 200.
MINUS APPROVALS FEES 2,500.
MINUS PROFIT (DEVELOPERS) 5,000.
TOTAL SALE PRICE OF LAND $13,300.
* Assumes a Home to Lot Value Ratio of 3:1
Ufa
Future Building Use
The proposed Garden Shoppe is purposely designed to have a
residential appearance so that it will function as a transitional
use for and blend in with the residences to the south and east.
It will have an FAR of .069 (.2 permitted), including the storage
and display pergolas, which means that it has a lower building to
land ratio than the typical developed R1-22 lot.
Because the Garden Shoppe is a family owned and operated business
(two generations are currently involved), there is no expectation
that its use will change in the foreseeable future. On the other
hand, if it does change for reasons beyond the control of the
Anderson's, the greenhouse and pergolas would likely be removed
and the property reused for an office or professional building
occupancy. The building is ideally suited for such use and it
would be highly compatible with the neighborhood. Any change in
use would, of course, have to be approved by the City.
In summary, the Andersons intend to make a unique contribution to
the neighborhood and to do so in a manner that enhances
neighborhood values. We believe this amendment is warranted for
the following reasons:
1. The proposed use will not detract, in any way, from
the surrounding neighborhood. It will substantially
improve on the present situation which is Guide Plan
sanctioned.
2. The relatively small amount of traffic generated by the
use can be accommodated without undue hazard or the
disruption of traffic patterns according to the County
Traffic Engineer.
3. The use will be made to be highly compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood through the creation of a
residential transition and heavy landscaping and
screening.
4. The use will not emit noises that will violate PCA
standards or be disruptive to the neighborhood.
5. The proposed rezoning represents a logical extension
of an already existing C-COM District.
10
'O
We hope this letter answers some or all of the Planning
Commission's concerns. Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
HOISINGTON GRSUP INC.
Fred Hoisington
Consulting Planner
11
,
7)--- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
320 Washington Av. South
HENNEPIN
ill__ Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
935-3381
TN 935-6433 •
April 6, 1987
Mr. Fred Hoisingtan
7300 Metro Boulevard - Suite 525
Edina, MN 55435
RE: CSAH 4 at Westgate Drive
Dear Mr. Hoisington:
As requested, we have investigated the provisions for southbound CSAH 4
(Eden Prairie Road) traffic making U-turns at the intersection of Westgate
Drive. CSAH 4 is a four lane divided roadway at Westgate
Drive.
heucn
median width is 20 feet at this point and provides a protected
lane for southbound traffic.
By use of the left turn lane, southbound passenger cars and some larger
vehicles can quite comfortably make U-turns at Westgate Drive. Motorists
attempting to gain access to adjacent properties areaenco rmagednto o makee
this maneuver when direct access is precluded by can ebed made In
It has been found that U turns on this type of roadway
comfort and relative safety.
Sincerely,
avu.1)
Dennis L. Hansen, P.E.
County Traffic Engineer
DLH:mr
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
(-)G0(
./'• e,10/ 71c- --15-a 7
PC
4
. -
( F.-fir:TOM
To: The Council and Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
Proposed Anderson's Garden Shop anc platting of three (3)
residential lots, designated a: Jarrett Estates.
'.Ve the undersigned wish to in form the Cit.:, Council and
Planning Commission that we nava no oojection to
Anderson's Garsen Chop as a neignbor.
et-? 617
e) L/--7.- /&-3 7,-. L t-i,f_?_{..,-.; • -., c"..
../
X_37/
4? 77
,, r •'.., . ,
/Z9--711.1,24ta,L .----Ye(-7,-Q,....,_
--- i. •
1 -
q_-
,-'\
...... ___
// -Z---1(14,e r) — ÷7 k:,
"" Ill ,-•- — ,_
Le
3-2,0 LO 91- A_ ,.. TN.ix\
•Z ce,..1.•/14?-/1 " / /P)
1 - -' ' ' • / I 1 ,
_.-V,.7 !...,14 t ..1"-
ti •7)\ 4 / i t I 7 0 2,4/„ crt J
, -,-,-,
__
t-,',1 ,
29a-Sx
fl
N AM F
/ •
( fitt, nert4(
••••••-P-TIL
" • 1YV/ __11.)Lz •
\ V11^ \--1. ''6',11
(/ t-
LI
------- _
To: The Council and Planning (:ommissicn.
City of Eden Prairie
Proposed Anderson's Garden Shop and platting of three (3)
residential lots, designated as Jarrett Estates.
We the undersigned wish to inform the City Council and
Planning Commission that we have no objection to
Anderson's Garden Shop as a neighbor.
/ >. ,ei•l iP ,, /e< /4. ,C
9,'-'2"(,...,1(1)7667 _ /6, z C/./_; A, ,
%,-1',2, fize,7_,A1, --,sqr fi-,,, ,,Lii,-,, ada)
c c
, ,1 05 A l/ V,
t . 7/; C c p — 7.7 12 G/GCL-„ ay/
/`4.TS a e--6. ` ,
-':- 2-
V
- --- ,....,-;(9.,___50k_ -73 4 C. (-Lirg.0 i 141.--C. 1 (),
11 iL6.(ii.d idl,-- j- afug,_ €,,)8 S' k/vog.u060 _.(9.0 _ .
Lvs/f [ r,
ji /5—. 'z'/ 1 Exg.44;
c?C
rasx ':-/--4- )
P,7•I''1"(-•1`; - C!),:P.'',''!:'.7 !"':A l'.• -:
IN AM E A7T,PT.'1.7
- — .
724../L._•
/6,0ii,00k TTf .
7, 7/ ZA,44,..., Cv.
2 37° gi,"/e tv.blii C4‘i-
,..
'Sc. 1, (Ce- la-,..Xe‹.J /90,7„-
/ ..' ..,,, - /
('. k<--- /b C7
Jal-ka}u141,(;(- tqc)0 Croila-vi&AJir
_
.)< JR-t_9_,.1'f OkktAr 7.-. .)....$
7 5:3 I ‘1 L.:1M_-> 1()1•
/1 G 04
6.,V--)e-177_,,,,,
.''
e
. )4A_F NA4-o-i— .._
-71,)ia 4:7 1,61-21 C f 1
i
Qc,fi(auKA LA ib 14Ip` iT ;!
(v_°e VaE�� vAi a
Ct.4,7_Cot+4a
l'Iov4A lout s try,
6 00 L:xeccati
MAJ
_ 1 win& 1jke io _c vt4t e 'fist E-co e sm`_ wade 12.7
_oto-rutv!..s 4 Aki dsrs s cp-otto SA?fie.v
rct Rirp.thriem.ciky. tim -14yAsim 4 b.fcgr1
am.d 44.44.1ti - 0.7 silArelep-fr.e.vt borkerni r k-e
Guilt Fka,41 Leif.'Aft ok.poi
i C t-eRS si-0 Olt . 4t4'tP k, s 4-6.1 co'
caw e0 41. _. .ts la 4.3.4.61 kt.tt,h hay/weir
as -ifs,' .
_
AV if def-4.4,4i- x
AZ. Aa
c4.4-4 ,c, scarc .J _. d4j7cvf vf- /2.4
s 4.C.4 CC" 401'" S aut 714A s it,' iq a
E T rue's.
p(La sat -Oto,i- our P4u4 CowM isS I rev?CE r-yai
• .akstA r04(--vICVA,• Ovir PV14.7h h elk crriS• .114.1 1-11./t_ &leis Atvl tApt
vvi do jecAky •p-o?o lid t-ox; ciatikty,e. r sivegx,!,
p c't inv. am] 41,1 evi -to
tLaI
/21 i s s41-, stippa, Ai i ties. g, c•cce-r, PrztiP it°• _
_ .
c>t14 Cs
-11.14 GI I. Li'tA,db(dry,
/ 70 1,0°104 CotA
Pvzki , MN c -344
9 it
(40,0L 0, /9?.7
t L-t t. `��2� t C �.r,�c ! -1. 0 4--% Lcfie t i(J- -. -
�-�1� S2 lJ—,C.p �i�✓ Gt��u-CL� i?)-c,Le L�21 c0
L'Lezt-0 �D
> L2/ 6 tea- ce.a t' a e_e2- ice. Lc! a .
• 1 - cu
7$7( t
q76
Pc nV .
RETAIL ITEMS SOLD @ LYNDALE/FRANKS * @ ANDERSON'S **
Fallets X
Cement Blocks X
Lawn & Patio Furniture X
Lawn Equipment X
Mowers X
Spreaders
Wheelbarrows X Limited small trees
Balled & Bagged Trees/Shrubs X -> and shrub samples
Hoses X displayed. Must
Fencing X order trees.
Timbers - X
Bulk Pock, Woodchips, Dirt X
Sod X
Pots X X
Gifts end Accessories ) X
Candles ) X
•
Cards ) These may X
':ilk Flower Arrangements -> also be sold X.
Indoor Green. Plants ) by Lyndale & X
-esh Cut Flowers ) Franks. X
.andi e=_ ) X
Packaged Fertilizers, Potting_
Soils, Seed X X
Hand Garden Tools X X
Pavers X X
• Open outooc:r storage - no setbacks.
** Eoutiq_ie ampsphere - with exception of shrubs, storage
under roof - large open spaces & setbacks proposed.
vI
bid
4-ia-r7
PC Iles,
C
PARKING COMPARISONS BUILDING a PARY:ING N/1000 SqFt
SIZE (SqFt) SPACES •
COM=ARABLE SHGFS (-verage) 4,400 23 5
FRANP.S (Bloomington) 34,0u0 7:
L'iNUWLE (F'ichfieid) 70,000 LTV 3.5
ANDERSON'S 3,000 34 * 11
ANDERSON'S (Staff Recommendation) ;,n 17
Proof of F•arkinc
OFFICE OF CITY COORDINATOR �j^`0Ea mpO�J��
MINNEAPO'JS VINNESOT4 cF,11
to I2t 3lW.�p2� ^^
LYALL a SC�IVAPZYOPF u�`'/,nyp/O�J ZTR
C,TI'COORC7a,L"OR ���JJJ
OPERATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
April 13, 1987
PLANNING DEPARTMENT •
Don Anderson
•
14312 Fairway Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This is in response to your request for information about the regulations of flower
shops, gardening supply outlets and greenhouses in Minneapolis.
Depending upon the size and nature of activities, these uses are permitted in most of
our commercial zones in the City. Floral shops and conservatories are permitted in our
B2 neighborhood retail districts. These districts are located within residential areas,
thus individual uses may abut residential uses. We permit garden supply, tool and seed
stores in our B3 commercial retail districts and retail greenhouses in our B3S community
service districts. Wholesaling is permitted in our light industrial areas.
Il is important to distinguish between the small neighborhood oriented retail outlets •
that generate little traffic and have little outdoor storage, and the very large regional
outlets that have a great deal of outdoor storage and draw customers and a large •
amount of traffic from a very large area. While these large stores do not fit into
neighborhoods, we have had no particular problem with smaller retail outlets locating
in our neighborhood districts.
I hope this information adequately describes our situation in Minneapolis.
Sincerely,
/er E. yr
la-‘4)
Planning Direc
ns
AC7:CN r�IP_;)v_R !i A TTYNOICE t6121348.2157
,771
11
ram'^ •
i 1 i _ i
_ ;� L = fry" , ,ii �f
+-..,� .-ice..._.
pg 1
C I
Rev.and Mrs.E.F.Grover
16390 Westgate Drive
Eden Prairie,Minn.55344
April 8, 1987
To the Planning Committee and Staff
re : rezoning Grover - Anderson property
Again may Mrs Grover and I express our appreciation of the opportunity
to voice our opinion toward the change of zoning of adjacent property
to us, from residential to commercial. We have not changed our stance:
keep the original residential zone.
A.e word has got around the EP community re our property problems, may we
share with you some reactions:
1. "Beeure to emphasize the long-range zoning plan."
And we have done that! We bought this property on the assurance
that it was zoned "residential". All maps I have seen still indicate
that the property adjoining ours is intended to be residential.
2. "It could be a lot worse than a nursery."
We recognize that too. But the privacy we have presently, even tho
the public park is right across the highway, is greatly cherished and it
disappears with rezoning. There is no reason why our property should
enh e a nursery business (as has been originally proposed) to the detri-
men o�f our residential privacy. Granted, the neighborhood could be
improved in its appearance as a residentially zoned sector of EP!
a) the decrepit buildings could be demolished
(I hope not by a grass fire)
b) I attended landscape classAs at the nearby Arboretum for the
purpose of improving the unsightly view and trying to restore
beauty and a natural setting serving as a windbreaker and/or
sound barrier.
c) And that is more appealing than a commercial plot with all of its
accompanying business signs.
3. "Why don't you move?"
At our age moving is not that easy. Ethically, we understand
that the long-range plan for the eastern side of County Hwy 4 is to
be residential all the way from State Hwy 5 north to the boundary of EP.
This is one of the reasons we located here 5 years ago. We have already
stated the impact of the expansion of Lil Red Store.
a) Pedestrian and bicycle traffic ignores the crosswalks and bike
lanes. There are no sidewalkstbo bike lanes in our block.
We cannot help but wonder, if changing one portion to s-tsy commercial,
is but a shoe-in-the-door to developing a new strip shopping center.
What comes next? Who? And where?
4. In e newspaper "Eden Prairie Progress." March supplement to the EP
News./iatrd good review of the development of EP. Several good points
were brought up:
a) the problems of residential development
b) transportation c) commercial services d)open space
e)comfortable neighborhoods f) strong sense of community
Certainly this ck a for efficient and stable plaz(ag on the part of
the city. High quality values must be maintained if EP is to grow and
develop so its long—range dreams will be realized.
Sometimes we get caught up in the economic growth of our community. May
we never forget the residential factor. I don't want to become paranoid
with the subject of aging. However I cannot deny that Mrs Grover and I
are one of the 18 million elderly couples and individuals who own their
own homes. WY claims "the greatest fear of an older person is being
kicked out of his own home." I have confidence that EP would not
intentionally do that. but a good kick in the teeth can almost be as
devaetating. There are plApty of "sharp operators to take advantage" of
elderly homeowner i' said Gerald McMurray. Congressional staff worker on
Housing.
I hope Mrs Grover and I will never be denied the feeling of living in a
comfortable neighborhood and belonging to the community of Eden Prairie.
lg
G ?fit , J7Lh i .S J K c[
/ a nr�ti
�u �.-..- aGt;.au,.�,;..� .lLN �•«..G.� --� d 4Z 4.,._ .v •-
- P.1..�-..: vcfGiit ldi•'"
et. -+mot di-4 +
Gra- . is ec,,o- „ .cam
.,�,�. .�. AA d5,4,.... 7 P ,, ..�
() z ..... -4- , -d. 7
w� 4"..
4t 1 ,w.
Coe..A.A'TA/AV.. 10%. Vj.,v l{ 1/M..d1._
sue. ,
3 'c. 4.4
C C
March 16, 1987
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie City Hall
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Eden Prairie Planning Commission,
As the owner of a home at 16221 Westgate Lane, I am writing
to oppose the rezoning of land along Eden Prairie Road and
backing up to Westgate Lane, a private residential cul-de-sac
from residential to commercial. Westgate Lane currently offers
a quiet street with very little noise or traffic around it.
Many long term residents of the street have become accustomed
to this seclusion and they deserve to have the street remain
as it currently sets. Also, I believe allowing additional
commercial development so close to a private residential cul-
de-sac will significantly effect property values on the street.
Residents along Westgate Lane will be demanding a decreased
assessed value of all their property if such development occurs.
In conclusion, this rezoning is very much opposed by myself
and my family as well as by ether residents of Westgate Lane.
I sincerely hope the planning commission recognizes the need
to protect a residential neighborhood from commercial devel-
opment and property devaluation.
Si 7ely, ,G i �l-lLGC.
Donald A. Warner
c c
Rev.and Mrs.E.F.Grover
16390 Westgate Drive
Eden Prairie,Minn.55344
March 9, 1987
Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
Attention: Mr. Chris Eager, Director
Dear Mr. Eager:
Mr. Don Anderson of 14312 Fairway Drive, Eden Prairie, has informed us that
he has purchased the property at 7427 Eden Prairie Road and adjoining real
estate with intent to request zoning variance pursuant to establishing a
commercial enterprise, nursery and florist.
Our property with house facing Westgate Drive adjoins the piece in question
north of our back yard. Westgate Addition is residential, and we strongly
object to having it become otherwiss to any degree. We had been assured by
the former owners that it would never become other than residential. We
understand that this is in keeping with thelong--range plans of the city.
Our enjoyment of living here in our retirement home in Eden Prairie would
be greatly diminished. For instance:
LACE OF PRIVACY.
The property in question is several feet higher than ours. We like to use
our back yard. Family picnics would be encroached upon by the noise and
view of vehicles and people coming and going. This would be especially
disturbing on weekends and holidays. The proposed parking lot for 32
vehicles would be in full view at eye level from the wide expanse of our
living room windows.
ACCESS.
Because of the median on Highway 4, Eden Prairie Roan, there is no direct
access for vehicles from the north. Ever since Eden Prairie Grocery. Ltil
Red. expanded. we have had increased problems with vehicles turning into
our driveway to turn around and proceed north on Hwy. 4 to the grocery store.
The problem is increasing. With adjoining business. it would be oxen worse.
Damage to our driveway is noticeable.
PROPERTY VALUE.
What would be the direct effect on our property value? We think it woSld
be negative. Most people would not choose to live next door to a commercial
enterprise. Neither do we.
We trust that you will give this matter your thoughtful consideration. to the
benefit of residents of Westgate Addition. Please do not rezone!
Respectfully,
•
1
( (
STAFF REPORT
(
TO: Planning Commission -
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: April 10, 1987
PROJECT: Don Anderson's Garden Center
LOCATION: West of Eden Prairie Road, east of Westgate Lane, south of Little
Red Grocery Store.
APPL ICANT: Don Anderson and Hakon Nyhammer
FEE OWNER: Hakon Nyhammer and Richard Brokke
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential
to Community Commercial on 2.2 acres.
2. Zoning District Change from R1-22 to Community Commercial on
1.6 acres, and from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 1.86 acres with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals.
3. Preliminary Plat of 3.16 into six lots and road right-of-
(
way. a
8 4 :22... =nNY
Background -)N ;' ..;:ya ,
This is a continued item from the
March 23, 1967, meeting. Issues j_ 7
raised at that meeting included ; — - 102
traffic, future land uses, parking, — -{�� _ RI
-
transition, pedestrian needs, and ----- r,
noise. "-1� 78-200 I 8-8
r\�� 2 C-COM :'''.' . , ' Ids �j
Staff thought if would be beneficial ago 'URAIL
to talk with communities which have : la 1 l
considerable experience with garden . o-ix
8 16 ;I'
. •'can'i TiIM .-
centers. Staff talked with planners PROPOSED SITE
from Richfield and Minnetonka to .,„C,,;,k i�OIN LW -
find out what their experience has c i"--r4.-- l� I I 1 I I .1 I
been with garden centers and how 2435; 42.i 8-12 f Amid M4i;,, y5'_
they have dealt with them. - a� . '.� PUB •NluW M
References are made in this report - ' - �P`
to these communities. ow 79 41 /
PUB e' �8.2° �^ - }<
r-lU 1t 1• ." 43-8 .o�, \Z9b dy
.111c. 0 :i 79 17
145� e. lir1T SIMI
-
1�32c : o-'1 , _ 2
ii .....
.�� , AREA LOCATIC T MAP '
C
• Don Anderson's Garden Center 2 April 10, 1987
d4 Traffic
Staff has talked with three individual traffic consultant firms with regards to
potential traffic that might be generated by a garden center. The firms indicated
that the best way to analyze the traffic impacts of a garden center would be to
study garden centers of a similar size and usage during the peak periods.
The developer has indicated that the trip generation for the existing garden center
(2,000 square feet of sales) would be 135-170 trips in May and 24 per day year
round. The current proposal is expected to generate 20D-250 trips per day in May
and 75-90 trips year round. This would be about 20-25 cars per hour during business
hours.
Future Land Uses
Day to day operation of this type of use cannot be guaranteed through zoning or by
development agreement. The developer's agreement is intended both as a land use
control, and as a site planning tool to assure that the plans that are approved by
the Planning Commission and City Council are implemented as submitted, but it is
most effective in the implementation of a project. A developer's agreement should
not be relied on exclusively for guaranteeing day to day operations of a use in a
certain manner. The development agreement could be structured to limit outdoor
storage but would be difficult and costly to administer. Minnetonka and Richfield
have indicated that the outdoor storage is difficult to control in the long term not
only in terms of limiting the outdoor storage to the area that is indicated on the
approved plan but to what is stored within the area.
Parking
Since the proponent is asking for a variance for outdoor sales storage, the parking
requirements should be based upon the total sales area. The parking requirement
based on the total sales area for the project including indoor and outdoor sales
(6,192 square feet) would be 50 parking spaces. Since the plan provides for 35
parking spaces, an additional 15 spaces should be provided on-site. This will
probably be more parking spaces than what is needed on an average daily basis;
however, during the springtime crunch, it is important to have as much parking as
possible. Since this site is in a residential setting, there is no opportunity for
overflow parking. Eden Prairie Road is posted "No Parking" and it would be
inappropriate to have commercial vehicles parked on the adjoining residential
streets. The Little Red Store cannot be considered for shared parking since they
provide the minimum parking stalls per Ordinance.
Minnetonka and Richfield have indicated that it is difficult to estimate the
springtime crunch. Their parking requirements (five spaces per 1,000) is enough to
meet the daily needs, but not enough to meet the springtime crunch. To provide for
peak parking, these communities would recommend a garden center be located in
community commercial shopping centers in order to take advantage of the overflow
parking.
Transition
At the previous meeting, two types of transition were discussed; the visual
transition
the
areas. Theiy landscapet to planthe hassite beenand the revisediottosprovidenaize 1tion
six-
foot high fence and additional plantings along the south property line to screen the
J,�ll
C C
Don Anderson's Garden Center 3 April 10, 1987
views from the Grover property to the south. The fence and plantings are not a
justification for a landuse change but rather a mitigating measure if the land use
is appropriate. A fence and plantings cannot be considered a permanent transition
as their effectiveness depends upon the level of maintenance. No changes have been
made in the lot size transitions to the east. One way to provide a smoother
transition would be to eliminate one lot, or to develop the entire site at a low
density residential land use not to exceed 21 units per acre.
Pedestrian Needs
The Director of Community Services has indicated a need for a sidewalk across this
site and the Little Red site. Long-range plans are for a sidewalk to go from
Highway #5 to Valley View on the east side of Eden Prairie Road.
Noise
The use of plant materials and fencing will provide a visual transition and privacy,
but will not completely mitigate the effects of noise on the adjoining properties.
Variances
Multiple variances are requested for the Community Commercial zoning district
including a reduction in lot size from five acres to 1.22 acres, a reduction in lot
width from 300 to 265 feet and a reduction in lot depth from 300 feet to 200 feet.
Variances should be granted if there is a hardship involved and if the variances
make the project better than if no variances were granted. In this situation there
is no hardship, and the reason for the lot size variance is that the lot is too
small to begin with. The granting of the variances does not make the project better
since the setbacks between the outdoor storage areas, buildings, and parking to the
adjoining properties is tight. Use of a fence and plant materials is not a
justification for the granting of the variances.
Is this Land Use Appropriate in this Location?
This land use is a community commercial land use which serves the needs of more than
just the immediate neighborhood. Neighborhood needs are being satisfied in this
area by the Little Red Store and Prairie Village Mall. Neighborhood commercial
areas and uses are designed to serve an area of approximately 11 to 2 miles.
Neighborhood commercial uses are those which meet the daily retail and sales needs
of the immediate neighborhood. The "industry standard" operation of a garden center
would not be an appropriate land use adjacent to residential. for the City to
control the use exactly as proposed and keep it from operating in a way standard to
the industry could be difficult and ineffective over time.
Richfield and Minnetonka do not permit garden centers in a neighborhood commercial
district. These communities have indicated:
1. That a garden center is not a use which principally serves the needs of the
immediate neighborhood.
2. It is difficult to control the amount and location of outdoor storage.
3. Small garden center sites typically do not have enough room for springtime
parking which may cause spill-over parking to occur on adjoining residential
streets.
c
Don Anderson's Garden Center 4 April 10, 1987
Conclusions
The use of this site for a commercial use is not appropriate for the following
reasons:
1. There are over 240 acres of commercial land guided in the community around
the Major Center Area within which this type of use could be located,
subject to ordinance requirements which limit outdoor sales and storage.
2. A garden center is not a use which serves principally the immediate area or
provides a daily retail services or goods.
3. A Guide Plan Change to Medium Density would be required for the residential
lots to permit a density of 2.7 units per acre. This density is not
compatible with the surrounding area.
4. There is not enough room on-site to provide for the required parking spaces
based upon total sales area and still provide a transition to adjoining
properties.
5. The Department of Public Safety has indicated that the number of U-turns
will increase if a commercial use is added to the property. They have also
indicated should this become a problem that the median could be posted "No
U-Turn" which would displace the U-turns to a safer location. This may mean
that people would utilize Westgate Lane as a turn-around.
6. Without the benefit of a traffic study, it is difficult to estimate the
amount of traffic and neighborhood impacts.
7. The City would be required to grant multiple variances for lot size, lot
width, lot depth, and for outdoor storage. The Ordinance would permit up to
10% outdoor storage or a total of 190 square feet. The proponents are
asking for a total of 4,240 square feet. No hardships have been identified
and the granting of the variances to not enhance the,project.
8. The "industry standard" operation of a garden center would not be an
appropriate land use adjacent to residential. For the City to control this
use exactly as proposed keeping it from operating in a way standard to the
industry could be very difficult and ineffective over time.
9. The current Comprehensive Guide Plan designation of this site as Low Density
Residential has been relied upon by surrounding residential owners for
years, is a reasonable use of the property, and is consistent with
surrounding lands uses and represents the highest and best use of the site.
For these above reasons, the Planning Staff would recommend that the request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change be denied.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: March 20, 1987
PROJECT: Don Anderson's Garden Center
LOCATION: West of Eden Prairie Road, east of Westgate Lane, south of Little
Red Grocery Store.
APPLICANT: Don Anderson and Hakon Nyhammer
FEE OWNER: Hakon Nyhamner and Richard Brokke
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential
to Community Commercial on 2.2 acres.
2. Zoning District Change from R1-22 to Community Commercial on
1.6 acres and from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 1.86 acres, with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals.
3. Preliminary Plat of 3.16 acres into six lots and road right-
( of-way. 8-14 -- - TI INy
PUB t
ry �
� /-cam
Background v lop. ;?7t' `
This project is a joint request by �'� Q" v+ I
the Little Red Store and the ------
proposed Anderson Garden Center. ` € e , wam .1 102
Both sites are currently designated _ I
Low Density Residential. When the - �� i
Little Red Store was rezoned in 1981 78-200 1 $-$ 1 1 1.5
to Community Conmercial, the Guide \ ,:, C-COM ',.,,..,', R RA,
Plan Change was not changed because §� ,, ,, - ?;me"w
of the small size of the site (1 8-16 _
acre). Surrounding land uses were ..-•- a-i� !�� <
guided Low Density Residential to PROPOSED SITE : , T L
the north, east, and south of the p�lAFA�E''.�lim I j 1 -1
site, and Public Open Space to the z .c• i
west of the site across County Road 135 ��,� , 812 "=' ^' .( -3 -
#4. ;�;i r
PUB !Ul11OI q. — ,Due to an error in the legal �_ PU8 z0 ` • ' �description with the rezoning of the ,. C;COMM438• yP�'property to connercial for the 3-1 1l.-.. "«'
•W �, _ :.
Little Red Store, a portion of the �� 821•.. '
site is still zoned R1-22. A ''' . 0'•} .- 917
14: i)• +Y..l1I ' 1-2% -2
-�32. ''''' i I 2 dd
i. mv. .1 PRK i•,F 4.
AREA LOCATION MAP 1
Joo
Don Anderson's Garden Center 2 March 20, 1987
request for rezoning of that portion of the Little Red Store to Community Commercial
is included with this request. The Little Red Store was rezoned to Community
Commercial in 1981. The previous Little Red Store had been operating out of the
garage attached to the house where the Nyhammers' were living. At that time, the
Little Red Store was an illegal use because Commercial uses were not allowed in an
R1-22 district. With the upgrading of County Road #4, The Nyhammers requested a
Community Commercial zoning on the site to allow the construction of a new building
and to move the house to its present location east of the Little Red Store. The
existing Nyhammer residence does not have street frontage on a public street. A
variance was granted in 1981, and a cross-access easement required through the
Little Red commercial site onto Eden Prairie Road. At that time, the Nyhammers were
unable to work out an agreement with the property owner to the south to get access
off the extension of Westgate Lane. The Staff Report did recommend that the owner
to continue to work for access off a public street.
Land Use
The proposed Garden Center is primarily a retail business involving the sale of
house plants, baskets, potting soil, fertilizers, shrubs, small trees, and hand
implements use for gardening. There will be outdoor display of trees and shrubs.
Long term monitoring changing out retail is difficult and could easily get out of
control.
Since the business provides goods and services that are for more than just the
immediate neighborhood, it is Community Commercial land use.
The purpose of the Community Commercial zoning district is to provide appropriately
located areas for retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments,
patronized primarily by residents in the immediate community area. The district
also permits the development of community shopping centers of this size and in the
appropriate locations as shown on the Guide Plan according to the standards that
minimize adverse impacts on the adjoining residential land use.
The Commission must decide whether or not the use of this site for a Garden Center
is of an appropriate size and in an appropriate location which minimize the adverse
impacts on the adjoining residential neighborhood.
Preliminary Plat
The plat involves the subdivision of approximately 21 acres into five single family
lots and one commercial lot for the Garden Center. There is an existing home on
proposed Lot 2. The average lot size of the single family lots is 14,817 square
feet. The surrounding residential lots are zoned R1-22 and average 22,500 square
feet in size. The density of the proposed residential lots based on 1.86 acres of
land is 2.7 units per acre. The surrounding R1-22 areas are developed at a density
of about 1.7 units per acre. Proposed Lots 1, 3, 5, and 6, meet the minimum
requirements for the R1-13.5 zoning district. Proposed Lot 2 where the existing
house is located does not have frontage on a public street but was granted a
variance from this requirement in 1981. With the subdivision of the property and
the extension of Westgate Lane the opportunity exists for providing an access off a
public street with the extension of Westgate Lane further to the west.
�v�t
Don Anderson's Garden Center 3 March 20, 1987
Site Plan
Proposed Lot 4 is the site of the Anderson Garden Center. The site plan depicts the
construction of a 1-story building on 1.28 acres of land at a 0.07 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR). Community Commercial zoning would permit up to a 0.02 FAR maximum. The
parking requirements for this type of use would be 24 spaces. A total of 34 parking
spaces are provided on-site. Building and parking areas meet the minimum setback
requirements for Community Commercial zoning.
Access
Two access points are provided to this site. There will be a right-in/right-out
access off Eden Prairie Road and a cross-access into the Little Red Store, which is
the only full access. This site has good access for northbound traffic; however,
southbound traffic must follow a circuitous route into the property. Those people
travelling southbound on County Road #4 who are unaware that the access into the
site is off Valley View will have to make a U-turn at the end of the median on
County Road #4 or will use Westgate Lane as a turn-around to go northbound to the
Garden Center. This problem exists for the Grover property immediately south of the
site. Cars are currently using the driveway as a turn around. This turning
movement conflict is serious because of the high volume of traffic along County Road
#4. Since the County will not allow a median cut on County Road #4, there is not a
physical solution to eliminate the turning movement conflict impact on the adjoining
residential areas.
Architecture
The proposed 1-story building is residential in character. The exterior building
materials do not meet the City requirements for the 75% face brick or glass. The
proponents are proposing a concrete block called castle block stone stained to look
like sandstone. Current City policy for a commercial use is 75% brick or better.
The Code change the Planning Commission recently recommended to the City Council, if
adopted would require brick or better by the time this proponent is ready for a
building permit.
Landscaping
The landscaping requirement for this site is based upon a caliper inch requirement
for the size of the building, screening of parking areas from County Road #4 and
screening of the proposed commercial uses from the adjoining residential properties.
The landscape plan meets the minimum caliper inch requirement per Code; however, the
parking areas will be visible off the Eden Prairie Road and proposed fencing and
plantings along the residential sides of the project are not adequate to provide a
transition which would offset the visual and noise impacts of this land use. The
plan could be improved by adding larger conifers and overstory plantings along the
east property line and additional large conifers and overstory shade trees and the
extension of the fencing along the entire length of the south property line.
Lighting
The only exterior lighting proposed is under the entry canopy in front of the
principle building. Adding exterior lighting in the future could create a
significant problem for the neighborhood.
ijJc,
Don Anderson's Garden Center 4 March 20, 1987
Signage
The signage plan indicates one 80 square foot pylon sign which is located within
road right-of-way for County Road #4. The sign should be relocated to meet the
minimum setback of 10 feet. A signage detail must be submitted for review.
At this time, the proponent has requested the City to consider signage for the
Garden Center on the Little Red site. The attached letter from Jean Johnson
indicates that this type of sign is prohibited in all zoning districts in the City.
Utilities
Sewer and water service is available to this site by the extension of utilities from
Westgate Lane.
Storm water run-off is proposed to drain into two directions. The proposed
residential lots would drain towards Westgate Lane and sheet drainage from the
parking lot on the commercial property would drain towards existing storm sewer
system in County Road #4.
Variances
The proponents will be requesting the following variances from the 8oard of Appeals:
1. A lot size variance for commercial property from a 5-acre minimum to 1.2
acres.
2. A lot width and depth variance for the commercial lot from 300 feet to 200
feet.
3. A variance to allow outdoor storage display area to exceed 1D% of the
exterior building square footage.
Conclusions
The Planning Commission must decide whether or not the proponents have provided
compelling reasons for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Low Density
Residential to Community Commercial. The Guide Plan Change question is not so much
related to the balance of land uses in the community or adding more community
commercial on a community-wide basis but more of the relationship to the adjoining
residential properties. In other words, is the size and location of the proposed
community commercial use appropriate according to standards that minimize adverse
impacts on adjoining residential land use.
Infill sites that are not consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan are difficult
to develop in most cases because the sites are much smaller than the minimum zoning
requirements and there is not enough room on-site to accommodate development and
still provide an appropriate transition to the adjoining residential land uses. In
this situation since the site does not meet the 5-acre minimum requirement, the
transition must rely solely upon fencing and landscaping since the setbacks to the
adjoining residential properties is much smaller than if the site was a 5-acre
minimum. The potential problems are accentuated by the request for outside display
of goods.
I3J?:
Don Anderson's Garden Center 5 March 20, 1987
Lot size transition between the proposed single family lots and the existing homes
along Westgate Lane is not adequate. The proposed lot sizes average approximately
8,000 square feet less than the adjoining R1-22 lots. The density at 2.7 units per
acre is about one unit per acre more than the surrounding neighborhood and higher
than the Comprehensive Guide Plan maximum of 2.5 units per acre for Low Density
Residential land uses.
Access to the site is very poor and since the County will not permit a median access
on County Road #4 there are no physical solutions to mitigate the turning movement
conflicts at the end of the median adjacent to Westgate Lane nor a solution which
would prevent people from utilizing the adjoining residential properties as a turn
around to get to the Garden Center site.
Proposed Lot 2 does not have access on a public street, and although a variance was
granted to allow access out to County Road #4 by easement, this situation should not
be allowed to continue since the proposed density exceeds the Comprehensive Guide
Plan maximum and the lot sizes are significantly smaller than the adjoining R1-22
properties.
It does not appear that there is a way to modify the current proposal to adequately
mitigate the neighborhood impacts as identified with the land use proposal as
submitted. This would suggest that the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation as Low
Oensity Residential would be the most appropriate use for the property. One way in
which the property could be developed in conformance with the Comprehensive Guide
Plan would be to extend Westgate Lane into the center of the site and to develop the
property for standard R1-22 lots.
STAFF RECO*IEN0ATIONS
The Planning Staff presents the following alternative courses of action for
Commission consideration:
1. If the Planning Commission feels that the development as proposed is not the
appropriate use of the property, then one option would be to recommend
denial of the request since the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change has not been
substantiated, the size and use of the property is inappropriate for the
location, and the impacts on the adjoining residential neighborhoods are
high.
2. If the Planning Commission feels that there may be ways in which the
development as proposed can be modified to fit in better with the
surrounding neighborhood then one option would be to return the development
plans to the proponents for revisions.
1
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 13, 1987
Council approval of the request of Commercial Partners, Inc., for
Preliminary Plat approval for a Lund's Grocery Store and a retail center,
based on plans dated March 2, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Reports dated March 6, and April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--6-0-0
C. ANDERSON'S GARDEN CENTER, by Don C. and Rita L. Anderson and H.J.
Nyhammer. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low
Density Residential to Community Commercial on 2.2 acres, Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to C-Commercial on 1.6 acres and from R1-
22 to R1-13.5 on 1.86 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres into six lots
and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast corner of County Road
#4 and Valley View Road, west of Westgate Lane. A continued public
hearing.
This item was continued from the March 23, 1987, meeting for resolution of
several issues by the proponent, including transition to the existing
residential neighborhood and information regarding traffic patterns and
traffic volumes for such uses.
A portion of the request included a "housekeeping item" for a Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment and rezoning for that portion of the Little Red Grocery
Store property which was not covered by the legal description at the time of
publication several years ago.
Mr. Fred Hoisington, representing the Andersons, reviewed the revisions to
the plans since the last meeting, noting that the screening and landscaping
plan had been revised for the south end of the property. In addition, he
stated that they had reviewed comparable garden stores in other communities,
to determine what their traffic forecasts were.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings of the Staff Report of April 10, 1987,
with the Commission. He stated that, after review of information from other
communities, and further examination of the proposed use, the surrounding
area, and the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, Staff was recommending that
this use not be located on this property.
Planner Franzen stated that there were four major findings, plus several
others, upon which Staff was basing their recommendation: 1) There was land
available within the Major Center Area for this use; 2) A garden center was
considered a Community-Commercial use, not a Neighborhood-Commercial use
based on its clientele. In this type of district, the garden center would
be able to take advantage of over-flow parking areas, instead of depending
on adjacent residential streets for extra parking needs; 3) There are no
industry standards for garden centers and, over a long period of time,
situations such as outdoor storage become difficult to control; and, 4) The
existing Comprehensive Guide Plan designation for this property was Low
Density Residential, has been depended upon by the existing residents, and
is the highest and best use of the property.
Mr. Hoisington stated that he initially felt there was a difference of
opinion between the proponent and the Staff, but that he was now concerned
Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 13, 1987
that the Staff did not understand the parameters of the use proposed by
Anderson's Garden Center. He stated that he was concerned that Staff was
comparing the proposed use to that of Lyndale Gardens, or Frank's Nursery &
Crafts. Mr. Hoisington stated that the proposed use was smaller in scale
that either of these two businesses. He stated that other differences
included the fact that the larger uses had much more outdoor storage, high
floor area ratios, bulk products for sale, and little, if any, setback to
adjacent uses. He noted that one example of the difference in size of the
uses was that the larger uses advertised in the Minneapolis Star and
Tribune, while the Andersons advertised only in the local Eden Prairie
Sailor and the Eden Prairie News. Mr. Hoisington stated that the larger
uses were not family owned and operated businesses, but that for the
Anderson Garden Center, the only employees outside of the family were high
school students from Eden Prairie.
With respect to location of the use within the Major Center Area, Mr.
Hoisington stated that of the 240 acres of property within the Major Center
Area, there may be a location available; however, the cost of land in this
area was approximately $5.00 per square foot, and there was a five-acre
minimum lot size requirement for the zoning district proposed, adding that
this was too much money to spend for the property.
Mr. Hoisington indicated that the proponents were not a neighborhood use,
but that they were not a regional use, either, as they serviced the
residents of Eden Prairie, mainly.
With respect to the density of the single family area proposed as part of
the development, Mr. Hoisington indicated that they did not feel that the
one additional unit would create a negative impact on the existing single
family neighborhood, since it would be a home at least as valuable as those
existing in the neighborhood. The capacity of City utilities would not be
exceeded by the additional unit, nor would there be devaluation of the
existing homes due to the comparable nature of the homes.
Regarding parking spaces, Mr. Hoisington stated that the proponents could
not place 50 parking spaces on the property because they were placing so
much area into open space and setback area. He stated that proponents were
providing for 34 parking spaces on the property, but they had calculated
that they needed only 22 spaces based on the square footage of the
structure. Mr. Hoisington added that, if it was found by proponents that
they needed additional parking spaces, they would add them before the City
had to tell them they were needed because they did not want to cause any
problems for their customers.
With respect to the U-turns made on County Road #4, Mr. Hoisington stated
that there was no traffic hazard created by such turn movements. He stated
that even if the use grew by 50% beyond its current capacity, the amount of
traffic on County Road #4 would increase by less than 1%. Mr. Hoisington
stated that the proponents could not prepare the traffic study suggested
because they could be out of business before the study would be completed.
Regarding the variances requested for the Andersons' business, Mr.
Hoisington stated that the it was the opinion of the proponents that it
would be better to ask for variances for the business and to have the
Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 13, 1987
S, residential area transition to the east, rather than to reduce the
transition area. Therefore, they chose to request variances for the
commercial use. He added that, due to economic considerations, it would
require that the homes to be built in the residential area be much greater
in value than those in the existing neighborhood if one lot was required to
be eliminated.
With respect to outside storage and control of it, Mr. Hoisington stated
that there were no guarantees that any use within the City would maintain an
attractive outside appearance and that he did not feel that the long term
use would be a problem on this property.
Mr. Hoisington said that there would be no difficulties created in terms of
setting of a precedent for additional properties to become commercial in
this neighborhood, since there were no additional vacant parcels available.
Mr. Greg Stickney, Edina Realty, representing proponent, stated that he did
not feel this property would be easy to sell as a residential use in the
future. He stated that he believed that the volume of traffic on County
Road #4, the proximity to the existing commercial use, and the amount of
activity that takes place in the City park to the west, would all detract
from the ability to sell this property as residential. Mr. Stickney stated
that he felt the landscaping buffer shown between the proposed commercial
use along County Road #4 and the proposed single family use to the east
would make this property easier to sell.
Planner Franzen responded to the comments of the proponent. He stated that,
during discussions with other communities, the questions asked were with
respect to garden stores, in general, and about small garden stores,
specifically. He stated that the other communities were asked about
parking, traffic, outside storage, and impact on existing residential uses
adjacent to any such garden stores. Planner Franzen stated that the
response from other communities was that outdoor storage was difficult to
control and that parking for such uses, particularly when adjacent to
existing residential neighborhoods, often spilled over onto the adjacent
residential streets.
Anderson stated that it appeared that, when the garden shop moved from the
Prairie Village Mall to a free-standing site, that their business could
change dramatically and that the volume of business would increase. He
stated that his experience was that such businesses were extremely busy
during the Spring and that parking was difficult for customers. Anderson
added that he concurred with the findings of the Staff Report regarding the
proposed development.
Ruebling stated that, based on the information provided at the previous
meeting, he felt that there may be an opportunity to create a good
relationship between the use proposed and the existing neighborhood.
However, based on the information provided at this meeting, the question had
become whether any commercial use was appropriate in this location at all.
He stated that he had concluded that a commercial use was not appropriate on
this site and that he believed the residential development of the property,
with lots backing up to County Road #4, was probably the best use for the
site.
i J:�
Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 13, 1987
f Bye stated that she agreed with Anderson and Ruebling regarding the
inappropriateness of any commercial development on this property. She added
that the Little Red Grocery Store to the north had always been in this
location, and that it had no opportunity to expand beyond its current
boundaries. She expressed concern that the garden store would be increasing
its business when they moved and that it would eventually need more space to
operate. Bye noted that this entire area had been residential in concept
originally.
Ruebling asked why the Little Red Grocery Store had been guided for
Community Commercial use, instead of Neighborhood Commercial use. Planner
Franzen responded that the category of Neighborhood Commercial did not exist
at the time that the grocery store applied for a Comprehensive Guide Plan
change.
Dodge stated that she did not believe this was an appropriate use for the
site from the beginning. She stated that she concurred in the findings of
the Staff Report and that she felt that she supported the use of the
property as single family residential.
Ruebling stated that his concerns were based upon the appropriateness of
commercial use on this site, more so than the proposed use itself.
'eel stated that he concurred with the other commissioners regarding the
appropriateness of a commercial land use on the site. He noted that Mr.
Anderson had stated in his presentation at the last meeting that this was a
"problem site," adding that he agreed that this was a problem parcel. Fell
stated that he also concurred with the other commissioners with respect to
single family residential being the most appropriate use for this site, as
the land was currently guided.
Chairman Schuck stated that he was sympathetic with the small business
person economically; however, he added that the Commission could not make a
decision based on the economics of the situation and that they needed to
consider the ramifications of commercial use on this property for the long
term. He stated that once the zoning was granted, the City would not be
able to control the type of commercial use on the property any longer.
Mr. E. F. Grover, 16390 Westgate Drive, asked if the proponents sold
Christmas trees from their store. Mr. Anderson responded that they did not.
Mr. Grover stated that he and his wife had consulted with a real estate
agent and had been told that it was a good possibility that there would be
strip retail use in this area if this property were allowed to be zoned as
commercial. Mr. Grover reiterated his concerns from the previous meeting
regarding noise, privacy, lighting, screening, and traffic. He stated that
he and his wife had always been assured that the property would remain as
residential by the owners of the land and that they had counted on this.
Mr. Don Anderson, 14312 Fairway Drive, read a letter from the City of
Minneapolis regarding garden centers in that City. He stated that their use
was a small one and that he believed that it fit well within a residential
area. Mr. Anderson presented a petition from residents along Westgate Trail
and Westgate Lane who were in favor of the proposed use on the property.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 13, 1987
Mr. Haakon Nyhammer, 7447 County Road #4, said that he sympathized with the
problems the Andersons were experiencing in needing to move and trying to
stay in Eden Prairie. He added that he felt that the positive reaction of
the majority of the neighborhood should be considered.
Ms. Harriet Bollig, 16251 Westgate Lane, said that she lived directly behind
the proposed use to the east and that she believed the garden store would be
an asset to this area.
Mr. Roger Skogman, 16251 Westgate Trail, stated that he felt that this Eden
Prairie business should be allowed to stay in Eden Prairie. He added that
he believed it would be a good use on the property.
Mr. Don Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated that he had lived in the
community for many years and that he was a former Planning Commission
member. He stated that he felt it was important to consider the long-term
impact of any decisions that would be made regarding a piece of property and
that he did not feel it would be appropriate to make any decisions based on
one owner, only. He stated that, once the zoning was granted by the City,
the City would lose its ability to review any future commercial uses that
met City Code requirements, which was not a desirable situation.
Ms. Joy Johnson, 16370 Westgate Drive, stated that she would be living
directly behind the proposed garden center, and that she believed the
proposed use would improve the area.
Mrs. Rita Anderson, 14312 Fairway Drive, stated that she believed that their
use served the neighborhood and that it could qualify as a neighborhood use.
She said that they would be staying in the same neighborhood within the
City, that they just wanted to transplant their use to a different location.
Mrs. Anderson emphasized that the proposed use was operated as a small
family business.
Mr. Gary Bendzick, 406 Spruce Circle, Jordan, Minnesota, stated that he had
spoken with Mr. Anderson regarding construction of the single family homes
on the portion of the property he proposed for single fmaily homes. He
stated that the size of homes he wanted to build would not require much land
in order to provide for a house and yard for a family. He said that, with
the buffer of the garden store between the proposed single family homes and
County Road #4, he did not feel there would be difficulty selling the homes;
however, if the lots had to back up directly to County Road #4, they would
be less desirable and more difficult to sell.
Ms. Peg Meehan, 16698 Terrey Pine Drive, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Don
Anderson, stated that she and her family were the ones who operated the
business. She said that her long term plans were to expand the business,
but not in this location and not at this shop. She stated that she was the
"next generation" for this business and that she planned to be around for
the next 10-20 years so there would be some permanancy to the business.
i
Mr. Ken Johnson, 16370 Westgate Drive, said that he felt the proposal of the
Andersons would be beneficial to everyone in the neighborhood.
Mrs. Rhoda Grover, 16390 Westgate Drive, stated that none of the other
Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 13, 1987
ir
neighbors would be directly adjacent to the parking area, like they would
be. She reiterated her concerns for privacy of their yard and home with a .
business being located directly adjacent to their lot.
Ruebling asked if the Andersons had considered other parcels which were
already designated for Community Commercial uses in the community for this
use. Mr. Anderson stated that they had, but that the costs were high. He
said that the other major problem was that of outside storage. He indicated
that it was difficult to operate in the Prairie Village Mall currently
because of this situation. Mr. Anderson stated that he had looked at the
possibility of operating within an Industrial district, as well, but that
there were restrictions either on outside storage, or on the amount of
retail sales allowed which made such a choice prohibitive. He noted that
his use was the only one in the Twin Cities Area that was currently operated
within an existing mall, that the others were all free-standing uses.
Bye said that there were no guarantees, even with a family-owned and
operated business. She said that she felt it was important that the
decisions made regarding this proposal be made with the long-term impacts in
mind, and that impact of zoning the property commercial would be very
significant for this property and the neighborhood for a long time to come.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Fell, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Dodge, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council
denial of the request of Don and Rita Anderson for Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial on 1.0 acre,
Zoning District Change from R1-22 to Community Commercial on 1.29 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres into six lots based on the findings listed in
the Staff Report of April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--6-0-0
The Commission discussed the "housekeeping item" of regurding and rezoning
all of the property of the Little Red Store to the appropriate land use
designation and zoning district. Ruebling stated that he felt it would be
most appropriate, now that the Neighborhood Commercial District existed, to
reguide and rezone the property Neighborhood Commercial, instead of
Community Commercial. Other Commissioners concurred.
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Haakon Nyhammer for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commerical on
1.01 acres and Zoning District Change from Community Commercial to
Neighborhood Commercial on 0.7 acres and from R1-22 to Neighborhood
Commercial on 0.31 acres for the Little Red Grocery Store, based on the
Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 13, 1987
findings of the Staff Reports of March 20, and April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--6-0-0 •
Mr. Hoisington asked the Commission if the reasons for their vote were based
on the use, itself, or whether it was based on a commercial use of any kind
be located on this parcel. The Commission members discussed their reasons
with Mr. Hoisington, reiterating their comments during the hearing portion
meeting. Generally, the Commission members indicated concern about any
commercial use being located on this property.
(Chairman Schuck left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.; Bye assumed the Chair.)
tjli
Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 23, 1987
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of G. W. Pearson for Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres
into four single fmaily lots and one outlot for the Blossom Ridge Addition,
based on plans dated February 20, 1987, subject to the recommendations of
the Staff Report dated March 20, 1987.
Motion carried--7-0-0
B. ANDERSDN'S GARDEN CENTER, by Don C. and Rita L. Anderson and H.J.
Nyhammer. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low
Density Residential to Community Commercial on 2.2 acres, Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to C-Commercial on 1.6 acres and from R1-
22 to R1-13.5 on 1.86 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 3.1 acres into six lots
and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast corner of County Road
#4 and Valley View Road, west of Westgate Lane.
Mr. Don Anderson, proponent, stated that the Garden Center currently existed
as part of the hardware store within the Prairie Village Mall, but that it
had become necessary that the use be relocated. He stated that this was a
family owned business and that he and his family would prefer to remain in
/` Eden Prairie.
Mr. Anderson stated that he had purchased the subject property fully
knowledgeable of the fact that it was a "problem" site, given its location,
size, and the existing surrounding uses. He stated that this was a quiet
business, with low traffic volume, operated generally during the daylight
hours. He said there would be no night lighting to contend with for the
neighborhood. Mr. Anderson said that they also operated as landscapers,
stating that the business would be designed as a "mini-arboretum" of sorts
in order to provide for examples of different plantings to customers. He
stated that he felt this would be a good transition between the existing
homes and the existing commercial development in this neighborhood.
Mr. Fred Hoisington, representing proponents, reviewed the requests before
the Commission, noting that the request also included amendment of the
zoning for the Little Red Grocery Store, which would provide for zoning of
all the property upon which the store was located to be Community
Commercial. He stated that the chicken coop and barn would be removed from
the property for the proposed development, noting that the milk house
structure on the property, which was built of masonry, was intended to be
saved in order to provide screening from the residence to the south.
With respect to the trees on the property, Mr. Hoisington stated that the
were a number of large existing trees; however, the quality of the trees was
questionable and several were elms. He pointed out that the Andersons were
in the business of trees and would do whatever possible to save any trees
worth saving in the process of developing the property.
Mr. Hoisington stated that the eastern portion of the site was proposed to
be platted for single family residences. An easement would be provided
through this residential area for purposes of allowing for an alternative
IU lA
Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 23, 1987
k.
access to Westgate Lane for the Nyhammer house, located at the southeast
corner of the Little Red Grocery Store. Currently, access for this house
was through the store parking lot.
Regarding traffic generation, Mr. Hoisington stated that the use would
generate approximately 30-40 trips per day for the majority of the year. He
indicated that the exception to this would be the month of May, the busiest
time of the year for the business. He said that during this time of the
year there were approximately 120-150 trips per day generated by the use,
while during the slow times of the year, there were as few as ten trips per
day. Mr. Hoisington said that the only use that would generate less traffic
would be two single family residences.
Materials proposed to be used on the exterior of the main structure included
rock face block and cedar. Parking spaces required for the use totalled 24,
with 19 spaces provided in the front of structure and 15 more provided at
the back of the structure for future use. Mr. Hoisington stated that it was
the intention of the Andersons to screen the use to the east, west, and
south from those adjacent uses. He added that it was possible that the use
could be virtually unseen from the south with the proper screening.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of March 20, 1987, regarding the proposed development. He stated
that the major question for the Commission to answer was whether this was an
appropriate land use for this property, given the existing surrounding uses.
Planner Franzen pointed out that the main considerations of the Staff Report
included traffic patterns and volume and transition from the proposed use to
the existing properties, particularly to the south.
Regarding transition to the existing single family neighborhood in the area,
Planner Franzen noted that the subdivision of the property was so old that
there was no file at the City available. He stated that the existing lots
were zoned R1-22, with minimum lot sizes of 22,000 sq. ft. He pointed out
that this would make the proposed lots approximately 8,000 sq. ft. smaller
than those existing in the neighborhood.
Traffic volume was less of a concern than the traffic patterns in the
vicinity as County Road #4 was designed to handle up to 11,000 trips per
day. Planner Franzen stated that, because there was no median cut in County
Road #4 at the driveway for the Little Red Grocery Store, it was not
uncommon for southbound vehicles to miss the access on Valley View Road on
the north side of the property and to proceed to Westgate Drive, turn right,
then turn around in the driveway of one of the residences on Westgate Orive.
Most often it appeared that this happened to the Grover residence, directly
adjacent to the proposed development. There was concern that this would
continue to happen and that the U-turn movements may increase in frequency
due to the addition of another business in this location.
Planner Franzen stated that it appeared that the concerns regarding exterior
materials and screening may be mitigated with amendments to the plans.
However, this would not answer the question of the appropriateness of the
use, nor would it solve the traffic concerns. He stated that one
alternative would be to develop the property as guided, Low Density
Residential.
Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 23, 1987
Mr. Haakon Nyhammer, owner of the Little Red Grocery Store and the house
which currently used the parking lot of the store for public street access,
stated that his portion of the request involved the correction of the zoning
legal description for his property to make it conform to the lot upon which
the store was located.
With respect to the garden store proposal, Mr. Nyhammer stated that he felt
the addition of the garden store would be a good idea for this parcel. He
stated that he believed it would be a low-key operation, and that it was
better than having duplexes, or apartments, constructed on the land. Mr.
Nyhammer added that the proponents seemed willing to work with the
neighborhood. He stated that he was willing to work with the proponents, as
well, to set up and maintain a joint driveway for his store and the proposed
business.
Hallett asked how many cars were attributable to the grocery store use. Mr.
Nyhammer stated that his best estimate was for approximately 2,000 trips per
day. He added that he had 32 parking spaces on his property.
Mr. Eugene Grover, 16390 Westgate Drive, stated that his home was the
closest one to the proposed development, directly adjacent to the south. He
pointed out that his property was lower in elevation than the land to the
e- north where the garden store use was proposed, therefore they would be at
eye-level with the parking lot from their windows. Mr. Grover stated that,
since the expansion of the Little Red Grocery Store, at least one car per
day made a U-turn on Westgate Drive and used their driveway for a turn-
around. He noted that if the drivers saw them in their front yard, they
would use the driveways of other residences along Westgate Drive, instead.
Mr. Grover stated that their major concern was that the driveway was being
damaged by the turn around movements.
Mr. Grover stated that he was also concerned about the pedestrians and
bicycle riders accessing the commercial uses. He stated that currently,
pedestrians and bicycle riders would cross County Road #4 at any point,
generally not at the lighted intersection.
Mr. Grover said that his biggest concern was the loss of privacy which had
already taken place because of the Little Red Grocery Store and the
potential for even greater loss of privacy with the addition of the garden
store to the lot directly adjacent to them. He said that the lights
blinking from the intersection semi-four were visible from their windows,
too. He stated that he and his wife did not feel that they wanted to live
next door to a business and that they would request the City to maintain the
long range plans for Low Density Residential development for this property.
Mr. Tom Reigert, 16391 Westgate Drive, indicated that he was located
directly across the street from the Grovers and reiterated concerns about
the U-turns made by vehicles on their properties. He stated that the sign
( indicating that U-turns were not allowed did not stop people from using
their driveways to turn around and head north, again. Mr. Reigert stated
that the traffic from Huron to Westgate Drive had steadily increased over
recent months, as well.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 23, 1987
Mr. Roger Skogman, 16251 Westgate Trail, stated that he felt the proposed .
development would be a good use for the property and that he was not
concerned about the proposed single family lots being smaller than the
existing lots in the area.
Mr. Bill Smetana, 16171 Westgate Lane, stated that he would prefer to see
one less lot developed in the proposed single family residential area in
order to keep the lots the same size as those existing in the area at this
time. He added that he was not against the proposed garden store being
located along County Road #4.
Ms. Joy Johnson, 16370 Westgate Drive, pointed out that she lived on the lot
east of the Grovers. She stated that, currently, their view of this area
was of junk piles in the yard and that she did not feel it would be any
worse than it was now, if the garden store were developed on the property.
She suggested that the speed limit be reduced from 40 miles per hour to 30
miles per hour to control traffic better for the neighborhood.
Mr. Grover stated that the existing house on the lot was an eyesore and
asked if the neighborhood could have the City force the owner to clean up
the lot. He added that children played in this area, also, and that it did
not appear safe for them to do so.
Mr. Hoisington stated that the traffic generation from this use would be the
lowest possible from any use. He stated that approximately 80% of the trips
would come from the south, with approximately 20% of the trips from the
north. He said that the total amount of traffic would be minimal as it
would represent about 1-2% of the total amount of traffic generated by the
Little Red Grocery Store given their 2,000 trips per day and the 30-40 trips
per day projected for the garden use.
With respect to transition, Mr. Hoisington stated that there would be
approximately 60-70 feet between the rear of the Grover house to the south
and the parking lot proposed for the proeprty. He stated that the Andersons
planned to landscape that area heavily. Whatever the Grovers wanted, the
proponents would be willing to work on with them. He added that the
lighting was probably visible from the Grovers' home because of the lack of
vegetation between them and the lighting and that it would be possible to
install coniferous trees that would attenuate this situation for the
Grovers.
Mr. Hoisington stated that he did not believe that three lots would be
economically feasible for the single family portion of the development. He
reviewed the expenses involved and stated that the proponents would not be
able to make a profit with only three lots.
With respect to the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment, Mr.
Hoisington stated that he knew of several situations where the land use
designated in the Comprehensive Plan was not, finally, the most appropriate
use of the property. He listed examples within the City. He stated that he
did not believe that the proposed use would change the land use balance
within the City and that alot could be done with landscaping and screening
to accomplish the transitions necessary to the existing residential areas.
a
Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 23, 1987
Planner Franzen stated that there were other areas within the community that
were available for this use and which would not require an amendment of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan. He added that the single family use may be more
economically feasible if the entire property were developed as single
family, instead of it being part commercial and part single family. Planner
Franzen stated that if there was an alternative available for the traffic
matters, Staff would be willing to review it; however, at this time, the
traffic patterns and the impact of those traffic patterns on the adjacent
existing residential neighborhood, were of major concern.
Hallett stated that he felt it was necessary for the City to have better
information on the traffic issues. He asked the Grovers if there was
anything that they would consider adequate in terms of screening of the use
from their home. Mrs. Grover stated that it was not only their home, but
their yard, also. She said that they had swings and a picnic table in the
yard and would like to continue to use their yard without a compromise of
their privacy.
Mr. Grover stated that he was concerned about working with the proponents.
He said that the proponent had told them that they could have an 8-10 ft.
high fence when they initially spoke to them about the proposed development,
but that in the next conversation, he was telling them that a four foot high
fence would be adequate. Mr. Grover said that the proponents also offered
e, to build up berming on their property in order to screen the use. Mr.
Grover stated that he and his wife did not feel this was acceptable and that
they would not allow this.
Hallett stated that he felt it was clear that concerns of the Grovers
needed to be dealt with by the proponent.
Bye stated that she felt strongly that the use should be adequately screened
from the Grovers' home.
Hallett asked if the garden store would be able to use the Valley View Road
access through the Little Red Grocery Store parking lot, too. Mr. Nyhammer
stated that this would be the case. Hallett stated that he felt a bike
easement might be explored, too, in order to provide a safe alternative for
bikers to the commercial uses.
Dodge asked if the access on County Road #4 proposed to be used by both the
grocery store and the garden store would remove any of the parking within
the grocery store parking lot. Mr. Nyhammer stated that it would not.
Dodge expressed concern about safety for pedestrians and bicycle riders at
this intersection, in particular given the desire of children to cross over
to the park and school facilities on the west side of County Road #4. Dodge
added that she felt the U-turn situation explained by the Grovers was
hazardous and should be corrected, if possible, stating that the traffic on
County Road #4 was only going to increase as development continued it the
area.
Bye stated that she agreed that the existing use of the property provided
for an attractive nuisance for children and that the junk on the property
was an eyesore. She stated that she felt traffic was still the main
Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 23, 1987
concern.
Chairman Schuck stated that he felt it was necessary that there be answers
to the questions regarding traffic and screening before the Commission could
act on the proposal. He added that he would like to see more information
about the possibility of a bike path, as well.
Bye said she would like to see sight line studies for screening of the
property to the south. She said she believed that noise was a legitimate
concern, as well. Bye added that she would be interested in how weekend
business may differ from weekday business, and in better details about the
busy season.
Anderson stated that he shared the Staff's concerns about traffic, adding
that he felt the City needed to be concerned about the safety of its
residents, too. He stated that he felt the City had other locations for a
use like this in areas already properly designated on the Comprehensive
Guide Plan.
Fell asked if there was any way to quantify the traffic information.
Planner Franzen stated that there were several ways to do this including
checking with the City's traffic consultants, surveying other communities,
surveying other garden stores, checking with County and State traffic
r departments, or even the Public Safety Department.
Fell stated that he believed it would be important to determine how this
proposal would impact the traffic problems in this area, as well as to
determine what the existing problem was, since there was obviously an
existing traffic problem without this use being added to the neighborhood.
Fell questioned what future uses of the property might be if the garden
store were discontinued and the property was already zoned commercial.
Planner Franzen stated that this was a legitimate concern. He explained
that once the property was zoned, the City had less control over the exact
design of any use that would be allowed on the property.
Ruebling stated that he was concerned about the future land use, as well,
and that he felt the City should only allow a use that would satisfactorily
protect the interests of all parties involved. He expressed concern about
the transition to the property to the south, suggesting that proponents try
to mitigate this matter with the Grovers.
Ruebling also stated concern regarding traffic for the area and concurred
with other commissioners that additional information was needed with respect
to traffic. He stated that he would also like to see transition to the
existing adjacent uses addressed. Ruebling added that he would prefer to '
see the lot sizes stay the same as the rest of the neighborhood for the
purpose of consistency.
Hallett stated that he felt any screening, or buffering, of the use from
adjacent residences should be completed prior to occupancy of the use by the
business.
Mr. Hoisington stated that he understood the concerns of the Commission and
Jr)
l Planning Commission Minutes 9 March 23, 1987
Staff regarding traffic. He added that the Andersons were anxious to start
business at this location. Mr. Anderson stated that he would make every •
effort to mitigate the issues discussed at this meeting and return to the
Commission with answers to their questions as soon as possible.
Dodge questioned whether the new location would be adequate to allow enough
visibility for the business. Mrs. Anderson stated that the patterns of the
buyers in the store were such that they purchased large dollar amounts, even
though there were few customers in number, therefore they felt the location
would provide for adequate visibility.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell, to continue the public hearing on
this item to the April 13, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, pending
receipt of additional information as discussed at this meeting.
Motion carried--7-0-0
(8ye left the meeting at 9:15 p.m.)
/
l
j CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #87-102
RESOLUTION APPRDVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LUNDS CENTER FOR
COMMERCIAL PARTNERS, INC.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Lunds Center for Commercial Partners, Inc., dated March
5, 1987, consisting of 6.1 acres into one lot 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.
ADOPTEO by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 5th day of May, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
f4i9BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS
P 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE,SUITE 119/EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344/(612)944.7590
April 6, 1987 REFER TO FILE: 87-34-14
•
MEMORANDUM )3 ,
TO: W. Christopher Galle
Commercial Partners,p Inc.
FROM: James A. Benshoof d
Mitch L. Wonson
RE: Trip Generation Characteristics of Proposed Lunds
Development in the City of Eden Prairie
The purpose of this memorandum is to present p.m. peak hour
trip generation projections for two alternative development
scenarios on the Lunds site at Prairie Center Drive and Franlo
Road: 1) development as a 44,500 square foot shopping center and
2) development in accordance with the 58,108 square foot
Lunds/retail proposal.
Based on trip generation rates published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), a 44,500 square foot shopping
center would generate 642 p.m. peak hour trip ends. Utilizing
the ITE data, the proposed 58,108 square foot Lunds/retail
development would generate 598 p.m. peak hour trip ends. If the
proposed Lunds/retail development were reduced to 55,720 square
feet, the projected p.m. peak hour trip generation would be 563
trip ends. The p.m. peak hour trips for the Lunds development do
not account for some multi-purpose trip making between Lunds and
the retail component. This multi-purpose function would reduce
total p.m. peak hour trips in a range of 2% to 5%.
As noted above, development of the subject site with the
proposed 58,108 square foot Lunds/retail development would result
in 44 fewer p.m. peak hour trip ends (seven percent reduction)
than if the site developed as a 44,500 square foot shopping
center.
is 0
'� ►� BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS
7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE,SUITE 119/EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344/(6121944.7590
•
March 26, 1981 775211 ..,, ,..%,; -:. fERTTO FILE: 8/-34-I4
• 3 .a
MEMORANDUM 1 } I •+i
TO: W. Christopher Gallo
Commercial Partner• inc.
FROM: Jaynes A. 8ensh000 and Michael L. Wonson����/
RE: Traffic Analysis for Proposed Lunds Development
in City of Eden Prairie •
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to present the results of our
traffic analysis for the proposed Lunds Center development
that would be located in the southeast corner of Prairie
Center Drive and Franlo Road. As we understand, the devel-
opment would consist of a 43.000 sq. ft. GFA Lunds Grocery
Store and a second building of 15,100 sq. ft. GFA that would
include a 9.000 sq. ft. Snyders Drug Store and 6,108 sq. ft.
of other retail space. The development would have full
movement access on Franlo Road and right turn In and out
access on Prairie Center Drive. The City is planning to
upgrade Franlo Road along the site frontage, including
improvements at its intersection with Prairie Center Drive.
The purpose of this analysis Is to assess the traffic impli-
cations of the proposed development at key intersections in
the major center area. Particular importance is placed in
relating to traffic forecasts and analyses documented in the
traffic study for the major center area that was conducted
for the City of Eden Prairie.1 Traffic forecasts prepared
by BRW, inc. for ultimate development of the major center
area are referred to in this analysis as year 2000 fore-
casts.
T—;Prairle Center Drive/County Road 18 Traffic Study", BRW,
inc.. April . 1985. IOu
11 W. Christopher Galle -2- March 26, 1987
TRAFFIC FORECASiS
Trip Generation
The first step in the traffic forecasting process is to
project the number of trips that would be generated by the
proposed development. For this purpose, the focus Is on
trips generated during the p.m. peak hour (approximately
4:30 to 5:30 p.m. ), which is the hour of highest volume on
the roadway system and the hour used by BRW for the "Prairie
Center Drive/County Road 18 Traffic Study." To assist in
the trip generation projections, data were provided to us
regarding sales transactions at other existing funds and
Snyders Stores. Adjusting these sales data to account for
vehicle trips, 'the results are very similar to the trip
generation that would be projected using generation rates
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
( ITE). Based on these sources, it is expected that the p.m.
peak hour trip generation for the proposed development would
be 305 Inbound trips and 295 outbound trips.
For the purpose of assessing the impacts of development.
traffic on the roadway system, all of the above projected
k trips have been assigned to the roadways serving the site.
This approach is conservative (i.e. would project total
volumes on the high side) because several published reports
indicate that two factors significantly reduce the net
number of new trips:
. Trips that already are using the nearby roadways and
are "intercepted" to stop at the site.
. Muttl-purpose trips that include stops at two or more
retail establishments in the area.
One study has reported that 25 percent of the trips to a new
shopping center during the p.m. peak period were trips that
already were on the adjacent street and were "intercepted"
by the shopping center.2 Another study has indicated that
60 percent of the trips for shopping centers of less than
100.000 sq. ft. typically are intercepted from existing
traffic on nearby roadways.3 A third study has found that
major mixed use developments generate 25 percent less p.m.
peak hour traffic than would be expected using iTE rates due
to multi-purpose and internal trips.4
•
•
Z"Reductions in Estimates of Traffic impacts of Regional
Shopping Centers" liE_Journal. January 1981.
"A Methodology for Consideration of Pass-By Trips in
Traffic impact Analyses for Shopping Centers." i1E Journal ,
August 1986.
4 "Trip Generation for Mixed Use Developments," 1TE Journal,
February 1987.
irW. Christopher Gaffe -3- March 26. 1987
Trip Distribution
To assist in the trip distribution protections, market data
were obtained from Lunds and Snyders, and population data
were obtained from the City of Eden Prairie. The market
data indicated the following results:
. 80 percent of the customers for Snyders are expected to
come from a I8I/2 mile radius.
. 80 percent of the Lunds customers are expected to be
within a 281/2 mile radius to the west, north, and east
and a 181/2 mile radius to the south.
Within the above radii, preferred routes to the site were
Identified, and the trips were distributed based on the
City's 1990 population projections. The remaining 20
percent of the development trips were distributed on the
basis of the distribution percentages shown in Figure 2 of
the 1985 BRW report for the City. The resultant trip
distribution percentages used for this analysis are shown in
Figure I. this figure indicates the expected significant
orientation of development trips to the south, southwest.
and northwest.
Traffic Assignment and Projections
Based on the preceding generation and distribution esti-
mates. the p.m. peak hour development trips were assigned to
the roadway system. In addition to the intersection of
Prairie Center Drive and Franco Road, which would accommo-
date about 360 development trips during the p.m. peak hour.
a significant concentration of development trips is expected
at the T.H. 169/Prairie Center Drive intersection, a short
distance west of the development site. Given the importance
of this intersection In the major center area. specific p.m.
peak hour turn movement traffic forecasts are presented.
Figure 2 indicates current p.m. peak hour volumes as counted
by Mn/DOT in February i986 and the volumes that would occur
IF traffic generated by the proposed development were added.
Figure 3 illustrates the p.m. peak hour traffic generated by
the proposed development in relationship to the projected
year 2000 p.m. peak hour volumes developed by BRW. Inc.
through their 1985 study for the City. Compared to existing
volumes. 8RW's year 2000 projections would involve substan-
tial increases (n the left turn volume From the south on
T.H. 169 and in the left turn and through volumes From the
east on Prairie Center Drive.
�\� 4 \\\vl ,, p,r ;,finr; / ^ lorsrV.
AF"
,ir• \� ru. iI.J. 4. �_ ,11, ..�� _{
1-27/27
1 % \V
,IEENI� !tM \\ IYk4P \ .lk�
�? YINN L.. (-,! ((„': �- M,AO,
„, ua r
14:—Ho. 4 f,sYj ,I.
I09
267./47. BN. fc a 4 T .?,,
/' L c_ate.- .11 4
/ o .;,,A ;) 57457. , 1 rt
117./37. q` L,. ..�
/ j, , V, \ V .
divallat
(ie: 121/211
t "„
\ , VV i
1.i;I e,•
1.37./257. „II �\ � 1�
_, 'f.„.
]I)� B, .cl 't n0 �` Arnf.r nn
__...._.....__..........__,.„.. ---r2:c
Iti��... iiii, Yy�.�,v .� r. .W
.S IM1 IIII /
Ir.., Ir. JN• _Ai
c ,K,, o'rl. 1227./44%II,.
..a. P it:'
�, Ctt •.
.P om,. - - t �.�
CI
PERCENTAGE OF 1RIPS GENERATED BY LUNGS
/ rrpuFF11Ar,E of TRIPS GENtRATED BY SNYLERS
/—AND OILIER RETAIL
xx / xx
N At F
0 2000'
I
F iq'lre I
CUNNERCIAL PARTNERS. INC.
112AFFIC STAGY FOR ExF`ECIEU TRIP 01S1RIBUIION
PPoro5F F1 71010S 1)FVFI(IrrFNI
IN CI FT or EVEN PRAIRIE
BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC.
rrANSPORrAIION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS
I
Ali \(,,
n
(q
,rK
Pn
n L
f5))--t 'I'oft\y
i ? 1
A<.s
EXISTING PM PEAK 11011R VOLUME
IRUM ON DUI COUNT IN FEB. 1986
/
rE XIS 1IN0 VUIUMEPLUS OFVEWOMEN, TRAFFIC
xx / xx
` N A Not to Sr:11 o J
I i gut? P
COMMERCIAL PARTNERS, INC.
TRAF F IC STUDY FOR EXIST 1 NM PM PLAN MOOR VOLUMES
PROPOSED LUNDS DEVELOPMENT PI US UI.VLLUI'FIENI IRAFF IC Al
IN CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE M. 169/PRAIRIL CENTER OR.
BFNSITOOF R ASSOCIATES,INC.
trimisroor ioN AND LAND USF coNCl h mrjr5
1C
fq
le,
9, iy
??r �r5•
/ 990-sr
0\�'Q.\T t "c'6�6
Note' Though Pow forecasts Indlcnte IR1PS GENERATED BY LUNGS DEVELOPMENT
no movements between nor thwnst
on flair In Center Or. nod nnrth-
e.ast on I.n. I4n. eome non.1°nth / OTHER YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC PROJECTED BY BRIE
t'nff lc would be e.pected to mite
these movements. TOTAL
XX / XX / XX •
•
•
N A Not to Scale •
Figure 3
•
COMMERCIAL PARTNERS. INC.
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR YEAR 2000 PM PEAK 11U11R
PROPOSED LUNDS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT TH. 169/ •
IN CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PRAIRIE (ENTER DRIVE
BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC.
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS
FJ�J •
irW. Christopher Goalie -7- March 26. 1987
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
As•previousiy mentioned. the City is planning to upgrade
Franco Road between the site entrance and Prairie Center
Drive. With this upgrading, it is expected that the
intersection of Franio Road and Prairie Center Dr. would
effectively accommodate the development trips. At the major
intersections in the major center area that potentially
would be affected by the proposed development, the traffic
implications have been assessed by relating to the year 2000
projections developed by BRW In their 1985 study for the
City. For each of these intersections, Table 1 indicates
the sum of critical lane volumes in the p.m. peak hour using
the BRW year 2000 forecasts and the sum of the critical lane
volumes that would occur If the BRW forecasts are adjusted
to account for the proposed development. This table
Indicates that for all intersections, except for T.H. 169
and Prairie Center Drive. the proposed development would
increase the sum of the critical lane volumes by less than
three percent. With these limited volume Increases, the
Proposed development would not alter the level of service
that would be provided at any of those intersections.
II
1'2'7
W. Christopher Ga11e -8- March 26, 1987
TABLE 1
CRITICAL MOVEMENTS AT KEY INTERSECTIONS
WITHOUT AND WITH PROPOSED LUNDS DEVELOPMENT
Sum of Critical Lane Volumes
for Year 2000 P.M. Peak Hour
Percent
Intersection Without Lundsl With Lunds Increase
Prairie Center Dr.
and 1-494 W8 exit ramp 1732 1739 0.4
Prairie Center Dr. and
1-494 E8 entrance ramp 1796 1801 0.2
Prairie Center Or. and
T.H. 169 (W. of site) 1541 163141110
Prairie Center Dr. and
future north ramps with
T.H. 5 1976 2014 1.9
Prairie Center Dr. and
future south ramps with
T.H. 5 1286 1316 2.3
Valley View Rd. and T.H.
169 (N. Intersection) 1554 1557 0.2
Valley View Rd. and T.H.
169 (5. Intersection) 2273 2281 0.3
Co. Hwy. 18 and 1-494
IN. intersection) 2554 2554 0
Co. Hwy. 18 and 1-494
(S. intersection) 2980 2980 0
_ I
rYear 2000 volumes developed by BRW. Inc. through their
1985 traffic study for the City.
{
ira7
W. Christopher Gaile -9- March 26. 1987
At the intersection of T.H. 169 and Prairie Center Drive,
the results of the capacity analyses are as follows:
Level of Service
Traffic Scenario During P.M. Peak Hour
1986 Volumes A
1986 Volumes plus Traffic
Generated by Proposed Development B
Year 2000 Using 8RW's Forecasts
Year 2000 BRW Forecasts, Adjusted
to Account for Proposed Development 0
As noted above, the intersection of T.H. 169 and Prairie
Center Drive can adequately accommodate the existing volumes
plus the development traffic. If the volumes increase as
projected by BRW, the intersection would experience a
capacity problem by the year 2000. with or without the
proposed development. The 1985 BRW report Indicates that a
candidate solution to resolve this potential capacity
problem would be to add a third lane in each direction on
T.H. 169. if such an upgrading were completed, the inter-
section would provide level of service D operation, with or
without the proposed development.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the preceding analyses. we have established the
following conclusions:
. The proposed development will generate more p.m. peak
hour traffic than the 1985 BRW study projected for this
site.
. The proposed development would have a greater traffic
orientation to the south. southwest, and northwest than
assumed in the 1985 BRW study.
. Due to the expected trip distribution in the above
point, the proposed development would not have a
significant effect on the volumes or levels of service
at all key intersections In the major center area,
except for the Intersections of Prairie Center Dr. with
Franlo Road and T.H. 169.
irW. Christopher Galle -10- March 26. 1987
. With the planned upgrading of Franlo Road, the inter-
section of Franlo Road and Prairie Center Dr. Is
expected to adequately accommodate the development
traffic.
. The intersection of T.H. 169 and Prairie Center Dr.
would adequately accommodate existing volumes plus
development traffic, but could experience capacity
difficulties if BRW's projected year 2000 volumes
occur. The 1985 BRW report presents a solution that
would effectively accommodate the projected year 2000
volumes at this intersection. including the proposed
development.
J'J
STAFF REPORT
(
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: April 10, 1987
PROJECT: Lunds Center
LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and
Franlo Road.
APPL IC ANT/
FEE OWNER: Commercial Properties, Inc.
REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Service on 6.1
acres with variances for Floor Area Ratio and Parking to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals.
2. Preliminary Plat of 6.1 acres into one lot and road right-
of-way for the construction of 58,108 square feet of
_
building.,, _
`ram P K 0110 tag. �.� d
Background •
C- EGSEj� 82cs �� t f
At the March 6, 1987, meeting, the
R I Tim � ���f t
Planning Commission recommended that �•, �'"ci�ei ""` _
the development plans be returned to ;-•i;;fVE:•. l � c
the proponent for revisions as • 80-30 ` G-SE•,
/' 7-4t HWY
identified in the Staff Report -
,• . OFC ;•• a
relative to traffic, landscaping, •
and architecture.
to- 5 Mift,,,
Traffic N,nr;;E
.:' al; �
Sites located adjacent to regional 15.
malls are typically developed for 3,5' cemrza
related commercial uses including _2. • '�''R - 78-16
restaurants, small retail shops, and �PUg 2
offices. Malls such as Ridgedale r t � �
and Burnsville Center have developed C 7�E ,�
and Burn
mini-malls such as \/S 'P"•""� C-REG'-
_ SER
Ridgehaven and Burnhaven. When the `IOFC, ��� "•' '•" Pt�u
Comprehensive Guide Plan was dev- G'.. 118-84 ___W5 :� t"
eloped, it was envisioned that this \ - " // RM-2.5 5ie� 5
site would develop in a similar \PROPOSED SITE' "`=""manner and as a supportive retail - `° `
mall. f-r 78:;01 R rig,
�� � � P 1�a la s
y°AREA LOCATION MAPr'
Lunds Center 2 April 10, 1987
A supportive retail mall, if developed at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.2 would
allow 55,682 square feet of building. Reducing the building square footage on this
site by 20% to 44,500 square feet, would yield 642 p.m. peak hour trips. The p.m.
peak hour traffic for the Lunds Center if developed at 0.2 FAR or 55,682 square feet
would be 563 peak hour trips or 79 fewer p.m. peak hour trips. The cumulative
effect would be a 32% reduction in p.m. peak hour traffic than if the site was
developed as a 55,682 square foot retail center.
A traffic study prepared by Benshoof and Associates indicates that the amount of
traffic generated from this project would increase by various percentages the p.m.
peak hour traffic at affected intersections within the Major Center Area. The
increase in traffic is not enough to change the level of service based on year 2000
forecast; however, it should be noted that these intersections would operate at
level of service F which is a stop condition with the exception of the
intersection at Prairie Center Drive and Highway #169 immediately adjacent to the
site. While getting a 5% increase in p.m. peak hour traffic this intersection will
operate at level of service C with the improvements as identified in the BRW study.
The traffic generated from this project is 32% less than what was envisioned to
develop on this site as a retail center. The greatest increase in traffic occurs at
the intersection which is best equipped to handle the increase. Approval of this
project should be based on a 0.2 FAR or 55,682 total square feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
'he Planning Staff would recommend approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural
co C-Reg-Service on 6.1 acres and Preliminary Plat of 6.1 acres into one lot and
road right-of-way, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 6,
1087, and April 10, 1987, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Modify the architectural building elevations to continue the curved
awning along the entire north elevation of the retail building to
provide a covered walkway. The canopy over the walkway should be a
minimum of eight feet wide. In addition, the front side
architecture of the strip retail building should be wrapped around
all sides of the building.
B. Submit a rooftop screening plan with a continuous metal panel around
the units on the top of the retail buildings.
C. Modify the landscape plan to provide additional coniferous plantings
within the setback area along Franlo Road to better screen parking.
The landscape plan should also be modified to increase the height of
the- proposed conifers to a minimum of 16 feet in height along the
south property line and the quantity of proposed shade trees and
conifers will have to be substantially increased within the setback
area. 5 to 6-inch shade trees should be planted in all planting
islands.
D. Modify the site plan to depict a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk
along Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive and depict a connection
between these walkways and the buildings on-site.
Lunds Center 3 April 10, 1987
Ar
11, E. Submit an overall signage plan with details for review. Signs
should be individual letter, internally lighted and individually
affixed to the building with a maximum height of 24 inches. No
signage shall face the residential areas.
2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off and utility plans for review by
the City Engineer.
C. Submit sanitary sewer flows in order for the City Engineer to
evaluate the interim solution connection to a private sanitary sewer
line within the Eden Commons project.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the Cash Park Fee.
B. Submit plans for review by the Fire Marshal.
C. Stake the proposed grading limits with a snow fence. Notify the
City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading.
D. Submit samples of proposed exterior building materials for review.
4. No lighting shall be permitted on the south sides of the grocery store or
strip retail area. All parking lot lighting should be 20-foot high downcast
cut-off luminars.
5. The proponents will be responsible for the construction cost of future
sanitary sewer and water mains as part of the Franlo Road upgrading.
,1143
( (
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission •
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: March 6, 1987
SUBJECT: Lunds Center
LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and
Franlo Road.
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Commercial Properties, Inc.
REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional-Service on
6.1 acres with variances for Floor Area Ratio and Parking to
be reviewed by the Board of Appeals.
2. Preliminary Plat of 6.1 acres into one lot and road right-
of-way for the construction of 58,108 square feet of
building.
"twii
Background - I. I PUB�•�1 k" i� �
c,--Ef-SFjg1 - r/�•'li
The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts R 2: mMOW uile w•i 9-24
this site as a Regional Commercial \._—u 'y ` i;fi •Fe
land use. The Regional Commercial 4-.:Em _C �G-SE'.
designation would permit both office 80-30'• Mi/'`7_•41 HWY,.
and commercial uses. Surrounding pEa. OFC ir -• rl
land uses are guided Regional ORC,;-;,.y
Commercial to the north, Public to t 35
the east, Multiple Family/High - •...7 ••••:e0 NEa is
Density housing to the south, and ..e--'-.-.
Neighborhood Commercial to the west. '"' �• E1r.
The site is currently zoned Rural. 15, d ' .
5 e' .. Ce1172
Site Plan •2. . <£'R' • ' 78-16 y
2
_ PUB
The site plan depicts the con-
struction of 58,108 square feet of \j RE
f :.:.e... e, C-REG'-
building which includes a 43,000 ,,3DA. ' •••••O•••'7--8
square foot Lunds Grocery Store and OFC; b-,o.--. '
15,108 square feet of strip retail. \ ••118-84 "•;..;.E,s I 1-
The site is being developed at a RM-2.5'}1 �.aa�;- .5,
Floor Area Ratio of 0.21 which is \PROPOSED SITE 14
'"�4"•
above the 0.20 maximum allowed by
r Lam. 78 11 RiM 6 5V2. �Eeoh
ode. Building and parking areas r � ,
:v\\- I RI-135 t81 ,,1
AREA LOCATION MAPS
C C
Lunds Center 2 March 6, 1987
meet the minimum setback requirements for Commercial Regional Service zoning. A
total of 348 parking spaces is provided on-site at a ratio of six spaces per 1,000
unless the Code amendment to six per 1,000 under review by the City Council is
adopted. This will require a variance from the current Code requirement of eight
spaces per 1,000. For this type of land use, six spaces per 1,000 should be
adequate.
Access to this site will be from Prairie Center Drive and Franlo Road. The site
plan depicts the realignment and reconstruction of the Franlo Road/Prairie Center
Drive intersection and the need for additional right-of-way. Since Franlo Road will
be the full intersection access to this site, it should be required that the
intersection be upgraded concurrent with site development. The proponent will be
required to either petition for the road improvement or enter into a special
assessment agreement for a proportionate share of the cost.
Grading
This site is approximately eight to twelve feet higher than Prairie Center Drive.
The site will be lowered by approximately ten feet and 70,000 cubic yards of dirt
will be removed from the site to accommodate the development as proposed.
Architecture
The Lunds Store and the strip retail building are proposed to be constructed
primarily of facebrick with a rock face block accent band. A curved glass awning is
proposed over the windows on the Lunds Store and as a canopy over a portion of the
strip retail building. The curved awning should continue along the entire north
elevation of the retail building to provide a covered walkway. The canopy over the
walkway should be a minimum of eight feet in width. The front side architecture of
the strip retail building should be wrapped around all sides of the building,
especially on the south side to provide a visual transition to the multiple family
areas to the south.
Rooftop mechanical units are proposed to be screened with a metal panel on the Lunds
Store. No rooftop screening has been proposed on the strip retail building.
Mechanical equipment should be screened with a continuous metal panel around the
units on top of the retail building. This is extremely important since some of the
adjoining multiple family units in the Eden Commons project are at a higher
elevation and will be looking down on top of the roof.
Landscaping
The landscape plan meets the caliper inch requirement per City Code. Parking areas
will be screened from Prairie Center Drive. Parking areas will be visible from
Franlo Road and additional plantings will be required within the setback area to
better screen the parking.
The loading facilities will be screened from Franlo Road by a facebrick wall. A
roof has been proposed over the top of the loading bays to screen views from the
adjoining residential areas. The throat of the loading facility should not be
visible from Franlo Road because of plantings and a proposed six-foot high board-on-
board fence running the entire length of the south property line. The proponent
should submit a fencing detail for review. The fence should be two-inch board
construction.
(
Lunds Center 3 March 6, 1987
The parking areas will be visible from the adjoining third-floor windows of the Eden
Commons project. The third-story elevation is approximately 19 feet higher than the
proposed parking lot. The proposed retail building and drug store will screen a
portion of the parking lot. Parking between the Lunds Grocery Store and the retail
strip center will be visible from the adjoining residential properties. The
proposed fencing and plantings is not adequate enough to screen out the majority of
the views of the parking lot. The height of the proposed conifers must be increased
to a minimum of 16 feet in height. The quantity of proposed shade trees and
conifers will also have to be substantially increased within the setback area along
the south property line. Five to six-inch shade trees should be planted in all
planting islands.
Utilities
Water is available to both buildings by connection to a ten-inch water main in
Prairie Center Drive. Sanitary sewer is not immediately available to the site and
is located approximately 600 feet south along Franlo Road. The developer is
proposing as an interim solution to connect to a private sanitary sewer line within
the Eden Commons project. The City Engineer has reviewed and has indicated that
this may be acceptable pending a review of the sanitary sewer flows. The City
Engineer has also indicated that the proponents will be responsible for the
construction cost of future sanitary sewer and water mains as part of the Franlo
Road upgrading.
Lighting
Lighting should be downcast cut-off luminars with a maximum height of 20 feet.
There should be no lighting on the south sides of the grocery store or the strip
retail areas since they are adjacent to residential development.
Sidewa iks
Concurrent with the development of this property, a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk
will be required to be built along Prairie Center Drive where depicted on the site
plan. There should also be an internal sidewalk connection between the grocery
store and the retail building.
Traffic
The 1985 BRW traffic study for the Major Center Area (MCA) estimated that the p.m.
peak hour traffic for this site would be 145 trips based upon 56,000 square feet of
general retail development. The proponents have submitted traffic information which
estimates that the p.m. peak hour traffic would be 450 trips. The City's traffic
consultant, BRW, has indicated that trip generation for a grocery store and strip
retail are much higher than general commercial and the total p.m. peak hour estimate
would be 610 trips.
The overall traffic study conducted by BRW was commissioned by the City to provide a
framework for review of traffic generated by each proposed project and how it would
impact the total projected traffic system for the area at full development. The BRW
study shows that at full development of the MCA, the road system (even with all
reasonable improvements made) will be 20% over full capacity. With this
information, we are able to review all proposals and determine what changes can be
made to them to assure the future road system will operate.
j
C
Lulls Center 4 March 6, 1987
A 20% reduction in p.m. peak hour trips for this type of land use would mean that
only 13,100 square feet of grocery store or approximately 45,000 square feet of
general retail.
Conclusions
It appears that with revisions to landscaping and architecture, that the site plan
would be acceptable and could be recommended for approval. However, since the p.m.
peak hour projected traffic for this development is approximately four times higher
than was estimated by the BRW study, it raises questions as to the the intensity of
site development. There are several options for the Planning Commission to
consider:
1. Since the traffic projections are significantly higher than what was
projected by the BRW study, it may suggest that the land use is not
appropriate and that the regional commerciai designation on this property
would be better utilized for office uses which would have a lower trip
generation rate than grocery stores and strip retail.
2. This type of development is a regional use which belongs in the MCA.
However, the traffic projections for commercial within the MCA were based
upon general commercial development and did not provide for commercial land
uses with higher trip generations. If the Commission feels that a grocery
store belongs in the MCA and could work on this site; at the very least, the
variance r not be deelped
according toCode. sThis dwould bmean pa total roved nbuilding d the tesquare d footagev ono the
site of approximately 56,000 square feet.
3. If this use was to be viewed using a general commercial trip generation
rate, then to be consistent with the 20% reduction in traffic as recommended
in the BRW study, the maximum building square footage for this site would be
approximately 45,000 square feet (or 20% less than the 56,000 permitted by
Code). This alternative would allow the grocery store, but eliminate the
free-standing comnerciai.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff would recommend that the development plans be returned to the
proponent for revisions as identified in the Staff Report relative to architecture,
landscaping, and traffic.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 13, 1987
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.
A continued public meeting.
Planner Franzen stated that this item had been continued several times, both
at the Planning Commission and City Council. He reported that, at its last
meeting, the City Council removed the item from their agenda, returning the
item to the proponents. Staff was recommending that the Commission close
this meeting, as well, returning the item to the proponent until such time
as adequate information was available for review by the City.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to return the item to the
proponent, without prejudice, until such time as additional information was
available for review by the City.
Motion carried--6-0-0
B. LUNDS CENTER, by Commercial Partners, Inc. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 6.1 acres with variances
to be reviewed by Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 6.1
acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of 58,108
square feet of commercial uses. Location: Southeast corner of
Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public hearing.
Planner Franzen reported that the Commission had continued this item at its
meeting of March 9, 1987, pending receipt of additional information
regarding traffic generation for this use within the Major Center Area.
Since that time, proponents had provided Staff with detailed traffic
information supporting their proposed development. The City's traffic
consultants reviewed the information and concluded that, if the Floor Area
Ratio was kept to 0.2, or 55,682 sq. ft., the use would meet the traffic
standards set for the Major Center Area by the original study, including the
reduction by 20%.
Planner Franzen stated that the proponents had contacted Staff earlier in
the day, stating that they now had an opportunity to add property to the
overall site. He noted that Staff had not been able to review the revised
plan in detail prior to the meeting.
Mr. David Shea, Shea Architects, representing proponent, stated that the
proponents did not favor reducing the square footage of the retail building
to the east of the Lund's store on the property; therefore, they were
interested in obtaining additional property to avoid the need for such a
reduction. Mr. Shea explained that Lund's was concerned that there be
enough additional retail to make a good "center" in this location as a
complimentary use to their business.
Mr. Shea reviewed the proposed amendment to the development with the
Commission. He indicated that the property proposed for addition to the
development was located to the south-southwest of the subject site. He also
presented a revised site plan which showed different configurations for the
:''
Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 13, 1987
structures and different locations for the parking for the development,
based on the different size and shape of the property with the added parcel.
Mr. Shea stated that he had been advised by City Staff that the additional
property was guided for residential use, not commercial, and that it would
be necessary for the proponents to process a Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment for the added parcel, as well as a rezoning and platting request,
prior to issuance of any building permits for the property. Planner Franzen
added that it would be approximately 30 days before the proponents would be
able to appear before the Commission with such a request due to the fact
that there were hearing deadlines that needed to be met prior to an official
hearing taking place on such a request. He noted that there were also many
other completed projects that would be scheduled on the upcoming agendas
before consideration of any new projects.
Mr. Shea stated that it was his understanding that the traffic review was
done based on the original 58,102 sq. ft. proposed for the development in
the two structures (Lund's grocery and the retail structure). Planner
Franzen stated that, while the traffic review had been done based on the
original 58,102 sq. ft., that amount of square footage on the property did
not meet the requirements for maximum floor area ratio for the district. He
stated that the floor area ratio allowed in this district was 0.2, which was
exceeded by approximately 2,500 sq. ft. with the proposed development.
Planner Franzen stated that the proponents had not given any justification
for the proposed variance to the floor area ratio, and that Staff was not
recommending support of such a variance. Also, it would be necessary for
the Board of Appeals to review the proposed variance.
Ruebiing asked for an explanation of the difference in conclusions between
the City's original traffic study for this site within Major Center Area
(MCA) and the traffic study supplement prepared by the proponent. He stated
that he was concerned that the original study indicated that this use would
result in too much traffic from this site, while the information provided by
the proponents indicated that the recommendations for levels of traffic from
the original MCA traffic study would not be exceeded.
Planner Franzen explained that there major difference between the two
studies was the scope of the review. He stated that the original MCA
traffic study was prepared for a very large area, and that it functioned
well as a base of information, which had always been the intent of that
study. The traffic information provided by the proponent had been prepared
for this site, in particular, and focused on the specifics of this use. One
other difference between the two studies was that the original MCA study
used one average trip generation rate for all commercial uses within the
MCA. This use, now that it was identified specifically, was dealt with
specifically in the traffic study information provided by the proponent. •
Planner Franzen stated that it was Staff's opinion that the proposed grocery
store was an appropriate use in the MCA, and, after review of the specific
' traffic information, Staff was satisfied that a strip retail commercial use
would generate much more traffic than the proposed grocery store. Planner
Franzen stated that, just as with other studies that are used as base
information, it is necessary to update such information on a regular basis
as things change. He noted that the original traffic study was in the
Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 13, 19B7
process of being updated based on the exact amount of development that had
taken place in the MCA since the time the study was orginally completed.
Anderson asked if the exit from the property to Franlo Road would help
alleviate traffic onto Prairie Center Drive. Mr. Jim Benshoof, traffic
consultant, stated that their review of this use was based upon the fact
that there was an access to Franlo Road for the property. He stated that it
was important for relief of traffic impacts on Prairie Center Drive.
Anderson stated that he preferred the plan with property added, but that he
preferred to have Staff's review of the item. Bye stated that she
concurred.
Chairman Schuck stated that it appeared that the floor area ratio was
greater than 0.2 even at the reduced square footage of 55,682 sq. ft.
Planner Franzen stated that the City was requiring dedication of right-of-
way above and beyond normal requirements for the intersection of Franlo Road
and Prairie Center Drive. He stated that, due to the "extra" requirement,
the City was giving the proponent "density credit" from that portion of the
right-of-way considered to be excessive. Planner Franzen added that the
amended plan with added property, at 72,000+ sq. ft., was designed at a 0.2
floor area ratio.
With respect to the amended plan with added property, Anderson asked what
type of use would be in the small building located in the northwest corner
of the lot. Mr. Shea responded that this was proposed for a detached
financial facility.
Ruebling stated that, with respect to a variance for floor area ratio, he
was uncomfortable recommending approval of such a plan given that there was
no hardship presented, other than the financial situation for the developer.
He stated that there appeared to be alternatives available and that he did
not believe the a hardship was warranted.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Commercial Partners, Inc., for Zoning
District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 6.1 acres, with variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for a Lund's Grocery Store and a retail
center, based on plans dated March 2 1961, subject to the recommendations
of the Staff Reports dated March 6, and April 10, 1967.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
,J�J
Planning Commission Minutes 5
April 13, 1987
Council approval of the request of Commercial Partners, Inc., for
Preliminary Plat approval for a Lund's Grocery Store and a retail center,
based on plans dated March 2, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Reports dated March 6, and April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--6-0-0
( 1
Planning Commission Minutes 12 March 9, 1987
,f
F. LUNDS CENTER, by Commercial Partners, Inc. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 6.1 acres with variances
to be reviewed by Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 6.1
acres into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of 59,000
square feet of commercial uses. Location: Southeast corner of
Franlo Road and Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing.
Mr. David Shea, architect for proponents, stated that proponents had
reviewed the Staff Report and believed that the majority of the
recommendations, such as those dealing with landscaping, screening, etc.,
were items that proponents would be willing to comply with, or that could be
worked out with the Staff. With respect to traffic, however, Mr. Shea
stated that there appeared to be a need for additional information.
Therefore, he stated that proponents were requesting a continuance of this
item in order to have this information prepared.
Planner Franzen stated that Staff concurred that traffic was the major issue
with this proposal. He stated that it may be necessary to have the City's
traffic consultant involved, as well, since the Major Center Area traffic
study prepared by the City's consultant was the basis for the Staff
recommendations on this matter. Planner Franzen stated that Staff would be
willing to look at any evidence provided by the proponents which would
support their traffic projections.
i 64n
1
/ir Planning Commission Minutes 13 March 9, 1987
t
Acting Chairman Hallett stated that he felt this would be an appropriate use .
in the Major Center Area. Anderson agreed.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Fell, to contine the public hearing
to the April 13, 1987, Planning Commission meeting pending receipt of
additional traffic data from proponents and review of the information by
City Staff.
Motion carried--4-0-0
V. OLD 8USINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Dodge. Acting Chairman
Hallett adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
1J B
C (
•
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: April 10, 1987
PROJECT: Eden Prairie Entertainment Center
LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of Eden Road and Glen Lane
APPLICANT: Norman Brody
FEE OWNER: Paul Thomas
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 15.2 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review with variances for
parking on 15.2 acres.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Service on 1.42
acres.
4. Preliminary Plat of 6.42 acres into one lot.
=4.e-__- ___„,--_ ,,.RE c, ,1
Background _ �,/ .
The Comprehensive Guide Plan des- 12- 1C
ignates this site as a Commercial
Regional land use. This site is " '°`»°' �P '�}�,
part of the original Eden Glen PUD �, �•
which was subsequently amended in 4-5.3
7712
1983 to accommodate a Sheraton Hotel , r! 'Ft' r�PROPOSED SITE =-;,.; ., ■■ �1proposal for this specific site. A �.� �l--_I!1!1uI•
portion of the 6.42-acre site is I I I �;�•, �44
currently zoned C-Reg-Sery ice _ .,,,a iti 1 !`'
according to a specific site plan , EG-SEgt `�•F-+; a� I t
for the Sheraton Inn Hotel. R:I-2:m ;;',,,J� u.
° . y
Approximately 1.42 acres of land ••-• ,. yam; ;- �� `' ��
adjacent to the KinderCare is being �° " ' t•°:i °"�
proposed for zoning from Rural to C- 26:84 ;r^rrue m C i -- G-SE
Reg-Service. :.-REGE o0-• ` iFC ;'�Z01i HWY,
Site Plan °, ` 41;" CRC ;; '
. 43 35
The site plan involves/, the con- •'104••P " �•• '" iN -EG
struction of 32,700 square feet of
building area at a Floor Area Ratio 7 715 •0 �d1
of 0.12. The building includes a RM-g $c.
r_fl'r_ .:e•,-zed
AREA LOCATION MAP 3
,.('i
C t_
•
Eden Prairie Entertainment Center 2 April 10, 1987
six-screen Plitt Theatre and a Ciatti's Restaurant. Buildings meet the minimum
setback requirements for C-Reg-Service zoning.
A front yard setback variance from 35 feet to 17' feet is being requested along Eden
Road.
Parking
For a project of this type, the Code would require the provision of 534 parking
spaces. The site plan depicts 463 parking spaces on-site. The proponent is asking
for an off-site parking variance for employee parking and patron parking. Off-site
parking variances might work if a perpetual easement can be obtained between the
adjoining owners and if the off-site parking is located immediately adjacent to the
parcel and if the off-site parking is above the City Code requirement for those
other uses. It is Staff's understanding from talking with the proponent and some
adjacent landowner's that lenders are unwilling to grant perpetual parking
easements. This, coupled with the fact that the parking is to be located across a
busy street means that an off-site parking variance should not be granted. Staff
has previously identified two potential parking solutions including building a deck
to accommodate the additional required parking spaces or to reduce the building
square footage thereby reducing the amount of parking required.
Access and Internal Circulation
Access and internal circulation should be revised according to Attachment A to
provide a protected traffic lane and to allow for better ingress and egress from the
site. This change will result in the loss of additional parking spaces.
Traffic
The 19B5 BRW study estimated a p.m. peak hour traffic for the entire Eden Glen
Planned Unit Development of 420.4 trips. The existing uses within the PUD together
with the Ciatti's and Plitt Theatres would generate a total of 341.9E p.m. peak hour
trips or a 20% reduction in traffic.
Arch itecture
The proposed building will be constructed primarily out of facebrick and glass with
pre-finished metal or canvased awnings over the east elevation facing Glen Road.
The Eden Glen design framework manual required that the buildings be constructed of
medium to dark brown facebrick. Building material colors have not been identified
at this time.
Grading
The high point on the property is in the northwest corner where the majority of
large oak trees are located. The use of retaining walls and building pad locations
save the majority of the trees. Overall site grading can be described as minimal.
Because of the narrowness of the setbacks along the street, berming cannot be
constructed high enough to screen the views of the parking lot and therefore
screening must rely solely upon plant materials.
C
•
Eden Prairie Entertainment Center 3 April 10, 1987
Landscaping
The amount of landscaping required for this site is based on the building square
footage, tree replacement, and screening of parking areas.
Tree replacement would require 136 caliper inches. Building square footage for new
construction would require 204 caliper inches. A total of 346 caliper inches have
been provided on-site. The plan includes an additional 260 caliper inches of
evergreen trees which will be transplanted on-site and are not subject to tree
replacement.
The request for front yard setback variance along Eden Road from 35 feet to 171 feet
may have merit considering that there is additional setback area and oak trees being
saved in the northwest corner of the site. This area could have been utilized for
building and parking subject to tree replacement. The site plan would be better if
the variance is granted through the Planned Unit Development District Review.
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be provided to this site by connection to existing
utilities in Glen Lane.
Storm water is proposed to sheet drain across the parking lot into catch basins
which will connect into an existing storm sewer system in Glen Lane.
Lighting
Lighting proposed for this site will be 20-foot high downcast cut-off luminars
consistent with the lighting standards approved for other projects in the Eden Glen
PUD.
Signage
One free-standing pylon sign is proposed at the intersection of Glen Lane and Eden
Road. The proposed signage meets the minimum height and maximum square footage
requirements for commercial zoning. The City Council, at the April 7, 19B7,
meeting, approved a change in the sign ordinance which would require that the
signage meet the minimum setback requirements for the district in which they are
located. In this situation, the pylon sign must be located to meet the 35-foot
setback requirement from both street frontages. Three monument signs are proposed
at the driveway entrances to the site. Only one sign per street frontage is allowed
per ordinance. No monument sign details have been provided for review at this time.
Pedestrian Access
Five-foot wide concrete sidewalks should be required along Glen Lane and Eden Road.
In addition, there should be an internal sidewalk connection between the buildings
and the sidewalks. The sidewalks are necessary because of the heavy commercial
traffic on Glen Lane.
Conclusions
The proponent has been previously advised that the parking does not meet the minimum
1'y I
C t•
•
Eden Prairie Entertainment Center 4 April 10, 1987
requirements per the Ordinance and that off-street parking would not be recommended
for approval since perpetual easements are not possible and since employees and
patrons would have to cross a busy street. The amount of parking to be added to the •
site would be a minimum of 71 parking stalls and with revisions according to
Attachment A would increase this amount further. Alternatives fcr parking on this
site would include the reduction of building square footage, thereby reducing the
required number of parking spaces or to build a parking deck. Either alternatives
would provide the minimum parking requirements per Code. Since proponent has been
unable to work out a parking solution at this time, Staff would recommend the
following alternative courses of action:
1. The Planning Commission could recommend denial of the project since adequate
parking has not been provided on-site.
2. The Planning Commission could recommend that the Public Hearing be closed
and the development plans be returned to the proponent for revisions.
C (
( . la&i ,.•• ,. PROPeRTY LINE_....,......,......_..
-"•-• • '
.-.. 1 I I ..;';'• :1.:%:,4 (' •,,i'iii.;i°4 W: ": ‘
i IL,fill,
1 I I I •-•-
i , •_I' ',.,
.1,
.... - -
>1. 1 '- ..,. I r , 6 • i 1111+ 1
•
''t•
1 • ,,,.
E,,,,,r-4, '.. K\- 1,:i 1 1 1 • , : ..,;,1
t;E-re.i.e. .1 .
gt)ti A
- i-li--.1---:
t.,:-.1 • ,.-. , ; i . 1 ; 11 . ,
, • ,
.,
I ,,, - I f • . , ' i 1 1 '
/ • :, ,_ . 1 : I .
.' "•.,../. .,'-,''th.,;-.i:7 ,
i,4 . !6••.:' t te' .
'..
/
'',-• '. , 'f)'" °.
h
access and
. ,
.. .. ,
,. .. .
,f00-3 attachment a
Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 13, 1987
ifPlat of 20.7 acres into 28 single family lots and road right-of-way for
Bryant Pointe, based on revised plans dated April 9, 1987, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 10, 1967.
Motion carried--5-0-0
G. EDEN PRAIRIE ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, by Brody Associates, Inc. Request
for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 15.2 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review with variances on 15.2
acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Service on
1.42 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Service
District on 5.0 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.42 acres into one
lot for construction of a theater/restaurant complex. location:
Southwest quadrant of Eden Road and Glen lane. A public hearing.
Mr. Norm Brody, proponent, reviewed the plans with the Commission, noting
that the building would be constructed mainly of brick and glass. He stated
that the intended tenants would be Plitt Theaters and Ciatti's Restaurant.
Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff
Report of April 10, 1987. He stated that the proposed use was considered
appropriate for the Major Center Area and that there were many good
characteristics about the site plan, landscaping, signage, etc. However,
the major concern regarding this proposal was that of parking availability.
.- He noted that City Code required that the parking be provided on the site,
1 which left two alternatives for the proponent: 1) build a parking deck to
provide the necessary parking for the amount of building square footage; or,
2) reduce the square footage of the uses so that the site would be adequate
in size to provide the necessary parking.
Planner Franzen stated that the proponents had suggested alternatives for
off-site parking in other parking lots of existing buildings along Glen lane
and Eden Road. However, in all cases, pedestrians would be required to
cross four-lane roads in order to access the site. Staff's opinion was that
this was not acceptable due to safety considerations.
Mr. Brody stated that he his tenants did not feel that the parking required
by Code would be needed by them. Planner Franzen stated that this had been
discussed with the proponents, but that, based on the City's analysis of the
parking for these uses, Staff was recommending that there be enough property
available on the site in order to allow for a "proof of parking" plan if the
need for additional spaces came about in the future.
Mr. 8rody referred to an agreement between the proponents and Kinder Care,
the use located immediately to the south of the proposed development. He
stated that he was also making arrangements for use of the parcel directly
west of the Food Fare, north of the proposed development, across Eden Road,
for the purpose of employee parking, if the City found this acceptable. Mr.
8rody stated that, if this was not acceptable, they would be willing to
construct the parking deck, as his tenants were anxious to build in this
{ location in Eden Prairie.
Ruebling stated that he would prefer to see the parking deck built. He
stated that the alternative of using the Kinder Care parking lot did not
,Y.;U
Planning Commission Minutes 15 April 13, 1987
really solve the problem, nor come close enough to make up the deficiency in
the number of parking spaces, making the parking deck the most reasonable
alternative.
Anderson asked if all the parking would have to be built at this time.
Planner Franzen responded that it would not be necessary to construct all
the parking at ground level at this time but that Staff would recommend that
the deck be constructed immediately.
Fell asked where the parking deck would be located with respect to the other
structures on the property. Mr. Brody responded that the deck would be
located on the south side of the structures shown. Planner Franzen stated
that he felt this could be an attractive addition to the site due to the
fact that the parking deck could be built into the hill on the property.
Acting Chairman Bye asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Anderson, seconded by Fell, to continue the public
hearing to the April 27, 1987, Planning Commission meeting for review of the
amended plans, and directing Staff to publish the item for Council review at
its meeting of May 5, 1987.
t
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 Ruebling, seconded by Anderson.
Acting Chairman Bye adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 87-103
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EDEN PRAIRIE ENTERTAINMENT CENTER •
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT
TO THE OVERALL EDEN GLEN 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 Eden Prairie Entertainment Center development is considered a
proper amendment to the overall Eden Glen Planned Unit Development Concept; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the
request of Brody Associates, Inc., for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall
Eden Glen Planned Unit Development Concept for the Eden Prairie Entertainment Center
development and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City
Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on May 5, 1987;
NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Eden Prairie Entertainment Center 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 PUD Concept Amendment approval to
the overall Eden Glen Planned Unit Development Concept as outlined
in the application materials for Eden Prairie Entertainment Center.
3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the
Planning Commission dated April 27, 1987.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 5th day of May, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #87-104
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENTERTAINMENT
CENTER FOR BRODY ASSOCIATES, INC.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Eden Prairie Entertainment Center for Brody Associates,
Inc., dated March 17, 1987, consisting of 6.42 acres into one lot for construction
of a theater/restaurant complex, 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 5th day of May, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: April 24, 1987
PROJECT: Eden Prairie Entertainment Center
LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of Eden Road and Glen Lane
APPLICANT: Norman Brody
FEE OWNER: Paul Thomas
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept on 15.2 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review with variances for
parking on 15.2 acres.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on
1.42 acres.
r 4. Preliminary Plat of 6.42 acres into one lot.
(7---
Background 0 c ) s 1/;: l!!112 PF;}C •
This is a continued item from the — --�
April 10, 1987, meeting. The VI 78'"" —51: + \.„?
Planning Commission recommended that •
the development plans be returned to 4-83 ,`) 7712
the proponent for revisions to 4 OFC
provide for the minimum parking PROPOSED SITE."'':; tr, I' -
Iv- � f�Y=.� ROAD' I ,i
requirements on-site. I I . I 1
Revised Site Plan --EG-SFjg1 �4,,` t4I pm
The revised site plan indicates a +; # �;+�. • W4 '
two-level parking deck in the — • _ •° •
southwest corner of the site. With '"�I'. ;,c,,r,r,,E® -C '�` G-SE
2--=� , 80-30 pri'`7-41 HWY 1
the parking deck and on-grade .: 4�.c,.'''. -el °° , OFC a• fT...-
parking, a total of 536 spaces are I. • c...:
provided. The ordinance wouldM�
require a total of 534 parking ` ai¢r.:'Y ` 'dam -EG
spaces. The lower portion of the 4. t:,' ,tip.00
' - a!;,uM-n
parking structure is 171/2 feet from ; . aIP E.P.
Eden Road and would require a front '!- `ra,m:.4it ,
and setback variancefrom 35 feet r 77 15 , -
y '' eei_t
RM-6r5' • �£�R 4�
-2.- 78-16
I., r•-c PUB
, • AREA LOCATION MAP 3(
Eden Prairie Entertainment Center 2 April 24, 1987
to 171 feet. The upper level of the parking deck would be at the 35-foot minimum
setback. The lower portion of the parking deck will be buried into the ground and
that portion of the structure will not be visible from Eden Road. The request for
front yard setback variance to parking and structure may have merit considering that
there is additional setback area and oak trees being saved in the northwest corner
of the site. This area could have been utilized for building and parking and
subject to tree replacement. The site plan would be better if the variances for
parking and structure setback are granted through the PUD District Review.
Parking on the upper level may be visible from adjoining land uses and public
roadways. The construction drawings of the deck should indicate a wall of
sufficient height to screen the cars.
The parking deck should be constructed out of materials which are architecturally
integral with the other buildings on-site. Prior to City Council review, the
proponent should submit elevation drawings which depict the exterior building
materials. In addition, the proponent should submit revised grading and landscape
plans which incorporate the parking deck.
STAFF RECDMMENDATIONS
The Staff would recommend approval of the request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Amendment on 15.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with
variances for parking setback on 15.2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-
Regional Service on 1.42 acres and a Preliminary Plat of 6.42 acres into one lot,
4 based on plans dated March 13, 1987, and revised plans dated April 24, 1987, subject
to the recommendations of the Staff Report, dated April 10, 1987, and April 24,
1987, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Submit elevations of the parking deck with exterior materials for
review. Building materials should be architecturally integral with
the theatre and restaurant.
B. Submit a revised landscape plan and grading plan which incorporates
the parking deck.
C. Revise the site plan to indicate a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk
along Glen Lane with appropriate sidewalk connections to the theatre
and restaurant.
2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility
plans for review by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
JJ .'
Eden Prairie Entertainment Center 3 April 24, 1987
B. Stake the proposed grading limits with a snow fence. Any trees lost
outside of the snow fenced area shall be replaced on an area-inch
per area-inch basis.
C. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
D. Submit samples of proposed exterior building materials and lighting
standards for review.
E. Submit plans for review by the Fire Marshal.
4. Concurrent with building construction, construct a five-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Glen Lane and a sidewalk connection to the restaurant and
theatre.
•
t
;47
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #87-105
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BRYANT POINTE
FOR JYLAND DEVELOPMENT, INC.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Bryant Pointe for Jyland Development, Inc., dated March
16, 1987, consisting of 20.7 acres into 28 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, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 5th day of May, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
(
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
TOUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: April 10, 1967
PROJECT: Bryant Pointe
LOCATION: East of Rowland Road, south of Hennepin County Highway #62
APPLICANT: Jyland Development, Inc.
FEE OWNER: Waleswood Corporation
REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 20.7 acres.
2. Preliminary Plat of 20.7 acres into 28 single family lots
and road right-of-way.
Background
This site is currently designated on , 1
the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide
Plan for Low Density Residential 40,..••_i1
land uses. Surrounding designations ) .V•-•"-•. PROPOSED SITI
to the east and south are also for ►0•-•�i4'••4 1
•♦ ♦4�i4
Low Density Residential while the 4 ,,..,..,4,4
property to the west is guided for ;•.����it�l, 61-84
Public Open Space; however, the "•''•��1O�p _ RI-13.5
American International School has .�•�•�.�•��
Dil��A�i� •
been proposed for this site. �.
Specific land uses in this area
include Hennepin County Highway #62 i 0 -;1..!.... 4=
to the north, vacant property to the =',5s, `' -w
ILI)(1
south, the Carmel Addition, zoned , IR2t�-8
R1-13.5 to the east, and Rowland -.'
Road to the west.
Site Plan/Preliminary Plat
•.;a
The site plan depicts the division �:• `' ... .�
of the 20.7-acre tract of land into r ,-. „ .,� ,' /
2B single family lots and road + " ",�, _
right-of-way. All of the lots meet ' i di Ili 1 ;:,
or exceed the minimum requirements r,:s, - '
of the R1-13.5 zoning district with . .%,. ''
the exception of Lot 1, Block 2, , \AREA LOCATION MAP
Bryant Pointe 2 April 10, 1987
which does not meet the average lot depth. Plans shall be revised to reflect the
required average lot depth. Lot sizes within the subdivision range from a minimum
lot size of 21,800 square feet to a maximum of 43,500 square feet. The average lot
size, with the exception of Lot 15, Block 2, is 24,370 square feet.
Access to this site is proposed from Rowland Road with a connection made to
Hillcrest Drive and extensions to three different cul-de-sacs. Based upon the
grading plan submitted by the proponent, the location and reason for the cul-de-sacs
appear feasible due to the extreme topography on the site. Bryant Pointe lane shall
be extended with the development of the southern property to a connection made in
the Carmel Addition along Boulder Bay Road. This will provide an additional access
to this site. Because the primary access is from Rowland Road, the proponent shall
enter into a special assessment agreement with the City for the upgrading of Rowland
Road. A feasibility report for watermain, sanitary sewer, street, and storm sewer
improvements for Rowland Road was conducted and completed in January of 1965. With
the development of this property, the Planning Commission and City Council may wish
to consider the resurrection of this feasibility study for upgrading Rowland Road
within the very near future.
Grading
Elevations on this site range from a high point of 1020 along the north property
line, to a low point of 910 in the southwest corner. The maximum cut and fill for
this project includes approximately 20 feet of cut along the high point at the end
of the Bryant Pointe Lane and a 25 feet cut within the center portion of the site
adjacent to the southern property line. Maximum fill on this site includes
approximately six feet along the Morningside Circle cul-de-sac. The overall grading
plan depicts very minimal grading occuring so as not to disturb the natural
topography of this site and to maintain a large number of trees which are located
here.
Noise Impact
Due to the proximity of this project to the Crosstown extension, some noise impact
is expected. In order to evaluate this, the proponent shall provide a noise contour
study of this particular area and how the Crosstown will affect any of the proposed
homes. The study shall address the extent of noise impact and if required, suggest
abatement measures. This study will be required prior to Council review.
Util ities
Water and sanitary sewer service is available to this site through connections made
through the Carmel Addition with extensions made throughout the cul-de-sac system.
Storm water run-off has been designed to collect in a series of catch basins with
the eastern portion of the property depositing into a storm sewer system located
within Carmel Addition while the storm water from the western portion of the
property shall be collected within the Lakeview Circle cul-de-sac and deposited into
the Rowland Road right-of-way. This storm water run-off plan shall be reviewed by
the City Engineering Department and Watershed District to determine its adequacy.
Tree Replacement
The proposed plan depicts a total of 5,088 caliper inches of trees on the site.
Based upon the grading plan submitted, the proponent is removing 2,188 caliper
Bryant Pointe 3 April 10, 1987
( inches. The proponent will be required to replace 1,388 caliper inches of plant
material throughout the site. Staff would recommend those trees be replaced in
areas where trees are not currently located.
Pedestrian Systems
The overall trail plan for the City of Eden Prairie depicts an eight-foot bituminous
trail along the west side of Rowland Road. This shall be included as part of the
feasibility study for the upgrading of Rowland Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the request for a Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 and the Preliminary Plat of approximately 20.7 acres into 28 lots
and road right-of-way, based upon plans dated March 15, 1987, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report, dated April 10, 1987, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Submit a tree replacement plan which depicts the replacement of
1,388 caliper inches of trees.
B. Sign a special assessment agreement with the City of Eden Prairie
for the upgrading of Rowland Road.
C. Revise the plan for Lot 1, Block 2, which depicts the minimum
average lot depth.
D. Submit a noise contour study to determine the affect of the
Crosstown on the subject property and if required, to suggest
abatement measures.
2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility
plans for review by the City Engineer.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
4. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of gre :;;.. Stake all grading limits with a snow fence. Any trees
lost outside the grading limits shall be replaced on an area inch
per area inch basis.
Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 13, 1987
T
F. BRYANT POINTE, by Jyland Development, Inc. Request for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 20.7 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 20.7 acres into 28 single family lots and road right-of-way.
Location: Southeast corner of Hennepin County Highway #62 and
Rowland Road. A public hearing.
Mr. Bob Carlson, proponent, reviewed the proposed development with the
Commission. He gave a brief review of the site characteristics.
Planner Uram noted that the proponent was requesting R1-13.5 zoning, but
that the lots generally met the requirements of the R1-22 District in terms
of size. He stated that the proponent had designed the plat to be sensitive
to the location of existing trees on the property. Other than standard
recommendations regarding sanitary sewer, watermain, erosion control, park
dedication, and tree replacement, the Staff Report included recommendations
regarding the need for a special assessment agreement and noise attenuation
from the future Crosstown Highway along the north border of the property.
' Ruebling asked about the need for Outlot A and who would be responsible for
the maintenance of the outlot. Mr. Carlson responded that this was done for
the purpose of meeting average lot depth requirements and also would be the
location of an entrance monument to the subdivision. He stated that this
would be a "no maintenance" lot set up as a rock bed, with the sign located
within the rock bed.
Acting Chairman Bye asked for comments, or questions, from members of the
audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Fell, seconded by Anderson, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Fell, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Jyland Development, Inc., for Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 20.7 acres for Bryant Pointe, based
on revised plans dated April 9, 1987, subject to the recommendations of the
Staff Report dated April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Fell, seconded by Anderson, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Jyland Development, Inc., for Preliminary
Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 13, 1987
Plat of 20.7 acres into 28 single family Tots and road right-of-way for
Bryant Pointe, based on revised plans dated April 9, 1987, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--5-0-0
JL,&f
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #87-106
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ALPINE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION
FOR R.M. FEERICK ASSOCIATES
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Alpine Estates 2nd Addition for R.M. Feerick
Associates, dated March 31, 1987, consisting of 8.4 acres into 14 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, and is herein approved, contingent upon
resolution of sanitary sewer service being provided to the property.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 5th day of May, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
C C
C4
L
March 19, 1987
Mr. Carl Jullie
Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8940 Eden Prairie Rd.
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Jullie:
As president of Herlitz Construction, Inc., fee owner of the
following described property, we have authorized Mr. R. M.
Feerick of Feerick & Associates to submit the preliminary plan as
proposed to your planning commission.
Outlot 2, except that part of the Southwesterly 53.25
fet lying Northwesterly of the Northeasterly extension
of the Southeasterly line of Lot 5, Block 1, Alpine
Estates
While we have a purchase agreement pending for the property which
calls for a closing on or before May 1, 1987, we are uncertain
whether the matter will be concluded according to that agreement,
and, therefore, are anxious to have Mr. Feerick continue with his
efforts to develop the property since it is entirely possible
that the new purchaser will engage Mr. Feerick for any work to
complete the project, and, therefore, it is important that the
preliminary plan be approved at the earliest opportunity.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
HERLITZ CONSTRUCTION, INC.
By ae, 'p I Lk 2d
ALfred,J;. HerlitzC.-,4resident
2415 Brookridge Av. N.
Golden Valley, MN 55422
STAFF REPORT
(
TO: Planning Cowl ssion •
FROM: Oonald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
'THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
OATE: April 10, 1987
PROJECT: Alpine Estates 2nd Addition
LOCATION: East of Alpine Trail, south of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul &
Pacific railroad.
APPLICANT: R.M. Feerick Associates
FEE OWNER: Herlitz Construction Company
REQUEST: 1. Zoning Oistrict Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 8.36 acres.
2. Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 14 single family lots
. for the construction of 13 single family homes.
41-93 .t. . f Wy ,/. 4 `�
Background RI-9.5 _ llt " ' L .Iii t
This property, Outlot 2, Alpine _ • 46,
41,®�afft�. `�lim '�f-
Estates, is currently zoned R1-22 *Fit
`.��►w s ,�`
and guided for Low Density Res-
idential land uses for up to 2.5
units per acre. The Comprehensive ' e �- ,li� ''.
Guide Plan depicts surrounding areas N e S ! $J
as Low Density Residential with 79-21 �.
current zoning classifications in- PUR 62-84 ♦ s.c 101074
cluding R1-13.5 to the north, R1-22 PROPOSED SITE Z • ' �rl
to the south and west, and Rural and �,,,, r.' ,
floodplain to the east. y i^' y�' n4 %1
This property has been subject of a ' t .-
great deal of controversy over the i "7-;n
previous two years. The original / •! '� ��,
proposal for this site was a ♦ F •
townhouse development which % 1 .': 0.. .
utilizied the existing natural site \- 1 i I I" . s;_ � �--
characteristics but was unacceptable r �` P , • - ',/
from a land use standpoint. The • -
most recent plan for this parcel of L— ' ' ' ,..w.FLt2- • •
land was for a single family —1--------- ' i I �,
residential development; however, .,L� � • ;' a^
due to the design of the project, a 1 1I Lx ,,.•;,-•sc
total of approximately 80,D00 cubic
AREA LOCATION MAP
,I.f.rra r .-_� r— ..4.4'N.'4..004.., •..
'1.
S
Alpine Estates 2nd Addition 2 April 10, 1987
yards of fill was required. This amount of fill did not prove to be cost effective;
as such, the project was dropped. The proponent is currently requesting a Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 and a preliminary plat of 8.36 acres into 14
lots.
Site Plan/Preliminary Plat
The preliminary plat depicts the subdivision of the 8.36-acre tract into 14 single
family lots averaging approximately 21,385 square feet with the exception of Lot 6
which is the location of the existing A-frame. This lot, which is the maximum,
contains 42,00D square feet while the minimum lot size is 14,000 square feet. All
of the lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the R1-13.5 zoning district
with the exception of Lots 2 and 4, 81ock 2 and Lots 3 and 4, 81ock 1. The plan
depicts an 80-foot frontage for Lot 2, Block 2, which shall be revised to reflect
the 85-foot minimum frontage required in the R1-13.5 zoning district. Lot 4 does
not meet the 85-foot average lot width which also shall be revised. Lots 3 and 4,
81ock 1, will require a variance from the 150-foot lot depth required for
residential lots adjacent to railroads. Because of the unique shape of the
property, and the extenuating circumstances, a variance may be substantiated in this
particular case.
Access to this site is being provided by the extension of Alpine Trail to the east
approximately 800 feet. The proposed right-of-way for Alpine Trail is 50 feet and
is being designed as a residential collector street. In order for this roadway
extension to service the adjacent property to the east, the terminus of the roadway
shall be relocated to the north approximately 85 feet. This location shall be
subject to engineering approval.
Grading
The natural topography of this site slopes in a southeasterly direction towards
Purgatory Creek from high points existing along the north edge of the property.
These points range in elevation from 936 in the northeast corner to a low point
elevation of 848, a difference in elevation of approximately 80 feet. Natural
slopes range from approximately 2% adjacent to the Purgatory Creek floodplain to a
high of approximately 40%. Because there are slopes greater than 12% and an
elevation difference of over 30 feet, a steep slope review is required concurrent
with the development review.
In comparison with the previous single family plan, the overall site grading as
proposed is less damaging to the natural site characteristics of the property. A
maximum of 20 feet of cut is occuring along Lot 3, Block 1 with fill reaching a
maximum of 15 feet on Lot 2, Block 2. In order to reduce the overall amount of
grading in comparison to the previous plan, the roadway has been relocated to the
north to more closely follow the natural contours of the site. The result of this
has been a reduction in the amount of fill required from approximately 80,00D cubic
yards on the previous plan to approximately 10,400+ cubic yards on this plan. The
relocation of the roadway to the north will affect these figures somewhat.
Utilities
Water and sanitary sewer services are available to this site. Water service is
proposed by the extension of an eight-inch water main within the Alpine Trail right-
of-way. Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended from the 60-inch sanitary sewer
i )1;
s
Alpine Estates 2nd Addition 3 April 10, 1987
trunk line located east of the subject property across Purgatory Creek to the site.
The proponent has submitted a petition for this extension which shall be presented
to the City Council to determine its feasibility. This contrasts with the previous
proposal which was for the developer to pay all costs for the extension of the
sanitary sewer to their property. No development shall occur on any of the lots
until sanitary sewer service is available.
There is an existing 20-foot drainage and utility easement which extends north/south
through the subject property designed primarily to capture run-off from the property
to the north. The proponent has designed a storm sewer system with catch basins
located in the extension of Alpine Trail with the ultimate discharge into the
Purgatory Creek floodplain.
Tree Inventory/Tree Replacement
Further review has indicated that the previous tree inventory submitted for the
original Alpine Village plan is inadequate and does not accurately depict what is
located on the site. The proponent has been informed that a new tree inventory is
required, and based upon that, a total number of caliper inches required for tree
replacement shall be calculated. This tree inventory and tree replacement plan will
be required prior to Council review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the request for Zoning District Change from R1-22
to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 14 lots subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report, dated April 10, 1987, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Submit a tree inventory and tree replacement plan based upon the
City's tree replacement policy.
B. Relocate the terminus of the Alpine Trail extension to the north
approximately 85 feet to serve the adjacent property to the east.
C. Apply for, and receive, a variance from the Board of Appeals for lot
depth adjacent to railroads of 150 feet for Lots 3 and 4, Block 1.
D. Revise the plans to reflect the minimum lot frontage and average lot
width for Lots 2 and 4, Block 2.
2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit a 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 Engineering Department.
3. Prior to Building
permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
}
Alpine Estates 2nd Addition 4 April 10, 1987
4. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fencing.
C. Stake the grading limits with a snow fence. Any trees lost outside
the proposed grading limits shall be replaced on a cross-sectional
trunk area inch per area inch basis.
5. No development shall occur on any of the lots until sanitary sewer service
is available.
/J o?
Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 13, 1987
IIP
11,
•
E. ALPINE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, by R. M. Feerick Associates. Request
for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 8.4 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 8.4 acres into 14 single family lots and road
right-of-way. Location: East of Alpine Trail, south of the
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul railroad track. A public hearing.
Planner Uram stated that this was a different single family residential
•(Jrvt,-
( Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 13, 1987
proposal than the one reviewed by the Commission over one year ago. He
indicated that it appeared that the majority of the issues had been resolved
with this site design.
Mr. Richard Feerick, proponent, stated that he was aware of the previous
concerns regarding development of this property and that he had endeavored
to have a plan designed that would be responsive to those concerns, in
particular, preservation of trees, and grading on the property. Mr. Feerick
stated that the homes would be in the price range of $160,000-$210,000. He
added that he had spoken to the property owner to the east, Mr. Anderson,
regarding extension of sanitary sewer across his property in order to
service the Alpine Estates site. Mr. Feerick also stated that he had no
difficulties with the recommendations of the Staff Report of April 10, 1987.
Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
of April 10, 1987. In addition to standard recommendations regarding
sanitary sewer, water main, erosion control, park dedication fees, and
ordinance requirements, the report reflected concerns regarding a tree
inventory for tree replacement according to the City's tree replacement
policy, relocation of the terminus of the Alpine Trail extension to the
north to provide access to the property to the east, and the need for
application to the Board of Appeals for lot depth variances for two lots
adjacent to the railroad tracks.
Mr. Dwight Harvey, 16190 Alpine Way, stated that he was generally in favor
of this revised plan for the development. He added that his only remaining
concern was that the property to the east not be developed prematurely and
that sanitary sewer extension through the property to the east not destroy
the wildlife area established there currently.
Planner Uram explained that it would be a decision for the City Council as
to whether sanitary sewer should be extended at this time through the
property to the east in order to service this site.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Fell, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Fell, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of R. M. Feerick Associates for .Zoning
District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 8.4 acres for Alpine Estates 2nd
Addition, based on plans dated March 31, 1987, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--5-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Ruebling, seconded by Fell, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of R. M. Feerick Associates for Preliminary i
t '1J
1
C Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 13, 1987
Plat of 8.4 acres into 14 single family lots and road right-of-way for
Alpine Estates 2nd Addition, based on plans dated March 31, 1987, subject to
the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 10, 1987.
Motion carried--5-0-0
��.if_/i 73
MAY 5,1987
34106 MN DEPT OF P/S -APRIL 21 1987 PRELIST AMr WAS $30.00 19.75-
SHOULD BE $10.25
33890 VOID OUT CHECK 80.00-
14090 VOID OUT CHECK 685.00-
176 VOID OUT CHECK 50.00-
.,4333 VOID OUT CHECK 18.13-
34334 VOID OUT CHECK 73.65-
34362 VOID OUT CHECK 202.50-
34363 LMC HOUSING CONFERENCE-COUNCIL MEMBER 129.80
34364 TARGET 220 PRINTER STAND-CITY MANAGER 48.75
34365 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY HEALTH CODE CITATION-COMMUNITY CENTER 96.00
34366 MN GREEN INDUSTRY 87 CONFERENCE-PARK MAINTENANCE 51.00
34367 DALE SPLETTSTDESZER REFUND-MEMBERSHIP 19.50
34368 MICHAEL DREW REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 5.75
34369 ATOM CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 25.00
34370 GREYHOUND INC SHIPPING CHARGES-POLICE DEPT 308.70
34371 KEYE PRODUCTIVITY CENTER CONFERENCE-COMMUNITY SERVICES 192.00
34372 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE-BUILDING DEPT 10.00
34373 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 22868.06
34374 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
34375 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 549.02
34376 POSTMASTER POSTAGE-WATER DEPT 1044.47
34377 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 18.13
34378 TARGET 220 SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 73.65
34379 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE MARCH 87 FUEL TAX 103.53
34380 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
34381 HENN CTY CHIEFS ASSN MEMBERSHIP DUES-POLICE DEPT 40.00
34382 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE MARCH 87 SALES TAX 14228.51
34383 SOUTH HENNEPIN HSC CONFERENCE-HUMAN RESOURCES 4.00
-184 WELSH COMPANIES MAY 87 RENT-CITY HALL 898.33
,85 STATE TREASURER LICENSE-WATER DEPT 15.00
34386 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-SENIOR CENTER 70.40
34387 MCDONALDS EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 18.04
34388 KAY ZUCCARO AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 202.50
34389 TRACY OIL CO INC FUEL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 5920.34
34390 CORTNIE KENNEDY REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00
34391 NORTHERN POWER PRODUCTS INC SERVICE 4709.97
34392 U S POSTMASTER POSTAGE-ASSESSING DEPT 2201.58
34393 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 4-17-87 40623.94
34394 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 4-17-87 10615.25
34395 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 4-17-87 4848.00
34396 ICMA PAYROLL 4-17-87 685.00
34397 PER A PAYROLL 4-17-87 21253.93
34398 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS PAYROLL 4-17-87 168.88
34399 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 4-17-87 1878.13
34400 SUBURBAN NATIONAL BANK PAYROLL 4-17-87 200.00
34401 MN DEPT OF JOBS & TRAINING PAYROLL 4-17-87 229.00
34402 E P OPTIMIST OPTIMIST SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT/FEES PD 1056.00
34403 BOB MORAN UTILITY SHED-POLICE DEPT 940.00
34404 MC ARTHUR COMPANY SKYLIGHT-PARK MAINTENANCE 128.79
34405 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP PAYROLL 4-3-87 685.00
34406 AT & T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 7.76
34407 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 13.80
34408 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 416.17
34409 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 11802.02
,4828767
1
MAY 5,1987
34410 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 5039.00
34411 JASON-NORTHCO PROPERTIES MAY 87 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 4972.30
"4412 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 831.75
j413 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES/3 LATERAL FILES-CITY HALL 1493.85
't414 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO TOWELS-LIQUOR STORE 9.05
34415 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SIGNS-PARK MAINTENANCE 166.00
34416 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 630.44
34417 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -BEARINGS/SEALS/BATTERIES/SPARK PLUGS- 432.48
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
34418 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY SERVICE 220.00
34419 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON MARCH 87 IMPOUND SERVICE 292.50
34420 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH CO LOCK REPAIRS-WATER DEPT & PUBLIC WORKS 192.63
34421 BMB SERVICES -CASSETTE DECK REPAIRS/SOUND SYSTEM 535.25
EQUIPMENT REPAIRS-ICE ARENA
34422 IRIS BOETTCHER -PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING 151.12
MINUTES FOR 4-6-87 & 4-20-87
34423 RICK BOLINSKE MILEAGE 60.75
34424 LES BRIDGER EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 48.95
34425 BROWN PHOTO FILM PROCESSING 186.00
34426 B R W INC -SERVICE-VALLEY VIEW RD-MITCHELL TO 13342.90
COUNTY ROAD 4
34427 BSC MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS -HEATER REPAIRS FOR SWIMMING POOL- 1133.82
COMMUNITY CENTER
34428 BURTON EQUIPMENT INC -BALL BEARING TROLLEY/OPEN END HOPPER- 211.22
WATER DEPT
34429 TIM BUSHNELL HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 36.00
34430 BUSINESS FURNITURE INC -CHAIR $229.00/TABLE $268.50-ASSESSING 497.50
DEPT& FINANCE DEPT
h31 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC SERVICE-EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 240.00
,32 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 76.81
34433 CLEVELAND COTTON PRODUCTS TOWELS-WATER DEPT 150.70
34434 CLIMATE MAKERS INC AIR CONDITIONER REPAIRS-COMMUNITY CENTER 65.25
34435 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION -SERVICE-TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT 169/MITCHELL & 901.74
HIGHWAY 169
34436 COPY EQUIPMENT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-PARK PLANNING 47.20
34437 CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE -1ST HALF 87 OF BATTERED WOMEN RIGHTS 1250.00
COMMISSION/FEES PD
34438 CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC APRIL 87 INSURANCE CONSULTANT 1245.00
34439 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO -NAME PLATES-ENGINEERING DEPT& BUILDING 29.60
DEPT
34440 CRYSTAPLEX PLASTICS PLEXI SHIELDS-ICE ARENA 145.00
34441 CULLIGAN SERVICE 12.55
34442 CULLIGAN SERVICE 12.55
34443 CURTIS INDUSTRIES -NUTS/SCREWS/WIRE/BOLT SHIELD/BOLT ANCHOR/ 280.63
GLUE/CLEANER/GREASE-WATER DEPT
34444 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 1648.75
34445 D B SERVICE & EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT REPAIRS-PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING 200.50
34446 DALCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES-PUBLIC SAFETY & 143.30
COMMUNITY CENTER
34447 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO HYDRANT DIFFUSER-WATER DEPT 202.64
34448 DEM CON LANDFILL INC DISPOSAL (BARGES-PARK MAINTENANCE 20.00
34449 EUGENE DIETZ MARCH 87 EXPENSES 165.00
34450 DORHOLT INC FORMS-WATER DEPT 129.00
/1U451 JENNIFER DRESSEN MILEAGE & EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 143.10
52 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 156.33
3774916
;J
MAY 5,1987
34453 DUNLOP SPORTS CORP -TENNIS RACQUETS/TENNIS BALLS-COMMUNITY 361.96
CENTER
z4454 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXPENSES-CITY MANAGER 32.00
55 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 249.40
4456 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT EQUIPMENT TESTING-FIRE DEPT 110.00
34457 E P GIRLS ATHLETIC ASSN -YOUTH COACHES CERTIFICATION-COMMUNITY 15.00
CENTER
34458 E P ROBINS DELI EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES 13.50
34459 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC NITROGEN DIOXIDE-COMMUNITY CENTER 28.23
34460 CHRIS ENGER APRIL 87 EXPENSES 165.00
34461 EPIC USA CONSULTING SERVICE 1132.10
34462 RON ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 99.00
34463 FACILITY SYSTEMS INC DELIVER & INSTALL MODULAR PANELS-CITY HALL 2442.49
34464 FLOYD SECURITY 2ND QTR SECURITY SYSTEM-LIQUOR STORE 349.00
34465 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 712.40
34466 FRANZ ENG REPRODUCTIONS INC -DRAFTING TABLE/2 DRAFTING CHAIRS/BOARD 651.08
COVER/TAPE-ENGINEERING DEPT
34467 LYNDELL FREY MILEAGE 70.25
34468 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 137.20
34469 GOODYEAR TRUCK TIRE CENTERS 16 TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 834.72
34470 R L GOULD& CO INC LAWN MOWER PARTS-PARK MAINTENANCE 16.85
34471 GOVERNMENT BUSINESS SYSTEMS BALLOTS-ELECTIONS 391.24
34472 GROSS OFFICE SUPPLY -OFFICE SUPPLIES & FURNITURE-POLICE DEPT& 341.48
FIRE DEPT
34473 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC PIN SOCKET-COMMUNITY CENTER 15.26
34474 HACH CO LAB INSTRUMENT REPAIRS-WATER DEPT 152.90
34475 HEDLUND ENGINEERING SERVICE-BLUFFS EAST 4TH 500.00
34476 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT MARCH 87 BOOKING FEE 805.02
{
"`'477 HENNEPIN COUNTY FEBRUARY 87 ADDITIONAL BOARD OF PRISONERS 409.50
78 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS FILING FEE-ENGINEERING DEPT 72.00
34479 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER TREE DEBRIS DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT 35.00
34480 HENNEPIN CTY CHIEFS OF POLICE SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT 625.00
34481 HENN CTY DEPT OF PROPERTY POSTAGE-VOTER REGISTRATION VERIFICATION 13.02
34482 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER -1ST HALF TAXES 1987-MILLER PARK/MORE 3260.81
HOUSE/HENDRICKSON/HOMEWARD HILLS RD
34483 EUGENE A HICKOK & ASSOCIATES SERVICE-PURGATORY RECREATION AREA 5717.50
34484 HOFFERS INC SOFTBALL FIELD MARKING-PARK MAINTENANCE 353.00
34485 MICHAEL J. HOSTETLER HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 247.50
34486 IBM MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-PUBLIC SAFETY 909.00
34487 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 EXPENSES-HISTORICAL CULTURAL COMMISSION 29.25
34488 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 87.25
34489 WALTER C JAMES MILEAGE 40.50
34490 JET PHOTO LABS PRINTS-POLICE DEPT 3.29
34491 JORDAN SAWMILL LUMBER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 138.00
34492 CARL JULLIE MEETING EXPENSES 57.03
34493 JUSTUS LUMBER CO LUMBER-COMMUNITY CENTER & PUBLIC SAFETY 306.16
34494 JANET KOCH EXPENSES-CANINE UNIT 65.00
34495 LA HASS MFG & SALES INC HOT BOX SHOVEL REPAIRS-STREET DEPT 255.00
34496 LANCE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 192.94
34497 BOB LANZI SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 400.00
34498 LIEBERMAN ENTERPRISES INC ALBUMS-COMMUNITY CENTER 58.50
34499 TERRY LOVAASEN SCUBA INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 896.00
34500 MIKE MARUSHIN WRENCHES/WHEEL SOCKET KIT-EQUIPMENT MNTC 57.00
34501 RANDY MASON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 198.00
)2 TIM MCGOVERN HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 108.00
2416033
MAY 5,1987
34503 MERIT/JULIAN GRAPHICS ENVELOPES-CITY HALL 2564.00
34504 METRO SYSTEMS FURNITURE -CREDENZA $565.00/2 BOOKCASES-$822.00- 1467.28
ENGINEERING DEPT
05 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 319.23
34506 MIDWESTERN MECH REFUND-SEWER & WATER PERMIT 20.00
34507 MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE CO SUBSCRIPTIONS-CITY HALL 140.40
34508 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP APRIL 87 PAGER SERVICE 131.50
34509 MINNESOTA DAILY EMPLOYMENT AD-COMMUNITY CENTER 60.48
34510 MN DEPT OF P/S 1ST QTR CONNECTION CHARGE-POLICE DEPT 150.00
34511 MN FRAMES & PRINTS INC PICTURE FRAMES-COMMUNITY CENTER 200.00
34512 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS-LIQUOR STORE 469.44
34513 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-CITY HALL 122.85
34514 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING-BUILDING DEPT 63.30
34515 MOTOROLA INC RADIO PARTS-FIRE DEPT 6.00
34516 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO -SPACER/PNEUMATIC WHEEL/BUSHING CASTOR/ 611.92
-BEARINGS/TIRE/BEARING SPINDLE/BELT/BLADE/
ROLLER ASSEMBLY-PARK MAINTENANCE
34517 MUSKA ELECTRIC POWER SURGE PROTECTION-PUBLIC SAFETY 200.00
34518 MY CHEESE SHOP EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 5.66
34519 E P OPTIMIST E P OPTIMIST SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT/FEES PD 920.72
34520 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC SERVICE-EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 262.50
34521 NAIL FIRE PROTECTION ASSN MEMBERSHIP DUES-FIRE DEPT 74.50
34522 NATL OFFICE INTERIORS INC -100 CHAIRS $9612.00-COUNCIL CHAMBERS/35 17190.90
CHAIRS $7578.90-RECEPTION AREA-CITY HALL
34523 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-CITY HALL 2961.62
34524 ANDREA NERHUS MILEAGE 12.00
34525 NORTH STAR SOUND INC SOUND SYSTEM FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS 8209.00
34526 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 59.65
'27 NORTHLAND BUSINESS COMM SYSTEMS NORELCO RECORDER REPAIRS-POLICE DEPT 74.00
28 OCHS BRICK & TILE CO CEMENT-DRAINAGE CONTROL 39.60
34529 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC -STATIC FLOOR MAT/CABLE-FINANCE DEPT & 210.00
ENGINEERING DEPT
34530 T A PERRY ASSOCIATES INC COMPRESSOR REPAIRS-PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 101.25
34531 PEPPY CASH-PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 10.50
34532 JOYCE PHELPS SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 112.00
34533 JOYCE PHELPS SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 1923.52
34534 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -INSTALL BALLASTS-PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING/ 1092.35
-REPAIR 2 EMERGENCY LIGHT PACKS-COMMUNITY
CENTER
34535 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -BATTERIES/CLAMPS/OUTLET STRIP/KEYS- 50.95
POLICE DEPT
34536 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN -PARTS & REPAIRS-PARK MAINTENANCE & FIRE 22.35
DEPT
34537 PRINT SHACK PRINTING-COMMUNITY CENTER & FORESTRY DEPT 499.75
34538 PUMP & METER SERVICE INC HI SPEED NOZZLE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 61.66
34539 QUALITY FITNESS FITNESS CLASSES/FEES PD 50.00
34540 R & R SPECIALTIES INC ZAMBONI BLADES SHARPENED-COMMUNITY CENTER 66.50
34541 RECREONICS CORP POOL SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 191.06
34542 CITY OF RICHFIELD 1ST & 2ND QTR 87 DISPATCH SERVICE 39821.82
34543 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 217.58
34544 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE 174.46
34545 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP PARTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 38.17
34546 SNAP PRINT PRINTING-POLICE DEPT 174.79
14547 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER & CITY HALL 44.86
78 SOLV OIL SERVICE & SUPPLY INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 114.00
8131412
/J 1
MAY 5,1987
34549 STERLING FENCE INS CHAIN LINK FENCE-PARK MAINTENANCE 7504.24
34550 STS CONUSULTANTS LTD SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION 3426.00
R4551 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC PUMP TANK-SENIOR CENTER 56.00
7552 NATALIE SWAGGERT APRIL 87 EXPENSES 201.55
34553 SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC FILM RENTAL-COMMUNITY CENTER 88.90
34554 MARC LEWIS TNIELMAN CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 133.30
34555 TWIN CITY TESTING SERVICE-VALLEY VIEW RD 291.00
34556 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 2115.65
34557 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 183.22
34558 VESSCO INC -SCRAPERS/SCREWS/NUTS/WASHERS/PLATE/ 1143.48
RETAINING RING/SLEEVES-WATER DEFT
34559 VICOM INC SERVICE 63.50
34560 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHLORINE-COMMUNITY CENTER 125.16
34561 KEITH WALL MEETING EXPENSES 16.00
34562 WATER PRODUCTS CO METER SEAL/COVER-WATER DEPT 68.00
34563 WATERITE INC PUMP REPAIRS-COMMUNITY CENTER 888.80
34564 WELSH CONSTRUCTION CORP SIGNS-NEW CITY OFFICES 1659.50
34565 WILSON TANNER GRAPHICS -PLEXI WALL SIGNS/OUTDOOR SIGNS/LABEL WITH 1055.00
NEW ADDRESS-CITY HALL
34566 WINDSCREENS WEST INC WINDSCREEN/TIE WRAPS-PARK MAINTENANCE 1465.88
34567 XEROX CORP -MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL & POLICE 181.85
DEPT
34568 YOUNGSTEDTS GOODYEAR TIRE WHEEL ALIGNMENT ON SQUAD CARS 87.00
34569 ZIEBART AUTO TRUCK RUSTPROOFING CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 107.50
2086153
$312372.81
DISTRIBUTIONS BY FUND
10 GENERAL 242650.71
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 1215.01
15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 13146.80
7 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 6043.72
PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 15169.71
.,3 UTILITY BOND FUND 3426.00
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 13738.95 •
57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 796.69
73 WATER FUND 15756.73
77 SEWER FUND 153.39
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 275.00
$312372.81
/J7L3
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA •
RESOLUTION 87-114
RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND
ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT
WHEREAS, a petition has been received and it is proposed to make the following
improvements:
I.C. 52-120 (Sanitary Sewer for Alpine Estates 2nd Addition)
and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the
improvements, pursuant to M.S.A. 429.011 to 429.111.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for
study, and that a feasibility report shall be prepared and presented to
the City Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a
preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment and feasibility of the
proposed improvements.
{ ADOPTEd by the Eden Prairie City Council on May 5, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
fI
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA •
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
DATE: April 28, 198704.
RE: Petition for Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Alpine Estates 2nd Addition
The proponent of the Alpine Estates 2nd Addition project submitted the attached
petition for sanitary sewer improvements for Council consideration.
Ordinarily, this kind of petition might be on the consent calander with little
or no discussion. However, the primary purpose for the petition is to provide
sanitary sewer across the Anderson property which lies between the MWCC
intercepter line and Alpine Estates 2nd Addition.
Council will recall that this was a controversial item under the previous
proposal, even though the proponent proposed to construct the sanitary line at
their own cost. While the rest of the neighborhood may well be satisfied with
the single family proposal for the project, the Developer has decided that they
can no longer offer to construct the sanitary line without participation of
other benefiting properties -- specifically the Anderson property.
The petition and resulting feasibility study for this project should follow the
approval process for the subdivision itself. Therefore, if the subdivision is
given first reading, this petition should be acted upon.
I have advised the representative for the Developer that this will be a
difficult project and could well be very expensive. Therefore, the City
Council may wish to make any approvals of the subdivision subject to a positive
resolution of the feasibility study and withhold second reading until after the
public hearing for the improvement project can be held. This would create a
delay, but the project appears that it could be very controversial. I will be
available at the Council meeting to answer additional questions on this
subject.
EAD:ss
Iyy
1
April 9, 1987
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
To The Eden Prairie City Council:
The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City
Council to consider making the following described improvements(s):
(General Location)
X Sanitary Sewer provide to East Property line at street
location of proposed Alpine Estates 2nd Addition.
Watermain provide to nronosed Alpine Estates 14 lot 2nd Additic
Storm Sewer
Street Paving
Other
Street Address or Other
Legal Description of Names of Petitioners
Property to be Served (Must Be Property Owners)
Alpine Estates 2nd Addition per pre- �C.L f14:'' / {-_/( s t L s
liminary plat as proposed by R. M. ..� •_c—) -1
Feeric)t isA4c1_ates__ !.. _�, :<-• ._. 7,.�
•
(For City Use)
Date Received A?,eit. 9 967
•
project No. X.C. SZ-/ZJ
Council Consideration - /144y,(,/SS7
.'`:?�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services 'Po-
DATE: April 30, 1987
SUBJECT: Five Year Capital Improvement Program
Attached is the updated Five Year Capital Improvement Program (1987-1992) for
the Community Services Department. Also attached is a copy of the Estimated
Revenue for Capital Improvement Projects 1987-1992. These two reports are
updated on an annual basis.
Staff will be available Tuesday, May 2, 19B7 to answer any questions
Councilmembers may have regarding these reports.
RAL:md
1O(I
1443,146014 1 fn1 Gsllµ IY03111,00f PIGGY
IMP Ix1 It" Ix0 Ixl IMP
lxal Va.1 local Gnat tool "art Neal remit tor" Gran awl 4a.t M141
Y01t1111M
xlwea G1M Paw b.m t0,000 It,m
4410 111"Para 110.030 1x.m
01.m I(
Ytnattfwluearta non Inn
f10.m
Park
1 .
Siorlwl Yal PIrN MAN ns.m
. 1
Mk Ix.m 11p.m Ix.m 400.000 111.001
r 1
xxLOAY r.Y..InI
I..Y"la Par. pUla1 L NnIM I•0 m MIA Ilpnt ryNa a•a to rr 134,01011411r.
10.000
100,003
St.""to Pot 0r1N` tMrIM xM yn1U rrtul w1.1 lu wPo Dry G.. SM�m Yf lea
O.m
O.m I` ;ISAbx• `t0.m ` 176.003
Part r x1111 WI"Mint.v.
ISO.m Port. ..
son
Inn.W P. `ISA00 ,
n.m
two Poll"Pow Gar" 1 1
x,m n,m
s M Ytt Pollw1
n.m 61,m
011" Ira 11, s."1.
11111M Paw N.11..1 4P• m 0t
IO.m P1O.000 n.m `ts.m x.m
1 4s1 Pot • 1ww 1 n YG11P.Plawt Y
1s, nodla.m n'eop`� xam
r.1,.r.Part eatx 1 Poi;apo 1. l o n,m
x.m
xl.x.Pr. M 7O amY `15,000 Hippo 35,001
xltw.ilea Haw <w. wr.l.Y01.1coorti
o,m 1f:n n.«Y.. n.m
x.m
I Y1 Nit [raw 1 tM tun 1
x,m` I1,m x.m
Pari
Cr Y r 111. 1� O aw I 6 r1anl r
O.m 11, 11,040 x.m
Pnea•.a ats.m 6 1•In N.m
M.1wea rail 1ti`rn aorta 1 a
Y10.m at l0.0G 00m 1
_ pp0
r w.wa aw •I.t<Irarlrp Till x1IGt "...art 111x
trail
p11f.m n,m `16.m is
k.
t ONO
hr.."[rear
IM,ag1 ton I00400 SO.m 1M.m 10,m and N•�00.�p 010 b0.m
Coral"CraterN a1 r
100.`.. 6Y.m a00.m I.a00.m
1MYr Cr., IO.m
p.m
Orldsor
. .P lair Park 11M na.
w• P IrA.WO 10,030 Ib,m
--.la"idea"ails 5,01..seed". } m:O.Ob O.
'Via 151.p00 WON 1.111.m I00,640 It1.0C4 r. x.m 10.005 166.006 16,000 155.0101.600.003
Mk.l0 1 eat 110.000 UMW 1,80.00-•`TT00T f.1.L00 117= I1CW 10,.0 7C1A16 11,4P ,
1110.006 11001,000 1M.006 1.10.030 1111.400
ua.m
J 1
Recommended 5 Yr.Capital Improvement Program
v O O O O v O v
CV CD 0 CD NJ LO O O O CCDD CV O CVLO 0
C1 C+ O ^M.r Ln ^
n. LO O R N. In CV
in N.
C 0/
C1 Ln
et O O O O R O et N
. O LOO O O CV O CVrn O LO
CT O O eV 0 CV O O V CI
cr to
IO In lD
CV en crt
er O O O CD O •V CVO O O 1 O 1 1 I / NJN-r
O LO O In O I O 1 1 I 1 C IN-I
1 • 1 1 I
CT etC-r ti O NJ u 1 O 1 1 1 1 NJ O CVLO enI Ln I I I I el CO
LO LO
•
et
CT IO O O CIO O CVO Cr
CO N.
O CIO O 0O 0
0O IN-r R in CVCT O C V
US M N. in
•
'-I
' O O O O O O '5
IO O O CD I CDcV
I O CD07 CO _ et1 r O O O tNO O 0
C$
CV CI O .•-1 O I I O O O CV In N.
01 O R I I O In O CI C pO
CI .•-1 IO CT M 0
N.
CO
US p O
O O I O I I
ry IN0O O • I O 1 1 1 CVO ID
O co N. •
O ..a R 1 O 1 I 1 b C
d .--I CO to cr N M 1ON
0
In Ib LO
U)
W . . .
C U U N y U
C Ia Cl CJ
f ID N CT CD p en N
01 O CVO O p t0 at at
OI ID
-ICT et Cun O p
to n In
I-- tlnp n-1 In O O In LO I,in
LOO enR 07 07
C N.
G
U
C N CV 1
O 1 CD U
IL 1. 0
7 RI
.,J �xr y a+
=1 U
a z a+ IL m z S. E a m
W W 10 •>i 0 V 7 O .I, 7 ^ C
> >' a) 1. VI A CI
W W CJ V- CJ CJ N U I- C 0 X C
C' CC U O I.L. iJ U Q CI 7
CM C c CA Y IL C Q 2 C. La LL I
S.
C O v y
I- I- T C IC .- 7 In ', .0 N N
Q T 2) C C IC > CJ N V1 A C ICI 7 5 �+
C t ate+ O S. I- S. Cl S. S.
S. E C E E
F- 1- C CA III I~ C. 41 ¢ ate+ m m v .C1C C 4) > a+ a+
W W IL 2) LI N E .C.•. L.7 3 0 2 ,0 V1 IL pp 0 VI CJ N y
CO W C W W
I)l2-
y�y�, PLANNING
l� rfr _ TRANSPORTATION
,� ENGINEERING
`L
;T 1)1 ARCHITECTURE
BENNETT. RINIGROSE. WOLSEELD. JARVIS GARDNER INC THRESHER SOLAIRE • 7E0 Tf7i i�'SR Ufy VEt SO AIINNEAPOLIS'P:S54,5• PONE 6,2,370O700
March 12, 1987
Mr. Gene Dietz, P.E.
Director of Public Works -5•'
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Regional Center Area Traffic Plan
Forecast Update and Implementation Planning
Dear Mr. Dietz:
BRW is pleased to submit this proposal to update the regional center area traf-
fic plan, to prepare a plan for implementation of the needed roadway system
improvements, and to provide, on an ongoing and as requested basis, review of
specific development proposals within the Regional Center area.
This proposal is presented in five parts:
o Background
o Work Program
o Project Schedule
o Project Staff
o Project Budget
BACKGROUND
BRW has prepared two transportation studies for the Regional Center area. The
original study was conducted in 19B3. The second study, conducted in 1985,
expanded the 1983 study area and updated development forecasts. Both studies
found that expected growth in traffic volumes would require roadway improvements
which increased the traffic carrying capacity of area roadways as the area deve-
loped.
Two years have passed since the basic analysis in the 1985 Study was completed.
In that time, two things have happened:
o Numerous development proposals have advanced through the proposal-approval-
implementation process. The development assumptions made in the 1985 Study
may or may not be compatible with in-place development or with current plans.
o Developments which have been completed during the past two years have added
significant traffic volumes to the area roadway system. Peak period
congestion is beginning to be observed on portions of the roadway system.
DAVIDJ BENNETT DONALDW R!NGROSE RC HARD P WOLSFELD PETER JAMAS LAWRENCEJ GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIGA AMJN SEN
DONALD E HUNT MARK SWENSON JOHNB MCNAMARA DONALD;CRAIG RICHARDO PILGRIM DALE BECKMANN DENM$J SUTLIFF
MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX
• L!
i
Mr. Gene Dietz
March 12, 1987
Page 2
In response to the events of the past two years, it is appropriate to reevaluate
the traffic situation in the Regional Center area. The reevaluation should be
made at three levels:
o Update ultimate development assumptions to reflect currently available infor-
mation regarding existing and expected development in the study area.
Prepare an updated ultimate development traffic forecast and roadway facility
needs assessment.
o Identify current and near-future roadway facility needs based on an eva-
luation of current traffic conditions and the updated ultimate development
traffic forecast. The near-term needs assessment will provide the infor-
mation needed for the City's capital improvement program.
o As specific development proposals are presented to the City for approval,
compare the proposal to assumptions made in the area transportation plan.
The effect of any variances from the assumptions should be assessed and
reported.
WORK PROGRAM
BRW has prepared a work program based on our understanding of the issues, and
our experience in previous analyses of the Regional Center area. The work
program consists of eight tasks which will result in a series of study products:
o An ultimate development scenario traffic volume forecast for the Regional
Center study area,
o A description of the roadway facilities needed to serve that level of demand,
o A series of development guidelines which reflect the assumptions on which the
ultimate development scenario traffic volume forecast and the roadway faci-
lity needs assessment are based,
o A five-year capital improvement plan which describes, prioritizes and schedu-
les needed study area roadway improvements,
o A listing of projects likely to be implemented during the time beyond the
five-year capital improvement plan horizon, and
o A series of reports, prepared as requested by the City, which evaluate pro-
posed developments with respect to their consistency with assumptions used in
the preparation of traffic forecasts used in the area transportation plan.
The tasks are described below.
F;�
Mr. Gene Dietz
March 12, 1987
Page 3
Task 1.0 - Data Collection
1.1 Review existing traffic model cordon, zone system and roadway network
with City staff for compatibility with expected development patterns.
Revise as necessary.
1.2 Obtain current information on existing, proposed and planned development
by traffic analysis zone from City. Planned development data should
reflect the City's best estimate of the highest use of each area con-
sistent with the City's Guide Plan.
1.3 Obtain background traffic assignment from the Metropolitan Council's
2010 traffic assignment and the 1-494 Corridor Study.
1.4 Identify roadway improvements planned for the area by State, County and
local agencies which will effect study area traffic flow.
1.5 Obtain available current traffic count information from MnDOT, Hennepin
County and the City.
1.6 Design and conduct a traffic counting program as a supplement to
available traffic count information in order to quantify existing traf-
fic volumes on study area roadways.
Task 2.0 - Assess the Ultimate Development Traffic Forecast Scenario
2.1 Input current development forecast data into travel forecast model.
2.2 Input current roadway network data into travel forecast model.
2.3 Prepare initial ultimate development traffic forecast with 2010
background traffic.
2.4 Prepare preliminary assessment of roadway system capacity constraints
based on forecast prepared in Task 2.3.
2.5 Identify, on an order of magnitude scale, the types of major improve-
ments that would be required to serve the level of traffic forecast in
Task 2.3.
2.6 Prepare a memorandum documenting the findings of Task 2.0 for submittal
to the City.
Task 3.0 - Refinement of Year 2010/Ultimate Development Traffic Forecast
3.1 Review the findings of Task 2.0 with City staff.
Mr. Gene Dietz
March 12, 1987
Page 4
3.2 Identify the options available for managing the expected traffic volumes
in excess of available capacity. For the purpose of discussion, the
options would range from limiting development to the level which can be
accomodated by existing and committed roadway system, to construction of
sufficient roadway capacity to accomodate all expected future traffic.
Intermediate options may include:
o Reduction in allowable development intensity.
o Site peak period trip generation budget.
o Consideration of travel demand management practices.
o Developer participation in roadway system improvement cost.
3.3 In conjunction with City staff, develop a comprehensive plan for meeting
future roadway system needs. The plan will address:
o Measure of development intensity to be considered in assessing traf-
fic impacts.
o Level of development (expressed in the units identified above) to be
allowed in each traffic analysis zone.
o Level of development (translated into terms of typical land use type
and floor area) to be allowed in each traffic analysis zone.
o Under what conditions, if any, allowable development intensity may be
transferred to another site or to another traffic analysis zone.
o Means of funding roadway improvement needs.
Task 4.0 - Year 2010/Ultimate Development Roadway Needs Assessment
4.1 Prepare a final ultimate development traffic forecast based on the plan
developed in Task 3.3.
4.2 Identify roadway system improvements needed to serve Year 2D10/Ultimate
Development traffic levels.
4.3 Identify agencies responsible for required roadway system improvements.
Task 5.0 - Near-Term Roadway Needs Assessment
5.1 Review current traffic counts and traffic operations on study area road-
ways with City staff and identify areas currently experiencing traffic
congestion.
•
Mr. Gene Dietz
March 12, 1987
Page 5
5.2 At intersections currently experiencing significant traffic congestion,
conduct peak period turning movement counts, prepare a capacity analy-
sis, and assess the existing volume to capacity ratio.
5.3 Based on traffic volumes, the assessment of current operational defi-
ciencies, and the capacity analyses conducted under Task 4.2, identify
and document the need for near-term roadway system improvements.
5.4 At locations where near-term roadway system improvement needs include
traffic signals, prepare signal justification reports.
5.5 Prioritize near-term roadway improvement needs based on current
congestion level and committed development.
Task 6.0 - Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates
6.1 Prepare conceptual designs of near-term roadway improvement projects.
6.2 Prepare cost estimates for near-term roadway improvement projects based
on conceptual design documents.
Task 7.0 - Capital Improvement Plan
7.1 Prepare a five-year capital improvement plan which outlines study area
roadway system improvement projects to be implemented during that
period. The plan will be based on established priorities and the City's
ability to secure funding.
7.2 List all near-term roadway improvement needs identified in Task 4.3
which were not included in the five-year capital improvement plan.
7.3 Review draft of the capital improvement plan with City staff. Revise as
necessary.
Task 8.0 - Documentation
8.1 Prepare a report which documents Tasks 1 - 7 of the study process.
8.2 Review draft report with City staff. Revise as necessary.
8.3 Submit final report. �.
Task 9.0 - Review of Development Proposals
9.1 As directed by City Staff, review specific development proposals made
for sites in the Regional Center area.
1f7
Mr. Gene Dietz
March 12, 1987
Page 6
9.2 The review will address:
o Proposal conformance to guidelines established in Task 3.3.
o Estimated effect of any deviation from guidelines on traffic
operating conditions and on roadway improvement plans (would not
include modification to traffic forecasting model unless specifically
directed).
o Possible alternative actions which would bring proposal into confor-
mance with guidelines.
9.3 Prepare a memorandum describing findings for use by City staff.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Tasks 1 - 8 will be completed within three to four months of receipt of notice
to proceed. This is a somewhat demanding schedule and will depend on timely
input from the Client.
Task 9 will be conducted on a continuing basis as requested by the City.
PROJECT STAFF
The project will be managed by David M. Warner, P.E., an Associate of BRW. Mr.
Warner will coordinate and review all aspects of the project.
Ms. Nancy Heuer, P.E., a Professional II at BRW, will conduct or supervise all
technical analyses and prepare study documentation.
Mr. Warner and Ms. Heuer will be assisted by other BRW staff as the project
tasks require.
PROJECT BUDGET
The attached table shows BRW's estimate of the effort required to conduct each
study task and the associated cost. BRW estimates that the total cost of Tasks
1 - 8 of the Work Program will be $26,600.00.
In addition, BRW estimates that the average cost of performing Task 9 will be
82,100.00 for each development proposal that BRW is asked to review. The esti-
mated cost is given as an average cost because the scale of the required analy-
sis is likely to vary.
BRW will submit an invoice each month to the City of Eden Prairie for work con-
ducted during the previous month. Hours spent on the project will be charged at
current hourly rates, and direct expenses attributable to the project will be
charged at cost.
Ir Mr. Gene Dietz
March 12, 1987
Page 7
If it appears that the cost of completing Tasks 1 - 8 will exceed S26,600.00,
BRW will immediately notify the City of Eden Prairie and wait for direction.
BRW appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal. I have enjoyed working
with you on previous projects, and I look forward to working with you on this
project.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
BENNETT INGROSE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC.
Davi M. Warner, P.E.
Associate
DMW/ar
Attachment
il
a a ae--vat
Eden Prairie Regional Center Area Traffic Flan
Forecast Update and Implementation Planning 33
TINE AND COST ESTIMATE
1
Estimated Staff Hours
Senior Staff
Task Associate Professional Professional Technician Cost
1.0 Data Collection
1,1 Review Traffic Model 2 4 4 S520,00
1.2 Current Development Planning 2 4 4 S520.00
1.3 Background Traffic Assignment 4 4 $390.00
1,4 Planned Roadway Improvements 4 $230.00
1.5 Current Traffic Counts 4 $230.00
1,6 Supplemental Traffic Counting 2 2 40 $1,645.00
2.0 Awls Ultimate Devel10 m nt Scenario
1 nput sevellopaent DaFa 3 4 4 S411.00
2, Input RoadwayNNetwor Data 2 4 $705.00
2. g Initial Traffic Forecast 2 4 S575.00
2,4 Initial Roadway System Assessaent 2 8 4 4 S890.00
2,5 Identify Roadway Needs 2 8 4 S750.00
2.6 Prepare Technical Memorandum 2 8 4 6 $960.00
3.0 Refine Traffic Forecast
3,1 Review Initial Forecast 2 4 S360.00
3,2 Identify Traffic Management Options 4 32 8 $2,420.00
3.3 Traffic Management Plan 4 16 8 $1,500.00
4.0 Roadway Needs Assessment
4.1 Final Traffic Forecast 2 8 4 S575.00
4,2 Final Roadway Needs Assessment 2 8 4 4 $890.00
4.3 Identify Responsible Agencies 2 $115.00 1.
5.0 Near-Tern Roadway Needs Assessment
5.1 Identify Areas of Current Congestion 2 4 $360.00
5,2 Operations Analysis 2 4 40 $1 675.00
5.3 Identify Near-Tern Needs 4 $230.00
5.4 Signal Justification Reports 4 4 4 $530.00
/ 5,5 Prioritize Near-Term Needs 2 8 2 $660.00
(, ..0 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates
6,1 Design Near-Tern Improvements 4 32 8 16 $2 980.00
6.2 Preliminary Cost Estimates 4 8 4 $690.00
7.0 Capital laprovement Plan
7,1 Five-Year Plan 2 8 $590.00
7.2 Post Five-Year Plan Projects 2 2 S185.00
7,3 City Staff Review 2 4 2 $430,00
8.0 Documentation
8.1 Draft Reportp 2 16 16 24 12 530.00
8,2 City Staff Review 2 4 136 .00
8.3 Final Report 2 8 8 8 $1,19.00
__
Tasks 1 -8 44 216 120 172 126 100.00
Estimated Expenses 1500.00
Total Cost Tasks 1 -8 $26,600.00
9,0 Review of Development Proposals
9,1 Review Development Plan 2 4 $360.00
9.2 Analyze Traffic Implications 8 4 S620.00
9.3 Prepare Technical Memorandum 4 8 4 4 11,020.00_
Task 9 6 20 8 4 $2 000.00
Estimated Expenses 1100.00
Total Cost Task 9 $2,100.0000
!per development reviewed)