HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/01/1987 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 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
Linda Jacobson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
OFFICIAL SIGNING OF THE CONSTITUTION BANNER
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. MINUTES OF REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST Page 2236
4 T9T7 — —
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List Page 2236
B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 43-87, Park Use Ordinance
Amendment —
C. Receive 100% Petition for Street and Utility Improvements for Page 2239
the Extension of Windsor Terrace in J.L. Subdivision and
authorize preparation'of Plans and es Specifications Rolution
No. 87-243 —
D. Authorize permit application for connection to MWCC Sanitar Sewer Page 2242
Interceptor for International School Resolution No. 87-244
E. CITY WEST HOTEL, Kahler Corporation. Request for extension of Page 2243
Developer's Agreement to August 6, 1988.
F. Resolution No. 87-253 authorizing_ refunding of $763,000 of Page 2245
Municipal Industrial Development Bonds for Minnesota Supply
Com an i
G. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 47-87 amending City Code Section Page 2250
� which regulates the terms for the Historical & Cultural
Commission
H. Final Plat approval for W ny dham Crest Addition East of Dell Page 2253
Road on extension of Tristram Way) Reso—lotion No. 87-246
. 5.
City Council Minutes - 2 - Tues.,September 1, 1987
I. WYNDHAM CREST, by Burl Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance Page 2256
37-87, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5;
1 Approval of Developer's Agreement for Wyndham Crest; and Adoption
of Resolution #87-248, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #37-87 and
Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 27.9 acres into 25 single
family lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: West of
Purgatory Creek, east of Tristram Way. (Ordinance #37-87, Rezoning;
Resolution #87-248, Authorizing Summary & Publication)
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ROGER'S BODY SHOP, INC., by Roger L. Lindeman. Request for Zoning Page 2264
District Change from Rural to I-2 on 1.68 acres with variances to be
reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and Preliminary Plat of 1.91 acres
into one lot and road right-of-way for construction of an auto body
shop. Location: Highway #169 across from the Hennepin County
Vocational Technical School. (Ordinance #44-87, Rezoning;
Resolution #87-249, Preliminary Plat)
B. BLUESTEM HILLS 4TH ADDITION, by Brown Land Company. Request for Page 2280
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 15.94 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on _5.94 acres with variances, Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.57 acres with Shoreland
variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Zoning District
Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 5.36 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 15.94 acres into 27 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road
right-of-way. Location: West of Bennett Place and Bluestem Lane.
(Resolution #B7-250, PUD Concept; Ordinance #45-87-PUD-11-87, PUD
District and Zoning District Change; Resolution #B7-251, Preliminary
Plat)
C. INSULATION DISTRIBUTORS INC., by Welsh Companies, Inc. Request for
Planned Unit Development District Review on 100 acres with Page 2312
variances, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 2 acres for
construction of a 30,672 square foot office/warehouse. Location:
South of Valley View Road on Equitable Drive. (Ordinance #46-B7-
PUD-12-87, PUD District and Rezoning)
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Hoyt Development for a dual address for its Page 2325
Technology Park IV building
B. PRAIRIE VIEW ASSOCIATES, by Prairie View Associates for Preliminary page 2329
Plat of 16.18 acres into 3 lots and road right-of-way with variances
to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: Northeast corner
of Prairie Center Drive and Plaza Drive. (Resolution #87-252,
Preliminary Plat)
C. Request for Liquor License �y Snax Fifth Avenue Page 2334
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,September 1, 1987
IX. APPOINTMENTS
{ A. Appointment of member to Historical & Cultural Commission to fill
an unexpired term to 2 28/89 E
B. Confirm appointment of Mayor Peterson to the Corridor Advisory Page 2335
og d �ee as regueste the Hennepin County Regional Rairroad
Authority
C. Appointment of 3 citizen members to the Southwest Corridor "
Advisory Committee
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
1. Set special meeting for September i. 1987 at 4:00 PM to
include discussion on the City's Emergency 2'eratin9 Plan to
be fol owed t a closed meeting to discuss landfill litigation
and contests
B. Report of City Manager
I. Award Contract for construction of Fire Stations
C. Report of City Attorney
1 D. Report of Director of Planning
E. Report of Director of Community Services
F. Report of Director of Public Works
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
i
i
/CITY OFFICES 1 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE j EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344.2499 1 TELEPHONE(612)937.2262
1
MEMORANDUM ,
DATE: August 25, 1987
TO: Mayor and City Council J
FROM: Kari Wahl and Bicentennial Committee t�
RE: Signing of Constitution Banner
The Bicentennial of the U.S, Constitution Committee has acquired a
large 4� x 9; foot banner that will be on display at Sunbonnet Day,
September 13th, and possibly at City Hall and the High School for
Eden Prairie residents to sign.
The committee would first like to have an official "signing" of the
Constitution banner by Mayor Peterson and the City Council at the
September 1, 1987 Council meeting, Thomas Howden, Bicentennial Com-
mittee Chairperson, will be at the September 1st Council meeting to
represent the Committee.
Also, Mark Weber of the Eden Prairie News will be available to take
photographs of the "signing" in order to promote Eden Prairie as a
Bicentennial Community.
5
y
q.
City Council Minutes 1 August 4,1987
's
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,AUGUST 4,1987 7:30 P.M.,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 t
Community Services Robert Lambert,Director of
Public Works Eugene A. Dietz,and Recording j
Secretary Linda Jacobson I.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE t
ROLL CALL: All members were present.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following items were added to the Agenda: X.A. 1. Pidcock- Discussion on
budget process;X.A.2. Peterson-Schedule workshop to go through
Emergency Operating Plan and Code; X.A.3. Harris-1-494 Corridor
Workshop;X.A.4. Anderson- Report on storm damage to the City;XI.Jullie-
School Board meeting for August 18,1987 at 5:30 p.m.
MOTION: Anderson moved,seconded by Bentley,to approve the Agenda and
Other Items of Business,as amended and published. Motion approved 5-0-0.
II. MINUTES
A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday Julx21 1987
MOTION: Pidcock moved,seconded by Bentley,to approve the July 21,
1987 City Council Minutes. Motion approved 5-0-0.
III.CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List
City Council Minutes 2 August 4,1987
i
B. Award contract for oradina at Eden I ake School Willow Park and
Homeward Hilts Park
C. Final Plat aooroval for Thompson Addition(south of Valley View Road,
east of County Road 4) Resolution No.87-214
D. Final Plat approval for Eclenvale Executive Center Four(south of Valley
View Road,east of Executive Drive)Resolution No.87-215
E. Final Plat approval for Mount Curve Addition (east of W. 168th Avenue,
south of North Manor Road)Resolution No.87-216
F. Final Plat aooroval for Mount CLLrye Addition (south of Mount Curve
Road,east of Franlo Road)Resolution No.87-217
G. Resolution re uesting MWCC sewer connection permit for The Ridge 3rd
Addition(Resolution No.87.218)
H. JAY WALLACE ADDITION,by Jay Wallace. 2nd Reading of Ordinance
#26-87,Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.23 acres;Approval of
Developer's Agreement for Jay Wallace Addition;and Adoption of
Resolution#87-180,Authorizing Summary of Ordinance#26-87 and
Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: East of Franlo Road,
north of Laurel Drive. (Ordinance 426-87,Rezoning;Resolution
#87-180,Authorizing Summary and Publication)
I. MAJESTIC OAKS,by All-Land Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance
#33-87,Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5 acres;Approval of
Developer's Agreement for Majestic Oaks Addition;and Adoption of
Resolution#87-219,Authorizing Summary of Ordinance#33-87 and
Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 5 acres into 12 single family lots.
Location: East of West 168th Avenue,south of Manor Road. (Ordinance
#33-87,Rezoning;Resolution#87-219,Authorizing Summary and
Publication)
J. TIMBER CREEK NORTH,by Timber Creek North Partnership. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance#34-87-PUD-6-87, Planned Unit Development
District Review on 89 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to
RM-6.5 on 14.9 acres,and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 44 acres with
variances;Approval of Developer's Agreement for Timber Creek North;
and Adoption of Resolution#87-220,Authorizing Summary of Ordinance
i
City Council Minutes 3 August 4,1987
#34-87-PUD-6-87,and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 89
acres into 110 lots,3 outlots,and road right-of-way. Location: South of 1
County Road#67,west of Creek View Lane,north of Purgatory Creek.
(Ordinance#34-87-PUD-6-87,Rezoning and PUD District;Resolution
#87-220,Authorizing Summary;and Publication)
`i
K. MOUNT CURVE ADDITION,by Mount Curve Developers. 2nd Reading j
of Ordinance#35-87,Rezoning from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 2.24 acres;
Approval of Developer's Agreement for Mount Curve Addition;and
Adoption of Resolution#87-221,Authorizing Summary of Ordinance
#35-87,and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 2.88 acres into 5
single family residential lots. Location: Southwest corner of Franlo Road
and Mount Curve Road. (Ordinance#35-87, Rezoning;Resoiution
#87-221,Authorizing Summary and Publication)
L. EDENVALE EXECUTIVE CENTER u by Equitable Life Assurance
Society. 2nd Reading of Ordinance#36-87-PUD-7-87,Planned Unit
Development District Review on 15.5 acres with Zoning District Change
from Rural to 1-2 on 15.5 acres with variances;Approval of Developer's
Agreement for Edenvale Executive Center Ii;and Adoption of Resolution
#87-222,Authorizing Summary of Ordinance#36-87-PUD-7-87 and
i Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 15.5 acres into one lot for
construction of 172,900 square feet of industrial uses in three buildings.
Location: South of Valley View Road between Equitable Drive and
Executive Drive. (Ordinance#36-87-PUD-7-87,PUD District and 1
Rezoning;Resolution#87-222,Authorizing Summary and Publication) 1
M. Adoption of Joint Power Aareement with Hgnne i rn for CDB
Funds (Resolution#87-223,Adoption of Joint Powers Agreement)
Bentley asks City Manager Jullie if Item B awarding a contract should be
on the Consent Calendar. Jullie responded,"yes". Bentley asked if a roll
call vote was needed for this item. Jullie said it's not necessary since this
is not a public improvement contract that requires the typical forwarding
process.
MOTION: Harris moved,seconded by Pidcock,to approve Items A-M on
the Consent Calendar. Motion approved 5-0-0.
City Council Minutes 4 August 4, 1987
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. WYNDHAM CREST,by Burl Corporation. Request for zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 19.9 acres,Preliminary Plat of 27.9
acres into 25 single family lots,one outlot,and road right-of-way.
Location: West of Purgatory Creek,east of Tristram Way. (Ordinance
#37-87,Rezoning;Resolution#87-224,Preliminary Plat)
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and property owners within the project vicinity had been
notified.
Don Patton,representing proponent,addressed the proposal.
Robert Bjorklund,President of New Concept Homes,was available for
questions.
Planning Director Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed this
item at the June 22nd Planning Commission meeting and the
Commission continued this to July 27th asking proponent to provide a
complete tree inventory. Enger said there are 5,000 caliper inches of
hardwood trees on the entire site that are 12 inches or greater in size.
Enger said the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 5-0
vote subject to changes recommended in Staff report of July 24th.
Enger said approximately 30 percent of trees on site are being removed
and under the City's tree replacement formula proponent would replace
approximately 5 percent of these trees.
Enger referred to Staff report of July 24th under"Staff
Recommendations" 1.A.and said the current policy requires 250 percent
bond;that this is a stronger effort to assure the developer installs the
trees and not the City.
Enger referred to Staff Report of July 24th under"Staff
Recommendations"1. B.C. D. E.F. Enger mentioned Item F. Enger said
that the proposed development falls within the conservancy area of the
Purgatory Creek Study and that it's not possible to develop on the
property without being within this area of the Purgatory Creek Study.
That it makes preservation of floodplains and trees adjacent to the
floodplain all that more important. t
,r
r
City Council Minutes 5 August 4, 1987
Enger referred to Item G under"Staff Recommendations"from Staff
Report of July 24th and Staff suggests the developer bond for trees in
questionable ars3s and t o,cnrough the developer's and builder's
efforts every tree that was saved would be given credit against the
projected number of trees.
Enger referred to Item 2,3 and 4 of the Staff Report under"Staff
Recommendations." Enger said the majority of trees that are
represented as being saved perhaps can be saved by the use of
retaining walls prior to construction on individual lots and Staff
recommends that retaining walls that are saving those large treed areas
be constructed with street construction.
Enger referred to retaining walls and Staff is making changes in
recommendations and recommends retaining walls not be over four feet
high;that drainage be diverted around them,not over them;that retaining
wall details be reviewed by the Engineering and Building Department
and building permits be issued so they are structurally designed
correctly.
Enger mentioned that the Park,Recreational and Resource Commission
has not reviewed this item and said there are a couple of Park and
Recreational issues. Enger said the Park and Recreational staff
comments are reflected in the Planning Commission Staff Report.
Enger referred to the letter from Mr. Robert Bjorklund dated
August 3, 1987 and a July 31,1987 letter from the Builders Association
of Minnesota. Enger pointed out that the Builders Association of
Minnesota letter came subsequent to review by the Planning
Commission and the Park and Recreation Commission and those
commissions were not aware a potential review by the Builders
Association was being requested.
Enger referred to the Builders Association letter of July 31,1987 and
stated the most impact to the City's current tree replacement policy is the
idea that trees would not have to be replaced that were removed from
city road right-of-way. Enger said Staff made suggestion to change
alignment of the roads for this project because the roads go through the
major quality treed areas and through the main topographic features on
the site.
i
Enger pointed out the tree replacement policy has been revised a
i
a
t
City Council Minutes 6 August 4,1987
t
number of times in the past several months;and that Staff has been
working with builder and City to settle objections to the satisfaction of
both parties. Enger mentioned when there is more than one builder in a +
development il's difficult to keep track of how the project is graded and
that's it's a difficult type of land use to manage,particularly in treed areas.
In very wooded areas other land uses are perhaps more appropriate.
Enger said this developer is asking for approval subject to any changes 3.
coming from the Minnesota Builders Association. Enger went on to j
mention exactly what the tree replacement policy does and does not do.
Enger said in this case the developer is removing 30 percent of the trees
which calculates to five percent of the woods replaced.
Enger talked about not having enough open space to put trees back in j
and said the developer will create open space by developing the lots
and,secondly,when the developer has a difficult time finding places to j
replace trees on the site it indicates how many trees are being removed.
Enger said the Planning Commission,understanding developer was in
concurrence with tree replacement policy,recommended approval on a
5-0 vote.
Bentley asked what Patton meant by other alternatives to meet tree
replacement goals. Patton said when the sewer line was put through the
site most of the trees were taken out,and he referred on the map to this
area. Patton said in designing the site they came up with a lot of
alternatives and referred to the map how they came up with the present
design. Bentley asked Patton again what other alternatives Patton was
referring to and he asked for something more specific rather than the r
words"other alternatives",wanted to know what Patton proposed as an
alternative. Patton referred to the importance of setting a dollar amount
per caliper inch for the trees rather than have bonding up front.
Bentley referred to Mr.Bjorklund's letter of August 3,1987 and asked if it j
was Patton's position that Wyndham Crest be approved subject to any
restrictions of City tree replacement policy and bonding requirements.
Patton agreed and said he would like this to be included with any
changes.
t
Bentley asked City Attorney Pauly if it's wise to approve a project subject E
to possible revisions in Code at a future date. Pauly said it would not be
a wise action because it would leave the issue open for a period of time.
j
j
City Council Minutes 7 August 4,1987
Pauly stated if there was a reexamination soon prior to final plat or
issuing buiiding permits,then it might be equitable to consider approval.
Pauly stated from a legal point of view if Council approves and no
changes are made,then the tree policy stands as presently exists and
the developer will enter an agreement to abide by that policy. Only if
Council takes some future action would there be modification
accordingly to the policy. Patton said that was acceptable.
Peterson asked Enger if it's reasonable that Staff will review the tree
replacement policy,forward recommendations to Council,get response
from Council,before the first building permit is issued. Enger said Staff
expects that it would be. Peterson mentioned that one alternative to this
issue would be to continue the hearing until the policy is changed or
simply adhere to policy.
Anderson said he walked this parcel of property this afternoon and went
on to explain the area in question and the different variety of trees in this
parcel of land. Anderson questioned the area,where the roads go,the
lot size,and is concerned about protecting this area for the future.
Anderson said he would like to see a different plan;would like to see a
preservation of as many trees as possible in this area;and would like to
see larger lot size.
Pidcock said she would like to continue this hearing if there's any
change in the tree policy. Anderson mentioned the fact that it did not get
to the Park Commission and would not want to vote on the issue until he
had a recommendation from the Park Commission. Harris said she
prefers to work within the frame work of existing policy or defer decision
until we have decided what that policy is.
Bentley asked Enger if Staff is recommending any changes in policy and
Enger said they just received the letter yesterday and Staff could be
recommending some changes. Bentley asked Enger if there was a
proposal format before Council that would recommend change in that
proposal and Enger said there wasn't. Bentley said he was concerned
about holding up approval over a possible change in policy that isn't
even officially in progress and said he would be opposed to a
continuance or denial. Bentley mentioned he has concern over
proceeding prior to Park and Recreation Commission review.
is
Harris said she's not comfortable unless acting within existing frame
work of policies already in place. Harris mentioned the fact there was
City Council Minutes 8 August 4,1987
some flexibility within the existing policy. Harris asked the developer if
he was comfortable and willing to work within existing policy and Patton
said the developer was.
Mr.Richard Feerick,representing the sellers,said it's in the best interest
of the sellers to continue the sale within the time frame if possible.
Feerick also mentioned he's a member of the Minnesota Builders
Association and said the Association has the same interest as Council to
protect trees and effectively develop the site.
Robert Bjorklund,President of New Concept Homes,said he talked to
the Builders Association and their intention is to look at different
alternatives with respect to the bonding,increasing the tree policy of the
City by asking for one or two trees be placed on every subdivision that
had no trees,and more consideration for credit in tree line of the
roadway. The Builders Association reassured Bjorklund they're trying to
help because of small builders. Bjorklund said he reinforced what
Feerick said.
Peterson asked if it's been negotiated on the bonding from 250 percent
to 150 percent. Enger said it's already in the specific recommendation of
the Timber Creek project that Council approved previously.
MOTION: Harris moved,seconded by Pidcock,to Close the Public
Hearing and Approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No.37-87 for Rezoning.
Anderson mentioned concern that this area is next to a nature park and
changes have been made in the plans since the entrance to the parkway
was first drawn in and there are 126 homes that have little or no access
to one of the largest park areas. Anderson said he's concerned that the
Park and Recreation Commission is not aware of some of the changes
here and said he hasn't had a chance to talk to the Community Services
Director. Anderson said without the information from Lambert he can not
make a wise decision and will not vote for the motion.
s
Peterson asked Enger if the Park and Recreation Commission will review
this prior to 2nd Reading and Enger said they would. Peterson asked if
the motion were amended to say"Approved subject to the approval of
the Park and Recreation Commission or successful negotiation between
Park and Recreation and the proponent with final approval;'would that
be acceptable with Anderson. j
I
City Council Minutes 9 August 4,1987
Pauly recommended not make it subject to approval of the Park and
Recreation Commission,but make it subject to imposing conditions.
MOTION: Bentley moved,seconded by Harris,to amend the motion on
the floor by adding that the 2nd Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance
would occur after review of the development proposal by the Parks,
Recreation,and Natural Resources Commission.
Pauly stated that what Bentley suggested was fine,subject to review by
the Park and Recreation Commission,but added that the motion be
subject to the Council's acceptance or rejection of recommendations by
the Park and Recreation Commission.
Bentley said he would amend the motion to contain Pauly's language as
stated above. Harris accepted that amendment.
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: Amendment carried 5-0-0. j
MOTION: Bentley moved,seconded by Harris,to Close the Public
Hearing and Approve 1 st Reading of Ordinance No.37-87 for Rezoning,
2nd Reading subject to review by the Park and Recreation Commission
and subject to Council's acceptance or rejection of recommendations by
the Park and Recreation Commission. Motion approved 4-1-0 with
Anderson opposing.
MOTION: Harris moved,seconded by Pidcock,to Adopt Resolution No.
87-224 approving the Preliminary Plat of Wyndham Crest for Burl
Corporation,2nd Reading subject to review by the Park and Recreation
Commission and subject to Council's acceptance or rejection of j.
recommendations by the Park and Recreation Commission. Motion
approved 4-1-0 with Anderson opposing.
MOTION: Harris moved,seconded by Pidcock,to Direct Staff to prepare
a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff
recommendations and Council conditions.
Anderson mentioned concerns about developing a forested area and the
number of trees that will be taken out and said there are other
alternatives. Anderson mentioned Council has the ability to preserve
more trees in the Code and doesn't feel Council has taken the
opportunity to preserve more trees. Peterson mentioned the tree
replacement policy and also mentioned he doesn't want Council
City Council Minutes 10 August 4,1987
redesigning proposals. Anderson said Council can do better and
referred to having an R1-44 in the development.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion approved 4-1-0 with Anderson
opposing.
B. ESPECIALLY FOR CHILDREN. Request for Planned Unit Development
District Review on 50.2 acres with variances,with Site Plan Review
within the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District on 1.29 acres for
construction of a daycare facility. Location: South of Townline Road,
east of Dell Road. (Ordinance#38-87-PUD-8-87,Rezoning within
PUD/Neighborhood Commercial District)
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and property owners within the project vicinity had been
notified.
Ed Kodet,representing the proponent,introduced Priscilla Williams.
Priscilla Williams,President of Especially for Children,addressed what
the company does.
Anderson asked Williams what age the children will be and Williams said
16 months to 5 years,and may have school age children if there's a
need in the community. Anderson mentioned there was a big demand
for infant care in the City and Williams said this fall she's opening an
infant care center at North Memorial Hospital which will be the center's
first infant care program. Williams said she didn't want to commit to infant
care at the Eden Prairie facility until the trial run with North Memorial to
see how the center works out. Williams also mentioned the center will be
designed to build in infant care facilities.
Harris said she's comfortable with 16 months to 5 years and the current
plan for North Memorial Hospital. Pidcock said that it bothered her that
daycare centers were always next to gas stations and wanted to know if
a study had been done on the affect of car and gasoline fumes on
children at these centers next to gas stations. Williams said none of her
facilities happen to be next to gas stations and said their playground
would be behind the building so there would be a buffer for the
playground area.
Harris asked how many centers Williams has and Williams said they
i
City Council Minutes 11 August 4,1987
have eight different facilities all in the Minneapolis area and suburbs.
Harris asked Williams how long she had been in the business and
Williams said 11 and a half years.
Ed Kodet,representing the proponent,addressed the proposal.
1
Director of Planning Enger said this item was reviewed by the Planning
Commission on July 13th,1987. Enger mentioned that the site plan
review was required with original approval of the PUD and necessary to
gain the requested zoning. The idea of a site plan review was to tie this
building into the existing Tom Thumb center. The Planning Commission i
recommended approval on a 6-0 vote subject to recommendations of the
Staff report of July 10th.
Bentley asked if the issue of rooftop mechanical has been addressed by +
the Planning Commission and Kodet said the proponent is not going to
have any rooftop mechanical.
MOTION: Anderson moved,seconded by Pidcock,to Close the Public
Hearing. Motion approved 5-0-0.
MOTION: Anderson moved,seconded by Pidcock,to Approve the 1 st
Reading of Ordinance No.38-87-PUD-8-87 for Rezoning within the PUD.
Motion approved 5-0-0.
MOTION: Anderson moved,seconded by Pidcock,to Direct Staff to
prepare a Development Agreement and incorporating Commission and
Staff recommendations. Motion approved 5-0-0.
C. EDENBROOK,by David Hoel. Request for Zoning District Change from
Rural to R1-13.5 on 6.2 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board
of Appeals and Preliminary Plat of 6.2 acres into 13 single family lots,
one outlot,and road right-of-way. Location: South of Townline Road, ;
east of Purgatory Creek,west of Woodlawn Heights Addition.(Ordinance
#39-87,Rezoning;Resolution#87-226,Preliminary Plat) `s
a
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been
published and property owners within the project vicinity had been
notified.
Dave Hoel,representing the proponent,addressed the proposal.
j
� T
City Council Minutes 12 August 4,1987
0
Planning Director Enger said this item was reviewed by the Planning
Commission on July 13th, 1987 and the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the 13 lot subdivision with one lot as
floodplain to be dedicated to the City on a 6-0-0 vote subject to Staff
report recommendations of July 10th, 1987. Enger stated the Planning
Commission's recommendations are as follows: One,prior to City
Council review proponent should revise the plans to reflect a five-foot
wide concrete sidewalk along the west side of Edenbrook Drive;revise
the plans to reflect extension of Edenbrook Drive and water line to the
southern property line;revise the plans to reflect evergreen plantings
along the proposed berm for noise abatement measures for the northern
lots when Crosstown comes through. Two,prior to 2nd Reading a joint
powers agreement between the City of Eden Prairie and the City of
Minnetonka be signed for the extension of the sanitary sewer line.
Three,prior to final plat detailed storm water plans and utility plans be
reviewed by the City Engineering Department and provide right-of-way in
the final plat for County Road 62 as required by Hennepin County;apply
for and receive variance for lot size,subject lots Block 1,lots 4-6,
adjacent to the floodplain.
The Park and Recreation Commission suggested that an outlot be
created in the lot adjacent to the floodplain and be considered for lot size
variance. Enger said Staff supports approval of the variances. Four,
prior to grading permit issuance developer would be responsible for
installing a construction barrier at grading limits;a park fee would be
applicable to this project and place a temporary dead end sign and
temporary cul-de-sac sign at the end of Edenbrook Drive. Five,prior to
final plat proponent dedicate Outlot A which is floodplain for the City for
conservation purposes. Enger said the western portion of this property is
Within the conservancy area of the Purgatory Creek study and proponent
is proposing to dedicate floodplain to the City and the Planning
Commission recommends approval.
Peterson asked Enger if there's reasonable access to the east as this is
developed. Enger said that the Edenbrook property is surrounded by
undeveloped property to the east,south and west;Staff has looked at a
plan which would provide cul-de-sac access to the undeveloped
property to the east because the developed land further to the east is at a
much higher elevation. Enger said the property to the east is not wide
enough by itself to put a cul-de-sac in on a north/south alignment and
obtain lots on both sides. Enger said Mr. Markham is the property owner
to the east and Mr.Uram with the planning staff talked with Mr. Markham
l
City Council Minutes 13 August 4, 1987
about the proposed plan the Council has before them prior to the
Planning Commission meeting. Enger said Mr.Markham did not
comment on the plan at that time and Staff received no comments at the
Planning Commission meeting
Peterson mentioned the evergreen use as a buffer along the north side
of the property and wondered about the durability of evergreens with salt
spray when the Crosstown is extended. Asked if the trees are far enough
away or will they die out. Enger said his recollection Is the evergreens
are on the site now and would have to look at the variety of evergreen
and distance to answer the question. Hoel said they're spruce trees on
the property and planning a six foot high berm. Enger said a wood fence
in combination with the trees might be a solution.
Anderson asked Enger if there's any possibility to put a moratorium on
anymore Edens or Prairies for street names. Enger said Council is in
control of both street names and names of subdivisions and has the
authority to accept or reject the names.
Rick Sather,representing Mr. Markham,talked about Mr.Markham's
property and showed Council pictures of different plans for the property
and discussed Mr.Markham's point of view.
Peterson reminded Sather that Council is dealing with the issue of the
proposal and to confine comments to the impact of this proposal on the
Markham land. Sather said he has no problem with the Hoels
developing the land but thinks the project could be planned differently to
benefit all parties. Sather said he wished Council would defer action on
the preliminary plat and allow time to work together or condition the
preliminary plat approval on Hoel and Markham trying to work together to
find a middle ground to access the two pieces of land.
Peterson said they are not preventing any other property owner from
reasonable access. if Mr.Hoel voluntarily suggests removing this item
from the docket for a couple weeks,there is really nothing Council can
do except encourage future discussion.
Harris asked if Sather had contacted Hoel prior to this evening and
Sather said he met with Hoel on August 4th and talked about alternative
access,but stated there was not resolution.
Dick Feerick,working with Bob Bjorklund and New Concept Homes,
i
i
City Council Minutes 14 August 4, 1987
{
discussed the different ideas he had for the property.
Bentley said the idea of the preliminary plat and final plat allows for
discussion process to continue and mentioned the action Council takes
this evening will not preclude continuing discussion with the Hoels
relative to what's going to happen to this parcel.
Peterson mentioned the fact that it's Hoei's project,that he's gone
through the planning stage,now there's a road block;and wanted to
know what Hoel thought. Hoel said he'd like to go through with the work
the way he planned it. Hoel said he's open to working with the
surrounding property owner as far as he can and said he's willing to
change the way the road comes off their property to align with Markham's
property. Hoe[requested the plan be approved.
Paul Nordbye,17541 Rustic Hills Drive,talked about the proposal
coming in at the last minute showing a connection to his road which Park
and Recreation said was suppose to have been a cul-de-sac. Said he
has nothing against the area being developed but wished the
neighborhood adjoining the property could have input to where roads
go.
Bentley said the project under consideration is on the board and not the
pictures on the overhead and that there is no proposal pending relative
to development on the overhead pictures. Bentley said they're only
talking about potential of future development and making allowances
within this project to accommodate that potential.
Bentley mentioned the dead end that Nordbye referred to,and said that it
would stay that way,and that the Council at that time specifically
indicated it was a temporary dead end and ultimately be connected to a
road.
MOTION: Harris moved,seconded by Pidcock,to Close the Public
Hearing and Approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No.39-87 for Rezoning.
Bentley asked Dietz how the Markham property would be served by
sewer and water. Director of Public Works,Mr.Dietz,said Staff
recommended the connection point for the sewer be to the west in
Minnetonka which has a deeper sanitary sewer location.Bentley asked
about this proposal and if Staff is recommending allowances that would
allow for expansion of the system. Dietz said the eight inch pipe will
i
i
f
City Council Minutes 15 August 4, 1987
i
handle the proposed development to the south and east and when ifs
connected in Minnetonka the line would run in at minimum grade to go
as far as it can by gravity sewer.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion approved 5-0-0.
MOTION: Harris moved,seconded by Pidcock,to Adopt Resolution No.
87-226 approving the Preliminary Plat of Edenbrook for David Hoel;and
Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating
Commission and Staff recommendations and Council conditions.
Peterson said there should be a Council recommendation that the Hoels
and the Markhams have continued negotiation.
3
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion approved 5-0-0. I
D. REFUNDING OF PRESERVE PLACE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING BONDS
IN THE AMOUNT OF$3.850,000 (Resolution No.87-228)
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had been
published in the Eden Prairie New on July 15, 1987 and that the
proponents and Mr. Frane are here to address any questions the Council
may have.
Alan Bernick,representing the proponent,addressed the proposal.
Pidcock asked Bernick to explain the credit enhancement device.
Bernick said the project will be built using the bond proceeds. Pidcock
asked the 3.85 million or the 4.3 million. Bernick said the original cost of
the project was to be approximately 5.3 million and the developer is
financing the difference between total cost of the project and what the
bonds finance. Pidcock asked if the indebtedness of the holder is still 5.3
million so they have a greater equity stake in the apartment. Bernick
agreed with that statement.
Bentley asked if the bond sale was public or private. Bernick said the
sale was called escrow where the bonds were issued in order to
preserve a grandfather tax treatment under old tax laws held privately
until now. Bentley asked who is taking advantage of arbitrage earnings
since issuance of the bonds;Bernick replied that arbitrage earnings were
limited due to the terms of the City's conditions in the agreement for
issuance of the bonds in 1985. Bernick listed some of the limited costs
#1
;� I
i
i
City Council Minutes 16 August 4,1987
j
J
to which arbitrage earnings could be used. {
a
City Attorney Pauly mentioned the final form of the resolution has been
modified on page five,paragraph five,the City's approval of the form of
Preliminary Official Statement to simply"Consent"and also fifth line from
the bottom of page five change"approves"to"consent". j
yMOTION: Bentley moved,seconded by Harris,to Close the Public
Hearing and Adopt Resolution No.87-228. Motion approved 5-0-0. i
{
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS f
MOTION: Pidcock moved,seconded by Anderson,to approve the Payment of
Claims Nos.36293 to 36568.
Peterson questioned item 36358 and Jullie stated there are automatic dialers on i
the lift stations. When the lift stations malfunction the flow would creep up in the
manhole and tip a switch which sends a signal which leads to a telephone
exchange and automatically dials maintenance personnel.
Peterson also questioned item 36403,does the City pay the$1,200 through the
Human Rights Service Commission. Jullie said,"yes"and that's a budgeted
item.
Roll call vote: Anderson,Bentley,Harris,Pidcock,Peterson voted"aye". Motion
approved 5-0-0.
IV. ORDINANCES& RESOLUTIONS
ITIONS
i
A. Refunding of Quail Ridoe Multi-Family Housing-Bond in the amount of
$5,565.000(Resolution No. 87-227)
City Manager Jullie stated the trustees for the$5.56 million housing
bonds for Quail Ridge are seeking a change in bond agreements
regarding insurance mechanism for the bonds. The trustee proposes a
Letter of Credit for$500,000 to be substituted for the prior mortgage
insurance instrument and Staff agrees with this approach.
Peterson asked if Frane felt$500,00 Letter of Credit was an adequate
amount and Frane agreed that it was and said it would give the
equivalant of ten percent equity in the project.
City Council Minutes 17 August 4,1987
MOTION: Harris moved,seconded by Pidcock,to move Resolution No.
87-227. Motion approved 5-0-0.
VII. PETITIONS. REQUESTS&COMMUNICATIONS
A. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company request for billboards
City Manager Jullie referred Council to Naegele Outdoor Advertising's
proposal regarding the City Code,per City Attorney Pauly,to provide for
changes in location of billboards and also referred Council to Staff
report.
Michael Cronin,representing the proponents,addressed the proposal.
Director of Planning Enger stated that Zoning Administrator Jean i
Johnson was present and she has worked most closely withe Cronin in a
preparation of the Staff report and she would be happy to summarize the
report.
Harris asked how the City can have so many non-conforming signs.
Johnson stated a lot of signs go back 15,20 years,well before City Staff
monitored the signs. Harris asked about the recent billboards in'86 and
'84 and wondered what recourse there was for Council when signs are
in. Johnson said in'84 the City entered into an agreement for removal,
but the signs had been in place prior to this.
City Attorney Pauly stated that a number of signs are non-conforming
because the signs existed prior to adoption of the prohibition against t
signs other than in certain designated zones and said in the 1970's there
was no regulation of signs in the City. Pauly said in the'70's a sign zone s
was adopted and some of these signs are outside those zones,so since
they were in use prior to the adoption of sign zones they continue as a
non-conforming use. j
Bentley asked Cronin if he's correct in the assumption that Cronin wants
Council's opinion on the proposal identified as Graph 3. Cronin said
he's requesting that Council direct Staff to place Naegele Graph 3 into
ordinance form or the City's proposal into ordinance form. Cronin said
he could go along with Staff proposal since the only major difference is a
few locations on Highway 5.
Peterson said it's premature for Council to adopt or give strong support
i
t-
City Council Minutes 18 August 4, 1987
9
for either proposal at this point since it hasn't been through the
commissions yet and stated the task tonight is to get a sensing of the
Council on this proposal.
Bentley mentioned there are two areas to look at,one,take no action this
evening because ultimately the signs will disappear,according to Jean
Johnson,and there would be no signs. Two,is Council going to allow
signs in Eden Prairie.
Anderson said Council has to find out if there's an advantage to having
signs,are they important to the City. He said there are three alternatives,
"none,some or a lot".
Peterson said the use of billboards is a legitimate and important
business and the City has a right and responsibility to carefully manage j
outdoor advertising. Place billboards where they are not offensive,
where it is not obstructive to scenery. Peterson said it serves a very
positive function in the proper locations in enhancing a commercial
atmosphere in a commercial area.
Anderson agreed to billboards if they give direction,but to have
wholesale signs advertising liquor and cigarettes he sees no value to a
community. Anderson mentioned the fact driving down a road you see
the billboards and you're exposed to what they advertise whether you
want to be or not.
Pidcock mentioned the sign situation in Edina and thought it interesting
that all the businesses survive in that area without signs. Pidcock said
her conclusion is she would like to see Eden Prairie without any signs.
Harris said it's difficult to address the issue in terms of having legitimacy
for meeting the needs of the community. The Council needs to look at
legitimacy in terms of the resident and driving public community,and not
at the business community alone. Harris said she leans towards
Pidcock's sentiments,but if the City elects to have signage within its
perimeters Council should took very carefully where signage is placed.
Bentley said he doesn't want to enter into discussion about content of
signs. Bentley also talked about the billboards along the river bottoms.
Bentley said it's an advantage to the City to have some signs in the
community and it's advantageous to the community to work out a trade to
get those signs out of the river bottom area. Bentley said he would
( 1
City Council Minutes 19 August 4,1987
encourage Naegele to proceed and ask Staff to proceed along Staff
recommendation instead of draft three. Bentley said the size and height
might be a little much but something scaled down from the level would
be appropriate.
Pidcock said that if Council approves sign locations,then the signs
would be present forever. Peterson said that among the alternatives
from the discussions between Staff and Naegele would be the
elimination of signs in some undesirable locations.
Peterson said he doesn't want to be a part of any governmental structure
that participates in the demise of legitimate business. Pidcock said she's
not trying to put anybody out of business,but is entitled to see a
countryside as it is without being forced to look at signs. Peterson
disagreed with Pidcock and said signs should be put in areas where the
City will accept them.
Anderson talked about the legitimate business of the landfill as a
comparison to billboards and Peterson said you have to respect the law
that protects the landfill.
Pidcock mentioned that advertisers could use other means for
advertising besides billboards and Bentley mentioned that a number of
businesses'sole advertising dollar goes for outdoor advertising because
it's the most cost effective way to advertise. Bentley said Staff is
suggesting a total of eight signs throughout the community and said that
would be appropriate because they would be in certain types of zones.
Mitch Wonson,14007,Holly Road,wants Council to eliminate all
billboards entirely from the community. Is upset that Council is
entertaining a proposal by Naegele when Naegele hasn't fulfilled their
current obligations and agreements with the City.
MOTION: Pidcock moved,seconded by Harris,that City Council reaffirm
the existing policy and require conformance by Naegele to existing
agreements for removal of some billboards and request removal of
certain other billboards which do not conform to City or State regulations
and wait to see how the State Department of Transportation
condemnation case is decided.
Peterson asked if that means the elimination of present signs and no
provision for future signs and Pidcock agreed with Peterson. Anderson
i�
{
City Council Minutes 20 August 4, 1987
said he goes along with the motion. Peterson said he strongly opposes
the motion.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion approved 3-2-0 with Peterson and
Bentley opposing.
Vill. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSION
A. Reguest from Bicentennial of the U.S.Constitution Committee
MOTION: Bentley moved,seconded by Pidcock,to approve the name of
Constitution Avenue for the access road to Round Lake.
Peterson asked Mark Weber the meaning of naming that particular street
Constitution Avenue. Weber said they had other alternatives but in every
case it involved changing existing addresses. Anderson asked Weber if
it could be something else other than a street and Weber said they aren't
stuck on the street idea but it was another way to observe the
bicentennial.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion approved 5-0-0.
IX. APPOINTMENT
There were none.
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS.SOAgpS&COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
1.Pidcock-Discussion to schedule workshop on City audit re(L
Pidcock said she would like to schedule a meeting to go over the audit
report from Fox, Cum & Murphy. Harris mentioned before any type
of meeting is set she would like to have the City Manager address issues
raised by the auditors in form of a plan which would become the basis of
a talking document for such a meeting. Discussion followed as to when
the meeting would be held.
it
s
0
City Council Minutes 21 August 4, 1987
l
i
2. Peterson-Discussion to schedule meetina to go over the City Code
and EmeroenaLQpgrating Procedure Man gal
Peterson said after the"storm weekend"it became apparent there were
inconsistencies between the Code and the Emergency Operating
Procedure Manual and suggested a wo rk session to discuss this.
Discussion followed as to when the meeting would be held.
MOTION: Pidcock moved,seconded by Bentley,to schedule a meeting r
to go over the City Code and Emergency Operating Procedure Manual
Inconsistencies on September 15th at 4:00 o'clock p.m. Motion
approved 5-0-0.
3. Harris-1-494 Corridor Workchnn
4
Harris said she would not be able to attend the 1-494 Corridor Workshop
and asked if there would be any recording of the workshop for review at
a later date. Peterson said there will be minutes and that he will be there
also and will shareinformation with Harris afterwards.
4. Pidcock- AMM 13r.akfast Meetina
Pidcock mentioned there will be an AMM Breakfast Meeting on the 13th
of August at 7:30 a.m.and everybody should try and come.
5. Anderson-Schedule time to go through storm damage in the City
Anderson mentioned that questions have been asked about flood
control in the City and also about retaining walls,which were hit hardest
from the storm,and ways of correcting some of these problems in the
future and would like a report from Staff on the emergency the City had
rece ntly. i
B. Report of City Manages f
There was no report.
C. Report of City Attorney
Pauly presented Council with a copy of a memorandum which contains a
partial summary of 1987 laws affecting municipalities. Pauly
emphasized page one,with reference to the indemnification of officers
t
City Council Minutes 22 August 4, 1987
and employees for punitive damage awards;page two,the fact a woman
may no longer use her husband's name on a ballot when running for
office;page three,at the bottom,with reference to the pesticide
regulation;page four pointed out the change in the dumping fee that
goes to the City;and also said the filing dates for municipal elections is
between eight and ten weeks prior to the election. Pauly also mentioned
that limitations have been removed with regard to the amount of interest
general obligation bonds may bear and also amount of interest which
may be imposed with regard to special assessments. Pauly emphasized
page five,the change in notice for special meetings;page seven,with
reference to construction controls for reduction in aircraft noise in zones
surrounding airports,also,parental leave provisions;page nine,the
pipeline safety act.
D. Reoort of Director of Plannino
There was none.
E. Report of Director of Community Services
There was none.
F. Reoort of Director of Public Works
1. Resolution declaring costs to ho acsacca��.+++^r rip
preparation of 1987 Special Assessment Rolls and setting
hearing date(Resolution No.87-225)
Director of Public Works Dietz said this is a resolution that declares the
amount of cost that be assessed for the fall special assessment hearing
and sets a date of September 1 st for the special assessment hearing.
Dietz said this normally would have been a Consent Calendar item and
standard operating procedure by Code. Dietz said the total costs are
approximately$7.5 million,City funds are$2.6 million,and assessed
amount is$4.9 million.
Bentley asked Dietz if he's recommending proceeding with the
assessment of item 9. I.C. 52-101 at this time. Dietz said Staff is,but
there's two lots that may have to be excluded from the final roll and
mentioned it's important to assess the balance of the project at this time
instead of waiting. Bentley asked if Council should hold two of these
meetings per year and Dietz replied they've talked about holding two a
I
}
1
City Council Minutes 23 August 4,1987
year but there never seems to be anything ready to go in the spring since
most of the work is completed in the fall.
Bentley referred to a Council meeting that took place six years ago and
talked of a process for which the necessary legal procedure could be
accommodated and would not necessarily have to take place in the
presence of Council. Jullie said he recalled that meeting and said there
was a process ready to go in the event the City is challenged. Pauly said
that process was evolved as a result of court decisions that indicated the
court would give some weight to the Council's decision on whether or not
a project benefited a property,if Council received competent evidence
and made a decision on that basis. Pauly said recent cases are
indicating that the courts are going to take afresh look at the valuation
and question of whether benefit has occurred as a result of improvement.
MOTION: Anderson moved,seconded by Harris,to move Resoultuion
No.87-225.
Peterson suggested that Council consider a Special Assessment
Hearing on another night other than a Council meeting night. Dietz said
it's not too late to change the date and that Council could spend at least
two hours on this hearing. Anderson agreed with setting a special
meeting date.
Peterson asked if the maker of the motion would approve a meeting to be
scheduled for 7:30 p.m.on September 8th. Anderson agreed.
Pidcock asked Dietz what he means by the reassessment of Chatham
Woods. Dietz said 15 lots in the Chatham Woods subdivision went for
tax forfeit and the only way to the City can collect the special assessment
on them is to reassess.
Bob Blount,6501 West 168th Avenue,asked what the notification
process was being followed regarding the amount to be assessed
against his property. Dietz said what Blount is referring to is for trunk,
sewer and water proposed for Majestic Oaks property for approximately
$13,000. The property was assessed in 1973 for one unit of lateral
benefit,which served Blount's home,and for half an acre of trunk
assessments against the four to five acrea parcel. Dietz said that
information of the amount to be assessed against the property to be
subdivided was later than normally processed,but that notification of the
assessment hearing would occur probably wihtin the next few weeks.
City Council Minutes 24 August 4,1987
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion approved 5-0-0.
2. Review deferm n nol1c'9C+��c ;al A (Continued from
July21,1987)
This item was continued to the next regularly scheduled City Council
meeting.
XI. NEW BUSINESS
ID
Peterson said Jullie suggested there be a joint School Board/City Council
meeting held on August 18,1987 at 5:30 p.m.held at City Council Chambers.
MOTION: Harris moved,seconded by Pidcock,to the joint School Board/City
Council meeting on August 18,1987 at 5:30 at City Council Chambers. Motion
approved 5-0-0.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Bentley moved,seconded by Anderson,to adjoum the meeting at
11:45 p.m. Motion approved 5.0-0.
i
1.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
September 1, 1987
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Dotty Realty, Inc. Blaylock Plumbing Company
Frana & Sons, Inc.
One Way Building Service, Inc. GAS FITTER
)
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Westonka Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
Ament Pools & Construction HEATING & VENTILATING
Olson Brick Eagan Plumbing & Heating
Sawhorse, Inc.
Sisa Homes, Inc. PEDDLAR
PLUMBING Donald Allen Brill (Firewood)
Freeman James Hayes (Firewood)
Dan G. Johnson Plumbing TYPE B FOOD
Plumm, Inc.
Eagan Plumbing & Heating Synder Bros., Inc.
CIGARETTE 33
1.
Synder Bros., Inc.
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
l sl
Pat Sore, icensing
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 87-243
RESOLUTION RECEIVING 100% PETITION,
ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS & PREPARATION
OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
I.C. 52-105A
J & L ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
1. The owners of I00% 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 RCM, INC.
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.
ADDPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on SEPTEMBER 1, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
r'
l
{
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNF:SOTA
f
100► PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROV£M17NTS
i
TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
The undersigned are all the fee owners of the real prOherty devc:ihed
below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to proceed
with making the following described improvements:
3
y (General Location)
Sanitary Sewer Bennett Place & Blnsaem Rd _6L4rApOged street
all in proposed J & L SUBDIVISION
x Watermain
xStorm Sewer p
-- 1
Street Paving
ii
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 :he
preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements is
Street Address or other Legal Na d addre-.cs of retitioners
Description of Frouerty to be Served (Must be ow s f-:-rcord)
—
11081 Blossom RnxA
ILfank R,-Ca arelre - -
a
i
l
(For City Usc)
Date Roceivrd— - ----- —
r:ojeet No. Z - /p N
fnuneil Consideration - - ��f -
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, 1:11 NESOTA
100% PETITION FOR L 7AL 1MPROVEM17NTS
TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
The undersigned are all the fee owners of the real pr6perty ,i—ciil•cd
below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to plocecd
with making the following described i.mprovementst
/ (General Location)
y Sanitary Seer �F�d, C.
Wa ter ma in
Storm Sewer _
Street Paving
Other
Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the undcc:signed hci eby waive nny
public hearing to be held on said improvements, and further stat- and
agree that the total cost of said improvements shall be specially a9-
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 • . tames and add:csscs of rctitioners
Description of Proviierty to be Served _ (Must be ow_nrrs of i.,—id)
(For City Unc)
O.,%te r"ceived
rnuncil run�irlrr..,tion
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 87-244
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the proposed sanitary sewer to be constructed in INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
OF MINNESOTA requires a connection to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
(MWCC) interceptor system; and
WHEREAS, the proposed connection conforms to the Eden Prairie Comprehensive
Sewer Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to submit an
application for "Permit for Connection to or Use of Commission
Facilities" to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on SEPTEMBER 1, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
KAHLER REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, INC.
Clement D.Springer j
Vice President j
August 12, 1987
The Honorable Gary D. Peterson
:4ayor, City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55343
Re: City West Hotel Site
Dear Mayor Peterson:
A developers agreement was entered into between The Kahler
Corporation and the City of Eden Prairie on August 6, 1985 to
retain a Commercial Regional Service zoning on a 5.5 acre site
described as Lot 2, Block 1, City West 3rd addition for 24 months.
The development plans called for the construction of a convention
hotel. The Kahler Corporation would respectfully request the
City of Eden Prairie to grant a continuation of this agreement
for one year to August 6, 1988.
The reasons for our extension request are as follows:
1. We have continued to work with developers and lenders
on the development of a hotel on this site with
indications of interest being expressed but not being
able to constunmate a deal at this time. We have acquired
a commitment for a Sheraton Hotel franchise for the
site which we feel is appropriate and will result in a
quality property.
2. With the recent construction of new hotel rooms along
the I-494 corridor, supply has exceeded demand with
occupancy rates dipping below the desired level. We
feel the market will move towards correcting the over
supply with time.
l
3. We have a substantial investment in the site for both j
option money, and specific site plans and drawings and
do not want to abandon our efforts. �4
4. If the City extends the agreement, it is our intent to }
enter into an agreement with Mr. M. G. Astleford, y
owner of the site, and continue to actively pursue the
development of the site.
20 Second Avenue Southwest•Rochester, Minnesota 55902•Phone 507-285-2712
The Honorable Gary D. Peterson
August 12, 1987
Page 2
We appreciate the City of Eden Prairie's patience with our
development of the site. If you require additional information,
I would be pleased to provide it and would be willing to appear
at a council meeting if you so desire.
Sincerely,
Clement D. Springer
Vice President
CDS:me
CC: M. G. Astleford
Chris Enger, Planning Director
I
i
MEMORANDUM
i
i
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Frane
DATE: August 27, 1987
RE: Request from Minnesota Supply to refinance their MIDB
in the amount of $763,000 - Resolution 87-253
In 1981 the City issued $800,000 in MIDB's for Minnesota Supply. They
now have an opportunity to refinance. The bond will be privately
placed and guaranteed by a letter of credit.
f
( RESOLUTION NO.
i
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF
VARIABLE RATE DEMAND COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS
TO FINANCE THE PROJECT
(MINNESOTA SUPPLY COMPANY PROJECT)
f
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, as follows:
1. On August 27, 1981 the City issued its $800,000
Commercial Development Revenue Note (Minnesota Supply Company
Project) (the "Note") to provide financing for construction of
an office/service center facility (the "Project") by Minnesota
Supply Company, a Minnesota corporation (the "Company") . The
Council has received a proposal from the Company that the City
undertake to refinance the Project, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165 (the "Act"),
through issuance by the City of its $763,000 variable Rate
Demand Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series
1987 (Minnesota Supply Company Project) (the "Bonds").
2. It is proposed that, pursuant to a Loan
Agreement dated September 1, 1987, between the City and the
Company (the "Loan Agreement") , the City loan the proceeds of
the Bonds to the Company to redeem and refund the outstanding
principal balance of the Note which were issued to partially
finance the cost of the Project. The basic payments to be
made by the Company under the Loan Agreement are fixed so as
to produce revenue sufficient to pay the principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due. It is
further proposed that the City assign its rights to the basic
payments and certain other rights under the Loan Agreement to
National City Bank of Minneapolis, in Minneapolis, Minnesota
(the "Trustee") as security for payment of the Bonds under an
Indenture of Trust dated September 1, 1987 (the "Indenture").
To further secure the payment of the Bonds and the interest
thereon, the Company will deliver a Standby Irrevocable Letter
of Credit in the initial amount necessary to secure payment of
all principal and interest due on the Bonds in the event of
non-payment by or a bankruptcy of the Company, to be issued by
Norwest Bank Minneapolis, National Association, in favor of
the Trustee (the "Letter of Credit") .
i
t
}
3. Pursuant to the preliminary approval of the
Council, forms of the following documents have been submitted
to the Council for approval:
i
(a) The Loan Agreement.
(b) The Indenture.
(c) The Letter of Credit.
that: 4. It is hereby found, determined and declared
(a) the issuance and sale of the Bonds, the
execution and delivery by the City of the Loan Agreement,
and the Indenture, and the performance of all covenants
and agreements of the City contained in the Loan
Agreement and Indenture and of all other acts and things
required under the constitution and laws of the State of
Minnesota to make the Loan Agreement, Indenture and Bonds
valid and binding obligations of the City in accordance
with their terms, are authorized by the Act;
(b) it is desirable that the Bonds be
issued by the City upon the terms set forth in
i
the Indenture;
(c) the basic payments under the Loan
Agreement are fixed to produce revenue sufficient
to provide for the prompt payment of principal
of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds
issued under the Indenture when due, and the Loan
Agreement and Indenture also provide that the
Company is required to pay all expenses of the
operation and maintenance of the Project,
including, but without limitation, adequate
insurance thereon and insurance against all
liability for injury to persons or property
arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes
and special assessmcnts levied upon or with
respect to the Project Premises and payable
during the term of the Loan Agreement and
Indenture;
(d) as provided in the Loan Agreement and
Indenture, the Bonds are not to be payable from
or charged upon any funds other than the revenue
pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not
subject to any liability thereon; no holder of
any Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any
exercise by the City of its taxing powers to pay
any of the Bonds or the interest or premium
thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against
any property of the City except the interests of
the City in the Loan Agreement which have been
assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the
Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or
encumbrance, legal or equitable upon any property
of the City except the interests of the City in
the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to
the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall
recite that the Bonds are issued without moral
obligation on the part of the state or its
political subdivisions, and that the Bonds,
including interest thereon, are payable solely
from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof;
and, the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the
City within the meaning of any constitutional or
statutory limitation.
5. Subject to the final approval of the City
Attorney, the forms of the Loan Agreement, the Purchase Agree-
ment and Indenture and exhibits thereto are approved substan-
tially in the form submitted. The Loan Agreement, Purchase
Agreement and Indenture, in substantially the form submitted,
are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the
City by the Mayor and the City Manager together with any other
documents and certificates necessary to the transaction
described above. Copies of all of the documents necessary to
the transaction herein described shall be delivered, filed and
recorded as provided herein and in the Loan Agreement and
Indenture.
6. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue its
Bonds, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the
Indenture. The offer of the Bond Purchaser, Reserve
Interstate Portfolio, New York, New York, to purchase the
Bonds at par plus accrued interest to the date of delivery at
the interest rate or rates specified in the Indenture is
hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized
and directed to prepare and execute the Bonds as prescribed in
the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee for
authentication and delivery to the Bond Purchaser.
7. The Mayor and City Manager and other officers of
the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to
l
i
the Bond Purchaser certified copies of all proceedings and
records of the City relating to the bonds, and such other
affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the
facts relating to the legality of the Bonds as such facts
appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and
control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified
copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore
furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to
the truth of all statements contained therein.
8. The approval hereby given to the various
documents referred to above includes approval of such
additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate
and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and
additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and
approved by the City Attorney and the City officials
authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their
execution; and said City officials are hereby authorized to
approve said changes on behalf of the City. The execution of
any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the
City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the
approval of such documents in accordance with the terms
hereof. In the absence of the Mayor or Manager, any of the
documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be
executed by the Acting Mayor or the City Manager,
respectively.
Passed: September 1, 1987
Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
(SEAL)
i
Z;4�
i
i
M E M O R A N D U M ,
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Roger A. Pauly and Diana P. Massie, City Attorneys
DATE: August 26 1987
RE: Proposed Amendments to City Code Chapter 2
Sandra Wertz, Kari Wahl and the Historical and Cultural
Commission have asked us to draft an ordinance amending City
Code Section 2.18, which regulates the terms for the
Historical and Cultural Commission. The amendments provide
for three-year terms, rather than two-year terms, and also
provide for an interim schedule for term expiration in order
to achieve a system of evenly staggered terms.
Attached is the proposed Ordinance which has previously
been reviewed by Kari Wahl and the Historical and Cultural
Commission.
{
'i
ORDINANCE NO. �
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 2 BY AMENDING SECTION 2.18, SUBD. 1, RELATING
TO THE TERM OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL COMMISSION MEMBERS AND
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 2.99 WHICH,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 2, Section 2.18, Subd. 1, shall
be amended to read as follows:
Subd. 1. Establishment and Composition. An Historical and
Cultural Commission, composed of seven (7) members, is hereby
established for the purpose of advising the Council as to
activities, programs and facilities of historical and cultural
significance in the City. ^` sign m eFs� shall � stag
terms. Appe ••VZ'fl'CT ent e€ members 4e* t'erms' m ..ei ng after
``1l,^,,`�^^��, ���� �.�.ii,.''yLY''�� F,�,� ,�.�.^ ��...�...L.._ tom,,
i'l�yQ,�,.h � 1�OTy,ha
�hall��b 2VT e4 LTc T The �{,,f"
�IT3'ieh members have been �� L- he Mar-eh 1, � shall
(In order to achieve evenly staggered terms on the com-
mission an interim schedule of term expiration is established as
follows:
Present Term Expiration New Term
1. 2-28-88 Appoint new member and
(member resigned 6-4-87) extend term to expire
2/28/89.
2. 2-28-88 Extend term of Rev.
Phillip Rohler to expire
2-28-89.
3. 2-28-89 Extend term of Richard
Schuette to expire
2-28-90.
4. 2-28-89 Extend term of Gwen Barker
to expire 2-28-90.
-1-
i
�• Present Term Expiration New Term
5. 2-28-88 Appoint new member to a
term to expire 2-28-91.
6. 2-28-88 Appoint new member to a
term to expire 2-28-91.
7. 2-28-88 Appoint new member to a
term to expire 2-28-91.
Upon the expiration of each new term listed above, each
succeeding term shall be for three (3) years.]
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Section 2.99 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
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
( I
1DPM/ORD-8
8-13-87
-2-
,
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 87-246
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
WYNDHAM CREST
WHEREAS, the plat of WYNDHAM CREST 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 WYNOHAM CREST is approved upon compliance
with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat
dated AUGUST 26, 1987.
a
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 SEPTEMBER 1, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John 0. Fr-ane, Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
- ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Alan D. Gray, City Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician
DATE: August 26, 1987
SUBJECT: WYNDHAM CREST
PROPOSAL: The Developers, Burl Corporation, have requested City Council
approval of the Final Plat of Wyndham Crest. Located west of
Purgatory Creek and east of Tristram 'day in the North 1/2 of
Section 6, the plat contains 27.9 acres to be divided into 25
single family lots, 2 outlots and road right-of-way for street
purposes. Outlot A is 8.0 acres in size, consisting of flood-
plain, and Outlot B is for walkway purposes, and both are to be
dedicated to the City.
HISTORY: The Preliminary Plat was approved by the City Council August
4, 1987, per Resolution #87-224.
Final reading of Ordinance #37-87, changing zoning from rural
to R1-13.5 is scheduled for the City Council meeting to be
held September 1, 1987.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is
schedule for execution September 1, 1987.
VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, streets and walkways
will be installed throughout this development in conformance
with City Standards.
Prior to release of the Final Plat, the underlying drainage
and utility easements on Lots 16 & 17 (formerly Lots 35 & 38,
Block 1 Wyndham Knoll) must be vacated.
As requested in a Preliminary Engineering Report dated June
11, 1987, the plat should be revised to include remainder of
the property into the plat, either as an outlot or a platted
lot. Prior to release of the Final Plat, plat should be
revised to include the remaining property.
i
i
i
>
PAGE 2 WYNDHAM CREST AUGUST 26, 1987
PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication shall conform to City Code requirements.
Prior to release by the City of the Final Plat, Developer shall
submit to the City an executed scenic easement over that portion of
the property within the designated floodplain of Purgatory Creek.
An executed warranty deed for Outlot A and B to the City must be
provided prior to release of the Final Plat.
BONDING: Bonding shall conform to the requirements of the Developer's
Agreement as well as City Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the Final Plat of Wyndham Crest
subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's
Agreement, the following:
1. Receipt of street sign fee of $406.00
2. Receipt of street lighting fee of $3,174.00
3. Receipt of engineering fee of $1,000.00
4. Receipt of warranty deed for Outlot A and B
5. Completion of vacation of drainage and utility easements
over Lots 35 and 3B of Wyndham Knoll.
6. Revision of plat to include remainder of property into
the plat.
7. Receipt of scenic easements over designated flood plain
of Purgatory Creek.
8. Satisfaction of bonding requirements.
JJ:ss
cc: Don Patton, Burl Corporation
James R. Hill, Inc.
i
Wyndham Crest
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 37-87
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 R1-13.5 District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,
and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the
R1-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in
City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended
accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of September 1, 19B7, entered into
between Burl Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie,
which is hereby made a part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 4th day of August, 1987, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 1st day of
September, 1987.
ATTEST:
John 0. Frane, City Cler Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor
/ PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
EXHIBIT A
( m
C" y n
ooe en �
L3 Y mOw Y ■ Y 1�qw Y
�C W Y Y O G C •• C O C O 4
p Yq Y n y N O G
c u 0 G P P u Y Y Y = Y Y
N Y O m m u•O L L 3 m ^ p Y Y Gm u 8 q N u L u_ a c r L■u
q •o Y a m�•
m L Z g q^y Y r 0 9 0 C m C y p n 9 Y
i S p Y d r 0?p w 0 ou > O W Y q
a[ rL^w•S N O • Y 00 Y s•"•Y L
enu O CLON�Y 67 p
L
.m.., aY.a YYe!mo aL.0 p .Gi rs r.c.••a e�u r '.
O >G YV, •OOYr ti p � qr Or .O p q
^ Y C gLOplrmL i Y L > S gClmPC
O CL�•u Y O q q c U b L
u■ q g m w Y Z Y C G m Y m n w m
t •_Y p O Y u p 0
• Y r O d p u Y C COO O S 0 q 0 0 C L qC
G Y L O Y Y»G H Y N Y n O u u
rlYmu uc w > Y
u m 8 rJ y Y u u Y G 0�
b) Y Yo wN ` y Lu._m L
Y uONn mu mN o o uoPn� o
.p u Yw mL . dw Y • � Y V Z mupd•• S
w ) • Cn u Y q •• Y Y N m Y 0��
i mP P >•� O•-�L C 4 O O P
Gvm uw O >u0 mC N q p q mLGq
u y Ov0 m ON c ^ ~ rJ q0 L ••
Y O•+ L Y r Y�u p m � p O O Y r O!W y O
Yy Ou cnn qm Y Y w L V1nLY
ll'i O i s Y N L g Y r p w p O Y q Y O p s u
O w L c 0 Y 10 u Y G> L
C Y Z ~ V y Y L c o C q u b m
Y 4 u Y✓>y Q q Y g O Y Y Y >
_ Y
b J > >u Y C u L y Ym a b
.-•1 L O p q Y I �•I O N» O• O u
O Y+G�•L y q Y m m u o m q 0 mn Y N
^y p Y Y 9 d n u p OC q u O y q u p d L Y
CD C � y q••O q W �»Y C Y Q q q r 9 Y u a
F O L Y O.0 m C W Y L Y Y W N s L L
� L Y L Ot O n Y a. i y 0 Y n V1 y 0 u
q Y q Z L
Q Y YOu LY L C O O y y 1£» L Y Ly Ou c O
O �•q r y u 1.1•• O m t O > •O O S
� un aeq ■>oL cv, >»n L W Z w r a:-L•uv,o6 qv
L) >C>O O 8 Y P y u
b C uw•N
Zr > Y O L z Y Ln nW
O Y O r g Y q g Y Y d m w> U Y r>W u O
t w r e ! ) s N u C n L 0 bO U t w 0 0 C q W co
LL O Y t Y O C Y Y 0 O O ■ V O q Y Y L O»
y u L L Y Y V Y n • Y y Y t y u G
y L u Y u L Y Y d L • p Y y g Y Y G
Y C y m L C I
O pY C g 0 2 O u�•••Y m Y N O O m) q••Y O.�m
ZL YZ Z>C yp•0 yL L O L L YL u ue>r�
O L i y 0 p C Y ■ S O p y y Y O
Yr LYrpr m.Y.O..»LO > V Y Y Y.O L
W Y Y y Y u E g 8 n Y v Z Y C Z Y u m Z p W M q>O
� ! q P.p q1� gNCu■ U - u i q O qOL Y p•
_. 7 Y Y W W O C h Y a Y L 0 '• > q t Y O•+ f y
' CO a0 O Owe W •>GYL q Y O O Y uL y �L e
C O m d 0••nuu f Z L>u ev1 O++Y•+
• ytL YnOV)eY q Lq Y Y up YrYl LtO
q u >Y Y Y Y YpYt Z W•• 71I m >N•»3h O u p
Y O C L u C G I. Op >O Y O O YZ
n q 0 L .0-
Y Z m q.+Y Y O C p L m N Y •+ i O L 0
n Y e u
C L >Y > p e Y n L u G Y O y 0 4
b C L Y y Y O L C L�• Y O y C L O Y u m 0
O» uY wO u yY
O y C W
u Ymnosn�••mn>.. v yr >n�•.oy
Y C C I q u u V C m Y q q b u n u
• .� i Y y N g y Y Y Y
L L u o Y O u y ma u 0-•y e a u
uv•yN � \c P a
m quo > n a n o p c u o o y Y c 01 y a n r p o a u Y o 1 a r>o ,
U c uNS mu•+ c LUL (� p c e L u n L cv
C c 6 u u>y O L C
L L m m Y Y O Y m u C m L m n L G m J >
6 �C G•�C s.•O••O q q Y�' C••!O O Y
V G x O n O y
Y G N u N q
,F V
k
Wyndham Crest
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of 1987, by
Burl Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer,"
and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural
to R1-13.5 on 19.9 acres and Preliminary Plat of 27.9 acres into 25 single family
lots and road right-of-way, 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, THEREFDRE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #37-87,
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 July 9, 1987, reviewed and approved by
the City Council on August 4, 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 acceptance by City of a final plat for the property,
Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning and to obtain
the Director's approval of a revised plat for the property which y.
depicts 100 ft. lot frontage dimensions for Lot 1, Block 3, and for
Lot 1, Block 2, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning of said revised plat,
Developer agrees to execute said plans, as approved by the Director
of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit
C, attached hereto.
4. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property,
Developer agrees to submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City
Engineer's approval of detailed plans for streets, sanitary sewer,
storm sewer, water, and erosion control for the property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct
said improvements in as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance
with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
5. Prior to release by the City of the final plat, Developer shall
submit to the City an executed scenic easement over that portion of
the property within the designated floodplain of Purgatory Creek, as
depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, said easement as depicted in
Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Developer
further agrees to file said easement on the property at Hennepin
County and agrees to provide proof of filing to the City prior to
issuancy by City of any permit for grading, or building, on the
property.
6. Prior to release by the City of the final plat, or concurrent with,
and as part of, the final plat for the property, Developer agrees to
dedicate Outlots A and B, as depicted in Exhibit B. attached hereto,
to the City free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, and
mortgages.
7. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property,
Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and obtain the
Director's approval a security which equals 150% of the value of the
following items:
A. The cost of tree replacement of 921 caliper inches of trees
on the property, in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the Tree Replacement Policy of the City, attached hereto
as Exhibit E, and made a part hereof.
B. The cost of construction of all retaining walls for the
property as discussed in item #B below, and as depicted in
Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said cost shall be based on
plans approved by the Building Department for construction
of said retaining walls in accordance with City Building
Codes and requirements.
8. Prior to release by the City of the final plat, Developer agrees to
submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's
approval of a planting plan for the location of 921 caliper inches
of trees to which are planned to be removed by construction on the
property.
City will hold the security discussed in item V. A. above until
r said improvements are satisfactorily completed and accepted by the
Director of Planning. Developer agrees that the trees shall be
relocated on each individual lot of the property as the construction
§ takes place on each individual lot. Trees shall be installed on the
individual lots prior to issuance by the City of any occupancy
Permit any of the individual lots.
9. Prior to release by the City of the final plat, Developer agrees to
submit to the Building Department, and to obtain the approval of the
Building Department of detailed plans for the retaining walls
indicated on the grading plan in Exhibit 8, attached hereto. Said
plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of
materials, and method of construction to be used for said retaining
walls.
Upon approval by the Building Department, Developer agrees to
construct those improvements listed in the plans as stated above, as
approved by the Building Department, concurrent with grading and
street construction on the property and in accordance with the terms
and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
City will hold the security discussed in item V. B. above until
said improvements are satisfactorily completed and accepted by the
Director of Planning.
1D. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours
prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property.
11. 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 25 ft. outside of the
construction area, which are not planned to be removed by
construction on the property as approved by City, 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.
A. 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. Developer agrees that said
protective measures shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
I
1) Grading shall be confined to that area of the 1
property within the construction limits. f
2) Snow fencing shall be placed at the construction
limits within the wooded areas of the property prior
to any grading upon the property. The snow fencing
shall be installed prior to grading on the property
and shall remain on the property in the City-
approved locations. Said snowfencing shall remain
on the property, including on each of the individual
lots, until such time as City authorizes removal of
the snowfencing on a lot by lot basis.
i
3) City shall perform an on-site inspection of said
t protective measures on the property by the City.
Developer shall contact City for said inspection.
Developer agrees that defects in materials and
workmanship in the implementation of said measures
shall then be determined by the City.
4) Defects in materials or workmanship, if any, shall
be corrected by Developer. Developer agrees to call
City for reinspection of the implementation
measures, and to receive approval by the City prior
to issuance of the grading permit by the City. PP
Approval of materials and workmanship may be subject s
to such conditions as the City may impose at the
time of acceptance. ttt
B. 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:
C. 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. Said plan shall indicate that the trees shall be
replaced by similar tree species and that the trees used for
reforestation shall be no less than three 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. M
w
D. Prepare and submit to the Director of Planning, and receive
the Director's approval of a written estimate of the costs 3
of the reforestation work to be completed.
1.
E. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
implement those improvements listed above in said plans, as i
approved by the Director of Planning. While the base
security amount discussed in item V. above does not include
the potential cost of reforestation work on the property,
Developer and City agree that said security shall also
guarantee the completion of said reforestation work and that
the City will hold the security discussed in item V. above
until said improvements are satisfactorily completed and t
accepted by the Director of Planning, if said improvements
become necessary as determined by the Director of Planning. )
I2. Developer agrees that, concurrent with street construction,
Developer shall construct an eight-foot wide bituminous trail, in
accordance with City standards and requirements, on Outlot B of the
property, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Wyndham Crest
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA j
RESOLUTION NO. 87-248
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 37-87 AND ORDERING THE f
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 37-87 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 1st day of September,
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. 3747, 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. 37-87 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on September 1, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
I
John D. Frane, City Clerk__
i
Wyndham Crest ;
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
I
ORDINANCE NO. 37-87
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:
Sum arY This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located west of
Purgatory Creek, east of Tristram Way from the Rural District to the R1-13.5
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:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson
CityClerk'— 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.)
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION A87-249
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT Of ROGER'S BODY SHOP, INC.
BY ROGER L. LINDEMAN
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Roger's Body Shop, Inc., by Roger L. Lindeman dated
August 19, 1987, consisting of 1.91 acres into one lot and road right-a-way for
construction of an auto body shop and a copy of which is on file at the City Hall,
is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie toning and
Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 1st day of September, 19B7.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
C
`►` 0T9 Minnesota
Department of Transportation
District 5
2055 No. Lilac Drive
OFT Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
(612)1t4nmai
April 7, 1987 593-8403
Chris Enger, Planning Director
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: S.P. 2744 (T.H. 169) - Plat Review of Lindeman
Addition located in the NE Quadrant of Rogers
Road and T.H. 169 in part of Section 23,
Twp. 116, Range 22 in City of Eden Prairie,
Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Enger:
We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. As you know, Mn/DOT is
planning to upgrade T.H. 169 through this area. As a part of this upgrading, it
is our plan to minimize direct access to T.H. 169 as much as possible by encour-
aging shared driveways, frontage roads and local streets wherever possible. In
this case, the proposed plat indicates access which serves only one lot. The
existing entrance provides access not only to this lot but also to two other
adjacent lots at an existing signalized intersection. The entrance as proposed
would create a situation with two entrances within the area of the signalized
intersection - this is unacceptable. There should only be one access point for
all properties and it should be properly aligned with the inplace signalized
intersection.
We recommend that the developer of this property work in coordination with the
other adjacent property owners and the City of Eden Prairie to agree on an access
plan which serves the future needs of all properties. With all the proposed
development activity in this area and our proposed widening project, it is extremely
important that small one-lot developments are coordinated so they fit into an
overall access plan. This coordination should be carried on with Mr. Rick Dalton,
our project manager for the T.N. 169 project.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sinc �Iy";
W. M. Crawford, P.E.
District Engineer
cc: Steve Keefe - Metropolitan Council
Kenneth Felger - Henn. Co. Surveyor's Office
tyy
4
An Equal Opportunity Etnployu
�d)
aar' Minnesota
'F Department of Transportation
< District 5
(. pi
2055 No. Lilac Drive
y'of To Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
(612)593. 8403
August 11, 1987
i
Don Uram, Asst. City Planner
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: S.P. 2744 (T.H. 169) - Plat Review of Rogers Body Shop
located east of T.H. 169 near Henn. Co. Vo-Tech Entrance
in part of the SW Quarter of Sect. 23, Twp. 116, Range
22, in City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Uram:
i
We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find the plat accept-
able for further development with consideration of the following comments:
- As you know, Mn/DOT is currently planning to reconstruct T.H. 169 in this
area. As a part of those plans, every effort is being made to improve
the operation and safety of the existing highway. An important part of
this improvement is to combine and limit direct access to controlled
intersections such as the signalized Vo-Tech intersection. Therefore,
we recommend that the "future road" shown on the plat be included with
the proposed development and the existing driveways be tied into the
"future road" so that there is one single approach to T.H. 169.
- Coordination of this proposed development as it relates to the recon-
struction of T.H. 169 should be continued with Mr. James E. Nelson, our
project design engineer. His number is 593-8508.
If you have any questions in regard to this review, please contact Evan Green at
593-8537. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincer
1
•(P4�
Crawford;
District Engineer
v'
cc: Steve Keefe - Metropolitan Council
Kenneth Felger - Henn. Co. Surveyor's Office
j
{
An Equal Opportunity Employer
.�+ssst
C C
CITY OFFICES/8950 EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD/EDEN PRAIRIE.MN 55344.2499/TELEPHONE 16121937-2262
February 18, 1987
Mr. Roger L. Lindeman
6934 Edgebrook Place f
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Lindeman:
This letter is to inform you of the items which were discussed regarding your recent
Project submittal. This meeting was attended by Brian Olsen and Randy Stearn from
Ron Krueger &Associates.
At this meeting, we went over specific Staff concerns regarding the Roger's Body
Shoo, Inc., proposed along U.S. Highway #169. These items included, but not limited
to:
1. The need for intersection details and how the proposed road aligns with the
Vo-Tech road.
2• The requirement for front yard setbacks equalling 50 feet on U.S. Highway
#169 and 25 feet on the future road.
3. The proposed screening of any overhead doors may mean greater setback off
the future road.
4• A need for an overall drainage plan and how it works with the mini-storage.
5• The City requirement for a 70-foot right-of-way street.
6• The proposed extension of water and sewer lines to this area to service this
property and the adjacent properties.
7• The screening of all parking and loading areas.
Because of these concerns, it has been determined that this project is not ready to
be scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting at this time. If you have any
questions regarding any of Staff's concerns, please feel' free to call us at any
time. Thank you.
aere�ly,,
Donald R. Uram
Assistant Planner
DRU/mh
Y
E
C
- MEMORANDUM -
TO: Don Uram
FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, P.E.
Director of Public Works
DATE: June 22, 1987
RE: ROGERS BODY SHOP
An important issue in the Rogers Body Shop proposal is the access to the
site and the proposed future roadway east of TH 169. The need for a roadway
extension to the east opposite of the Vo-Tech entrance should be considered
a "given". Additionally, the MnDot requires that the access for the site
be consolidated in one location so as to utilize the detector loops that
exists at the intersection and provide safe ingress/egress. There appears
to be only two alternatives towards meeting these goals and are as follows:
A. The proponent may wish to work privately with the two adjacent
property owners to provide a short extension of the proposed
roadway into the site. In this case, I would suggest that the
appropriate right-of-way be dedicated by the proponent and that
the permanent road section be constructed far enough east of TH
169 to provide adequate turn lanes and storage. Thereafter, the
proponent could bring the driveway into the building in a more
temporary location. The final element of this situation is that a
special assessment agreement would be necessary to provide for a
financial obligation for future construction.
B. The City Council could receive a petition for a special assessment
project for the construction of the roadway at this time. In this
instance, the permanent roadway could be constructed to the
proponents east property line and the appropriate benefit assessed
against the adjacent property owners.
I very much prefer alternate A. The problem with the second alternative is
that it will involve specialty assessing private property owners who may or
may not recognize the ultimate benefit from having a street in this location.
Additionally, the cost incurred to the individauls through the special
assessment process may cause financial difficulities. Because of the poten-
tial difficulites with special assessment process, the proponent should not
assume that the City Council would order such an improvement.
EAD:ss
`i
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
HROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 7, 1987
PROJECT: Rogers Body Shop
LOCATION: West of U.S. 169, South of Al Williams Mini-Storage
APPLICANT:
FEE OWNER: Roger Lindeman
REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on approximately
1.62 acres.
2. Preliminary Plat of approximately 1.93 acres into one lot and
road right-of-way.
I V
Background ,
This site is currently designated on '
the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide
Plan for development as an In-
dustrial land use. Adjacent prop-
erties are guided for Industrial to
the north, Low Density Residential
to the east and south, and cc
Vocational School to the west. M" �' _
Specific land uses in this area
include vacant property and large
lot single family residential to the
west and south, U.S. 169 and the "
Hennepin County Vocational/Technical 1'2 ouu.
School to the west, and Williams
Mini-Storage, zoned I-2 Park to the 2 `
north. 1-2 4
t :
The owner is currently requesting a
Zoning District Change and Pre- PROPOSED SITE
liminary Platting of approximately
1.93 acres into one lot and road
right-of-way to allow for the _ R1-1 .5
development of a 23,911 square foot
autobody repair shop. 9a
� k
AREA LOCATION MAP
c �
Rogers Body Shop 2 August 7, 1987
Site Plan/Preliminary Plat
This 1.9-acre site is currently zoned Rural and is located directly opposite the
Hennepin County Vocational/Technical School on U.S. 169. The proponent is
requesting an I-2 Park zoning classification which requires a 2-acre minimum lot
size, width of 200 feet, depth of 300 feet, front yard setback of 50 feet, a side
yard setback of 20 feet, and a rear yard setback of 25 feet. The proposal includes a
lot size of 1.68 acres, a lot width of 173 feet, a lot depth of 468 feet, front yard
setback on U.S. 169 of 50 feet, and a 20-foot side yard setback. The proponent will
be required to submit an application to the Board of Appeals for a variance from the
minimum lot size of 2 acres and a lot width of 200 feet. According to the site
survey, the lot as it currently exists would not meet the lot size requirement.
The proponet is proposing a 23,911 square foot building on this site. Based upon a
building footprint of 13,464 square feet, an 18.4% Base Area Ratio (BAR) and 32.7%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) has been calculated. With the extension of the future road,
this lot would be classified as a corner lot and would require a 50-foot front yard
setback from U.S. 169 and a 25-foot setback to parking along the future road
extension. The proposed plans meet the minimum setback requirements.
Based upon a building square footage of 23,911 square feet, the proponent has
calculated a usage breakdown of 1,131 square feet for office; 20,083 square feet for
manufacturing; and 2,697 square feet for warehouse. Using current parking
requirements, a total of 67 parking spaces is required. The plans depict a total of
67 surface parking stalls, with additional space for 12 cars parked within the body
repair area on the upper floor.
Access
Access to this site will be provided by the extension of a road in alignment with
the signalized intersection on U.S. 169 to the east. Per Engineering requirements,
the road has been designed with a 70-foot right-of-way centered on the property
line. In response to a letter from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and
from conversations with the Engineering Department the proponent has stated that he
will petition the City for a feasibility report and construction of the proposed
roadway and any utilities to the eastern-most property line (see Attachments A and
B).
The result of the road extension to the east would require the acquisition of 35
feet of the adjacent property owner's lot. Based upon a street right-of-way of 70
feet and street width of 38 feet, the owner's garage would be approximately five
feet from the right-of-way line and 16 feet from the curb line. A reduction in lot
size of approximately 10,000 square feet would also be realized. In addition,
because of the unusual shape of the parcel to the east, a remnant tract measuring
approximately 78 feet by 183 feet from the center line of the roadway to the north
would be created and would be virtually useless to the current property owner.
After the dedication for the future road, a parcel measuring approximately 43 feet
by 183 feet or 7,869 square feet will remain. Concern has been raised regarding the
actual outcome of this piece of property. It would appear that the most reasonable
use for the property would be to include it as part of the current development
proposal, however, this is not possible due to ownership constraints.
If the City were to approve the feasibility study and order the road and utility
improvements, it may be necessary to condemn the property to the south and the
C �
Rogers Body Shop 3 August 7, 1987
created remnant parcel in order to accomplish the road and utility extensions to
this development.
Grading
High points on this site range from a maximum of the 876 contour elevation adjacent
U.S. 169, to a low point along the most easterly property line at the 848 contour
elevation. As the plans indicate, this site slopes in an easterly direction.
Because no real significant site characteristics exist on this site, grading
involves primarily site preparation including building pad and parking lot
construction. The proposed building on this site is designed as a two-story
building with one-story underground which takes the slope into consideration. The
majority of the earth work occuring is required to provide access to the lower level
through a series of retaining walls and approximately 8 feet of fill. The proponent
shall submit detailed retaining wall plans for review by the Building Department.
In order to screen the overhead garage doors and parking areas, a series of berms
are being proposed along the west and southern property lines. The berm along U.S.
169 is approximately 3 feet above U.S. 169 and approximately 13 feet above the {
finished floor elevation. As site lines indicate, the berm should be high enough to
screen the views of the parking in this area and of the single overhead door. The
berm along the southern property line ranges from 0 to approximately 4 feet. Along
the south elevation, there would be 3 garage doors and a total of 18 parking stalls
which would not be screened. In order to screen the parking area's and overhead
doors, alternatives such as relocating the doors to the western elevation and/or
provide a decorative fence have been suggested. The proponent shall provide details
regarding the screening of these areas prior to Council review.
Utilities
As part of the approval of the Williams Mini-Storage development, the proponent is
required to extend an B-inch water line to the southern property line. With the
development of this parcel, the 8-inch water line shall be extended from the
terminous point to the southern property line. At this time, there is no sanitary
sewer service available to this site. Because of the industrial-type use of the
building, the proponent is required to submit a detailed sanitary sewer system
analysis prior to City Council review. It is the developer's intention to connect
to the sanitary sewer system once it is available. To ensure this, the proponent
shall sign a special assesment agreement for future sanitary sewer construction. As
discussed in the grading section, a storm
The proposed grading plan depicts a swale along the northern property line designed
surfaceto system designed nfor eas10-yearp storm tshall y. cber included ding to tas part he neof�the ng rdevelopmentwof
this proposal. The proponent shall contact the Engineering Department to obtain
drainage specifications.
Architecture i
This building has been designed as a two-story building in order to take advantage
of the slope on the site. The building is rectangular in shape based upon the
shape of the lot. Primary building materials include triple-scored concrete block
and glazed block. The proponent will be required to submit building material
samples in colors prior to City Council review. The building elevations also
indicate that all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened by metal which
{f Rogers Body Shop 4 August 1, 1987
shall compliment the proposed color of the buildings.
Because of the intended use of the building, there are a total of 5 overhead garage
doors to allow access to the building. There will be one overhead garage door
located along the west elevation, three along the southern elevation, and one on the
eastern elevation which would provide access to the underground floor area. A City
Code requirement is the screening of garage doors and parking stalls from adjacent
roadways. The proponent will provide detailing screening plans prior to Council
review. The proponent will also be required to paint the overhead garage doors to
match the brick color in order to down-play the doors.
i
Concern has also been raised regarding the outdoor storage of any vehicles. If
outdoor storage is proposed, the proponent shall be required to maintain all storage
along the eastern-most portions of the property while also providing a screening
wall to prevent any views into this area. Plans shall be provided for review prior
to City Council.
Landscaping
Based on a total square footage of 24,846 square feet, a total of 18 caliper inches
would be required. The proposed landscape plan depicts a minimum of 81 caliper
inches plus a number of shrubs designed to supplement the plantings. In order to
provide additional screening of the overhead doors, the evergreens designated on the
plan should be revised to include an equal split between 6, 8, and 10-foot
evergreens. The proponent shall also provide additional shrubs planted along the
retaining wall to help soften the effect of these retaining walls.
Signage and Lighting 1
No signage or lighting details have been submitted at this time. Prior to Building
permit issuance, the proponent is required to provide signage and lighting details.
Requirements would include that all signage meet City Code and that all lighting
have no off-site glare.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
There are several remaining outstanding issues to be dealt with on this project. }
These include:
A. Resolution of the future roadway construction and any required
utilities.
B. Revision of the grading plan to reflect maximum berm heights along
the southern property line.
C. Revision of the landscaping plan to reflect additional shrubbery
adjacent the retaining walls.
D. Provision of details regarding the building materials and colors to
be used.
E. Revision of the utility plan to reflect the extension of the 8-inch
water main from the northern property line.
C C
Rogers Body Shop 5 August 7, 1987
F. Provision of details regarding sanitary sewer disposal.
G. Provision a screening plan for any outside storage area in which
vehicles shall be parked.
H. Provision of a screening plan for the overhead doors and parking
areas along the south property line.
Some of these issues are major, such as the road access and provision of utilities
to the property. Because these issues remain unresolved at this time, Staff would
recomend that there be continuance of this project until these matters are resolved.
r '
/ A
BLOCK"
SITE
• ee 1 r` f a 3 �•
Y- - -4
LAND
f, ATTACHMENT A
Possible Road Extension
. \tVi`-SOTS
bo / s, i\tlllnes(a
Dchnrtm0nt of Transportation
¢ Ditilrict 5
F; 72055 2055 No. Lilac Drive
ylOF TFk Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
l61_ XXXXXX1 }
593-8403 l
April 7, 1987
j.
Chris Enger, Planning Director
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
I
Re: S.P. 2744 (T.H. 169) - Plat Review of Lindeman
Addition located in the NE Quadrant of Rogers
Road and T.H. 169 in part of Section 23,
Twp. 116, Range 22 in City of Eden Prairie,
Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Enger:
We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. As you know, Mn/DOT is
planning to upgrade T.H. 169 through this area. As a part of this upgrading, it
is our plan to minimize direct access to T.H. 169 as much as possible by encour-
aging shared driveways, frontage roads and local streets wherever possible. In
this case, the proposed plat indicates access which serves only one lot. The
existing entrance provides access not only to this lot but also to two other
adjacent lots at an existing signalized intersection. The entrance as proposed
would create a situation with two entrances within the area of the signalized
intersection - this is unacceptable. There should only be one access point for
all properties and it should be properly aligned with the inplace signalized
intersection.
We recommend that the developer of this property work in coordination with the
other adjacent property owners and the City of Eden Prairie to agree on an access
plan which serves the future needs of all properties. With all the proposed
development activity in this area and our proposed widening project, it is extremely
important that small one-lot developments are coordinated so they fit into an
overall access plan. This coordination should be carried on with Mr. Rick Dalton,
our project manager for the T.H. 169 project.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
W. M. Crawford. P.E.
District Engineer
cc: Steve Keefe - Metropolitan Council
Kenneth Felger - Henn. Co. Surveyor's Office
An EqualOppnrruairy Employer
ATTACHMENT B
i
s
4
i
D. ROGER s BODY SHOP INC. by Roger L. Lindeman. Request for
n strict nye Rural to I-2 on 1.68 acres with
variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, and
Preliminary Plat of 1.91 acres into one lot and road E
right-of-way for construction of an auto body shop. Location:
Telchnicalfl69 across from School. A public the County Vocational
Planner Uram explained the project to the Planning Commission and
told of the numerous meats the Staff has had with the proponent
and his engineer during the past seven months to work out some of
the major issues. These issues included the road extension to the
east, the screening of overhead doors and
sanitarysewer issue. enth� areas, and the
Brian Olson, representing the developer,
presented the revised plans in response to those concerns presented
by Staff. There will be 67 parking stalls located on the lot. The
berming will range from approximately 14 feet along U.S. 169 and to
approximately 4-1/2 feet high along the south property line. Olson
showed the Commission the proposed planting material that will be
used. He stated that the overhead doors and the parking lot will be
completely hidden from U.S. 169 but would be partially visible from
the proposed road extension. The only alternative for complete
screening would be a 6 foot high fence. .
Uram asked if Olson could address the sanitary sewer issue for the
Planning Commission. Olson told of plans for the septic system and
the drain field which would be located within the front yard
setbacks along U.S. 169 and the proposed road extension to put it
along the south property line. Because of this, bermung along the
south property line may not be possible. The body shop can then be
brought into the sewer system once it is available. If an adequate
system can not be design, developer will have to look at a holding
tank. Paul Struthers, architect, showed Commission revised plans
for the building and office.
j
i
i
!h
y.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 10, 1987
;r
1 Uram stated that based on the revised plans shown here tonight,
Staff recommendations B, C, D & E listed in the Staff Report have
been resolved. The issues that remain before the Commission are:
A. Resolution of the future roadway construction and any required
utilities. !
F. Provision of details regarding sanitary sewer disposal.
G. Provision of a screening plan for any outside storage area in
which vehicles shall be parked.
J
H. Provision of a screening plan for the overhead doors and
parking areas along the south property line. }
The proponent has said that he will petition for the City to extend
the roadway to the east. Uram stated he had a discussion with
NX. Hines, property owner, regarding the extension of the roadway.
Mr. Hines has not been receptive to the extension at this point.
The road design requires a 35-foot right-of-way acquisition from on
Nn-. Siimchuck's property. This would put his garage six feet from
the right-of-way line.
Regarding the sanitary sewer disposal, the last idea developer has }
presented to Staff doesn't appear acceptable. Staff has been in
touch with the Engineering Department on this issue, however,
details would have to be presented so a proper review could be
conducted.
The screening plan for the outside storage area can be worked out
with Roger Lindeman. This would require planting material that
would effectively block the overhead doors and the parking lot.
Uram concluded by asking the Planning Commission to review the
roadway extension and sanitary serer issues and make some
recommendation as to whether or not a project like this would be
feasible at this time and location.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments.
Hallett stated it has been four months since anyone has talked to
Mr. Hines. Can the city condemn the remnant tract? Uram answered,
Mr. Hines has said he hasn't seen anything happen in 20 years and he
doesn't think anything is going to happen.
Bye stated if the road is built, it is going to be a problem turning
left off of Highway #169.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 10, 1987
Uram replied that Gene Dietz, Director of Public Works, stated he
would like to see a petition from Roger Lindeman to make sure the
road will be built with this project.
Anderson remarked, once the road is approved it will help Mr. Hines
understand that this is going to happen. It sakes sense to get the
road petition moving.
Roger Lindeman addressed the Commission. Stated he has lived in
Eden Prairie all of his life. He would like to put the road in. He
is willing to pay Mr. Hines a decent price for his property. He is
willing to work with.the City on this project and is willing to pay
the price. He asked the Planning Commission for some help on this
project.
Fell asked about long term ownership. Lindeman answered, the body
shop business is clanging. People are driving high tech cars and
want to go to a shop where their cars will be repaired properly.
Lindeman stated he definitely plans on long term ownership.
Fell asked about the sanitary sewer situation. Uram said holding
tanks are used when there is no other alternative. Fell asked what
the cost was. Uram didn't know the details. Fell stated the
Commission should talk about all three issues - road extension,
sanitary sewer and screening - before any decision is made.
Anderson asked if they could get a road extension before they get
the approval of the rest of the project with the Planning Commission
prior to the City Council meeting.
Uram said they have to approve the whole project, or continue the
whole project. Franzen suggested the developers look at ways to
work out this project without acquiring the property.
Schuck asked the developers what they could do as it stands right
now. The architect showed another way they could take care of the
screening by moving the office from the corner of the building,
moving the two overhead garage doors around so that they would be
screened by Highway #169. Olson commented on the septic system.
Schuck asked the developers to work on this and present it again at
the next meeting.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell, to continue the public
hearing to the August 24, 1987 meeting of the Planning Commission
pending resolution by proponent of the issues raised in the Staff
[report of August 7, 1987 and additional issues raised at this
meeting - screening of the autos, sanitary sewer, screening of the
overhead doors.
i
4
Planning Commission Minutes -8_
August 10, 1987
Hallett asked if they were recommeending the road extension without
actually saying that.
Addendum to the motion - Bye said the Planning Commission enc, ages
the petition of the road.
Hallett asked if Staff plans to talk to Mr. Hines before the next
meeting. Uram stated that Staff would contact Mr. Hines.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
6`_
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE {
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
i� RESOLUTION #87-250 �
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF BLUESTEM HILLS 4TH ADDITION
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 City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the
Bluestem Hills 4th Addition PUD Development by Brown Land Company and considered
their request for approval for development (and variances) and recommended approval
of the requests to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on September 1, 1987.
NOW, THEREFORE, BY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
as follows:
1. The 8luestem Hills 4th Addition by Brown Land Company, being in
Hennepin County, Minnesota, is legally described as outlined in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Development approval as
outlined in the plans, as revised, dated August 19, 1987.
3. That the PUD Development meet the recommendations of the planning
Commission dated August 24, 1987.
September 1987. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 1st daffy of
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jon D. Frane, City Clerk
t
I
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #85-251
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUESTEM HILLS 47H ADDITION
BY BROWN LAND COMPANY
B
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Bluestem Hills 4th Addition by Brown Land Company,
dated August 19, 1987, consisting of 15.94 acres into 27 single family lots, 3
outlots, 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 1st day of September, 1987.
Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor
{
ATTEST:
n D. Frane, Tffy Clerk
C �
LAIR 0 ASSOCIATES
Division of Kidde Consultants,Inc.
Site Design and Planning Consultants
May 28, 1987
Mr. Robert A. Lambert
Director of Community Services
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Twiss Property
Development Proposal
Dear Mr. Lambert:
During our meeting in your offices on May 26, 1987, involving Brown-Land Company,
Mr. & Mrs. Twiss, Krueger & Associates and myself we discussed an approach to the
possible furture development of the referrenced 1D.5 acre parcel. Additionally
we agreed to present this proposal to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource
Commission on June 1, 1987, at suggested in you May 21, 1987, letter and as
discussed during our meeting.
The parcel of land is owned by Mr. & Mrs. Twiss and they currently reside on the
site and as you know Brown-Land Company is pursuing rezoning and plating actions
for the site.
Current zoning is rural with the request to rezone to R1-13.5 similar to that of
the Bluestem First Addition located inmediatly to the east.
Current land use guiding (1982) contemplates approximately 80 percent of the
total site as low density residential with the remaining 20 percent shown as
"public open space, floodplain, park". The southeast 2± acres (20%) includes
Purgatory Creek bed, floodplain, and contour elevations of approximately 750 feet
at the creek and rises to elevations 760-800 foot.
The remaining area of the site, designated low density residential on the
comprehensive plan (approx. 8 112 acres) includes land with elevations of 760
feet in the extreme southwestern corner with higher elvations of 853.3 feet in
the vacinity on existing Twiss home.
The proposal is to plat the low density residential portions of the site with
single family home sites. A roadway is proposed to be extended from existing
Bennett Place westerly through 8luestem 1st Addition (area platted formely as
Outlot A) to the northwest Twiss property corner. The east west roadway would
ultimately continue northerly through Eden Prairie acres and connect ajith
existing Purgatory Road located approximately 500 feet north of the north Twiss
boundary line. The lotting arrangement has been designed to accommodate 14
single family home sites as shown on drawings prepared by Ron Krueger &
Associates. Grading plans and engineering studys have been conducted to
establish a feasiblity for the proposed plat.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue a Suite 250 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413
6121331-8668 TWX:910-576-3111
• C C
Page Two
May 28, 1987
The parcel is encumbered by the conservancy zone as delineated in the Purgatory
Creek Study, this area is equal to 50 percent or 5.2 acres of the original 10.5
acre site. The alignment of the conservancy line, as shown in the Purgatory
Creek study includes contour elevations of 830 and 820 feet on west and central
areas of the site and elevations of 800 to 810 feet on the eastern edge (further
east of the Twiss property the conservancy coincides with the 800 foot contour
line). The result of this conservancy line reaching gound elevation heights of
810 to 830 feet is that 50 percent of the Twiss property is affected. It would
appear that properties within this immediate area include 46 percent more land
area in the conservancy zone then do other similiar properties located up and
down stream from the Twiss site.
The depth of the conservancy line measured from the center line of the creek also
increases by about 45 percent in this particular length on the creek corridor as
well.
We have had the opportunity to review the Purgatory Creek Study, its
introduction, intent, purpose approach, concepts and guidelines and would agree
with the body of the report. However, in the instance of the Twiss Property a
large percentage of the site is affected by the conservancy zone and it is the
purpose and intent of the owners/developer to purpose a solution in concert with
the desires of the staff which will accommodate both the objectives o the owners
and the objectives of the Purgatory Creek Study.
The proposal is to plat 14 residential single family lots as shown on the
proposed plat and to request adjustments to the conservancy line by including .65
areas of the 5.22 acres currently designated conservancy zone in the plat area.
This consideration would facilitate the location of three home site and the
roadway continuity which is important to this site and to property under the
control of Mr. Hustad located west and north.
To off set this .85 acre penetration into the conservancy zone the proposal as
you have suggested and as agreed to by the owner/developers, would be to provide
3.39 acres (32.3 percent) of the site as a gift to the city and also .98
acres (9.3 percent) designated as a scenic easement. The results of this are
that of the 10.5 acres site 4.37 acres will be committed for inpurpituity as
scenic easement and/or public open space. This would constitute 41.6 percent of
the 10.5 acre Twiss parcel.
Based on proposed grading plans for the site approximately 2.1 acres of existing
woodland will be removed of the 6.4 acres woodland area; 67 percent would remain
however. Tree replacement will be provided pursuant to city ordinance following
the accomplishment of a complete tree inventory.
We have walked the site and observed the proposed and existing conservancy lines
and believe it is fair to conclude that the intent, purpose, concepts and
guideline embodied in the Purgatory Creek plan will not be diminished by the this
proposal but rather will be enhanced. This proposal will facilitate the cities
goals and we are confident that upon review of this request and personally
touring the property that this request will be seen as reasonable and fair.
Page Three
May 28, 1987
We respectfully request you thoughtful consideration to this matter and thank you
for you input and ideas to date.
Kindest regards,
GAIR & ASSOCIATES
Michael J. air
MJG:aI r
cc: Mr. &Mrs. Twiss
David Brown
Peter Knaeble
i
c �
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
(
TRHU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: May 27, 1987 /
SUBJECT: Twiss Property Development Proposal
LOCATION: West of Bluestem Hills, north and east of Purgatory Creek
APPLICANT: Brown - Land Company
FEE OWNERS: Robert D. and Dorothy Twiss
REQUEST: I. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-13.5
2. Preliminary Plat of 10.5 Acres into 14 Lots.
This site is currently designated on the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan as
development for low density residential land use. Adjacent properties are guided for
low density residential to the north and east. The property located to the south and
west is guided as public open space defined by the Purgatory Creek valley.
PARKS, RECREATIDN AND NATURAL RESOURCES ISSUES
The parks, recreation and natural resource issues relating to this proposal include:
1. Proposal to fill approximately 20' in a ravine on the west end of the parcel to
allow for extension of the road through the site and development of two lots.
2. The majority of the site is heavily wooded and, therefore, development of this
parcel will require a significant amount of tree loss. The upper one-third of
this site will be completely graded.
3. The proposed alignment of the road (Bluestem Lane) to the property north of this
development will dictate the impact on that property, which is also heavily wooded
and contains some steep wooded slopes.
4. The developer is proposing to realign the conservancy line as designated in the
Purgatory Creek Study.
GRADING
The Director of Community Services and two representatives from the planning staff met
with the developers on the site to review the proposed grading plan and revised scenic
easement line. Due to the grades of this site, it would not be Possible to develop
this site as 13,500 sq. ft. lots and preserve much of the northern third to one-half
of this parcel. The proposed grading plan depicts cutting 20+' along much of the
north side of the proposed through street and filling, and using retaining walls, on
several of the lots along the south side of the street. The majority of the grading
f:
C (.
occurs up over the edge of the creek valley wall and will have minimal impact on the
experience of an individaul usig a trail along the creek valley floor adjacent to the
creek.
TREE REMOVAL
The developer is in the process of completing a tree inventory that will be used to
determine tree replacement as per the City ordinance. Staff has requested graphics
depicting a map showing existing trees in areas where the trees are certain to be lost
through this proposal.
The developer is agreeing to replace the tree loss as per the tree replacement
ordinance.
IMPACT ON ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT
The developer has met with the owner of the property to the north and west to
determine how their proposed road alignment would impact that property. The developer
will review the proposed alignment of the extension of Bluestem Lane in relation to a
contour map to provide the Commission members with an idea of the impact this
development has on the adjacent property.
CONSERVANCY ZDNE
The conservancy zone was established as a guide for Commission and Council members to
review the development along the Purgatory Creek valley. The conservancy line
depicted a proposed line beyond which no development should occur, if at all possible,
and then only with extremely careful review to insure preservation of the valley
character. The conservancy line was drawn at a large scale and generally followed the
top of the creek valley, tree lines, and contour line;. The purpose of the
conservancy line was to describe a tentative boundary of natural area that would be
preseved along the Purgatory Creek valley. Generally, the Council has required a
scenic easement be placed on all of the land between the conservancy line and
Purgatory Creek; however, City staff has on occasion recommended moving the
conservancy line after field inspection of a proposed revision to determine what
impact the revision might have on the character of the creek valley. Attached is an
exhibit that depicts a City staff proposal for an acceptable change to the conservancy
line. The dark area in lots 11, 12, & 13 depict the area that is presently within the
conservancy area and which staff is recommending could be removed from the conservancy
area with minimal impact to the creek valley. The hash mark area is recommended as
outlot areas that should be considered for dedication or donation to the City, and the
area between the outlots and the conservancy line should be required to have a scenic
easement placed over that portion of the site to insure preservation of the creek
valley wall.
The Community Services Staff would recommend that as a mitigating factor for
consideration of moving of the scenic easement line the developer consider transfer of
ownership of the outlots to the City to insure protection and preservation of that
property, and to accommodate a future creek valley trail corridor.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the request for the zoning district change from
Rural to RI-13.5 on 10.5 acres and preliminary plat of 10.5 acres into 14 single
family lots and two outlots.
BL:md
i
t C .c0
co
UNION 41011
co f
�\ Ln
\ It
Lh N ••
i� N I y ' ■
H
Ln
214122141
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 2.1, 19B7
PROJECT: Bluestem Hills 4th Addition
APPLICANT: Brown Land Company
FEE OWNER: Brown Land Company and Robert D. and Dorothy Twiss
LOCATION: West of Bennett Place, north of Purgatory Creek
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 15.94 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review with variances for
front yard setback and street frontage on 15.94 acres.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.57 acres.
4. Zoning District Amendment on 5.36 acres within an existing
R1-13.5 zoning district.
5. Preliminary Plat of 15.94 acres for 27 single family lots, 3
outlots, and road right-of-way.
`Background 5 \
This is a continued item from the C .o
August 1, 1987, Planning Commission
meeting. At that meeting, the
Planning Commission directed Staff y
to look at alternative ways of i y r_ �« R 22
developing the site to minimize the
impacts of the development on steep ' �y
slopes including plans with fewer or
no retaining walls, or less lots.
i
Revised Site Plan
The Staff met with the proponent on
Monday afternoon, August 17, 19B1, PROPOSED SITE
to discuss revisions to the plan
which are as follows: �=
1. The roadway has been shifted R1-13.5
(` in the northwest portion of {
the site approximately 25
feet to the north.
AREA LOCATION MAP
Bluestem Hills 4th Addition 2 August 21, 1987
2. The retaining walls have been moved from behind the homes and incorporated
into the basement wall, but this requires future homeowners to construct
their homes with 4-8 feet of exposed foundation on lots adjacent to
Purgatory Creek.
3. Building pads for hypothetical buildings have been increased from 50 to 55
feet of depth for lots south of Bluestem Road.
4. On the north side of Bluestem Road, pads for hypothetical buildings have
been reduced from 50 to 40 feet to eliminate the retaining walls.
Recently adopted Building Code requirements (see attached) were also discussed at
the meeting which dictate that all development on slopes greater than 2/1 must meet
these requirements. As it affects this project, each of the lots must have
structural support to keep the homes from sliding down the slopes. This would
either be a requirement for 40 feet of level area behind each house before the slope
to the creek would begin, or would require the use of increased footing depths and
structural supports to allow less than 40 feet of level area behind the house.
Since future homeowners are not involved in the current review, the developer is
proposing now that subsequent owners would build with increased depths of footing
and structural supports. The plan, as proposed, without deep footings, and the 40-
foot level area Code requirement behind the house, would increase grading
approximately half-way down the steep slopes to Purgatory Creek.
At some point, the cost of increased structural suppor t could cause individual
builders/homeowners to request grading farther down the slopes than shown on the
approved plan to meet building Code requirements. Agreeing by restrictive covenant
to limit grading to the proposed plan has not been effective due to the following
reasons:
1. The developers primary concern is approval and development of the
subdivision for sale of lots. Once the project is approved, experience has
shown that there is little to keep the covenants in force. The reverse
usually occurs as potential buyers pressure for change or release from the
covenants. We have recently observed developers, releasing upon request by
owners, the restrictive covenants in order to accommodate pools, decks, and
3-season porches and patios.
2. The last few projects approved with restrictive covenants, have house pads
proposed of a size which makes the development "work" on paper, but actual
homes built, many times are larger, requiring more grading, steeper slopes,
more retaining walls, and more tree loss than originally anticipated.
Eleven homes have been built in subdivisions with restrictive covenants.
The hypothetical building pads proposed were 60 feet by 40 feet. The actual
homes built averaged 79 feet by 63 feet.
It would seem to be much simpler, as an alternate, to look at a plan which did not
have to rely on special restrictions placed upon parties not involved in the
subdivision review process in order for the homes to be built.
The developer has increased the pad depths from 50 to 55 feet for lots south of the
roadway, realizing that the market is demanding larger homes on these types of lots,
while at the same time, requesting a front yard setback variance. It makes no sense
to grant front yard setback variances from 30 to 25 feet just to accommodate larger
:9
Bluestem Hills 4th Addition 3 August 21, 1987
houses. Meeting the required setback of 30 feet would not create significant
grading impacts and no additional large trees of 12 inches in diameter, or greater,
would be lost in this plan. With a market demanding larger houses, having to rely
on the use of engineering solutions including extra block, increased depth of
footings, special site grading work, and restrictive site plan covenants for the
majority of lots in the subdivision, may be indicative of a development that is not
designed to fit the site.
Two ways in which a site can be developed would be a technological approach, and the
other would be a site planning approach. The technological approach analyzes the
existing site conditions and proposes to alter the site with engineering solutions
to accommodate the development plans. The site planning approach would be to fit
the development plan to the site. In this case, a site planning solution would be
to shift the roadway further north which would pull the building pads farther away
from the creek. This may result in less lots on the north side of the roadway than
originally proposed.
Conclusions
The R1-13.5 lot sizes are, in many cases, too small to accommodate larger homes in
steeply sloped wooded areas. This is supported by recent requests by developers for
front and side yard setback variances as well as some changes in subdivisions to
increase lot sizes. As home and lot improvements are made over the years, the
conflicts with City setbacks and preservation areas will increase with expansion for
rooms, decks, pools, patios, and porches.
The technological approach, proposed by the developer, requires engineering
solutions that are not within the control of the developer. This approach would be
approval of a subdivision with problems put off for resolution on a lot by lot basis
in the future. A site planning solution is within the control of both the developer
and the City Council and Commissions which would resolve the problem now. Taking
all of these factors into account, the site plan, as proposed, is not the best site
plan for the property, but could be better with revisions including shifting the
roadway to the north and larger lot sizes.
i
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are alternatives for the Planning Commission consideration:
1. If the Planning Commission feels that the site plan, as proposed, is not the
best site plan for the property, but could be improved with revisions in the
plan including shifting the roadway to the north and larger lot sizes, then
one option would be to close the public hearing and return the development
plan to the proponent for revisions.
2. If the Planning Commission feels that the technological plan, as proposed by {
the developer, provides the necessary safeguards to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare in accordance with the provisions of the steep e
slope ordinance, and represents the best site plan for the property, then
one option would be to recommend approval of the revised plans dated August
19, 1987, subject to the following conditions:
r.
A. 30-foot front yard building setbacks.
i
Bluestem Hills 4th Addition 4 August 21, 1987
fi B. Maximum 50-foot pad depths.
C. Compliance with all Building Code requirements on steep slopes.
D. Preparation of restrictive covenants which limits the grading and
building pad locations to the approved plan and certification of all
building plans by a structural engineer to be filed and recorded
with Hennepin County and supply evidence thereof prior to release of
final plat.
E. Tree replacement of 437 caliper inches with a tree replacement plan
and bond to be submitted prior to final plat approval.
F. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
G. Dedicate to the City free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, and
mortgages on Outlots A and B.
H. Prior to grading, proponent shall stake the proposed grading limits
with a snow fence. All snow fencing is to remain on the site until
a certificate of occupancy has been issued on a lot by lot basis.
3. If the Planning Commission feels that the site plan, as proposed, does not
represent the best possible plan for the property, one option would be to
recommend denial of the project as submitted.
t. City Staff recommends Alternative #1.
i
t
1985 EDITION 2905-2907
(d) Expansive Soils.When expansive soils are present,the building official
may require that special provisions be made in the foundation design and con-
struction to safeguard against damage due to this expansiveness.He may require a
special investigation and report to provide this design and construction criteria.
(e)Adjacent Loads.Where footings are placed at varying elevations the effect
of adjacent loads shall be included in the foundation design.
(f)Drainage.Provisions shall be made for the control and drainage of surface
water around buildings.(See also Section 2907(d)6).
Allowable Foundation and Lateral Pressures
Sec.2906.The allowable foundation and lateral pressures shall not exceed the
values set forth in Table No. 29-B unless data to substantiate the use of higher
values are submitted.Table No.29-B may be used for design of foundations on
rrxk or nonexpansive soil for Types 11One-hour,II-N and V buildings which do
not exceed three stories in height or for structures which have continuous footings
having a load of less than 2000 pounds per lineal foot and isolated footings with
toads of less than 50,000 pounds.
Footings
Sec.2907.(a)General.Footings and foundations,unless otherwise specifi-
cally provided, shall be constructed of masonry, concrete or treated wood in
conformance with U.B.C.Standard No.29-3 and in all cases shall extend below
the frost line. Footings of concrete and masonry shall be of solid material.
Foundations supporting wood shall extend at least 6 inches above the adjacent
finish grade.Footings shall have a minimum depth as indicated in Table No.29-A x
unless another depth is recommended by a foundation investigation.
(b)Bearing Walls.Bearing walls shall be supported on masonry or concrete
foundations or piles or other approved foundation system which shall be of
sufficient size to support all loads.Where a design is not provided,the minimum
foundation requirements for stud bearing walls shall be as set forth in Table No. f
29-A. 1
EXCEPTIONS:1.A one-story wood or metal frame building not used for.�uman
occupancy and not over 400 square feet in floor area may be constructed with walls
supported on a wood foundation plate when approved by the building official
2.The support of buildings by posts embedded in earth shall be designed as
specified in Section 2907(g). Wood posts or poles embedded in earth shall be
pressure treated with an approved preservative.Steel posts or poles shali be pro-
tected as specified in Section 2908(h).
(c)Stepped Foundations.Foundations for all buildings where the surface of
the ground slopes more than 1 foot in 10 feet shall be level or shall be stepped so
that both top and bottom of such foundation are level.
(d)Footings on or Adjacent to Slopes.1.Scope.The placement of buildings „'.
and structures on or adjacent to slopes steeper than 3 horizontal to I vertical shalt
be in accordance with this section.
2. Building clearance from ascending slopes. to general,buildings below
slopes shalt be set a sufficient distance from the slope to provide protection from
523
9{ 1
2907 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
slope drainage,erosion and shallow failures.Except as provided for in Subsection
6 of this section and Figure No.29-1,the following criteria will be assumed to
provide this protection.Where the existing slope is steeper than 1 horizontal to I
vertical, the toe of the slope shall be assumed to be at the intersection of a
horizontal plane drawn from the top of the foundation and a plane drawn tangent to
the slope at an angle of 45 degrees to the horizontal. Where a retaining wall is
constructed at the toe of the slope,the height of the slope shall be measured from
the top of the wall to the top of the slope.
3.Footing setback from descending slope surface.Footing on or adjacent to
slope surfaces shall be founded in firm material with an embedment and setback
from the slope surface sufficient to provide vertical and lateral support for the
footing without detrimental settlement.Except as provided for in Subsection 6 of
=ti this sec,i n and Figure No.29-1,the following setback is deemed adequate to
meet the criteria.Where the slope is steeper than i horizontal to I-vertical,the
required setback shall be measured from an imaginary plane 45 degrees to the
horizontal,projected upward from the toe of the slope.
4.Pools.The setback between pools regulated by this code and slopes shall be
equal to one half the building footing setback distance required by this section.
That portion of the pool wall within a horizontal distance of 7 feet from the top of
the slope shall be capable of supporting the water in the pool without soil support.
5.Foundation elevation.On graded sites,the top of any exterior foundation
shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet
of an approved drainage device a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent- The
building official may approve alternate elevations, provided it can be demon-
stratedthat required drainage to the point of discharge and away from the structure
is provided at all locations on the site.
6. Alternate setback and clearance. The building official may approve
alternate setbacks andclearances.The building official may require an investiga-
tion and recommendation of a qualified engineer to demonstrate that the intent of
this section has been satisfied.Such an investigation shall include consideration
of material,height of slope,slope gradient,load intensity and erosion characteris-
tics of slope material.
(e)Footing Design.Except for special provisions of Section 2909covering the
design of piles,all portions of footings shall be designed in accordance with the
structural provisions of this code and shall be designed to minimize differential
settlement.
(f)Foundation Plates or Sills.Foundation plates or silts shall be bolted to the
foundation or foundation wall with not less than t/i-inch nominal diameter steel
bolts embedded at least 7 inches into the concrete or reinforced masonry or 15
inches into unreinforced grouted masonry and spaced not more than 6 feet apart.
There shall be a minimum of two bolts per piece with one bolt located within 12
inches of each end of each piece. Foundation plates and sills shall be the kind of
wood specified in Section 2516(c).
(g)Designs Employing Lateral Bearing. 1.General.Coqstruction employ-
ing poets or poles as columns embedded in earth or embedded in concrete footings
524
i
4
• f:
29-C,29-0,29-1 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
TABLE NO.29-C—CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION I 'j
0-20 Very low
21-50 LOW f
51-90 Medium
91-130 High
Above 130 Very high '
f
TABLE NO.29•D—WEIGHTED EXPANSION INDEX'
DEPTH INTERVAL2 WEIGHT FACTOR
0-1 0.4
1-2 0.3
2-3 0.2
3.4 0.1
Below 4 0
'The weighted expansion index for nonuniform soils is determined by multiplying the
expansion index for each depth interval by the weight factor for that interval and summing
the products.
2Depth in feet below the ground surface.
i
1
y{ fax of
facing
a.
Dof
ope
face of structure
i The of H
slope 1 W3 but need not
k exceed 40'max.
m I
fV2 be need not exceed 15'max. i
FIGURE NO.29.1
i
532
i
APPENDIX UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
Bonds
Sec.7008.The building official may require bonds in such form and amounts
as may be deemed necessary to assure that the work,if not completed in accord-
ance with the approved plans and specifications, will be corrected to eliminate
hazardous conditions.
In lieu of a surety bond the applicant may file a cashbond or instrument of credit
with the building official in an amount equal to that which would be required in the
surety bond.
Cuts i
Sec.7009. (a)General. Unless otherwise recommended in the approved i
soils engineering and/or engineering geology report, cuts shall conform to the
provisions of this section.
In the�bsence of an approved soils engineering report,these provisions maybe
waivedfor minor cuts not intended to support structures.
(b)Slope.The slope of cut surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the
intended use and shall be no steeper than 2 horizontal to t vertical unless the
owner furnishes a soils engineering or an engineering geology report,or both,
stating that the site has been investigated and giving an opinion that a cut at a
steeper slope will be stable and not create a hazard to public or private property.
(c)Drainage and Terracing. Drainage and terracing shall be provided as
required by Section 7012.
Fills
Sec.7010. (a)General. Unless otherwise recommended in the approved
soiis engineering report,fills shall conform to the provisions of this section.
In the absence of an approved soils engineering report these provisions may be
waived for minor fills not intended to support structures.
(b)Fill Location. Fill slopes shall not be constructed on natural slopes steeper
than two to one.
(c)Preparation of Ground.The ground surface shall be prepared to receive
fill by removing vegetation, noncomplying fill, topsoil and other unsuitable
materials scarifying to provide a bond with the new fill and, where slopes are i
steeper than five to one and the height is greater than 5 feet,by benching into
sound bedrock or other competent material as determined by the soils engineer.
The bench under the toe of a fill on a slope steeper than five to one shall be at leasi
10 feet wide.The area beyond the toe of f ill shall be sloped for sheet overflow or a
paved drain shall be provided.When fill is to be placed over a cut,the bench under
the toe of fill shall be at least 10 feet wide but the cut shall be made before placing
the fill and acceptance by the soils engineer or engineering geologist or both as a
suitable foundation for fill.
(d)Fill Material. Detrimental amounts of organic material shall not be per-
mitted in fills. Except as permitted by the building official,no rock or similar
irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches shall be
buried or placed in fills.
EXCEPTION:The building official may permit placemem of larger rock when i
768
1985 EDITION APPENDIX
the soils engineer properly devises a method of placement,continuously inspects its
placement and approves the fill stability.The following conditions shall also apply:
A.Prior to issuance of the grading permit,potential rock disposal areas shall be
delineated on the grading plan.
B.Rock sizes greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be 10 feet or
more below grade,measured vertically.
C.Rocks shall be placed so as to assure filling of all voids with fines.
(e)Compaction.All fills shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of r
maximumdensityasdeterminedbyU.B.C.StandardNo. 70-1.1n-placedensity '
shall be determined in accordance with U.B.C.Standard No.70-2,70-3.70-4 or
70.5.
(f)Slope.The slope of fill surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the
intended use.Fill slopes shall be no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical.
(g)Drainlge and Terracing. Drainage and terracing shall be provided and the
area above fill slopes and the surfaces of terraces shall be graded and paved as
required by Section 7012.
Setbacks
Sec.7011.(a)General.Cut and fill slopes shall be set back from site bounda-
ries in accordance with this section. Setback dimensions shall be horizontal "
distances measured perpendicular to the site boundary Setback dimensions shall
be a shown in Figure No.70-1.
(b)Top of Cut Slope.The top of cut slopes shall be made not nearer to a site
boundary line than one fifth of the vertical height of cut with a minimum of 2 feet
and a maximum of 10 feet.The setback may need to be increased for any required
interceptor drains.
(c)Toe of Fill Slope.The toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site
boundary fine than one-half the height of the slope with a minimum of 2 feet and a
maximum of 20 feet.Where a fill slope is to be located near the site boundary and
the adjacent off-site property is developed,special precautions shall be incorpo-
rated in the work as the building official deems necessary to protect the adjoining I
property from damage as a result of such grading.These precautions may include
but are not limited to:
1. Additional setbacks.
2. Provision for retaining or slough walls.
3. Mechanical or chemical treatment of the fill slope surface to minimize
erosion.
4. Provisions for the control of surface waters.
(d)Modification of Slope Location.The building official may approve alter- d
nate setbacks.The building official may require an investigation and recommen-
dation by a qualified engineer or engineering geologist to demonstrate that the
intent of this section has been satisfied.
769
. 1
i
APPENDIX UNIFORM BUILDING CODE I
t
PA
Top of ..
r: Slope
I
Neural or
1-112 but 2'min. Finish Gnde
R
and 20' Cut or Fill t
Tot slope
W S but 2'min.
I slope and 10'mat.
H
a.
W coral or Finish Grade
r
t Permit Am Boundary
Figure No.70•1
Face of
footing
i
Top of
slope
1(..Fre of structure 1 H
Toe of
slope I H12 bm need m
nceed 10'mu.
H2 but nua not taceed I S'mu.
Figure No.70-2
I
Drainage and Terracing
Sec.7012.(a)General.Unless otherwise indicated on the approved grading
plan,drainage facilities and terracing shall conform to the provisions of this
section for cut or fill slopes steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. i
(b)Terrace.Terraces at least 6 feet in width shall be established at not more
than 30-foot vertical intervals on all cut or fill slopes to control surface drainage
and debris except that where only one ten-ace is required,it shall be at midheight.
For cut or fill slopes greater than 60 feet and up to 120 feet in vertical height,one
terrace at approximately midheight shall be 12 feet in width.Terrace widths and
spacing for cut and fill slopes greater than 120 feet in height shall be designed by
the civil engineer and approved by the building official.Suitable access shall be
provided to permit proper cleaning and maintenance.
Swales or ditches on terraces shall have a minimum gradient of 5 percent and
must be paved with reinforced concrete not less than 3 inches in thickness or an
approved equal paving.They shall have a minimum depth at the deepest point of i
770
i
P
1985 EDITION APPENDIX
foot and a minimum paved width of 5 feet.
A single run of Swale or ditch shall not collect runoff from a tributary area
exceedtn 3,500 square feet(projected)without discharging into a down drain.
c)Subsurface Drainage.Cut and fill slopes shall be provided with subsur-
o/rbj o` face drainage as necessary for stability.
(d)Disposal. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry waters to the
nearest practicable drainage way approved by the building official and/or other
appropriate jurisdiction as a safe place to deposit such waters.Erosion of ground
in the area of discharge shall be prevented by installation of nonerosive
downdrains or other devices.
Building pads shall have a drainage gradient of 2 percent toward approved
drainage facilities,unless waived by the building official.
EXCEPTION:The gradient from the building pad may be 1 peicent if all of the
following conditions exist throughout the permit area:
A. No proposed fills are greater than 10 feet in maximum depth.
B.No proposed finish cut or fill slope faces have a vertical height in excess of io
feet.
C.No existing slope faces,which have a s!ope face steeper than 10 horizontally to
1 vertically,have a vertical height in excess of 10 feet.
(e)Interceptor Drains.Paved interceptor drains shall be installed along the
top of all cut slopes where the tributary drainage area above slopes towards the cut
and has a drainage path greater than 40 feet measured horizontally.Interceptor
drains shall be paved with a minimum of 3 inches of concrete or gunite and
reinforced.They shall have a minimum depth of 12 inches and a minimum paved I
widthof 30 inches treasured horizontally across the drain.The slopeof drain shall
be approved by the building official.
Erosion Control
Sec.7013. (a)Slop.The faces of cut and fill slopes shall be prepared and
maintained to control against erosion. This control may consist of effective
planting.The protection for the slopes shall be installed as soon as practicable and
prior to galling for final approval.Where cut slopes are not subject to erosion due
to the erosion-resistant character of the materials,such protection may be omitted.
(b)Other Devices,Where necessary,check dams,cribbing,riprap or other
devices or methods shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety
Grading Inspection i
Sec. 7014. (a)General.All grading operations for which a permit is required
shall be subject to inspection by the building official. When required by the
building official,special inspection of grading operations and special testing shall
be performed in accordance with the provisions of Section 306 and Subsection
7014(c).
(b)Grading Designation. All grading in excess of 5000 cubic yards shall be
performed in accordance with the approved grading plan prepared by a civil
engineer,and shall be designated as"engineered grading."Grading involving
less than 5000 cubic yards shall be designated "regular grading" unless the
771
APPENDIX UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
permittee,with the approval of the building official,chooses to have the grading
performed as"engineered grading."
(c)Engineered Grading Requirements. For engineered grading,it shall he
the responsibility of the civil engineer who prepares the approved grading plan to
incorporate all recommendations from the soils engineering and engineering
geology reports into the grading plan. He also shall be responsible for the
professional inspection and approval of the grading within his area of technical
specialty.This responsibility shall include,but need not be limited to,inspection
and approval as to the establishment of line,grade and drainage of the develop-
ment area.The civil engineer shall act as the coordinating agent in the event the
need arises for liaison between the other professionals, the contractor and the
building official.The civil engineer also shall be responsible for the preparation
of revised plans and the submission of as-graded grading plans upon completion
of the work. The grading contractor shall submit in a form prescribed by the
building official a statement of compliance to said as-built plan.
Soils engineering and engineering geology reports shall be required as speci-
fied in Section 7006.During grading all necessary reports,compaction data and
soil engineering and engineering geology recommendations shall be submitted to
the civil engineer and the building official by the soils engineer and the engineer-
ing geologist.
The soils engineer's area of responsibility shall include,but need not be limited
to,the professional inspection and approval concerning the preparation of ground
to receive fills,testing for required compaction,stability of all finish slopes and
the design of buttress fills, where required, incorporating data supplied by the
engineering geologist.
The engineering geologist's area of responsibility shall include,but need not be
limited to,professional inspection and approval of the adequacy of natural ground
for receiving fills and the stability of cut slopes with respect to geological matter
and the need for subdrains or other groundwater drainage devices.He shall report
his findings to the soils engineer and the civil engineer for engineering analysis.
The building official shall inspect the project at the various stages of the work
requiring approval to determine that adequate control is being exercised by the
9. professional consultants.
(d)Regular Grading Requirements.The building official may require in-
spection and testing by an approved testing agency.
The testing agency's responsibility shall include,but need not be limited to�.,
I approval concerning the inspection of cleared areas and benches to receive fill,
and the compaction of fills.
When the building official has cause to believe that geologic factors may be
involved the grading operation will be required to conform to "engineered
grading"requirements.
(e)Notification of Noncompliance. If,in the course of fulfilling his response
bility under this chapter, the civil engineer, the soils engineer, the engineering
geologist or the testing agency finds that the work is not being done in conform-
ance with this chapter or the approved grading plans,the discrepancies shall be
772
_
198S EDITION APPENDIX
reported immediately in writing to the person in charge of the grading work and to
the building official. Recommendations for corrective measures, if necessary,
shall be submitted.
(I)7}ansfer of Responsibility for Approval.If the civil engineer,the soils
engineer,the engineering geologist or the testing agency of record is changed
during the course of the work,the work shall be stopped until the replacement has
agreed to accept the responsibility within the area of his technical competence for
approval upon completion of the work.
Completion of Work
See.7015.(a)Final Reports.Upon completion of the rough grading work
and at the final completion of the work the building official may require the j
following reports and drawings and supplements thereto:
1.An as-graded grading plan prepared by the civil engineer including original
ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage
pattems and locations and elevations of all surface and subsurface drainage
facilities.He shall state that to the best of his knowledge the wor6 was done in i
accordance with the final approved PP grading plan.
2.A soils-grading report prepared by the soils engineer,including locations
and elevations of fi field and laboratory test and
eld density tests,summaries of
other substantiating data and comments on any changes made during grading and f
P their effect on the recommendations made in the soils engineering investigation J
report.He shall render a finding as to the adequacyof the site for the intended use.
3.A geologic grading report prepared by the engineering geologist,including
a final description of the geology of the site and any new information disclosed
during the grading and the effect of same on recommendations incorporated in the
approved grading plan.He shall render a finding as to the adequacy of the site for
the intended use as affected by geologic factors.
(b)Notification of Completion. The permittee or his agent shalt notify the
building official when the grading operation is ready for final inspection.Final
approval shall not be given until all work,including installation of all drainage
facilities and their protective devices,and all erosion-control measures have been
completed in accordance with the final approved grading plan and the required
reports have been submitted.
i
I
j
773
C C
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 7, 1987
PROJECT: Bluestem Hills 4th
APPLICANT: Brown Land Company
OWNER: Brown Land Company and Robert D. and Dorothy Twiss
LOCATION: West of Bennett Place, north of Purgatory Creek
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 15.94 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review with variances for
front yard setback and street frontage on 15.94 acres.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.57 acres.
4. Zoning District Amendment on 5.36 acres within an existing
R1-13.5 zoning district.
5. Preliminary Plat on 15.94 acres for 27 single family lots, 3
outlots, and road right-of-way.
Background 5 � — °L
This site is currently designated as
Low Density Residential and Open 7 .� °u,°_,
Space on the Comprehensive Guide
Plan with the Open Space designation
confined primarily to the Purgatory
Creek Corridor. The western 10.57 { Rl-22 `
acres is currently zoned rural. The J
eastern 5.36 acres (13 lots) are y" ,
currently zoned R1-13.5 as part of �
the existing Bluestem Hills
Addition. The previous plan ended
in a cul-de-sac, whereas a through
street is proposed with this
project. -13.5
'
Preliminary Plat PROPOSED SITE ,)
The preliminary plat depicts the
subdivision of 15.93 acres into 27, R1-13.5
AREA LOCATION MAP
C C
Bluestem Hills 4th 2 August 7, 1987
R1-13.5 lots, at a gross density of 1.69 units per acre. The net density outside of
the area proposed for dedication to the City is 2.17 units per acre. The Guide Plan
would allow for Low Density guided areas up to 2.5 units per acre.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size requirements for the R1-13.5
zoning district. All of the lots meet the minimum dimensional and street frontage
requirements with the exception of proposed Lot 9, with only 30 feet of frontage.
The proponents are requesting a variance from the street frontage requirement as
part of the PUD District Review. This will be discussed in more detail in the
subsequent section on PUD variances.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Management
Ordinance for General Development Waters including lot sizes and building setbacks.
Access
Access to this site will be by an extension of Bluestem Lane from Bennett Place at
the eastern-most limits of the property. Bluestem Lane is proposed to extend
through this site and terminate at the northwest corner in a temporary cul-de-sac.
An overall development plan submitted by the proponent depicts one way in which
Bluestein Road could eventually connect back to Bennett Place and Purgatory Ridge
Road to the north. The land area directly north of this site is partly in the
transition zone of Purgatory Creek. The land area to the northwest is mostly in the
transition zone with land closer to Purgatory Creek in the conservancy area. Based
on a preliminary review of the topography it appears that the road alignment should
minimize impacts on the slopes and trees. The final alignment of the street to the
north would be subject to a detailed review submitted with a rezoning request for
the Planning Commission and City Council.
Grading
Since the site is steeply sloped, the site will have to be substantially altered in
order to accommodate the proposed development plan. Cuts up to 20 feet and fill of
up to 25 feet are proposed in various locations throughout the site. The plan
relies heavily on the use of retaining walls. The extensive retaining wall failure
and damage to homes and property as a result of recent heavy rain storms, raise a
question as to whether or not subdivisions should be approved on steep slopes which
rely heavily on the use of retaining walls. Retaining wall failure can be a result
of poor construction but poor soil conditions and poor drainage (where flows over
the top of the retaining wall, or poor drainage which allows the soil behind the
wall to become saturated, thus exerting additional weight which causes the wall to
collapse) were the major reasons for retaining wall failure.
Since the natural grades on the property exceed 12% and there is a 30-foot vertical
drop in elavation, this property is subject to the previsions of slope ground review
in Chapter 11. Section 11.60 of the City Code indicates development, excavation, or
construction on certain slopes within the City and may result in the building of
unstable structures, increased danger of erosion ano thereby endanger the natural
character of the land and jeopardize the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens
of the community. The ordinance requires a permit from the City Council, and that
the Planning Commission and Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission
should review and make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the permit
should be issued or denied. The review by these boards and the final decision of
the City Council is based on the following factors: 1) Whether the application is
C C
Bluestem Hills 4th 3 August 7, 1987
. complete and accurate and in all respect comforms to information required for
review. 2) Whether, and the degree to which, the proposed development will cause
and/or be affected by erosion problems. 3) Whether any structures erected as part
of the development will have adequate foundation and underlying material. 4)
Whether, and the degree to which, the development will alter vegetation, topography,
or other natural features of the land. 5) Any other factors relating to whether
the proposed development will cause any risk or harm to any persons, property, or
animals.
If the City Council decides to issue the permit, they may do so subject to
compliance with the reasonable conditions which shall be specifically set forth in
the permit. Such conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind of
character of the proposed work, require the construction of other structures,
require replacement of vegetation or other natural features, establish required
monitoring procedures and maintenance activity, stage the work overtime, require the
alteration of the site design to insure buffering, or require a performance bond.
Tree Replacement
The tree inventory indicates a total of 2,814 caliper inches of trees on site,
including amixture of oak, box elder, poplar, birch and spruce. A total of 753
caliper inches (27%) would be lost due to construction. The tree replacement policy
would require 437 caliper inches to be replaced on site. Prior to review by the
City Council the proponent should provide a tree replacement plan based upon 437
caliper inches of trees. Tree types proposed should be indigenous to the area.
Planned Unit Development
The proponent is requesting two variances. One would be a front yard setback
variance from 30 to 25 feet for approximately 15 lots, and a street frontage
variance from 85 feet to 30 feet for one lot.
The proponent's narrative indicates that the variance for front yard setback would
allow the home builders a more creative and environmentally sensitive approach
thereby fitting the proposed building pads within the sloped topography in wooded
areas. The subdivision would result in less disturbance of the land forms by
requiring less grading and more trees would be preserved than would be possible if
the ordinance was adhered to for the required 30 foot setback.
The staff has analyzed the existing and proposed grading conditions for this site.
An approach which would require less grading and would eliminate retaining walls on
Lots 5 thru 9, Block 1, on the north side of Bluestem Lane, would be tuck under
units built into the hill. Secondly, moving Bluestem Road to the north would result
in less grading and retaining walls on the south adjacent to Purgatory Creek.
Third, in evaluating the proposed tree loss plan, it appears that if the 3D-foot
setback was required for all lots, it would not result in any more significant trees
lost due to construction. Four, the market is currently proposing larger houses in
scenic areas than what are shown on the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission
and City Council. A survey of several of these scenic areas indicates that the
average depth between the front of the house and the deck averages between 65 to 75
feet, as compared with 50 feet shown on plans to be approved. Therefore, if the
front yard setback variance is to be considered, there would have to be a mechanism
bywhich restricted house pad locations (proposed as a way to minimize grading and
save trees) could be guaranteed to be built as proposed.
s�
C
Bluestem Hills 4th 4 August 7, 1987
The street frontage variance from 85 feet to 30 feet is for proposed Lot 9, Block 2,
on the south side of Bluestem Lane which could be classified as a "flaglot". The
narrative indicates that the design of the subdivision with the flaglot is a more
creative, effecient, and environmentally sensitive use of the land than if the 85-
foot setback was adhered to. While this is a judgement call, Commission may wish to
consider trade-offs or mitigating measures for allowing development in such a
manner. The developers propose to dedicate 3.39 acres of land adjacent to Purgatory
Creek to the City. This is in excess of the ordinance requirement of approximately
one acre for the ten acres that are proposed for rezoning with this project. (Refer
to attached memo and minutes from the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources
Commission.)
Utilities
Sewer and water service can be extended to the site by connection to existing
facilities at the intersection of Bennet Place and Bluestem Lane.
Storm water run-off is proposed to drain from the streets into a catch basin system
which will discharge into Purgatory Creek between proposed Lots 7 & 8. The design
of the pipe size and the type of outlet will be required to be reviewed and approved
by the Watershed District and the City Engineer. Appropriate measures should be
taken to reduce the force of the water discharge so that it does not erode the
creekbed.
Conclusions
The key question for consideration by the Planning Commission, Parks, Recreation,
and Natural Resources Comnission, and the City Council would be whether or not to
continue to allow development in steep slope areas which require extensive grading,
and use of retaining walls. This project does require a permit to be issued by the
City Council as part of the sloped ground review ordinance, based upon
recommendations from both the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation, and
Natural Resources Commission. The Planning Commission must decide whether or not
there are adequate safeguards to protect building foundations, to protect and
preserve the natural character of the land according to the topography and
vegetation, and the general protection of the public health safety and welfare.
The use of tuck under units for Lots 5 through 9 on the north side of Bluestem Road
and moving Bluestem Road to the north would be a way in which the retaining walls
could be minimized and reduce overall the amount of grading. If retaining walls are
necessary and were to be approved with this project, they should be certified by a
structural engineer and required to be built concurrent with street construction so
that potential builders and owners will realize the extent to which the property can
be built towards the creek. Y
The Planning Commission must recommend to the City Council whether or not they feel
the variances, as proposed, have been substantiated, and if the granting of the '.
variances would result in a better subdivision of the land than if the strict letter
of the law was enforced both for the front yard setback and the street frontage.
STAFF RECOhMENDATIONS .
The Planning Staff presents the following alternative courses of action for
Commission consideration:
C C
Bluestem Hills 4th 5 August 7, 1987
I. If the Planning Commission feels that the plan, as proposed, is acceptable
for development on steep slopes, then one option would be to recommend
approval of the request for Planned Unit Development, Rezoning, Zoning
District Amendment and Preliminary Plat based on plans dated June 25, 1987,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 7, 1987, and
based upon the following conditions:
1. Prior to City Council review, proponents shall:
A. Submit soils information which depicts the suitability of
the proposed soil for building development, including roads,
foundations, grading, and retaining walls.
B. Submit information by a certified civil engineer that the
retaining walls are structurally sound.
C. Revise the Preliminary Plat to depict tuck under units for }
Lots 5 thru 9 and revise the grading plan which eliminates
the retaining walls.
D. Modify the site plan by shifting the road to the north to
reduce the extent of retaining walls on the lots adjacent to
the creek.
E. Provide a tree replacement plan for 437 caliper inches, with
tree types proposed indigenous to the area.
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.
I
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and
utility plans for review by the City Engineer.
C. Dedicate to the City free and clear of all liens, mortgages
and encumbrances Outlot A and Outlot B.
D. Provide a bond covering 150% of the cost of tree
replacement.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponents shall:
A. Pay the Cash Park fee.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in
advance of grading.
C. Stake the proposed construction limits with a snow fence.
Any trees lost outside of the snow fenced area shall be
required to be replaced on an area inch per area inch basis.
4. Construction of retaining walls on proposed Lot 5, 7, 11, and 12,
concurrent with site grading and street construction.
i
o
Bluestem Hills 4th 6 August 7, 1987
II. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the land use as proposed, but
does not feel that the proponents have provided adequate information or
assurances to allow the development as proposed, then one option would be to
return the development plans to the proponent for revisions and receipt of
additional information relative to soil conditions, retaining wall
construction, and a grading plan which minimizes grading and retaining walls
on site.
III. If the Planning Commission feels that the impact of the proposed development
on the steep slopes is high and adequate assurances have not been provided
to safeguard the natural features and property from potential erosion, one
option would be to recommend denial.
E. BLUESM-1 HILLS 4TH ADDITION by Brown land Company. Request
or P ann Unit Deve opment Concept Review on 15.94 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.94 acres with
variances, Zoning District Change from Rural to id-13.5 on
10.57 acres with Shoreland variance to be reviewed by the Board
of Appeals, Zoning District Amendment within the P1-13.5
District on 5.36 acres, and Preliminary plat of 15.94 acres
into 27 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way.
Location: West of Bennett Place and Bluestem Lane. A public
hearing.
Planner Franzen indicated the major concern is the policy of
development on steep slopes using retaining walls, the impact this
1 project will have on Purgatory Greek, and how many trees are going
to be saved. He added that as a result of recent storm damage to
property the city should re-evaluate the development policy on steep
slopes. This site will require a steep sloped review and
recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council.
Planner Franzen introduced David Brown, developer, and Michael Gair,
consultant, who explained the proposal to the Planing Commission.
Chairman Schuck stated that the Planning Commission must carefully
review developments on steep slopes and that a better job must be
done than in the past. He indicated that he felt several Council
members share the same concern.
Bye referred to the setback requirements and asked if there is any
way an individual owner can come in with a variance. Franzen
answered, yes they can.
Fell said he was comfortable with having permanent concrete
retaining walls in place before developing the property. Anderson
didn't think concrete blends in with Purgatory Creek area. Fell
said there are things that can be done to make the walls glend in.
The developer stated they would prefer to build the walls on an
individual basis to conform with the design of each house.
3
d
Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 10, 1987
`^ Chairman Schuck asked the Staff for an opinion on steep sloped
development.
Franzen indicated he thought that the Planning Commission seemed
concerned about the health and safety issue and suggested that Staff
work with the developer towards a revised plan that did not have to
rely on retaining walls.
Fell asked about the tree losses, and would the retaining walls be
certified? Developer said a structural engineer will design and
approve these.
Franzen indicated that there are two ways to approach development on
this site. One would be an engineering solution with certified
retaining walls. The other would be a site planning solution that
fit the plan to the site. He added that sometimes the more
complicated and restrictive the solutions become, the greater the j
chances are for failure. He added that so far the restrictive
covenants on recently approved subdivisions have not been effective
since homeowners are building bigger homes than initially proposed.
Hallett remarked that maybe all this property can not be developed
because of the trees and steep slopes.
Fell said he would be comfortable with developing this property azL: t
some kind of covenant with a structural engineer monitoring the
.� design.
Bye stated she would like two more weeks to think about t}mis, and
see if there are other ways of developing the property.
Franzen agreed it would be advisable to look at other alternatives.
One way may be moving the road to the north, creating smaller lots
on the northside and larger lots with pads further from the creek on
the southside.
MOTION 1:
Notion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell, to contimie the public
hearing to the August 24, 1987 meeting of the Planning Commission
pending resolution by proponent of the issues raised in the Staff
Report of August 7, 1987 and any additional issues raised at this
meeting and directed Staff to publish this item for the September 1
Council meeting.
t c
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 1, 1987
-4-
Baker asked how many people use the pool during this time.
Bolinske said it is generally 30 to 50 people.
Baker asked what options have been pursued with the morning swim
time. Bolinske said both groups need swim time and they have
encouraged them to use morning swim time. Neither group wants to
push the general public out of swim lanes. He added that as many
as 20-40 people come in to swim at 5:00 a.m.
Cook said although he sympathizes with the Foxjets, needs are such
that there are not enough available facilities.
MOTION: Cook moved to recommend that an additional 1/2 hour of
pool time be extended to the high school for a total of 2-1/2 hours
daily and that this time is subtracted from the Foxjets time and
also that the open swim time be maintained from 7:30-8:30 p.m.
Shaw seconded the motion and it passed 6-0.
V. DEVELOPMENT PitOPOSALS
A. Twiss Property Development Proposal
i
Refer to memo dated May 27, 1987 from Bob Lambert, Director of
Community Services.
Mr. Mike Gair of Gair 6 Associates, Site Design and Planning
Consultants, was present at the meeting and briefly introduced Mr.
6 Mrs. Twiss, Wayne Brown, David Brown, Greg Brown and Peter
Knaeble.
Mr. Gair reviewed the property which is located in the southeast
portion of Eden Prairie, 1/2 mile off Bennett Place. The site is
10.5 acres with a 660' east-west dimension and a 660' north-south
dimension. He pointed out the location of Purgatory Creek within
the Bluestem property.
Lambert asked the present location of the barn. Gair showed its
location and added that Bennett Place is currently under
construction with the Twiss property lying west of Bluestem. The
Twiss property is being sold to David and Wayne Brown. It is
currently zoned rural and the developer is asking a zoning change
to R1-13.5 similar to the Bluestem First Addition to the east. The
plan indicates two land uses -- the southeast portion of two acres,
which is 2O% of the site, is designated as public open space,
floodplain and park. Elevations range from 750' at the creek up to
800'. The remaining 8 acres is designated low density residential
and includes land with elevations of 750, in the southeastern
corner to 853, near the Twiss hone.
Gair said that the proposal is to extend a roadway from Bennett
Place west into the Bluestem First Addition to the northwest Twiss
property corner. Future access would be through Eden Prairie Acres
which is the Hustad property and connect with Purgatory Road.
Parallel contours to this road allow the development of the Hustad
property. It is proposed to plat the low density residential areas
c
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
l EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 1, 1987
-5-
with 14 single family home sites. The only problem is that 5.2
acres or 50% of the Twiss property is located in the conservancy
zone. Gair showed the location of the conservancy line on the site
map. Contour elevations range from 830 on the west to 800 on the
east and it appears that this property includes 48% more land in
the conservancy zone than similar properties in the area. After
reviewing the Purgatory Creek study, Gair said that neither the
property owners or developer is opposed to it, but would like to
propose a solution which would accommodate both the objectives of
the owners and the study. The developer is proposing 14 single
family lots on the site and would like adjustments to the
conservancy line to include .85 acres of the 5.2 acres within the
designated conservancy zone in the plat area. In addition, they
are proposing that two outlots of 3.39 acres or 33% of the site be
dedicated to the City and that .98 acres or 9.3% be designated as a
scenic easement. This would result in 41.6% of the site committed
to scenic easement or public open space. Approximately 2.0 acres
of trees will be removed of the 6.4 acres of green space which
would allow about 67% to remain. Tree replacement would be
provided according to City ordinance. The developer feels this is
a reasonable and fair request and has spoken to staff.
Baker asked why the conservancy line runs in such an uneven manner.
Lambert said the line was developed in 1975 by Brauer and
Associates and because of the U-shaped bend in the creek and to
protect the ravine, the line does not follow the contour of
Purgatory Creek. He added that the study is a guide that was
developed at a large scale and it was recognized that the
conservancy line would have to be adjusted.
Baker asked what the City will be losing. Lambert said two key
areas are: the filling of the ravine with 20, of fill, and
allowing a house to be constructed on the point. Staff's major
concern is the impact of this proposal on the creek valley, but
Lambert said the developer has been sensitive to the site and to
staff's concerns. The reason the issue was brought to this
commission prior to the Planning Commission review is that the
Planning Commission will ask what the Parks Commission recommends
on moving the scenic easement line. Lambert added that he has had
calls from people wanting to buy lots in this area asking whether
decks can be located in the conservancy line. The answer to this
question is no.
Mikkelson asked how far it is from the base of the fill to the
creek. Gair said it is approximately 2001.
Cook asked what the contour is at the bottom of the fill compared
to the creek. Gair said there is a 60' drop with the creek at 870.
Cook said that he can appreciate needing fill for the road, but
that this will be enough to support two lots. I
i
Cook asked if there is a reason the developer is trying to claim
additional land for additional lots. Gair said that this issue
deals with a certain amount of reasonableness. He agreed that this
r ,
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION y
June 1, 1987
-6-
involves two lots, but the developer wants to bring the road
through to allow for the platting of the property and to keep a
medium between high and low ground which would have the least
impact on the conservancy zone. Gair said there is no practical {
value to move further to the south.
Cook asked if 20, of fill is actually necessary. Gair replied that
r because of differences in contour elevation, the 20, of fill is
necessary in order to be able to develop the lot.
Gonyea asked if fill has been allowed in the conservancy zone
before. Lambert said that the line has been adjusted previously
and he cited the example of Townline Road where an individual owns
five acres, all within the conservancy zone, and wants to develop
it into ten lots. In this case, the line will have to be moved
significantly; however, in the creek valley it is nearly a half
mile wide in this location. I.
i
Gonyea asked about the legal aspects involved. Lambert reminded
the Commission that the Purgatory Creek Study is only a guide and
not an ordinance. The City has control on development on steep
slopes and has the shoreland ordinance and floodplain ordinance. 9
Gonyea asked if the City has had a good success rate in having the P
developers do what the City has requested. Lambert said there have
been several incidents where more trees were removed than was
approved. However, snow fence is now required along approved
grading limits.
Baker asked for a review of the basic street plan and asked if the
developer would consider decreasing the depth of the street. Gair
said the developer wants a good balance and would like to leave the
road the
road witheal t is since it i
cul-de-sac wasconsidered,s the best lbut titn was rfelt thatibetter
access needed to be provided for Mr. Hustad's development and that
the proposal will not affect the future of the creek corridor.
MOTION: Shaw moved to recommend approval of a zoning district
cage from rural to RM-13.5 and the addition of a 4.37 acre
dedication and scenic easement with the developer providing tree
replacement in accordance with City ordinance. Gonyea seconded the
motion and it passed 6-0.
B. The Legion Park Addition
Refer to staff report dated May 22, 1987.
/ This is an information item only.
4
C
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
HA UGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 7, 1987
PROJECT: Insulation Distributors, Inc.
LOCATION: West of Executive Drive, north and east of Equitable Drive
APPLICANT: Welsh Construction Corporation
FEE OWNER: Equitable c/o Eden Land
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development District Review on 100 acres.
2. Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 2 acres.
Background
This 2-acre site is part of the
Edenvale Executive Center III plat, M
previously reviewed and approved by
the Planning Commission and City
Council in 1986. RM-2.5 PLI
`« L
The Comprehensive Guide Plan des-
ignates this site for Industrial C-CO RM-2.5
land uses as are the properties to / <,
the north and east. The Com- C-C
1T. (..
prehensive Guide Plan designates the
property to the south and west for `'4 t
Office land uses. Specific land j
uses in this area include Reynolds
Printing, zoned I-2 Park to the
north; CMS Regional Headquarters, PROPOSED SITE
zoned I-2 Park to the east; and, y l-_na_.s�
vacant property to the south and i -> a
west. - /
C-RE6
Site Plan IT . .....
I 1
The site plan depicts the con-
struction of a 29,885 square foot
office/warehouse building on Lot 1, —j
Block I, Edenvale Executive Center
III. The site contains 2 acres and
has a Base Area Ratio (BAR) of 27.2%
AREA LOCATION MAP
� t
Insulation Distributors 2 August 7, 1987
and an overall Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 34.2%. In the 1-2 Park zoning district,
building setbacks include a 50-foot front yard setback, 20-foot side yard setback,
and a 25-foot rear yard setback. The building location; as proposed, meets the
minimum requirements of the zoning district. Access to the site will be provided by
two driveways off Equitable Drive, one of which is a shared driveway with CMS
Regional Headquarters. As required for approval of the CMS Regional Headquarters
building, a 20-foot green space was required adjacent the eastern building edge on
this lot to compensate for the lack of green space between the buildings. This
green space has been included as part of the current development proposal.
Because this parcel is considered a corner lot, parking is allowed within 112 the
distance of the front yard setback on one of the street frontages. As the plans
indicate, a 25-foot setback is maintained along the south property line with the
exception of the western-most parking stall and a 50-foot setback along the western
property line. Plans shall be revised to reflect the relocation of this parking
stall.
Based upon a total office square footage of 8,509 square feet and warehouse square
footage of 21,376, a total of 54 parking spaces are required. The proponent is
providing 53 actual and 14 proof-of-parking spaces along the north property line for
a total of 67 parking spaces on-site.
The building is designed to provide maximum warehouse efficiency for the proposed
tenant. There is room for 5 truck docks located along the north end of the building
and another loading bay along the eastern side of the building to service any
additional lease space. The building has been designed so that they would not be
i visible from the adjacent roadways or buildings. In reviewing the site lines that
have been submitted, it was apparent that the trucks would be visible from Edenvale
Executive Center. In response to that, the proponent has indicated on the plans that
the berm will be raised and additional plantings will be located to screen all views
into the loading dock area. The proponent shall submit details of plans prior to
Council review.
Grading
This site has been previously graded with the development of adjacent properties.
Proposed contours depict a slope in a westerly direction from the 870 contour
elevation along the north property line to the 866 contour along the south property
line adjacent Equitable Drive. The majority of grading on-site is to allow for the
building pad location and parking areas.
According to City Code, all parking areas must be screened from view from adjacent
roadways. The proponent is proposing between a 4 to 5-foot berm adjacent Equitable
Drive to screen all parking areas. It has been established that the screening of
parking areas in 25 feet is relatively hard to do. The proponent shall revise the
landscape plan to reflect additional coniferous trees along the south property line
for screening purposes.
Landscaping
8ased upon a building square footage of 29,885 square feet, which has been doubled
because of the height of the building, a total of 149 caliper inches of plant
material is required. The landscape plan depicts a total of 166 caliper inches .
provided on this site. Because of the size and location of the loading dock areas,
Insulation Distributors 3 August 7, 1987
Staff would recommend that the proponent group the larger coniferous trees in these
areas. In addition, as previously mentioned within the grading section, the
proponent will be required to submit detailed grading and landscaping plans for the
off-site work required on the Edenvale Executive Center site.
Architecture
Building elevations have been submitted for review. Primary building materials
include facebrick, glass, and decorative concrete block. on the northern elevation
whering
used. e To beve lading docks are proosed,consistent, the visiblepscreenawallrockshall becfacebrickface deorativebltok matchbethe
building. Building material and color samples shall be submitted prior to City
Council review. Rooftop mechanical units are proposed to be screened with pre-
finished metal enclosures to match flashing. A typical plan shall be submitted
prior to Council review.
Utilities
Water and sanitary sewer service is available to this site by connection to services
within Equitable Drive. Storm water drainage is proposed to drain in a
southwesterly direction through a series of catch basins located along the western
and southern property lines and discharging into an existing storm sewer within
Equitable Drive.
Signage and Lightin
No signage or lighting details have been submitted at this time for review. The
Proponent shall submit an overall lighting plan and signage plan for review by Staff
prior to Council review. Details shall show the consistency between this buil
and existing buildings within the Edenvale Executive Park. ding
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the request for a Zoning District Change from
Rural to I-2 Park on 2 acres with variances based upon revised plans dated August 6,
1987, and subject to the Staff Report dated August 79 1987, and subject to the
following recommendations:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Submit a detailed grading and landscape plan for any work proposed
to occur within the Edenvale Executive Center.
B. Relocate the westerly-most parking stall adjacent Equitable Drive to
maintain a 25-foot front yard setback.
C. Provide samples of exterior building materials.
D. Provide additional groupings of large coniferous trees adjacent to
the loading dock areas to help screen the views.
E. Relocate additional coniferous trees along the berm located adjacent
to Equitable Drive to insure that all parking areas will be
screened.
C {
Insulation Distributors 4
August 7, 1987
2• Prior to Building permit issuance proponent shall:
A. Provide signage and lighting details.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility
Plans for review by the City Engineer.
C. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
D. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
E. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading.
{
C. INSCIATION DISTRIBUTORS INC., by Welsh Companies, Inc.
Request for Panne nit Deve opment District Review on 100
acres with variances, Zoning District Change from rural to I-2
on 2 acres for construction of a 30,672 square foot
office/warehouse. Location: South of Valley View Road on
Equitable Drive. A public hearing.
Planner Uram introduced Paul Dunn from Welsh Companies and David
Clark, the architect for the project. A brief description of the
project was given indicating size, location and architecture. Uram
stated that Staff recommends approval of the project with
recommendations on page 3 and 4 of the Staff Report.
Chairman Schuck asked for comments. Hallett inquired about the
walkway system in the area. Franzen said there will be a trail
along the north side of the creek and that there should be a creek
crossing out on Mitchell Road.
MOTION 1:
1 Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell, to close the public
hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 10, 1987
1 1,0M id 2:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Welsh Companies, Inc. for Planned
Unit Development District Review on 100 acres with variances, Zoning
District Mange from Rural to I-2 on two acres for office/warehouse
use, based on revised plans dated August 6, 1987, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 7, 1987.
Motion carried 5-0-0.
i
SEPTEMBER 1,1987
36857 VOID OUT CHECK 2066.07-
36894 VOID OUT CHECK 43.75-
?0;898 VOID OUT CHECK 29.00-
07 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 307.74
,,iOB MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 177.45
36909 NATL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE-CITY MANAGER 100.00
36910 INTL PERSONNEL MGMT ASSN CONFERENCE-HUMAN RESOURCES 60.00
36911 MINN CLE CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 300.00
36912 CITY OF MINNETONKA CONFERENCE-COMMUNITY CENTER 120.00
36913 PADGETT THOMPSON CONFERENCE-CITY STAFF 588.00
36914 TC RUG TREASURER PAUL DOCKRY MEMBERSHIP DUES-PLANNING DEPT 15.00
36915 BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER 5394.40
36916 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 16.35
36917 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 826.90
36918 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 7884.76
36919 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER 13283.95 9
36920 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 516.62 '
36921 MARK VII DISTRIBUTORS BEER 20681.14 pp
36922 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO MIX 715.65 4
36923 ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CO MIX 92.55
36924 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 23305.05 g
36925 TWIN CITY HOME JUICE CO MIX 64.56
36926 KAY ASSELSTINE REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 30.00
36927 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
36928 KATHLEEN BIRLWELL REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36929 TONY BONGAARTS REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36930 SANDRA CHORLTON REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00 j
36931 KAREN EDSTROM REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 30.00
"'32 PAULA ELLINGSON REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
. 33 JAN FARMER REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36934 CORRINE FOLEY REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36935 JENNIFER GALLIVAN REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36936 LEAH TAYLOR HAKLIK REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36937 PATRICIA HAMMER REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36938 SUE HENDERSON REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 30.00
36939 LINDA HOFFER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 1.00
36940 DAVID HOKE REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36941 JOANNE JOHNSON REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36942 KARON JOYER REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36943 JENETTE JUNE REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36944 PEG KAMHALZ REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 45.00
36945 NICOLE KELJIK REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36946 PATRICIA KORTE REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 30.00
36947 MARY LANGLEY REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36948 KATHY MARCH REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36949 SALLY MATTKE REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 30.00
36950 JANIS MAYER REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36951 SUE MCMICHAEL REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 30.00
36952 SCOTT MORFORD REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36953 KATHY MORTON REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36954 JOYCE MYHRE REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36955 KATHRYN NEITZEL REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36956 JANET OLSON REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36957 CIOVANNA PATANI REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
8 CANDACE PETERSON REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
7289730
SEPTEMBER 1,1987
36959 MICHAEL REGENSCHEID REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 17.00
36960 KATHLEEN SCHUMACHER REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 30.00
`n61 JANET SNELL REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
52 CAROL SUGGS REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
3u963 JERRY THIMSEN REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36964 JEFF THOMAS REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36965 LINDA THOMAS REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36966 LINDA TOSKEY REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 30.00
36967 KATHY WELLS REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36968 KAY WESTLING REFUND-SAILING LESSONS 5.00
36969 CITY OF EDINA REGISTRATION FEE-COMMUNITY CENTER 40.00
36970 DENNIS BERGMAN REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 15.00
36971 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 3642.73
36972 MN ICE ARENA MANAGER ASSN CONFERENCE-COMMUNITY CENTER 180.00
36973 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 8-7-87 48091.97
36974 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 8-7-87 12666.40
36975 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 8-7-87 4176.00
36976 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP PAYROLL 8-7-87 865.00
36977 P E R A PAYROLL 8-7-87 99.00
36978 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG PAYROLL 8-7-87 805.00
36979 P E R A PAYROLL 8-7-87 23363.34
36980 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS PAYROLL 8-7-87 158.88 4
36981 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 8-7-87 699.13
36982 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST LIABILITY INSURANCE 80.00
36983 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 507.98
36984 MILE CONFERENCE-ASSESSING DEPT 135.00
36985 MILE CONFERENCE-ASSESSING DEPT 135.00
36986 PARK JEEP PARTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 65.28
-37 DANA GIBBS PACKET DELIVERIES 156.00
38 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 6500.00 p
36989 SHAKOPEE FORD INC -WINDOW MOTOR/DOOR SWITCH/PATCHED WHEEL 1999.06 f
-HOUSE & GAS OUTLET HOSE/REAR VIEW MIRROR/ j
-FRONT & REAR AXLE REPAIRS/REPAIRED DOOR & t
REPAINTED DOOR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
36990 KAKI WAHL MILEAGE 43.45
36991 U S POSTMASTER POSTAGE-FIRE DEPT 220.00
36992 NATL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE-COUNCIL MEMBER 90.00
36993 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 161.32
36994 KEY PRODUCTIVITY CENTER CONFERENCE-CITY MANAGER 145.00
36995 GREGG NELSON TRAVEL INC CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 460.00
36996 NATL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE-ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER 90.00
36997 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 519.41
36998 AT& T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 66.20
36999 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 14604.70
37000 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 1063.82
37001 AT& T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 0.30
37002 CITICORP INDUSTRIAL CREDIT SEPTEMBER 87 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 656.81
37003 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
37004 WELSH COMPANIES SEPTEMBER 87 RENT-CITY HALL 1449.67
37005 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 833.53
37006 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 1426.39 :
37007 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 9087.40
37008 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 8476.48
37009 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 4812.76
10 J0121SON BROTHERS 14HOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 9447.43
15820744
SEPTEMBER 1,1987
37011 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 144.00
37012 CAPITOL. CITY DISTRIBUTING CO WINE 138.03
7'e)13 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO WINE 18.10
14 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING 47.88
,)1015 JIM STUCKEL BOUNDARY CANOE TRIP GUIDE/FEES PD 480.00
37016 PADGETT THOMPSON CONFERENCE-FINANCE DEPT 98.00
37017 NORMAN WARTNICK SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 29.00
37018 EMMONS FORD SALES 1986 FORD BRONCO-POLICE DEPT 12385.00
37019 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-CITY HALL 55.73
37020 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE JULY 87 FUEL TAXES 244,97
37021 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE JULY 87 SALES TAX 22530.20
37022 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE HALF OF JUNE 87 SALES TAX 53
.8518
37023 METROPOLITAN WASTE COMMISSION DEFERMENT PAYMENT 16851853
.00
37024 AMY ABBATE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.00
37025 MAUREEN HALLENBERG REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 37026 LINDA HOFFER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 12.25
13.25
37027 JANINE LEHMAN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00
50
37028 SHERYL RENLUND REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00
37029 NORTHERN STATES POWER CA SERVICE 7920.12
37030 AAA STRIPING SERVICE INC STREET STRIPING-STREET MAINTENANCE 1950.60
37031 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 458.94
37032 HERBERT ADOLPHSON MILEAGE& MEETING EXPENSES-BUILDING DEPT 113,19
37033 AIRLIFT DOORS INC GARAGE DOOR REPAIRS-PARKS BUILDING 145.20
37034 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSN MEMBERSHIP DUES-PLANNING COMMISSION
37035 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SIGNS-STREET MAINTENANCE 1 570.00.
37036 MARK ANDERSEN 75
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD {
37037 ANSAFONE OF MN INC TELEPHONE REPAIRS-CITY HALL 1377.50
8700
37038 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 30.
39 B R W INC JULY 87 SERVICE-TRAFFIC STUDY 744.48
2
40 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -LAMPS/FUSES/SPARK PLUGS/BATTERIES- .4
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 113.46
37041 BERGIN AUTO BODY TRUCK REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 3r
37042 LOIS BOETTCHER 23-15
-PARK & RECREATION MEETING MINUTES FOR 354.25 !'
8-17-87
37043 BILL BRODEN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 13.00
37044 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC SERVICE-RIVER VIEW RD & VALLEY VIEW RD
37045 DAVE BRODEN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 667.20
37046 BROWN & CRIS INC EMERGENCY REPAIRS DUE TO STORM DAMAGE 13.00
37047 TIM BUSHNELL HOCKEY OFFICIALJFEES PD 3057.97
37048 CADY COMMUNITCATIONS TELEPHONE REPAIRS-CITY HALL 30.00
37049 CARDOX CORP CARBON DIOXIDE-WATER DEPT 63.56
37050 CARLSON REFRIGERATION CO INC 1210.93
ICE MACHINE REPAIRS-LIQUOR STORE
37051 CEDAR HILLS GOLF COURSE GOLF LESSONS/FEES PD 75.81
37052 CHAPIN PUBLISHING CO LEGAL ADS 90.50
37053 MEGAN CHORLTON TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 245.70
37054 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER RADIO-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 108.90
37055 CONTECH CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS IP1C -PIPES USED TO PUMP ROUND LAKE DUE TO 1006.34
STORM DAMAGE 539.79 }
37056 COPY EQUIPMENT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING DEPT 40.80 1 37057 CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC AUGUST 87 INSURANCE CONSULTANT 455.00
37058 CULLIGAN SERVICE
37059 CULLIGAN SERVICE 26.30
37060 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 26.30
84
37061 DALCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER & 6 438.
WATER DEPT 38.60
24543685
SEPTEMBER 1,1987
37062 D B SERVICE & EQUIPMENT -TIMER/MOTOR STARTER/FLOW SWITCH/PILOT 661.70
-IGNITOR/PIPE & WIRE/GAS VALVE-EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE
63 DECORATIVE DESIGNS SERVICE 49.50
.)i064 DEM CON LANDFILL INC JULY 87 DISPOSAL CHARGES-STREET DEPT 80.00
37065 LARRY DOIG EXPENSES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 15.00
37066 DONALDSON INDUSTRIAL GROUP DUST COLLECTOR BAGS-WATER DEPT 1046.61
37067 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-CITY HALL & COMMUNITY CENTER 263.49
37068 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 496.16
37069 BETH DURRE TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 149.50
37070 EAGLE SNACKS INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 28.56
37071 EDEN PRAIRIE APPLIANCE DISHWASHER REPAIRS-FIRE DEPT 77.64
37072 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC SAFETY SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 17.40 1
37073 CHRIS ENGER AUGUST 87 EXPENSES 167.50
37074 RON ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 82.50
37075 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES FENCE TIES-PARK MAINTENANCE 75.00 a:
37076 FLEET MAINTENANCE INC -CORE EXCHANGE/INSTALLED 8 REBUILT 1356.45
-INJECTORS/ADJUSTED VALVES/REBUILT PVC
-ASSEMBLY/REPLACED FUEL FILTERS/SEAL KIT-
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
37077 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 820.11
37078 LYNDELL FREY EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 9.01
37079 GARDNER HARDWARE CO -GARAGE DOOR PART-WATER DEPT/DOOR LOCK- 135.70
COMMUNITY CENTER
37080 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 44.50
37081 GENERAL WATERPROOFING COMPANY INC SERVICE-HOMEWARD HILLS PARK 456.00
37082 JOSEPH GLEASON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 478.50 }
37083 GOODYEAR TRUCK TIRE CENTERS TIRE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 191.65
'184 R L GOULD & CO INC 72 50 LB BAGS OF GRASS SEED-PARKS DEPT 5940.00
85 MELISSA GRAFF TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 109.35
37086 W W GRAINGER INC DIGITAL MULTIMETER-WATER DEPT 147.25
37087 CHERI GUNDERSON VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 65.00
37088 HARDRIVES GRAVEL-STREET MAINTENANCE 475.19
37089 EMIL HARLEY & ASSOCIATES INC U S CONSTITUTION BANNER-HISTORICAL CULTURE 68.50
37090 HARMON GLASS 2 WINDSHIELDS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 344.53
37091 HAYDEN MURPHY EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT RENTAL-DRAINAGE CONTROL 1138.00
37092 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 207.29 °t
37093 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS FILING FEE-ENGINEERING DEPT 10.50
37094 HENN CTY DEPT OF PROPERTY TAX POSTAGE-VOTER REGISTRATION VERIFICATIONS 18.06
37095 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE-PLANNING DEPT 45.00
37096 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER LICENSE FEE-PARKS DEPT 130.50 .
37097 EUGENE HICKOK & ASSOCIATES JUNE 87 SERVICE-PURGATORY RECREATION AREA 6046.05
37098 JACK HOENE HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 49.50
37099 HOFFERS INC SOFTBALL FIELD MARKING-PARKS DEPT 176.50 E
37100 MICHAEL J. HOSTETLER HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 88.50
37101 HYDRO ENGINEERING INC EQUIPMENT RENTAL-DRAINAGE CONTROL 2170.00
37102 IBM SEPTMBER 87 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 217.00
37103 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 -JULY 87 CUSTODIAL SERVICE-WATER PLANT & 1507.34
-PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING/ROOM RENTAL-
COMMUNITY SERVICES
37104 IDEAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PUMP REPAIRS-WATER DEPT 1274.70
37105 INTL CONFERENCE OF BLDG OFFICIALS MEMBERSHIP DUES-BUILDING DEPT 140.00
37106 JATA MARKETING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 62.00
37107 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC -OFFICE SUPPLIES-HUMAN RESOURCES & STREET 137.70
if DEPT
2727094
i
SEPTEMBER 1,1987
37108 PETER JOAS TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 90.50
37109 CASSIE JOHNSON TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 93.60
37110 KEITH KAPITAN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 188.50
11 TOM KEEFE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 126.50
, 112 RON KIRSCH VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 13.00
37113 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
37114 TOM KLITZKE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 344.50
37115 K MART 3052 SUPPLIES FOR DAY CAMP-COMMUNITY CENTER 56.69
37116 LAKESIDE PLUMBING REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT 20.50
37117 ROBERT LAMBERT AUGUST 87 EXPENSES 176.52
37118 LANCE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 144.90
37119 LANG PAULY &'GREGERSON LTD APRIL 87 LEGAL SERVICE 15271.27
37120 LANG PAULY& GREGERSON LTD APRIL & MAY 87 LEGAL SERVICE-INTL SCHOOL 3262.50
37121 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD MARCH 87 LEGAL SERVICE-LANDFILL 3478.95
37122 LARKSTUR ENGINEERING & SUPPLY INC HYDRAULIC HOSE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 433.50 {
37123 LOGIS SCHOOL-CITY HALL 700.00
37124 LOGIS JULY 87 SERVICE 6486.80
37125 LOUISVILLE LANDFILL INC JULY 87 DISPOSAL CHARGES-PARKS DEPT 318.00
37126 LYMAN LUMBER CO PLYWOOD-PARK MAINTENANCE 672.24
37127 MIKE MARUSHIN METRIC WRENCH SET-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 98.05
37128 TAMMY MCDONOUGH MILEAGE 5.00
37129 TIM MCGOVERN HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 108.00
37130 MORGAN MCINTOSH TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 51.98
37131 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 281.17
37132 MIDWESTERN MECHANICAL REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT 96.50
37133 HERMAN MILLER INC MODULAR WORKSTATIONS-CITY HALL 8315.44
37134 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP AUGUST 87 PAGER SERVICE 16.00
37135 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY FIRE PROTECTION CLOTHING-FIRE DEPT 578.00
136 MN FLEXIBLE CORPORATION HOSE-SEWER DEPT 126.60
37 MN MAYORS ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP DUES-CITY MAYOR 10.00
37138 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS-LIQUOR STORE 137.80
37139 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 37.75
37140 MOON VALLEY AGGREGATES SAND BAGS-STORM DAMAGE 1896.00
37141 SHARON MORGANS NOVELTIES SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 97.25
37142 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIRS-FIRE DEPT 267.52
37143 MELANIE MUSTANSKI TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 9.00
37144 J P NOREX INC -WATERMAIN & SEWER REPAIRS/REPLACED FIRE 3495.50
HYDRANT-WATER DEPT
37145 NORWEST BANK REFUND-OVERPAYMENT ON UTILITY BILL 2419.20
37146 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC COMPUTER PRINTER-UTILITY BILLING 336.00
37147 ED PEDERSON MILEAGE 50.00
37148 PITNEY BOWES MAIL METER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 211.00
37149 PMS SERVICE CORP CLEANING SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 260.10
37150 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN -MUFFLER/GRASS TRIMMER REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT 76.05
MAINTENANCE
37151 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING BOND PAPER-PLANNING DEPT 6.70
37152 PREMIER RENT A CAR CAR RENTAL FOR TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 560.94 i
37153 PRESERVE INSURANCE AGENCY LIABILITY INSURANCE-CITY HALL 301.00
37154 PRINT SHACK PRINTING-HISTORICAL CULTURE 13.20
37155 R & R SPECIALTIES INC ZAMBONI BLADES SHARPENED-COMMUNITY CENTER 68.73
37156 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE-TECHNOLOGY DR/PRAIRIE VIEW DR/ 32926.11 F
-RIVER VIEW RD/HIDDEN GLEN 3RD ADDITION/
-WYNDHAM KNOLL/VALLEY VIEW EXTENSION AT
-GOLDEN TRIANGLE DR/SHADY OAK RIDGE/
-BLOSSUM ROADWAY/BENNETT PLACE/PURGATORY
CREEK BOX CULVERT
8473506
Y
37157 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CA PARTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 15.98
37158 BECKY ROGERS TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 87.30
37159 LORI RONHWDE TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 94.50
37160 TIM RONHOUDE TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 111.00
27161 JESSICA ROTH TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 85.00
52 RUFFRIGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO VAC ALL EDUCfOR-SEWER DEPT 92270.40
163 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS CRAFT SUPPLIES FOR AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 268.32
37164 ST CROIX RECREATION CO PIPE-PARKS DEPT 22.66
37165 ST PALL BOOK & STATIONERY CO -OFFICE SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER/HUMAN 41.13
RESOURCES & POLICE DEPT
37166 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC PORTABLE RESTROOMS-PARK MAINTENANCE 440.00
37167 SAVOIE SUPPLY CA INC TOWELS-PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING 19.50
37168 KEVIN SCHMIEG JULY 87 EXPENSES 165.00
37169 LEE SCHNEIDER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 14.00 j
37170 SHOW QUALITY PET PRODUCTS SUPPLIES-ANIMAL CONTROL 5.95
37171 SNAP ON TOOLS CARP -WIRE CUTTER/WRENCFIES/CHISELS-EQUIPMENT 90.30
MAINTENANCE
37172 SODERQUIST SERVICES INC SERVICE-FORESTRY DEPT 350.00
37173 SOUTH HENNEPIN HSC 3RD QTR 87 SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES 2781.00
37174 SOUTHDALE YMCA 3RD QTR 87 HUMAN SERVICES 2500.00
37175 SW SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION 4TH QTR 87 OPERATING EXPENSES 1835,00 f
37176 SPORTS WORLD USA -PITCHERS MOUND-PARKS DEFT/T-SHIRTS- 283.50
COMMUNITY CENTER
37177 SPORTS WORLD USA 21 DOZEN SOFTBALLS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 1140.05
37178 STANDARD SPRING CO -BRACKETS/BOLTS/WASHERS-EQUIPMENT 34.60
MAINTENANCE j
37179 JILL STEVENSON TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 83.47
37180 STS CONSULTANTS LTD SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT ADDITION 1055.20
37181 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC PUMP TANK-SENIOR CENTER .00
37182 SUPER 8 MOTEL EXPENSES-STORM DAMAGE 35 56.20
'83 SUPERIOR PLASTICS CARP PVC PIPES & FITTINGS-WATER DEPT 545.45
34 JOSEPH SUTCLIFFE GOLF INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 90.00
37185 NATALIE SWAGGERT AUGUST 87 EXPENSES 165.00
37186 TARGET 220 -EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES/DAY CAMP/4TH OF 82.25
37187 TARPS INC JULY CELEBRATION
3718 THERN INC TARPS-FIRE DEPT 15.00
CRANE PARTS-WATER DEPT 18.12
COMM
37189 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC TAPE- UNITY CENTER 40.23
37190 TITLE SERVICES INC -OVERPAYMENT ON PRESERVE PLACE APARTMENTS 200.00
BOND FEE
37191 TOTAL TOOL PAINT-WATER DEPT
37192 TOWN & COUNTRY GLASS WINDSHIELD REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 74.18
37193 TWIN CITY PRICING & LABEL INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 35.00
37194 VAUGHNS INC SUPPLIES-WATER DEFT 1.25
37195 WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP CO PUMP REPAIRS-SEWER DEPT 150.00
37196 JIM WALTER PAPERS XEROX PAPER-CITY HALL 47.85
37197 KEITH WALL MEETING EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 538.00
37198 WATER PRODUCTS CO -SWIVEL ADAPTORS/GATE VALVES/BUSHINGS- 8.00
WATER DEPT 181.63
37199 WILSON TANNER GRAPHICS -BUSINESS CARDS/IDENTIFICATION CARDS-CITY 1941.50
HALL/PLAQUES/TROPHIES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS
37200 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 1ST AID SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 69.70
37201 EARL ZE14T MILEAGE
10852922 125.00
$697076.81
DISTRIBUTIONS BY FUND
10 GENERAL 201366.03
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 13391.34
{ LIQUOR STORE-P V M 80913.97
LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 50965.47
31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 18942.05
33 UTILITY BOND FUND 2205.82
39 86 FIRE STATION CONSTRUCT 245.70
45 UTILITY DEBT FD ARB 168660.00
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 32360.74
57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 3806.43
73 WATER FUND 28817.49
77 SEWER FUND 93566.77
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 1835.00
$697076.81
Hoyt Development
Y i
5555 WEST SFY EN I EIGHT/1 ST AEET
EDINA MINNESOTA t,543y 941
AUG 4 ,oS�� f
August 11, 1987
f
E3
Mr. Carl Jullie
City of Eden Prairie l
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344 j
Dear Carl:
Please place our request on the City Council agenda for a dual address for our
Technology Park IV building. Right now the building is addressed as 10120 West
76th Street. Since it is on the corner, we would also like to use the address
7545 Golden Triangle Drive.
We believe we have some compelling reasons to present to the City Council in
support of this request. Please advise as to when we might be able to get on
the agenda.
Very truly yours,
X
MENT
yt Managing General Partner
SBH:jmc
cc: Craig Dawson, Asst. City Manager
Elmer H. Swensen
0 CONSIgJCTIQN i* MANAGEMENT 0 INVESTMENT
CITY OFFICES 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE; EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344.2499 i TELEPHONE(612)937.2262
July 8, 1987
Mr. Steven B. Hoyt
Managing General Partner
Hoyt Development
5555 West Seventh Eighth Street
Edina, Minnesota 55435
Subject: Dual Address Request
Golden Triangle Drive & West 76th Street
Dear Mr. Hoyt:
In response to your letter of June 22nd, our policy when assigning
street addresses on corner lots is to assign only one address, that
being whichever the owner requests assuming the driveway access to
that street is provided. I did refer your request to our Public
Safety Department and they strongly recommended that there should not
be two separate addresses assigned for the same building because of
potential confusion during an emergency response situation. It is
very likely that the 911 Committee would not allow this to occur.
You do, of course, have the right to appeal this decision to the City
Council, but our recommendation to the Council will be to sustain our
current policy and decision in this matter. I would suggest that the
business owners involved could indicate on their stationery that they
are located at the intersection of Golden Triangle Drive and West 76th
Street. It seems that this would help solve the concerns they may
have.
I am sorry that I cannot respond positively to your request, and I
trust that you can appreciate our position in this matter also.
Sincerely,) ,)
Carl
City Man ge
CJJ:jdp r
1
A
Hoyt Developmenfi AN
C O f,! P A N V
t 5555 WEST SEVLN Ty ElfH 11SS-REET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 1?9atR200 37
9
June 22, 1987
a
Mr. Carl Jullie
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive .
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
i
Re: Dual Address Request
i
Dear Carl:
We recently completed the construction of Technology Park IV within our
Technology Park development. This building is located at the northeast corner
of Golden Triangle Drive and West 76th Street (see attached map). The address
given to this building by the City is 10120 West 76th Street. The building,
however, fronts on both Golden Triangle Drive and West 76th Street. The problem
is that tenant's located in the portion of the building fronting Golden Triangle
Drive have difficulty identifying with a West 76th Street address. Since that
area is a little hard to get to in the first place, it seems appropriate that we
be able to identify the building with two addresses, one being 10120 West 76th
Street and the other being 7545 Golden Triangle Drive.
This solution will help the business visitors of tenants fronting on Golden
Triangle Drive in finding the location, and will also address fire and life
safety concerns I have in the event an emergency vehicle was unable to find a
tenant due to this confusing address situation.
Please let me know if you think there would be any problem with this request. I
understand that it needs to go to the City Council for its approval. If so,
could you please make the necessary arrangements and advise of the hearing date.
Very truly yours,
HOYT DEVELOP ENT
/to-v--en 8. Hoyt
Y
Managing General Partner
r SBH:jmc
4
/F L:,PMFNr 0 CONS T RUCT!CN MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT
P
r \• AAA —
o a
o a 2 i
ti
d13
c _
c
m RFFjj oav gs?, Ag iF m 2
4 0
lad9
04
Z
g v
A I r z
m
go
i� }} 0
ion ' �, � �� � �t�l D j•
f
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION N85-252
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PRAIRIE VIEW ASSOCIATES,
BY PRAIRIE VIEW ASSOCIATES
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Prairie View Associates, by Prairie View Associates,
dated August 4, 1987, consisting of 16.18 acres into 3 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 1st day of September, 1987.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
r
ti
f
C �
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Comnission
FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner
UGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 7, 1987
PROJECT: Prairie View Center 2nd Addition
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Prairie Center Drive and Plaza Drive
APPLICANT: Prairie View Associates
REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of 16.18 acres into 3 lots and road right-
of-way with variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals.
Background
This site is the location of the -r-��rc PUS
Prairie View Center, previously
approved by the City Council in
February of 1986. The approval
consisted of the Prairie View Center " C-REG-S
on Lot 1, including a future
restaurant site, a future restaurant =
site on Lot 2, and an unspecified
commercial use on Lot 3. In March PROPOSED SITE i
of 1987, the proponents repiatted P
the property to include a portion of p�
Lot 3 into Lot 1 to accommodate
additional on-site parking require-
ments for Edina Sales and Leasing. _
This replatting was approved by the C REG
City Council but never recorded at
Hennepin County. The current re-
quest is to modify the Prairie ViewCenter 2nd Addition plat to combine
the remainder of Lot 3 into Lot 2 .•::"
and to provide a separate lot for '+
the restaurant site within existing r--. ' _5
Lot 1.
Preliminary Plat
The preliminary plat consists of
16.18 acres in road right-of-way and
three lots 1 acres, 2.17
acres, and 0.61 61 acresres respectivelyly,, AREA LOCATION MAP
C C
Prairie View Center 2nd Addition 2 August 5, 1987
o, meeting the minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 square feet within a C-Regional
Service zoning district.
The architecture consists of facebrick and a sloped pre-finished metal roof similar
to the existing shopping center. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) will be 0.18, while
Code allows up to a 0.20 FAR in the C-Regional Service zoning district. All
building setbacks meet City Code requirements.
The proponent is requesting two variances with this replatting; a zero-lot line to
parking, and a variance for off-site parking, to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals. The proposed lot line for the Baker's Square Restaurant cuts through the
existing parking lot. City Code requires a 10-foot setback to parking on any side
or rear lot line. The 138-seat restaurant requires 46 parking stalls based on 1
stall per 3 seats. City Code requires that all parking facilities shall be on the
same parcel of land they are to serve. The creation of this lot provides for only
16 on-site stalls. The approvals for Prairie View Center based parking needs on
building square footage and specific uses; therefore, adequate parking is available
within the overall existing parking plan. If the original plans for the Prairie
View Center consisted of this lotting pattern and had been processed through a
Planned Unit Development (PUD), since it contains 16+ acres, Staff would have been
in support of these variance requests.
Concurrent with final platting of the property, the proponent should apply for a
vacation of any unnecessary drainage and utility easements brought about by the lot
line revisions. In addition, prior to the release of the final plat, the proponent
should submit to the City for approval and Hennepin County for recording, an off-
site parking agreement between Prairie View Associates and Baker's Square, to
guarantee the availability of parking to meet Code for the Baker's Square
Restaurant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat request of 16.18 acres into 3
lots and road right-of-way with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
subject to the plans dated May 5, 1987, and May 20, 1987, the Staff Report dated
August 7, 1987, and the following recommendations:
1. Prior to 2nd Reading of the City Council, proponent shall:
A. Receive variances from the Board of Appeals for zero-lot line to
parking and for off-site parking for Lot 3.
2. Concurrent with Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Apply for vacation of any unnecessary drainage and utility easements
brought about by the lot line revisions.
3. Prior to the release of the Final Plat, proponent shall:
A. Submit to the City for approval and Hennepin County for recording,
an off-site parking agreement between Prairie View Associates and
Baker's Square, guaranteeing the availability of parking to meet
Code for the Baker's Square Restaurant.
B. PRAIRIE VIEW ASSOCIATES by Prairie View Associates for
Preliminary Plat of 16.i8 acres into 3 lots and road
right-of-way with variances to be reviewed by the Board of
Appeals. Location: Northeast corner of Prairie Center Drive
and Plaza Drive. A public hearing.
Planner Franzen introduced Clark Rooney representing Prairie View
Associates. Mr. Rooney indicated the request is to modify the
Prairie View Center 2nd Addition plat to combine the remainder of
Lot 3 into Lot 2 and to provide a separate lot for the restaurant
site within existinb Lot 1. Mr. Rooney also described plans for the
Baker Square Restaurant. Rooney stated that all of the Staff
recommendations can be complied with. Both the purchasers and
developer have agreed to this. Franzen said Staff recommends
approval of the project as presented.
i
Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 10, 1987
Hallett asked why the project was under construction when it has to 9
go before the Board of Appeals. Franzen indicated that tie approved
shopping center plan previously proposed a Perkins restaurant on the
Bakers Square site. The building permit was issued since enough
parking was provided on site per code. Subsequent to the permit the
proponents requested a plat primarily for mortgage purposes. If
the approved plans did not indicate a restaurant and/or if parking
could not be provided on site to meet code, the permit would not
have been issued until the Commission and Council reviewed the site
plan. §
Chairman Schuck asked for comments from the public. There were none.
M(7PION 1:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Hallett, to close the public
hearing. Ihbtion carried 5-0-0. P
MOTION 2:
i
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Fell, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Prairie View Associates for
Preliminary Plat of 16.18 acres into three lots and road
right-of-way, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
based on plans dated August 4, 1987, subject to the recommendations j
1 of the Staff Report dated August 7, 1987.
Motion carried 5-0-0. 1
k
i
JOHN E.DERUS PHONE
t;uM MIS SIU.vF.R , 348-3086
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55487
August 11, 1987
The Honorable Gary Peterson
Mayor
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Advisory Committee Membership
Comprehensive LRT System Plan
Dear Mayor Peterson:
The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) has begun
preparation of a Comprehensive LRT System Plan. The Plan will address
the potential for development of LRT in several corridors in Hennepin
County.
In order to have the benefit of input from all affected communities,
agencies and organizations, the HCRRA is forming advisory committees in
three categories:
o Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC). This Committee will
address major issues brought before the Committee and provide
guidance to the HCRRA study team regarding the conduct and direction
of the study.
o Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC, composed of staff from
affected communities and agencies, will evaluate technical issues
which arise during the study, provide technical advice to the HCRRA
study team, and advise the IAC on technical issues.
o Corridor Advisory Committees (CAC). There will be seven CAC's can-
posed of representatives of affected communities. Each will consider
issues relevant to the geographic area they represent. CAC's will be
formed for each of seven geographic areas:
- Northwest
- Southwest Suburban
- Southwest Minneapolis
- South (I-35W)
- Hiawatha
- University Connector
- Downtown
Mayor Peterson
August 11, 1987
Page 2
The HCRRA asks that you sit as a member of the Intergovernmental
Advisory Committee, or designate another elected official from your
community.
We also ask that you appoint three citizen members to the Southwest
Corridor Advisory Committee.
You may also wish to appoint alternate representatives to these
committees. Please inform the HCRRA of the names of your appointees by
Friday, August 28, 1987.
We are also writing to your City Manager to ask for an appointment to
the Study's Technical Advisory Committee.
We appreciate your participation in the Comprehensive LRT System Plan,
and look forward to working with you and your appointees. If you have
any questions, please call me or Vern Genzlinger (348-4306).
Sincerely,
HENNEPIN COUNTY EGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY
ohm E. Derus
Chairman
JED/ar