Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 07/19/1988
AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1988 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 Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 7., 1988 Page 1481 B. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 7 1988 Page 150D C. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, June 21, 1988 Page 1507 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List Page 1525 B. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Permit to Connect to Page 1526 Existing Facilities for Alpine Estates 2nd Addition (Resolution No. 88-141) C. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to Connect to Existing Page 1527 Facilities for I.C. 52-D51 Mitchell/Research RoadjResolution No. 88-142) D. Department of Natural Resources Permit to Cross Public Waters Page 1528 for I.C. 52-051 Mitchell/Research Road (Resolution No. 88-143) E. Approve Special Assessment Agreement with United Mortgage Page I529 Corp. Regarding Improvements to Dell Road F. Change Order No. s Hidden Glen 3rd Addition, I.C. 52-102 Page 1532 G. Approve Agreement with Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. for Page 1534 Engineering Services for the Design of TH 5 from CSAH 4 in Eden Prairie to CSAH 17 in—Thaniiassen City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,July 19, 1988 H. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 27-88, Amending 3.30 of the City Page 1555 Code to Provide for Use Restrictions During Water Emergencies I. Resolution amending the Fee Resolution allowingc the Imposition Page 1557 of a $25.007'urchar e for Violation of Use Restrictions During Water 9 Emergencies Resolution No. 88-147) J. Approve Plans and Specifications for Traffic Signal Installations Page 1558 in the Major Center Area and Set a Bid Opening Date of August IT —I988 (Resolution No. 88-T) K. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 30-88, Amending City Code Chapter 2 Page 1559 Repealing Section 2.88 Requiring the Filing of Financial Statements Relating to Receipts and Disbursements ply Candidates and committees in Connection with City Elections IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION No. 88-05, Vacation of a Portion of School Page 1560 Road Right-of-Way North of the Central Middle School (Resolution No. 88-140) B. FAIRFIELD by Tandem Properties. Request for Comprehensive Page 1562 Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres and from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 148.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances for street frontage and lot size on 148.2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 92.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 148.2 acres into 367 single family lots, 28 outlots and road right-of-way, review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for construction of a residential development. Location: West of County Road 4, southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad. (Ordinance No. 29-88, Rezoning; Resolution #88-137, Preliminary Plat) C. LARIAT CENTER by Edward F. Flaherty & M. Austin Smith. Planned Page 1613 Unit Development Concept Review on 18 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 18 acres with waivers within the C-Reg-Service Zoning District, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 4.8 acres, Preliminary Platting of 4.8 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 18,845 square foot auto mall and a 22,180 square foot retail center. Location: South of Prairie Center Drive, east of Joiner Way, north of Medcom Boulevard. (Resolution No. 88-138, Planned Unit Development Concept; Ordinance No. 28-88-PUD-7-88, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-139, Preliminary Plat) D. DORENKEMPER ESTATES by Alex Dorenkemper. Request for Planned Page 1633 Unit Development Concept Review on 46 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 46 acres with waivers within the Rural Zoning District, Preliminary Plat of 46 acres into 4 single family lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, west of Riley Creek. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 1634 City Council - 3 - Tues.,July 19, 1988 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of a Representative from the Flying Cloud Airport Page 1635 Businessmen's Association to fill an unexpired term to 2/28/89 on the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members B. Report of City Manager 1. Report on Proposal to Move the Prairie Village Mall Liquor Store —2. Award Contract for Aerial Ladder Fire Truck Page 1638 3. Reschedule date for Mid-Year Strategic Planning Session Page 1639 C. Report of City Attorney 1. Draft of Ordinance Regarding Outside Storage of Page 1640 Recreational Vehicles D. Report of Director of Planning E. Report of Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources 1. Alternate MCA Park Entrance Location Study Page 1641 2. Recommendation regarding Acquisition of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Page 1643 F. Report of Director of Public Works 1. Receive Bids and Award Construction Contract for Mitchell Road/Research Road, I.C. 52-051 (Resolution No. 88-144) 2. Receive Bids and Award Construction Contract for Franlo Road, IC. 52-T3Z Resolution No. 88-145) 3. Receive Bids and Award Construction Contract for Legion Park Utilities, I.C. 52-133 (Resolution No. 88-146) 4. Status of the Railroad Bridge at Valley View Road G. Report of Finance Director XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1988 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBER,: Mayor Oaty Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Additions to the Consent Calendar, Item W, Right of Refusal to Lease Space Adjacent to City Offices. Add Item VI.E, Request for Grading Permit for Wyndham Knob. Add under Item X.F, Discussion on Status of Highway 212. Under Council Member Reports; Pidcock discussion about signs for animal crossings and the watering ban. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to amend the Agenda to include the addition of these items to the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II . MINUTES A. Special Joint City Coun,gil/H.umaD Rights & Services Commission meetin _ held Tuesda_y, April 5, 1988 City Council Minutes 2 June 7, 1988 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Minutes of the Special Joint City Council/Human Rights & Services Commission meeting held Tuesday, April 5, 1988 as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. B. Regular City Council meeting held Tuesday, March 15, 1988 • MOTION: The following correction was made: Page 5, paragraph 2 should read: participants to hear what they consider . . . . Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, March 15, 1988 ad published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. Pidcock questioned the time limit allowed for the Minutes to come back to Council for approval. Dawson replied the State Law is 30 days. Staff is aware of the time lines and is working to get the Minutes current. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Final Plat Approval for Menard 5th...Addition (A - Z Rental), located south of Valley View Road and west of Plaza Drive(Resolution No. 88-90) C. Final Plat_Approval for,,.Tdlewi.ld._Lake Addition„ located north of Eden Road and _West of U.S. 169 (Resolution No. 88-91) D. Final Plat.._Approval for The Farm 2nd Addition, locatP� north of Duck Lake Trail and west of Boyd Avenue (Resolution No. 88-93) E. Final Plat Approval for Bluffs East Fifth.,_.,Addition, located west of Franio Road, south of Pioneer Trail (Resolution No. 88-94) F. Change Order No. 3 for Fire Stations Construction Contract G. Approve._Special Assessment Agreement for Southgate H. Receive .andApp_ro'_e First n::arterGener.al Fund Report I. Approve Special Assessment Agreement for Starrwood Addition City Council Minutes 3 June 7, 1988 J. Change Order No. 2,_.._I.C. 52_105Bennett Place and Blossom Road K. Chance Order No, 2, I .C. 52-096�Bluffs East 4th Addition L. Receive Petition_,.for Street and Utility_Improvements for Wyndham Nob and Authorize Preparation of a Feasibility Study,._I_C, 52-145 (Resolution No. 88-95) M. Receive Feasibility Study for Street Improvements on Hamilton Road and set Public Hearing, I.C. 52-131 (Resolution No. 88-96) N. livErove_,_Pl ,3nd__Srecifications f_or Sanitazy__Sewerf. Watermain and Storm Sewer Improvement to Legion Park Addition, and authorize bids to be received, I .C. 52-133 (REsolution No. 88-97) 0. Approve Plans.__and Specifications for Watermain and Street Improvements to Golden Triangle Drive and authorize bids to be received,_ I_C.52-110__(Resolution No. 88-98) P. Approve Final Planting Plan and Maintenance Plan for MWCC River Siphon Facility_on West Riverview Drive Q. Change Order No. 3 for Well House Construction Project,. I .C. 52-072B R. Resolution__.of Appreciation toThose Who Partici.kated in the 1988 Spring Clean-Up in Eden Prairie (Resolution No. 88-89) S. Re_guest_f_r_om Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce_ for...City,_ao helmdefray cost for the Eden Prairie Profile in the amount of $2,285.00 T. Rep_uest_..,_for Grading Permit lay MnDot,._to construct aPark & Ride Lot at the... Southwest_Corner of Flying Cloud Delve and Shady Oak Road (Continued from May 17, 1988) U. BLUFFS EAST 5THADDITION by Hustad Development Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 7-88, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 17.68 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Bluffs East 5th Addition; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-81, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 7-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 30.1 acres in to 34 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast of Meade Lane extension, west of Franlo Road, northwest of Antlers Ridge extension. (Ordinance No. 7- 88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-81 Authorizing Summary & Publication) City Council Minutes 4 June 7, 1988 V, FRANK BFDDOR PROPERTY by Fortier & M oclates, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Public Open Space to Industrial on 20 acres, Zoning District Change from I-GEn to I-5 on 18.7 acres, and from R1-22 to I-5 on 19.3 acres for construction of a 250,000 square foot industrial building. Location: Northeast corner of Highway 5 and West 184th Street. (Resolution No. 88-100, Denial of Request) W. RejectRightof First Refusal to lease space adjacent to City Offices. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Consent Calendar as published and amended. Harris believed that Item H regarding the budget should require separate action. Bentley suggested that the next budget give us a more realistic idea as to where the City is at and also suggested a way of adjusting estimating budget to date. Harris commented that regarding Item S the brochure was very well done. Pidcock questioned that the City having funded part of the brochure should have gotten credit for underwriting part of this. Dawson replied that the City Logo appears in the lower right corner of the brochure. Anderson agreed that in the future if the City funds this type of brochure it should be noted. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BLUFFS EAST___FTH by Hustad Development Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 186.3 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 45.16 acres with Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 6.94 acres, Preliminary Plat of 45.16 acres into 13 lots, 5 outlots, and road right-of-way for construction of 16 townhome units. Location: South of Franlo Road extension, south of Normandy Crest. (Resolution No. 88- 102, PUD Concept Amendment to Overall Bluff Country PUD; Ordinance No. 23-88-PUD-5-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88- 103, Preliminary Plat) Dawson reported that notice of this Public Hearing was sent to owners of 89 surrounding properties and published in the May 25, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Wallace Hustad, representing the proponent, present a brief outline of the project. The portion of the project area being presented was approved in 1986 for 20 single- City Council Minutes 5 June 7, 1988 family lots. Hustad stated that now a double-home project consisting of 26 units was being proposed. This type of project was not increasing the density of the project, but was presenting a different type of unit. Hustad believed that the type of architecture and quality of construction being proposed had improved the project. The townhome units would range in price from $180,000 to $220,000. Hustad introduced Steve Schwieters, builder and Bob Smith from Hedlund Engineering. Bob Smith stated that the land is predominantly grassland with a large stand of oaks. The land has varying grades. Erosion has taken place, but has been somewhat corrected by the introduction of a stand pipe which takes the water from Prairie Bluffs Addition and directs it to the bottom of the slope. Water has been diverted to the pond. The original plan presented to the Planning Commission proposed a significant tree loss and extensive grading. The new plan being proposed replaced the Y-intersection with a T-intersection which allowed the buildings to be moved to save more trees. A retaining wall system would help to save trees. Smith stated that the Planning Commission was also concerned with the transition between the twinhomes and the future development of single family homes. A buffer would be provided with a variety of trees. Schwieters presented the marketing plan and general concepts for this project. Schwieters believed this type of twinhome unit would blend nicely with single family units. Architectural continuity was presented among the three different types of elevations being proposed. Schwieters requested that the plan show 26 individual lots for proper identification and financing. The project would still have an association with twinhomes, but should be platted as 26 lots with one lot line being the common wall. Enjer reported that this item was reviewed at the May 9th and May 23rd, 1988 meetings of the Planning Commission. The Commission was concerned about the tree loss and grading. It appeared that the proposed revisions had improved the conditions; however, their success depended on the exact placement of the buildings as shown on the plan and the exact preparation of the building pads as shown on the development plan. There is a steep slope on the eastern portion of the north--south cul-de-sac and the Commission wanted to he sure the developer was comfortable with the grade as proposed. The saving of the trees on the west side of the project depended on the building of retaining walls and of limiting the building pads to the exact size and location shown. City Council Minutes 6 June 7, 1988 Eager further reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously at the May 23rd meeting subject to the Staff Report of May 6th with a recommendation also from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission that the plan should include a 5'- wide concrete sidewalk along the north of Franlo Road and a 8'-wide bituminous trail along the south of Franlo Road. Peterson asked what response the Planning Commission received from the builder regarding requiring that the building pads be placed exactly where shown. Enger replied that the builder indicated that the plans shown are the plans that represent the size and the location it proposes, and the backyard slopes and retaining wall locations are acceptable. The one item the Commission was looking for was a revision of the retaining walls to the west so that water would not drain over the walls. Bentley requested clarification on the terms of the platting request because the request indicated 13 lots, did it need to be revised to approve the 26 lots and thus have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission again to change to 26 lots. Dietz replied that there will be 26 lots. Bentley concerned about the legal and technical aspect for a properly filed Plat Request. Smith replied that they were requesting 13 lots at this time and after the buildings are complete will obtain an administrative lot split to achieve the 26 lots. Anderson asked Enger how can the City be assured that the pads will be exactly as shown. Enger replied that the difficulty comes when a developer sells to a builder and the builder has a different concept; in this instance the developer and the builder both have indicated what they plan to do with the property and are wanting to preclude disagreements at building permit issuance. Hustad stated that what has been shown was exactly what his firm intended to do. Schwieters stated that the exact plans have been finalized. Once the lot lines are set everything has to follow the front set back. Anderson commented that the reason for the question was because the Planning Commission had not stated before that the building pads and retaining walls had to be exactly as proposed for the project to work. Enger believed Anderson's question was actually if a builder looked at the Development Plan, building pad areas, where the slopes started behind the units and where the retaining wall started behind the units, would the unit size fit exactly on the pad as shown and would the slopes in the backyards acceptable. Schwieters replied that where the pads and buildings were shown was exactly where they would be built. Smith replied that the backyards are small, but a 2-to-1 slope was acceptable. Schwieters stated that on City Council Minutes 7 June 7, 1988 the 3 lots that would be affected he is prepared to build 1 decks if necessary. Peterson asked if the slope would be problematic for the construction of these buildings. Schwieters replied that on two lots he has provided for the extra courses of blocks necessary. Pidcock commented that Schwieters is a very good builder. Smith commented that the footings will be poured as soon as lot line is set and a pinning process will be used to assure that there won't be errors. Schwieters stated that the building will be staked by the surveyor, the hole dug, the footings poured and the surveyor will come again to insure the party line is in place before the blocks laid. Enger still concerned and asked if the plans submitted by Hedlund Engineering for grading represent the exact floor plan for each individual lot. Schwieters replied yes. Bentley asked if the builder and developer were committed to building this plan as shown: grading, building placement. Hustad stated the project is reflecting what the builder wants and it will be developed as designed. Anderson questioned who would be responsible for the maintaining of the pond. Hustad stated that presently his firm had responsibility for the pond, but there were long- range problems as to whether a gravity outlet would be present along with the drainage concerns along County Road 1. Hustad stated that the big issue is where will the water come from and how much will come into the pond, whether it will come from a larger drainage system to the north or just for this 50 to 60 acres. This question has not been answered to date. Anderson questioned how far the development would go before this issue was dealt with. Dietz replied that there were several issues yet with the holding pond; the real issue was whether to put a gravity outlet east across County Road 1 at some elevation and let the water go up and down. Anderson stated that this was exactly his point-this area had no drainage and the level of the pond could not be controlled. Eventually trees and vegetation could be lost, whose responsibility this would be was a concern. Dietz replied that ultimately this would be the City's as this will he part of the storm sewer system. Another possibility was putting in a pumping station. Engineers that have looked at the area have indicated that an outlot was not needed and probably won't see a significant depth problem. The drainage problems are relatively small. City Engineer Gray added that another consideration taken into account was that possibly this development should not proceed until the City has a final solution for the pond outlet and that City Council Minutes 8 June 7, 1988 there have been considerable erosion problems on the western side of the pond. At this time there is no control over the drainage from the Bluffs East 4th Addition. Gray believed that with the Franlo Road improvements and drainage conduits the erosion problems will be reduced and that this project could proceed. He suggested having some timetables in the Developer's Agreement as to when the drainage and pond outlet issues will be finalized. Anderson stated that if the pond would rise over 2 feet significant vegetation and tree loss will take place, did the City or the developer want to take the chance of this loss. Hustad replied that a significant amount of erosion has taken place from the north and west and there was a need to contain the water. Hustad stated that he did not want to see any loss of vegetation, but if there would be any loss it would be replaced. The completion of Franlo road would give the project a completed sewer system. No further comments from the audience. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-102 for PUD Concept Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No 23-8-PUD-5-88 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 88-103 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council conditions and to have the Development Agreement contain a schedule for the completion of the storm sewer system and that the Developer is responsible for maintenance of the Pond. Motion carried unanimously. B. GLENSHIRE by Associated Investments. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 30.6 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.3 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 City Council Minutes 9 June 7, 1988 on 17.3 acres, Preliminary Plat of 30.6 acres into 56 lots, 2 outlots and road right-of-way for construction of a single family development. Location: Northeast corner of Valley View Road and Edenvale Boulevard. (Resolution No. 88-104, PUD Concept for Glenshire; Ordinance No. 24- 88-PUD-6-88, PUD and Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-105, Preliminary Plat) Dawson reported that notice of this Public Hearing was sent to owners of 48 surrounding properties and published in the May 25, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Kay Schumacher, representing the proponent, stated that the development would consist of a spine of lots covering 14 acres. Outlot A has difficult soil conditions. A townhouse development was being proposed in the future. Staff has recommended 3 to 5 units to the acre and the proponent was proposing 7 units per acre. It was difficult at this time to finalize plans until the railroad and graffiti bridge plans are determined. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission pointed out that the park entrance and subdivision road would not align and that a new access to the park would be necessary. Equitable would assume the responsibility of restoration of berms. A concrete sidewalk was also suggested along Crestview Drive and Edenvale Boulevard and Equitable was in agreement with this suggestion. There were approximately 345 caliper of trees to be replaced. Enger reported that this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its first meeting in April and was recommended unanimously for approval at the May 9th, 1988 meeting with recommendations from the Staff Report dated May 6, 1988. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommended approval with a 6-0 vote at the May 16, 1988 meeting with the addition of a 5'-wide concrete sidewalk along south side of Woodlawn Drive to extend across the front of this project. Enger further reported that Outlot A would be designated as medium-density residential as currently on the Guide Plan, not to exceed 3 to 5 units per acre. Heavy landscaping should be provided for the transition in the future. Outlot B is currently designated as medium- density residential and church on the Guide Plan and any other use would require a Guide Plan change. The Planning Commission is suggesting a continuation of the single family units to outlot B or preserve it for a church site. Bentley asked Enger where the City stands on the R1-9.5. Bentley believed this to be changed to RM1-9.5. Enger replied that the policy direction was as follows: that the Zoning District R1-9.5 was not to be considered on sites other than Medium Density Residential. Bentley asked 141�) City Council Minutes 10 June 7, 1988 Enger If this project, Incorporating full-sized residential homes, met the intent of R1-9.5. Enger replied that in the last 3 years he had not seen a request that met the original intent of the R1-9.5 Bentley believed that the City had stopped the development of a row of houses on either side of the street because of the crowded look to a development. Peterson stated that somewhere the original intent was loot. A Council study session may need to be scheduled to discuss the issue of R1-9.5. Peterson questioned if there was screening or berming provided between the project and Outlot A. The developer stated that they would work with Staff to arrive at a combination of berm or landscaping. Anderson concerned that the Hestia development is less than 1/4 mile from this development. The City has a cluster now of R1-9.5 homes in this part of the city more than in any other part. The developer stated that there is a 300-plus acre park in the area. Peterson suggested that the R1-9.5 issue be placed on the agenda at a future meeting so that the Council can give a clear direction to the Planning Commission. Bentley suggested asking the Planning Commission to review the Issue and give its thoughts to the Council regarding this issue. Peterson suggested alerting developers that the Council does has reservations in regard to R1-9.5 developments. Enger stated that direction is needed because a 200-unit development request has been made in the southwest area. No further comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-104 for PUD Concept Approval. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 29-88-PUD-6-88 for PUD Review and Rezoning. Motion carried 4-1 with Anderson voting "No". MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 88-105 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried 4-1 with Anderson voting "No". City Council Minutes 11 June 7, 1933 MOTION: 11 Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council conditions to include discussion between Staff and Proponent relative to reasonable berming and screening. Motion carried 4-1 with Anderson voting "No". C. TRANSFER OF CABLE OWNERSHIP (Resolution No. 88-108 giving Final Approval to a Transfer of the City's Cable Television Franchise; Ordinance No. 25-88 amending Ordinance No. 13-85 to change the Name of Grantee; and approval of Documents) Dawson reported that Rogers Cable Systems was considering sale of its United States holdings. The matters for Council consideration would clear up changes in names of the responsible corporations within Rogers structure which had occurred over the past few years. This was a housekeeping item. No further comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-108 giving final approval to the transfer of the City's cable television franchise. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve let Reading of Ordinance No. 25-88 amending Ordinance No. 13-85 to change the name of the grantee. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the documents necessary to effect these changes. Motion carried unanimously. D. VACATION 88-,22 OF DRAINAGE AND uyiLiTy EASEMENTS ON GOLDEN RIDGE HjI LDS (Resolution No. 38-99) Dawson reported that this was a housekeeping item. No further comments from the audience. City Council Minutes 12 June 7, 1988 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 88-89 for vacation of the drainage and utility easements in Golden Ridge Hills. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve Payment of Claims No. 42582 to 43016. Roll Call Vote: Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and Peterson voting "Aye". VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Draft ordinancer.egarding Recreational Vehicles (continued from May 17 Council meeting) Harris questioned the grandfathering issue, noting there were a lot of recreational vehicles parked along Pioneer Trail across from the airport. Pauly replied that the area across from County Road 1 is not what this proposal is directed toward. There are possibly code violations now and the Planning Department is investigating this. Pidcock questioned on Page 2 of the draft which stated that only 2 recreational vehicles could be stored. Pidcock believed that only 1 had been recommended. Pauly replied that he was not under the impression that any determinations were made or any guidance. Pidcock proposed that only 1 be considered per household. Pidcock stated that none are allowed on The Preserve. Peterson commented that the conflict between the property owner's rights of use of the property and the right of the neighbors to have a pleasant view. The rights of both parties need to be protected. Anderson questioned what was considered obstructive. When an object is higher than the garage then it becomes another building. Side yard setback was another issue. Anderson stated that if an object was parked for over 9 months out of the year on the property line this should be considered obstructive. Peterson asked Pauly about Section 2.D where it stated that the vehicle must be owned by the resident. Peterson believed there would be many exceptions to this. Pauly replied that this was part of a first draft and should be taken out as it would be difficult to enforce. Peterson stated that the intent was to prevent renting of space. Pauly stated that this would he difficult to police also. I City Council Minutes 13 June 7, 1988 Anderson stated that Bloomington's ordinance was given as a guideline. a Pauly stated that as it was written now, the ordinance would prohibit visitors coming and parking their boats for over a specific time limit. Bentley suggested a permit be built in to allow for these type of situations. Bentley questioned if the City was not creating a bureaucracy. Bentley suggested the language from the Bloomington Ordinance: In addition to the exterior storage of vehicles in excess of 7' is prohibited except in the buildable portion of a lot. No major recreational vehicle may be used for living, sleeping or housekeeping stored on a residential lot. The Bellevue Ordinance states that storage would only be permitted in the front yard if space is not available in rear yard or side yard and there is no reasonable access to rear yard or side yard. Bentley believes that what was being proposed was not strict enough. Harris believed that Pauly had a good start. Peterson suggested dealing with this issue as problems arise. Pidcock replied that then the City is constantly revising the Ordinance and the issue keeps coming back. Bentley was concerned with the residents' concern over front yard storage. This has been going on for years. The City has very restrictive rules for development, but once residents move in they can do anything with the property. Bentley believed that the City should put in an appropriately restrictive Ordinance or not bother with the issue. Pidcock stated that this ordinance did not address all the concerns brought up at the last meeting. Anderson stated that he did not believe the intent was to restrict all recreational vehicle storage, only the excessively large ones and concerned about how far the City was to go with this. Mrs. Bernadine Moser, 7263 Topview Road, stated that her concern was with a big blue boat stored year round within 10 feet of the lot line. She wished wanting to clear the neighborhood of such eyesores. Moser stated that it was not her intent to restrict all recreation vehicles, and the 7' height and 10' from the lot line limits would be reasonable with a time limit. Moser believed the ordinance ac written to be confusing. Mike McCosky, 7251 Topview Road asked if this Ordinance means that one could not park on a city easement. Bentley City Council Minutes 14 June 7, 1988 replied yes. McCosky stated that this was all the { ordinance accomplished because this was how it has been interpreted. Bentley replied that one could not park in the side yard setback closer than 10' from the lot line or the backyard, nor could one park in the front except in the driveway and in which case the rear of the vehicle could not be closer than 15' from the street. Moser requested a definition of a driveway. Pauly replied there was not an official definition of a driveway. McCosky asked how long Bloomington's ordinance has been in effect. Anderson believed approximately 10 years. McCosky stated that it must have been successful, so that would seem a good foundation to start with. Peterson suggested that the Council move to direct Pauly to redraft and Ordinance similar to Bloomington's. No further comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to refer this back to the City Attorney and pattern after the Bloomington Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously B. BRAU ADDITION, by Scott Brau. Request for Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of 2.12 acres into two single family lots within the R1-22 Zoning District. Location: 16201 Pioneer Trial. (Resolution fl88-92, Preliminary Plat and Final Plat) MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 88-106 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement. Motion carried unanimously. C. MEL_ HANSEN ADDITION, by Mel Hansen. Request for Preliminary Plat of 1.42 acres into two single family lots with the R1-22 Zoning District. Location: 9091 West Staring Lane. (Resolution #88-107, Preliminary Plat) MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 88-107 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement and Special Assessment Agreement (for future roadway and utilities) . Motion carried unanimously. it l) l City Council Minutes 15 June 7, 1988 D. Resolution NO. 88=109 establf_hing__, Uniform Pillc7_ wi_th. Reject to Lobbying by Cable Applicant, with Individuuaal Council Members on Staff MOTI ON: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 88-109 establishing a uniform policy on lobbying by Cable applicants. Peterson questioned if this had anything to do with free speech. Pauly replied that he did not believe it to do so. Motion carried unanimously. E. Request for Grading Permit prior to 2nd Reading, Dawson stated that Staff has review an early grading permit for the Wyndham Nob Addition prior to 2nd Reading. Staff had reviewed this request and recommended that this permit be issued prior to second reading if the applicant has secured all other required permits, and further that conditions be placed on the grading permit relating to tree restoration, erosion control, and financial guarantees. Peterson questioned if all these conditions have been met. Proponent replied that it had received or would soon be obtaining the necessary permits. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock that in light of the applicant having met all conditions to issue a grading permit prior to second reading for Wyndham Nob with the clear understanding that the proponent proceed at its own risk. Motion carried unanimously. VII . PETITION,^,_RE llE^TS ,4 COMMUNICATIONS VIII . REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMIISSIONS I X. APPOINTMENTS A. Ni_ne_..Milp Creek Watershed District - Endorsement of the reappointment of Dr. Eugene Davis to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to endorse Dr. Eugene Davis for reappointment to the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District. Motion carried unanimously. „h; City Council Minutes 16 June 7, 1938 D. Di1cy-Purgatory=Bluff Creek Watershed District - Endorsement of the reappointment of Howard L. Peterson to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to endorse Howard Peterson for reappointment to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Motion carried unanimously. X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS k COMMISOIONS A. Reports of Council Members Pidcock asked Diets if it was possible to post signs to notify motorists to be cautious of animals. Dietz replied this would he expensive and strongly urged not doing this. Dietz commented that the "Children at Play" signs had been taken down throughout the City because they became meaningless and believed a similar situation would happen with these signs. Pidcock questioned the reason for watering ban. Dietz replied that in the current situation we do well during weekdays, but weekends are becoming difficult. There is abuse of the odd/even system. The City is looking at some serious problems during weekends. This is a drought situation. Peterson stated that this is an unusual situation. Pidcock stated that people are confused about the ban rules and questioned how it could be posted effectively. Dietz replied that it has been on television, radio and in the papers. Dietz also stated that if the situation continued, even more restrictions may have to be put into place. Harris commented that based on Dietz's concern about the need for further restrictions if there could be a benefit to getting them on the air earlier so that the City could avoid a crisis situation. Harris concerned about fires and residents having water for routine uses. Dietz suggested an odd/even system with hourly restrictions possibly from 9AM to 7PM. Dietz further commented that this is a State-wide crisis. Dietz would like to be able to discuss this with the City Manager. Anderson commented that in this community it takes at least two weeks to get the word out. Some time is necessary for people to respond. Dietz replied that the City could possibly run out of water this weekend if there is no rain. City Council Minutes 17 June 7, 1988 Peterson questioned If it would be possible to reduce the output and reduce the pressure. Dietz that there would be several operational problems with that. Bentley believed that the City had not begun to come close to compliance of the odd/even ban. Dietz replied that warnings are being issued, but the process was cumbersome. Bentley stated that if this were very serious, the City needed to make a major effort and go the extra mile to enforce the restrictions. Firefighter, Glenn Johnson stated that the people do not understand the restrictions and if they are not kept simple; don't go back and forth between odd/even and hourly and then back again. Peterson asked Dietz if a 50% compliance level was achieved could the City get by. Dietz replied no. The demand is currently 5 times our supply. Bentley stated that peopl•a with automatic sprinkler systems needed to be reminded of the restrictions as it would be an easy way to reduce water use significantly. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to authorize the Director of Public Works subject to confirmation from the City Manager to institute a watering ban with odd/even with hourly restrictions from Noon to GPM. Bentley believes 10 to 6 too restrictive. Pidcock asked how will this get the word out to the public. Dietz replied radio, television and the papers. Motion carried unanimously. B. Reportof City Manager No Report. C. Re p_rt_.of City Attorney No Report. D. Report of Director of Planning 1. Reprt on City Plan Review for Cedar Ridge School Enger reported that Mr. Hamilton, an architect representing the Eden Prairie School District was present. The site plan had been revised to reduce tree loss to 16%. Enger stated that Hamilton was requesting that the tree City Council Minutes 18 June 7, 1988 repl• cement plan be submitted later in the process. The grading permit was ready to go. Peterson stated that he would be comfortable with this. The City has had a good relationship with the School. Anderson questioned if the School District or its architects had been told by the City that they would not be required to get approval. Hamilton replied not to his knowledge. Hamilton stated that working with the City Staff had been good and had helped to develop a better plan. He did nut understand how the review was missed. Hamilton offered an absolute guarantee that it will not happen again and offered the Districts apology. Peterson asked Enger if there was a loophole in procedures. Enger replied that in the process for zoning review, the City had become used to looking at every single project. If it is required that every site have a site plan review, then the Planning Commission can catch the problems. Enger further commented that the Commission is trying to sort out what happened and how public projects are reviewed. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to explore a code amendment that would look at a site plan review fur any proposed development even though the project fits within the existing zoning. Anderson was disappointed with this proposal because the City had a plan for a combination playground and park, and now for the District to accomplish this plan will cost taxpayers more money. Motion carried unanimously. E. Report of Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resource• No Report. F. Report of Director of Public Works Dietz presented a draft layout plan for Highway 212. Dietz stated that this was not a final plan and was not approved, but was the first step in the mapping process. Technology Drive would have to be relocated. Dietz commented that the plan did not show the way access had originally been proposed. With this proposal there will I t/ ).7 City Council Minutes 19 June 7, 1938 be an impact on the Middle school alto, and the Dell Road interchange was still under consideration. Peterson asked if the State was committed to this alignment. Dietz replied no, four alternates were being studied in the EIS. The Council has gone on record as approving the alignment depicted on the layout. Pidcock asked what would happen to new homes In the area. Dietz replied that the new homes would not be razed. Peterson asked if realignment of Scenic Heights Road would be the City's responsibility. Dietz replied no, that this is a MnDot project. Dietz further commented that Staff would be getting back to MnDot in 45 days with recommendations. Peterson asked about what financial opportunities would be available for people to sell their homes. Dietz replied that a hardship acquisition can be applied for. Peterson asked Dietz about dates for letting contracts for Highways 169 and 5. Dietz replied the 2nd phase of Highway 5 hid was to he April 1988, but now will be probably be looking at the spring of 1989. G. Regort of Finance Director No Report. XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 PM. Motion carried unanimously. lg19 • UNAPPFOVED MINUTES SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1988 6:00 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: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund I. ROLL CALL All Present. II. CALL MEETING TO ORDER III. DISCUSSION ON SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING Assistant to the City Manager Dawson presented the highlights of the memorandum. Dawson stated that the waste management environment is fluid and information changes frequently. For example, estimates of waste generation are not consistent from month to month. The county estimates the City's waste generation to he 37,900 tons. Dawson reported that the definition of recyclable materials had changed to include material recovered from mechanical separation. The guiding body at this time is the Metropolitan Council, which still favors source separation. Dawson believed it would be difficult for the Metropolitan Council to be more restrictive than the State Law; however, there remains some risk if the City goes toward mechanical separation. Peterson requested clarification as to whether the County permits fluff or compost as recyclable. Dawson replied that the definition was on a State level and the State would not allow RDF, DRDF to he counted as recycled. Dawson reported other changes as; t) disposal of yard waste in landfills will be prohibited after January 1, 1990. 2) the Uniform Building Code would require suitable space be provided for separation, collection, and temporary storage of recyclable materials in new buildings. 3) Cities having Landfills can increase their surcharge. Dawson stated that the County is looking for the major portion of the 16% to come from residential areas. The county has a funding assistance program, although a process such as that at City Council Minutes 2 June 7, 1988 the Reuter facility would not be eligible for grants. The • county only funds source separation and of that 6 - 10'k may be required to come from the residential area. Dawson said that solid waste costs will rise. Tipping fees will increase, therefore, increasing hauling costs approximately 35-40%. Dawson reported that there are two recyclable collection services that are common enough to predict costs with some accuracy: biweekly residential curbside and yard waste collection. The City needs to consider yard waste collection. The question is what to do for the next two years and to what degree should the City become involved during the interim. Any program to be successful needs an extensive publicity campaign. Separate containers to store recyclables have proven to be effective to increase recycling. Hennepin County does provide assistance for container fees. City staff has some disagreement with the County staff regarding estimates of the waste generation numbers. Bentley asked Dawson what can or should the City do about the discrepancy between Hennepin County and our own projections. A formalized written request should he issued to look at the changes and get the process started. Peterson commented that the City would have to know what method would be used to measure the waste if the Reuter facility were used. Dawson commented that one question has been how should the City pick up the recyclable waste and where should it go? The first preference has been a mechanical separation system. The City Attorney has given an opinion that this waste could he directed to the Reuter facility as a condition of having a City waste hauling license. There is a public participation process necessary. A public comment period of 90 days is required. If the Council wishes to have new licensing conditions adopted no later than the first meeting in December, a public hearing would need to be held and a resolution of intent adopted by the first meeting in September. The contract negotiations with Reuter should he substantially resolved by August. Anderson stated that it seems that the emphasis is being placed on source separation recycling. The easiest material to recycle is what is called clean material, which is mostly paper. Eden Prairie has a lot of office/warehouse space which produces this type of recyclable material. Bentley wanted clarification if with commercial program the City would have a separate type of collection system. The paper is intended to he made into pellets or fluff. Harris believed that the program should look at the City's total population, both residential and commercial and make vI City Council Minutes 3 Juno 7, 19A8 appropriate planning and proces;.ing to capture that. waste. Harris was concerned about the refusal to accept the DRDF, the paper product as recyclable particularly if this product could be recycled as fuel. Dawson replied that the definition of recyclable is a product reused in its original form and those that go through a manufacturing process are not recycled in this sense. Bentley commented that anything that goes to the County's downtown incinerator would not be considered recyclable. Harris questioned the costs Issue. Would the focus be on the private homeowner or can an equitable distribution of costs be realized with a program of this type. Dawson replied that the costs to a corporation for waste disposal is a relatively small cost in doing business and to change the way they do business will not be an easy sell. Corporations' costs will also he increasing with the County's proposal. The focus has been on residential because it is easy to understand and the residential area has been where the most effort for recycling awareness has been placed. The residential area is were the greatest cost differential will he. Anderson stated that in some places there is no charge for pick up if the paper is sorted out. They will be paid the current market price for the paper. What was considered garbage is now something profitable. For the larger paper users it could possibly cut costs by 2/3. Peterson commented that this is all part of an expensive public relations program. Dawson stated that this recycling by smaller business would not be profitable and that somehow this would have to be encouraged in whole buildings. Dawson continued to review the memorandum and stated that the County assistance should not be counted on for long-term uses. Dawson believed a collection center should be provided. Dawson reported that the Reuter facility system would be relatively inexpensive compared to a curbside program. Pidcock asked there were any other facilities like the Reuter facility in the metro area. Dawson replied there arc none to his knowledge. Dawson reported that the Reuter facility has indicated an interest in looking at commercial recycling and he believes that this option should be explored. Dawson stated that the recycling program would take a lot of time and the Council should consider authorizing another Staff position during the Fall budget deliberations. Dawson said that in looking into paying for the recycling service, billing would he difficult with a curbside program to bill all the users. Pidcock asked if this could be billed City Council Minutes 4 June 7, 1988 with the sewer and water. Dawson replied that not everyone had City sewer and water and this would not be a totally fair system. Dawson added that this service is mandated by the State end will create a higher level of taxes. Bentley commented that Dawson had done an excellent job in preparing the information. Peterson questioned if the Council wanted to he the review agency or should a committee be established to do some of the preliminary work and make recommendations to the Council. Bentley believed the answers to be clear and that the Council did not have the time frame to work with an independent group. Publication should be in the paper by late August. Anderson believes that it is extremely important to get something started as soon as possible. Anderson asked Pauly if the Metropolitan Council did not have to adhere to the State Law. Pauly answered yes, it Is a question of whether the Metropolitan Council or other opponents to mechanical separation and roll back the law to require non-mechanical, which is not likely to happen. Bentley stated that the Metropolitan Council does not have legislative power, it is only a planning agency. Anderson commented that he wished to go with the program that will serve the community the best and was not concerned with what the Metropolitan Council had to say as long as the City was in compliance. Anderson further stated that he did not want the City criticized for doing nothing. Peterson commented that the Council had been waiting for data and waiting for action from the County and State and believes that the Council has proceeded with caution. Peterson commented that the City will continue to be criticized. Harris believed that this was not an either/or situation, but believed the City would receive the greatest benefit from a mechanical separation program. Harris suggested a collection center which would be of minimal cost and be able to combine the best of two worlds. Dawson replied that the City may have to amend the zoning ordinance to allow for outside storage trailers. Bentley believed there to be two primary issues to consider; effectiveness and cost and that the most effective way to deal with this is to keep it within the private sector as much as possible. Bentley commented it comes to the point of property taxes or user fees and that user fees are the fairest way if it can be administered with cost effectiveness. Peterson commented that the Council should have more information about the Reuter process and that a public meeting should he scheduled. The Council should prepare questions for the Renter Facility so that they can have answers. Peterson City Council Minutes 5 June 7, 1988 a .ke] if the Council la saying something about recycling when It support, the burning of paper is acceptable, but that it wants to recycle glass, aluminum and ferrous metals. Harris questioned what has the market for paper been. Peterson questioned what the market was for recyclables in general. Peterson questioned the likelihood that pellets will be allowed to be burned in Minnesota and if the Reuter facility had to ship the pellets more than 100 miles, would that be offset by acceptable tipping fees. Peterson questioned what time line is projected for Minnesota to permit burning pellets and if permits are not received where will the compost go and if doesn't become part of the income stream and becomes part of the cost stream will the tipping fees be effected. Anderson stated that it becomes important for industry to find a market for recyclables. The problem being that the capability for recycling is there, but the government has to encourage for companies to get into the recycling business. Bentley stated that the questions being asked are of economic issues and are out of the Council's realm of responsibility. Reuter has committed to charge 95% of what the County would charge. Bentley questioned what the justification was for that figure. Peterson stated that the economic element was important. If it becomes a cost to the private sector and there is not a lucrative market then the recyclables will end up in landfills or somewhere else. Harris stated that the City has no control over this. Bentley questioned the viability of pellets in the future. Harris asked Katy Boone from Reuter, Inc. if there was no market for the pellets, does Reuter have a plan for recycling paper. Katy replied that currently it is either shipping the pellets out of state or storing them. Reuter is processing about 200 tons a day. Reuter hopes to get this issue resolved with the PCA this summer. Reuter is looking at DRDF. information on test burns for pellets is available. 40 to 50% of residential waste is made into pellets. Bentley stated that he was prepared to make a motion to give direction to Staff as to how this issue should proceed. City Council Minutes 6 June 7, 1988 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to continue to pursue mechanical separation of recyclables as the primary component of the program and that commercial wastes be included in the overall program and be directed to the Reuter Resource Recycling Facility as a probable tipping location. Further, that a collection center be provided for those persons who will not have curbside or mechanical separation available. Peterson stated that he i; not willing to imply that that is his favorite option. Peterson would still like answers to questions, have public input, and possibly meet with Hennepin County Commissioner Randy Johnson. Peterson stated that he would vote for the motion with the understanding that it is still an open question and that it does not represent a commitment to this form of waste management. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to direct Staff to follow the statutory time periods for hearing and public comment and final Council action by December 6, 1988. Dawson stated that Staff would be working to accelerate the time table. Motion carried unanimously. Peterson asked for an answer to some of his questions. He wished to hear from Reuter Inc.and also to have the public informed of the meeting at which these issues would be discussed. Harris commented that she would like to have some of the garbage haulers present. Pidcock requested background information on the Reuter facility prior to the meeting. Bentley asked Dawson if the addition of a Staff person had to be dealt with tonight. Dawson replied no. Bentley commented that it would make sense to put it on the budget for the Fall. Bentley further stated that he believed that user fees should be used to whatever extent possible. Pauly stated that under the law collection can be organized through ordinance, franchise, bided or negotiated contract or other means. In order to designate a specific delivery point it has to be a collection that is engaged in by the municipality or by contract per the statue. He believed individual licenses and contracts could be tied together. 1_, City Council Minutes 7 June 7, 1988 IV. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:15 PM. /'JO(..) a UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1988 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 Sue Anderson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Anderson absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Agenda as amended and published. Additions to the Agenda: Under Item X.A.1 Harris placed items relating to communications from Vantage Companies and Flagship Athletic Club. Under Item X.A.2 Pidcock wished to report on two meetings of the Chairmans Advisory meeting of RTV. Under Item X.A.3 Peterson requested a discussion on the creation of a Waste Management Board or Commission. Under Item X.B.3 Scheduling a follow up meeting of Strategic Planning Process. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 5, 1988 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting Held April 5, 1988 as published and amended. City Council Minutes 2 June 21, 1988 The following cch3nget, wete made: 1 Page 13, paragraph 2 should read: outdoor planting around entrance Page 15, Item VII.A should read: Request for Site Plan Review. .. Page 8, paragraph 3 should read: She believed that what makes cities interesting is not uniformity In color of buildings or height of skyline, but appropriate variances of each and that the spire, while visible from many places in Eden Prairie, may be no less obtrusive than the IDS Building, which is also visible. Page 7, paragraph 8 should read: has watched the development of the church since its inception. Motion carried unanimously. B. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 19, 1988 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting Held April 19, 1988 as published and amended. The following changes were made: Page 8, paragraph 3 should read: Bentley opposed on the basis that it was inappropriate to . ... Item IX.A, paragraph 1 should read: Peterson stated that the name of Sue Keller was suggested as someone interested in the school systems and who might possibly represent Eden Prairie. Item X.A, paragraph 1 should read: She suggested involving citizens through homeowners' associations and other civic groups in the Eden Prairie Spring Clean Up in a formal program to make citizens aware of the degree of pollution being created. Item X.A, paragraph 5 should read: Peterson stated that perhaps one or more of the civic organizations might be willing to co-ordinate this sort of project in the future. Page 4, paragraph ]2 should read: original condition as well as they possibly can. Motion carried unanimously. 5') City Council Minutes 3 June 21, 1988 C. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 3, 1988 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting Held May 3, 1988 as published and amended. The following changes were made: Page 4, paragraph 7 should read: unless property was later subdivided. Motion carried unanimously. D. Board of Review Meeting held Monday, May 16, 1988 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Minutes of the Board of Review Meeting Held May 16, 1988 as published. Motion carried unanimously. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License..,._List B. 2nd Reading-_of Ordinance No. 25-88amending Ordinance No. 13-85 to change the Name of Grantee (Cable TV) C. Purchase of Piano for Senior Center D. Approval of Relocation Claim for Clarence & Lorraine Janke E. Approve Special Assessment Agreement with Creek Knolls Partnership for Bluff Road F. Resolution No. 88_128 Giving Final Approval to the 1987 General Fund Budget G. Approve Plans and Specifications_for Sanitary Sewer, Watermain and Street Improvements to Mitchell Road and Research Road and Authorize Bids to be Received, I.C. 52- 051 (Resolution No. 88-121) H. Approve School Zone Speed Limits (Resolution Nos. 88-122, 88-123, and 88-124) I. Approve Plans and 5pecifi_cat ions for Sanitary Sewer,_ Watermain and Street Improvements to Franlo Road and Authorize Bids to be received, I.C. 52-132 (Resolution No. 88-125) City Council Minutes 4 June 21, 1988 J. Request to Consider Allowing Private Vendor to Sell at - -._..._._...---------- Round Lake Park on the 4th of July K. TECHNOLOGY PARK PHASE IV by Technology Park Associates. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 19-88-PUD-3-88, Planned Unit Development District Review, with waiver, and Zoning District Change from Rural to PUD-3-88-I-2 on 13 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Technology Park Phase IV; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-101, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 19-88-PUD-3-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 13 acres into one lot and two outlots for construction of 162,860 square feet of industrial use in two buildings. Location: West of Golden Triangle Drive, north of Nine Mile Creek, east of Smetana Lane. (Ordinance No. 19-88-PUD-3-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-101, Authorizing Summary & Publication) L. BLOSSOM RIDGE 2ND ADDITION by G. William Pearson. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 20-88, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 6.32 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Blossom Ridge 2nd Addition; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-106, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 20-88 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 6.32 acres into 14 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: South of Blossom Road, east of Windsor Terrace. (Ordinance No. 20-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-106, Authorizing Summary & Publication) M. Request Authorization to PurchasePlayground Equipment for Wyndham Knoll Park, Willow Park, and Eden Lake School Park N. CHESTNUT APARTMENTS. Resolution No. 88-112, Recording Conformance with and Releasing from Conditions fo Mitchell Heights Developer's Agreement for Chestnut Apartments. 0. WILSON POINT. Resolution No. 88-113, Recording Conformance with Developer's Agreement for Wilson Point (aka Wilson Learning Center) P. BARTH ADDITION by Bill Barth. Request for Preliminary Platting of 1.55 acres into two single family lots within the R1-22 Zoning District. Location: 16481 Hilltop Road. (Resolution No. 88-114 Preliminary Plat) Q. LAKE PARKESTATES_Lfozmerly called NEIL POINT) by John B. Bergstad. Request for Preliminary Platting of 9.1 acres into one lot. Location: South of Anderson Lakes Parkway, north of Neill Lake, west of Center Way extension. (Resolution No. 88-115 Preliminary Plat) R. CDBG DAYCARE Resolution Authorizing Hennepin County to Administer CDBG Daycare Program on Behalf of Eden Prairie (Resolution No. 88-110) / 1J City Council Minutes 5 June 21, 1988 S. Final Plat Approval for Lake Park. Estates (formerly called Neil Point) (located north of Neill flake, south of ( Anderson Lakes Parkway .and east of Preserve Boulevard (Resolution No. 88-118) T. Approve, Reimbursement to Mr. Dan Hughes, 10310 Nottingham Trail U. Approve Acbreement with MnDOT for Engineering Services for TH 5 from CSAH 4 in Eden Prairie to CSAH 17 in Chanhassen V. Award for Refuse Hauling Service from City Facilities W. Cummins1Grill Homestead MOTION: Harris moved, .3oconded by Pidcock to approve the Consent Calendar Jullie reported that Item Q and S should have the name changed from Neil Point to Lake Park Estates. Peterson commended the Staff for the report and material on Item H. Bentley questioned when the school zone posting will occur and requested an update on how the enforcement is proceeding. Pidcock commented that summer school is in session now, so the speed limit should be in effect now. Peterson commented that the speed zone should be in effect 12 months a year, not just during the school year. Lambert reported that Item J was recommended for denial by the Parks Commission for private vendors to sell at the 4th of July Celebration even with a permit. Peterson questioned if selling would be limited to civic and City organizations. Lambert replied that the direction from the Commission was to recommend that the Council deny any permits for any private vendors. Harris questioned the rationale. Lambert stated that the rationale was that if the City were going to be promoting private booths and art and craft booths, then it should be encouraging this type of sales and not just allow anyone who came up to City Hall to be issued a permit. The Commission believed this type of sales would take away from the Old Time 4th of July kids games, which are basically free. City Council Minutes 6 June 21, 1988 Pidcock questioned why Just civic organization were being promoted. Lambert replied that the profits from civic organizations comes back into the community. Bentley stated that he would like to see an increase of activity, an increase of things to do. He believed that it should be promoted and based on a planned concept. Bentley would be prepared to deny the request, with the understanding that this would be reviewed for next year's 4th of July or other celebrations. Lambert believed the Commission would support that; it should be promoted and everyone would have the same chance. Harris questioned if the ordinance specified special events where the City would not detract from traditional activities, but might also have the opportunity to encourage variety, which attracts more people. Harris believed the issue needed further study. Peterson commented that the City needs to be careful in the restriction of private enterprise. Pidcock commented that this starts getting into censorship as to what companies are allowed to do good deeds for the City. The State Fair is what it is today because of the private vendors that are there. Peterson commented that Item K was before the Council for the Second Reading. Meetings have been held in an attempt to resolve the remaining concerns. This matter would not be opened up for Public Hearing; however, after Enger's summary if Frank Smetana or Ed and Marcella Smetana wished to make a brief statement, they would be allowed to. Enger reported on two items on the Developer's Agreement. 1)In the revised exhibit the central through road that accesses the Cherne property does not have an accompanying item in the Developer's Agreement that requires the developer to provide an easement for the said access. This was an omission. The Staff would add this and Hoyt has agreed. 2)The two items which the Council and the Commission focused on were: whether or not Smetana Lane should continue through and what transition would occur between the industrial and residential areas to the south and west. It was decided not to continue Smetana Lane through, and that there should be a transition for the areas to the south and west. Enger reported that after working with the property owners, the following was understood: Both Ed and Marcella Smetana and Frank and Mary Smetana were concerned about the form in which the project was approved. The Smetana's were concerned that there not be traffic from the Tech IV development through private easement and I'f City Council Minutes 7 June 21, 1988 across the front of their property to the west on Smetana Lane. Frank Smetana was concerned about the screening from his home to Tech IV. Enger presented the solution reached to date to include a berm along the eastern end of Smetana Lane, which results in the closing of Smetana Lane to through traffic and creates the landscaping transition to Frank Smetana's property. Enger pointed out that this is not a perfect solution in that Ed and Marcella Smetana do not have access to Smetana Lane, their only access would be through the Tech IV parking lot, which Hoyt would be granting. Ed and Marcella Smetana's property does not now front directly on Smetana Lane. This solution does, however, address all the concerns of the Council. Bentley asked Enger if these changes had been written and signed. Enger replied the agreement, Exhibit B, was concluded yesterday and Hoyt had signed all three copies, which are now part of the Developer's Agreement. Frank Smetana, stated disappointment in the results of the May 17th Council Meeting. He stated that one option that may come available to him in the future would be the combining of his property with the Cherne property. Frank Smetana supports the transition and the closing of Smetana Lane as proposed now. Spencer Klyegel, representing Ed and Marcella Smetana, stated that when they deeded the Technology Park property to Helle a portion of the property was dedicated as an easement for access to the public road, otherwise they would be land locked. Klyegel understood that there was not access being provided for these Smetana's and indicated that he felt the City could not properly cut Ed and Marcella Smetana off from Smetana Lane. . Peterson stated that the access would be through the parking lot south of Tech IV. Klyegel replied that now he realizes an access would be provided, but questioned why berming could not be extended to include Ed and Marcella Smetana's property. Peterson replied that this possibly could have been done, but Ed and Marcella Smetana had not indicated a concern about sight lines and had requested access and easement through the road and parking area, which they have received. Klyegel stated that they may not have had concerns about sight lines to the industrial use, but did have a concern about rights of access to the public road. Peterson replied that they have access to the east, but not to the west, which is what they requested. Marcella Smetana stated that they had voiced concern about how far the building would be from their driveway and that City Council Minute. 8 June 21, 1988 the access would have to be through the parking lot to get to Golden Triangle. Ed and Marcella Smetana then stated that they want continued access to the public road via Smetana Lane. Klyegel questioned if the berm could be moved to accommodate the Smetana's request. The easement is owned by the Smetana's and the property could be deeded over. Peterson replied that this project had been under consideration for several weeks with negotiations continuing between the first and second reading. It would be difficult for the Council to start over again. Property owner minds have changed apparently. Klyegel stated that between readings decisions have been made about cutting off Smetana Lane. Peterson replied this was done in response to objections regularly voiced by Frank and Mary Smetana at Public Hearings. The Council does not have any recorded objections to anything from Ed and Marcella Smetana. Marcella Smetana stated that they had said they did not want Smetana Lane closed. They wanted access to Valley View Road from Smetana. Ed Smetana said that the proposed access to his property. Marcella Smetana said that the access through Tech IV was just to be an emergency exit. Bentley commented that normally there is no discussion with the public on Consent Calendar items. Bentley asked Jullie if there was a way to accommodate both parties. Jullie replied that it would be physically possible to move the berm so that none of the traffic from Tech IV could get on to Smetana Lane and still give access to Ed Smetana. An emergency access would have to be arranged with Hoyt. Peterson requested a recess for the involved parties to meet with Staff and City Attorney Pauly, to sort out the confusion. Peterson requested an amendment to pull Item K and consider Under Item VII.C. As shown later in the minutes, this action occurred. Peterson requested further consideration of Item V. There are two recommendations: 1) that Council accept the low bid 2) that waste from City facilities be directed to the Reuter facility. Peterson wished to accept the first item, but to defer the second part until the Council finishes its deliberations relative to the direction of other waste to Reuter or elsewhere. Bentley stated that he was not in favor of this. Wastes from City parks now are taken there and this would only City Council Minutes 9 June 21, 1988 increase the amount. This practice could always be changed in the future. Peterson believed it was premature for the Council to designate the City waste to a Facility that is under consideration and yet not decided for own solid waste program. Bentley believed that if it had not been for the necessity of Public Hearings in regard to the ordinance for licensing that the majority of the Council would have directed the City's waste to the Reuter facility at the last meeting. Peterson stated that he would have been the dissenting vote because of unanswered questions that he believes need to be addressed before a decision is made. Harris commented that in light of the fact that a portion of the City's waste is already being delivered to the Reuter fac_ility,this will only be increasing that amount sent by the City to the facility Harris believed this to be the first step in beginning to separate the materials and divert them away from the landfill. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to amend the previous motion and to approve items A through I and L through W on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to deny Item J on the grounds that it will be referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission and Staff for a review and analysis of how private vendors can be brought into public events and that it is understood that the Council is not in favor of denying private vendors from access to these events as long as it can be done in a regulated way. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to move Item K to VII.C. Motion carried unanimously. Pidcock commented that she was glad the Senior Citizens received their piano. Harris commended Staff on their excellent handling of City resources. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HIDDEN GLEN IV by Derrick Companies. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 68 acres, Zoning District Amendment within an existing RM-6.5 City Council Minutes 10 June 21, 1988 Zoning District on 8.5 acres for the construction of 40 twinhome units. Location: South of Townline Road, west of Dell Road, east of Highway 101. (Resolution No. 88- 116, PUD Concept Amendment to the Overall Hidden Glen North Planned Unit Development Concept; Ordinance No. 16- 88 - Zoning District Amendment within the RM-6.5 District; Resolution No. 88-117 - Preliminary Plat) City Manager Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been sent to owners of 58 surrounding properties and published in the June 8, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Jullie stated that Resolution No.88- 117 for approval of Preliminary Plat should be removed. Roger Purdy, representing the Derrick Company, presented the proposal. Purdy believed that this should not be referred to as Hidden Glen IV, but that it is actually part of the existing plat for Hidden Glen III. The changes to the proposal are of an architectural nature only. The partners have changed with Frontier Midwest Homes being the current partner. The main concern of the neighborhood was what type of screening would be provided. Purdy stated that there would be a mixture of 10' to 12' conifer trees and 4" caliper shade trees. The neighbors are requesting that the screening be started before the development starts. Purdy stated that they will do this, but because of lack of rain there may be a problem at this time of year and asked the Council,s understanding. Proponent did agree with the landscaping principle. Enger reported that at the May 23, 1988 Planning Commission recommended the approval of the Zoning Amendment on a 5 to 1 vote subject to the Staff Report dated May 20, 1988. The recommendations include the following: 1) Modification to the landscape plan, which has been done. 2) Modification to the architectural diversity, which has also been completed. 3) A Cash Park fee. 4) Homeowners' Association documents to be submitted for review by the City prior to Building Permit issuance. 5) Landscape screening to be installed prior to Building Permit issuance or in the case of a poor planting season the next best available time, which would be the Fall. Enger stated that this Item was not reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Board. Bentley requested clarification: the Council did not have to approve a Preliminary Plat because the Proponent is using and existing one and the proponent already has Zoning in place. The Proponent can do what they want to without a Zoning Approval because it is already Zoned. Enger replied the zoning approvals were based on a specific plan that contained a completely different • architectural and site planning approach and technically Ili') City Council Minutes 11 June 21, 1988 that has to be changed by the Council in some way. Bentley asked Pauly if there is any action necessary by the Council other than an approval of a Developer's Agreement Pauly replied that the conditions and provisions of the Developer's Agreement are part of the zoning; thus, Council action is necessary because the site plan is being changed. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-116 for PUD Concept Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 16-88 for Zoning District Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council conditions. Motion carried unanimously. B. VACATION 38-03 - DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AMERICAN FAMILY ADDITION (Resolution No. 8©--1--126) MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-126 to vacate the easement. Motion carried unanimously. C. VACATION88_04_.._- DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT BAYPn_INT TWO (Resolution No. 83-127) MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-127. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Bentley to approve Payment of Claims No. 43018 to 43122. Roll call vote with Bentley, Harris, Pidcock and Peterson voting "Aye". VI . ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS l City Council Minutes 12 June 21, 1998 VII. PETITIONSREQUEST^ & COMMUNICATION^ A. Wooddale Church - Request for Release from condition of Developer's Agreement for bus garages Jullie reported that the Wooddale Church is requesting a release from Developer's Agreement to provide a bus garage. John Uban, representing the Wooddale Church stated that after discussing this issue with the neighbors, they came up with other solutions. The Church has the buses stored currently in a niche which can only be viewed by one neighbor. The neighbors indicated that they did not want to see a bus garage. The following suggestions were made: 1) Screen the buses and parking area. 2) Store the buses by the junk yard. 3) Build the bus barn. The Church would prefer to build the living screening or wait until the parking deck is built. Peterson asked Uban if there would be more buses as the Church grows. Uban replied that if there were more buses in the future they could be parked in the deck and the Church is comfortable with three buses. The buses are only used on special occasions. Bentley stated that it was specific at the time of the original approval that no buses were to be stored on the site until adequate facilities were provided. The buses have been stored illegally. Bentley believed that the best solution would be to have the buses stored elsewhere. The zoning district the Church is in does not permit outside storage. Uban replied that the Church is not trying to shirk its duty. The Church is willing to proceed along with original plan to build the bus garage as a part of Phase III, but believed after discussions with the neighbors that a better solution was possible. Bentley stated that he would not be in favor of changing the Developer's Agreement. Pidcock would like to have seen input from the neighbors directly affected. Peterson stated that there is a principle involved. The City has an ordinance. If the on-site presence of the buses were essential he might be willing to make a change. Peterson favored screening rather than a garage. Pidcork stated that the Council has been struggling with and Ordinance with recreational vehicle outside storage. The Council has to treat everyone the same. Iril City Council Minutes 13 June 21, 1988 Bentley stated that the Council is not charged with enforcement. The Council is to respond to the request. Bentley stated that he could not go along with the Council taking direct action to change the language in the agreement, but if the Church wished on its own to provide additional screening this would be fine. Harris questioned if when the parking deck was constructed could this be in lieu of a bus barn. Bentley replied that the architectural features of the bus barn were not identified. Uban commented the deck construction was at least 10 years in the future. Bentley encouraged the Church to find an alternate location for long term storage of the buses. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to deny the Wooddale Church request. Motion carried unanimously. B. Earl Ingram Gradin„cL ermitARequest Jullie reported that Staff had recommended that because of the dramatic change in the shoreline along the Weston Bay shoreline that it would be appropriate to delete the scenic easement and have the area conform with the rest of the lakeshore. The change in the water level had a dramatic effect, which killed all the trees. The area need to he cleaned up. The property owners on the lake have a reasonable regard for the scenic beauty of the area, Jullie believed that it was not reasonable to leave the area as it is. Jullie recommended removing the scenic easement and relying on the good intentions and reasonableness of the property owners to deal with the area. Pidcock asked Pauly to give a definition of a scenic easement. Pauly replied that it is a conversation easement by statue. It prohibits the destruction of natural vegetation, the planting of vegetation not natural to the area and grading and/or removal or filling of earth. Pidcock asked if the easement had anything to do with public access. Pauly answered it did not. Harris questioned what procedures the City had in place to protect the shoreline and what is the public access to this lake. Pauly replied that the legal procedures other than the scenic easement would be the zoning regulations, which included the shoreland development portion, which precludes building within 100-150 feet of the shoreline. Lambert replied that there is not a public access to the lake at this time; there is an access planned with the development of Miller Park. Pidcock commented that there /,i li) City Council Minutes 11 June 21, 1988 Is a homeowners access at this time. Lambert commented that two accesses for the homeowners are present. Bentley questioned if this had been reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission of the Planning Ccmmission. Lambert replied no. Bentley commented that this is a significant public policy issue, not something to be taken lightly. There are several areas throughout the City which have scenic easements. Scenic easements are hard enough to enforce. Bentley believed the Council should not take action, but refer this back to the Park and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission for review. Peterson stated that the request was for a grading permit and questioned what the immediate effect would be if there was no action taken tonight. Jullie replied that the property owners have started the clean up and would like to be able to continue and to plant grass. Jullie suggested the Council direct staff to work with the property owners in the interim. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to refer the scenic easement matter and potential vacation thereof to Staff for the purpose of review by the Planning Commission and the Parks,Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission and, further, to direct Staff to work with the property owners to get the necessary grading and planting done to finish ongoing restoration work. Motion carried unanimously. C. Technology Park IV. Pauly reported that the present position of Ed and Marcella Smetana was the objection to the blocking of access to Smetana Lane on the Hoyt/Frank Smetana property line of Smetana Lane. Ed and Marcella Smetana are willing to permit the extension of the berm to the front of their property, which would preclude them from using the Tech IV parking lot as an alternate access. Frank Smetana's understanding of the agreement would then be modified, because an ultimate vacation of Smetana Lane may not occur with this revision. Klyegel stated that Ed and Marcella Smetana were in agreement with the addition of the proposal by Hoyt to flatten the curb so that in the event of an emergency Ed and Marcella could use the parking lot. Hoyt stated that he is agreeable. Peterson stated then that the berm is not for screening, but to stop traffic. City Council Minutes 15 June 21, 1988 Harris questioned if Frank Smetana's was comfortable with the new agreement. Frank Smetana replied that was I disappointed and now just wanted to sell his property. Bentley stated that he did not want to see Smetana Lane accessible to thru traffic. The road would still be accessible with the curb cut and just having the road planted in grass. Hoyt stated that there would he a post and a locking chain across the road. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 19-88-PUD-3-88. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Zoning District change from Rural to PUD-3-88-I-2. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Developer's Agreement for Technology Park Phase IV per the final negotiated settlement. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 88-101. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENT Peterson reported that he had been asked by Frank Gibbs to serve on a County Recycling Committee. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Mayor Peterson to serve on the Recycling Committee. Motion carried unanimously. X.REPQRTS OF OFFICERS BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Resort=_of Council Members_ Harris noted that Council had received two communications find asked what responses were taking place. Vantage Companies had sent a letter stating its opposition to tax City Council Minutes 16 June 21, 1988 increment financing in the proposed downtown area. Bentley said he had sent a letter back to Vantage explaining the City's position. The second communication came from representatives of the Flagships Athletic Club regarding water storage and flood elevations in the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area floodplain. Lambert said these issues would be scheduled for the July 5th Council Meeting. Peterson asked to have Staff prepared to discuss water ban and how to receive uniform compliance at the next Council Meeting. Pidcock reported that she had attended two meeting of the Regional Transit Board Chairman's Advisory Board. She talked at these meeting about the plight of the Southwest Metro Transit system. Peterson requested the Council consider the feasibility of the creation of an additional advisory board or commission to serve the Council for the solid waste management. Peterson believed that the management of solid waste would be an on going issue and that the Council would be well served by residents input, research, recommendations, etc. Pidcock questioned what the group's function would actually be. Peterson replied they could help in the determination of community values relative to recycling, help disseminate information related to actions of this and future Councils relating to recycling, assist the Council to host neighborhood meetings, help publicize the course of action the Council was taking, review policy and process of a number of garbage issues. Peterson was suggesting a group of six to nine people. Bentley agreed in theory, but suggested not limiting it to solid waste and suggested the name of Waste Management Advisory Commission. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to draft an ordinance that would create a Waste Management Advisory Commission and make suggestions as to what the specific duties would be. B. Reoort of City Manager 1. Departmental Changes - Fire & Inspections Departments Jullie requested Council support for Staff reorganization. Jullie believed it would be best to streamline and lessen the duties of the Volunteer Chief. Jullie also presented plans to move the Fire Marshal and the Fire Inspector to `^n City Council Minutes 17 June 21, 1988 City Hall under the responsibility of the Director of Building Inspections, thus allowing for better interaction it for issuing of permits. Jullie also suggested to consolidate the building maintenance functions and have custodial workers housed at City Hall and supervised by this director. Peterson commented that it all made sense with the exception of having the maintenance under this director. Peterson questioned what would the cost implication might be to have in-house rather than by private contract. Jullie replied that more detail could be provided, and this would not be implemented until 1989. Currently, staff is familiar with building repairs and could direct workers as to the building repairs and keeping up with safety codes. There would be direct supervision. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve the recommendations as prepared by Jullie. Peterson stated that he would support the motion, but would still like to see the cost figures. Dawson stated that the maintenance just for City Hall is approximately $15,000 per year. Motion carried unanimously. Bentley complimented Mr. Jullie on this project and on his preparation, organization and details. 2. Update on_Cty_ Manager Performance Review Process Harris commented that the material presented would be a good management tool. Peterson asked if the department heads reviewed the document. Peterson suggested that it would be a good idea to get the department heads input. Jullie replied that some input had been received. Pidcock commented that this had come from private industries and it has been tested and proven. Bentley suggested attaching a sheet requesting the Staff to evaluate the evaluation form. 3. Strat.eg_icPlanning,_ Jullie stated that ^trateyic Planning is an ongoing process and this item was to be reviewed in six months and City Council Minutes 18 June 21, 1988 It Is time to review our departmental goal statements and get a status report and review our mission statement. Peterson asked to have Staff send out a form with options for times when this could be scheduled. C. Regort of_ City Attorney Pauly reported that the Court of Appeals issued the order to deny the City's scope of the contested case hearing. The City can appeal that order. The City has not valved any right to have the issue reviewed. A calendar of events had been set. July 10th has been set for anyone who wishes to intervene must file. November 21st has been set for the hearing. Bentley asked if this item follows a probable court process what time frame could the City expect. When would a possible ruling be coming. Pauly replied possibly March or April. D. Report of Director of Planning No Report E. Report of Director of Community Services No Report F. Report of Director of Public Works_ No Report G. Report of Finance Director No Report. XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Harris moved, Pidcock seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:05PM. Motion carried unanimously. I', i.. 11 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST July 19, 1988 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) PLUMBING HMH Enterprises, Inc. Bredahl Plumbing McCormack Construction Home Plumbers Helper Paneltech, Inc. Mark's Plumbing Western Plumbing & Heating CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Discher Construction HEATING & VENTILATING Handmade Enterprises LSV Metals, Inc. North Country Homes RJS Concrete, Inc. These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. Pat So ie. Licensing CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-141 RESOLUTION AUTHDRIZING PERMIT APPLICATION WHEREAS, the proposed sanitary sewer to be constructed in Alpine Estate 2nd Addition requires a connection to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commisssion (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 July 19, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk • 1 /•_«i CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-142 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PERMIT APPLICATION WHEREAS, the proposed sanitary sewer to be constructed on Mitchell Road and Research Road rcquircs five (5) connections to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) interceptor systcm;and WHEREAS, the proposed connections conform to the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Sewer Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Edcn Prairie City Council as follows: The City Engineer is hereby authorized and dirccted to submit an application "Permit for Connection to or Use of Commission Facilities" to the MWCC. ADOPTED by the City Council on July 19, 1988 Gary Peterson,Mayor ATTEST: John D. Franc, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-143 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LICENSE TO CROSS PUBLIC WATERS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH I.C. 52-051, (MITCHELL/RESEARCH ROAD) WHEREAS, the proposed improvements to be constructed through I.C. 52-051, Mitchell/Research Road require crossing of an area designated by the Minnesota Oepartment of Natural Resources as protected waters; and WHEREAS, a license from the Department of Natural Resources is necessary to authorize this crossing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: A. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to submit an application for license to cross public waters and / execute said license when processed. ADOPTED by the City Council on July 19, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS THIS IS AN AGREEMENT MADE THIS DAY OF May , 1988, between the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, (the "City") and United Mortgage Corporation, a Minnesota general corporation (the "Owner"). A. The Owner holds legal and equitable title to property described as Lots 1 through 18, Block 1, Lots 1 through 27, Block 2, and Lots 1 through 24, Block 3, The Ridge 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which property is the subject of this Agreement and is hereinafter referred to as the "Property". - B. The Owner desires to develop the Property in such a manner that will require the construction of Dell Road along the westerly border of the Property and the installation of concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer, catch basins and manholes (all of which is hereafter referred to as the "Improvements"). C. The parties hereto desire to enter into an Agreement concerning the financing of the construction of the Improvements all of which will inure to the benefit of the Property. AGREEMENTS IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows: 1. The Owner consents to the levying of assessments against the Property for the construction of the Improvements. 2. The Owner acknowledge that the Improvements referred to herein will be part of a larger construction project involving Dell Road as it passes the Property as well as other land. The City presently intends to have prepared a Feasibility Report which report will show the proposed costs to be assessed against the Property. The actual cost to be assessed against the Property may differ from the amount shown in the Feasibility Report when Page -2- the actual cost of construction is known. A pro rata share of the total cost of construction for the entire "construction project" shall be assigned to the Property in :he same manner as is done in the Feasibility Report. The cost to be assessed against the Property will recognize the partial construction of the embankment for Dell Road by the owner. 3. For purposes of determining the amount of the assessments, the cost of the Improvements shall include, in addition to actual construction costs, administrative, interest, engineering and legal costs and fees incurred or paid by the City in relationship to construction of the Improvements. 4. The City's assessment records for the Property will show the assessment as a "pending assessment" until levied. 5. The Owner waives notice of any assessment hearing to be held at which hearing or hearings the assessment is to be considered by the City Council and therefter approved and levied. 6. The Owner concurs that the benefit to the Property by virture of the Improvements to be constructed exceeds the amount of the assessment to be levied against the Property. The Dwner waives all rights it has by virtue of Minnesota Statute 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of the assessments, or the procedures used by the City in apportioning the assessments and hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all liability related to or arising out of the imposition or levying of the assessments. UNITED MORTGAGE CORPORATION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE A Minnesota Corporation A Minnesota Municipal Corporation BY: BY: Ronald C. Helmer Gary D. Peterson Its Vice President Its Mayor BY: Car J. Ju ie Its City Manager / U Page -3- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by Gary D. Peterson, the Mayor and Carl J. Jullie, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 26th day of May , 1988, by Ronald C. Helmer the Vice President and the of United Mortgage Corporation, a Minnesota general partnership, in behalf of the partnership. CJOANNE . JUREK NOTARYVUOLI •MINNESOTA /��,� pWASHINGTON COUNTY �.Y 1�,�j 1i��,��/( (��//,{/J {', My commluion N 1b.W LJ (/iX, K i i;/ Notary Publo/ fn 3/ CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 July 5, 1988 Project: Wyndham Crest Eden Prairie, Minnesota 1.C. 52-102 RCM Project No.871013-0 TO: Nodland Construction Company, Inc. You are hereby directed to make the changes noted below in the subjcct contract. Nature of Change This change order covers subgrade corrections to remove 2 feet of wet silty clay and replace it with geotextile fabric and 2 feet of granular borrow. Also, some wet clay material had to be removed, dried and rccompacted. Some short sections of perforated drain tile shall be stubbed from catchbasins to drain the granular subgradc section. Replace 21" RCP north our of cul-de-sac with corrugated aluminized pipe due to peaty subsoils in this area. Adjustments to Contract Quantities and Costs Add the following quantities and costs to the contract: Common Excavation 1,000 CY $2.00 $2,000.00 Select Granular Borrow 2,000 Ton $3.00 $6,000.00 Geotcxtile Poly Fabric 1,350 SY $1.10 $1,485.00 4" Perforated Pipe 240 LF $8.00 $1,920.00 . 21"Corrugated Aluminized Pipe 60 LF $26.00 $1,560.00 21"Aluminized Metal Apron w/riprap and filter blanket 1 EA $600.00 $600.00 INCREASE $13,565.00 Remove the following quantities and costs from the contract: 21" RCP CL IV Storm Sewer 56 LF $26.00 $1,456.00 21" RCP Fcs w/ riprap and filter blanket 1 EA $700.00 $700.00 DECREASE $2,156.00 NET INCREASE TO PROJECT $11,409.00 Summar\ of Ccntrnct Adio;tmcnts Contract Amount Prior to this Change Order S166,956.00 Net Increase Resulting Front this Change Order 11,409.00 Current Contract Amount Including this Change Order S178,365.00 �' The Above Changes are Approved RCM,INC. /� CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By 7` i(1,,7//l 11." - By Date The Above Changes are Accepted NODLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,INC. DL Date May 11, 1988 Revised May 16, 1988 Revised June 9, 1988 Revised July 13, 1988 AGREE MEW FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES S.P. 1002-44 (TH 5) S.P. 2701-28 (TH 5) Agreement between the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota and Barton-Asclunan Associates, Inc. RE: Final Design and Riot-of-Way Assistance for TH 5 from CSAH 4 in Eden Prairie to CSAH 17 in Chanhassen INDEX PAGE Parties to the Agreement 3 Explanation and Justification 3 Section 1.0 - Extent and Character of the Work 3 Section 2.0 - Services to be Provided by the Consultant 4 Section 3.0 - Laws, Regulations, Guidelines - and Stardards - Fon:s of Plans 5 Section 4.0 - Services and Data to be Banished to the Consultant by the State and City 8 Section 5.0 - Time Schedule 10 Section 6.0 - Payment to the Consultant 10 Section 7.0 - Termination, Dispute and Submittal of Contract Documents 15 Section 8.0 - Compliance with Laws 16 Section 9.0 - Registration 16 Section 10.0 - Conferences 17 1 Section 11.0 - Inspection 17 Section 12.0 - Subletting 17 Section 13.0 - Claims 18 Section 14.0 - Contingent Fee 18 Section 15.0 - Nondiscrimination 19 Section 16.0 - Furnishing of Information to the City or State 19 Section 17.0 -Maintenance of Documents and Records 20 Section 18.0 - Use of Designs and Reports 20 Section 19.0 - Accuracy of Work 20 Section 20.0 - Approvals 21 2 1 This Agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Barton-Asclunan Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant"; WT NESSEIH: WHEREAS the City has an "Agreement No. 64918" with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" to provide contract administration for the final design of TH 5 from CSAH 4 in Ram Prairie to CSAH 17 in Chanhassen, and WHEREAS the Agreenent between the City and State calls for the City to act as administrator for the project, and WHEREAS the City and the State do not have sufficient personnel with the necessary expertise to prepare these plans, and WHEREAS the City desires to retain the services of a qualified consultant to a000rplish this work. NOW, THEREFORE, TT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1.0 - EXTENT AND (3 ARAC:iut OF THE WORK 1.10 Project Work Description 3 1.11 The services to be provided under this Agreement are for the historical/archaeological clearance, the right-of-way preacquisition process and the detail design and final construction plan preparation for roadway construction work, for Trunk Highway No. 5 fran CSAH 4 in Eden Prairie to CSAH 17 in Chanhassen. Historical/archaeological investigation work will extend westerly to County Road 41 which is the west texninus for study in the Environmental Assessment. 1.20 Project Location 1.21 The general location of the roadway element of this project extends along the mainline of TH 5 from CSAH 4 in Eden Prairie to CSAH 17 in Chanhassen. Shvr1ON 2.0 - SERVIr'F_S T D BE PROVIDED BY 7 E CXN9SULT117F 2.10 Swye of Services 2.11 The Consultant will act as an extension of the City and State's work forL , in the development of the required plans for this project. The services to be provided under this Agreement are indicated in Section 2.0 of Agreement No. 64918 between the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Eden Prairie, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked "Attachment A". 4 .J1 ) SWriON 3.0 - LAWS. REGULATIONS, GUIDELINE'S - AND STANDARDS - FORM OF PLANS 3.10 Design Standards 3.11 In accomplishment of this work, recognition will be given to the requirements of the followirg laws, regulations and guidelines related to design, and the environment. These standards, regulations or guidelines shall be considered as minimum. Higher standards shall be used where it is fAacible and economically sound to do so. 3.111 Minnesota Statutes 161.171 - 161.177 inclusive (Municipal Approval). 3.112 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal-Aid Program Manuals, including: Book III, Volume 6, Chapter 2, Section 1, Subsection 1 (Design Standards for Federal-Aid Projects). 3.113 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 - Public law 91- 190. 3.114 Section 4(f) of Public Law 89-670. 3.115 Uniform Relocation Act for Right-of-Way Acquisition. 3.116 Minnesota Statute, Section 116D.01 et. seg. (Environmental Policy Act of 1973). 3.117 State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, Highway Project Development Process. 3.12 Study Report for State Projects 1002-44 (TH 5) and 2701-28 (TH 5). 3.13 Approved geometric layout for TH 5 between CSAH 4 and CSAH 17. 5 3.14 Applicable requirements of Division II (Construction Details) of the Minnesota Department of Transportation "Standard Specifications for Highway Construction" 1983 Edition or future editions thereof, on file in the office of the Commissioner of Transportation at St. Paul, Minnesota, and which are made a part hereof by reference with the sane force and effect as though fully set forth herein, shall be incorporated into the preliminary plans prepared by the Consultant. 3.15 Where applicable, design details shall conform to those in the Minnesota Department of Transportation "Road Design Manual", "Surveying and Mapping Manual", "Drainage Manual" (5-294), "Standard Plates" (5-296), "Standard Plan Sheets", "Traffic Engineering Manual", the present modifications thereof, as well as future modifications and new editions thereof, which will be issued from time to time by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 3.16 Insofar as design standards are concerned, it is the intent of this agreement that the plans shall embody the design standards in use by the Minnesota Department of Transportation at the time coign work for the plan is being performed. If revised design standards are adopted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation during the progress of the work on the plans, the Consultant Agreement's Engineer or appointed representative will at the request of the State, analyze jointly with the City and Consultant, the changes in the plans necessary to amply with the new standards. Said agreed changes will be included in the plans. 6 3.17 It is the intent of the parties to this agreement that supplemental agreements providing for adjustments in oanpensation shall be executed only for revisions in design concepts which substantially change the scope, extent or character of the work and will cause substantial changes in the Consultant's cost of doing the work. Should the City or State request the Consultant to make the necessary revisions, it shall be the Consultant's responsibility to originate all requests for additional ocatpensation in writing within 10 days of the City's or State's request that such changes be made. If the Consultant and the City agree as to the amount of such extra covensation, a supplement to this agreement will be entered into setting forth the nature and the extent of the changes and the amount of the extra oonpensation E to be paid to the Consultant. 3.20 Form of Plans 3.21 The style and form of the plans including size, weight, and style of lettering shall be that in use by the Minnesota Department of Transportation at the tine the work is being performed unless written permission is given to vary said form and style. The plans shall be prepared on 22-inch by 34-inch or 11-inch by 17- inch sheets. 3.22 The final submittal of the plan sheets shall be on mylar material. 3.23 Cross-section sheets prepared by the Consultant shall be either ocamputer or hard-plotted. If hand-plotted, they shall be drawn with pencil or India ink on the best grade of paper sheets having 7 �'''�fJ dotted grid lines. The original ground line shall be inked. The planned sections may be drafted with pencil. 3.24 The drafting on the plan sheets and cross-section sheets shall be of such size and quality as will permit reduction to one-half scale and the making of readable, first class blue line or black line prints from the reduced size intermediates, including clear reproduction of grid lines, symbols and legends. The minimum lettering size for original drafting shall be 0.12 inch. No adhesive backed material shall remain on any plan sheet. Bar scales will be used throughout the plan to avoid confusion when the plan is reduced in size. 3.25 Bridge plans, partially completed and final detail plans submitted to the City and State for review and approval shall be positive reproductions on diazo sensitive translucent paper or polyester hasp film from which blue line prints can be made. SECTION 4.0 - SERVICES AND DATA TO BE FURNISHED TO THE CONSULTANT BY THE STATE AND CITY 4.10 Data to be Furnished 4.11 The City, after authorizing the start of the project, shall contact the State to furnish the following project related data or materials for use by the Consultant in connection with the project. 4.111 Existing aerial photography of the project area. 4.112 The approved geometric layout for TH 5. • 4.113 Study Report. 4.114 Existing TH 5 roadway plans. 4.115 Control and design surveys inclu ding complete bridge and roadway field survey work and mapping, done earlier by the State. 4.116 Complete soils boring information and soils recommend letter. 4.117 Standard Plan Sheets for paving joints, reinforcin g, erosion control and others as necessary. 4.118 Required pavement design for the project. 4.119 Any other data or material in the State's Fmsesaion relating to the project. 4.12 All data furnished to the Consultant by the City and State shall remain the property of the City and State and shall be returned to them when so requested. 4.20 Analysis and Evaluation of Data by the Consultant 4.21 The Consultant shall make an analysis of all data and information furnished by the City and State. If any data or information is found to be inco.xeLl or incomplete by the Consultant this fact should be brought to the attention of the City and State before proceeding further with the part of the project affected. 4.30 Services to be Provided 4.31 The State is responsible for advising the City of the required pavement design for the project. The City will transmit this information to the Consultant. 4.32 The State is responsible for soils investigation and shall provide boring logs, remmnended subcut depths and subgrade treatments to the City for final design. The City will transmit this information to the Consultant. 9 �1� SuuriON 5.0 - TIME SCSEQJIE 5.10 Starting Time 5.11 The Consultant shall not start work on the project without written instructions to do so from the City. 5.20 completion Time Schedule 5.21 The Consultant shall complete all work and services required under the tens of this Agreement by November 1, 1989. 5.22 The City may extend the time completion periods upon written request from the Consultant for delays encountered that are beyond their control. The amount of such time extension shall be determined in conjunction with the State and will be authorized by the City. SECTION 6.0 - PAYMENT TO THE CONSULTANT 6.10 Method of Payment 6.11 The City agrees to pay, and the consultant agrees to receive payment for services performed hereto exclusively from funds ieoeived by the City from the State and other public entities. The Consultant agrees that the City's payment obligation to the Consultant is limited in extent to monies the City receives from the State ($200,000) and other public entities ($155,000 including $50,000 from the City of Eden Prairie) for consultant services pursuant to its Agreement with the State. In addition, $75,000 will be paid directly to the consultant for services rendered 10 11 under this Agreement by the Southwest Coalition. Appropriate documentation, as described in Section 6.4, will be provided by the Consultant to the City for all payments received fran the Southwest Coalition. In accordance with provisions contained herein, the Consultant shall be paid the following: 6.111 The direct salary costs incurred by the Consultant related to the salaries of employees for tine directly chargeable to the project. 6.112 Fringe benefits and indirect costs incurred to the extent they are properly allocable to the project. A provisional overhead rate of 185.79 percent of the direct salary costs will be used for the purpose of making partial payments to the Consultant. 6.113 The actual costs incurred by the Consultant in retaining the services of subconsultants for disciplines which are not available within the Consultant's firm and are necessary to accomplish the work required by the Agreement. The method of compensation, including overhead rates, fixed fees and proposed direct non-salary costs for subconsultants, shall be approved as necessary by the City and/or the State before the subconsultant performs any work. 6.114 Other direct costs incurred to the extent they are properly allocable to the project (which may include but not be limited to travel, lodging, materials, etc.). 6.115 Automobile expense shall be reimbursed at the current rate allowable under the Minnesota Travel Regulations. Vehicular 11 1 expenses other than automobile shall be reimbursed at rates approved in writing by the State. 6.116 Maximum reimbursement for meals, including tax and gratuity, for employees of the Consultant or subconsultants working away from their have stations shall be in accordance with current Minnesota Travel Regulations. 6.117 The actual acceptable costs for such additional items and services as may be required by the City to meet the needs of the project(s). 6.118 A fixed fee in addition to the aforesaid costs of $27,928 of the direct salary costs, indirect salary costs (fringe benefits), and general and administrative costs. It is understood that the fixed fee will be subject to adjustment in c-asa of change of the scope of work, abandonment of the work prior to its oolpletion, or deletion of bpeLific tasks as presently anticipated. 6.20 Payment Limitation 6.21 The total compensation for professional services provided in accordance with this Agreement shall not exceed $355,000 except to the extent that this Agreement is modified by supplemental agreement in accordance with Section 3.17. If it appears at any time that, due to a change in the scope of the services to be provided the value of Consultant services will exceed the total estimated amount of $430,000 (including $75,000 paid directly to the Consultant by the Southwest Coalition), the Consultant agrees not to perform any services relative to a charge in scope that 12 would cause that amount to be exceeded unless the Consultant has been advised by the City that additional funds have been enombered, a supplemental agreement has been issued and that work may proceed. It shall be the responsibility of the Consultant to originate all requests for additional encumbrances. compensation, and for supplemental agreements. 6.30 Employee Classifications and Hourly Rates 6.31 The Consultant, and any subconsultants, shall submit a schedule of employee classifications assigned to the project. This schedule shall include a range of hourly rates for each classification. The schedule shall be subject to approval by the City and shall remain in effect until such time as a revised schedule is submitted by the Consultant and approved by the City. 6.40 Invoices - Partial Payments 6.41 The Consultant may submit invoices monthly for costs incurred in woordanoe with Section 6.10. Such invoices shall identify the costs for work parfoilied for the billing period. Signed invoices shall be submitted to the City with a copy to the State's Project Manager. These invoices shall be supplemented with the following information: 6.411 A payroll cost breakdown which shall include the name of the employee, classification, rate of pay, hours worked, and total payments for each payroll period. 6.412 Other direct costs shall be identified and supported with necessary documents to show that such costs are properly allocable to the project. 13 6.413 Signed time sheets for each employee listing dates and hours worked. 6.414 Corputer print-art sheets with detailed labor distributions and employee classifications may be substituted for time sheets. If crrputer print-out sheets are used, copies of signed time sheets for each employee shall be made available for audit when and where requested by the City and/or State. 6.415 Overtime premium pay for work or services performed by the Consultant or subconsultants will not be allowed without previous authorization by the City. Hours worked in excess of regularly scheduled work days or on holidays without previous authorization will be reimbursed at the regular hourly rates. 6.416 Partial payment of the fixed fee will be determined by the percentage of costs to date vs. the total estimated cost. 6.417 Invoices will be checked by the City and payments will be made in an amount of 100 percent of the invoice costs found to be properly allocable to the project except that payments shall not exceed 90 percent of the total estimated payment amount as stated in 5.21. 6.50 Final Payment 6.51 Final payment due the Consultant and subconsultants will be based on actual acceptable costs as determined by an audit oorducted by the City and/or State. The audit will be conducted in accordance with the cost principles and procedures set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR 1-31.2 (Contracts with Commercial 14 Organizations) which are made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 6.60 progress Reports 6.61 The Consultant shall submit monthly reports to the City and State showing progress of the work. The report fond to be used by the Consultant mist be approved by the State's Project Manager. SECTION 7.0 - TERDMT ION, DISPUTE AND SUBMITTAL OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 7.10 Termination and Dispute 7.11 The Agreement may be terminated by either party at any tire upon written notice to the other party. In the event that such termination should take place at a time other than the completion of the work to be performed under the Agreement, the Consultant shall be paid for the work perfoi!Ll to date of termination, demobilization costs, and contract closing costs, and (if applicable) a portion of the fixed fee which will be determined by the stage of Completion of the total work. The total payment will be determined by mutual agreement between the City, State and the Consultant. The payment to the Consultant shall not exceed the total payments as set forth in the original Agreement or succeeding supplementals. A supplemental agreement shall be executed setting forth the reduced amount of carpeisaticn the Consultant shall receive. 15 7.20 Sudsnittal of Contract Dociments 7.21 The original of all drawings, work sheets, plans, field notes, computations, and other project data shall be turned over to the City ardor State as follows: 7.211 Upon written notice of termination of the Agreement. 7.212 Prior to final settlement of a dispute arising out of this Agreement. 7.213 Prior to final payment of the ultimate gross amount earned. sEellON 8.0 - COMPLIANCE WTIH LAWS 8.10 The Consultant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws, together with all ordinances, and regulations applicable to the work. The Consultant shall procure all licenses, permits, or other rights necessary for the fulfillment of its Consultant's obligations under this Agreement. SECTION 9.0 - REGISTRATION 9.10 Plans, designs, reports and sl ifications shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a professional engineer, architect or lard surveyor as applicable, registered in the State of Minnesota. The plans, designs, reports and sseuifications shall be certified as required by law. 16 sam.ON 10.0 - Q NFERENrns 10.10 the Consultant shill confer with the City and State as often as necessary in regard to the work to be done under this Agreement and perform the travel necessary for such confers. When requested by the City or State, the Consultant shall also assist them in negotiations with other interested parties. SECTION 11.0 - INSPECTION 11.10 Duly authorized representatives of the State and the Federal Highway Administration :than have the right to inspect the work of the City and its Consultant whenever they deem it necessary. SF 1'1ON 12.0 - SUBLETTING 12.10 The services of the Consultant to be perfoi,iti hereunder are personal and shall not be assigned, sublet, or transferred unless written authority to do so is granted by the City. Such written authority shall in no way relieve the Consultant from the primary ie .,nsibility for performance of the work. 12.11 All suboonsultant agreements exceeding $10,000 shall contain all required provisions of this Agreement. 17 V Stx['ION 13.0 - CLAIMS 13.10 Any and all employees of the Consultant or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Consultant under the Agreement shall not be considered employees of the City or State, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of Minnesota on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the Consultant's employees or other persons while so engaged on any of the work or services to be rendered shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City or State. 13.20 Responsibility for Claims and Liability 13.21 The Consultant indemnifies, saves and holds harmless the City and any agents or employees thereof from any and all claims, demands, actions or cares of action of whatsoever nature or character arising out of or by reason of the execution or performance of the work of the Consultant provided for under this Agreement. SECTION 14.0 - OWFINCFN' FEE 14.10 The Consultant warrants that the Consultant has not employed or retained any company or person, other than bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that the Consultant has not paid or agreed to pay 18 any many or person, other than bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of the Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty the City shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or, in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. SECTION 15.0 - NONDISCRIMINATION 15.10 The provisions of Minnesota Statute 181.59 and of any applicable ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. Stz:rION 16.0 - FURNISHING OF IN)RNATION TO THE CITY OR STATE 16.10 Advance Information 16.11 At the request of the City or State, the Consultant shall furnish to them during the progress of the work such design information or data in such detail as maybe required to enable the City or State to carry out or to proceed with related phases of the project not covered by this Agreement. 19 . 1 t SECTION 17.0 - 1.1AllTENANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS 17.10 The Consultant shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to cost incurred in connection with work and services perfoiu d hereunder. The Consultant shall make such material available at the Consultant's office at all reasonable times during the contract period and for three years from the date of final payment under this Agreement for inspection by any authorized representatives of the City, State or the Federal Highway Administration and copies thereof shall be furnished upon request. SECTION 18.0 - USE OF DESIGNS AND REPORTS 18.10 All designs, reports and copies of design computations shall become the property of the City and State who shall have the right to use any and all of the above data for any of there intended public purpose. SECTION 19.0 - ACCURACY OF WORK 19.10 The Consultant shall be responsible for the accuracy of the work and shall promptly make necessary revisions or corrections resulting from errors and missions on the part of the Consultant without additional compensation. Acceptance of the work by the City or State will not relieve the Consultant of the 20 I, responsibility for subsequent colluvLion of any errors and the clarification of any ambiguities. Stx r1ON 20.0 -APPROVALS 20.10 Before this Agreement shall beam binding and effective, it shall be approved by resolution of the City Council of Eden Prairie. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this contract to be duly executed interning to be bound thereby. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BARTON-ASG➢AN ASSOCIATES, INC. By By Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ni1TE DATE By By Carl Jullie, City Manager DATE DATE ATM A Utbl 21 4 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 27-88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 3 ENTITLED "MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES - RULES AND REGULATIONS, RATES, CHARGES AND COLLECTIONS," SECTION 3.30, SUBD. 6, BY (1) AMENDING SUBPARAGRAPH B THEREOF RESTRICTING WATER USAGE DURING WATER EMERGENCIES, AND (2) ADDING SUBPARAGRAPH F IMPOSING A SURCHARGE FOR VIOLATIONS OF WATER USAGE RESTRICTIONS DURING WATER EMERGENCIES, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 3.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 3.30, Subd. 6.B., is hereby amended to read as follows: B. During the existence of a state of water emergency the City Manager may by order, [impose restrictions on] (1) pro hibit any sprinkling, irrigation or other utilization of water from the City's municipal water system for lawn, grass or turf (hereafter referred to as irrigation), [including, but not lim- ited to, (1) total prohibition of irrigation,] or (2) prohibit [prohibition of] irrigation on alternating days [or during cer- tain hours]. Proncrtics with an edd--nu b 4 addres would be ( -rm wed to irrigate eft ed a g a--==�u**�ae� calcnda-E days, wh-i-le prop e-r-tics wt-tt of oven numbered addreoo would be permitted tee gate eft calendar days— Newly seeded. e- eedded lawno shall be exempt €yarn these provisiono for a pe-r-i-ed of 44 days after ins' , ,,... -1- Section 2. City Code Section 3.30, Subd. 6, is further amended by adding a new subparagraph F, which shall read as follows: [F. Failure to comply with restrictions or prohibitions imposed, after one warning within a period of six months by the City Manager as to a violation, will result in a surcharge for water service for each day of violation in an amount determined by resolution of the City Council which shall be added to the water bill for the premises on which such violation shall occur. Continued violations after such warning shall be cause for dis- continuance of water service to such premises.) Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for violation" and Section 3.99 are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1988. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1988. -2-/ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-147 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FEE RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE IMPOSITION OF A $25.00 SURCHARGE FOR VIOLATION OF USE RESTRICTIONS DURING WATER EMERGENICES The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie amends the Fee Resolution to reflect the folllowing fees and charges for 1988: 2.42 Surcharge for violation of Water Use Restrictions (Section 3.30, Subd. 6). A. Surcharge for 2nd and subsequent offense (each day being a seperate violation) shall be $25.00 to be added to next water billing (subject to late payment penalites). ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 19th day of July, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk 1 CITY OF BEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-I48 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer through BRW, Inc. has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 52-134 - Traffic Signal Installation in the Major Center Area and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public inspection in the City Engineer's office, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for two weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be received until 10:OD A.M., Thursday, August 11, 198B, at City Hall after which time they will be publically opened by the Deputy City Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, August 16 at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600 Executive Road, Eden Prairie. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 19, 198B. Gary D.Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk 6 1 ORDINANCE NO. .O-7,7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 2 BY REPEALING SECTION 2.88 REQUIRING THE FILING OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS RELATING TO RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS BY CANDIDATES AND COMMITTEES IN CONNECTION WITH CITY ELECTIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CPIY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code Chapter 2 is amended by repealing Section 2.88 thereof in its entirety. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of 1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of 1988. ATTEST: City Clerk Maycr PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1988. RAP2 006-2 07-11-88 � , a -1- VAC 88-05 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ND. 88-140 VACATION OF RIGHT-DF-WAY FOR PART OF SCHOOL ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has a certain right-of-way described as follows: That part of "town road" (presently known as School Road) located in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township I16, Range 22 west as recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota in Book 2027 of Deeds, Page 26, lying North of the South 400 feet, of the North half of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter except that part described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Northwest line of said "town road" with the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, said point being 1,116.77 feet Easterly of the Northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence Southeasterly perpendicular to the Northwest line of said road a distance of 66 feet to the Southeasterly line of said road; thence Northeasterly along said Southeasterly line to the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence Westerly along said North line to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July I9, 1988, after due notice was published and posted as required by law; WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said right-of-way does not serve a public { function and therefore can be vacated; and WHEREAS, public and private utilities have been installed and are presently operated and maintained within the right-of-way, an easement allowing governmental and utility company personnel and equipment to enter upon the vacated right-of-way to maintain or construct additional facilities needs to be retained. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. Said right-of-way as above described is hereby vacated, subject to a permanent drainage and utility easement being retained over the entire parcel. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 19, 1988. Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk .iV r 1141 O a / IS. I U (23 2 itt4°1 -- 9 4& j(16) a 1,8 ' h;®I:C(.:421 a • (17) 8 82t n S )(7) '� 8 (18) ) 8 (26) rb. 9I (2�) �`u ?11 �� �, j, r (19) '• r l27) 8 (30) • (20) • (10) .4 to 1 i b. r :(21) 8 (31) (28) ,...1�+ • " (32) �'O Lf'D. 21 .a. (22) (33) , (34) a •. M. �/ S a. Be Va.ccs_4d I . (6) � • •a b. Z.y i O F - �C�,(i ; i J J _ j Prevro )slj Vc,cw{r( ..... 'J , �� �... .. .... ... ..,. n5.... ..,.. ..... ... / (7)- ._...___—.___-._'._____. ate' pY1101�• 1 1 _ 11 IMP.6Y Si :'ri 65.6. 14 . � ,--•-:::17 1:1::I.";:41::f. _� �i 4 , Bs' - • ' 1 i // 1 1 / 1 1 / //// I I t I // PIS.6...4?. /// O.' g r'• IA -5' . 1.- / '.41: 1 / J ,I / — 2623.72' RES. .... • 1 (A 1iM. VI+OTO 1967) ` e I`JWI 176-G4.1 104 8 8-OS MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior PlannerLm O1 DATE: July 12, 1988 RE: Fairfield The initial request of the developer at the May 9th Planning Commission meeting was to zone and subdivide the entire 150 acres for 367 housing units. The Planning Commission indicated to the developer that they were uncomfortable with granting approval for the entire project, since additional information was needed from the developer, the Staff report was recommending several plan modifications, and the results of the Southwest Area Study were not known. Subsequently, the developer asked the Planning Commission to consider approval for Phase 1 and Phase 2 only. The Planning Commission voted to continue the item for thirty days, directed the developer to provide information and make plan changes as identified in the May 9th Staff Report. The Commission also indicated that consideration may be given for approval of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Fairfield project, if by the next meeting enough information would be available from the Southwest Area Study to properly review the rezoning and platting request relative to sewer, water, storm sewer and roads. Approval of any portion of the Fairfield project would also be predicated upon information which would show that Fairfield would be the logical first phase to develop in Southwest Eden Prairie. At the June 13th Planning Commission meeting, the results of the Southwest Area Study were not available and the meeting was used for informational purposes and the developer presented an update on plan revisions. The project was continued to the June 27th Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 at the June 27th meeting to approve Phase 1 (68 units) of the Fairfield project as ammended by Attachment C of the June 24, 1988, Staff Report and predicated on the developer extending utilities to the school. The Planning Commission concurred with the assumptions made in the staff report relative to the Fairfield project being the logical first phase area to develop in Southwest Eden Prairie, and that traffic impacts on County Road #4 would he minimal over the next several years and would not require major road improvements. The Planning Commission also voted to continue the discussion on Phases 2-6 until such time that the results of the Southwest Area Study would be completed and directed the developer to work on plan revisions as identified in the June 24th Staff Report on tree loss, access, trails, and road right-of-way for Highway #212. The Southwest Area Plan should be completed within the next 30 days. Dn Friday, July 8th, the developer requested City Staff to consider a modification to the phasing area as approved by the Planning Commission to include additional R1-9.5 lots and reduce the number of R1-11.5 lots. (Refer to Attachment A). This would he acceptable to Staff, since the number of units in Phase 1 would remain the same at 68 units, and since the loop road connection back to County Road #4 would also be provided. Phase 1 as approved by the Planning Commission, included 14 RI- 9.5 lots and 54 R1-13.5 lots. The revision of Phase 1 would include 22 R1-9.5 lots and 46 R1-13.5 lots. In keeping with the City Councils policy on R1-9.5 lots, the Staff has advised the developer that R1-9.5 lots belong in a medium density designation of the Comprehensive Guide Plan and are for affordable housing. In Phases 2-6 where the density of the proposed R1-9.5 areas exceed 2.5 units per acre, the developer has applied for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change to Medium Density Residential. In Phase 1, as approved by the Planning Commission, 14 R1-9.5 lots are proposed at a density of 2.33 units per acre and no guide plan change was required. The Planning Commission did express concern over the use of R1-9.5 lots and whether it was in keeping with the original intent of the district for affordable housing. The Commission did not make a recommendation on the appropriateness of R1-9.5 lots in terms of land use or for affordable housing, since the guide plan change to medium density occurs in Phases 2-6. Action on Phases 2-6 was continued until the Southwest Area Plan was completed. As part of overall planning for orderly growth in Southwest Eden Prairie, Staff has been working with the School District and developers for Fairfield and Cheyenne Place to coordinate the extension of utilities. Cheyenne Place is a residential subdivision for seventy-two units that will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 8, 1988. The attached utilities study shows how sewer and water could be provided to serve Fairfield, Cheyenne Place, and the school. Engineering has reviewed this and has indicated that a 12 inch water main (as identified in a preliminary Southwest Area report) should follow the east/west collector and north/south collector in the Fairfield project as shown in yellow and be extended south to County Road #1. This is how water should be extended to serve the school. Sewer can be provided to the school through Fairfield or Cheyenne Place where shown in red. Phase 1 of Fairfield should extend sewer and water to the south property line and Cheyenne Place would extend these utilities through City property to serve their first Phase. r � .___- ♦9 I 1\ ,• A 1 roa mwo w I � I t ,��__-- / yJ •/ \ • � • •' 7 I _1r11 ..., ,/.5:y0,.!!. xi j____ ! ! ‘1\ litim „ir' ,,,_.*--L-L., ‘v:,-, -.....r.:*, fr.'s '>\viA v- y�.Y_^ v7 jam'•�-'L7 • 7 \ -.- [. New Phase One ✓7. ; -- 1 ti.i. , ° \ r �s• Proposed By The Developer _ r' y \ I , v. I r _ .. . .. ,u - -a r / t° I \IIt • t //. •; .... '''' '''..4001 '. 'II Km / ..? 4-7..--,LH$,(..<...' 1•710 VS.`-- / ...„ •_: . ...,,_.. • th , . i/ YE T' • • •7_ , \ �,I .1 ;N: \-e. .0-<•-•,-,.-__.• „1„.,..c-- •-c-- zi ' -,-- L_L:.. • .. Phase One As ,,.:ro�red�--- i �-. - By The Planning Commission ' ;)--u i � /, '.., Attachment A f CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 088-I37 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE FAIRFIELD ADDITION, PHASE I, FOR TANDEM PROPERTIES BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of the Fairfield Addition, Phase I, for Tandem Properties, dated July 11, I988, consisting of approximately 30 acres for construction of 68 single family units, 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 19th day of July, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1988 . A. FAIRFIELD,by Tandem Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres and from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres,Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 148.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers from the Code for Street frontage and lot size on 148.2 acres,Zoning District Chagne from Rural to R1-9.5 on 92.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres,Preliminary Plat of 148.2 acres into 367 single family lots,28 outlots and road right-of-way,review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for construction of a residential development. Location: West of County Road 4,southeast of the Minneapolis and St.Louis Railroad. A continued public hearing. Franzen reported that this item was continued from the May 9th and June 13th,1988 meetings for two reasons. 1)The developer was directed to provide information on grading,tree loss,and a noise assessment study. 2)Modify the concept plan according to revisions recommended in the previous staff report to reduce impact on natural features,provide appropriate transition to adjoining land uses,improve internal circulation and access,and create architectural variety. He added that the Commission requested information on infrastructure improvements required for the project such as sewer,water,storm sewer,and roads,as determined by the Southwestern Eden Prairie Phasing Study so that a proper and thorough review of rezoning and replatting requests per City Code for Phase I could be completed. Proponent stated they were in agreement with the Staff Recommendations and felt two issues were outstanding at that time. 1)The phasing of the project had. 2)The traffic impact on County Road #4. Proponent stated they desired approval for Phases I and II now and Phases III through VI at a later date. Staff was now recommending that Phase I be a combination of Phases I and II in combining some of the lots or a total of 68 units. It was necessary for proponent to know that Phase II would be built before they construct the sewer system. The system was planned to loop to the school by the Fall of f 989. Franzen stated to Commission that the question was how much of the Fairfield project can be approved for rezoning prior to the completion of the Southwest Area Study(due in 7-8 weeks). He continued that there were unresolved issues which would impact the PUD Concept in Phases II through VI,including the alignment of Highway 212 and Scenic Heights Road through the property and the amount of tree loss resulting from the proposed development design. Regarding traffic, Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 27,1988 Page 3 the additional 68 units proposed would generate 680 daily trips representing an 8%increase in • traffic on County Road#4;and entrance to the subdivision would require bypass lanes for safety reasons. Dick Feerick,7103 Interlachen Court,stated at the meeting of the Southwest Area Coalition held this day,it was stated that County Road#4 would be upgraded to 4 lanes in 1989 to Terry Pines Road. To extend the road to the railroad,County would consider it if a maintenance agreement was brought into the proposal. He also added that discussion was held on Highway 18 upgrade and he telt County Road#1 should be built up to four lane as well. Hallett inquired to proponent why they needed both phases approved at this time. Proponent responded that they had planned to get water to the school through Phase II,and they need to know what would be allowed so they could plan accordingly. Franzen stated that until the study is done it could not be determined how large Phase II could be,or if it would be within the Fairfield project. • Proponent asked Cor:mission if they would be willing to approve Phase II subject to it being in the study so as not to take up Commissions time with another hearing. He added that the land would not be developed for another year,therefore the traffic impact on County Road#4 would not be a problem. Ruebling inquired about the density of the project. Franzen responded that Phase I was not an issue of density,but there would be issues in Phases III through VI. Franzen stated that to eliminate some loss of trees,the road in Phase II would be moved and that would require a plan change. Proponent stated that upon approval,construction would not take place for Phase II-just preparing engineering plans,and felt there was not an issue that could not be resolved on the project. Bye stated that proponent was asking for approval of Phases I and tl with a contingent upon results of the Study. Dodge felt there were too many loose ends in the project for approval beyond Phase I. Hallett indicated that he was comfortable with Phase I only at this time with approval of other phases to be considered after the Study is done. He added that there may be too many R1-9.5 lots in the project and was concerned about the lots not being used for starter housing. Franzen stated that the staff recommendation was a joint decision by Planning and Engineering in the review of this project. He would present the contingency option to the Engineering and perhaps they could live with that recommendation. Ruebling inquired to proponent if they would prefer to wait until Phases I and II could be approved rather than just Phase I. Proponent responded that a partial approval would be acceptable,but they were concerned about the delay and the approval by City Council. Bye stated her reservations with regard to the Study not being completed,and recommended proceeding with Staff Recommendations to approve rezoning of Phase Ito expedite the project. MOTION 1 Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to continue the public hearing regarding the Planned Unit Development Concept,Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment,Planned Unit Development District Review,with Waivers,Zoning and Platting requests with respect to Phase 2-6, and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Fairfield development to the July 25,1988 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 27,1988 Page 4 Planning Commission meeting,pending receipt of additional information from the Southwest Area Study as would impact this property and pending redesign of the Planned Unit Development Concept to provide for greater minimization of tree loss on the property. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to close the public hearing regarding Phase 1 of the Fairfield development proposal with respect to Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1.9.5, and Preliminary Platting of approximately 30 acres into 68 single family lots,as outlined on the attached preliminary plans. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 3; Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to recommend to City Council approval of the request of Tandem Properties for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 for approximately 30 acres for Phase 1 of the Fairfield development proposal,based on revised plans dated June 24,1988,with revisions according to Attachment C and the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24,1988,and predicated on developer extending utilities to the Cedar Ridge School site. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Dodge and seconded by Hallett to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Tandem Properties for Preliminary Plat of approximately 30 acres for Phase 1 of the Fairfield development proposal,based on revised plans dated June 24,1988,with revisions according to Attachment C and the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24,1988,and predicated on developer extending utilities to the Cedar Ridge School site. Motion carried 4-0-0 Planning Commission Minutes June 13, 1988 I A. FAIRFIELD by Tandem Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres and from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres,Planned Unit Development Concept Reviews with waivers from the Code for street frontage and lot size on 148.2 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 92.7 acres and from Rura!to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres,Preliminary Plat of 148.2 acres into 367 single family lots,28 outlots and road right-ot-way,review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for construction of a residential development. Location: West of County Road 4,southeast of the Minneapolis and St.Louis Railroad. A continued public hearing. Proponent updated Commission on the changes made per the recommendations by Staff,such as eliminating the lots around the ponding area, providing an access into the park from the south,combination of driveway and cul-de-sacs, lots with less than 8000 sq.ft.were enlarged, collector roads were changed,and a tree survey had been submitted. Proponent did meet with the neighbors per Staff's recommendation. Approximately 20-25 residents were there and the main concern was the increased traffic on Cty.Road 4. Anderson inquired about the decreased acreage to the cemetery dedication. Proponent replied that it was only a couple of tenths of an acre that would be affected,and the cemetery people were contacted and they are in agreement. Bye inquired as to the status of the noise assessment with regard to the railroad. Proponent replied it would be done at the end of the week. Franzen stated that the noise assessment would determine the house setback,berming, and planting. In Cardinal Creek area, a 12'noise berm was constructed. Staff did receive the tree survey data on Tuesday,and with the site plan and size of houses they could now calculate tree loss. Most of the changes made were n response to the Staff report. Regarding traffic,he felt that it may be higher than they anticipated on the east- west collector,and if so,they would require more cul-de-sac's instead of direct driveway access for safety reasons, Fell inquired if light rail transit was being discussed in this area. Staff responded it was north of this project. Bye asked what portions of the development could be developed now. Franzen replied that Phase I could be developed,once information from the Southwest Area Study was available on sewer,water,roads and storm sewer which would give Staff the technical information for ordinance review on preliminary plat. Concept approval with stipulations on lot sizes,land use and general road layout could be approved,however a phasing plan must wait until the entire study is done. MOTION Anderson moved and Fell seconded to continue the public hearing on Fairfield to the July 16, 1988,Planning Commission meeting,pending receipt of additional information 0 from the proponent. fir/ Motion carried 4-0-0. , �l Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1988 • E. FAIRFIELD, by Tandem Properties. Request for { Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres and from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 148.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with variances for street frontage and lot size on 148.2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 92.7 acres and from rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 148.2 acres into 367 single family lots, 28 outlots and road right-of- way, review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for construction of a residential development. Location: West of County Road 4, southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad. Franzen introduced Jim Ostensen, Developer, Rick Sather, Consultant Engineer, and Tom Boyce, representing Centex Homes. Ostensen presented an overview of the project and a brief slide presentation. Ostensen indicated that the Industrial guided land be changed to Low and Medium Density Residential. He added that he read the Staff Report and concurs with it believing that the developer and recommendations for changes are not that far apart. Planning Commission 9 May 9, 1988 Rick Sather, Planner stated that three different types of neighborhoods were being proposed. The southeastern and southwestern portions are proposed as R-1, 13.5 Zoning District. The 55 1/2 acres in this area would be divided into 105 lots representing a density of 2 per acre, with the average lots being 16,700 square feet. The northeast 43 acres would be divided into 108 lots representing a density of 2.5 units per acres, with the average lot size being 13,500 square feet. The 3rd neighborhood area would be the cluster neighborhood,with 154 small cluster lots on 49.5 acres, at a density of 3.1 units per acres. The total project represents 367 new single-family lots on 148 acres. The northerly 18 acres had been plotted as an outlot for the 212 corridor. Within the outlot a portion for Scenic Heights Road is available. Sather showed the six phases being proposed. Tom Boyce, representing Centex Homes, gave a brief history of Centex Homes in Eden Prairie. Boyce stated that he wished to provide a number of different housing types, which would be architecturally controlled. Franzen stated that the two main issues are; 1)The concept of the project with residential land uses and the change in Comprehensive Guide Plan from Industrial to Residential. 2)The type of public improvements required to implement the project. Franzen reported that Staff recommends that the following changes to improve the plan: 1)Transition be provided for property owners to the northeast and south areas. 2) Access be provided to allow for orderly development of adjoining properties 3)Revise the plan according to County's recommendation to move the southerly driveway access to the north to provide better sight vision distance. 4)The natural features of the land should be preserved to a greater extent than currently shown. 5)Provide trails and sidewalks as recommended by the Community Services Department. Franzen reported that it was not possible at this time to review the platting and zoning requests. The southwest area capital improvement phasing plan was commissioned by the City Council 30 days ago, and will be completed within 90 days. The plan will make suggestions for incremental development and location in relation to necessary public improvements. Hallett indicated that the Southwest Area Plan should have been done 2 years ago in aticipation of the future development. He added that the City is behind and that it is unfair to the developer. l 1 / Planning Commission 10 May 9, 1988 Franzen reported that the Fairfield PUD had been reviewed in relation to the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan identifies a corridor for Highway #212, and conceptual locations for a north/south collector such as Dell Road and an east/west collector road such as Scenic Heights Road. This project is providing land area for future #212 and road connections to Scenic Heights Road to the north and Dell Road to the west. Although a change in the Guide Plan from Industrial to Low and Medium Density is proposed, with the relocation of Highway #212 to the north, Industrial is no longer appropriate. The overall density of this project is 2-1/2 units per acre, which is consistent with the Low Density Residential designation for most of southwest Eden Prairie for up to 2-1/2 units per acre. Franzen reported that variances are being requested for lot sizes and street frontage. Franzen expressed concerned about smaller lots being near natural features and that some of the lots were too small and did not leave enough room for deck and other building expansions. . Franzen presented two options for the Commission to consider; 1)Proceed along with the concept review and continue discussion for zoning request, after the southwest area capital improvements phasing plan is completed. 2)Commission could recommend denial if not comfortable with land uses and the proposed Guide Plan Change. Anderson commented that a 90 day waiting period would make it difficult for the developer. Franzen stated that the development of the property is not proposed until fall and even if rezoning and plat approval was continued unitl August, development could still proceed on the developers schedule. Franzen added that in order to properly review the requests and evaluate roads and sewer, water and storm drainage information the southwest area study is necessary. Without such an overall intrastructure improvement plan it is not possible for Staff to make an informed recommendation. Platting review per code requires Staff to review utility details. Rezoning for the entire property before the study is done would not be good planning. He added that it may be before the entire study is done that enough information may be available to properly review and approve phase one only and assumptions could be made that Fairfield would be the logical 1st phase to be developed in Southwest Eden Prairie. Developer proposed a compromise; requesting the rezoning for Phase 1 and 2 at this time. Franzen stated that we could look at the details for rezoning of Phase 1 and 2 as the study is progressing. Planning Commission 11 May 9, 1988 Hallett inquired if there were future plans for Highway #4 becoming a four lane highway. . Franzen answered that the level of improvements are being studied by the County. Virginia Gartner, 15701 Cedar Ridge Road, stated disappointment about changes in notice requirements. Eden Prairie already has traffic problems, especially on County Road 1 4. Steven Wagner, 8430 Eden Prairie Road, stated concern about access to the future development with Scenic Heights Road through his dining room. Consideration should be given to present property owners. Marsha Ernst, 15851 Summit Drive, stated that there are enough areas where all the homes look the same. Ernst questioned if the school system could handle all the development being proposed for the southwest area. There needs to be something done to County Road #4. A blind spot exists at Summit Drive and County Road #4. Ernst expressed concerned about the speed of the traffic and the additional amount of traffic this project will add to current problems. Anderson questioned if the southwest study would identify some of the traffic concerns. Franzen stated that the study will project traffic volumes and recommend road improvements. Schuck stated concern at this time for opening up too much land in the southern corridor before the Southwest study is done. Until the results of the study are known for the entire 150 acres should be postponed. Limiting rezoning to a small area such as phase one may be reasonable if enough information can be provided to the Commission to properly review the request. Clark Kube, 15909 Cedar Ridge Road, requested clarification on the southern boundary and what berming is being proposed. Ostensen stated the southern boundary would be approximately 30' north of the center of Cedar Ridge Road. Kube concerned about southern entrance to project being directly across from his driveway. Kube questioned if any projections regarding amount of traffic is available. Ostensen stated that as roads are developed people will have other alternatives and the project is being developed over a 5 to 8 year time span. The project is the lowest family density possible. Fell questioned if a meeting with the neighbors had taken place. Proponent answered no. Schuck stated that we need more information. Planning Commission 12 May 9, 1988 Fell stated that Commission only has parts and pieces and is not comfortable with recommending any level of approval at this time. Anderson asked the Developer if it would be possible to continue this, since there are too many questions unanswered. Anderson suggested that a meeting take place with neighbors. Ostensen stated they would like to proceed on a moderate scale yet this year and would come back within 30 days and request rezoning on Phase 1 & 2 only. Dodge believed that more sidewalks should be in this project, due to it being so close to the school. Bye requested clarification about the note regarding Preliminary Plat. If the Commission does not act on this within 60 days is the project automatically approved. Franzen replied that at this time the Developer has agreed to a 30 day continuance. Ruebling questioned the legality; if the project did go past the 30 days he did not want the project to be passed automatically. Franzen replied we need a commitment from the Developer. Ostenson responded that if the developer has not finished revisions and or if information from the Southwest Area study is not availabe for Phase I and II rezoning he would request continuance. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bye to continue Public Hearing to the June 13, 1988 meeting and direct the developer to work with Staff to provide information and make changes as identified in the Staff Report. Motion carried 7-0-0. . �lr� • A ( t April 29, 1988 To: City of Eden Prairie City Council & Planning Commission Ref: Fairfield-PUD Zoning Request Tandem Properties This letter concerns the above proposed development currently being reviewed by the City Planning Department and it is on their recommendation that we contact you. As residents and adjacent property owners to the proposed project site, we feel several issues must be addressed prior to the public hearing scheduled for mid May. Much time has been spent discussing our concerns with members of the Planning Department but the direction, we were advised, must come from Council members and Planning commissioners. Of primary concern is the roadway system proposed for the beginning and future phases of the Fairfield project. Current plans show access to the development via an entry road to the west, off Eden Prairie Road just south of Lake Shore Drive. This road by design, is not intended to serve future phases of development and is our major point of concern. Instead, an extension of Scenic Heights Road is proposed to serve future phases of the Fairfield project. As of this date, the Scenic Heights Road extension is only in the proposal stage and no one in City Planning can qualify which route, if any, might be selected. Much of that decision we are told, rests on the "Highway 212 by-pass" project. The sketchy introduction of an east-west collector road disecting our properties, whose purpose is to serve future phases of Fairfield appears grossly insensitive to surrounding land owners. 5ucn a collector road could isolate our property and have devasting impact on any future development we might consider. Anyone who currently addresses the rigors of current traffic on County Road 4 can only wonder what congestion an east-west collector road directly adjacent to the Highway 212 exit ramp would bring. As longtime residents of the community, we know that progress is inevitable and the rural climate of our city is in the twilight years. We do not question Eden Prairie Land Development's desire to offer property they have held since the 1950's, nor do we begrudge the develcpmeittal pursuits of Tandem Properties and Centex Homes. We do however, take exception to proposals that encourage access across neighboring properties in order to maximize the number of allowable building sites in a startup building phase. In short, we question collector road proposals which tend to benefit developers at the expense of surrounding landowners. City of Eden Prairie Page 2 April 29, 1988 As affected property owners, we seek a definitive solution in advance of any approvals for development. We request that the Planning Commission, City Planning Department and the City Council give immediate attention to this matter. Failure to resolve these issues prior to first phase approval will leave few if any alternatives. We would like to meet with you to discuss our concerns. We will be contacting you in a few days. Respectfully, Mr. & Mrs. Stephen Wagner 8430 Eden Prairie Road 937-1608 Mr. & Mrs. John Hobbs 8425 Eden Prairie Road 937-2036 Mr. & Mrs. Eugene (Pete) Ruud 8420 Eden Prairie Road 937-8025 • • ji$7( • ' ( v /' - \ \____( - „---' ----- \ \ • • ..-----—�„IS% N \ti \ _ /'0 S " -�' / 212�u1 4Mp _ 1 ,. \,.,uv . Gv ❑ UTL011 0 • j. o \ — _ _ 1-- _ • \. \ JIB _ sc{E�v�it�k1S��c� I `�• `, • \\\ 4-PgorosM. 2 \ .`. �1.. .. \ a r i Airlr s� A y 9 I Virir" illh. M I o \„__ _ _\ V.) i . ..,:-.2-4.,;5-g9\-\ \_ is tip IP Agimillo.1 LAKE SHoeE CV. i 1 - " I \ \ , �,, --_ 2 irl _ .4 T\ \ \ I s I e I I e 11 e / ` . ,.I '� 2 3 \--9J.0-1-161-fli",7 a � Io s \a. 3 �_ .f I .i1 � � ® � Pais4rbsD ri'112FiELD bEVELDP:n{ 7- PF}al-rr 2 71— DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South 11 HENNEPIN Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 935-3381 April 13, 1988 Mr. Chris Enger Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: RE: Proposed Plat - Fairfield CSAH 4, West side - south of C & NW Railway Section 17/20, Township 116, Range 22 Hennepin County Plat No. 1617 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: - For future improvements to this segment of CSAH 4 the developer should dedicate and additional 17 feet of right of way making the right of way 50 feet from the center of CSAH 4. - The location of the northerly proposed street, approximately 600 feet north of Summit Drive meets the minimum sight distance requirements for the posted speed limit and is acceptable to Hennepin County. - The southerly proposed street, approximately 170 feet north of the southeast plat corner, does not meet the minimum sight distance requirements to the drivers left for the posted 40 mph speed limit. The only safe location south of the cemetary is approximately 380 feet north of the southeast plat corner. - Any new access to a county road requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction. Contact our Maintenance Division for entrance permit forms. - All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer ( ( 11 C. Enger April 13, 1988 Page 2 - The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Sincerely, David W. Schmidt, P.E. Transportation Planning cc: Sathre-Berquist, Inc. OWS/LOW:1w TANDEM James L.Ostcnson CORPORATION Richard A.Putnam BROKERS•PLANNERS•DEVELOPERS 6440 Flying Cloud Drive.Eden Prairie,MN 55344/1612)941-1070 T0: City of Eden Prairie FROM: Jim Ostenson, TANDEM PROPERTIES RE: Railway Noise Fairfield Environmental Assessment Worksheet DATE: June 21, 1988 Attached is a catpleted Worksheet D which contains the necessary information to evaluate the impact of railway noise on our Fairfield Subdivision. It is intended that this information will be included in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet already submitted. The information used in the Noise Analysis has been obtained from Mr. W. Mohler, Traffic Engineer, Chicago Northwestern Railroad (221-9253). The one additional assumption which we have used pertains to the impact of whistle noise on Fairfield. It is our understanding that the current whistle stop is 1,320 feet SW of the County Road 4 intersection. This places the noise impact of the train whistle almost 2,100 feet from Fairfield. Due to the distance involved, we have not factored the train whistle noise into the Noise Assessment. e1 rksheet Dr- Page Noise Assessment Guidelines pallwayNolseY Environmental Assessment Worksheet tibiawrv.r.. FAIRFIELD Fden Prairie Minnecnta List All Railways within 3000 feet of the site: I. Chi.[agn - Northwestern Rai 1mind 2. 3. Necessary Information: Railway No.1 Rahway No.2 Railway No.3 1. Distance in feet from the NAL to the railway track: 150 2. Number of trains in 24 hours: a.diesel 4 b.electrified 3. Fraction of operations occunng at night 0 (10 p.m.-7a.m.): 2 4 Number 01 diesel locomotives per train. 5.Number of tail cars per train: a.diesel trains 10 b.electnfied trains 6. Average train speed: 30 7. Is track welded or bolted? bolted 8. Are whistles or horns required - _* for grade crossings? _yes * Because the closest whistle stop is 2100 feet frail the nearest house in Fairfield, we have net factored the whistle noise into the noise assessment. 30 • • ' .Worksheet D S f Page 2 Noise Assessment Guidelines Railway Nolse( sows- 1• Adjustments for Diesel Locomotives 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 No.of ocomotives Average Night. No of Speed Horns lime Trains Ad No. DN). Barrier Partial 2 Table 9 (enter 10) Table 5 pine 2a) of tons. Workchart 3 Attn. DNl Railway No.1 2 x 1 x 10 x_..43 x 4 . 3.44 56 - • - 56 Railway No.2 X X X X _ — . Railway No.3 X X X X — _ Adjustments for Railway Cars or Rapid Transit Trains 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Number Average Bolted Night- No.of ON). o_r cars Speed Rails lime Trams(Line Adj.No. Work- Barrier Partial 50 Table 10 (enter 4) Table 5 2a or 2b) of Opns. chart 4 Ann. DNL Railway No.1 2 x_1_x 4 x .43 X 4 = 1.37 50 _ 50 Railway No.2 _ _.X_ X X_ X_ _ _ .• Railway No.3 _X_ X X X = — combined Locomotivemo^ and Railway Car DNL Railway No.1 V 6 Railway No.2 Railway No,3 Total DNL for all Railways `46 56 DNL Diesel Locomotive -50 DNL Railway Cars 6 (Add 1.0 to larger level; Table 1) 56.0 + 1.0 57 dB DNL \kf\\ir_k 'Wive Date v �'� �� VI eov.vuur,•r n r III,..rr ru u•urm , 31 I, 'tr MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect DATE: July 12, 1988 SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to May 6, 1988 & June 24, 1988 Planning Staff Report on Fairfield Fairfield is a proposed PUD that first appeared before the Planning Commission May 9, 1988, again June 13, 1988 and received approval of the Planning Commission for a modified Phase I at the June 27, 1938 meeting. The approval for Phase I is contingent upon staff recommendations in the June 24, 1988 Staff Report and based on the GB lot phasing plan shown in Attachment C. Phases 2-6 have been continued until results of the Southwest Eden Prairie Phasing Plan for roads and utilities has been completed. The major parks, recreation and natural resources issues relating to Fairfield are: 1. Grading & Tree Replacement 2. Pedestrian Systems Grading of a site becomes of interest to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission when grading disrupts or clears the site of its natural resources. In Phase I of this project calculations by the Planning Department estimate tree loss at approximately 33% or 799 caliper inches. Tree replacement would be 440 caliper inches. The average tree loss for 20 other residential projects approved by the City is 27%. The first phase is very close to this average. A detailed inventory for Phases 2-6 has been submitted with estimates of 36% of tree loss after grading. Planning staff has reviewed the estimate and feels tree loss after grading will be closer to 55% or 2567 caliper inches. The Planning Department staff has asked the developer to minimize tree loss by providing larger and wider lots and by slightly realigning several sections of roadway. A memo concerning pedestrian systems was written to the Planning Commission and is attached to the June 24th Staff Report. This memo describes the pedestrian trail systems which staff recommends in the proposed project. The layout has since been slightly altered and a new pedestrian system plan is attached. In addition to the memo, staff is recommending the outlot between houses providing access to the school be 40' in width. This outlot is anticipated to be a heavily traveled pathway by school kids to and from school. Outlots between houses have not worked well in the past and making the outlot 40' with an 8' trail leaves 16' on either side for berming and screening with landscape material. This change should help alleviate potential problems. The trails and sidewalks should be installed concurrent with road construction. I I In order to be consistent with floodplain dedication from other parts of the City, staff is recommending the developer to dedicate the 100 year floodplain to the City. Staff had originally intended a trail to be built within the outlot north of the pond which would connect the park to the Fairfield development. After further study of grades, vegetation, and water levels a trail through the area would be impractical. Dedication of the floodplain would give the City ownership for better protection of the steep wooded slopes. The 100 year flood elevation has been temporarily set at 863 but is subject to change upon completion of the Southwest Area Study. Lots affected in Phase I of the development are: Lots 1-4, Block 6 and Lots 1-5, Block B. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Staff recommend approval of Phase I based on Planning Staff recommendations contained in the June 24th Staff Report and on this supplemental staff report. Phase 2-6 will be considered at a later time when the Southwest Area Report has been completed. BPC:md t • • ...� r k.: . ir..•,.., : , ;may • ? N- ,, 2:.....!___5_, el i : ,., ,-- ‘ \' - ' A -- f'i '''': i: 4 1\ \ \ ti ` �• f - -- ?. ;: . ,/ iiir:Ncilp,-,..14. . = _ \, r �fu X`'N 1 . c \'' ; a • .� . 1*—lR ., c \ \ .s.1' . _- n a \ ' . \ ; +(�' STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: June 24, 1988 PROJECT: Fairfield Planned Unit Development LOCATION: West of County Road #4, south of Highway #5, north of County Road #1, east of the railroad tracks. APPLICANT: Tandem Corporation and Centex Homes Midwest FEE OWNERS: Mr. Herb Mason and Mr. Lawrence Sowles REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres and from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 148.2 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers for street frontage and lot size on 148.2 acres. 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 92.7 acres, and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 148.2 acres into 367 single family lots, 28 outlots, and road right-of-way. 6. Review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. ��� � �� ^"'-w :i,rj7 I I-1 . Background � . ,� fr This is a continued item from the I �� May 9, 1988, and June 13, 1988, R cgl! Planning Commission meetings, for -- - 1 t two reasons. The developer was ��� directed to provide information on y- �j iiii�o so '� ' grading, tree loss, and a noise ------ • assessment stud y, plus modify theconcept plan according to revisions -i7�recommended in the previous staff report to reduce impact on natural —�Cr'• C features, provide appropriate tran- ii���i�1 jj•�•�•��•�•���1�•��� 3t\ ,.. sition to adjoining land uses, improve internal circulation and ��jQPROPOSED SITE�.� imolai 4 -.U. �, AREA LOCATION MAP Fairfield Planned Unit Development 2 June 24, 1988 access, and create architectural variety. Commission also requested information on infrastructure improvements required for this project such as sewer, water, storm sewer, and roads, as determined by the Southwestern Eden Prairie Phasing Study so that a proper and thorough review of rezoning and replatting requests per City Code for Phase I could be completed. Planned Unit Development Concept Revisions The following revisions have been made in the PUD Concept Plan in response to revisions as identified in the May 6, 1988, Staff Report, including: 1. Eliminate unnecessary cul-de-sacs. The number of cul-de-sacs in the concept plan has been reduced from 13 to 6. The remaining cul-de-sacs can be considered acceptable because they are less than the 500-foot length maximum allowed per City Code, the use of cul-de- sacs saves more trees, and result in a more efficient lotting pattern and add variety to the neighborhoods. 2. Provide access to the undeveloped properties north and east of the site to allow for orderly development of adjoining land consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Two access points are provided to the property to the north and east of the site. 3. Revise the concept plan to provide access onto County Road Al by moving the southerly driveway access to the north as recommended by the Hennepin County Highway Department. The plan has been revised according to the County's recommendation. 4. Provide for an appropriate transition to adjoining land areas to the northeast and southeast of the site by providing for larger lots with the minimum lot size of 13,500 square feet and a density not to exceed 21/4 units per acre. The plan has been revised to meet these requirements. 5. Revise the concept plan to provide sidewalks and trails along the north/south and east/west collector streets. The developer has agreed in principle to make these changes, however, the changes have not been made in the plans. In addition, there is a memorandum from the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission Staff which indicates a need for additional sidewalks within the project. 6. Complete a noise assessment study analyzing the impacts of the railroad adjacent to the site. A noise assessment study has been prepared and reviewed by Staff and the noise levels are within PCA guidelines. Fairfield Planned Unit Development 3 June 24, 1988 7. Increase the size of the smallest lots to minimize potential future setback encroachments for decks, building expansions, and patios. Past experience with earlier Centex projects indicates that when lot sizes are below 8,000 square feet, there is not enough room for typical expansion for decks, patios, and building additions. The plan has been revised to increase the size of the smallest lot to be 8,000 square feet. 8. The overall appearance of the project is visually dense and is compounded by the fact that there is too many small units for a very large area and that the site plan is tight. Although changes have been made in the plan to increase the minimum size of the lots, it has not resulted in any fewer units in the R1-9.5 area. Some of the lots became larger while other lots became smaller. Staff has suggested several alternative ways of responding to the visual density of the project. One, was to remove units and comply with the minimum lot size requirements in the R1-9.5 zoning district; two, add more R1-13.5 lots to the projects, or three, create individual neighorhoods with a distinctive architectural theme such that the R1-9.5 area would appear as a collection of smaller neighborhoods. • 9. Reduce the physical impacts on the site's natural features including the significant trees and the edge of the natural ponds. The original tree loss estimate by the proponent was approximately 20% for Phase I. After reviewing the grading plan with house pad locations, it is estimated that 33% tree loss will occur with Phase I of the project, or 799 caliper inches. Tree replacement would be 440 inches. A detailed tree inventory has been provided for the areas Phase 2-6 with a proposed tree loss of 36%. After a review of the tree inventory, Staff estimates that tree loss would be is 55%, or 2,567 caliper inches. Alternatives for reducing the amount of tree loss beyond Phase I would be to provide for larger and wider lots and to move the roadway to the north where shown on Attachment A. The net effect would be fewer house pads and grading further away from the trees to reduce the tree loss. The average amount of tree loss for 20 other residential projects approved by the City is 27%. The plans should be revised to approach this number. Grading around the large pond in the center of the site has been changed to preserve more of the existing natural character of the pond. In working with the School District to provide a road connection to the Fairfield site, an attachment was prepared by Staff to show how this road alignment from the school site and the Fairfield project should tie into together. The collector road on the Fairfield site should be moved to the west which provides a better alignment for the school site, and reduces tree loss on the school site. This road shift would not result in additional tree loss on the lots to the east, since those trees were proposed to be lost based upon the proposed grading plan. (See Attachment B) This road alignment is more consistent with the original concept alignment given to the developers from the City. 'Et Fairfield Planned Unit Development 4 June 24, 1988 Status of Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study • City Staff attended a recent meeting held at the City Hall for land owners in the southwestern area of Eden Prairie on June 16, 1988. At that meeting, the consultant team presented the overall plan for storm drainage, water, and sewer. Traffic numbers at full development were also presented. The phasing plan will be done in 4 to 7 weeks. At this time, the study indicates the following improvements necessary for the Fairfield project, including a 12-inch and 8-inch sanitary sewer line, a 12- inch watermain, and a series of storm water ponds and storm sewer pipe systems with an outlet to Red Rock Lake. Refer to the Engineering memorandum for additional comments on infrastructure improvements including sewer, water, and storm sewer. Since the phasing plan for infrastructure improvements will be complete within 4 to 7 weeks, based on what is known at this time, it could be concluded that the Fairfield project would be the area targeted for Phase I development based on the following assumptions: 1. Proximity of the site to the Metro Sewer Interceptor. 2. Improvements for sewer and water are to be extended to the school site by Fall of 1989. 3. Proximity of the site to County Road #4, which provides for a direct access. Traffic Concerns were raised by citizens at the May 9, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, about the impact of traffic generated by this project on County Road #4. The current amount of existing daily trips is 8,600 and the p.m. peak hour would be 860 trips. Phase I of this project is 68 units which would generate 680 daily trips, or 68 trips in the p.m. peak hour. This would represent an 8% increase in traffic on the roadway. The intersection at County Road #4 and Highway #5 is already at capacity and improvements to the intersection will not be completed until the Year 1990. If it is assumed that housing starts will not begin until late fall and built out over a 2-year time period, the impact of increased traffic will be gradual and by the time all 68 houses would be occupied, the County Road Highway #5 intersection would be upgraded. The majority of traffic on County Road #4 is due to through traffic and the amount of existing homes generating traffic adjacent to County Road #4 is small. If these assumptions are valid, then the increase in traffic on County Road #4 from Phase I may not have a noticeable impact which would necessitate that major road improvements be made concurrent with Phase I. Since the east/west collector is the main entrance to the subdivision there should be turn and bypass lanes on County Road #4 for safety reasons. These improvements should be to County standards. PUD Waivers for Lot Size and Street Frontage Waivers are requested through the PUD District Review for lot frontage and lot size for Phases 2-6. Since the rezoning for Phases 2-6 should not occur until after the Southwest Area Study is done, and since variances are granted through the PUD Review as a supplement to the zoning district requested, no waivers should be granted at this time. Fairfield Planned Unit Development 5 June 24, 1988 The Planning Commission must decide if the waivers requested would result in a better environmentally designed subdivision for the City than if no waivers were granted at all. Considering that the overall visual density of the R1-9.5 area is tight, and that tree loss in Phase 2-6 is 55%, waivers should not be considered prior to further revisions improving the project impacts. Reasons for granting the waivers in the future may be for a variety of housing and lifestyle choices. Fairfield Phasing Only one access to this site is provided as part of Phase I and 68 housing units would have access on a dead-end cul-de-sac until Phase II is built. A second access point can be provided by changing the Phase I area to include a portion of Phase II to the south which would create a loop road back to County Road #4. The number of units in Phase I should remain at 68. (See Attachment C) A reason to consider the Fairfield project as a 1st Phase of the Southwest Eden Prairie would be extension of sewer and water to the school, which the developer has agreed to. Extending sewer and water to the school is proposed to go through Phase II & III which will not be in the next 2 years. As part of Phase I construction, the developer should extend utilities to the school or petition the City for the improvements and agree to be assessed. Right-of-way for Scenic Heights Road The Engineering Department, in reviewing the most recent Highway #212 plans, have indicated the amount of right-of-way to be set aside for Highway #212 and Scenic Heights Road may not.be wide enough to construct both improvements. Scenic Heights Road is planned for a minimum 80-foot right-of-way and based on the current off ramp location, the amount of leftover land is tight. Concept approval for Phase 2-6 should provide the additional land area as determined by the Engineering Department. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS If the Planning Commission feels that the revisions to the PUD are acceptable and concur with the assumptions made in the Staff Report relative to Southwest Area phasing and traffic impacts on County Road #4, then approval of the Fairfield project should be predicated upon the following: 1. Rezoning, PUD Concept and preliminary plat approval would be limited to Phase I only for 68 units as amended by Attachment C and predicated on developer extending utilities to the school. 2. Guide Plan Change, rezoning, concept approval, and PUD District Review, with waivers for street frontage and lot size for Phases 2-6, should be reviewed subsequent to the completion of the Southwest Area phasing plan and subject to the following conditions: A. Revised plans which reduce the overall tree loss of significant trees. B. Traffic volumes on the east/west collector roads are expected to be higher than currently anticipated. If the results of the traffic study should verify this, cul-de-sacs may be necessary along this roadway to provide for safer access. Fairfield Planned Unit Development 6 June 24, 1988 C. Revised plans to show sidewalks and trails as recommended in the attached memo from the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Department. D. Providing additional right-of-way, if necessary, to allow for future extension of Scenic Heights Road to the west. E. Revised plans which reduce the overall visual density of the R1-9.5 area. F. Providing compelling reasons for the granting of the waivers of the PUD District Review for street frontage and lot size. G. Revised plans which provide access to the school site as depicted on Attachment B. H. Incorporation into the plans the required improvements to be identified in the Southwest Eden Prairie Phasing Plan. I. Phasing for future development beyond Phase I to be predicated on the results of the Southwest Eden Prairie Phasing Plan. 4. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the Phasing Plan according to Attachment C. B. Submit a tree replacement plan for Phase I for 440 caliper inches. 5. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed utility, storm water run-off, and erosion control plans for review by City Engineer. B. Submit detailed storm water and erosion control plans for review by Watershed District. 6. Prior to Grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Stake the grading limits with a snow fence to protect trees to be preserved. B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 4B hours in advance of grading. 7. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 8. Concurrent with street construction, construct a sidewalk and trail along the east/west collector and on other streets according to the attached memo from the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Department. Construct of turn and bypass lanes to County standards at the intersection of the east/west collector road and County Road #4. 1- - \ I . , _ • \t, . LT :tf...? .z; .. 'k _, . . ... -. 0--iz--k:•.--f-i.->:,\*. \,,., 11 • -y 'T,• • -'--1 - ' ‘' : i!!! r, ! ! •. - •,,\ • I . i'-' \ - N\ ' if Ili II 11 1 t2t 'i ' .' %< .. .P - \ II Ill • _ , : ... ',.• . . , s:-/ .. .\,:\ g ig• •.. . .• —— . 4 : -(771- . -& -. -\..;;:: : i. - , • ,to, -,o- i'Ai.c. \\ I .001 . :41.. 0.. s wtv . i Illittit ;Iivk- z.*.07,Fir. i 3 ---... .1 1k:' ..1,..67-icl 1.i);•,.t'. . . 'AI.S..4.4% 1 8 4.,, .)..- .,::-4-: ._,.. ...• 1 2 F . --,,, ..-1-<', • '\... ,/,...7 .it. ...._ ! '--11-1. ski • I 6. ...... .... , " / Lli " :ii /r:T.ITI. PP' -rilif 1 sz• .... . • 1 • / - - '.'••11 .:4,h ----,11". ..-., ,•, _„.„_) Li...„(.1.1 . - • .. ,fi . —Lts. Ite .•VW. i - .• . • . ' -' 7' /-• - . -. - . 7 A . . -/ _____ \ •,„:\. 7,117:„.„3-:,.c... . ,z • • •A .— A,,,,,,,,,.\ — a - ii • .. ..C(A ‘ — •,- •/ .---7 -. ---. -,, - ..., 4 --\• .-___, •,--,.. . . , ... .. . . •/ ,, . ,-;--- ! -s _ -14. ...1. - - - - ' • . - _,--3 • • *. -,\. ,.,, .\.3...). -r-)...... -7-. ,1 _ 1-1 ,i,--.- . L----' - -. . .1. -, , a ___,.._1. • . - .,',.. .2,,.v,c\-:\: • - ___— ,T Is -\.._ - ,Y•• 7. 1. a.1 _2i_,: i . - • ..., ;I'. .._-- _- 1 1 / :-2• " - i g •-•- ' . - -- 1---r—T I 1 6 --. .• "X ' i ; ''' '4(.1 ''. 1 ', LJ , . 3' i -.1\11 ‘ill ol•°°1#1 —] --r I .,"'•,--7 I • -- i• r-----r\----''. 1 •Ilii FA'RRELD —affp- —.....1•!.r.nr...'!..c.... isi I i . . . .. ' Tree Loss Area 1,-.oa Attachment A y�J ` I / 0LG ,/ rJ tJ 4' /--,--;-'--•-. .---- •--,--:----Th.- \\ t'''''' \ '1..-,0 I 4 c� • -, i► ._ , , 5 �5. f / ti• \ 0> 2 c ° ' 0r141 at ' o' .4 th POND• Q'r�I ala \ �\ \ �\ k y 1 1 r J �4 1 � 'S erk \` pro �r `� `\•\ ' (\ kz� \ �,, 1 1j �y�3�•� \�\_ . Co.4•-6•RETAINING WALL !•t t 'it\\ \�`\ L \ 'Pa \ I• �"\" • •\\ ' \r�� ' "\•. 1"•LAC \ 2 � iy �82 GI�AOINGI'''' \!' . *, W %t .,,, 11. y '�I of / ,:i ' ',/ / i • - � ¢�. #f iCA�/ F l •84 1,�.!"' 7 /,7 ', '„ y Q .w+� e'�r �, ` . -r tit,..,_ 1- /2/// irq,/a! rtiglielitk ' / ,/ il/,' .4, -i/,y/ /,/// /biR 4d, ftr................... il\... ,,,V/ijOrow\ ( a 77--- itgl,\.• .,,,, , ,•,i. comg;;/// / / iril * !ii T-113139pr ..;3;:r0V4i..al.0 /7 North-South Road Attachment B ff, 1 :_itir:)---4,.--k.-, - A., , -11-1-- \4k; o LL .', ° y 1, , , .. YN,-.:-/p - . _ ./.(,),_, Nook• . . _ . . , .. :—.•-e-,, . . `.,, . •\, a — � ,a C � S t.1 • --_ _ rn • - .,Lip` ' �' ' _ r-T1 - i . - . 1-7r,-:f-.ti . . .;,,,,,,‘,. .ri___b :yrt:. . 1. 1-- -H.___, —ir ., -,1:.J41 - --- - ice... I a,o �\ . is j.11I- `, / _<- _____ ,../._ ./ & :_, gw � -\ • P P O • ., • •Lro-`d T �J Revised Phase One ,. �; , Attachment C MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect DATE: June 1, 1088 SUBJECT: Pedestrian Systems Within Fairfield Planned Unit Development The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department has a general policy of requiring a 5' concrete sidewalk and an 8' bituminous trail to be placed along either side of major collector streets. The City will adhere to this policy and require a sidewalk and trail along either side of both the north/south and the east/west collector streets within the Fairfield Development. Due to the higher density in this project and its close proximity to the school, it is anticipated that the pedestrian systems will be widely used and should be supplemented. Upon further study, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources staff will recommend to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission the addition of the sidewalks shown in the attached plan as a minimum pedestrian system. This proposed system provides connections with the existing 8' bituminous trail along County Road 4 and also will provide links to future developments. The proposed system also allows most of the pedestrian traffic to access the school without travelling busy roadways. ( In order to provide access along the north side of the pond to the future neighborhood park (southeast of the project), an outlot 20' in width above the high water mark of the pond should be dedicated to the City. This outlot would affect Lots 1-4, Block 6, Lots 1-5; Block 8 and Lots 1-8, Block 18. The two outlots placed up in the cluster home area will most likely be used for totlots and picnicking. Easy access to these areas should be provided, and proposed sidewalks are shown. As the Fairfield PUD is changed and modified, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources staff and Commission may recommend changes to the attached plan. BPC:mdd , \ I- '- \ I •M - \ 1 J i � Co to. {{ Q I i ',I ,— \,\ 3 g SI i, NI, ot ,,,,.--:,,, _ ..,:,,,\ W to ���'? •�.� ; �• \\ '--- ii) - _ ...,-- ,rr u rel Co .,...,„ , i _7_:- . ,. : .. t.„,, ,) _ ,...„, ., , --...->J›.-,. ,,,,,r.-,_ .--ili / ‘, ',,. .,,, ,.,7,:' . ip . .s,„ - . . ,s,! • .. . _ , . . . , , • ,/ ., A, . . ,, , . . 3-/-Y-". II ,, - 1-14,:, . • - - -i, - "'w• ' ' I 1t -.- -f---:. t.—.-T-I-13 -, .y_ tt ---, = t I 2 ( ! - ..;•--'--r-1." 1 -2. .<1;I I i I 1 - MEMORANDUM - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Alan E. Gray P.E. �, City Engineer (_�J" DATE: June 24, 1988 RE: Fairfield The Engineering Division has conducted a preliminary review of the proposed subdivision known as Fairfield located west of County Road 4 and south of future U.S. Highway 212. The documents which have been reviewed are dated March 22, 1988 and include the following: 1. PUD Concept and Landscape Plan 2. Guide Plan, Zoning and Phasing Plan 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Preliminary Grading Drainage and Erosion Control Plan 5. Preliminary Utility Plan Prior to the completion of the Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study currently in progress, it is not possible to thoroughly review all phases of the proposed Fairfield Development. At this time it appears that portions of Phases IV and V of the proposed Fairfield Development extend northerly into areas that may need to be reserved for right-of-way for future Scenic Heights Road. Based on the current status of the Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study it is possible to proceed with a more detailed review of proposed Phase I of the Fairfield Project. Phase I is located on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to County Road 4. The following paragraphs will summarize our preliminary review of the proposed Phase I development. STREETS: The general street configuration, shown for the Phase I area appears acceptable. STORM DRAINAGE: The Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study has identified the need for a trunk storm sewer between the wetland area in the southwest corner of Phase I and Red Rock Lake. This trunk storm sewer facility would extend through proposed Phase I of Fairfield and will likely follow street alignments within Phase I with some segments on side property lines. At some locations the depth of the storm sewer facility may exceed forty feet. This storm sewer must therefore be installed during the initial development of Phase I. The overall storm sewer plan for Phase I should be revised to reflect the trunk storm sewer facility as identified in the Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study. 1., )I 11 June 24, 1988 Page 2 of 2 SANITARY SEWER: The sanitary sewer configuration shown for Phase I appears acceptable. The invert elevations shown at stubs along the west and southerly boundarys for extensions into adjacent properties will need to be reviewed prior to final design. WATERMAIN: Trunk watermain needs to be extended south along County Road 4 from its current location north of the Chicago Milwaukee Railroad tracks to serve this site. The City is currently beginning a Feasibility Study for this trunk watermain extension. The current plan is for the trunk watermain to extend through the Fairfield Development along the east/west collector and then southerly to the elementary school site. The watermain size shown extending into the site along the east/west collector facility should be increased to 12". Some additional watermain extensions may be required along County Road 4 for coordination with future extensions to other developments and for looping purposes. This will be reviewed more thoroughly during the final utility design process. In addition to the development and extension of utilities to proposed Phase I of Fairfield, it will be necessary to extend sanitary sewer and watermain to the proposed elementary school site located south of Fairfield. The ( alignments for these required utility extensions will be through portions of proposed Phase II and III of Fairfield. We would also recommend that the Developer continue with the detailed design and development of those alignments required for the extension of the sanitary sewer and watermain to the proposed elementary school site. ADG:ss 1 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 6, 1988 PROJECT: Fairfield Planned Unit Development LOCATION: West of County Road #4, south of Highway #5, north of County Road #1, east of railroad tracks APPLICANT: Tandem Corporation and Centex Homes Midwest FEE OWNERS: Mr. Herb Mason and Mr. Lawrence Sowles REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Medium Density Residential on 49.5 acres and from Industrial to Low Density Residential on 24.4 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 148.2 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review with variances for street frontage and lot size on 148.2 acres. 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 92.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 53.6 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 148.2 acres into 367 single family lots, 28 outlots, and road right-of-way. 6. Review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Background AREA LOCATION MAP Approximately 60 acres of this 148- -•�� "� [ acre site is guided Industrial. The balance of the land area is guided .1••j4 Low Density Residential. ♦�♦i♦♦ -- Surroundingland uses are ����� -� guided Low � � ♦����� Density Residential to the north, j•`♦Qj♦�♦�•j������ east, south, and west of the property. The site is currently — i♦♦♦♦0�.����9�♦y.�� _�' zoned Rural. � �- ♦�1���•�•�♦♦♦1♦1���� \; �� � PROPOSED SITE�. ilea% Executive Summary ♦1♦♦••.•.♦♦ •.•••••••o+•�° 1°1181 Issues with this project are land ••♦ •♦maw♦.••i•A.47i-•"•1•4 use and infrastructure. The concept of a mixture of single family lot �1♦�j4PU6 ,� -1 I— PUB Fairfield 2 May 6, 1988 sizes and densities, at an overall density of 2-1/2 units per acre, is appropriate with revisions to reduce the impacts on natural features, to provide appropriate transition to adjoining land uses, to improve internal circulation and access, and to create architectural variety. There is also a need for additional information on trees, grading, architecture, and noise study. With the changes in the plan and additional information, the project could be modified to a point where the PUD Concept could be approved. However, no overall capital improvement phasing plan for roads, public utilities, and storm sewer, exist at this time. Without this overall framework for review, it is not possible to properly review the platting and zoning requests. The southwest area capital improvement phasing plan was commissioned by the City Council 30 days ago and will be completed within 90 days. The intent of this plan is a technical public improvement phasing plan which examines existing and anticipated systems, improvements, timing, and constraints. The plan will make suggestions for incremental development and location in relation to necessary public improvements. The study will include an overall storm drainage plan, an overall sanitary sewer plan, an overall municipal water plan, and a traffic analysis which identifies road improvements and the road network in relation to state and county improvements. The study is not a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment nor a study in land uses, but an overall engineering study for capital improvements. A consultant team of local professionals not involved currently in development in southwest Eden Prairie with expertise and knowledge of the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan and development review process has been commissioned by the City. Jim Benshoof and Associates will do the traffic analysis. Hansen, Thorpe, Pellinen, Olsen, will do the study of the storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water system. The Brauer Group will act as the overall Planning coordinator of the project. The Fairfield PUD has been reviewed in relation to the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan identifies a corridor for Highway #212, and conceptual locations for a north/south collector such as Dell Road and an east/west collector road such as Scenic Heights Road. This project is providing land area for future #212 and road connections to Scenic Heights Road to the north and Dell Road to the west. Although a change in the Guide Plan from Industrial to Low and Medium Density is proposed, with the relocation of Highway #212 to the north, Industrial is no longer appropriate. The overall density of this project is 2-1/2 units per acre which is consistent with the Low Density Residential designation for most of southwest Eden Prairie for up to 2-1/2 units per acre. The following is a list of summary statements about the proposal and recommended changes. 1. Once the southwest area plan is completed and approved by the City, detailed approval for all areas beyond Phases I & II should not be considered but should be covered in the PUD Concept. 2. The project provides for north/south, east/west, minor collector roads. The east/west collector road has too many cul-de-sacs which should be eliminated. The project has 13 cul-de-sacs. Ten of these are unnecessary and should be removed to he consistent with the City Council policy of no unnecessary cul-de-sacs. Access should be provided to the adjoining land areas to the northeast of the project where shown on Attachment C to allow for orderly development. The plan should be revised according the County's recommendation to move the southerly driveway access to the north where shown on Attachment 0. _) Fairfield 3 May 6, 1988 3. A Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Residential results in a 3% decrease in Industrial land in the community. This site was originally guided Industrial because it was sandwiched between Highway #212 and the railroad. Since Highway #212 has been realigned to the north, Industrial no longer is appropriate. 4. The project is reserving land to the north as an outlot to be sold at a later date to the State for Highway #212 right-of-way purposes. 5. The Comprehensive Guide Plan Change increases the amount of Medium Density Residential land in town by 4.7%. However, the overall density of the project is 2.48 units per acre. The area to be guided Medium Density is 3.11 dwelling units per acre. The Medium Density designation on the Guide Plan allows up to 10 units per acre. 6. Grading will impact the site's natural features. Signficant trees will be removed throughout the site. The edge of the natural ponds will be disturbed with filling and grading. Attachment E indicates where grading will impact site features. Within these areas, there should be larger and deeper lots anticipated to reflect actual probable building conditions. The grading plan should be revised to show 50-foot house pads within these areas. Although tree loss is calculated at 19.8%, it is based upon the current grading plan. Providing for 50-foot house pads will result in more tree loss than as shown. In addition, no detail tree inventory has provided for any of the areas beyond Phase 1. 7. 33 of the R1-9.5 cluster lots are less than the 70-foot minimum street frontage requirements. In addition, 57 of these lots do not meet the minimum 9,500 square foot minimum lot size. Experience has shown for cluster lots and lots smaller than 9,500 square feet, that decks and expansions are difficult to accommodate within setbacks. Too many small lots in a large area can make the overall appearance of the project very dense visually. Since the variances are requested through the PUD, Commission must determine if the City benefits through a better environmentally designed project than if no variances are granted. Benefits may be common architecture, landscaping, and preservation of natural features. 8. Use of the R1-9.5 lots with narrow street frontages and smaller lots does not seem appropriate where shown on Attachment F. Because of the high tree loss and grading around the edge of the pond, larger lots and street frontages would allow for wider but not as deep houses. 9. The project will generate 3,670 daily trips and 367 trips in the p.m. peak hour which will have significant impacts on County Road #4. The upgrading of the intersection of County Road #1 and County Road #4 will not occur for some time period. The intersection of Highway #5 and County Road #4 is already at capacity and will not be upgraded until 1990. The overall traffic study by Benshoof and Associates will indicate how this project could be phased in relation to local, state, and county road improvements. ' 10. An EAW is required because it exceeds the threshold of 150 units for a second-class city. There are noise impacts of the railroad which will require a noise study. Impacts on the existing site features is high due to extensive grading. 1 Fairfield 4 May 6, 1988 11. The project does not provide for appropriate transition where shown on Attachment A. Larger lots with a minimum lot size of 13,500 square feet and a density not to exceed 2-1/2 units per acre is necessary in these locations. 12. Sidewalks and trails should be located along the north/south and east/west collector streets where shown on Attachment G. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change The Fairfield proposal requires a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan of 60 acres of land area from Industrial to Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential . The changes in the Comprehensive Guide Plan affect the balance of land uses within the community. There will be a net 4.7% increase in the amount of land guided Medium Density Residential and a 3% reduction in the land area which is currently guided Industrial. With the realignment of Highway #212 to an east/west route, the desirability of such an Industrial Park may no longer be appropriate. The increase in land area guided Medium Density, will be at a density of 3.11 units per acre, which is low, since the Medium Density Residential designation of the guide plan allows up to 10 units per acre. It should also be considered that the overall density of the 148-acre project is 2.48 units per acre. Planned Unit Development The Fairfield Planned Unit Development is a mixture of lot sizes and densities. The PUD proposes 105, R1-13.5 lots, at a density of 1.96 units per acre; 108, R1-9.5 lots, at a density of 2-1/2 units per acre; and, 154, R1-9.5 lots, with variances, at a density of 3.11 units per acre. The overall PUD totals 367 units at 2.48 units per acre. Phase I is for 31 acres and 68 units (32, R1-13.5 lots, and 36, R1-9.5 lots) proposed to begin in July of 1988 with the balance of the units phased over a 6-year period. The transition between lot sizes and densities work well within the PUD; however, there are three areas on the PUD (refer to Attachment A) where transition is not appropriate. Within these areas, the density should not exceed 2- 1/2 units per acre and the lot sizes no less than 13,500 square feet. Variances The following variances are being requested through the PUD District Review: 1. Lot size variance from 9,500 square feet to 6,500 square feet. A total of 57 out of 154 lots do not meet the 9,500 square foot minimum size requirement. The average lot size is 10,450 square feet. 2. Street frontage variances are requested in the R1-9.5 zoning district from 70 to 51 feet. The average street frontage is 65 feet. A total of 33 of the 154 lots in the cluster area are less than the 70-foot frontage. Since the variances are being requested through the PUD, the Planning Commission must recommend to the City Council whether or not the variances should be granted. In reviewing these variances, the Commission must also decide if the proponents have provided compelling reasons for the variances. Fairfield 5 May 6, 1988 Experience has shown in the Ridgewood cluster projects by Centex Homes, that lots less than the ordinance requirement did not leave enough room for additions or decks. The small lots were originally approved for a variety of reasons but one was that there would be a predetermined site plan showing how the lots could be developed in compliance with the setback requirements of the RI-9.5 zoning district. It would be the responsibility of Centex Homes to inform potential future buyers of these restrictions. As the project developed, there were numerous requests for variances for decks encroaching into the sides and front yards. This was a result of the patio doors not being built in the predetermined locations to allow the decking to occur within the setback requirements. This issue with deck encroachments was eventually resolved between Centex Homes and the City; however, it did point out that small cluster lots do not leave enough room to allow for decks and expansion. Since many of the lots in the Fairfield project are similar in size to the small cluster lots of the early Centex projects, we would expect to find similar problems with setback encroachments. The size of the proposed cluster neighborhood is large, totalling 154 units on 49.5 acres. This would be comparable to the scale of the existing cluster homes area in Centex. The plan for the existing Centex area is tight because of the narrow street frontages and lot sizes smaller than the ordinance. The overall appearance of the project is very dense, and is compounded by the fact that there are too many small units over a very large area. The tightness of the site plan and the problems with setback encroachments may be reasons why the variances should not be granted for street frontage and lot size. On the other hand, cluster lots can provide a lifestyle choice, housing affordability, and variety to the site plan with a different orientation of units. The cluster homes will have a common architectural theme, landscaping, fencing, and mail boxes as common elements to tie the overall project together. In evaluating the pros and cons of the variances, the Planning Commission should decide whether or not the granting of the variances would result in a better environmentally designed project for the City than if no variances were granted at all. Internal Road System Due to the number of lots within the proposed PUD, a minor collector road system is necessary in an east/west, north/south, direction. These are shown on the PUD as 60-foot right-of-way which would accommodate a 32-foot road width. These roads would serve as minor collectors for circulation in the neighborhood. These minor collectors should have no direct access by driveway and street intersections should be kept to a minimum. The project has 13 cul-de-sacs. Ten of these cul-de-sacs are unnecessary and the plan should be revised to remove these cul-de-sacs to be consistent with City Council policy of no unnecessary cul-de-sacs. Five of these cul-de-sacs are on the east/west minor collector street. The preliminary plat depicts an outlot to the north of the project which is being set aside to accommodate the future alignment of #212 and the extension of Scenic Heights Road to the west. One connection point is provided to the Scenic Heights Road. Attachment B shows the alignment for Highway #212 and Scenic Heights Road as it affects the project. L J� Fairfield 6 May 6, 1988 The project does not provide for access into the land area to the north and east of the project. Attachment C shows two areas where road connection should be made to allow for orderly development of the adjoining properties. Two access points are proposed on County Road #4. The attached letter from Hennepin County indicates that the southerly-most street access should be relocated to the north to provide for better sight vision distance where shown on Attachment D. Impact on Natural Features Grading will have an impact on the site's natural features. Significant trees will be removed throughout the site and grading will disturb the edge of the natural ponds and result in tree loss. The grading plan does not depict house pads. Experience has shown especially for lots that are adjacent to ponds and wooded areas that the market is building houses that require pads of at least 50 feet in depth. The proposed grading plan does not allow for this pad depth and more extensive grading and tree loss will occur with 50-foot pads. Attachment E indicates the areas where grading and tree loss will be significant. A detailed tree inventory has been submitted for Phase I. No tree inventory has been submitted for the balance of the site. Within Phase I, the tree inventory depicts a total -)f 19.8% loss of significant trees. This is based upon the current grading plan. B. revising the grading plan to show 50-foot pads, it can be expected that more tree loss will occur. Since the proponents are asking for rezoning over the entire property, a detailed tree inventory must be submitted for review for the balance of the property. Use of the R1-9.5 lots with narrow street frontages and small lots does not seem appropriate where shown on Attachment F. Larger lots may allow for less grading and tree loss. Traffic A detailed traffic study has not been prepared at this time. As part of the southwest area study, there will be an overall detailed traffic study prepared by Benshoof and Associates as commissioned by the City of Eden Prairie. What is known about traffic from this project, is that the total daily trips will be approximately 3,510 and 367 trips would be in the p.m. peak hour. This increase in traffic at full development will have significant impacts at the intersection of County Road #4 and Highway #5 which is already at capacity, and will overburden the intersection of County Road #4 and Pioneer Trail. Traffic from this project will also increase traffic on Highway #5. The County's current capital improvement program does not indicate a time frame for the upgrading of County Road #4. The County Road Highway #5 intersection will he completed with Highway #5 upgrading. There are no immediate plans for the upgrading of the intersection of County Road #1 and County Road #4. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) An EAW has been prepared and submitted concurrent with this project since the project exceeds over 150 unattached single family housing units. This project will have significant environmental impacts. The grading and tree loss section has indicated that there will be impacts on the existing site features including the ponds and the trees. There will be traffic impacts on the adjoining roadway systems. There will also be noise impacts from the railroad. A noise study should be submitted for review. Fairfield 7 May 6, 1988 Architectural Diversity Plan In all R1-9.5 zoning areas, an architectural diversity plan is required which keys specific unit types to lots such that no two units would be alike side by side, opposite, or diagonally across from each other. No architectural diversity plan has been submitted. Experience has shown that architectural diversity has worked well within the Westover and Ridgewood projects by Centex Homes because of the common architecture, materials, and colors, which provides for overall continuity. The proponents should submit an architectural diversity plan for review. Parks and Trails The Parks Department has reviewed the proposal and recommended (where shown on Attachment G) sidewalks and trails along the north/south, east/west, collector streets. In order t' accommodate future trails around the pond south of the site, there should be an outlot dedicated to the City at least 20 feet in width above the high water mark of the pond across Lots 1 through 4, Block 6, Lots 1 through 5, Block 8, and Lots 1 through 8, Block 1B. There may be additional sidewalks and/or trails required pending a review by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS I. If the Planning Commission feels that the land uses, as proposed, are acceptable, and that the Guide Plan Change has been substantiated, but feel that the site plan would benefit from changes to improve the overall internal road system, impact on adjoining land uses, and impact on existing site features, one option would be to return the development plans to the proponent for the Planned Unit Development Concept revisions and information as identified in the executive summary. The public hearing on rezoning and platting should be closed and the proponents should reapply after the southwest area capital improvements phasing plan is completed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council II. If the Planning Commission feels that the land uses are not appropriate, that the Guide Plan Change has not been substantiated, and that impacts on site and adjoining land uses are high, then one option would be to recommend denial. ").-''..- •,"";•••• :- .•',..41.71,17.7-..!. - \ • • \ -----C''-' ,' • \ 1i., - '/,'• \ -'/,'-- - - \ 4 _1•..i -.. .-.7-.<,-„,.. 1---- -; ' " \..•T. . ••••Z' \",- ..c• 1 ii a : ..,-.',.. .,i .r. .A • . ",•\,\\:\ — • ll'..:---:::- .411/411, :-.). ..'- .. .(<1.-.-1,--Y.- ----'.C.-\1)/1„§.: 4X'('%-<.<://.4•.:\. :\''\. \\ 7 11 ..---/-:Ir.L_CI .,..%!' ..7-7';• • .- ' ' \ ', il il .1,3 . j -' ..-VAI,....(' ,fr ; \ • . '(.." . t ,1 1 k \ i I. -.1_i' )t. — - -• : .k./•.-Ci,::_ . • • ._ __I imiiii,..........._. , 1,,i...,_.... ... .. , ‘, . . ,..„,,...... ,.,.,..„..._ _ .„,_, , , '-..-:'V -,„, .4 T,IL:6'; 1 :, i'1- ,_,•,'\ •••• •• '- ''7 ,4 <„,_•_,!,j..ci• 111.,-31-; ,\F:. . ..i,.-...-i--„, ,....fi . '. '-j. -0.1-1.i: ..11. -1-.-I-. .s i-• •'I. • ,() i V.-V-•-•- If - -j- ----'1'..---- t i . \ • \\ , ' TiL.1,::_14:1„..-A-.4:\• ---1-7.:i •-,,: i---L- i- - ..41L \ , .r:t-:1-,A :, . .-11-; ,,--1- :I•a 7t--)'< . 11 1+-11--. t .1-/-'' . , .S*.--.1-. . !• ;g . I i -if.--., ! 1 r 6\''''.\• .:i LI ___I'' // • .:-A,_'' - \ -II A!--'„ .: I i ----- ___--1-- - r-\ \,41; _:. -- - _---,_--1 II -c., ''-__Z.i ' .4,717,1..A4i. .>, -T \I;O: : • _ 1 ,_- --7' . - -rf",,1%tl.i\,',_-_V,- ,,,-.;\C--V.:....,..;,- • ,..4------1 1 - • . _"41._., ." ;'.*\:1•L _T_Li.v, • .,,.,)y.,-,--,,,ies'—'. 1 1 st -----0- -- .72-7'.. ,-;-• -- I:I • ,\ , c .......jit•r•--.--1----;,....;.. -,,...- , f • , . __ ....- .. . . .. ( . Transition • - Attachment A ... 6 ! ... / . •,:i:. • i .\ ..r ~•ra i -- •4,1T yen.•' ''"' -. 7� -\\ -: -r+z,.. .; ..,,,.,\ , .... \,. .. k Xx,;,6, ---. .. s't\:s -w,I . ri_l -,,-v,6 , ,z- \\ _____ I C _1i. iIi''T f l I ': .' • I. i. ---- -I,/ -r171/. 'V51:_:11:11(litall ' ' ''''11 4. \\\-\ m ��I: 4 �� _ i N cn aIMMO . • 7• ij � e co � _ ? — o . .--f- 4.7.- i r___ .. ,,,,,,-.-_-_,,---•(-\ !0 0� c�--•-t. ' 33 to ty o. 212 Scenic Heights Road ,; ) Attachment B i ,_ \ - \ , . \ ... •, - 1- \ . . • -<.7-: .-i, . - \ qiii-0A- - • oll < • - . 1 ' it a 91:41* ':. •)'. • • ''',., _ _ 71.. ,c-A-,-. '_ .., - 4:q, ,<_ .\k- , , ,,, .. • it - 0 \\-,- -,-,7 .\ :: vii,r--/,-- i.1 - --' • '->:-- • --- 2- .. \ ,_ . Ts . , .-\\ - . ) , • s\--- \ , i - - . • .,q - - ' -,-,- ---rn ' I ' '-.-- " •r L,;/ , -N , '''. .- d 1 y.\,/,,7„1// / , - ,, 6 ', ,; f I,. • \. \ ,,,-_,.<-", •-- .,1 , j cajl:i• • . ',, 1_ . ' -t\• / I, • -- \.--\-.. i, ---- - *si• • c--1 . . . .ii. .17[. .i • ,,- • I., rti'll-r-- V-):---, Ii.., -1-,_411 ' ' '• LI.,. , \ • ---1_4_:LII_a --,:r• fi-.T.fi,'. . -____N,__I•'-'2' ....,-1 \\ -,. -,......._,_ ,4 ol--- 4 ' • • 1_1 I; , ' _...•41r.[-.1-.-1-.1 .1-1---:i ,•• 1. 7--' 17:- It ---1:41 :y•_1" - k.z --''';".m \-: m . • 1 -,-;,11.1 ------- 1-1-"P •Pik 4\--.• 1 ' -- -cr-.":\• _I!_-_i /• 1.," • .- \ __ __ _ _- , /,p . A 1•_ ,- --r._ Til • r- 1 1 - L : -\:..; _1_,I 1--?-,-..;< \, ., 1._;:.7.,,)--r.,. .\, • 1___----.F.,•"°!--r _ •Ty, '-\-7r—f---1--1 1:1 - .//' l'\,,. .-1._.----' ---- -r--- ----- ..; ----1----1- ----;-1--r 1 1 ivc•- • ,(. \. -- - ---i!___-_,\N-k>/ ,_..\-I,•IL'L.I.L.L__,, - , , _,,,,,--,__---- if . 3'..1. 27 r ".--- j • ..--- .-i°' • i , - k's-Y 2i ( -iv- ----r-r- \ - : --0,- _ _ I - ! -----r1_,-.' d7 ,,i) _____. , •i • 1 / . i A ! =:•rt-- -...,' .,..._ e : I i Access to Adjoining Property Attachment C - \ - \ \,i . \ .., ,...... - -‘. - K• \ ._•,, . .. \ -1 .- ... \ 'ig- \\ • .••••:, . '1 --k.• . ., . I : s' . 1 .: .i.. .,<.•,. „,•,':\ '. • • ' ..' 1 . . '(\/' •\\ • 4 •''4...... \' • ' il ' fig rr'''' . /' ' - '''' ,----•tit • . ‘.. ,I. 11 '----1.:_jr t r: ‘'''. •i'N';')"----.-. -- . ''!••• \I'., \ % ii ,\ i.,,, .-.-- jc. ...\\ %. .. .,,, . • \‘.-\,,,. \ . mi......._. i - ..ii.,..*- - - - ', .'. -...,c•_:>. • . . • i , 1 I. ..-.. -- . ,_,• -. . , • . ' -‘4.4•;,,- .----r. •• ......--I ,' Is 1 -1'...-14:4t-,!, i:- _-_/... .1,...- ->• -IR. ,. , j / 171 , omet' trr-:-:-_ 4 ,1 .l ...---• ' '. -,1-/li,'. _.. - ,:.- ._l' ri - r\ . Ili- Iii-e. . ,,-.--,1-• :-1 ' 1 . f,i--T-t-f-Asys_.,.2 - :"1- -,... .‘. .. • ,.! ,. ___..„._•,,, „1:_,...,:_ , ...„,.:„\----;•Tr:T.: 7.-...---F,--:= „._,. -. , :--4 ,-11 _ \ • \\ • 4.--- -r-11--ir- , L.7 .1 -/ - ' - ' 11 - --/ -C----11 --rfl-0 .,: . . • ------1- -.. .-----------1- 1 1 l'-' .--\ ''.4":-.•:"-L-4 -1 .- '''''<' >(.. ---; 't_:-,:\,?:!-',-:-.. ! )--: i__.-----''' '.`7L7-7'5--------1--I —1 ------- / - -' --__), -4 .' -'' _ _L__1.-_-_,.\---7.-7-11 _, --•-'1- ---.-`----- ''' - . /., 2-7. °<----7/N-lj- . - • :r. ( ,-'...---111 1 •-". - _..14.14.,,.,. , _ _..•, i _ • . lisp -1-77-._•-__ __-- _-----,--.--- , . . Revised County Road 4 Access Attachment1 D •� 'r '' .. ,.Q, I"i�i. - , _ . \\ II '''.ly4k;, .•,.,,.\_. - • -: i llip Ig —— V_��-.V / a``r \\ ,r, �. ‘,.„._....,);___,>, •. . ._„:...) , ma 101;/ -I s \,'y� / Ili I P r - - I.11—T -' - t y'j . \r -� '1 7`- . .{ r�..v1 ----411 -- --T_ -• 11 r Impact On Natural Features Attachment E t it \ . 1� \ \i \ - .,, ri - ; • \ '' } , 7� \ 0...,i ; 4- . 'y\ — — \\ .,i + mil \ Il, ___....L__,_;,:. / . ,._ . . . .1.? ,..1.r.l. -7. • V.,--- -• •-lr 1 '1 ' -qL-C-Hir-'• 'tz. ,, ._i.i ( ----- -' - ' 11 d m --/—,, -� \.-. -it-- a, ' I _ _ I ----- ' ---v_-V-.-i--F-F--,\t ,•,...;(. \ 400/ , . , i-..- , .1'i:/t_,,,' '' -..- „.• #---,-;--- ,--r,„-.••• ‘ .1 ------0-'....--- 1 B i Larger Lot Area Attachment F ' - \ . • \ '. --.:. :',....::: -' i" \ • ., . ;--1 . .„ . . _ I 11 - / - . \\ - • ....0'; • -r) 7. N - I-: .' •`"1 INirr-•(- \\ . i. S.- 1 • . ' .. d''''.0 . ...''\ . c.Ili ' - . .1.!---:'•cAetik • ; • . i . - '‘k .' \\ ———i".-. `1 . :•-i''-'-'1--*. ., Nft-.. - .,.,.. 0,-,7.,-, . \ 7, .: 4"..‘:,• It. , iiiiiiNi."'"a" 1 (1:- -11:1,4.11t.'\--1\---:1;,7 %,::71-7.-7•77:711::::,..: fi. \*\...:1',-) :Nii:j!‘":....'4.1\21\11\,. 7- 1 --' 1--`';";:- 1 ' 1. • ' '-44, -; rA,•, `4,iisa--.-..-...' / lc . ./-17.--ir ..-..\...\.../ ..)._;1.\\..'',' I,f,,..4s.)...,..... •.:\ l'..i/•>1( ''I 4 .. _ ,, / -1:r'.2_,:_'.•:.1\A.,r..\yi:ii)_:11:,:ril..:xl...,.....__\.\°... .r. ':‘ :13: :11,;,r:_iali....:_li:.,Is.sr,.,.\;ii."-1. fil 1 : \... •, ,,," ,___LI.J__':.1 _L-Ja.. . - ip .,..._.; !•:••!...m.-:-_,..„ .,-14 ._ , ,'I:4 MT. .1 .. ,',•:"\L. a ---r. 4-. :-\\i \ • ! Li •--- \-‘•k:1.1 lio --. -------_.. _____, 1 II --------- i 1 ' --c: ---1---1- / "-I' . -r--_----rrrk ''` •''- ' .\-t ..- ----r- - . , ..w - - , -.% 3\ . ,•••„ . .. • ••-• ,. :\< - r' - 1!. .. - , \..--• ---1-- i, ilk - • -.---,,- - -f- I 1 ---iii........—_ --LI:•f. ,--.„--,- ii 1 ••1 . ..,- i-A,! .11 , .......g ( . Sidewalks Trails : 0 Attachment G . . ( Lariat Center CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 88-138 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LARIAT CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT TO THE OVERALL PRESERVE COMMERCIAL PARK SOUTH PLANNED•UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, Lariat Center is considered a proper amendment to the overall Preserve Commercial Park South Planned Unit Development Concept; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the request of Edward F. Flaherty and M. Austin Smith for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Preserve Commercial Park South Planned Unit Development Concept for Lariat Center and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on July 19, 1988; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Lariat Center PUD Concept Amendment, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Preserve Commercial Park South Planned Unit Development Concept as outlined in the application materials for Lariat Center, dated July 14, 1988. 3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated June 27, 1988. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 19th day of July, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: JoTin D. Frane, City Clerk Lariat Center CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 1188-139 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LARIAT CENTER FOR EDWARD F. FLAHERTY b M. AUSTIN SMITH BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Lariat Center for Edward F. Flaherty and M. Austin Smith, dated July 14, 1988, consisting of approximately 4.8 acres into two lots for construction of an 18,845 sq. ft. auto mall and a 22,180 sq. ft. retail center, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 19th day of July, 1988. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk -s :re. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1988 B. LARIAT CENTER, by Edward F.Flaherty and M.Austin Smith. Planned Unit Development Concept on 18 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review,with waivers,on 18 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 4.8 acres,Preliminary Platting of 4.8 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 18,845 square foot auto mall and a 22,180 square foot retail center. Location: South of Prairie Center Drive,east of Joiner Way,north of Medcom Boulevard. Uram reported that the proposal involved two retail buildings,one 22,180 sq.ft.and the other 18,845 sq.ft. which had been redesigned to give it an overall retail character in order to be compatible with the adjoining retail uses. He stated that traffic was the major consideration for the development of this proposal. The total trips generated by the retail and auto mall exceeds the BRW Major Center Area Traffic Study PM peak allocation by 42 trips. Proponent owns the 13.2 acres of property to the south,which in accordance with the BRW Traffic Study was allocated 311 trips,and he agreed to balance the PM peak trips between the two sites by controlling the use on the southern property. The only concern would be if the auto mall would develop into 100%retail use, there would be a parking shortage. At present for the auto mall,the requirement would be 79 parking stalls and if 100%retail,the requirement would be 113 stalls. Brian Klutz,representing the proponent,stated they were in agreement with Staff Recommenda- tions with the exception of special assessment agreement for the future upgrading of Medcom Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 27,1988 Page 5 Boulevard. They realized that not only they would benefit from the upgrade,but why were they asked to sign an agreement when others have not been asked. Uram responded that as sites are developed,City would make that recommendation. Ruebling stated the extension of the road to Franlo would provide better access to the whole area and would be beneficial to the owners. Uram summarized the Staff Recommendations regarding landscaping,sidewalks, site line views, signage,lighting,exterior materials,traffic,parking,mechanical equipment screening plan,special assessment agreement,and recommended approval of the proposed project. Duane Splegle, representing Methodist Hospital, 6500 Excelsior Blvd., SLP,the owner of 8455 Flying Cloud Drive,stated they were not interested in any special assessment to their property. They feel it would generate more activity in the area,and access to the left turn lane would be a potential traffic problem. One other area of concern was that if the road extension did occur on Joiner Way,further development would occur and the area would be opened up and even more • traffic would be the result. Uram responded that this item would be heard at the City Council meeting. However,if land benefits from any improvements,there would typically be an assessment. Regarding the left turn lane,the Council would make that decision,as to whether or not it would be allowed. Ruebling commenting on the traffic stated it would be important to have more movement in the area on a long term basis. However,City Council would decide on assessment. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Hallett and seconded by Ruebling to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 2: Motion was made by Hallett and seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Edward F.Flaherty&M.Austin Smith for Planned Unit Development Concept on 18 acres for Lariat Center for construction of an 18.845 sq.ft.auto mall and a 22,180 sq.ft.retail center,based on plans dated May 26, 1988,subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24, 1988. Motion carried 4-0-0 MOTION 3: Motion was made by Hallett and seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Edward F.Flaherty&M.Austin Smith for Planned Unit Development District Review,with waivers,on 18 acres,and Zoning District Chagne from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 4.8 acres, for Lariat Center for construction of an 18,845 sq.ft.auto mall and a 22,180 sq.ft.retail center, based on plans dated May 26,1988,subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24, 1988. Motion carried 4-0-0 loi(, Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting June 27.1988 Page 6 MOTION 4: Motion was made by Hallett and seconded by Ruebting to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Edward F.Flaherty&M.Austin Smith for Preliminary Plat of 4.8 acres into two lots for lariat Center for construction of an 18,845 sq.ft.auto mall and a 22,180 sq.ft.retail center, based on plans dated May 26,1988,subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated June 24, 1988. Motion carried 4-0-0 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner HROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: June 24, 1988 PROJECT: Lariat Center LOCATION: South of Prairie Center Drive, east of Joiner Way, north of Medcom Boulevard APPLICANT/ FEE OWNERS: Ed Flaherty and M. Austin Smith REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 18 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 18 acres. 3. Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on 4.8 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of 4.8 acres into 2 lots. ` Planned Unit Development 1 "% ,,...�„. T �� •ER`. ;;;+ C-HW y > This site is part of the Preserve • Yr^' • CAE S .i a Commercial Park South which was ,,• approved in 1974. The overall PUD r •., r:^�i.Kti. .,� ,.w , . C'REI for this area included regional I ,:11/M .. auk+ Medcom Boulevard and office and/or ' CO apartments on the southern property F ,..,.� i FjM=25.. (see Attachment A). The land uses i ,11,(i ..,, . . i •I''r 1 _ which are proposed for the northern +1 'ram " . site include a retail center and ''zr' 1 ! TII N. SUB ` auto mall which have been classified r; i C-REgrS • ��vim:= •, as Regional Commercial land uses and i-'V • �$$ are consistent with the approved , "�.q� PROPOSED SITE PUD. The property south of Medcom i ` ......0..., ® ;;., r»r ... I Boulevard has no specific plans for ` ,, i'�.��.•.��. 0 RM-2:5' review at this time; however, it is `�� 4•�� I - anticipated that similar land uses 1 "`4 IM- 6-•••'l l£**4 :�;o~ would be developed. The major i �• • ' ;y��' �;,, . Nmm influencing factor regarding land 1 ' \.."-a ` r+ 1 fr use on the southern portion of the ^� property is traffic. Because the Ho tp generation for Lots 1 `ter ?0"°�• r" �6 F; I a'}•r'. AREA LOCATION MAP Lariat Center 2 June 24, 1988 and 2 exceeds the allocation from the BRW traffic study, the traffic generated by the Lariat Center must be balanced by those land uses south of Medcom Boulevard (see attached BRW Memo). Site Plan/Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat depicts the division of 0utlot D, Preserve Commercial Park South into two lots. Lot 1 contains 2.56 acres while Lot 2 contains 2.28 acres. The current proposal is to construct a 22,830 square foot retail center on Lot 1, and a 18,845 square foot auto mall on Lot 2. The maximum Base Area Ratio (B.A.R.) allowed in the C-Regional Service zoning district is 20%. Calculations indicate that the retail center would be at a 20.5% B.A.R. while the auto mall would be at a 19.0% B.A.R. The overall B.A.R. for the project is 19.8%. Since the project is part of a PUD, a waiver could be granted for Lot 1 through the PUD District Review. In the C-Regional Service zoning district, the minimum setbacks include a 35-foot front yard setback, 20-foot side yard setbacks, and 10-foot rear yard setbacks. The buildings and parking areas meet the minimum requirements of the C-Regional Service zoning district. Because the project is fronted on 3 sides by streets, parking would be allowed to come within 1/2 of the front yard setback, or 171 feet on one frontage. The plans indicate that the 171i-foot setback would be maintained along Joiner Way and a 35-foot setback from Prairie Center Drive and from Medcom Boulevard. Access/Parking Access to this site would be provided by 2 driveways off Joiner Way. Joiner Way is currently a private road serving this site and the adjacent site to the west. As part of the overall circulation system design for the project, there are shared access points along the common lot line to improve internal traffic circulation. A series of cross access easements shall be submitted for cross-access between Lots 1 and 2. Based upon the land uses proposed, a total of 274 parking stalls are required using 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building for the retail and auto mall space and 1 space for every 3 seats in the restaurant. The plans depict 230 parking stalls. As part of the previous proposal for the auto mall, letters from future tenants indicating parking needs were submitted. With the understanding that the same tenants would be included in this development proposal, approximately 79 parking stalls would b? required for the auto mall portion of this site as compared to 113 for general retail under City Code. Overall, a total of 240 parking stalls are required which is 10 greater than what is proposed. Initially, 208 parking stalls will be built, while 22 parking stalls would remain as proof-of-parking. The 14 proof-of-parking stalls located along Medcom Boulevard are located within the front yard setback and would require a waiver. When Medcom Boulevard is extended, the possibility for right-of-way vacation exists which would make the stalls conform. A waiver may be granted through the PUD District Review for the number of parking stalls and for parking within the front yard setback. In addition, the number of parking stalls on each individual site does not meet City Code; however, a shared parking agreement should be submitted which indicates that parking is available to both sites. The proponent shall agree to restrict the land use on these sites based upon the number of parking stalls provided. Lariat Center 3 June 24, 1988 Traffic The 1985 BRW traffic study allocated a total of 113 peak hour trips for the shopping center and car care center sites. The trips generated from these uses in the peak hour would be 155 trips, or 42 trips higher than the 1985 allocation. The property located to the south of Medcom Boulevard is part of the PUD and owned by the developer of the Lariat Center. This site was allocated 311 p.m. peak hour trips. To reduce p.m. traffic to the 1985 allocations for the Lariat Center, 42 trips for this parcel could be transferred, leaving 269 trips for the undeveloped site. This is acceptable to the developer. The attached memo from BRW also analyzes a median cut in Prairie Center Drive to allow a left-turn lane into this site. This helps reduce traffic at the Prairie Center Drive/U.S. #169 intersection and provides additional access to the site before Medcom Boulevard is extended. However, the traffic study does not specifically recommend that the left-turn lane be constructed as part of this project. Further discussion with BRW is required to determine the need for a left- turn lane at this location and a specific recommendation made. The discussion and recommendation will be completed prior to City Council review. Medcom Boulevard could be extended concurrent with this project; however, three homes would have to be acquired. It would be better to wait until these future commercial sites are ready to develop before the road is extended. However, the proponent shall enter into a special assessment agreement with the City for the future upgrading of Medcom Boulevard. Grading Elevations on this site range from a high point of 860 in the northeast corner adjacent Prairie Center Drive to a low point of approximately 826 adjacent Medcom Boulevard along the southern property line. The site is gently sloping to the south and east. Minimal grading is expected throughout the level areas of the site to provide for building pad and parking locations. However, two retaining walls are being proposed along the eastern property line due to steep slopes. Because the retaining walls exceed 4 feet in height, detailed construction plans must be submitted and building permits issued. In order to screen parking areas and overhead doors, a series of berms are proposed along Joiner Way and Medcom Boulevard. Because Joiner Way has only a 17;-foot setback and a 5-foot concrete sidewalk is required, berming is not possible. Staff is recommending additional landscaping material along Joiner Way as outlined in the landscape section. In order to screen the garage doors along the south side of the auto mall, the proponent is proposing a berm of approximately 2 to 6 feet in height along Medcom Boulevard. Prairie Center Drive, which is above the site, slopes down and views are evident into the parking areas. The proponent shall submit site sections from Prairie Center Drive which indicate the level of screening. Depending upon the site sections, additional landscaping may be required. Landscaping would be required because of the 3:1 slope down to the site, which eliminates the possibility for berming. 1/ I Lariat Center 4 June 24, 1983 Utilities Water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer is available to this site. Connections to an 8-inch water line and a 12-inch sanitary sewer line are available in Joiner Way and Medcom Boulevard. There is an 18-inch storm sewer pipe located within Medcom Boulevard and a 78-inch storm sewer pipe located in the southwest corner of the project at the intersection of Medcom Boulevard and Joiner Way. Proposed run-off is proposed to sheet drain across the parking lot and collected in a series of catch basins located throughout the parking lot. The storm sewer pipes ultimately discharge into a pond located to the south of Medcom Boulevard. Landscaping Based upon a building square footage of 41,025 square feet, a total of 128 caliper inches of plant material is required per City Ordinance, in addition to 52 caliper inches of tree replacement. The overall requirement of the project is 160 caliper inches. A total of 1B4.5 caliper inches of plant material is provided. In order to meet Code requirements, the proponent must provide 10% of the trees as 4 inches or greater. The plans shall be revised to reflect 10%, 4-inch, trees. The following recommendations are made for revisions to the landscape plan for screening purposes. Due to the required 5-foot sidewalk along Joiner Way which leaves only 12 feet for planting and berming, screening with a berm is not possible. Because of this, the proponent shall extend the double row of shrub material as currently shown on the plan and install overstory trees along the entire street frontage. Secondly, the dense row of coniferous trees shall be distributed along the entire frontage on Medcom Boulevard. This is designed to break up building mass and to aid screening of the overhead garage doors. Finally, since so much of this site depends upon landscaping for screening, an overall irrigation system shall be installed. Architecture The overall design consideration for the Lariat Center was to make both buildings similar in style and give the project an overall retail center appearance. This was accomplished through the use of common building materials, use of canopies, columns, and building articulation. An additional way to tie the buildings together is to have consistent signage throughout the project. The proponent shall submit an overall signage plan depicting size, color, letter type, and location on the buildings. Although the auto mall has a number of garage doors, the building has been designed to downplay the garage doors through the use of a canopy which puts the garage doors in a shadow and by using dark glass garage doors. The Car Care Center guidelines suggests that buildings should have a retail shopping mall character and overhead doors should be oriented away from adjoining roadways (see Attachment B). As the plans indicate, the building is similar in architecture to the proposed retail center; however, the orientation of the garage doors away from adjacent roadways is not possible. The proponent has attempted to screen the overhead garage doors through the use of berming and landscaping. The retail center has been designed with a covered walkway, planter boxes, columns, and an outdoor sidewalk cafe along the north side of the building. Mechanical equipment is proposed to be screened by a parapet wall on both buildings. Because the residential homes to the east are higher than the rooftops of the proposed building, a mechanical equipment screening plan shall be submitted. Lariat Center 5 June 24, 1988 The percentage of building materials for both buildings meet or exceed the Code requirements of 75% facebrick or better. Building materials include facebrick, copper, and rock face block. Colors and samples shall be submitted for City Council review. Pedestrian Systems As part of the overall pedestrian system in this area which includes an 8-foot wide bituminous trail along the north side of Prairie Center Drive and a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Joiner Way, a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk should be built concurrent with this project along the south side of Prairie Center Drive and along the east side of Joiner Way. Based on Staff's recommendation, the proponent has indicated pedestrian connections within the project site. Further review has indicated that these internal connections should only be made at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and along the southern driveway access with all others being eliminated. Signage/Lighting The proponent should submit an overall signage plan which includes criteria for size, style, proportion, color and location on the building. The signage plan shall be consistent between both buildings. The signage plan should be provided prior to City Council review. Lighting within the parking lots shall be reduced to 20-foot high downcast luminars which would match Goodyear Tire and Rocky Rococco. Recessed downcast lighting shall be used under the canopies. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 18 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 18 acres, Zoning Diofst4.8tacresge intoom 2 lots, basedRuponnthe StaffcReport,8datedacres�Juandne P24,im1988,� Plat based upon plans dated June 15, 1988, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, the proponent shall: A. Revise the landscape plan to include a double row of shrubs and overstory trees along the entire frontage of Joiner Way and a combination of evergreen and overstory trees along Medcom Boulevard. An irrigation system shall be installed to maintain the plant material. B. Revise the plans to depict a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of Prairie Center Drive and along the east side of Joiner inWay.tersectiont�ofs from at the Prairie Center Drive eand sJoiner bWay and e along the southern-most access point and Joiner Way. C. Submit site lines from Prairie Center Drive to depict the views from Prairie Center to the parking areas. If needed, additional evergreen and overstory trees shall be planted to provide screening. Lariat Center 6 June 24, 1988 4 D. An overall signage plan shall be submitted depicting size, color, letter type, location on the buildings, for both centers in ensure consistency. E. Plans shall include 20-foot downcast luminars and be of the same style as that on Rocky Rococo and Goodyear Tire. F. Colors and samples of the exterior building materials shall be provided. G. Provide an agreement to limit the p.m. peak hour trip generation on the entire PUD to that which was allocated as part of the BRW study. This would mean that the trip generation on the southern portion of the site must be reduced by approximately 42 trips to compensate for the additional 42 trips generated by Lariat Center. H. Agree to place a limit on the specific land uses within the auto mall if it went to 100% retail due to parking considerations. 1• Submit a mechanical equipment screening plan. K. Enter into a special assessment agreement with the City of Eden Prairie for the future upgrading of Medcom Boulevard. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Provided detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. C. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshal. • ic�a3 • ( r . i>, 1 0 . i fr«,.o ... sra.-.,.• vo s�G.a-,.ti e..rc..,re / 7- 1 .7.c: 'M 2 bf.41. , )11;/,/c /-*\ ..,;,,,:i"' v:,..A.,:iy -c'ter zr y9.=Iz / )tP 1 }^�111�� z.c: = , Gu zct~�rS 4v__ nm�.c� a.esr r lwi a Y • -'_----� . .1.,, ., ` ( o/ypt r \C- M ae _ .-nt- _-________________ l4'--.•--r,O`' N.'" r.-4sn+tc'.w ow .1t,4 to a'! ;7 w' , •ri s.o.a ;►W._�`r! St ,e � J ti,il:i. 1", � 1 Y..o ea.t rs nwv r•,eA�.•l,Or•-•ce a pP� 4 I •{��"+,w•t�y ..,'' ...; �\ um:ze4fM0 o lciu4 al Sj'$ •+ u pt1 I 1 Site area 29ac+ The Concept Preserve EMinnesota Prairie,n aF +once plan Development concept 1 sheet Corporation • o loci 1.,,,, �® Site Plu,nirq•Markel Research.Land Fiatumics '- ATTACHMENT A IL,aq i) I L ,� PLANNING r' 1•1 TRAN�t (N E3': ENC INLEF NG ARCr11[(.TURF 0i..f.Ir "IN1(.RQS[ AO1.•✓f lD JAPV,, C,A"DNfN INC . r•.it',,RH S.,OK .,(1 1..1,11 ','rll(r ;O,p•. MNNF 44PUIS fAN .41, • roxpaF fi,,'00,0 • 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 3, 1988 i TO: Mr. Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner 1 City of Eden Prairie 1 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 iFROM: Nancy Heuer, P.E. 1 This memorandum documents the traffic analysis completed for the proposed I Flaherty Center which is located south of Prairie Center Drive and east of Joiner Way. The analysis included the following three issues: J o Trip generation of the proposed project I I site I o Circulation within the project r o Access between the arterial streets and the site ; BACKGROUND 1 1 The proposed project is a 22,180 square foot retail center located in Zone 7 of the Eden Prairie Major Center Area which is described in the 1985 "County Road 18/Prairie Center Drive Traffic Analysis." Existing development in Zone 7 A includes a 20,000 square foot medical clinic, a 3,60D square foot restaurant, a i6,800 square foot auto service facility and single-family residences. 1 TRIP GENERATION 1 The proposed Flaherty Center would consist of a 4,500 square foot restaurant and 17,680 square feet of general retail space. An 18,845 square foot Automall has �! also been proposed in Zone 7 adjacent to Flaherty Center; the trip generation of this project was discussed in a memorandum prepared by BRW, Inc. dated July 23, 1987. Since the Automall has not yet been built, the trip generation of these 1 two projects was taken into consideration in the current analysis. The esti- 1 mated trip generation for the two proposed projects is shown in Table 1. i I I � MINNEAPOLIS ,In<:R.�..._ DENVER PHOENIX Mr. Michael D. Franzen June 3, 1988 Page 2 TABLE 1 PROPOSED TRIP GENERATION Size Daily PM Peak Hour Land Use (Square Feet) Rate* Trips Rate* Trips Automall 832 62 Flaherty Center: Restaurant 4,500 164.4 740 10.5 47 Retail 17,680 35.0 619 2.6 46 TOTAL 2,191 155 *Trip Rate per 1,000 Square Feet The 1985 study used development forecasts to calculate trip generation for each zone. The study found that the trip generation based on the development fore- casts would have to be reduced by twenty percent to enable the ultimate street system to accommodate the traffic volumes. As a result of this analysis, each zone was allocated a certain number of trips based on the twenty percent reduc- tion. The allocation to Zone 7 was 11,828 daily trips and 991 PM peak hour trips. Individual parcels are allocated trips based on their relative size within the zone. The Automall and Flaherty Center are located on 4.9 acres, or 11.4 per- cent of the 43 total acres in Zone 7; thus, the two projects would be allocated 11.4 percent of the total trips allocated to Zone 7. Another 13.5 acres is under the same ownership as the proposed Automall and Flaherty Center. Since this property is 31.4 percent of the acreage of Zone 7, it would also be allocated 31.4 percent of the total trip allocation. The owner may have the option of combining these properties with the Automall—Flaherty Center property for the purposes of calculating the trip allocation. Table 2 shows the comparison of the allocated trips to the projected trips for each of the parcels discussed above. The differences shown indicate that the Automall and Flaherty Center would generate 843 daily trips and 42 peak hour trips more than they were allocated as a result of the 1985 study. When the other property which does not have a current development proposal is included in the calculation, the projected trip generation is 2,871 daily trips and 269 peak hour trips less than the number of trips allocated to all of the property under the same ownership. V ,V • Mr. Michael D. Franzen June 3, 1988 Page 3 TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF ALLOCATED TRIPS (AFTER 20% REDUCTION) TO PROPOSED TRIP GENERATION Daily Trip Generation Peak-Hour Trip Generation Land Use Allocated Proposed Difference Allocated Proposed Difference Automall 832 82 Flaherty 1,359 93 Center Subtotal 1,348 2,191 -843 113 155 -42 Other Flaherty 3,714 0 3,714 311 0 311 Property TOTAL 5,062 2,191 2,871 424 155 269 The excess trips which were allocated to the total 18.4 acres were translated into the amount of development which could be accommodated on the undeveloped property and still fall within the number of allocated trips. This calculation was based on the number of remaining peak hour trips because this is the number which is usually critical in the design of the street system. The 269 remaining peak hour trips were converted into three land use types using the appropriate peak hour trip rate. The results are shown in Table 3. Combinations of these, or other uses, could also generate the same number of trips. TABLE 3 EXCESS PEAK HDUR TRIPS TRANSLATED INTO LAND USE Excess Peak Potential Peak Hour Potential Hour Trips Land Use Trip Rate Size 269 Commercial 2.6 103,500 S.F. 269 Office 1.7 158,000 S.F. 269 Mult. Residential 0.7 380 D.U. CIRCULATION A brief review of the site plan was made to evaluate the on-site circulation patterns. The minimum widths of the service roads beside the Automall and Flaherty Center vary from nine to twelve feet. This is adequate for one-way • Mr. Michael D. Franzen June 3, 1988 Page 4 operation only. The owner has indicated that this is necessary because of the severe grade change across the site. Because of this narrow width, however, there are two locations where single-unit trucks and semi-trailer trucks will have very difficult maneuvering; o The 90 degree turn into or out of the service drive along the southwest side of Flaherty Center o The 90 degree turn between the driveway south of the Automall and the ser- vice drive east of the Automall ACCESS The proposed Automall and Flaherty Center and the existing restaurant and auto service facility have direct access to Joiner Way and full access to TH 169 through Medcom Boulevard to the south. Although Medcom Boulevard currently ter- minates about 300 feet east of Joiner Way, it may eventually be extended to the east to Franlo Road. Joiner Way to the north, intersects with Prairie Center Drive, which is a four- lane divided arterial. This is a right-in/right-out only intersection since there is no break in the Prairie Center Drive median at Joiner Way. Currently, vehicles entering any of the existing or proposed businesses from westbound Prairie Center Drive either turn left onto TH 169 and then left onto Medcom Boulevard or make a U-turn at TH 169 and turn right onto Joiner Way from east- bound Prairie Center Drive. The construction of a new left turn lane on Prairie Center Drive would allow vehicles westbound on Prairie Center Drive to turn directly onto Joiner Way, reducing the number of left turns (or U-turns) at the TH 169 intersection. A conceptual drawing of this turn lane is shown in Figure 1. The existing left turn lane at TH 169 would be reduced by 'approximately 35 feet to 275 feet and a new 160-foot turn lane constructed at Joiner Way. The median would be designed to prohibit left turns from Joiner Way to westbound Prairie Center Drive. The width of the existing median would require limited widening on the north side of Prairie Center Drive. The estimated construction cost of this work is $25,000 to $30,000. PM peak hour turning movement counts were taken at the TH 169/Prairie Center Drive intersection on June 7, 19BB. The westbound left turn volume of 145 vehicles per hour indicates the need for a 215-foot left turn bay. The existing turn bay is 310 feet long, or 95 feet longer than the existing need. The 2010 forecast left turn movement at this location is 186 vehicles per hour, indi- cating the ultimate need for a 275-foot storage bay. The forecast assumes reduced demand on TH 169 because of the construction of TH 212 and improvement to CSAH 18. Prior to construction of these highway improvements, the left turn storage requirement may actually exceed the ultimate requirement. Mr. Michael D. Franzen June 3, 1988 11 Page 5 The total peak istng, proposed futuredevelopmentddiscussedrpreviously, ist265edb inbound y the xandi265 outbound and vehicles (assuming 269 future development peak hour trips). The directional distribution used in the Major Center Area Study indicates that thirty percent of the trips generated in Zone 7 would be oriented to or from the east on Prairie Center Drive. The projected left turn onto Joiner Way would then be thirty percent of 265, or 80 vehicles per hour; 64 of these trips would be generated by new or future development. The construction of the new left turn lane would result in an eleven percent (35 foot) reduction in the length of the existing left turn lane. It would also result in a 38 percent reduction (8D peak hour vehicles) in the left turn volume at TH 169, based on the existing left volume and the projected increase in left turns generated by development in the study area. Growth outside the study area would make this percent reduction smaller, but it would still be significant. For instance, a ten percent annual growth in outside traffic over ten years would result in 403 left turns. Reducing this volume by 8D turns would be a twenty percent reduction. CONCLUSIONS Trip Generation o The projected trip generation of the proposed development is less than the allocated trip generation (with twenty percent reduction) for the total undeveloped Flaherty property. o The trip allocation left after the proposed development would allow the following development on the remaining property: - 380 Multi-Family Dwelling Units - 158,000 Square Feet Office - 103,500 Square Feet General Commercial Circulation o The narrow width of the proposed service drives around the buildings will limit truck access. Access o The circuitous access patterns for westbound vehicles on Prairie Center Drive could be improved by the construction of a left turn lane on west- bound Prairie Center Drive at Joiner Way. This would require a reduction in the length of the left turn lane at TH 169 and require the limited widening of Prairie Center Drive. IL Mr. Michael D. Franzen June 3, 1988 Page 6 o Construction of this left turn lane would reduce the demand for left turns onto TH 169 more than it would reduce the capacity of the left turn lane. o In the future, the City could close the median at Joiner Way if, for instance, additional turn lane capacity is needed at the westbound Prairie Center Drive approach to TH 169, or if the extension of Medcom Boulevard to Franlo Road eliminates the need for the left turn lane at Joiner Way. NH/sml • • 'i'a Ka FAm, -1'1 j I I 1 / /I I I I` \ UM - I 1 I I `, \ IW — j T.k. 169 MO -J �� 1—I —�s• " 1 -\ I 1 / I I II I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I II I I i 1 i I 1 I I s 1 II I I I I� 1 I I I /� I •I I �7 JOINER WAY I r3n `\/ I A 1 1� I 8 I 1 I 1 x C� I I I I , 1 1 j m 8 mrMI 1 i 1 -II=-a I 1 I — ! I �0 ! i I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 11 I 1 1 11 1 1 I \ 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 \\ _ 1 `I I I l / irI / (_j _ Od�b9----. /,.1 i` �I I m 50.El \ \ \, \ , \ Al co 3 -1 m cSv \ \ \ \\ z� m w = to 1(031 0, � ID -a L:".:11 CITY OFFICES/ 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE / EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344.2499/TELEPHONE(612)937.2262 dero GUIDELINES CAR CARE CENTERS 1. LAND USE Car Care Centers are most appropriate as Regional Commercial uses near, or associated with, discount centers in the Major Center Area. Centers should incorporate other complimentary uses such as restaurants and quick-stop retail shopping. Centers should not include such heavy re-manufacturing uses such as radiator shops, body shops, and transmission shops. These and other similar uses are more appropriate in an industrial park. Centers should be designed with flexibil ity, not only to integrate other types of associated commercial uses at the outset, but to allow alternative uses of the building for other retail as the market shifts. 2. SITE PLAN The site plan should be one of the major elements utilized to orient the overhead doors away from public roadways and differing adjacent land use. Access should be good. Visibility good. No outside storage. Parking areas screened. Landscaping must be according to City Code. Sidewalks should be planned to link the building with City sidewalks and other uses. 3. ARCHITECTURE Exterior material of building must be brick, glass, stone, or better for 75% of building. Trim material may be factory finished metal, wood, stucco, or architecturally textured concrete units. Signs must be integrated into architecture of building, should be uniform in size, placement, and design. No rooftop signs allowed. Building should be designed to de-emphasize the overhead doors. Overhead doors must be of an opaque material. Color of building should be compatible with the adjacent development. f ATTACHMENT B - 1y2,)2 July 11, 1988 Eden Prairie City Council 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Dorenkemper Estates Preliminary Plat Dear Sir or Madam: In connection with my application for Preliminary Plat Approval of a plat to be known as Dorenkemper Estates which is presently scheduled for Public Hearing before the City Council on Tuesday, July 19, 1988. By this letter I am requesting that consideration of the current preliminary plat of Dorenkemper Estates be withdrawn from the agenda pending further study and review on Street Access to all parties that have now become involved. I will contact the City Planning Department when I am prepared to submit a Revised Proposed Subdivision to the Eden Prairie Planning and Engineering Departments. Thank youvery much, han uv� Alex Dorenkemper 18925 Pioneer Trail Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55347 (612) 934-0913 I('33 JULY 19,1988 43681 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYRDLL 6/24/88 891.00 43682 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 6/24/88 13102.86 43683 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 252.00 4 3684 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 6/24/88 49855.52 3685 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 6/24/88 4021.00 43686 GUARANTEE MUTUAL LIFE COMPANY JULY LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 2316.96 43687 ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION PAYROLL 6/24/88 132530 43688 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC JULY HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 11728.15 43689 MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE JULY LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 2617.93 43690 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-P E R A PAYROLL 6/24/88 24408.34 43691 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN JULY HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 18840.62 43692 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 6/24/88 211.50 43693 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 43694 SKATELAND SUMMER PLAYGROUND-SPECIAL EVENT/FEES PAID 157.50 43695 CIRCUS PIZZA YOUTH OUTING-SPECIAL EVENTS 280.00 43696 SKATELAND SUMMER PLAYGROUND-SPECIAL EVENTS 22.50 43697 CIRCUS PIZZA YOUTH OUTING-SPECIAL EVENTS 40.00 43698 BUSINESS CREDIT LEASING INC JULY 88 COPIER RENTAL-CITY HALL 182.75 43699 PETTY CASH -CHANGE FUND-4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION- 200.00 HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 43700 CIRCUS PIZZA TEEN VOLUNTEER TRIP-TEEN WORK PROGRAM 150.00 43701 JOHN KAZ PHOTOGRAPHER-4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION 50.00 43702 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 1415.72 43703 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH PLAN REVIEW FEE-LEGION PARK 150.00 43704 V©ID OUT CHECK 0.00 43705 NSP SERVICE 23791.15 43706 MARY ELLEN SKEESICK MIME ARTIST-4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION 135.00 43707 STATE TREASURER LICENSE FEE-WATER DEPT 15.00 43708 SALLY ZIRCLE FACE PAINTER-4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION 50.00 709 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 12.75 .3710 AT&T SERVICE 1.98 43711 GAIL ATTANAS REFUND-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 10.00 43712 MICHELLE BEACH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 12.00 43713 LORETTA BENEDICT REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 10.00 43714 GERARD BRYNDAL REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 18.25 43715 DENNIS BURGESS REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 20.00 43716 JANE BURGESS REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 20.00 43717 ELLEN COHEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 68.25 43718 AMESHA DAVIS REFUND-OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PROGRAM 150.00 43719 CARL DIEM REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 28.00 43720 GRETCHEN DORR REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 34.20 43721 EILEEN FARRELL REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 10.00 43722 CAROL FOSSEY REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 13.00 43723 BARB GOERGEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 6.00 43724 RENEE HEGGELMAN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 43725 ROBERT LAMBERT REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 26.00 43726 JUDY LARSON REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 26.00 43727 DAWN MC COMB REFUND-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 5.00 43728 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 235.79 43729 PATTY NIELSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 18.25 43730 NORTHWESTERN BELL SERVICE 50.92 43731 KERRY OGREN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 43732 CHERYL PLEISS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 3.50 43733 KATHY SHANNON REFUND-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 8.00 "734 MICHAEL STENSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 16.50 • 15705169 I fO J`1 JULY 19,1988 43735 MARILYN STEVENS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 43736 ERIK UHLIG REFUND-RACQUETBALL LESSONS 12.00 43737 CHRIS ENGER JUNE 88 EXPENSES 10.00 '3738 W GORDON SMITH CO -CAP/OIL/FLDOR DRAIN/BELT-WATER DEPT/ 103.89 EQUIPMENT INTENANCE 43739 CLARENCE & LORRAINE JANKE REELOCATIONMSETTLEMENT-PARKSEDEPTLDING 43740 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING 3356.25 43741 STATE OF MINNESOTA BIKE REGISTRATIONS/FEES PAID 130.24.00 43742 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 624.133 43743 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO WINE 43744 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 77.79 43745 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 0814. 43746 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 10202.83 43747 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 153.19 8 43748 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 53.19 43749 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 296.36 43750 KENNEL-AIRE EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 2647.79 43751 QUEEN OF EXCELSIOR BOAT RIDES/FEES PAID 35.00 43752 KEYE PRODUCTIVITY CENTER CONFERENCE-FINANCE DEPT/POLICE DEPT 196.00 96.00 43753 CHUCK E CHEEZE PRESCHOOL TRIP-SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS/ 170.00 43754 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS INC PARTIAL PAYMENT-2 FIRE TRUCKS-FIRE DEPT 102000.00 43755 AMESHA OAVIS REFUNO-AFTERNOON AOVENTURE PROGRAMS 43756 CYNTHIA DOMS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 85.20 43757 SHARON HOLZAPFEL REFUNO-EXERCISE CLASS 4.00 43758 JOANNE JOHNSON REFUNO-BEAVER MT WATER SLIDE 14.00 43759 JOEY MERTES REFUNO-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.83 43760 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 1.96 43761 KENNETH WILSON REFUNO-SWIMMING LESSONS 1528.53 43762 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENC PLAN REVIEW FEE-LEGION PARK 0.00 '763 ORRIN ALT EXPENSES-POLICE OEPT 200.00 .s764 J W MARRIOTT HOTEL CONFERENCE-PLANNING DEPT 127.50 43765 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 127.50 43766 NORTHWESTERN BELL SERVICE 3.14 43767 PETTY CASH-POLICE OEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 590.60 43768 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-SUMMER PLAYGROUNO PROGRAM 47.96, 43769 CHASKA PAR 3D GOLF LESSONS/FEES PAID 18.00 43770 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 18.00 43771 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 472.57 43772 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 6510.06 43773 EO PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 3429.03 43774 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 7016.12 43775 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 653.94 43776 BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER 1409.35 43777 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 5352.15 4377E OAY OISTRIBUTING CO BEER 1058.60 43779 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CD BEER 9332.62 43780 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 24858.75 43781 VOID DUT CHECK 775.67 43782 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO 0.00 43783 ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CO MIX MIX 890.85 43784 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 376.50 43785 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 29650.20 43786 DANA GIBBS SERVICE-PACKET OELIVERY 27756.05 43787 BARBARAROSSA & SONS INC SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT ADOITION 111 20275.791.7.7 "'788 BROWN & CRIS INC SERVICE-BENNETT PLACE & BLOSSOM ROAD 120 42671442 JULY 19,1988 43789 NDDLANO CONSTRUCTION CO -SERVICE-HIDDEN GLEN 3RD ADDITION/WYNOHAM 34908.81 CREST 43790 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO -SERVICE-PRAIRIE VIEW DRIVE & ST ANDREWS 22706.77 DRIVE , 3791 PREFERRED PAVING INC SERVICE-VALLEY VIEW ROAO 8851.48 43792 RILEY PURGATORY BLUFF CREEK SERVICE-CHAIN OF LAKES STORM SEWER 58252.07 43793 SHAFER CONSTRUCTING COMPANY INC SERVICE-COUNTY ROAO 4 TO MITCHELL ROAO 53117.15 43794 SHAW LUNOQUIST ASSOC INC SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT ADOITION 7429.30 43795 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER SOD CUTTER RENTAL-STREET MAINT 31.80 43796 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT 637.96 43797 AERIAL PAINTING INC -8 MAST ARMS-$1640.00/COMTROLLER/POLES/30 3000.00 IGNAL 43798 AIRLIFT DOORS INC -REPAIR DOOR HOSSE-PUBLICF WORKS O&TROL PARK BLOG 222.00 -REPAIR ICE 000R & EXIT 000R-ICE ARENA- COMMUNITY CENTER 43799 AIRSIGNAL INC JULY 88 PAGER SERVICE-POLICE OEPT 62.86 43800 AMBASSADOR SAUSAGE CO -CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY 170.17 CENTER/ROUNO LAKE 43801 AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION -SUBSCRIPTION-PARKS RECREATION & NATURAL 24.00 RESOURCES 43802 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO -AIR FRESHENER SERVICE-CITY HALL/UNIFORMS- 1308.89 -WATER OEPT/STREET DEPT/SEWER OEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE/TOWELS-LIQUOR STORE 43803 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BONO PAYMENT 225199.58 43804 EARL F ANOERSEN & ASSOC INC -SAFETY CONES/PARK SIGNS-FIRE OEPT/STREET 1350.72 MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE 43805 MIKE ANDERSON TENNIS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 372.00 43806 AQUATROL CORPORATION -REPAIR CONTROL PANELS ON WELLS #1/2/&9- 530.96 WATER OEPT 907 ARMOR SECURITY INC KEYS-COMMUNITY CENTER 7.80 ,J80B ARTSIGN MATERIALS CO -OFFICE SUPPLIES-PLANNING OEPT/PARKS 130.52 RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES 43809 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 259.05 43810 ASTLEFORD INTL INC U JOINT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71.28 43811 ATLAS PILE DRIVING CO TREATED LUMBER-EOENVALE PARK 540.00 43812 AVR INC CEMENT-STREET MAINTENANCE 376.63 43813 BALLOONS N STUFF HELIUM-FIRE OEPT 45.00 43814 BARTON ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-UPOATE PARK OPEN SPACE 6564.07 43815 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -TAILLIGHT/BATTERIES/MUFFLER CLAMPS/LAMPS/ 464.43 -TERMINAL PROTECTORS/CARBURETOR CLEANER/ -BULBS/WINOSHIELO WASHER FLUIO/CONOUIT- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 43816 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY SERVICE-CITY HALL/WATER OEPT 315.00 43817 RIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 2013.34 43818 SAM BLOOM IRON & METAL CO INC STEEL TUBING-PARK MAINTENANCE 136.80 43819 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ANIMAL IMPOUNO SERVICE-MAY 88 300.00 43820 BODINES KEYBOARO CENTERS PIANO & BENCH-SENIOR CENTER 1388.00 43821 LOIS BOETTCHER -MINUTES-PARKS RECREATION & NATURAL 48.30 RESOURCES COMMISSION 43822 BLUE BELL ICE CREAM CO -ICE CREAM-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL 582.80 COMMISSION/TEEN WORK PROGRAM 43B23 LEE BRANDT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PA10 255.00 43824 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC SERVICE-FIRE STATIONS #1/2/&3 435.40 43825 BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES JUNE 88 TRASH OISPOSAL 97.99 /'926 BSN CORP ARCHERY TARGET-SPECIAL CAMPS 98.66 43230659 JULY'19,1988 43827 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION SERVICE 600.00 43828 BUSINESS CREDIT LEASING INC AUGUST 88 COPIER RENTAL-FIRE DEPT 182.75 43829 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE-HUMAN RESOURCES 2990.00 i 3830 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS ENGINE/LINE-PARK MAINTENANCE 204.65 .3831 CLEAN SWEEP INC STREET SWEEPING-STREET MAINTENANCE 450.45 43832 CLEVELAND COTTON PRODUCTS PAPER TOWELS-WATER DEPT 91.5E 43833 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE JUNE 88 FUEL TAX 191.00 43B34 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION -TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS-HIGHWAY 5 16392.59 IMPROVEMENTS 43835 COMPUTER PLACE -2 PRINTERS/KEYBOARD/MONITOR/2 PRINTER 3401.33 -STANDS/2 COMPUTERS/2 STATIC PADS/2 POWER SURGE PROTECTORS-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 43836 CONSOLIDATED PLASTICS COMPANY INC TRASH BAGS-WATER DEPT 204.13 43837 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS RADIO REPAIR-WATER DEPT/POLICE DEPT/ 300.00 43838 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC AIR PACK-SEWER DEPT 280.21 43839 CRETEX PRESSURE PIPE INC 4 CONCRETE DUCT TILE ADAPTERS-WATER DEPT 1799.40 43840 CRYSTAPLEX PLASTICS INC FLOOR MAT-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CENTER 322.00 43841 CURB MASTERS INC -REMOVE & REPLACE CURB & GUTTER & CONCRETE 265.00 DRIVEWAY 43842 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC DRILL BITS/KEY BLANKS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 196.99 43843 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC -DRIVE KIT/LUB ASSEMBLY/DRIVE ASSEMBLY- 35.20 PARK MAINTENANCE 43844 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 19969.01 43845 D & K PRINTING PLUS INC PRINTING-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 63.14 43846 WARD F DAHLBERG EXPENSES-JUNE 88 80.00 43847 TOM DAHLEN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 270.00 43848 DAKTRONICS INC -SCOREBOARD REPAIR-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY 131.36 CENTER 43849 DF,LCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/PARK MAINT/ 468.36 COMMUNITY CENTER -.3850 DATASDURCE CONNECTING POINT SCANNER-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 1185.00 43851 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO -TRIPOD W/WINCH-$1545.00/ROPE/GAS BLOWER- 2258.50 $649.50-SEWER DEPT 43852 MONICA M DAY -SERVICE-EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER-HUMAN 135.70 RESOURCES 43853 MITCHELL J DEAN MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE 7.50 43854 DECORATIVE DESIGNS SERVICE-JULY 88 49.50 43855 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY C BOILER LICENSE-COMMUNITY CENTER 50.00 43856 DIAMOND ACCEPTANCE CORP -AUGUST 88 COPIER INSTALLMENT PAYMENT- 300.00 POLICE DEPT 43857 EUGENE DIETZ -CONFERENCE/JUNE 88 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING 929.86 DEPT 43E 8 DIXIE PETRO-CHEM INC CHLORINE-WATER DEPT 3699.50 43859 DON'S APPLIANCE & TELEVISION -REFRIGERATOR-$585.00/DISHWASHER-$338.00/ 1569.00 STOVE-$646.00-SENIOR CENTER 43860 DORHOLT INC PRINTING WATER WARNING POSTERS-WATER DEPT 394.00 43861 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU -EXPENSES-SENIOR CENTER/CITY HALL/POLICE 68.78 DEPT 43862 DUSTCOATING INC DUSTCOATING-DUST CONTROL 4060.00 43863 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION 12.00 43864 E P PHOTO FILM PROCESSING-FIRE DEPT/POLICE DEPT 51.21 43865 ELECTRIC SERVICE CO INSPECTION OF CIVIL DEFENSE WARNING SIRENS 1058.00 43866 EMPRO CORPORATION PISTON SHAFT/PUMP KIT-POLICE BUILDING 274.80 43867 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 9256.40 '368 FEIST BLANCHARD CO -ROTOR/CAP/CIRCUIT BREAKER/DUST COVER/TIRE 246.71 -REPAIR/CEMENT GASKETS/BELTS/OIL FILTER 7449561 1( n,.� -CAPS/RADIATOR HOSE/WATER PUMP/ENGINE MOUNT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 43869 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 775.88 43870 STUART FOX SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 36D.00 43871 GAB BUSINESS SERVICES INC LIABILITY INSURANCE 3604.00 43872 G & K SERVICES TOWELS-LIQUOR STORE/PARK MAINTENANCE 43.68 1 3873 DARRELL GEDNEY HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 102.00 43874 JOE GLEASON HOCKEY & SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 304.00 43875 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SERVIC TIRE REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 366.92 43876 MARK GRANOWSKI SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 120.00 43877 ALAN GRAY JUNE 88 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 203.75 43878 GREAT AMERICAN MARINE 10 CANOES-OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE 3923.00 43879 GROSS OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 19.36 43880 DAN GRUHLKE EXPENSES-TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM 14.18 43881 LEROY GUBA HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 68.00 43882 HACH CO LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 1891.73 43883 HAUENSTEIN & BURMEISTER INC -SCREWS/BOLTS/GRAB BARS/MOUNTING KITS- 47.58 HOMEWARD HILLS PARK -.( 43884 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER F-I•L-I-NG-FEE-PtANNM-DEPT fr,n,---c /va«_, 200.00 43885 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER -HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT-PARKS & STREET 232.00 DEPT 43886 HESITA HOMES INC REFUND-EASEMENT VACATION PAYMENT 100.DO 43887 HOFFERS INC FIELD MARKING PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE 261.75 43888 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC -FLOAT SWITCH HEAD/V BELTS/VENTILATION 455.68 REPAIR PARTS-COMMUNITY CENTER 43889 IBM REPLACE CLUTCH ASSEMBLY-WATER DEPT 166.20 43890 IBM CORPORATION TONER FOR COPIER-CITY HALL 308.00 43B91 IBM CORPORATION AUGUST 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 424.32 43892 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC -TYPEWRITER RIBBON/COPIER INSTALLATION/ 259.00 -TYPEWRITER REPAIR-WATER DEPT/POLICE DEPT/ FIRE DEPT '893 ISS INTER SERVICE SYSTEM JANITORIAL SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 116.20 .,894 MICHAEL W JACQUES MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE 11.25 43895 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/FIRE DEPT 81,2E 43896 NANCY JOHANNS AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 250.00 43897 JUSTUS LUMBER CO -TIMBERS/SCREWS/WASHERS/THREADED RODS/ 213.74 TREATED LUMBER-POLICE DEPT/PARK MAINT 43898 KMART WHISTLES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 12.70 43899 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC BASES/STAKES-PARK MAINTENANCE 378.75 43900 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER -BIKE REPAIR/BOLTS/SCREWS/EXTENSION CORD/ 344.80 -SIGNS/FANS/PIPES/FITTINGS/CEMENT/PAINT -CAPS/TIE DOWNS/THREADED RODS/COUPLINGS/ -ALUMINUM STRAP/SOAP/SILVERWARE-WATER DEPT/ COMMUNITY CENTER/SEWER DEPT/STREET DEPT 43901 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BAG-POLICE DEPT 17.67 43902 LANDLINE COMMUNICATION SERVICES -MANHOLE GAS MONITOR/SAMPLING PUMP-SEWER 1515.00 DEPT 43903 LANE INSURANCE INC -BOILER & MACHINERY INSURANCE-WATER DEPT/ 1461.20 NOTARY PUBLIC BOND-FINANCE DEPT 43904 CINDY LANDENBERG MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT 20.75 43905 LOIS LAYNE CREATIVE DESIGN -LETTERING/LOGOS/DECALS FOR NEW SQUAD CARS 1263.00 POLICE DEPT 43906 LEO LEWIS FOOTBALL CLINIC FOOTBALL CLINIC-SPECIAL EVENTS/FEES PAID 925.00 43907 LINHOFF FILM-FORESTRY DEPT 5.25 20B6756 1(0.3-�1� JULY 19,1988 43908 MAACO AUTO PAINTING -REPAIR & PAINT FENDER-EQUIPMENT MAINT 338.20 INC REPAIR HOOD-SEWER DEPT 43909 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT -2 MAIN BROOMS-$516.00/6 GUTTER BROOMS- 1592.57 1( -$456.OD/CYLINDER KIT/RODS/SCREWS/FLAT -BARS/TAIL LIGHTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/ STREET DEPT 43910 MARINE RESCUE PRODUCTS INC ROPE/BUOYS-PARK MAINTENANCE 43911 MATT'S AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 822.80 43912 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 169.20 43913 MEDICINE LAKE LINES BUS SERVICE-ADULT PROGRAMS 79.00 179.00 43914 MENARDS -WALL BASE/WALL CORNERS-SENIOR CENTER/ 216.18 43915 MERLINS HARDWARE HANK SPLIT RAIL FENCING/PLYWOOD-PARK MAINT 43916METROSALES INC COOLERS/REKEY LOCKS/KEYS-COMMUNITY CENTER 51.78 -FACSIMILE MACHINE-POLICE FORFEITURE DRUGS 2534.00 43917 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS JUNEI88L SAC ACHARGESICE DEPT 43918 MID AMERICA GOLF SUPPLY GOLF BALLS-SUMMER SKILL DEVELDPMENT 94293.15 8.15 43919 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO -CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY 731.72 43920 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP CENTER/ROUND LAKE PK 43920 MN CDNWAY FIRE & OAPETY BLACKTOP/SEALCOATING-STREET MAINTENANCE 2369.84 -GLOVES/HOODS/BELTS/WINTER LINERS/KNEE 7825.00 43922 MINNESOTA DAILY BOOTS/WRENCHES/COATS/PANTS-FIRE DEPT EMPLOYMENT 43923 MN ICE ARENA MANAGERS ASSOC DUES-COMMUNITY CENNTTERITY CENTER 62.41 43924 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER 36.00 1 43925 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 5 .25 43926 MODERN TIRE CO TIRE REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 98.95 43927 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIR-FIRE DEPT 27.92 27.92 43928 MUNICILITE CO SPOTLIGHT/HANDLE ASSEMBLY-EQUIPMENT MAINT 120.86 '929 MUNITECH INC SERVICE 116.50 .,930 MY CHEESE SHOP EXPENSES-PARK MAINTENANCE 43931 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERV INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES 87.71 43932 NEUTRON INDUSTRIES INC DEODORIZER-ANIMAL CONTROL 131.51 43933 BETH NILSSON SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 192.80 43934 J P NOREX INC 909. SERVICE-WATERMAIN BREAK ON DEERFIELD TRAIL 909.71 43935 PAPER WAREHOUSE -LUNCH BAGS/NAPKINS/STRAWS/PAPER PLATES/ 41.68 MASKING TAPE-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 43936 PENNSYLVANIA OIL CO LUBRICANTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 564.11 43937 CONNIE L PETERS MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 43938 RICK PETERSEN -EDEN PRAIRIE PAPER ILLUSTRATION-4TH OF 85.00 43939 THE PINK COMPANIES JULY CELEBRATION 43939 IENP BOOTS BATH TOWELS-POLICE BUILDING 162.50 MAINTENANCE C 43941 PLYMOUTH PLUMBING INC --PLUMBINGFORGDRINKINGCFFOUNTAIN/BATHROOMS/ 3830.00 SINKS/TANK LIDS-HOMEWARD HILLS BUILDING 43942 POLAROID CORP -REPAIR PART FOR BOOKING.CAMERA-POLICE DEPT 19.16 43943 POMMER COMPANY INC TROPHIES-4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION 43944 POWER PROCESS EQUIPMENT INC REPAIR DATA INDUSTRIAL PROBE-WATER DEPT D1.04 43945 PRAIRIE HARDWARE 2 SHOP VACCUMS-LIQUOR STORE 138.583 .5 43946 PRAIRIE HARDWARE BATTERIES/SEAT CUSHIONS-BUILDING DEPT 43947 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -KEYS/DRILL BIT/NAILS/THRESHOLDS/DUTLET 71.74 71.74 COVERS/BATTERIES-POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT 43948 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN -CHAIN/SPARK PLUGS/STARTER/STARTER CORD- 113.49 FIRE DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 113.49 12007800 JULY 19,1988 43949 PRIOR LAKE AGGREGATE INC SAND-STREET MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE 62.67 43950 PSQ LEASING & MAINTENANCE -JUNE/JULY/AUGUST 88 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 1465.5D CITY HALL .3951 R&R MARINE -OAR SOCKS ASSEMBLY/FUEL TANK/FUEL HOSE- 107.25 PARK MAINTENANCE 43952 R & R SPECIALTIES INC AIR FILTER-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CENTER 6.60 43953 RADIO SHACK -INTERCOM-CHILD CARE/PLUGS/ANTENNA/ADAPTER 68.58 POLICE DEPT 43954 RECREONICS CORP -MEGAPHONE/RUBBER DUCKIES/TRAINING BOOKS- 788.27 PARK MAINTENANCE/POOL LESSONS 43955 RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT INC -SWIM TRUNKS/FLOAT TUBE-RILEY LAKE BEACH/ 131.40 ROUND LAKE BEACH 43956 RIVIERA FINANCIAL SERVICES NUTS/BOLTS/WASHERS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 22.71 43957 ROGERS WELL DRILLING PIPE/WIRE/PUMP REPAIR-PARK MAINTENANCE 247.30 43958 ROLLINS OIL CO UNLEADED GAS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 6342.00 43959 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO -OFFICE SUPPLIES-ROUND LAKE BEACH/LIQUOR 165.99 TORE/WATER DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER 43960 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS INC -BALLOONS/PINWHEELS/KITES/BALLS/JUMP ROPES 385.48 -CARD GAMES/WATER PISTOLS/GLASSES/PAIL W/ -SHOVELS/GARBAGE CANS-4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION 43961 THE SANDWICH FACTORY INC EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 18.20 43962 SPECTRUM SAFETY -WATER SAFETY & FIRST AID TRAINING- 40D.D0 AQUATICS SUPERVISOR 43963 SARGENT WELCH SCIENTIFIC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 192.85 43964 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 83.03 43965 THE SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA COMPUTER TRAINING-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 600.00 43966 SETTER LEACH & LINDSTROM INC -SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER REPAIR/FIRE 11438.24 #34 i 967 SHAKOPEE FORD INC -REPAOIRSREAR&AXLE/ENGINE REPAIR/SEAL 311.13 -ASSEMBLY/SHIFT ASSEMBLY/BEARING/SWITCH- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 43968 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP WRENCH/PLIERS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 93.90 43969 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC FIRST AID SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 5.89 43970 SOUTHWEST AUTO SUPPLY INC -CORES/CHASSIS/ADAPTERS/FILTERS/CONNECTORS 987.83 -ANTENNA & MOUNT/BRAKE SHOES/GATE BELTS/ -FUEL PUMPS/THERMOSTATS-EQUIPMENT MAINT/ FIER DEPT 43971 STATE TREASURER JUNE 88 BUILDING SURCHARGES 7084.74 43972 STATE TREASURER LICENSE-WATER DEPT 15.OD 43973 STATE TREASURER LICENSE-SEWER DEPT 15.00 43974 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC -EDEN PRAIRIE RECREATION SURVEY-UPDATE 692.50 PARK DPEN SPACE/ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORE 43975 STOCKER I REFUND-HYDRANT DEPOSIT 295.50 43976 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ -LIGHTBARS/FLASHERS/SIRENS/UNIFORMS/ 4792.85 -EMBLEMS/STROBE LIGHT KIT/SPEAKER BELL/ BRACKETS/WHISTLES/ALARM-POLICE DEPT 43977 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET -ENGINE REPAIR/GAUGE/FUEL TANK/STRAP 372.82 -ASSEMBLY/CYLINDER ASSEMBLY/SASH/RIVET- FIRE DEPT/EQUPMENT MAINTENANCE/WATER DEPT 43978 SUCCESS COMPUTER CENTER PRINTER STAND-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 116.55 43979 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC LIGHT BULBS-LIQUOR STORE 4.54 43980 TARGET 220 -TOWELS/SOAP/BROOM/FILE CABINET/SCISSORS/ 140.21 -TOWELS/SOAP/BROOM/FILE CABINET/SCISSORS/ -CLOCKS/1ST AID BLANKETS/BATTERIES/SPONGES/ HANGERS-CITY HALL/COMMUNITY CENTER 3745453 4,R 43981 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC -ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING TAPE & RIBBON 268.07 43982 TROPICAL SNO OF MN PLANNING DEPT/PARK PLANNING STAN 43983 TRUCK UTILITIES & MFG INC ELECTRICON HYDRAULICU CRANE-SEWER DDEPT 801.00 43984 TURF SUPPLY CO GRASS SEED-PARK MAINTENANCE 115 .00 ,f{ 3985 TV FANFARE ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORE 130.00 1, 3986 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO OXYGEN/ACETYLENE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 41.11 43987 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 43988 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-FIRE DEPT 209.75 43989 VAN 0 LITE INC BATTERIES/LIGHT BULBS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 209 61..75 92 43990 VAN WATERS & ROGERS CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 1862.50 43991 VESSCO INC -BRASS LINE FOR CHLORINE CYLINDERS/ 580.17 CONNECTOR 43992 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS-POOLEOPERATIONTER DEPT 475.74 43993 CLAYTON G VNUK -PIPE EXTRACTOR/WRENCHES/WASHERS/BASKET/ 1361.95 -HOLDER/DRAWER LINERS/SOCKETS/RUBBER PLUG/ -LATHE BITS/PLIERS/END CUTTER/PUNCH & -CHISEL SET/SCRAPER SET-WATER DEPT/ EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 43994 WARNING LITES OF MN INC WARNING CONES/SIGNS W/STANDS-WATER DEPT 40.00 43995 WATER PRODUCTS CO -LOCATOR/RISER/MEASURING CHAMBER/BOTTOM 779.41 43996 WATERITE INC LINER/COUPLINGS-WATER DEPT -CABLE/RATCHET REEL/CHEMICAL PUMP-POOL 663.96 43997 PAUL WELIN OPERATIONS 43997 SANDSOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 60.00 43999 SINDRA F WERTS TANNER GRAPHICS MILEAGE/EXPENSES-SENIOR CENTER 74.63 44000 WC WYATT ENVELOPES-CITY HALL 600.00 -REPAIR HORSESHOE STAKES-ORGANIZED 40.00 ATHLETICS 4400I ZACK'S INC 44002ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE • CLEANING SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 306.75 FIRST AID SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 163.95 149 VOID OUT CHECK s293 VOID OUT CHECK 117.00- 43508 VOID OUT CHECK 15.00- 43512 VOID OUT CHECK 20.00- 43646 VOID OUT CHECK 15.00- 142.09- 1397936 $1282947.76 ' n �p .�,ri DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS 10 GENERAL 229977.81 11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 5876.02 15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 91473.33 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 57101.49 21 POLICE FORFEITURE 7728.88 30 CASH PARK FEES 3472.42 31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 24498.17 33 UTILITY BOND FUND 157541.01 39 86 FIRE STATION CONST 106558.66 45 UTILITY DEBT FD ARB 225199.58 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 198402.07 57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 16392.59 73 WATER FUND 54798.76 77 SEWER FUND 103599.47 81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 327.50 $1282947.76 el 5 1988ElliottFlying Service,Inc. 1 I 7` `r♦ f7! 13801 Proneer Tran / ecchclaft Eden Praine,M�nnesola 55344 (6121 944-1200 Alrera0 Saes a, n¢r Se SINCE r93w June 30, 1988 The Honorable Gary Peterson, Mayor City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie City Offices 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Re: Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Committee Dear Mayor Peterson: Several years ago, the City Council of Eden Prairie created an advisory committee for Flying Cloud Airport. That committee consists of cormunity citizens, business representatives from the airport, and a representative of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The committee has served as a valuable communications vehicle. Recently, a long-time committee member, Les Lewis, representing the Flying Cloud Businessmen has resigned his position. The Flying Cloud Airport Businessmen's Association appreciate the work that Les has done on this committee. At a recent meeting (Thursday, June 23, 1988) of the Flying Cloud Businessmen's Association, Jay Olson was elected to fill the vacancy on the ECM Advisory Committee created by the resignation of Les Lewis. It is our hope and desire that the Council will. approve our nominee for this position. Mr. Olson's resume is enclosed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Alden W. Lange ti Vice President - General Manager (Secretary, Businessmen's Association) AN'L:eb Enclosure • Facrl'y IoEat,o,,s MOLINE if LINOIS•DES MOINES.IOWA•MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA•OMAHA.NEBRASKA THUNDERBIRD AVIATION 0 I ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 5100 Eden Avenue•Minneapolis,Minnesota 55436 I,/11\I I Phone(612)926-1671 • OLSON ELL I . AUENJE SOUTH PIC!-iF-ELO, MN 55:23 512-i3ES-.1791 PEPSCNAL ...:'CR . .:LIN, Married with talc children, ?1 ' ears of age CCu:AT:CN: Cachelor of Science - Cusiness Administration, Uni,ersity of Minnesota CENT POSITION: CEERA`. MANAGER - THUNCERCIRC AUTATIC:J, INC. Responsible directly to the President for overall company performance for none than six gears. COMPANY BACKGROUND: Thunderbird iat.on is a Pull service fined base of operation at Flg,ng Cloud Airport. The company has bean providing aviation services For over tuentg five years. Tha aviation services provided are flight traLnirg, aircraft rental, aircraft sales, air charter, fuel services, and a:: aft storage. ASSCCIATI PRESS_." . CF . _.y CL:L.0 CLJSI ,ECCMEN ACSCCIATICN • • Flying Cloud Airport 14091 Pioneer Trail //2/ Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55343 to Jl0 Sales•Flight Instruction Phone:(612)941-1212 (fowl lull Aviauuer Sewia Coda Rental•Charter•Service 4 MODERN AERO INC- FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT • 14801 PIONEER TRAIL • EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55347 • (612)941-2595 June 23, 1988 Mayor of Wen Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Mayor: I find that my schedule will not permit me to attend the scheduled meetings of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission. It is with deep regrets that I tender my resignation from this most important Commission. It has been an honor to serve as one of the Airport Representatives since this commission was formed. I believe that the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission has served a very important function for both the City of Eden Prairie and the Flying Cloud Airport. Keep up the good work. Sincerely, MODERN AERO OF MINNESO'PA, INC. / � L61ie W. Lewis, v President LW itkl cc: Flying Cloud Susinessmens Association • 1631 Ni L M U R ANUUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie FROM: Fire Chief Ron Johnson Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson SUBJECT: Bids for Aerial Ladder Fire Truck DATE: July 15, 1988 One aerial ladder fire truck is the remaining purchase to be made with proceeds from the sale of bonds for fire system improvements approved in the May 1988 referendum. Bids totalling approximately $830,000 for five pieces of fire equipment have been awarded. This final piece of egiupment was expected to cost $400,000 to $425,000. Six firms picked up specifications for the aerial ladder truck for the first bid opening on April 19, 1988. Three firms submitted bids on that date; their prices ranged from $357,500 to $463,177. It was apparent that some items in the specifications needed clarification. The major component on this list was the weight load capacity on the aerial ladder, and particularly at the end of the ladder. This measures the stress weight of people and flowing water on the tip of the ladder. The three bidders agreed that they would be willing to discuss their bids and suggest appropriate and definitive changes in the specifications. Refined specifications were given to the three firms for a bid opening on July 11. The bids received are tabulated below: Optional Progress Optional Firm Base Bid Payment Deducations Net Bid Simon Ladder Towers, Inc. $ 428,640 $ 4,876 $423,764 Clarey's Safety Equipment, Inc. 428,817 10,356 418,461 Gramman Emergency Products, Inc. 461,503 8,780 452,723 The optional progress payments involve major lump sum payments the City would make upon delivery of the chassis and delivery of the aerial ladder apparatus to the successful bidder. Whether to make these payments would depend upon investment opportunities and cash-flow needs of the City. All of the bidders adequately met the revised specifications. The equipment proposed by Simon Ladder Towers, Inc. is superior from a safety standpoint because its tip load safety factor is 1000 pounds, whereas the other companies would guarantee only 400-600 pounds. For further comparison, Simon Ladder Towers, Inc. would provide a stainless steel body; for another $8500 deduction, it would provide a body made of aluminum, the material Clarey's Safety Equipment, Inc. proposed in its bid. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Simon Ladder Towers, Inc. be awarded the contract for an aerial ladder fire truck in accordance with plans and specifications and its bid submitted July 11, 1988. In so doing, the Council awards the contract to the lower bidder and retains flexibility to choose deductions to the contract amount to which Simon Ladder Towers, Inc. committed in its bid. CWD:jdp TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: NATALIE J. SWAGGERT DIRECTOR HUMAN RIGHTS/SERVICES DEPARTMENT THROUGH: CARL J. JULLIE CITY MANAGER DATE: JULY 13, I988 SUBJECT: STRATEGIC PLANNING - I1ID YEAR The selection of dates for the mid-year Strategic Planning process continues to be a challenge. July 30th (Saturday) is no longer possible if all members of the City Council are to attend. Because the August dates were not agreeable with everyone's schedules, I have asked Barbara Arney to hold several dates in September. September 10 (Saturday) 9AM to IPM September 13 (Tuesday) 5PM to 9PI1 September 15 (Thursday) 5P11 to 9PI1 September 17 (Saturday) 9Ai1 to 1PI1 September 27 (Tuesday) 5PM to 9PII Please let me know your selection. 1/39 -x. MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THROUGH: CARL J. JULLIE, CITY MANAGER FROM: ROGER A. PAULY, CITY ATTORNEY DATED: JULY 14, 1988 SUBJECT: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE Attached is the revised Ordinance No. 22-88, which contains the following changes: 1. The reference to "pickup mounted with topper" has been removed from Section 1 (38a.) . 2. Section 2 (3. (e) ) has been revised to incorporate some of the verbiage from Section 2 (3. (d)) , page 2, of the Bloomington model. 3. There has been added to Section 2 a subsection 3.(f) which is similar to Section 2 (3. (c)) of the Bloomington model. RAP:cw A CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 22-88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)" BY (1) ADDING THE DEFINITION OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, AND (2) ADDING A NEW SECTION REGULATING OUTSIDE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE IN ALL ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND ALL MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, 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. City Code Section 11.02 entitled "Definitions" is hereby amended by adding paragraph 38a which shall read as follows: [38a. "Recreational Vehicle" - Any trailer, watercraft, snowmobile, pull camper, all terrain vehicle, motorhome, travel trailer or tent trailer, or other similar vehicle. A recreational vehicle upon a trailer shall constitute one recreational vehicle. ] Section 2. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 3.J. , entitled "Outside Storage and Displays" is hereby amended by adding subsection 3 to read as follows: [3. The parking or storing of recreational vehicles outside of an enclosed building or structure in all One-Family Residential Districts and all Multi-Family Residential Districts is prohibited, except as hereafter provided. -1- !(:/ ':]1 (a) No more than 2 recreational vehicles may be stored or parked outside upon a lot. (b) Recreational vehicles of a height of 7 feet or less may be parked or stored on a lot provided no part of a recreational vehicle of a height of 7 feet or less may be closer than 15 feet from the traveled portion of a street. (c) Recreational vehicles of a height greater than 7 feet may be parked or stored on (i) that part of a front yard of a lot occupied by a driveway, provided the body of a rec- reational vehicle may not be closer than 15 feet from the trav- eled portion of a street, (ii) that part of a side or rear yard of a lot not situated within 10 feet of a lot line, or (iii) that part of a side yard within 10 feet of a lot line which is also within that part of a front yard occupied by a driveway and is not within 15 feet from the traveled portion of a street. (d) Recreational vehicles parked or stored outside for a period in excess of days must be owned by a person residing on the lot. (e) All recreational vehicles parked or stored outside must be in a safe, operable condition and exhibit current license or registration plates or tags if the vehicle is one for which a license or registration plate or tag is required by law for its operation. (f) No recreational vehicle shall be used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes when parked or stored in a One-Family Residential District or a Multi-Family Residential District. ) -2- Section 3. 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 4. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of 1988, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1988. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1988. RAP2 015-1 07-14-88 -3- / I ;; �lptlV� r". MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources 'At-- DATE: July 13, 1988 SUBJECT: Purgatory Creek Recreation Area - Alternate Park Entrance Locations Study Attached is a copy of the summary of the Alternate Entrance Location Study completed by Brauer and Associates dated June 30, 1988. The study analyzes two sites for a possible location for the park entrance. The southern site is the area immediately south of the Flagship Athletic Club and west of Prairie Center Drive, and the northern site is on the north end of the Flagship Athletic Club property and the south end of the Feeders Property. Two schematic concepts were developed for the southern study area and one for the northern study area. The two southern concepts are based on alternate alignments of Columbine Road from Prairie Center Drive to the west. NORTH STUDY AREA (PREFERRED SITE) 1. Acreage Needed - If the City were to acquire the entire site perpendicular from Prairie Center Drive including all of the proposed parking, the site would require approximately 8.8 acres to accommodate a plan similar to the one depicted in this study. The Planner recommends acquiring as little as 3 acres if adjacent property owners would agree to a shared parkirg concept. Without shared parking an access site of approximately 6 acres would be the minimal required to accommodate parking, the amphitheater, and other associated uses at this site. 2. Cost to Develop - Page 5 of the study report depicts the estimated construction costs for this entry point as planned. The estimated cost is approximately 1.5 million dollars. SOUTH STUDY AREA ALTERNATE A 1. Acreage Needed -The entire parcel contains approximately 27 acres. All but approximately 2 1/2 acres is below the 824 contour. It has not been determined exactly how much land can be filled for development on this site. There is approximately 9.5 acres east of the right-of-way of the proposed Columbine alignment in alternate A. Alternate A depicts approximately 2.2 acres within the boat basin that would remain in the floodplain and approximately 7.3 acres for development of the park access. This may or may not be feasible depending upon Watershed District and DNR approvals. Joq 2. Cost to Develop - Dn page 6 of the study, the Planner has an estimated cost to develop this site, as depicted in the concept plan, at 1.86 million dollars. NORTH STUDY AREA - ALTERNATE B 1. Acreage Needed - Alternate B requires approximately the same amount of acreage for development of the park access, although alternate B would not require as much development above the 10D year flood elevation contour. 2. Estimated Cost to Develop - On page 7 of the study, the Planner has estimated a cost of 2.17 million dollars to develop this park entry as planned. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS None of the estimated costs consider acquisition of land nor road construction costs. Both Alternate A and Alternate B would require acquisition of the entire site if this area were to be designated the major entry area. After the City requires right-of-way for Columbine and for development of the major entry there would be no land available for any other type of development. If Columbine were aligned as depicted in Alternate A and this site were not chosen for the major entry, staff would still recommend developing a parking lot for a secondary access point at this point as per the original concept plan. This parking lot would be located below the 824 contour and subject to flooding during the "100 year flood events". During the process of updating the Comprehensive Park Plan the Planning Consultant has identified a need for neighborhood park types of services to the medium density and high density residential subdivisions on the south and west sides of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. The Comprehensive Park Plan Study is still going on; however, it seems apparent there will be a recommendation to accommodate some types of recreation facilities on the west side of the park to serve these residential areas. That type of development may require a relatively major access on the west side of the park as well as the east side. Since the erosion control fencing failed in 1985 and created the obstruction in Purgatory Creek, the floodplain area has maintained an open water marsh condition that many residents have found very attractive over the last two years. It has been suggested that the City consider expanding the environmental preservation portion of this park and limiting trails and recreation activities to the perimeter and the northern areas of the park. In order to explore all options available to the City, staff has contacted representatives from the Ducks Unlimited Organization to see if they are interested in developing the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area as a demonstration project. Although, this is in the very preliminary stages, there is a possibility that the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area might offer the opportunity Ducks Unlimited is looking for in developing a highly visible waterfowl management area in the metropolitan area. If that is the case, Ducks Unlimited may be willing to fund a significant portion of the t IfBL' development of this site; however, that may require some revisions to the plan as well. Staff will keep the Council informed on any discussion with Ducks Unlimited regarding that possibility. If the park is to be associated with Eden Prairie's downtown and the Major Center Area, it is paramount that the City acquire sufficient land to provide a major access from Prairie Center Drive. At this time, staff requests authorization to negotiate for the acquisition of the north study area as the preferred site, and to obtain a price on the southern site in order to provide comparable options to the City Council in the near future. BL:mdd MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources 'VAL' DATE: July 13, 1988 SUBJECT: Acquisition of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area As indicated in the June 20th letter relating to the Purgatory Creek flood storage area, staff had recommended that on July 19, 1988 the City Council authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with each land owner to donate their land for park purposes on a contract for deed. The basis of the contract would be that the City complete certain projects by agreed upon dates or the contract would be broken and the property would revert to the property owner. Staff suggested the obligation would include: A. City complete a water level study to determine if additional flood storage can occur downstream without any detrimental effects to Staring Lake within 9 months after receiving all of the deeds. B. City complete the dredging of the judicial ditch from the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area to Staring Lake within one year after receiving all deeds. C. City complete a cost study of a tax increment financing district to provide funding for the first phase of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, as well as other improvements to the "downtown area" including street, ornamental lighting, other public plaza areas in the downtown, etc. within 1 year of receiving all deeds. D. City initiate the first phase of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area project including initiating a contract for the dredging of the pond and construction of the trails within 24 months of receiving all deeds. If all of these are completed within the agreed upon time frames the "contract for deed" would be completed within two years of receiving all the deeds, at which time the City would own the property and the contract would be let and initiated on the first phase of the development of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, which is the major component of the park system, which includes development of ponds and trail system. These are suggested or recommended commitments the City would make to the property owners in return for deeds to the property within the Purgatory Creek Recreation' Area below the 824 contour. The City Council may wish to revise dates, add or delete commitments, etc; however, staff believes the City will have to make some type of commitment toward initiating this project in order to provide an incentive for property owners to donate their property to the City for this purpose. At this time, staff request authorization for the City Attorney and the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources to meet with property owners to discuss an acceptable form of option or contract for deed for transfer of property to the City in lieu of City commitments for development of this park area. Once the City staff can come to an agreement with the property owners, staff would return to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of a process and transfer document. BL:mdd • /4j!`1