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 - 06/06/1989
AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1989 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas 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 Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL COMMENDATIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS IN 1989 EDEN PRAIRIE SPRING CLEAN-UP DAY AND Page 1D20 KELLEE KRUGER, RECIPIENT OF THE HORATIO ALGER AWARD I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES A. Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 16, 1989 Page 1023 B. Joint City Council/Waste Management Commission Meeting held Pare 1024 Tuesday, May 23i 1989 C. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 23, 1989 Page 1028 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List Page 1D31 B. Resolution No. 89-88 Authorizing the Issuance of $465,000 in Page 1032 Industrial Refunding Revenue Bonds for Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc. C. Approval of Senior Citizen Discount Page 1036 D. Spoon Ridge Neighborhood Petition Page 1040 F. Approve Bids on Franlo Park and Wyndham Knoll Park for Tennis Page 1045 Court Construction F. A prove Plans and Specifications for Storm Sewer Improvements at Page 1046 CSAH 1 and C AHT8, I.C. 52-123 (Reso ution No. 89-131) G. Approve Agreement with Northern States Power Company to Convert Page 1047 Overhead Transmission Facilities to Buried Transmission Facilities Adjacent CSAH 4 South of T.H. 5 City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,June 6, 1989 H. Receive Feasibility Study for Bluff Road Street and Utility Pa a 1050 C. Improvements and Set Public Hearing, I 52- 44 9 89-94) — — TResolution No. 3 1. Approve Plans and Specifications for Cedar Ridge Storm Sewer g Improvements, and Authorize Bids to be Received, I.C. 52-152) Page 1051 (Resolution No. 89-110) J. Receive Feasibility Study for CSAH No. 1 y-Pass/Turn Lane at Cedar Ridge Elementary School and Set Public Hearing, I.T. 52-155 Page 1052 Resolution No. 89-111) K. Approve Plans and Specifications for CSAH 1 By-Pass/Turn Lane at Cedar Ridge Elementary School and Authorize Bids to be Received, Page 1053 Au I.C.. 52-155 (Resolution No. B921T2)-- —— — L. Approve Quit Claim Deed Releasing Temporary Construction Easement over Lot 29 Eden Prairie Acres, Hennepin County, Minnesota Page 1054 M. Approve Plans (Resolution No. 89-114) and Agreement (Resolution No. 89-115) with Hennepin County for Participation in the Page 1055 Tonstruction and 0 eration of Traffic Control Signal—System at CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway, I.C.. 52-159 N. Approve Supplement No. 1 to Construction Cooperative Agreement P.W. 70-49-87 with Hennepin County adding 452 feet of Page 1064 Bituminous Bikeway Adjacent CSAH No. 4 south of Torrey Pine Drive, I.C. 52-074 (Resolution No. 89-116 0. Approve Construction Cooperative Agreement PW 27-49-89 with Hennepin County for Improvement to Terrey Pine Drive and Wagner Page 1065 Way at their Intersection with CS7H No. C. 52- 74 (Resolution No. 89-117) P. Ordinance Amending Section 5.36 of the City Code relating to License Requirements86r Refose Collectors Page 1073 (Ordinance No. 19-89) Q. Re nest l Eden Wood Camping and Retreat Center for a Land teration hermit to Construct a New Access Drive to Serve the Page 1074 Camp located south of W. 62nd Street and West of Indian Chief Road — — —R. Resolution No. 89-123 Authorizing the City of Eden Prairie's Flexible Benefit an and the City-of Eden Prairie's Dependent Page 1075 Care Reimbursement Plan IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. RED ROCK SHDRES by Scenic Heights Investment. Request for Wining District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 13 acres, Page 1076 Wi Preliminary Plat of 19.77 Acres into 17 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road No. 4, north and east of Lake Shore Drive. (Ordinance No. 13-89 - Rezoning from Rural to R1-22; Resolution No. 89-104 - Preliminary Plat) Continued from May 16, 19B9 Council meeting City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,June 6, 1989 B. PRESERVE SOUTH by BRW, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Page 1127 Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional Commercial on 9.07 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 18 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District Change • from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25,248 square foot theatre complex. Location: East of Highway #169, south of Medcom Boulevard. (Resolution No. 89-124 - PUD Concept Amendment to Overall Preserve South Planned Unit Development; Resolution No. No. 89-125 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Ordinance No. 17-89-PUO-4-89 - PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-126 - Preliminary Plat) C. COUNTRY GLEN by Coffman Development. Request for Zoning District page 1217 Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.3 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 9.3 acres into 20 single family lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of- way. Location: South of Townline Road, west of Claycross Way. (Ordinance No. 18-89, Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-129, Preliminary Plat) D. VIKING PRESS, INC. EXPANSION by Fortier and Associates, Inc. Request for Site Plan Review within the I-5 zoning district on 6.7 Page 1230 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals for construction of an addition to a building. Location: 7000 Washington Avenue South. (Resolution No. 89-127 - Site Plan Approval) E. OUTLOT A, CRESTWODO 89 by Alex Dorenkemper. Request for Zoning Page 1236 District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 2.17 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 2.17 acres into 3 single family lots. Location: North of Dell Road. F. TIRES PLUS by M. Austin Smith. Request for Site Plan Approval for Page 1254 Eden Prairie Auto Mall to allow a Tires Plus sign on the building's northwest side which does not have a sign band designation. Location: 8453 Joiner Way. (Resolution No. 89-130 - Site Plan Approval) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 1262 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. CABRIOLE CENTER by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc. Appeal from Decision of Board of Appeals and Request for Preliminary Plat Page 1274 of 10.3 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 65,000 square foot office building. Location: South of I-494 and West 78th Street, and north of Anderson Lakes. (Resolution No. 89-122 - Preliminary Plat) B. Ordinance for Name Change _ Diamond Circle to LaRivier Court (Ordinance No. T 89) — Page 1305 VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Receive 100 Percent Petition for Sanitary Sewer. Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Paving for Pro osed Country Road and Claycross Way Page 1306 with thi P at of tountryGTen an rder re ara Tod of Flans and ecii ications, I.C. 52 17I—(Reno Ti on-N )— City Council Agenda - 4 - Tues.,June 6, 1989 VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS A. Mayoral Term Stu Committee - Recommendations for the Mayoral Page 1308 Term IX. APPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members 1. Reschedule City Council Meeting of July 4 1989 B. Report of City Manager C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Planning E. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources 1. Athletic Field Condition Report Page 1311 2. Report on Park Bond Referendum F. Report of Director of Public Works G. Report of Finance Director XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT • 1 3: Y 1r A COMMENDATION from the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE WHEREAS, Eden Prairie is a place of remarkable natural beauty, with abundant and precious resources of water, woods, parks and open spaces; and WHEREAS, the advance of urbanization disrupts natural processes and inhibits natural beauty from being self-sustaining; and WHEREAS, maintaining the quality of the gifts of the natural environment require human effort to rid the environment of litter and materials which may potentially cause pollution; and WHEREAS, battling this growing problem requires a commitment from the whole community as resources available to local governments are limited; and WHEREAS, residents of Eden Prairie have volunteered to assist the City in a spring cleaning effort in many of the parks, streams, lakes and ponds in the community; THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Eden Prairie hereby commends CAMPFIRE ADVENTURE for participating in the 1989 EDEN PRAIRIE SPRING CLEAN-UP DAY and extends its sincere appreciation of the care shown for the environment and the community. Presented this 6th day of June, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor on behalf of the City Council Richard Anderson SEAL: Jean Harris Patricia Pidcock Douglas Tenpas /Oc • i Clean Up Eden Prairie - , Participants File: Clean #7 Campfire Adventure Don & Sue Uram Sara Perry 8242 Sheridan Lane 14340 Westridge Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Cub Scout Troup 342 Brad Bourassa John Tanner _ 17415 Rustic Hills Dr 7611 Atherton Way Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 • Brownie Troop 1615 Tracey Tupper Jane Temperly 10200 Mooer Lane 17627 67th St. West Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Eden Prariie, MN 55346 Girl Scout Troop 150 School Participants Carol Suggs Student Councils at , 7370 Bridlewood Curve Eden Lake Elementary Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Forest Hills Elementary Prairie View Elementary Brownie Troop 1930 City Council Participants Colleen Geronsi Dick Anderson 18169 Liv Lane Doug Tenpas Eden Prairie, MN 55346 City Staff Carl Jullie Ms. Barbara Swanson Stuart Fox 16177 Hilltop Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Steve & Katherine Hanson 7289 Butterscotch Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Scout Pack 422 Kim Larson 7916 Eden Court Eden Prairie, MN 55344 A COMMENDATION from the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie community encourages and suports its youth in academic performance; and WHEREAS, the skills and values attained through formal education help students to become responsible residents of Eden Prairie and of the nation; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to recognize excellence in achievements made by Eden Prairie students; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie hereby commends KELLEE KRUGER as a recipient of THE HORATIO ALGER AWARD The Council congratulates Ms. Kruger for her fine achievement as one of 30 nationwide recipients of this award and applauds the positive recognition that she has brought to Eden Prairie. Presented June 6, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor on behalf of the City Council SEAL: Richard Anderson Jean Harris Patricia Pidcock Douglas Tenpas /VO' -!"7••. :0.1 :•• .• t,: C1-7.1iL; r Eir•:;". )•!7. 17-•:"! , •c••••.• •S• 11317..1.r 7. .! Fy, 71._7:7 777 -F 7 .7V.7 711777:7 . 77, .7,77.7FN 7TC.T 7 •1••••••.-!•1., ....••••••: • :••• •• I, :.- 7,"•••••1••• r, .7••11.:•.• I j .r !-""•:1•7•tt had thr. pir i H •j!, •1; 1-12-J ' jr :; I 7.1 ".•', r• ••••: 2 4 jt:ri2. 7 7' ' . .•..' 7 .1 .-,: ,r, "'" -•,•• - . • •••••4• 71;.•.;• . 7 7 -• ),'-'); 7:- : ' :.• .ir 3 Arr 1?; , ? '•' ' : r Hr . r 7 7,, . 1) P• - r' , . : " : : t • . •L ,II .,i.•��a 1 i' !'i, Rt r tw r . : .0 allow r.f Ho. I9 Z9 „y „! , rT- .. 1 } 1,1,..) t I Ij l`. • 1 -uL I 1 , 12.77 1 i . . 1 • 11' .. . .. • M.ly ;_., .. l i, nil,.,, .. 'il _. 11 t. .. .._ ?",..f1l:cif ......�.�i i`, t.,i.t..• .., _.:'� .:1y :.,':'l: f. ??: i?1 f .�' ,. f •r C:... ��". ���. y. ,.? :,.11 !n• .1.1 ..__.. _ •�j' •i] t'. .1•? .. __ 1Lcq<�: f _?li- i '.: l'C he' DIY Ci1011r•t,: �,:i1', !.�I] t , it .,;F• 7 t. , ... ! 1. L • : . " ". • j : 3 Ic . 313(. . ,• . th•• 1•••.7::.11.1t,i'•, .. r • : . ' ' ! .117..-/•••• • • t.r. trc•e 3. • •,• t! 1r- )!: 11r trce ; 7 ' 1I. 43,..• ' : • !. 11)!•1''; •!.1;, 7. .'"j; ' • f ' :•-• - jj ' j " ", • 73 ":7' '!: . •i! 1:- 2:'.••,• ":.1 , 12 : r ! !,.. ,4 .•"•• w .11.1 t Ir "! • ,• " ' ;1•1 • ..•-• 30 t7.2,•• 1.71.2,', 2 1,-3 •. 7,12'•:r ..E I 3d ••••••1.1 ' • •••7.! ^ • ' ' i II I. !,"::,,r ' • ' 7..1! ! : 3.hil t!;t' Ci t '.t.44 • L.! ' :: IP' L• • ' "." ' !;•• •-• ' !.. Tr.•'• 7—I.,: :1 , 1 !. !i••!. , ..-r ] .., �. }, w ... ...i . ,,.. ... ....r ...._., _ ...• H . _. ' ', !id,'" • _ :Ill.,l•Y J t.!, , .:1j ,_ .,_r t'i Nt_Y_ c _. ♦ �.. of ! P i'C pl,r 1' ..j ,._I. !.�:,... flll:•C1.' W.7S f :IL !" t4' r . ivi.. 1. cf ': . .'1 1.-}" iI1 .• " , r '.' ! '.�! I:C !.11 is . ... .. .... ., 1 - •.,:] 1 • 1 . . , .. ,.•v.Y _ 1 1.� 1. !,, 1 ' 1 • a.. .:t if: L/'.? Eli. .I ,,,. f li • .. .ill rt! 1 . • �!i: t . f. ,.• .. i„ ] ..:a ai,CI if . }; it had .•. .• ;, ..it,,, ,... �. 1• i f f itd .y..' 1 I : f x, 1, r • ' „'' . ,r m: • .i}. . _ .,n^ • P 1.,_, ` 11 ;Ff .2 - {... ,•i 1 .. _'.. r ,�1,? Wit.1 ! t .,.. „. 1' '; I, -. .._. „ . 1 • f !•1,-. '- r;t:. Pei . d f.,, . .�. ...,:1tlb❑ �. .Laff .lt the • . I• 1 ; w.I , .1 ,, l -'. r l w ? ,�I T:` I 1T t .i. ! !._ ,. •:1 t 1I: . . is f • [. 1 � . 'i 71. C1,_t r_ 1 , � _ ...1_ L � � !_,i F • _ �1 ..•. I11 1. .•��.a ., � I I. 1• �•. t T.. 1 _:!: 'J. ,• c •.!pL,C .1 �tl 1 'I00 for .':L., The r. ll., t • 1.. w F r ` :ft• lr.a !. 1 1 1 1 !•1:t 11 .„,... . .. ,. m:t. 1 11 1 nn l 1 : . .. 1.. .. 1 �. 1 .. J � 1 ..;Ci .. w. 1. • t t.1. i t ;1,. ? • .1. �,,. III } ,l ..... I, .. .. ,;..1 ... 1 . , 1 ' 1 . 1., • . 1^1 1; ; " f ., x .. . 111. • l ' t 1' . t £ 7 �.,. ! ,t l . . F.r:^r r 't' .. y c mmi. � ' .,:. .. .. 1 . 1 I 14 1 f, l ltnl ^ C f • . , . • . ' •,;.• ,"," ' ,t. '• , . • • ' !. ! ,r ' ^! .r1 .,„ " • 7— n, ' ,1 1E • iv .: , 1 : t : 11'y, ' !,,, ! nil 31,.,.; ,' 1 . • , • —I : ' ' ' .i.'_ I ,fnn, 1!.1_ f I ' ' rn. _ ' ,„ F1 : , ' „ , Ir 1,. I . - !!, • • " ' ! : 1 4 ' • 7 10:2 I ' ' f . L_ . I.1f�.T t f••�. 1,.1`L 1-•i l . : ��..,: 1. n�1.,, .;, ( :, . jr 1� "1 �1i4 � 111 .�. . 1 . AEI III: ... f, , .1 • : .. 1I11 r•YI'� }-.�_,ih 1-1..� 1.. . ,,. i .. . t 1 r .. .. ,. ... .. ..... �.._ ... .,A. _ I ... ;\` 1 ' ' 1 1 I n, I. 7. - ... r.. I. .. 'Jr" .. .. 1'. • 77%7 it , , n a r , ,f .,.._ .. 1,... ;Il a::.Jr' .. ,' 1.,,. 1ry , i.!nm r- .,..lip .. m. ,. m " c ,.. , 1-, 7 7 - .. : 7. 1 , 1.. .1 r. ^ ^ .;ti. .. , . .,. f . . .. ,;: - . LI 'J _ ! ' 1 „ , ifin . . Ili:.... ,i.L.;�1 .i?? ?.�It fl,•t f. .. _ .., t 1 •,� 1 ,1� � 4,t? its jl.'.i:_Il f..L.:.. f- j: : tl'. .. `! ., pit E'ia that f r: al wv'1 Ilt V\„ IL mil. t :) wa.. 1f .. All `. r r .1 . ' ,i 1•.,._L _-Inch � ..._ .. 7,1 t,_! .I :1,.•�1.�i:i-j t'' i t' .7u ,IL L•r J.i: thy l 1, ... M1 d it .; 1 L • 1. L:r !' 1 1 1i. 1 J1 i. ''I • ':r 1 .. :'1' • �l 1♦, .. .vt ,' 2. 1 .,. ..,._. • L . .. . ., .. • a-b ' 3 • •„:. :!: , • : !, "..-( !1, I ' !. • ' 1 ! • thc . . : . . - . ,;tract- that part 1.!„ • 7!, ''t i7I.1 .-,t : 1 .x:1.1 LI 7 ! , ".t! . ' . " ! 1!.. !1 7 '.. i aVai t ' • '!. Ht. ' ' ' . . • „ !,' f u . ti ,,ff ' lull "".! : t.h ' -. ".„ : '.!. 1 -!! • ,' ' • . : ,.7." •1 ' !I „ ".", ".!,.i! ' 7 I •: ' ' ' ' " . • '-' ..; . ! r, ' : • " y � ,. ._. .j !.. [;�:. . . , !44 C'- ..�1 ., ��.�.--IJ:': ,-1Z:1' Jr.,2.,.j y . � in1 it W, tl LIL ! _ 1x. _...lc L 4Ve L!It r - r F1 t rr bi l ., . ,',t.c 1 _t .:. L.hr. r,.,, . :(1JL'.. Lri i• _ -pJ .. .r. ;11. .1 t1 , :., ... .4 i 7 . ..._ ...,.1 i. y -.;i'i.. ... ., r.. . ,. ... 1' • • 1 / .... •.. _ .. . : ..I.. .. 1 .r uc C•1 , 1. .._. .., _ .. Lylrr• .., . ;1 1' a_ r • • • L •-- - i r r , t . 1. ._. . " tl. , it . ove3 ;i, .. i_ . . ._. .g to n.;.. ..! ' .. .. .1, .. ... ` ;4 k SiI t , ..,. i . . . . .... . . _. .. I' .,-. _ .. _ 1.. .'.i .,.... .. ..;. JG.L..r._ ill.t. :L. '.J. ... .... . . t: 1.',� � ', t tl_ _ 'L.1 1_,..1 .. ,.,.� ' t!1:1t' rr '1 y• L t 1 >, L t: L •-} _ .,.�. `�. • .f .. �.:. L 1.111 H 1 I .,1 I ,,, -1 . I a r. :. � h I.�, 1 :1•1 il'.' tli Ile i';t'll .. . ,1 i.Flo I L ..;! ?,.!..,rtt tY .... • r, n � � .. ,j / 2J I i �t5 .1 . , .. .. '1 f.:. 1 ... . 1 11 j ....1 .. _ .. ... 4:i; t . _. .11,3 7 ! 1' • w,ty_ too have :.. ,. 1. .':. f r,dUct. . . r 7,/r.l. it.a_1 1 _ ._.. • � � It l" � t'j • .. lJ iso '1 1-, , t ,( ,.(3 :'1 . It , ...,.ram', .c., vi:. ., ,,. ..,.' .. .._ ,7 : . , 7' ' ,•., 1',. r.. '-i ... .. '.( 1' . •- • r • ._ _ n .. 1 f - f r .� r . . Il ..r: . .. .. .. . n p / xi - { :3t lid 30) JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1989 7:30 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY OFFICES 7600 Executive Drive CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: All Councilmembers present. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Leslie Ellis, Vice-Chair Jan Mosman, Cindy Adalbert, Yvonne Hargens, Fred Hoisington, and Tim Pierce COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Evans STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie and Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson ROLL CALL Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. All Councilmembers were present. All Commission members except Dennis Evans were present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Harris moved and Tenpas seconded to approve the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5-0. II. INTRODUCTIONS Peterson explained the purposes of the Council's joint meetings with advisory boards and commissions. They offered an opportunity to share information about the activities and expectations between the Council and Commissions as well as an opportunity to get to know each other personally. Councilmembers, Commission members, and Staff introduced themselves. III. COMMISSION PRESENTATION A. Review of Commission Accomplishments Hargens explained how the Commission had come a long way since its formation five or six months ago. The Commission first met on December 12, 1988 and has adopted a twice-a-month meeting schedule. The Commission has two committees which also have met frequently. Among the activities of the Commission during this time were a tour of the Reuter Recycling Facility; develop- , ment of a work plan; meetings with refuse collectors; a public meeting on recycling plans; and development of a recycling program. She thanked the Council for the staff assistance provided to help the Commission in its rapid progress. AIL*if - 2 - B. Review of Upcoming Projects 1. Recycling Program Adalbert gave an overview of the recycling activities which have been implemented and which are planned. She reviewed the 1988 performance figures, provided an overview of the Goodwill/Easter Seal operation, and related the plans underway for private haulers to provide recycling services and their initiative with volume-based charges for service. Harris suggested that running totals be published to show progress and encourage participation in recycling. Tenpas wondered if the rates charged if one recycled would approach those without recycling sometime in the future. Adalbert responded that the firms appear to be committed to making recycling work. Anderson expressed concerns that yard wastes were not being encouraged to be recycled nor that the City was gaining credit for the yard wastes which were being recycled by private firms. Dawson explained that yard waste recycling would not count toward recycling objectives established by Hennepin County. 2. Public Education and Information { Mosman reviewed the activities of this Committee of the Commission. The Committee met early to develop an educational campaign; however, after BFI's announcement that it would provide recycling services to its customers, the education effort has changed to adapt to changing conditions. A postcard is being mailed to all addresses in the City to explain existing and upcoming recycling opportunities, and a brochure is being printed to include with the distribution of recycling containers. The Committee will be developing a presentation this Fall for public speaking to a variety of groups. Art students at Eden Prairie High School will be helping to provide graphics for this presentation. The Committee is also exploring the idea of having cash prize drawings to reward people who are recycling. Tenpas mentioned that the Junior League of Minneapolis had developed an educational program for the Minneapolis School System about recycling. The Commission could find this program useful in its public education efforts. Peterson suggested the Youth Development Board of the Eden Prairie School System has another resource in the public education efforts. Anderson mentioned that recycling was occurring within the Eden Prairie School System and believed the District to be a leader among institutions in recycling. He stated that School District staff had not received much support from Hennepin County in developing its recycling program. Anderson wondered about the extent to which the City should be involved in business recycling as County efforts have been minimal thus far. - 3 - Peterson responded that the City should look to the County for leadership in this area at this time. Hoisington related that the Council charge to the Commission was global in scope. The Commission has had to look at short-term objectives thus far, and consequently the focus has been on residential waste. Anderson, ;tested that he wanted the City to be involved in the whole gamut of recycling. 3. Packaging Ordinance Pierce thanked the Council for allowing the Commission to look at the proposed Ordinance on environmentally acceptable packaging before Council took final action on this matter. He related the study elements that the Commission would consider in the preparation of recommendations to the Council. Pidcock left at 8:20 PM. Pierce asked when Council would like to have the Commission's recommendations on the Packaging Ordinance. Anderson said he would like to have the Ordinance effective with the date established by Minneapolis (July 1, 1990). He hoped that the results of actions taken with plastics regulations would not end up repeating the experience with the recent newspaper glut. Peterson said that the purpose of the Ordinance is to stimulate momentum for manufacturers and users of packaging materials to have recyclable materials in widespread use. He said that the Commission should attach priority to making residents know where plastics can be recycled. Anderson said he would like to see plastics included in the City's recycling requirements as soon as as practical, and by August 1, 1989 if at all possible. Harris said that the Council wanted the Commission to take the amount of time necessary to study the issues the Commission had identified in relation to the proposed Ordinance. Hargens suggested that Council communicate with its Congressional delegation to encourage Federal action to work toward the widespread recyclability of plastic. Harris found this idea attractive. She believed that a push needs to be made on the national level to look at regional systems for collection and distribution of recyclable plastics. 4. Household Hazardous Waste Collection with Hennepin County Pierce related that the main thrust of efforts in the household hazardous waste area is public education. He said that Hennepin County has an education and collection program which appears to be the most readily available opportunity for residents. Peterson suggested that the Commission look at the effectiveness of the County program and the issues of convenience and frequency of collection for residents. Dawson mentioned that Hennepin County will have year-round drop-off centers at the soon-to-be-built transfer stations in the County's waste processing system. Two of these stations would be located in Plymouth and 8loomington. - 4 - Pidcock returned at 8:40 PM. C. Discussion with Council re: Priorities Hoisington related that Commission members had provided Council an overview of the Commission's current projects and upcoming studies. He asked the Councilmembers what they consider to be priorities so that the Commission can incorporate them in its work. Peterson said his priorities would be implementation of the curb- side recycling program in 1989 and the proper management of household hazardous wastes. Pidcock said that working toward having plastics recycled was important. She suggested working with Bill Barnhart, the legislative liaison for the City of Minneapolis. Anderson said that residential recycling is the top priority. The City needs to look at areas where the County is not performing well in waste management in order to fill in the gaps. There also needs to be something done about the enforcement of Ordinances and Code provisions to clean up the community. Tenpas said that the Council may be reactive to some pressures and issues identified by the public. The Commission should keep abreast of legislation and technologies in waste management. The Commission should be creative and bring issues to the Council, and not wait for the Council to bring the issues to the Commission. Harris said that a determination needs to be made about what the community wishes to do with plastics. She said that education and information will be a continuing struggle; it is necessary to get the same message out in many different ways. The City also needs to push for action on the national level to encourage the reuse and recycling of waste materials. D. Discussion of Council/Commission Relations Commission Chair Ellis said that this part of the meeting was planned for open dialogue between the Council and Commission; however, he believed that this communication had been accomplished throughout the meeting. Councilmembers expressed the need for partnership and two-way communication between the Council and the Commission. Council- members expected that the Commission would be proactive in providing recommendations. The Council had a consensus that the Commission would be expected to make recommendations on when plastics could and/or should be included in the City's recycling requirements. Pidcock wished for a demand to be made for the recyclability of plastics so that plastics manufacturers would be pushed toward providing these products. On behalf of the Commission, Ellis thanked the Council for its support to get the Commission up and running and effective. IV. ADJOURNMENT OF JOINT MEETING Pidcock moved and it was seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 PM. Motion carried 5-D. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1989 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL/WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie and Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson ROLL CALL All members were present when the meeting was called to order at 9:25 PM. I. DISCUSSION OF 1989 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES WITH CITY MANAGER Councilmembers reviewed a memorandum prepared by the City Manager with recommended goals for 1989. Councilmembers chose the three issues that they considered to be priorities for the City Manager. Anderson said his three priorities were City Hall; implementing a recycling program - including plastics; and holding the line on the City's property tax rate while determining what the City can do in general on this matter. Harris listed the recycling program implementation; City Hall; and holding the line on property taxes as her three priorities for the Manager. Peterson listed City Hall; the City's property tax rate; and an active program of employee performance review and efficiency measures as his priorities. Pidcock stated that implementing a recycling program; deciding on a site for City Hall; and holding the line on property taxes and lobbying for changes in fiscal disparities as her priorities for the Manager. Tenpas listed as his priorities holding the line on property taxes; improved staff management in terms of on-going in-house training, employee performance reviews and efficiency measures, and assistance to the department head to achieve departmental goals; and City Hall as his priorities. Councilmembers then had further discussion of these identified priorities. With regard to implementing a recycling program, Councilmembers believed that there had been enough discussion with the Waste Management Commission earlier in the evening to have made their expectations clear. With reference to City Hall, Councilmembers recognized that this was an important economic decision for the City. The building would need to be - 2 - functional. At a minimum a decision needs to be made on the site for the building, and in considering these possible sites the Council needed to revisit the recommendations of the blue-ribbon Residents Committee 4 for City Administrative Offices. Analysis should also be prepared on continuing to rent compared to purchasing the facility. The City Manager was to recommend a date to the Council for late-summer work session on this overall issue. Pidcock had concerns that residents would vote against any referendum that resulted in a tax increase. She suggested that the City look at the settlement from the sale of Rogers Cablesystems's franchise for capital to purchase a site for the City Hall. Tenpas said that a good financial analysis would show the City was being fiscally responsible in its proposal. He requested background information for the analysis done to date. In terms of in-house training, the Council wished to see an effective program continue to improve. There was general discussion about the programs which have been instituted over the last six to nine months to address the training needs of the City staff. Tenpas suggested that courses like that offered by Dale Carnegie be considered. He hoped that staff members would attend longer training sessions, perhaps spaced out over a few weeks, so that new skills could be practiced and reinforced. With regard to property taxes, it was understood that the objective was to hold the line on the City's property tax rate. Anderson hoped that there would be some way to remove the pressure from the City for property taxes because other local governments levied a far greater proportion of the property tax. Tenpas was most concerned with the accuracy of valuation and believed that more properties were under- valued than over-valued. Pidcock was concerned that the differential in property taxes paid between Eden Prairie and other communities should be narrowed. Councilmembers agreed that active lobbying for changes in the tax laws was not an appropriate one to which the City Manager should be held accountable. By consensus, the Council identified the following as objectives for the City Manager in 1989: implementation of recycling programs; making decisions on a site and financing options to be pursued for a City Hall; increasing the level of on-going in-house training; continuation of employee performance review and efficiency measures; and assistance to department heads in pursuit of department goals. II. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Salary Range for City Manager Position Harris said that the Council should affirm the pay standards shown Grade 12 of the City's pay structure as the salary for the City Manager position. Tenpas said that the Council should look at benefits as ways to add compensation. Harris moved and Pidcock seconded to adopt the salary range in the 1989 salary structure of the City in order to establish the current salary range for the City Manager position. Motion passed 5-0. ✓ ; - 3 - 2. Key to the City Request Peterson related that he had been approached by the organizers of an appreciation function for Roy Terwilliger. They had requested that the City consider giving Mr. Terwilliger a Key to the City during the event scheduled for May 25, 1989. Councilmembers engaged in discussion about how this request related to the policy guidelines adopted earlier in the year for presentations of a Key to the City. Anderson moved and Tenpas seconded to present Roy Terwilliger with a Key to the City. Motion passed 5-0. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 PM. 1JJ 1 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST June 6, 1989 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) GAS FITTER Hagman Construction, Inc. Air Mechanical, Inc. Maxim's Chinese Cuisine Bergman Htg. & Air Conditioning Co. Penn-Co Construction, Inc. Precise Heating & Air Conditioning Southern Bleacher Steinkraus Plumbing,Inc. CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Valley Plumbing Company Ben Decka Builders,Inc. HEATING & VENTILATING Brico Development, Inc. Air Mechanical, Inc. Brueshaber Construction Hopkins Plumbing & Heating Co. Cedarcraft Construction Bergman Htg. & Air Conditioning Co. Cedarock Builders Parsons Hardware Plumbing & Heating Cummings Contracting Co. Precise Heating & Air Conditioning Co. Custom Energy Homes Riccar Heating & Air Conditioning Inc. Eden Construction Christopher Harrison UTILITY INSTALLER Henjum and Hayes Heritage Builders Consolidated Plumbing ( Home Maintenance & Repair Merle's Construction FOOD VEHICLE D. M. Sather Company S. W. Sharpe Company, Inc. OeLaria's Kitchen, Inc. Town West Builders, Inc. Willette Construction,Inc. MECHANICAL GAMES Windfield Homes PLUMBING American Amusement Arcades Movies at Eden Prairie Center All State Plumbing & Htg. PEDDLER Avoles Plumbers Glen Paul Baron (Blue Bell Ice Cream) Consolidated Plumbing Tim Hayes (Firewood) Hopkins Plumbing & Htg. Parsons Hardware Plb. & Htg. PRIVATE KENNEL TYPE C FOOD Jerry Hill - 9805 Sky Lane Brooks Superette #51 THEATRE CIGARETTE Movies at Eden Prairie IV & V Brooks Superette #51 3.2 BEER OFF SALE On Sale Wine Lunds Deli Style Restaurant Brooks Superette #51 These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the)Licensed "cty. • Pat Solie, Licensing / ',/ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $465,000 INDUSTRIAL REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS (KINDER-CARE LEARNING CENTERS, INC. PROJECT) SERIES U TO REFUND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS HERETOFORE ISSUED TO FINANCE A PROJECT UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPeu. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Council has received a request from Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") that the City undertake to refund its $465,000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1984 (Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc. Project) heretofore issued on December 17, 1984 (the "Prior Bonds") in order to finance costs of acquiring, con- structing and equipping, as applicable, one or more child day-care facilities (the "Project"); and that the City accomplish such refunding by the issuance, pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Sections 469.152 through 469.1651, Minnesota Statutes 1988, as amended (the "Act"), of its $465,000 Industrial Refunding Revenue Bonds (Kinder-Care Learning Cen- ters, Inc. Project) Series C (the "Bonds"), to be purchased by The Frazer Lanier Company Incorporated, Montgomery, Alabama (the "Bond Purchaser"), pur- suant to a Bond Purchase Agreement to be dated the date of issuance of the Bonds by and among the City (among other issuers), the Company and the Bond Purchaser (the "Bond Purchase Agreement"). 2. It is proposed that, pursuant to a Loan Agreement between the City and the Company dated as of June 1, 1989 (the "Loan Agreement"), the City loan the proceeds of the Bonds to the Company to refund an equal principal amount of the Prior Bonds. The Company has agreed to furnish such amounts in addition to the proceeds of the Bonds as may be necessary to effect the com- plete refunding and payment in full of the Prior Bonds. The Company Payments as defined in and to be made by the Company under the Loan Agreement are fixed so as to produce revenue sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due. It is further proposed that the City assign its rights to the Company Payments and certain other rights under the Loan Agreement to First Alabama Bank, Montgomery, Alabama (the "Trustee") as security for payment of the Bonds under a Trust Indenture dated as of June 1, 1989 (the "Indenture") and that the Company procure an irrevocable letter of credit (the "Letter of Credit") further to secure the payment of the Bonds and the interest and any premium thereon. 3. Forms of the following documents have been submitted to the Council for approval: (a) The Loan Agreement; / (b) The Indenture; 4 (c) The Bond Purchase Agreement; and (d) The form of Offering Circular pursuant to which the Bonds are to be offered and sold (not executed by the City). 4. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) the Project described in the Loan Agreement and Indenture continues to constitute a Project authorized by the Act; (b) the purpose of the Project has been and will be to promote the public welfare by its use as a child day-care center; (c) the Project is located within the City limits, at a site which is easily accessible to employees residing within the City and the surrounding communities; (d) the issuance and sale of the Bonds to refund the Prior Bonds, the execution and delivery by the City of the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Indenture, and the performance of all cove- nants and agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Indenture and of all other acts and things required under the constitution and laws of the State of Minne- sota to make the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Indenture and the Bonds valid and binding obligations of the City in accordance with their terms, are authorized by the Act; (e) it is desirable that the Bonds be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture; (f) the Company Payments under and as defined in the Loan Agree- ment are fixed to produce revenue sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds issued under the Indenture when due, and the Loan Agreement and the Security Document (as defined in the Loan Agreement) also provide that the Company is required to pay all expenses of the operation and main- tenance of the Project, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement and the Indenture; (g) under the provisions of the Act, and as provided in the Loan Agreement and the Indenture, the Bonds are not to be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no holder of any Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise by the City of its taxing powers to pay any of the Bonds or the interest or premium thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall not -2- • 4; constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds are issued without moral obligation on the part of the State or its political subdivisions, and the Bonds shall recite that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof and that the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statu— tory limitation; no provision, covenant or agreement contained in the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Bonds, any Certif icate executed by the City or any other documents executed by the City or any obligation herein or therein imposed upon the City, or the breach thereof, shall constitute, give rise to or impose upon the City or any of its officers, agents or employees, a pecuniary liability or a charge against the City's general credit or taxing powers; (h) no public official of the City has either a direct or indirect financial interest in the Project nor will any public official either directly or indirectly benefit financially from the Project; and (i) the matters set forth in Section 2.1 of the Master Agreement attached as Exhibit B and incorporated as part of the Loan Agreement and in Sections 4(b) and (d) of the Bond Purchase Agreement are hereby incorporated by reference herein and adopted by the City. 5. Subject to the approval of the City Attorney, the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Indenture and exhibits thereto are approved substantially in the forms submitted. The Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Indenture are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Manager. Any other documents and certificates necessary to the transaction described above shall be executed by the appropriate City officers. Copies of all the documents necessary to the transaction herein described shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided herein and in said Loan Agreement and Indenture. 6. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue its Bonds, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture. The offer of the Bond Purcha— ser to purchase the Bonds for $465,000 is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to prepare and execute the Bonds as prescribed in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee for authen— tication and delivery to the Bond Purchaser. The distribution and use by the Bond Purchaser of the Offering Circular relating to the Bonds, including for this purpose the preliminary draft thereof in the form submitted to the City at the meeting at which this resolution is passed, are hereby approved. The City has not confirmed, and assumes no responsibility for, the accuracy, completeness or fairness of any of the information contained in the Offering Circular, any amendments or supplements thereto or any reports, financial information, offering or dis— closure documents or other information in any way relating to the Letter of -3- Credit, the Company or the Bond Purchaser, other than the information relat- ing to the City contained in the Offering Circular under the caption "THE ISSUERS". 7. The Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Bond Purchaser certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, includ- ing any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. 8. The City elects to have the provisions of subparagraph (D), as modified by the provisions of subparagraph (H), of Section 103(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, applied to the Bonds. The execu- tion of this resolution by the Mayor of the City and the City Clerk and the filing of this resolution by the City Clerk in the records of the City are hereby declared to constitute notation of the books and records of the City that such election has been made. 9. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes approval of such additional details therein as may be neces- sary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by the City Attorney and the City officials authorized herein to execute said docu- ments prior to their execution; and said City officials are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the City. The execution of any instru- ment by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In the absence of the Mayor or City Manager, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed by the Acting Mayor or the Acting City Manager, respectively. Passed: June 6, 1989 Mayor Attest City Clerk ( SEAL ) -4- /G MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Coucnil THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Tom Eastman, Supervisor of Operations Laurie Melling, Manager of Recreation Services DATE: May 10, 1989 SUBJECT: Senior Citizen Fees Recently, staff was approached by an Eden Prairie Senior citizen regarding discounts for recreation and Community Center fees for Senior citizens. Currently, the only discount Senior citizens receive is one half of the price of an adult membership at the Community Center ($62.50/year residents who live or work in Eden Prairie, $87.50/year non-residents) . Senior citizens must be 62 or older to receive this membership discount. For comparison purposes, listed are various Community Center and individual recreation programs, indicating the actual program fee, 25% discount, and 50% discount. PROGRAM ACTUAL FEE 25% DISCOUNT 50% DISCOUNT Swim Lesson $18 member $13.50 $ 9.00 $24 non-member $18.00 $12.00 Aqua Aerobics $15 member $11.25 $ 7.50 $21 non-member $15.75 $10.50 Open Swim & $ 2 non-member $ 1.50 $ 1.00 Open Skate Racquetball $ 4 non-member $ 3.00 $ 2.00 Fitness Center $ 2 non-member $ 1.50 $ 1.00 Table Tennis $ 5/table/hour $ 3.75 $ 2.50 Outdoor Living $35 $26.25 $17.50 Skills Tennis Lessons $22 $16.25 $11.00 Golf Lessons $30-$35 $22.50-$26.50 $15-$17.50 Sailing $ 8 $ 6.00 $ 4.00 As per our discussion at our last recreation staff meeting, staff recommends Eden Prairie Senior citizens receive 50% off the cost of all individual recreation programs offered by the City of Eden Prairie to include: Community Center programs (lessons, classes, open swim, open skate, racquetball, fitness center, and table tennis) . This discount should not apply to programs that are team/league— oriented, or for programs that are designed specifically for Senior citizens. Eden Prairie School District 272 Community Education allow for Eden Prairie Senior citizens, 62 and older, to attend classes at 50% off the regular class fee, unless otherwise noted. Staff feels this recommendation will encourage Senior citizens on a limited income to participate in our recreation programs, and also benefit the long term tax paying residents of Eden Prairie. LH:mdd 1 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. May 15, 1989 _6 This is an information item only. Cross said this shows where Eden Prairie is in relation to other cities on dedication and fee charges. Cook asked if this subject was discussed last fall. Cross said the fees were increased last fall. Baker asked if Eden Prairie is competitive with other cities. Cross said yes, but they could be higher. Richard suggested that this issue be reviewed again next January. B. Report of Manager of Recreation Services 1. Senior Citizen Fees Refer to memo dated May 10, 1989 from Tom Eastman, Supervisor of Operations and Laurie Helling, Manager of Recreation Services. Baker asked if there is an opportunity here to "merchandise" dead times at the Community Center or other facilities by giving discounts to senior citizens with no discounts given at heavy use times. Helling said Community Education programs are discounted across the board. She said Baker's idea is a good one to generate revenue. Baker said that his concern is having people come in at peak times and getting a discount when there are limited facilities. Breitenstein asked if the discount would be for memberships only. Helling said the discount would apply to both memberships and any programs that are offered. Joyer said she feels that an across the board discount would be easier. She did not feel that senior citizens would take away peak periods of time since most seniors participate in these activities during the day anyway. She feels giving seniors a discount will generate more use of the facilities and encourage seniors to utilize the facilities. r.J; • UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. May 15, 1989 -7-- Cook said he agrees with Baker. There should be a balance of participation. He does not see a reason why a retired person cannot adjust his schedule to come in during the day. Belling said staff's position is that many of the senior citizens are long time residents of Eden Prairie and this would be the City's way of showing its appreciation for their many years of contribution to these facilities. She added that there is a limited number of seniors who register for these programs and the discount would not make a significant difference. MOTION: Baker moved to recommend giving senior citizens a 50% discount on memberships and programs at the Community Center with a re-evaluation to be done in one year. Cook seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. Breitenstein added that perhaps a notation could be made on the membership cards asking the seniors to use the facilities at off peak hours. IX, REPORT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 2, 1989 There was no report. A. City Manager's Update - May 5, 1989 This is an information item only. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Joyer moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Richard seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Lois Boettcher Recording Secretary //2 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources—pc_ DATA: May 9, 1989 SUBJECT: Petition from Spoon Ridge Neighborhood Attached is a May 2, 1989 petition from the Spoon Ridge neighborhood requesting the City consider funding the construction of a bicycle trail along County Road from Spoon Ridge to Franlo Road. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources staff concur with the safety concerns of the residents living in this neighborhood and support their request for Council consideration of funding this project in the 1990 general operating fund budget. There has been considerable discussion regarding a possible fall park bond referendum that would include this project. If the Council decides on an amended referendum for the fall of 1989, staff would recommend including this project on the referendum. A decision on the fall referendum would most likely occur prior to final review of the 1990 budget. BL:mdd • I • • May 2, 1989 i Dear Mayor Peterson and City nril Members: We the residents of Spoonridge wish to lodge the following con- cerns and request for remedying a potenti.onally life threatening sit- uation. Our problem is that our neighborhood has no access to other neighborhoods or neighboring parks other than County Road 1 for biking, walking, or jogging. County Road 1, still being registered as a rural highway, holds a speed limit of 50mph with no shoulders. We are basically an established neighborhood with 30 children and many adult bikers, walkers, and joggers. Let's look at how this problem originated: The original plan for our cul-de-sac's called for a trailway access between the addresses of 10730 and 10750 Spoonridge and 9800 and 9810 Cromwell. According to the map at the Park and Recreation Department at City Hall, the easement still exists on the Spoonridge side, but was blocked on the Cromwell side when Cromwell was developed. This should have never happened. The only remedy we foresee, is to put a trailway between Spoon- ridge and Franlo on the north side of County Road 1. Monies should have been put aside as this neighborhood was developed for our usage of the neighborhood park systems. • We are justly concerned for the safety of our families, as well as surrounding neighborhood children visiting our cul-de-sacs. They travel either County Road 1 or cut :.across the Olympic Hills Golf Course. Neither is a safe or acceptable alternative. As a neighborhood we supported and solicited for the Park Referendum which would have allowed for the trailways completion. Because we are the only neighborhood with this situation in Eden Prairie, we feel this issue needs to be dealt with separately. It concerns us that we may join the increased number of fatalities that is following the population explosion in Eden Prairie. We wish to be heard by the City Council before the Budget for 1990 is voted on in June of 1989. • Concerned Spoonridge Citizens Mike and Sue Levi 10943 Spoonridge ( 941-4856 enc 1 (1 DDRESS SI ONATUF.'E I]EU1:1“,nRek 109a3 0o3�,a / cr „ c., Sudy rn i-Dy- CL: -_I OU.5 ��ccr 7 R ,e �mao 14/ll. . r i .scijitaz ./ it Lk., .. __ /,)73.E 4".),,, z iC,,GY i . ,A,.�nr>r-t � n cc /Oslo S x owl RUT64 QC-1.-.CL C1-94:v‘,..)1 .3,,L aleasc7r.z. /od3o Stour- . _ . , i 9- .ram_ c etc ��cuL,,.i:.,t.g /09�3 S•,aamt .. 1,3/4(4 `l .: L • c. 11/44-4" . DOKN L-121SINt L\vO 1E io�3o Spoon n IDG-c _ Chlui3 . 4 c-:a,- t.lINv •.1 ��us�L 10 �3 3 o:Dn / tr : ._.jiicAt y� < t/cuc �'--'Llr;h0L, ,,d�kue. lkci:oicL I079v Spoo , edy� _ .1/444 P� _I Dchr«hcchzcek raIJ3 Spoon R,d; 2) /// ti- .i ' ., '1 04 , t— _ /o?6.3 ��//�� r-t `7127 I�� �. //D 113 �-� , 2:-;;',„ r ( r /0--di/c,,,,,o4— ,,,,, 5,-„, ,e/1) ,,,. A , ,e, „ _____.: Sum C EG i Cl;' " 947n)'() C C Lam() , , JC,C ` ;Gy w ,Ci 7,'0</,�.,2'ev ,ucL5 5i'.�c. .d, 3 ` � ✓ J NAME DURESS :7 s I GIJ E /4 "‘?0 k990 patokpid: Yv\ 0 c? 5 0 Do,„ ID 803 5rucr,\ R cy— " ry\ r 03 viL qat- I Proon te7:-.77 A4-4Z- c_fe,L) C,9,0111r -S /1)7," -YAW) i0 • ‘-"; UNAPPROVED MINUTES Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission May 15, 1989 B. Petition from the Spoon Ridge Neighborhood for the City to Construct a Bike Trail Along Co. Rd. 1 Refer to memo dated May 9, 1989 from Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. Cross said that a petition was received from the Spoon Ridge Neighborhood along with a letter from Mike and Sue Levi. This neighborhood was a strong supporter of the bond referendum. They are requesting the City to install a trail along Co. Rd. 1 from Spoon Ridge to Franlo Road. Staff is recommending that this trail be added to the 1990 budget unless a bond referendum which includes this trail, passes before that time. Baker asked which side of Co. Rd. 1 the trail would be located. Cross said the residents are requesting a trail on the north side, but staff would consider putting a trail on both sides of Co. Rd. 1 up to Hwy. 18. Baker asked what the cost would be for a trail on both sides of Co. Rd. 1. Cross said the cost would be approximately $60,000. Richard noted that this is a particularly busy stretch of road and he feels it would be worth the money to construct a trail on both sides. MOTION: Baker moved to recommend approval of trails on the north and south sides of Co. Rd. 1 up to Hwy. 18. Shaw seconded the mction and it passed 5-0. V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS None • MEMORANDUM 11 TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission THRU: Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect DATE: May 31, 1989 SUBJECT: Contract Award for Tennis Court Improvements at Wyndham Knoll Park and Franlo Park In early May, the Commission and Council gave authorization for staff to solicit bids for the construction of tennis courts at Franlo Park and Wyndham Knoll Park. Plans and specifications were completed, advertised and distributed. Five bids were received ranging in price from $42,227 to $53,376. A detailed breakout is as follows: Finley Bros. Enterprises $42,227 Midwest Asphalt $47,584 Barber Construction $47,917 Preferred Paving $49,617 Hardrives, Inc. $53,376 Staff recommends awarding the contract to Finley Bros. Enterprises in the amount of $42,227. Money for this project will come from cash park fees. BPC:mdd /J y`; 3 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-131 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the foiiowifig improvements to wit: I.C. 52-123 (CSAH 1 and 18 Area Storm Sewer Improvements) 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 one week, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be received until 10:00 A.M., June 29, 1989, 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, July 11, 1989 at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600 Executive Drive, 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 June 6, 1989. Gary D.Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk Y Y Y r Ofm ':IS.'5-68, In","sir eraon of NOhI'HERN STATES POWER COMPANY,).crcinafter called"NSF',extending its facilities to make _ volt, phase. wire underground service available to tl;:�u,rnc-t _City of Fdon ri m a)!service address County Rcad 4 d Hwy 5 _ (city) _Fgen Prai ri.e_ the sum Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred Sixty & 00L100 DoT)lars will be paid to NSF'by(other than above) City of Eden Prairie 00)) Address cither than above) 7600 ExeCut Drive City Eden Px- ).do Zip in accordance with the following terms: 30 days after :'_r9_2C.t by ESP C, dit A:;coval Receipt of the above amount hereby acknowledged on behalf of NSF by 1. The customer hereby grants NSF the right,privilege and easement to install,operate and maintain its undergro';nd facilities on the property as described above and/or at the approximate location as shown on the attached"Exhibit A". 2. The customer also agrees that,prior to NSF starting work:(a)the route of NSP's underground installation shall be accessible to NSP's equipment:(b)all obstructions shall be removed from such route at no cost or expense to NSP:(c)ground elevation along the route shall not be above or more than four(I)inches below the finished grade;and(d)the area under the transformer pad shall be compacted to at least 2000 lbs./sq. ft. 3. N/A agrees to pay all additional installation costs incurred by NSF because of(a)soil conditions that impair the installation of underground facilities,such as rock formations,etc.,(b) sidewalks,curbing,black top,pacing,sod or other landscaping and obstructions along the cable route.NSP will backfill trench with existing soil. Compaction along cable route and restoration of construction area on customer property is the responsibility of the customer. 4. NSP is not responsible for any customer owned underground facilities not exposed at the time service is installed. 5. The underground installation may be subject to a winter construction charge if it is installed between October 1 and April 15. N/A agrees to pay this charge if NSF determines winter conditions exist when the underground facilities are installed.NSP will waive the winter construction charge if prior to October lot the customer is ready to accept electrical service.has executed his form and has notified NSF' in writing that the requirements of Paragraph 2 hereof have been fulfilled. 6. Customer will install NSF'approved'protective barriers where pad-mounted transformers are to be installed in parking area or area of vehicular traffic. 7. The underground facilities installed by NSP,shall be the property of NSP and any payments made by the customer,or his contractor,shall not entitle him to any ownership interest or rights therein. 8. The customer agrees to pay the cost of relocating any portion of said underground facilities made to accomodate his needs or requited because of his altering the grade,additions to structures,installing patios,decks or gardens or any other conditions which makes maintenance of the company facilities impractical. 9. Customer must provide the following minimum clearance around the transformer:front,10 feet;sides and back,2 feet: EXCEPTION side facing building must have 30"clearance.These clearances must be at the same grade as the transfomers. If screening is to be used,the area in front of the transformer must be left open or a hinged door,easily operable by one man,must be provided.The area must be accessible 24 hours a day. $_ Excess U.G.Distribution Lateral $ Winter Const Charge (Primary Cable) (Sec paragraph 5) $ Excess U.G.Service Lateral $ Specific Service Location or Route $ U.G.Service Lateral $?4.,268_0OReplace Overhead Line With (Secondary Service From Utility Pole) Underground Line $ U.R.D Installation Including $ Temporary Service FiA'A C.G.Service Lateral $ Other(explain) $ U.G.Diztrihution Lateral(Primary Cable) Trench Ft. "Customer agrees to pay monthly Residential Service Underground rate of the type of installation indicated by a double asterisk. LT Applicable ,:t Not Applicable Dated this 1 2 t h day of May 19 89 Date this day of 19 Customer CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Contractor fay. By NSF'Rcpre,a-nt;rive LH Nelson Division NSP Proj'Serv.No. Coast $ Rem.$ Maim.$ ()per.$ Transf.$ Total$ WRITE—O.•,SOn I,cao.,r,,,np•CANARY—Q.,uw,Csn,u,ri, E�q'nsering•PINK—Carman ' /G- 7 Carman /it,a w•b' • iI\ EST NO r'_'-- -r ---- f _..... ..- \ EST,BY--_ v— DATE-- =- _ TEL CO NO 4. ....__,..._., «. 1 BUS BOOK ' 'LPLATE I.1G Trl�c FEEDER MAP k)SG CF,9 -I-_--.--_ .. _ .- --- _... f ;,,. _ LOCATION NO ' I _._ UG UTILITIES 1 RIGHLOF•WAY • REO OK I PER.,EAS TELL AREA• I ICI Tv ... -- - _..._. ..._. -�. -- A) _ GAS..__. i ,STarE __. _ _ 1-11vY Nora ` NSP J ;COUNTY JrCK 5 JUD�j, - -( c7J UrrL�2 r;w \ 1r�1'� SIGNALS IR.R. Y .7 JJ� I .. • / I .. • :OTHER_ _ i DES RN,/ OK i �,-,,ti 1 'SURVEY 1 /C<ir OTHER .. PK BD.SCHOOL BD.R.AIRPORT ' \\n --- / / V _ _- _. \\� F., Airr i _j5 _ _ ,./ ..., I .t ll7_ �„r , I \ I S-/ ,f /ALL-_ILL cP.P,L_c \ 1 . OD we r' P . 6z rP�c ro l'.� rrl -z7 rc,.7-..J .-.0 �. I -I ._ .... .._-.-- /.+.-or,a.d reia‘-,:•.�. wall c/ 7r� II•,f. ..�a I Ili_ — -+-- ' . r7 j !ram r Y, d r..n \ - 1 IDTZ'J^J,JE•� I X. .._... . _ .. ..-.. . a L � I DI ISC 0 V �V! - - - . . ._ -1 �' .I _ --41 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-94 RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer to the City Council recommending the following improvements to wit: I.C. 52-144 (Bluff Road Sanitary Sewer, Watermain & Street Improvements) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEO BY THE EOEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: 1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements in accordance with the report and the assessment of property abutting or within said boundaries for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to M.S.A. Section 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated total cost of the improvements as shown. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 11th of July, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600 Executive Orive. The City Clerk shall give published and mailed notice of such hearing on the improvements as required by law. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 6, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-110 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 52-152 (Cedar Ridge Storm Sewer Improvements) 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 one week, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be received until 10:00 A.M., June 29, 1989, 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, July 11, 1989 at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600 Executive Drive, 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 June 6, 1989. Gary D.Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • lor/ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-111 RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer to the City Council recommending the following improvements to wit: I.C. 52-155 (CSAH 1 By-Pass/Turn Lane at Cedar Ridge Elementary School) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: 1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements in accordance with the report and the assessment of property abutting or within said boundaries for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to M.S.A. Section 429.D11 to 429.111, at an estimated total cost of the improvements as shown. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 11th of July at 7:30 P.M. at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600 Executive Drive. The City Clerk shall give published and mailed notice of such hearing on the improvements as required by law. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 6, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-112 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 52-155 (CSAH 1 By-Pass/Turn Lane at Cedar Ridge Elementary School) 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 ( one week, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be received until 10:00 A.M., June 29, 1989, 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, July 11, 1989 at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 76D0 Executive Drive, 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 June 6, 1989. Gary D.Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk /JJ? __EOM No.71 M-OUILCLAMt OEE{L__.Nlnnewte_l'^pr!q_�ron:.r.grye e1L ll9ta!Cor __. ce,Ro.rmn e.n.rm,o • No delinquent lazes and transfer entered;Certificate • of Real Estate Value ( I filed I 1 not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. County Auditor by Deputy STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON S Dale: ;pay ,1989 • (reserved for recording data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, City of Eden Prairie a Muni slFh2L.COSRnt.atioDnder the laws of Minnesota _,Grantor,hereby conveys and quitclaims to Samuel Sa__Thtllpe_III and_Frank R Cardarel1e ,Grantee. a pa.EtneEihiy under the laws of ,real property in Hennepin _County,Minnesota,described as follows: A temporary construction easement over, under and across the following por- tions of Lot 29, Eden Prairie Acres: the Southerly 28.5 feet of said Lot 29, the Westerly 53.5 feet of the Southerly 125 feet of said Lot 29, an the Westerly 33.5 feet of the Northerly 350 feet. The purpose of this instrument is to release the foregoing temporary construction easement which was created by Easement Grant dated the 5th • day of October, 1987 and filed November 6, 1987 as Doc. No. 5344239. Id mon ws.,.mach.commw on b.ckl together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, The total consideration for this instrument is $500.00 or less. _City of Eden Prairie v'i ILrd 1,,i.unnp II.... By Its By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Hennepin }ss. The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of May ,18 89 by and the and of the City of Eden Prairie ,a Muniripel rnrrn-.,r inn • under the laws of Minnesota ,on behalf of the City of Fetes Peairi,. _ NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL loft OTHER TITL£OR RANK/ SIGNATURE OI PERSON manna ACKNOWLEDGMENT Inerr=d=,m Wenu of OiSiNplw/'b/aY uasw .et reo„y Samuel S. Thorpe III and Frank R. Cardarelle, a Minnesota partnership • sus eisrauolcnt wasoaarrto ev)NAME ANDAOOREsa: 8085 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 TIIIEL,SORENSON,THIEL,CAMPBELL AND GUNDERSON 520 Titus Bldg. 6550 York Ave. So. Minneapolis, MN 55435 1612) 920-8444 10010/ACT • /05✓ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-114 I.C. 52-159 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AT CITY WEST PARKWAY/BRYANT LAKE DRIVE AND COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 61 (SHADY OAK ROAD) WHEREAS, Plans for Hennepin County Project No. 8838 showing proposed traffic control signal installation at the intersection of County State Aid Highway No. 61 (Shady Oak Road) and City West Parkway/Bryant Lake Drive within the limits of the City, as a State Aid Project, have been prepared and presented to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL that said plans be in all things approved and that the City agrees to provide the enforcement for the prohibition of on-street parking on those portions of said Project No. 8838 within its corporate limits. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 6, 1989 Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-1I5 I.C. 52-159 RESOLUTION APPROVING PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AT CITY WEST PARKWAY/BRYANT LAKE DRIVE AND COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 61 (SHADY OAK ROAD) WHEREAS, Agreement No. PW 22-49-89 for participation in the construction and operation of a traffic control signal system at the intersection of County State Aid Highway No. 61 (Shady Oak Road) and City West Parkway/Bryant Lake Drive, as Hennepin County Project No. 8838, has been prepared and presented to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL that said agreement be in all things approved and hereby authorizes its Mayor and City Manager to sign Agreement No. PW 22-49-89, Hennepin County Project No. 8838. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 6, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk Agreement No. PW 22-49-89 County Project No. 8838 County State Aid Highway No. 61 City of Eden Prairie County of Hennepin AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of , 19 , by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Eden Prairie, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, It is considered mutually desirable to install a traffic control signal system at the intersection of City West Parkway with County State Aid Highway 61 (Shady Oak Road) within the City limits; and WHEREAS, The City has expressed willingness to participate in the construction and operating cost of said signal; and WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of M.S. SEC. 162.61, Subd. 1 and SEC. 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I The County will advertise for bids for the work and construction of the afore- said Project No. 8838, receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and enter Agreement No. PW 22-49-89 into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such bidder according to law in such case provided for counties. The Contract will be in form and will include the plans and specifications prepared by the County or its agents, which said plans and specifications are by this reference made a part hereof. II The County will administer the Contract and inspect the construction of the contract work contemplated herewith. However, the City Engineer of Eden Prairie shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. III The City agrees that any City license required to perform electrical work within the City shall be issued at no cost. Electrical inspection fees shall be not more than those established by the State Board of Electricity in the most recently recorded Electrical Inspection Fee Schedule. IV The City shall install, or cause the installation of an adequate three wire, 120/240 volt, single phase, alternating current electrical power connection to the controller cabinet at its own sole cost and expense. The City shall also provide the electrical energy for the operation of the traffic control signal to be installed at its own sole cost and expense. V The City shall reimburse the County for seventy five (75) percent of the construction cost of the contract work for said project. The construction cost of the , ' -2- c ,rti Agreement No. PW 22-49-89 project shall be the cost of all contract work and County supplied material required to complete the project. The estimated construction cost of this project is $56,000 (contract work) and $12,000 (County supplied materials) for a total cost of $68,000. It is understood that this estimate is for information purposes only and that the total final construction cost shall be considered for apportioning the cost of said project according to the provisions of this paragraph. VI In addition to payment of the City's proportionate share of the contract construction cost, the City also agrees to pay to the County a sum equal to fourteen percent (14%) of the City's share for traffic signal construction, it being understood that said additional payment by the City is its proportionate share of all engineering cost incurred by the County in connection with the work performed under this contract. VII Within sixty (60) days after an award by the County to the successful bidder, the City shall deposit with the Hennepin County Treasurer, ninety percent (90%) of the estimated City share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the project. Said estimated City share shall be based on actual contract unit prices for estimated quantities shown in the plans. The remaining ten percent (10%) is to be paid to the County upon the completion of the project and submittal to the City of the County Engineer's final Estimate for the project showing the City's final share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the project. Agreement No. PW 22-49-89 Upon payment of the Final Estimate to the successful bidder by Hennepin County, any amount remaining as a balance in the deposit account will be returned to the City; likewise any amount due the County by the City upon payment of the Final Estimate by the County shall then be paid by the City'as its final payment for the construction and engineering cost of this project. VIII The County Engineer will prepare monthly progress reports as provided in the specifications. A copy of these reports will be furnished to the City upon request. IX All records kept by the City and the County with respect to this project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. x The City shall not revise by addition or deletion, nor alter or adjust any component, part, sequence, or timing of the aforesaid traffic control signal; however, nothing herein shall be construed as restraint of prompt, prudent action by properly constituted authorities in situations where a part of such traffic control signal may be directly involved in an emergency. XI Upon completion of the work, the County shall maintain and repair said traffic control signal at the sole cost and expense of the County. Further, the County, at its expense, shall maintain 110 volt power to the line side of the fuse in the base of the signal poles for the integral street lights. The City, at its expense, shall maintain the fuse, the luminaire and the wire to the load side of the fuse in the base Agreement No. PW 22-49-89 of the signal poles for the system. XII It is further agreed that the County shall not be responsible or liable to the City or to any other person or persons whomsoever for claims, damages, action, or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the performance of any work or part hereof by the City as provided for herein; and the City further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance hereunder by the City. It is further agreed that the City shall not be responsible or liable to the County or to any other person or persons whomsoever for claims, damages, action, or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the performance of any work or part hereof by the County as provided for herein; and the County further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance hereunder by the County. XIII It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so -5- 1^`�1}1'l i J 1 Agreement No. PW 22-49-89 engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City, and that any and ail claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. XIV The provisions of M. S. 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the affirmative action policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this agreement as though fully set forth herein. In accordance with Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, affectionai/sexual preference, public assistance status, ex-offender status. or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. ./):j Agreement No. PW 22-49-89 • IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE (Seal) By: Mayor Date: And: Manager Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: By: By: Clerk of the County Board Chairman of its County Board Date: Date: And: Upon proper execution, this agreement Associate County Administrator will be T gaily valid and binding./ and County Engineer By: u - Date: Assistan G t County Attorney 0 U Date: V .S — /o- -c7 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Approved as to execution By: By: Director. Department of Public Works Assistant County Attorney Date: Date: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-116 1.C. 52-074 (PHASE II) RESOLUTIDN APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. I TO CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. PW 70-49-87 WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 4 (EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD) BETWEEN WESTGATE DRIVE AND TERREY PINE DRIVE WHEREAS, Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 for participation in the improve- ments to County State Aid Highway No. 4 (Eden Prairie Road) which includes a traffic control signal system at the intersection of County State Aid Highway No. 4 (Eden Prairie Road) and Wagner Way, as Hennepin County Project No. 8122, has been prepared, presented and approved by the Eden Prairie City Council. WHEREAS, Supplement No. 1 to Agreement No. PW 70-49-B7 includes construction of an additional 452 feet of bike path adjacent to County State Aid Highway No. 4 south of Terrey Pine Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL that said supplement to agreement be in all things approved and hereby authorizes its Mayor and City Manager to sign Supplement No. 1 to Agreement No. PW 70-49-87, Hennepin County Project No. B122. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 6, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk I J_1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-1I7 I.C. 52-074 (PHASE II) RESOLUTION APPROVING CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TERREY PINE DRIVE AND WAGNER WAY WHEREAS, Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 for participation in the improve- ments to County State Aid Highway No. 4 (Eden Prairie Road) which includes a traffic control signal system at the intersection of County State Aid Highway No. 4 (Eden Prairie Road) and Wagner Way, as Hennepin County Project No. 8122, has been prepared, presented and approved by the Eden Prairie City Council. WHEREAS, Agreement No. PW 27-49-89 for participation in City requested improvements to Terrey Pine Drive and Wagner Way, as part of Hennepin County Project No. 8122, has been prepared and presented to the City. ( NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL that said agreement be in all things approved, as amended, and hereby authorizes its Mayor and City Manager to sign Agreement No. PW 27-49-89, Hennepin County Project No. 8122. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 6, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk Agreement No. PW 27-49-89 County Project No. 8122 S.A.P. 27-604-08 County oState Eden Prairiehwey No. 4 City f County of Hennepin CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of , 19 _, by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Eden Prairie, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, There exists in full force and effect Agreement No. 70-49-87, dated March 22, 1988, between the County and the City covering the preparation of all pertinent documents for the construction of County State Aid Highway No. 4 between 616 feet south of Terrey Pine Drive and Westgate Drive (Engineer's Stations 164+79 to 192+00) as shown on the County Engineer's plans for County Project No. 8122, which improvement contemplates and includes grading, drainage, bituminous surfacing, traffic signal system and other related improvements; and WHEREAS, the City has requested the following additions to the project as widening of City streets beyond the radius points of CSAH 4: Terrey Pine Drive - widening roadway for a left hand turn lane. Wagner Way - widening roadway for a right hand turn lane, WHEREAS, The above described work lies within the corporate limits of the City, and /��,, -1 . Agreement 'Ao. PW 27-49-89 11 WHEREAS, The County Engineer has heretofore prepared an engineer's estimate of quantities and unit prices of material and labor for the above described work and an estimate of the total cost for contract work in the sum of Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Nine Dollars and Forty Cents ($11,279.40). A copy of said estimate (marked Exhibit "A") is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of M.S. SEC. 162.17, Subd. 1 and SEC. 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I That the County will add the work to the construction of the aforesaid Project No. 8122, and enter into a contract supplemental agreement with the contractor at the unit prices specified in the bid of such contractor, according to law in such case provided for counties. II The County will administer the contract supplemental agreement and inspect the construction of the contract work contemplated herewith. However, the City Engineer of Eden Prairie shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. III The City shall reimburse the County for the construction cost of the contract work as contained in the supplemental agreement for said project and the total final contract construction cost shall be apportioned as set forth in the Cost Estimate in said Exhibit Agreement No. PW 27-49-89 11 "A" attached hereto. It is further agreed that the Engineer's Estimate referred to on Page 1 of this agreement is an estimate of the construction cost for the contract work on said project and that the unit prices set forth in the contract with the successful bidder and the final quantities as measured by the County Engineer shall govern in computing the total final contract construction cost for apportioning the cost of said project according to the provisions of this paragraph. IV In addition to payment of the City's proportionate share of the contract construction cost, the City also agrees to pay to the County a sum equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the amount computed as the City's share of the said contract construction cost for roadway construction, it being understood that said additional payment by the City is its proportionate share of all engineering costs incurred by the County in connection with the work performed under this contract. V Within thirty (30) days after approval of this agreement by the County, the City shall deposit with the Hennepin County Treasurer, ninety percent (90%) of the estimated City share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the supplemental agreement. The remaining ten percent (10%) is to be paid to the County upon the completion of the project and submittal to the City of the County Engineer's Final Estimate for the project showing the City's final share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the supplemental agreement. I l-3• Cr\ Agreement No. PW 27-49-89 Upon payment of the Final Estimate to the successful bidder by Hennepin County, any amount remaining as a balance in the deposit account will be returned to the City; likewise any amount due the County by the City upon payment of the Final Estimate by the County shall then be paid by the City as its final payment for the construction and engineering cost of this project. VI The County Engineer will prepare monthly progress reports as provided in the specifications. A copy of these reports will be furnished to the City upon request. VII All records kept by the City and the County with respect to this project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. VIII It is agreed that the City shall, at its own expense, remove and replace all City owned signs that are within the construction limits of this project. IX It is further agreed that each party to this agreement shall not be responsible or liable to the other or to any other person whomsoever for any claims, damages, actions, or causes of actions of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the performance of any work or part hereof by the other as provided herein; and each party further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance of its own work as provided herein. �4, Agreement No. PW 27-49-89 X It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. XI The provisions of M. S. 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and djscrimination and the affirmative action policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this agreement as though fully set forth herein. Agreement No. PW 27-49-89 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE (Seal) By: Mayor Date: And: Manager Oate: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: By: By: Clerk of the County Board Chairman of its County Board Oate: Oate: And: Upon proper execution, this agreement Associate County Administrator will e legally valid and binding, and County Engineer By: Date: Assisant County Attorney U Date: S-IO- Ry RECOMMENOEO FOR APPROVAL Approved as to execution By: By: Director, Department of Public Works Assistant County Attorney Oate: Date: r U1OO o 0 0 0 0 OoOOOUI o .-4 r-I r OQ V'Ul Ul Ul 0000Oo o Ul v 01 M (p7 {..,M r 0 0..i Q n V'•0•0 1 .y• 01 ...� 1 N NM N r r Olf10p ry N O to(n 4 r r 01 r O 011DO V'r yr lD to c?h.V'vl.-�ln N b 01 �VT ur VT N.</T VT 7 VTVT r.t<?<? V!• VT .4.-4 N N .. 5.4 VT tn. O O O O O O O O O O O O tl100N r.r O r.�.r.-i tll Ul O 0 ...1 r v t0 r en p en .--fi e ry 01 co a'R N.ti • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Ul Ul OtlI co CD Ul Ul O N 000 Ul N N O M O 0.r VD M r-N O 0 N N VD .y co Ol t0 R O in.O O VT VT S/T t0 Ul 10 N N./1 N.-1.N in.N R O VT.4 O VT VT VT VT Vf VT VT in- M VT VT O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . • • • • • • • 5q k 0001 sT 1f100 N.y.-10100 09 O Ul rryi CO V'.ti N.-1.y r ti N . R,j Ul0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tt� Qom.r t l l t 0 v'U l O O O l D O O o t l 1 CO l D8 ul M.-,l0 Cr N1 O NO0 MrQ r .E N �'M 0 N 01R CP.-i.- OIn 01 t11 O (!l to.. N VD.0...0 M v'VT.0..�VT h.co-a VT v' N {t^(f VT VT VT VT VT VT l VT VT trt Q . tr). m oO00000000OOoo .'i Ll. N01 CON Mt01D 0 N.--1 Ul N ON a,CO 0:m COCO 0 0.U I N M N .-1 N-1 U 1 O N N.-i.-. N M U NI26 z ap N O U1 OOOO Ul OO O 000 Ul U1 E-. . . . .U. .Ul .00000r.. 1Eg NNMM NO CO r O OO 01 Ul.ti VT V.V7 VT.-IV).-1 M t?O MV}in.in. VT VT VT V? B VT ���J�y! q F L.L P co ^M N ZW 4KM wM N._ ii..A V ft; II-; H 1 N gIaoZZ 1 i i - 1 g 6 il . . Cii H 111 ' lm 'AEI `/rcTir7\ ll:P MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie FROM: Craig Dawson (P1\ DATE: June 1, 1989 l�1� SUBJECT: Amendments to City Code regarding license Requirements for Refuse Collectors Amendments proposed to Section 5.36 of the City Code would provide most Eden Prairie residents with recycling collection services. In accordance with decisions made during the past several months, these expanded collection services would be required in order for refuse collectors to obtain a license to do business in the City. Major provisions of this proposed ordinance include: 1) Curbside collection of source-separated recyclables for all residential units which furnish trash containers for their individual units; 2) Collection of newsprint, all metal cans, and all glass (inclusion of other materials in the future would require a Code amendment); 3) Recycling containers of a type approved by the City to be provided by the licensee to each customer; 4) Collection of recyclables on a weekly basis and on the same day as collection of non-recycled refuse; 5) Items 1-4 above to be provided by August 1, 1989; 6) Weekly collection of separated yard wastes to begin by October 1, 1989; and 7) Reporting to be required on weight of recycled and non-recycled residential waste collected. This proposed ordinance has been prepared and approved by the City Attorney. CWD:bran • 4 ORDINANCE NO. 89- 19 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 5 BY AMENDING SECTION 5.36 RELATING TO THE LICENSING OF COLLECTORS OF SOLID WASTE, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1, AND SECTION 5.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Eden Prairie City Code Chapter 5, Section 5.36 shall be and is amended to read as follows: SEC. 5.36. LICENSING OF COLLECTORS OF SOLID WASTE Subd. 1. Purpose and Findings. The Council of the City of Eden Prairie finds that the present practice of disposing of solid waste in land disposal facilities commonly referred to as landfills is unacceptable because such disposal is detrimental both in the short-range and long-range to the environment in that it causes pollution and contamination of underground and surface waters, the air and natural flora and fauna, it is harm- ful to the health and safety of persons and property because of the generation of noxious and dangerous odors and gases, including methane gas, the contamination of waters and air, and the blowing of airborne particles and contaminants causes social and/or economic harm to persons and property who reside, or which is, in proximity to landfills and should be done only in the absence of reasonably available alternatives. In an effort to ameliorate and eliminate so far as possible the social, economic and physical harm caused by the disposal of solid waste in landfills, the Council of the City hereby adopts the following provisions relating to the collection of solid waste, recyclable waste and yard waste separated at its source. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the following meanings. a. Disposal Facility - Disposal facility means a waste facility permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA") that is designed or operated for the purpose of disposing of waste on or in the land. b. Geographic Service Area - Geographic service area means that area incorporated within the boundaries of the City. c. Licensee - Licensee means a person licensed to collect and transport solid waste as provided in this Section. d. Recyclable Waste - Recyclable waste means those components of solid waste consisting of glass, metal containers, and newsprint, each of which has been separated by a residential customer into containers in which such components are segregated. e. Residential Customer - Residential customer ( means a person or persons who is or are customers of a licensee residing in a single, two, three, or four family residence and those residing in other residences who furnish containers for solid waste for their individual use. f. Yard Waste - Yard waste means solid waste consisting of grass clippings and leaves only. g. Solid Waste - Solid waste means garbage, refuse, sludge from a water supply treatment plant or air contaminant treatment facility, and other discarded waste materials and sludges, in solid, semisolid, liquid, or contained gaseous form, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include hazardous waste; animal waste used as fertilizer; earthen fill, boulders, rock; sewage sludge; solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage or other common pollutants in water resources, such as silt, dissolved or I6l3L suspended solids in industrial waste water effluents or discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 402 of the federal Water Pollution Control • Act, as amended, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows; or source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Subd. 3. License Required. It is unlawful for any person to collect solid waste from any person, or transport the same, without a license therefor from the City. Subd. 4. Exception. Nothing in this Section shall prevent a person from collecting or transporting solid waste from the person's own residence or place of business provided the following rules are observed: (1) all solid waste is (a) transported in a container that is liquid-tight on all sides and the bottom and has a tight-fitting cover on top, or (b) in a vehicle that is leak-proof and completely covered by canvas or other means or material so as to completely eliminate the possibility of loss of cargo, and (2) all solid waste shall be dumped or unloaded only at a disposal facility licensed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. ►31;b Subd. 5. The following are conditions applicable to each licensee for a license for the collection of solid waste. a. Each licensee is authorized to collect solid waste within the geographical service area. b. Each licensee shall use vehicles for the collec- tion and transportation of solid waste in good operating condition, of such design and so equipped so as to prevent loss in transit of liquid or solid cargo. The vehicles shall be kept clean and free from offensive odors and shall not be stopped or parked longer than reasonably necessary to collect solid waste. c. No licensee shall operate a vehicle on any city street which exceeds eight tons per axle weight. d. No licensee shall operate in a residential district after 8:30 o'clock P.M. or before 5:30 o'clock A.M. of any day, and shall not operate in a residential district on Sunday. e. Each licensee shall exhibit evidence of the license in a prominent position on each vehicle used in the collection or transportation of solid waste. f. Each licensee shall be solely responsible { for the provision, at its expense, of all personnel and equipment necessary to collect and transport all solid waste for which a license is granted by the City for delivery and disposal in accordance with the City Code and such regulations as the City may from time to time establish. g. Each licensee shall take all precautions 'necessary to protect the public against injury and shall defend, indemnify and save the City harmless from and against all liabilities, losses, damages and claims of damages (including all reasonable costs, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incident thereto) suffered or incurred by the City that may arise by reason of any act or omission on the part of the licensee, its agents, or independent contractors, while engaged in the collection and transportation of solid waste. Each licensee shall also defend, indemnify and save the City harmless from and against any and all claims, liens and claims for labor performed or material furnished incident to the said collection and transportation by licensee including claims for material or services furnished or subcontracted for by it. Each licensee shall also defend, indemnify, and save the City harmless from and against all liabilities, losses, damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees and expenses of City), causes of action, suits, claims, demands and judgments of any nature arising from violation of any representation, agreement, warranty, covenant or condition made by licensee or imposed upon licensee by Section 5.36 of the City Code. h. Each licensee shall obtain and furnish to City evidence of all insurance required under this subdivision, covering all vehicles to be used and all operations to be performed by licensee in collecting and transporting solid waste. Each policy of insurance required under this subdivision shall name the City as an additional insured. Existence of the insurance required herein shall be established by furnishing certificates of insurance issued by �U�is insurers duly licensed to do business within the State of Minnesota in force on the date of commencement of the license period, and continuing for a policy period of at least one (1) year and providing the following coverages: (1) Public liability insurance, including general liability, automobile liability, completed operations liability, and loading and unloading liability in the following amounts. (2) Bodily injury liability in the amount of at least $100,000 for injury or death of any one person in any one occurrence. (3) Bodily injury liability in the amount of at least $300,000 for injuries or death arising out of any one occurrence. (4) Property damage liability in the amount of at least $50,000 for any one occurrence. Such general liability and automobile liability insurance policy or policies shall provide contractual liability insurance, specifically referring to and covering the obligation of licensee to defend, indemnify and save harmless the City, its officials, agents and employees from alleged claims or causes of action for bodily injury or property damage as provided in Section 5.36 hereof. Said general liability and automobile liability policy or policies shall contain an endorsement as follows: The policy to which this endorsement is attached is intended to comply with and furnish the coverages required by Section 5.36 of the City Code of the City of Eden Prairie. If anything in any other attachment, endorsement or rider conflicts with the provisions of said Section 5.36, then the provisions of said Section 5.36 shall prevail. Any deductible amount provided for in any part of the policy will be paid by the insurer upon establishment of legal liability of any insured, and the insurer shall be entitled to reimbursement from the insured for such deductible amount. Said policies of insurance shall be furnished by a licensee to City for examination and approval prior to the effectiveness of any license issued to a licensee; together with a certificate or certificates executed by an authorized representative of the insurer, certifying A to the insurance coverage herein required, and stipulating that the policy will not be cancelled, nor any material change effected, without first giving thirty (30) days written notice to City. { After examination and approval of said policies by City, they may be returned to the licensee, but the certificates of insurance shall be retained by City. Upon request by City, licensee shall promptly furnish to City for examination at any time all contracts of insurance required herein. Each licensee shall, on each anniversary date of the license, furnish City with evidence satisfactory to the City of the insurance required hereunder. J')'2 i. Each licensee shall at all times operate its business of collecting, transporting and disposing of solid waste in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws. Each licensee shall obtain and maintain all licenses, permits, or other authority required by each county in which it operates, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and any other governmental agency having jurisdiction over its activities. t Subd. 6. In addition to the conditions imposed upon licensees set forth in Subd. 5 hereof the following are conditions applicable to each licensee for a license for the collection of solid waste from residential customers effective August 1, 1989. Each such licensee shall, a. Collect or provide for the collection of recyclable waste from each residential customer of the licensee on a weekly basis on the same day or days that the licensee collects other forms of solid waste from such residential customer. b. Not deliver to, dump, or dispose of recyclable waste on or in a disposal facility. n c. Provide for and collect yard waste from each residential customer of the licensee, at least weekly during the period October - November, 1989. Commencing January 1, 1990 a licensee shall provide for, and collect, yard waste from each such residential customer at least as frequently and on such day or days as it shall collect other forms of solid waste from such residential customer. d. Except during the period June - September, 1989 inclusive, a licensee shall not { deliver to, dump or dispose of yard waste on or in a disposal facility. e. Make available for sale and sell at a reasonable cost to the licensee's residential customers, containers for recyclable waste approved by the City. f. Provide to the City not later than the 15th day of each month a written report setting forth the amount, by weight or volume, of each of the following collected during the preceding month from all of the residential customers of the licensee in the City: (1) glass (2) metal containers (3) newsprint (4) yard waste (5) all other solid waste The reports shall also set forth the costs incurred by the licensee in providing the services for the collection of recyclable waste and yard waste required by this Section. All documents evidencing the amount of the foregoing materials received by the licensee from the facility or facilities at which the foregoing have been disposed shall be retained by the licensee for a period of at least five years and shall be available for inspection by representatives of the City at all reasonable times within the County of Hennepin or a contiguous county. /o7.M Subd. 7. Failure to perform, meet or comply with any 4 condition or obligation imposed upon a licensee by the City Code shall constitute a sufficient ground to withhold issuance, suspend, or revoke the license of a licensee. Subd. 8. Relationship of the Parties. The City shall have no responsibility or obligation whatsoever with respect to the collecting, transporting or disposal of solid waste, or payment for such services to any person, and nothing in this Section shall be deemed to constitute a licensee a partner, joint ven- turer, agent or representative of the City or to create the rela- tionship of employer-employee. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty For Violation" and Section 5.99 are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated ver- batim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of 1989, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1989. ►3 1) ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1989. )07 -D - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician C ?G'J4. DATE: June 1, 1989 SUBJECT: EDEN WOOD CAMP The Association for Retarded Citizens of Hennepin County, operators of Eden Wood Camp, have requested City Council approval of a land alteration permit for the construction of a new access drive to Eden Wood Camp located south of West 62nd Street and west of Indian Chief Road (please refer to attached plans). This request is one segment of a master plan for the camp. The intent is to relocate the existing driveway away from camper activity areas to provide for safer and more efficient vehicular access and camper transport. This proposal has been reviewed by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources and Planning Departments and have found this request to be consistent with City Codes and Policies. The Planning Department has recommended that the parking area be increased in width from 60 feet to 63 feet. The applicant has submitted a plan for the replacement of trees lost due to construction of this driveway. Recommend that prior to issuing a land alternation permit, applicant shall submit to the City a tree replacement bond guaranteeing the replacement of 204 caliper inches. JJ:ssa /J7( MEMORANDUM 11 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Natalie Swaggert DATE: June 2, 1989 SUBJECT: Resolution No. 89-123 Background In 1987 the City of Eden Prairie adopted a revised Employee Benefit Program that included a Flexible Contribution Account (FCA). The FCA allowed employees to pay their dependent health insurance premiums and life insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. At this time we would like to expand the Flexible Benefit plan to allow employees to use pre-tax dollars to pay for child care expenses. The proposed plan referred to as the City of Eden Prairie De endent Care Reimbursement Plan meets all requirements of ERI9i an IRC Section . Administration of thee pTan should take only a few hours per month. As a result of this plan: * the employees taxable income is reduced resulting in less taxable income * the City's payroll taxes are reduced ACTION: Please approve the attached Resolution #89-123 which provides for the Teri-Ye-pendent care account and for continuation of the 1987 Flexible Contribution Account now called the City of Eden Prairie's Flexible Benefit Plan. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RESOLUTION NO. 89-123 WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie desires to offer its employees a flexible benefit program providing for reimbursement of dependent care expenses and payment of employees' insurance premiums, and plans titled the City of Eden Prairie Flexible Benefit Plan and the City of Eden Prairie Dependent Care Reimbursement Plan have been prepared and submitted to this City Council with a recommendation of adoption; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this City Council adopts the Plans bearing an effective date of June 1, 1989 and directs the management to implement the Plans in accordance with their terms. Gary D. Peterson Mayor John D. Frane City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #89-104 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RED ROCK SHORES FOR SCENIC HEIGHTS INVESTMENT BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Red Rock Shores for Scenic Heights Investment, dated June 2, 1989, consisting of 19.77 acres into 15 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 6th day of June, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk /J MEMU TO: City Council FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: June I, 1989 RE: RED ROCK SHORES On May 26, 1989, City Staff, including Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Roger Pauly, City Attorney; and Don Uram, Assistant Planner, met with George Hoff, proponent's attorney, to discuss the methods of mitigating tree destruction anticipated with the proposed Red Rock Shores subdivision. At this meeting, Staff presented the requirements of the policy to Mr. Hoff and discussed various alternatives. Alternatives suggested to the proponent for the development of this property includes the RI-44 zoning district. The R1-44 zoning district was designed specifically for areas in which significant natural site features occur. Based upon the current 15-lot proposal, the average lot size within the subdivision is 29,458 square feet. The R1-44 zoning district would require an additional 14,542 square feet added to each lot. A total of 10 lots could be developed if the property was zoned R1-44. It is anticipated that a significant number of additional trees could be saved with this alternative. Secondly, the proponent is requesting lot size variances for Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. This includes a reduction in sizes from 22,000 square feet to 20,057 square feet, and 18,414 square feet respectively. Staff has estimated that approximately 136 caliper inches of significant trees could be saved by eliminating one lot and meeting the City Code lot size requirement. This would reduce the overall tree loss Staff has calculated from 1,039 to 903 caliper inches, thus reducing the amount of tree replacement from 462 caliper inches to 349 caliper inches. This amount of replacement is comparable to the 300 caliper inches of trees which the proponent has indicated he would replace but not guarantee which will be explained further later in this memo. An acceptable solution would be for the proponent to agree to guarantee 349 caliper inches of plant material and to reduce the number of lots from 15 to 14. Finally, Section 11.55 "Mining Operation and Land Alteration Regulations" states that land alteration is defined as "...any destruction or disruption of vegetative cover covering an area equal to or greater than 10% of any parcel...". Staff has calculated that an estimated 33.4% of the significant trees on the site will be removed as part of the overall grading plan, 13.7% of which is within the street right-of-way. A land alteration permit such as that proposed requires City Council action. The approval, subject to conditions of a land alteration permit, shall be based upon the following factors: 1) "Whether adequate plans have been made for restoring the site of the land alterations once the alterations have been completed." The proponent has indicated a willingness to replace trees within the street right-of-way; however, does not want to be held responsible for individual lot tree replacement. Memo June 1, 1989 Page Two In response to these alternatives, Mr. Hoff indicated that the proponent is willing to replace any trees within the right-of-way which he removes based upon the submitted plans. Tree removal within the right-of-way and subsequent replacement would equal 189 caliper inches. This calculation is based upon the total amount of trees on the site which is 3,110 caliper inches and the percentage of overall tree loss. If the Council so wishes, because the developer is grading only that area within the right-of-way, the tree replacement may be based upon tree loss within the right-of-way which is 100%. If this were the case, tree replacement would equal 426 caliper inches. The proponent has indicated that he would transplant 300 caliper inches of trees on the project site; however, would not provide a guarantee for their survival. The tree policy states that a guarantee be submitted for the amount of trees planted on the site at 1-1/2 times the cost. Since implementing the Tree Preservation Policy in 1985, a total of 40 projects have been subject to tree replacement; 24 of which have provided the required guarantee. finally, the proponent has stated that tree replacement on individual lots would be the responsibility of the homeowner. Total tree replacement on the entire site is 462 caliper inches which could be reduced by 10% to 415 caliper inches based upon an assumption that extraordinary measures would be taken by the individual homeowners to save additional trees based upon specific home designs. Tree removal occurs on 8 lots. To enforce individual lot tree replacement, the proponent has stated that he would file private covenants on each lot where tree removal would occur stating that the homeowner is responsible for the individual lot grading and any required tree replacement as determined by the City. The following describes the practical difficulties of filing private covenants on each individual lots where tree replacement is to occur: 1. The amount of tree replacement minus the 189 caliper inches of trees within the right-of-way would be 273 caliper inches. The replacement of 273 caliper inches would have to occur on 8 lots. This would mean that approximately 34 caliper inches of trees would have to be transplanted on each individual lot, or 11, 3-inch trees per lot. Because these lots are already wooded, there may not be enough room to plant 11 trees on each lot. Alternative locations for these trees has not been identified. The advantage of an overall tree replacement plan, is that the trees can be spread around the subdivision. This is particularly important in this case because of the need for screening from County Road #4 and for slope restoration adjacent Red Rock Lake. 2. Although the private covenants requiring tree replacement will be filed and each homeowner would receive a copy, as a practical matter, many of the homeowners may not be aware of this requirement until they are applying for a building permit. If the homeowner is unaware of the tree replacement requirements, a hold will be placed on the building permit until a landscape plan and surety has been submitted. At this point, the homeowner may blame the City for the delays in issuing the building permit. The homeowner is also made aware of the additional cost which would be approximately $2,000 based upon $60 per caliper inch plus the cost of the guarantee and a landscape plan for 34 caliper inches. l�, i. Memo June 1, 1989 Page Three With this, the City Council has the information on the following alternative decisions regarding the appropriate use of the property. 1. The City Council could find that the R1-44 zoning district should be utilized in order to save significant site features. If this were the case, the appropriate action would be to deny the project and give direction to the proponent to return with a preliminary plat and zoning district request for the R1-44 zoning district. 2. The Council may also consider the elimination of one lot within Block 3 and require the replacement and guarantee of 349 caliper inches on the entire project site. 3. The City Council also has the discretion to deny the project if it finds that the proposed subdivision does not abide by City Code, Section 11.5, Subd. 7, Regulations and Requirements for Land Alterations. 4. The City Council could approve the project without the lot size variances, thus requiring removal of one lot from the subdivision, with the proponent's agreement to replace 189 caliper inches of trees from his construction areas guaranteeing planting and one year's growth with individual homeowners being responsible for tree replacement as a part of building permit issuance. Law O..cEB HOFF & A L L E N 300 PRAIRIE CENTER ORIVE SUITE EBO GEORGE C.HOFF• EOEN PRAIRIE,MINNEEOTA BB 94OB3Bt SEC WING OFFICE TEO A 4LLEN MN WATS 1 BOO 247 3002 120 BROAD STREET OAVIO NI.ANOERSON FA%NUMBER l6121 941 79GB qEO WING.MN 550613 PATRICIAE.KUOERER LB'I 8) 941•92e0 IB 121 3BB 314E JORUN URGE MEIEROING PETER J.SCHEUER •oleo....tad Wlwconem May 31, 1989 Mr. Chris Enger Eden Prairie City Hall 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344 Re: Red Rock Shores Tree Inventory Replacement Our File No: 2621-006 Dear Mr. Enger: This is a follow-up to our conversation of May 30, 1989, with respect to the above plat. It is my understanding that the staff will accept our proposal that Mr. Gilk will be responsible for the replacement of those trees directly affected by his construction activity (i.e. roadways and developer-installed utilities). The responsibility for compliance with the tree policy for individual lot construction will be borne by the developer of that lot. In furtherance of that, we will agree to the placement of appropriate language in the Developer's Agreement which will indicate that the individual lot owners and builders will be responsible for compliance with the tree policy for those trees removed on the individual lots during construction activity. The Developer's Agreement will then be recorded against the subdivision. If the foregoing is incorrect in any manner, please contact me immediately. I look forward to the receipt of the proposed language for the Developer's Agreement as soon as possible. sin erel , eG orge C. Hof HOF F & ALLENC GCH:lp cc: Client Mr. Roger Pauly C APRIL 11, 1989 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THE STAFF AND COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE IS IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEW OF THREE (3) SEPARATE PROJECTS: 1) STRAWBERRY HILL, 2) RED ROCK VIEW, AND 3) RED ROCK SHORES. THESE PROJECTS ARE DIRECTLY NORTH AND WEST OF THE RED ROCK LAKE 1ST AND 2ND ADDITIONS. FURTHER, THE CITY IS UNDER STUDY OF STORM SEWER AND SANITARY SEWER ALONG THE MWCC TRUNK SEWER LINE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID RED ROCK LAKE 1ST AND 2ND ADDITIONS. WE THE BELOW SIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE RED ROCK LAKE 1ST AND 2ND ADDITIONS REQUEST THAT THE CITY DIRECT A FEASIBILITY_STUDY_BE DONE TO INCORPORATE SEWER, WATER AND STREET CONSTRUCTION IN THOSE AREAS OF OUR ADDITIONS NOT EFFECTED BY THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECTS. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, NAME ADDRESS ll L- .J J ( L. S;7`10 R,S ;9'< ,/ :� :.y • 7 E/112'.. 4, -0 /, ri • n r 4 d. f M. /5 s,,.�,,,. 4,l. c h 2TE:-,77. j','...2/ ...7 ..--, • '--7- ./;--;*- ,2( 4 --)4.'71C7.'•i /✓( '/ ✓,- ,,/,,../ Oi• PAGE 1 OF 2 0 / , 1~' C 3` ( r. '•JC,).� ;) 1. L'L.l .,. 2_ /Ii)111IT /L'E _I ; 1'11.�' �.3 Cl,,r.It yr' -3 'i, .''i•` '4 r c.. ..t JL'<- / /( 1 C.,7,C /_ ,.._ - 67)(' - L'/, !��/ ,/,_j_ <i: _,I `..•/ ^./�, j\_ I,-^_l`f c lam:`• •l _ L••i i /\.., 1. !`1- /L - 1 ,_,. it t? I�j.'_; _. _ t•_ ., i .) I ! I_ II I , l:_ i:, , ;1/-''v l' 11. ; ( • ._ l I ✓si !!. /li.- C` 2 , 'L , . _ .. ..4 ;'' / i// ,, 1; '• .\. lr .f ' ,_ I'V'--3 ! 1_01- ,,F li-0 IL(,'' _.) PACE 2 OF 2 /`,-rn i.', . _folmm k/44CA 5°/ JOB II NOM =mown. . NAME ESIMM land SunwIMJ ocaIGNCubT_ f DATE a II=M �� mwWViNTVflIT la 1nFPT CHECKED BY DATE •tsawast b./k DESIGN DATA /44414.r. • s5 ACAAL • .5/6 14t60/4/<1),4,- /'7/¢R✓ ?e is oM F6. //. O.>4-t� 1�2 . /4jarv._r-. 0drey Js(nasati • . C7u Re-d O . I>r, . \-kn F F cR- 8 Z tI me ci bowvA LE. oN : . . . . . RcBcti Mp t ECa 134.03 Sooty -1)2 . (AEG• C.,#PPIN . /5'110 StuAntifi ba, .. . Bfif and Nam,/ /Sturo�j 8750 Ineadopwvale _ . Curt 4. a.,A),E' �tr�rJ�S/�o�t . 3'(iPI �CQ•V Pm we, ROt. . . CI .144 0,1 Aee fJ C/Nb -A-46ml . . /f7// e,S4Ac+,eAr M \AA s� 1 G.c3o 5 u AN IAA )tZ , • I '�j PAGE OF ( PETITION We, the residents of the Red Rock West neighborhood, 1 (including the streets of Meadowvale Dr., Red Oak Dr. and Summit Dr.) do hereby request that the road planned in the new development north of our neighborhood, end in a culdesac as the developers originally planned, instead of connecting to Red Oak Dr. The majority of people who built in our neighborhood did so because it was a quiet, dead-end area. We understand the need to have a second exit/entrance into our neighborhood for public safety, etc., but feel that the new road planned to connect Meadowvale Dr. to Lakeshore Dr. will fulfill that need. Extending Red Oak Dr. would offer a shortcut to Scenic Heights Rd. for residents in the development now being built west of Cty. Rd. 4 - changing the character of our neighborhood from one with no outside traffic to one with a possible heavy traffic flow. The major reason we have been given for having this connection is that culdesacs cause problems for plowing, mail delivery and public safety. Recent developments around us have numerous culdesacs, as does most of the City of Eden Prairie. One more culdesac does not seem to be inconsistent with past planning. PETITION 4/89 We, the residents of the Red Rock West neighborhood, (including the streets of Meadowvale Dr., Red Oak Dr., Summit Dr., and the east side of Cty. Rd. 4) do hereby request, for the purpose of keeping future new homes consistent with existing homes in our neighborhood,that the planning commission Lake the following actions: 1. Retain the current zoning of R-22 for the proposed additions of Strawberry Hill . Red Rock View Addition, and Red Rock Shores. The residents of this neighborhood bought and built in this neighborhood partially because of the large size of the lots. The entire area has the same size zoning and it Is reasonable to expect that the zoning would remain consistant. The developers who have purchased land to be developed in our neighborhood bought land zoned R-22. They should be expected to develop the lots according to the present zoning. 2. To be visually consistent with the neighborhood the frontage of the proposed lots on Meadowvale Dr. be consistent with facing lots currently on Meadowvale Dr.--125 ft. minimum as opposed to the proposed 100 ft. frontage. 3. That the setbacks of the proposed lots on Meadowvale Dr. be consistent with current construction in the rest of the neighborhood--50 feet instead of the proposed 30 feet. It would be inconsistent with the two houses presently on Meadowvale Dr. If this is not changed. 4. We would recommend that the homes built on either the existing Meadowvale Dr. or Red Oak Dr. adhere to some of the restrictive covenants existing on the rest of the lots--such as no fences in the front yard, a minimum first floor size of 1100 sq. ft. for a 2 story home, 1300 sq. ft. for a 1 story home. Eo /.."! 1 , • g7-!) &di% 194ZzZi c.• oln,•+ i• 7 S - -49 IM IR Nri le .. 111r1IPMAIli Ant law - .1,10111111 NMI 1 '0 1-422MENNELeMMIIIIIIIIIIIIEVENIELISMINKEMet. • SYNNIMILV . s-5/t :01111M E--IIM. $.1i - - - . 411111211111111r LC, 4-z)7 di. • / 7.47 • -2 c ScN . • <<A47,d, (.,I vim ll• )5ci7I L.,rrnmikDc. -.A.crn (h,ifko 1 r ( 4,47)1.. /5-` /j ,I 'F !I /, /i / C_t'f?Y.yr.•c f �l•. 9,..,,„ 1 -r ,.,_---. /r7/i :1..'» ,fir A', . i<6,1 c_p,11,,114,1 i 5 LO/ ,-,--- -14,71 (14/:74- Zje If-) PeA)71.e, iv./4 `— 1, BASS Rco oA,c oa, fob.' DaIAAM. Plant • CCra �6� n-, Q CI 111 , 6s.P Id 1,,,,,,, `L`,,,' 41/ 6'7 // Suh,. -r , 4'12 f144 4 --il.if A211 8730 Su-1 l i r •pg, t Pi1iL14,' 7(( AlM , • '[u_ D P..:Qc- 8"711 nncn Dowvfitt_ D1,_____ M1 / /l D�( �:L�"t s- 45 by :. ,„ . -, QA__ X(&5o lad a/� a h 4 ( ( Petition April 7, 1589 Wo believe that str0,.t additions to the Red Rock West neighborhood are unnecessary and would only increase traffic. The current configuration of Meadowvale Dr. and Red Oak Dr. is a ho sechoe which is more than adequate for snow removal and school buses. jr-xt ,,/,._ 0-/// ,, ,, I, f„,'G, 1, c,a, ,i k. /SP// 5,,,,,,,,;,_1 q_ P L� /ti..t .cry /5-757 ,Z-27.-,er,7 ,ez.. �./ _ / / /S1 1_/ ei 'l " /��— l��l/(i=Z /57 3 ( j,Le� .y,,,.(,, -D, _ _/ ter. ",/ ,'", -,,,,-,if /f7// c..4:,n,,.-r .. : (/Yid i'1 t„l-' ?.! i 5 / iLN--.7 7/ _..i (/�/'n�J1 1 5 f) �J�}�) M LT 11)2. I t�f��,;. . AO-Li- . /5-6 0 7 Y ILL N-�,r+T l'6 jlfc� . /)' f17� -�C/L�/ G7) ,27Gl. ( / -72t// Zi/ f?,,:C.Z2-z c��y, 766 l 4-0- 0,,4k. ..., t . '� fX‘/���,s u/, 4. I . Petition April 7, 1989 We believe that street additions to the Red Rock West neighborhood are unnecessary and would only increase traffic. The current configuration of Meadowvale Dr. and Red Oak Dr. is a horseshoe which is more than adequate for snow removal and school buses. / ,/� • pctAtA4( „few -7,1-1 ciriva20+4A, �;rrcPri i1<< rlNC�ti/1 �� ,$75c' 1/ti le:evz *Se 6/(4_4 7 P %ice �/' 5 / / un2_� « .1 a ,, l_ 4 5 L v � -�- g711 fr) ADoi CAA IVA 3.0'60 /��� G�/c d�, . £P .JII PETITION 4/89 ( I We, the residents of the Red Rock West neighborhooc., -"`'-) G�� (including the streets of Meadowvale Dr. , Red Oak Dr. any.' �,�1 Summit Dr.) do hereby request that the road planned In :h : new development north of our neighborhood, end In a cu'sztia_s as the developers originally planned, instead of connect.l'nq to Red Oak Dr. The majority of people who built In our neighborhott so because It was a quiet, dead-end area. We understate Ctlrn need to have a second exit/entrance into our neighbonccod for public safety, etc., but feel that the new road pl::nnelt to connect Meadowvale Dr. to Lakeshore Dr. will fulfil4 tiialit need. Extending Red Oak Dr. would offer a shortcut to Scenic Heights Rd. for residents in the development not being built west of Cty. Rd. 4 - changing the character c our neighborhood from one with no outside traffic to c a; with a possible heavy traffic flow. The major reason we have been given for having thi:r connection is that culdesacs cause problems for plowin , mall delivery and public safety. Recent developments around us have numerous culdesacs, as does most of the City of: cct Prairie. One more culdesac does not seem to be lncons!sterr. with past planning. nn -A.`1e- v�� � ,�re.s s I. G r- l_T.^�`� 1585\ 5v.rnrv..A--2±)'C. 8(4 ,26o oat 0t- 6. �. aJ� t 1..,_ ?7// /Jc.--,,,.,-1`.- .. 8•^� .`C ��`�%Ua .• /1; .4.,") it7,r6.c. ,F7,3/ ,S;.....,,:: �l 0•KleA f73/t fi/.h1,n, . ©,/. tt ?70O .S4n•nt ,r DR • ' to GPV .7,ou c c��?.mmi> D.PLS. i 27f/ r4ao°\(i L Da. ---- w. :,S?._Tr). ,- 8 71 1 (Y)ca noL.)wg .Q g • \--kt 61._ PO itIQ'OCCLLIA. n k1/13/1r,0.6 g6// CeLk/ Ai "t• pnvty. S (Do Pe cl,,k DF, 12- S‘c/E2- 2/t-e:-: . .)3. „1'7/t (..c-tce y h a) IL.b(-,4t_14 /) I • ac>. 0 'V 711 Q , IS)4n: al. Ini tu td,Keca., Lr r.I Ilan t \ 4:1 4'. rnalc,.r.)-1"1\ 2. 6P044 r„ 0/. -1_ • • ro c rr0c, zA. 4 \.‘ .15C.)---5 55.5Arver -Der,-?g-f51 R1E- 3.3. • 4-4-k • 0 s I-er :7 ‘4. . 5 I \ fiLALle t.t.j 6 4J IT' ,4-1-'1AFor , 'ej‘L‘t/ alp. 37 50 17 6 . 43. 44. '43 41. 1. Si. 35. ES. eslo. 67. 33. 61. Go. GI, 4,1o. 61. lo, t. 75. 74i• 1 (T7i 1 I 1 - 1ITI '').•'' '‘\ t--__,,, „ .., s 1.a, QJ • / IP I. i �u°',- �,-6 1 Ni : .. Ph1 -e �1� J I(l �g� r �.�., t. V_ __\mil, C. '4... y ,,,,,,,,,,:, ill,. r. .4r ti • :I ; '.7- 1.,',', It . ', i P / i.- J'''''... • ,•I; . V ,r \\ N • a�' i s , zc"','i.ice~ l �.;-'- ' rl' I6 1 - '' oys � ci�� 1f--xr-- ,.� .`KG �'?two ..z \." 1 it[ it/ c �� \ • t G; ,•-. , t') ♦ •\• / �u y, r 1! 7 ; n ; Y en, :1i (r.' F. B ,,,. ....:;i. i ri 'Y .-:-.„ ( .., din;,i,•1i{IUd{ tof' i I . --.,..:;,4; • , , i Icl t74 / s fr,i, t...z' g '' .�,,41,. �� 1 ,_ —__.II r,..-ter ,A; / 'j;G ; `V ''na?�r�� ,tr,,r.. �F"'-= III" - F /' i'�� i ere, sn„ o� .� 9-v 7,,T,,:c ✓ - Rf. / cJa > , ,,• ,tee f m � n_ �� ka ; - ,1r M. h .`+L' ... 5 . i vv i e.� . c - yr 7 i"jtr&J� +� ^`�L.;� t ; ��` \ of�_ , , f .1%.,..i,,,,,,,,.. j ...c...,: ..?,,,A.k ,,,T.1,,y;%.,t,..j ,,,,,.., f;:, 6.7,--.-,,I,-----..- n=r.+ _..,e --*I rT li.,. i � ,�-vcs'n jj G' F � /. ry.� (, .: ��. fJ� 6 4;r, --t_u. „.. .'o 1 t: t i l S •$ `' t ',d ';eta 7, s- r/ I u �:,i — mow- �5 a, �t C (7 To: Eden Prairie Planning Commission Apr.,7,„ 13.59 I The neighborhood we call Red Rock West, consisting of Cherfurmers on Meadowvale Dr., Red Oak Dr., Summit Dr. and the near- H_Qmem; ,am the east side of Cty. Rd. 4, was invited to a ne:i:;;htuaanmd meeting March 30, 1989 called by Bill Gilk in Wnictt• three developments (Strawberry Hil] , Red Rock View Additicm,. and' R':eri Rock Shores) which adjoin our neighborhood were presented'_ We were unhappy with the developers' plans and ea•LLed' neighborhood meeting Wed. April 5. On two days notice 2;! exa,Lies• attended. The two petitions that follow will be presenie_6Mer4sy night at the Planning Commission Meeting. We need die reu?t ad the weekend to route the petitions around the neighb:ac.o-oxb ler signatures. Also included is a copy of the attenchem ni ¢wu» meeting. These families endorse the two petitions 21-0. We expect a large turnout from the neighborhood at Mond,: planning meeting. We ask that you consider the needs of our neighborhood. Bill Sauro 8750 Meadowvale Dr. S /99' C C PETITION 4/89 We. the residents of the Red Rock West neighborhood, (including the streets of Meadowvale Dr., Red Oak Dr., Summit Dr., and the east side of Cty. Rd. 4) do hereby request, for the purpose of keeping future new homes consistent with existing homes in our neighborhood,that the planning commission take the following actions: 1. Retain the current zoning of R-22 for the proposed additions of and Red Rock sShores. The rresidents y Hill, eofd R this ock Vneighborhoodiew Addition�bought and built in this neighborhood partially because of the large size of the lots. The entire area has the same size zoning and it is reasonable to expect that the zoning would remain consistant. The developers who have purchased land to be developed in our neighborhood bought land zoned R-22. They should be expected to develop the lots according to the present zoning. 2. To be visually consistent with the neighborhood the frontage of the proposed lots on Meadowvale Dr. be consistent with facing lots currently on Meadowvale Dr.--125 ft. minimum as opposed to the proposed 100 ft. frontage. 3. That the setbacks of the proposed lots on Meadowvale Dr. be consistent with current construction in the rest of the neighborhood--50 feet instead of the proposed 30 feet. It would be inconsistent with the two houses presently on Meadowvale Dr. If this is not changed. 4. We would recommend that the homes built on either the existing Meadowvale Dr. or Red Oak Dr. adhere to some of the restrictive covenants existing on the rest of the lots--such as no fences in the front yard, a minimum first floor size of 1100 sq. ft. for a 2 story home, 1300 sq. ft. for a 1 story home. • C ( Petition ° April 7, 1989 We believe that street additions to the Red Rock West neighborhood are unnecessary and would only increase traffic. The current configuration of Meadowvale Dr. and Red Oak Dr. is a horseshoe which is more than adequate for snow removal and school buses. t , • 7 ( 1\) l6-N6o2 H oD f1E_ErrnJG CEO 9PR, S, /98 9 a Q, 11. I I Ti(1 ittE46UhAtc___ PL i.J E.5;;nCAI AU.ZT AJ '7.9/.Sb.,,,.,;r* / /Y41 /�1C4-/2/ /;o// 4.4rccgilt,r - a, ! N 0-1, Lsi4.E2- a 700 S,,k ,- � rAlZ t ti'l. Lic\. OLD5D �a`k ID \ 211, i t-c. --ke E/,/ �C� /J fC li�lit9U%y / _ yj4. /S 7ii /—,-_:Z C//lG1,C� �. v (1 at_C1'"6t1Z- 7z.- /•-by// __tic 1--44 t-biff21-1_ KW"4 0/),z( d,c D, 3 7i I M 1s-6si 5 ►yVS lZ'oC`ti3p SV14,‘ `-c--_ \ . I `�� '" ' /hi?/'U�'Y✓ � � y-fad L+ = ,, • .--- ) ,,1-4/ ifk/ off , : ,Y-& -A/11//t4 V6i7 --/71/g(6,27 ,‘b- h 37Y0 , ,, JOB. Numi kk -A 5°1 MM. DATE MUM 1n MUM 1n Awning - CHECKED BY DATE •Amclalasdn. DESIGN I1A1 F AED AC11-1 16- (01471)14- /1 ,4-eqv eew57e-0/.1 F6 f/ eez OA-& Dz. qloo e.P Mht' Xactrey J4Imsopt • .3.670 Re-or Ob.. Dr, . CL,c,„.jut c 1,‘AISU..Jk7 .k..4 c)*g s.5tIoN \ c ccEZ-7, . . q it c•OcRbot..3vALL $ /91,44t4; (-4) - /j'el 44, • ? dA. K11:44,-04te 17 a 130t,W . . . . 151 tt . ReNsiti, MA,,Ecz. I S rvN INN —3)ct , LA-PPit' . I . 15.110 5.4,4 rytAt bcf\::* . ‘'s%5\ Bid„,.. and N4,ancy SAuro . 8750 filcadowvale4e. e - ( Am' . nPl.$4.34.) Pt4rege- gcl. LarAl Oti • • V4S1 .Rurt j4/A•er Mi101.1 n / 03..11 Ai AO r -P4 1/6 • M . s —AA•NSAc-1-- . . , . l ) • PAGE OF ( . • HAfi;-,I A. ROGEliS 910) EDEN PRAIRIE RD 4 . EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 5534 •-•-j, /2-- (--'2) :`'c.C- C2)I .-Zi , , ,,,t,,,, -c.- 7 ( ,:,1 : • .712.X-' -c-;"• /:/j)Z 4,----,Y:' 77--- // /-/-cee.,,: r`-e:."6 -(., _.(4.-4:.t- -' Ci..'„eLic.,..„ x.',/27/. - .„,,-2,4, ..„ ,-,•..e,/".,. . ...L./.•-,, (i,t:z;:e., -<,,', '7 ' ;,„ .....„,4_,_, K2".:,c, a, 2,(___E - ,-v-) .L.--;.;-..,2z",-;-y•/,: . , ,,,_,..4-4,„,,,,,4„,,, ,,6 ,?„ 4„,- • .._L, L, . - - , ,,,_e_e. -Zi_eLez ) ' ----74,/ /r_ii--r,-.: ..?__/ A--2-:-(:L7-- 0:y., a t•!,,ce ,e."_, a.6 .„6—/ze,,,,' .2-;-_,*-,:..,., ,— ..L/,,, ,,,(,__,, / -,..., ,., .„.., ( ;')/ ---) ---' "'-1--,y7 ----.-7 - i . , -_ --• . . . ,• 0-,Y • - , • ( , . . • '11 (7/f/ — 0 CI 7 c A • tj?°' MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 16, 1989 RE: RED ROCK SHORES TREE INVENTORY AND REPLACEMENT PROPOSAL The City of Eden Prairie, through the Tree Preservation Policy, has required the replacement of significant trees removed as a part of the subdivision process. In reviewing the Red Rock Shores subdivision, Staff has calculated a tree loss based upon the current plans of 1,039 caliper inches. The tree inventory depicted a total of 3,110 caliper inches of significant trees. The percentage of tree loss calculated for the proposal was 33.4% which resulted in a tree replacement requirement of 462 caliper inches. In reviewing the overall tree inventory and subsequent replacement with the developer, concern was raised regarding the City's requirement for the Red Oak Drive extension, and how that affected tree lo,s. Because of the proponent's concern, Staff ca lculatede s, baed n the comparisonaltopthe, ated current proposal. Using a total tree count on the site of 3,110 caliper inches, Staff calculated a range of tree removal from 787 caliper inches to 1,020 caliper inches for the two cul-de-sac design subdivision. This percentage removal ranged from 25.3% to 32.8%. A range of tree removal was calculated because the plans indicated 40 to 45-foot building pads while building pads up to 80 feet deep would reflect the current market and no individual lot grading was proposed. Based upon these numbers, the tree replacement would range from a minimum of 265 caliper inches to an approximate maximum of 445 caliper inches. The total tree replacement calculated for the two cul-de-sac design proposal would be approximately 17 to 197 caliper inches less than what Staff has calculated for the current proposal. Because the City has recognized that individual home designs and retaining walls may save additional trees, a 10% credit may be granted for the trees located within the construction limits against the amount of tree replacement calculated. Staff recommends that a 10% credit be given resulting in a total tree replacement requirement of 416 caliper inches. Prior to release of the final plat, the proponent shall submit a tree replacement plan depicting 416 caliper inches and surety at 1.5 times the cost of the tree replacement. /!0,) • li 'r� 1\;;(-', �w,, City of Eden Prairie City Offices l ` err. ` pAMICIM 00 Executive Drive • Eden Prairie,MN 55344-3677• Telephone(612)937-2262 • April 10, 1989 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Harry Rogers 9100 Eden Prairie peed Eden Prairie, MN 55347 RE: Extension of Red Oak Drive Dear Mr. Rogers: I want to thank you and your granddaughter for taking the time to meet with' me on Friday to discuss the proposed street extension through the corner of your property on Lake Shore Drive. As promised, I am writing this letter to summarize the conditions you and I agreed to regarding the extension of the roadway. I will recommend to the City Council that the road be extended through the corner of your property and that we receive that corner of your property based on the following conditions: 1. The City of Eden Prairie will vacate all but a 50-foot right-of-way along Lake Shore Drive. 2. During the summer of 1989, the City will inspect all of the Elm trees in this area to be vacated and remove any diseased or dead Elms. 3. You will deed to the City of Eden Prairie a triangular piece of property approximately 5,500 square feet at the most northeast corner of your propoerty along Lake Shore Drive. 4. The City of Eden Prairie will require the developer to deed the triangular piece of property from the Red Rock Shores subdivision to the City of Eden Prairie and the City of Eden Prairie will in turn deed that triangular piece of property to you. This parcel lies westerly of the extension of Red Oak Drive and northerly of Lake Shore Drive and is adjacent to your east property line. The •area is approximately 1,600 square feet. 5. The City of Eden Prairie will be responsible for all surveying work necessary to prepare a legal description to convey your property to the City of Eden Prairie. 6. The City of Eden Prairie will prepare deeds for these transactions so that all deeds shall run from you to the City of Eden Prairie or from the City of Eden Prairie to you. You will not be receiving land from or giving land to a third party directly. 1. 11 Harry Rogers April 10, 1989 Page 2 of 2 7. The triangular piece of property that you currently own and which will lie on the east side of the new Red Oak Drive will eventually become part of the new subdivision called Red Rock Shores. The City agrees to establish a value for that small triangular piece of property and require that the developer pay that sum to the City. You have asked not to be reimbursed. 8. The developer proposes to construct the roadway adjacent to your property either privately or by a "100% petition". There will be no assessments against your property as a result of this new road frontage. Again, some of these issues are beyond my authority to guarantee at this time. However, the City Council will be receiving a copy of this letter along with my stong recommendation that these conditions be met. I wish to commend you for your cooperation in this matter and also to recognize that the dedication of land to the City of Eden Prairie really constitutes a gift rather than an even exchange of property and it is through your generosity and concern over the proper way for development to proceed that made this arrangement possible. Sincer y, ho� E ene A. Dietz, .E. Director of Public Works EAD:ssa cc: Nancy Nickiay Carl Jullie Alan Gray Chris Enger Mayor Peterson City Council Planning Commission • • 'I .r>5 • t - MEMORANDUM - TO: Chairman and Planning Commission Members FROM: Alan Gray, P.E. City Engineer DATE: April 7, 1989 RE: Red Rock Shores, Strawberry Hill and Red Rock View Addition The purpose of this memo is to discuss utility service for three newly proposed residential subdivisions located east of County Road 4 in the vicinity of Lake Shore Drive. The proposed Red Rock Shores subdivision consists of 16 residential lots located on approximately a 19 acre parcel north and east of Lake Shore Drive adjacent to Red Rock Lake. Strawberry Hill and Red Rock View additions are situated southerly of Lake Shore Drive between Meadowvale Road and CSAH 4. SANITARY SEWER: Trunk sanitary sewer service for this area is provided by the newly constructed Red Rock Interceptor sewer. As part of the Fairfield Addition westerly of County Road 4 a lateral sanitary sewer was extended easterly from the Red Rock Interceptor sewer to the west right-of-way line of CSAH 4 for the purpose of providing sanitary sewer service to the Lake Shore Drive, Meadowvale Drive and Red Oak Drive area. From its current termination point in the Fairfield Addition sanitary sewer may be extended easterly across CSAH 4 and through the proposed residential subdivisions as shown on the preliminary utility plan for Red Rock Shores. The nine most northerly lots within the proposed Red Rock Shores subdivision are adjacent to Red Rock Lake and have proposed basement elevations below the invert of the extended gravity sanitary sewer. A lift station will be required for this area as shown on the preliminary utility plan for Red Rock Shores. In addition to the sanitary sewer shown on the preliminary utility plan for Red Rock Shores it is recommended that sanitary sewer be extended in Scenic Heights Road to provide sewer service to the existing home on the east side of CSAH 4 south of the future intersection of Scenic Heights Road and CSAH 4. As part of this proposed plan sanitary sewer would be constructed in a segment of Meadowvale Road and Red Dak Drive providing sanitary sewer service to existing residential homes in this neighborhood as well as the proposed new subdivisions. WATER: Trunk watermain will be extended south along CSAH 4 this coming construction season. Completion of this trunk watermain project will make lateral water available for extension through the proposed residential subdivisions. The segment of watermain to be extended from CSAH 4 within /'3 ' April 7, 1989 Page 2 of 2 future Scenic Heights Road will be 16" trunk watermain. The remaining watermain extended within the proposed residential streets may be 6" watermain provided that the system loops back to the trunk watermain on CSAH 4. STORM DRAINAGE: The Strawberry Hill and Red Rock View additions lie within a 16 acre watershed easterly of County Road 4 that drains to a small kettle hole that currently has no outlet. As part of the subdivision improvements a storm sewer outlet to Red Rock Lake from this kettle hole will be constructed. Preliminary drainage calculations have been provided and indicate that sufficient storage and outlet hydraulic capacity can be provided for this area to provide protection from storm events of a magnitude equivalent to the July 1987 storm. The remaining areas of the proposed subdivisions drain to Red Rock Lake. Lateral storm sewer is proposed as shown on the preliminary utility plan. The current outlet to Red Rock Lake from the intersection of Red Oak Drive and the proposed residential street within Red Rock Shores is inadequate and will require reconstruction as part of a City Improvement Contract or privately by the proposed developments. ADG:ssa `/ 4 (• (7 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning OATE: April 7, 1989 PROJECT: Red Pock Shores LOCATION: East of County Road #4, north and east of Lakeshore Drive APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Scenic Heights Investment REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 19.77 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 19.77 acres into 16 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Background { ',; " 1.... ........!......f ! I,:' rWr,., C,COM (! ;� ,... This 19.77-acre site is currently r/, ' E J guided Low Density Residential and �// - i. approximately 6.65 acres are zoned �J_ `�%, ar'C', _y,,,,t l'•211' R1-22. The property to the south is /5 .-.�r (i 5z, f1!"�'$, 4. also zoned R1-22 and developed with � , large lot single family homes. The ��^ 1' } C PROPOSED SITE proponent is currently requesting a . i i err zoning district change from R1-22 to 4 .•. R t a, •`—d�� 1t R1-13.5 and a preliminary plat of ,/ •;•:�• �` 19.77 acres into 16 single familyr-1 ""' `,f.L 9 �i'i'i'i0:�... lots and 3 outlots. , •' •'••i�i'•�V • fy/�jy` II Site Plan/Preliminary Plat ����':,•, � \'� 01 The site plan depicts the sub- ____J� ..'.•,,, ' ',�. ., division of the property into 16 . • $.` ,� single family lots and 3 outlots. -a. Outlot A, which is a lowland area 1t— f adjacent Red Rock Lake, contains - .7--' 4.95 acres, while Outlot B, to the -- --- I,- ?- -4 - fROC* north of the future Scenic Heights . SF_' �,i Road extension, contains 3.04 acres. Outlot C, containing 1,674 square - • c rT"c feet, is proposed to be combined pug /' 2 with the property to the west at `Lf P. 1,, .1 . / T'''::_;\..-.- ''. 1 (---/r ., ,..... . .. ,,, ., , . AREA LOCATION MAP /j: C Red Rock Shores 2 April 7, 1989 time of development. A total of 11.74 acres are proposed for development with 16 single family lots at a density of 1.36 units per acre. Lot sizes within the subdivision range from a minimum of 14,564 square feet to a maximum of 39,506 square feet. Average lot size is approximately 27,300 square feet. All lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-13.5 zoning district with the exception of Lot 1, Block 3, which requires 100 feet of frontage on Lakeshore Drive because it is a corner lot. A variance will be required for lot frontage. Access to this site is provided by a temporary street located on the Scenic Heights Road future alignment, Lakeshore Drive, and the extension of Red Oak Drive. The extension of Red Dak Drive will require the acquisition of approximately 6,500 square feet of the adjacent property to the west. If this property cannot be acquired, or an agreement reached with the owner to use the property, temporary cul- de-sacs will be utilized adjacent this property until a road connection can be made. Shoreland Ordinance Because the property is adjacent Red Rock Lake, which is classified as a Recreational Development Water, the following requirements exist: 1. Minimum lot size - 20,000 square feet 2. Minimum width at the building line - 120 feet 3. Minimum width at the Drdinary High Water Mark - 120 feet 4. Minimum building setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark - 100 feet Due to the definition of an abutting lot, which are lots located within 150 feet of the Drdinary High Water Mark, the Shoreland Ordinance affects all lots within the subdivision with the exception of Block 1, Lot 1, and Block 3, Lots 1 and 2. All of the lots within Block 2 meet the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Drdinance with the exception of Lot 9, which has an existing home closer than 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark. A variance will be required for a setback less than 100 feet. Outlot A extends within 150 feet of Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1. Due to the abutting lot classification for Lots 2-5, Block 1, and the desire of the proponent to subdivide this portion of the property into 5 single family lots, a total of 7 shoreland variances are required. These variances include 4 lot width variances, and 3 lot size variances. All variances within this area could be eliminated by removing one lot. Gradi nq Elevations on this site range from a high point of 87B at the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and the east property line to a low point elevation of 839.7 adjacent Red Rock Lake. Natural slopes on the site are towards the east and north. Minimal grading occurs in the southeast portion of the site adjacent Red Rock Lake due to the relatively flat nature of the project site. The majority of grading work occurs at the intersection of the temporary road and the extension of Red Oak Drive. Cut and fill amounts in tihs location reach a maximum of 16 feet of fill and 12 to 16 feet of cut. Approximately 10 feet of fill is occuring within Outlot A below the 840.5 contour elevation which is the Ordinary High Water Mark. The proposed grading plan is subject to review by the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed District. /!J c Red Rock Shores 3 Apri', 7, 19R9 Based upon the proposed grading plan and the submitted tree inventory, a total of 3,097 caliper inches of significant trees exist on this site. A significant tree loss of approximately 1,041, or 33.6%, has been calculated. A detailed tree replacement plan depicted 465 caliper inches be submitted prior to Council Review. Utilities Because this area is currently served by wells and septic systems, public utilities must be extended to this site. Sanitary sewer and water service is proposed to be extended to this project site through adjacent properties. The decision to extend utilities to serve the subdivision has not been made at this time. A petition for utility and road construction must be reviewed and accepted by the City as a condition of zoning and plat approval. Utility connections will be made from the west of County Road #4, adjacent the Fairfield project and connected through Strawberry Hill Addition, Red Rock View Addition, within Meadowvale Drive, and Red Oak Orive. Gravity sanitary sewer will be able to service Lots 1 through 5, Block 2, and Lots i and 2, Block 3. The remaining portion of the site will be required to serviced by a lift station and force main. A maintenance fee for the lift station will be required to be submitted by the developer. Water service will be provided by the proposed 12-inch watermain proposed to be constructed this summer by the City west of County Road #4. Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected within a series of catch basins in the extension of Red Oak Drive with discharge into Outlot A and Red Rock Lake. Detailed utility plans shall be submitted for review by the City Engineering Department and the Watershed District. STAFF RECOMMENDATIDNS Approval of the subdivision would have to be contingent upon proper road extensions and utilities, which are not established at this time. Approval of the project shall not obligate the City to provide the improvements through public improvement projects. If these conditions are met, Staff would recommend approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 19.77 acres, and a Preliminary Plat of 19.77 into 16 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way based upon plans dated March 31, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 7, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Provide a tree replacement plan for 465 caliper inches. B. Submit a petition for the extension of sanitary sewer within Meadowbrook Drive and Red Oak Drive. C. Resolve the extension of Red Oak Drive across the adjacent property. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water run-off, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Provide detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. ii7 C Red Rock Shores 4 April 7, 1989 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. 4. Prior to the release of the Final Plat, the developer should provide a bond for 465 caliper inches of tree replacement. 5. The proponent shall submit to the Engineering Department, the lift station maintenance fee. 6. Apply for and receive from the Board of Appeals, Shoreland Ordinance variances for Lots 2-5, Block 1, Lot 9, Block 2, and lot width variance for Lot 1, Block 3. 7. Street names within the subdivision shall be consistent with the City's street naming policy. 8. Approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat is contingent upon City Council acceptance and approval of the petition for roads and utilities. • I L'Ji :..1a\ ; �Ea,4(11 f91 • . • I 1 Red T4103 "oh ,,,, V ,m `,LIAS 171 a415 ilikillio Rock l6) Y C •. _ aye' ,- R g (q) 7'kii410*. OA OM IP/,,...4 41..i. 4A4CE ? SWOR& -ORPIE- ... �a\� Shore 'I\ '6011 ♦ § ("Eeaa Noy M'L. •G �a_� � 9• Str•caber uam m:aa• •i>a; �%5(d' • i t, , , _./7 .........• .• (74f ., •,% ,, ......6,11,,,,, • ,.5.\lpl 4:. 3\WA' S ,.,) ' •.'... ,. ,• il.. \ lay ilii_ Ili,JA Red Rock r v{, �ti, n C. Vjew I (74) �15)= ye) IJ N\\\AAA 6�1 l61 O _ I yipN,, r, er i-9•51 L Fairfield is e 1 Estates 2; �� „ ��p�„,.'' s I51 4 -' (A1 =9' (Af I L 364 ; (1) ( ) if( '.:. `. S .0 ,lo. N (1 tom .Y".{,s W ''$6 uA a,. na90 i , , "' �) k 1 B , g�� .., a .,. ,1k t. :.4i1711j '.B 1171 4 a::.OM .4 �' 1 • (Al (51 •'at '570, I715• e2 lael c (;7) ece o a i 6� M1 i »,yl a ,c %LI% 9 9 151 .R b 9 Y ,c._. 4e c ',... RID ROCKr A s2 ADO , b y :.�(.5) c ,b,1 I••, , 1701 ,�,..>4)" '�,r4,•.rl F. tan' ° q�" Proposed Sanitary Sewer 9v, N' 1 1,1 RED III RikK yIFr,.9r , q� , 7 :;ill,), [�()11�)[1, $3 . •NExisting Sanitary Sewer �t. ..m ' rL ,..►,.. �' C ,,a. alL, ••• 1.�•' ^a�®'"'" : ?"'' CCC ai. Proposed Water Main ' ' t°`'.'�P SJ.115 r '' 'a'tSUMMIT I`- glVE-�' ' .♦' ,N f' A. A. ,A. ,A. A -Existing Water Main " , „l`051::� IL3JI Al,� �r�® I 5qj ! 59 ' 1585) , IS$u t ° : LAKE ► RiT c1 ��?. 11 c �\)�f 5 ta• +Ilf •. t'* �q.l t7t R l i.l 1151 '7 Ii6) 15� \' I t•l / '.A'1 1 1 1 � ' I 1 ' t a•r Proposed Sanitary Sewerand Water Extensions < ( STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 21, 1989 PROJECT: Red Rock Shores LOCATION: East of County Road #4, north and east of Lakeshore Drive APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Scenic Heights Investment REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on approximately 13 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 19.77 acres into 15 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Background L ": f' I This item was continued from the April 10, 1989, Planning Commission /ti� �`; '�- ..Q meeting, to allow the proponent time Q11..�/ ( r.qua .�* to make plat revisions to meet the /✓ J r . - 4., ,-., •tr,^ R1-22 zoning requirements. % 1 PROPOSED SITE ) • 4°� • Because the property is currently i ' t,SIr zoned R1-22 and the revised t o; d =rr•1 preliminary plat meets the minimum ' J ••.,. requirements of the zoning district, r :•:•.•••••�%%'• the request for a change from R1-22 ;,l,��q:'..,• f( to R1-13.5 has been withdrawn. I !�:,;:%:•,'•• ''�' �' : i� Site Plan/Preliminary Plat i •!•� ; ? , FPS The current site plan depicts the / subdivision of the property into 15 __ single family lots and 3 outlots as -_ compared to 16 single family lots on C_ -}}' the previous plan. Lot sizes within - ! -a (— o c x the subdivision range from a minimum . • - - of 18,414 square feet to a maximum --:mu•r-Ip,—.---,-.,_1� of 39,506 square feet. Average lot .... -.'_- i.L ' _ 4.:v t. size is approximately 29,458 square R i 2�_ . .J feet. All lots meet the minimum PUB ;',/•I. ,4 -- �\. requirements of the R1-22 zoning / district with the exception of Lots 'I 1,- iC 1 and 2, Block 3, which do not meet AREA LOCATION MAP I ,, 1 V C Red Rock Shores 2 April 21, 1989 the lot size requirement and Lot 1, Block 3, which requires 100 feet of frontage on Lakeshore Drive because it is a corner lot. Variances will be required for lot frontage and lot size. Access to this site is provided by a temporary street located on the Scenic Heights Road future alignment, Lakeshore Drive, and the extension of Red Dak Drive. Shoreland Ordinance Because the property is adjacent Red Rock Lake, which is classified as a Recreational Development Water, the following requirements exist: 1. Minimum lot size - 20,000 square feet 2. Minimum width at the building line - 120 feet 3. Minimum width at the Ordinary High Water Mark - 120 feet 4. Minimum building setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark - 100 feet Due to the definition of an abutting lot, which are lots located within 150 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark, the Shoreland Ordinance affects all lots within the subdivision with the exception of Block 1, Lot 1, and Block 3, Lots 1 and 2. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance with the exception of Lot 9, which has an existing home closer than 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark. A variance will be required for a setback less than 100 feet. Grading Elevations on this site range from a high point of 878 at the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and the east property line to a low point elevation of 839.7 adjacent Red Rock Lake. Natural slopes on the site are towards the east and north. Minimal grading occurs in the southeast portion of the site adjacent Red Rock Lake due to the relatively flat nature of the project site. The majority of grading work occurs at the intersection of the temporary road and the extension of Red Oak Drive. Cut and fill amounts in tihs location reach a maximum of 16 feet of fill and 12 to 16 feet of cut. Approximately 10 feet of fill is occuring within Outlot A below the 840.5 contour elevation which is the Ordinary High Water Mark. The proposed grading plan is subject to review by the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed District. Based upon the proposed grading plan and the submitted tree inventory, a total of 3,097 caliper inches of significant trees exist on this site. A significant tree loss of approximately 1,041, or 33.6%, is expected. A detailed tree replacement plan depicted 465 caliper inches shall be submitted prior to Council Review. The location of these trees shall be utilized for buffering, neighborhood entrance areas, and other group plantings as much as possible to permit planting as a part of the development of the subdivision. Utilities Because this area is currently served by wells and septic systems, public utilities must be extended to this site. Sanitary sewer and water service is proposed to be extended to this project site through adjacent properties. The decision to extend 1 '!! ( Red Rock Shores 3 April 21, 1989 utilities to serve the subdivision has not been made at this time. A petition for utility and road construction must be reviewed and accepted by the City as a condition of zoning and plat approval. Utility connections will be made from the west of County Road #4, adjacent the Fairfield project and connected through Strawberry Hill Addition, Red Rock View Addition, within Meadowvale Drive, and Red Oak Drive. Gravity sanitary sewer will be able to service Lots 1 through 5, Block 2, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. The remaining portion of the site will be required to serviced by a lift station and force main. A maintenance fee for the lift station will be required to be submitted by the developer. Water service will be provided by the proposed 12-inch watermain proposed to be constructed this summer by the City west of County Road #4. Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected within a series of catch basins in the extension of Red Oak Drive with discharge into Outlot A and Red Rock Lake. Detailed utility plans shall be submitted for review by the City Engineering Department and the Watershed District. Pedestrian Systems In order to provide a pedestrian connection between the existing and proposed neighborhoods, the plans shall be revised to depict a 5-foot concrete sidewalk along the west side of the Red Oak Drive extension. The sidewalk shall be extended along Red Oak Drive and Summit Drive when improvements are made to the existing roads. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of 19.77 into 15 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way based upon revised plans dated April 18, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 21, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Provide a tree replacement plan for 465 caliper inches. B. Submit a petition for the extension of sanitary sewer within Meadowvale Drive and Red Oak Drive. C. Revise the plans to reflect a 5-foot concrete sidewalk along the west side of the Red Oak Drive Extension. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water run-off, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Provide 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. 8. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. C C Red Rock Shores 4 April 21, 1989 4. Prior to the release of the Final Mat, the developer should provide a bond for 465 caliper inches of tree replacement. 5. The proponent shall submit to the Engineering Department, the lift station maintenance fee. 6. Apply for and receive from the Board of Appeals, a Shoreland Ordinance variance for Lot 9, Block 2, lot width variance for Lot 1, Block 3, and lot size variance for Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. 7. Street names within the subdivision shall be consistent with the City's street naming policy. 8. Approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat is contingent upon City Council acceptance and approval of the petition for roads and utilities. l .2 MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect DATE: April 26, 1989 SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to Red Rock Shores Planning Staff Report Dated April 21, 1989 This project is closely tied with two other projects, Red Rock View and Strawberry Hill, both adjacent to this site. These projects have undergone some changes since staff first reviewed them in early February. The street configuration at that time was two cul- de-sacs coming off of Lakeshore Drive. Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Staff recommended no sidewalks to be installed within the project. Since that initial review, the road layout has changed. The cul-de-sacs have evolved into a street which connects to Red Oak Drive, part of the established neighborhood linked by Summit Drive to County Road 4. These projects have generated a great deal of neighborhood interest and involvement. At a Planning Commission meeting, a sidewalk was suggested along the west side of the proposed Red Oak Drive. The sidewalk could be extended along Red Oak Drive and Summit Drive when improvement are made to the existing roads. The residents heartily endorsed this idea and have petitioned the City to improve existing Meadowvale, Red Oak and Summit Drive. Improvements to the roadways will include paving the streets and all utility work. Timing of the project is being studied and will be determined by the Engineering Department. Staff has attached a plan for sidewalks within the revised subdivision. The plan also shows proposed sidewalk locations to be constructed concurrent with roadway improvements. Staff recognizes that the trail along Country Road 4 is less than optimum due to the fact it crosses County Road 4 at Lakeshore Drive. The steep grades along both sides of the road made the crossing necessary at the time the trail was constructed. When County Road 4 is upgraded by Hennepin County, the City will have the trail extended on each side of the road. Outlot A within this project is also worthy of mention. The developer will dedicate Outlot A to the City as part of the final plat of the property. Dedication of this outlot will protect the shoreline from docks, mowed lawns to the lake edge and tree loss. Staff recommends approval of this project based on the Planning Staff Report and this supplemental report. BPC:mdd .. • . :-.! ., pi Eft ......... . .. ... '\ ale i \ to\ .•....::\; .::.:o..:::.•:::i.;ii•.;•.:z.:::.:!::::..:....i::.:v:::.:!i::. .:.::::::::Di R:::-': • Ek i....1...0' •,.;0.; Q i : :io fig! : 44 si :;: i• •::i:i .i::::: .k. • omp 1634, iNiji 1\ 11111::::f:::::: •.: 4 it r N- 11 \. ls:•::::::::::: .... .. \\ , \ .:::i,:::i:::::...:::i:ii:i::„::i:i:::.::•_.:.•• *04 411 iii .\1121411111"Rettly .::::::;:!:::,:: ::::, ::i.:: :::....:.:;.;.:.::: ..:!::: :::...:Ti:. COO :..: ...: .. • .. • - . • •.•• • •-• • . •.• ill 0 : tAKE SHORE DRY 1i11 ::•. _ MIA •::::•. :i ... Q::: i: ::i:;, :. ::..i :: ::-:: ::i:i :.:i: ;:i:iii I e� MILLFOR► ;\ . text 10. . '' •ANDLEWO.D t\ ® " 4111011111.. .cil'i la ^1 1111111M.;.: :.li;;,..,::::,:•':.;.,.,:.:;::..:::i;::•:: FI L�,�\W. tAi• MAY ;la ' .�•.` �•. •� KELS n IR =AIRF•ILLD\ \ 4 i,.L.7.; LA. 00 ' Alta4f W • •::..•.. rio, „fo..(40.4 .. 110 Ilat z . F i !:: 4 Er' cep. W Z . .. a 1Fl._ J CORRAL I P I I I I I 1 miniminin Ut57I14C b' i rruMit4cos'RAIL. 5' CO4cFEre, sicewaL_ 9IDEAVAIX Extetsstot k,TR-ofosab wrnt i-eser IM feDVEMeNns I II:, Planning Commission Minutes 13 April 10, 1989 Uram reported that the Strawberry Hill, Red Rock View, and Red Rock Shores project were connected due to the extension of utilities. The water service will come from the west side of County Road 4. The holding pond will require an outlet to Red Rock Lake. All of the projects are requesting a zoning district change from R1-22 to R1- 13.5. Uram noted that each project would require separate public hearing and motions. Frank Cardarelle, representing the Strawberry Hill project, stated that the sewer had to go through the Strawberry Hill subdivision to service the other projects and that 1/2 of a holding pond was on the Strawberry Hill property. The request for a zoning change was due to the problems to meet lot requirements due to the topography of the land. Cardarelle stated that the proponent concurred with the recommendations presented in the Staff Report of April 7, 1989. He added that this property was a transition parcel with the average lot size being approximately 17,000 square feet. Some of lots were smaller and some were larger due to the topography of the land. The street layout had been approved by the City Engineering Department to maintain an adequate traffic flow. Cardarelle stated that the request for the zoning II/ Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 10, 1989 change was important due to the changing times and economy, roads, utilities, and storm sewer. Bob Smith, representing the Red Rock Shores project, stated that Bill Gilk had acquired the Strawberry Hills project. Smith did not believe it to be the best plan to have the driveways on County Road #4 and; therefore, had changed the lot configuration to remove two lots and enlarge one lot. This was a transitional piece between the Blue Sky First Addition and the development to the north. Utilities would come from the Strawberry Hills project. Cardarelle, representing the Red Rock View project, stated that the proponent concurred with the Staff Report dated April 7, 1989. Cardarelle stated that if one lot was dropped as per Staff recommendations the average lot size would be approximately 24,800 square feet, which was similar to the average size in the Red Rock Lake area. Cardarelle stated that 12 to 25 % of the lots in the Blue Sky First Addition and the Red Rock Lake subdivision had front footages of 100 feet. Smith, Red Rock Shores, stated that this property was divided into four parcels, with existing homes. Smith presented two alternate proposals with the recommended proposal consisting of 15 lots and 4 outlots. Variances would be required for the lot with the existing home and one additional lot due to the front footage requirement. The proponent would initially grade in the streets to save trees and in addition some wetland grading would be required. Smith said that two temporary lift stations would be installed. He believed that the proposed road alignment would afford the best public safety protection. A tree replacement plan would be submitted prior to review by the City Council. Uram reported that the Strawberry Hills subdivision was a transition piece with the revised plan for 5 lots, which would meet the Staff recommendations. Staff was concerned about the placement of the road onto the Harry Rogers property. Uram added that Staff wanted to assure that the Rogers property would remain developable. Staff recommended approval of the project based on the revised plan submitted tonight. Sandstad requested that the Planning Commission be allowed to review the revised plans before taking action. Smith stated that Gilk had just acquired the property this week and that the only change was to drop 2 lots. Ruebling asked if the Rogers property was platted and zoned. Uram replied that the Rogers property was unplatted, but was zoned R1-22. ! n i Planning Commission Minutes 15 April 10, 1989 Ruebling asked what the lot width requirement was for R1- 22 zoning. Uram replied 90 feet. Bye read a petition submitted by the residents of Red Rock West, which requested that the zoning remain at R1-22, the lots be visually consistent with adjacent properties at a 125 foot minimum lot width, not the 100 feet proposed, setbacks be consistent at 50 feet not the 35 feet proposed, and that the proposed development be required to adhere to covenants similar to adjacent neighborhoods. Bye noted that 40 of the 44 neighbors signed the petition. A second petition submitted by the residents of Red Rock West requested that the road planned in the development north of their subdivision end in a cul-de-sac as originally planned by the developers, instead of connecting to Red Oak Drive. The neighbors believed the extension of Red Oak Drive would drastically change the character of the neighborhood from one with no outside traffic to one with heavy traffic flow. Allen Nicklay, 16011 Lake Shore Drive, stated that the zoning should remain at R1-22. He believed that the Southwest Area Study recommendations should also pertain to these three developments. Development in this area should be limited until County Road #4 was upgraded. Nicklay believed that the 100 lot limit was already exceeded with the approval of the Cedar Ridge Estates project and the Phase I Fairfield project and that these three developments would add 35 more lots. He added that all of these developments would utilize County Road #4, which already was heavily used. Nicklay requested that the proposal be denied and current zoning remain in order to uphold the recommendations of the Southwest Area Study. Jack Van Remortel, 16051 Summit Drive, stated that he had not been able to attend the neighborhood meeting, but would like to add his name to the petition to support the requests. Van Remortel recommended that the pace of approval for these projects take into consideration the need for the total area requirements for utilities and to install all the utilities at one time. He was concerned that his property had the potential to be under construction for 3 to 4 years before all utility connections were complete. Van Remortel said that one week after he had put in sod after the trunk watermain was installed the City came out and put in stakes to tear up the property for sanitary and storm sewer. Gary Ernst, 15851 Summit Drive, stated that by extending Red Oak Drive the character of the neighborhood would change. The neighborhood would be used as a short cut to Scenic Heights Road to avoid the congestion on County Road #4. Ernst was concerned about the affect of the increased •./ Planning Commission Minutes 16 April 10, 1989 traffic. He did not believe that a third entrance to the neighborhood was necessary. Don Harasyn, 15811 Summit Drive, stated that this area had been zoned R1-22 for several years, the existing homes are zoned R1-22 and could not see the justification for a zoning change now. Fred Purcell, 8610 Red oak Drive, believed that the temporary road proposed with the Strawberry Hill project to the north would create traffic problems. The lots proposed for Red Rock View had small lots abutting to large lots, with the potential for small houses to be constructed on the back portion of the lots. Purcell believed the zoning should stay R1-22 for both Red Rock View and Red Rock Shores. Red Oak Drive currently had a poor design and did not want to see the road extended. The streets should be kept at a 60 foot width. Purcell wanted to see the intersection upgraded. Purcell said that the area had had water problems for 17 years and was concerned about affect of the new development. Larry Lewis, 8681 Meadowvale Drive, stated that the lots along Meadowvale Drive had front footages of 125 feet and believed the new subdivision should maintain that front footage. He said that the reason he bought his home in this location was because of the closed road system. Lewis believed that two accesses to the neighborhood would destroy the character. Lewis supported the use of a cul- de-sac rather than a through street. He wanted the setbacks to be maintained at 50 feet. John Hoffer, 8711 Meadowvale Road, believed that the houses would be too close together. He added that 100 foot frontages with $200,000 homes would be too close. Hoffer believed that the proposed developments would not be compatible with the existing neighborhoods. Sandra Russer, 8731 Summit Drive, stated that she would like to see the zoning remain R1-22 to maintain the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood. She believed that these three developments would destroy the integrity of the neighborhoods. Russer supported only one additional entrance to the neighborhood, because of the concern regarding increased traffic and the amount of young children in the area. Russer believed that the majority of the land in the Red Rock Shores addition was swamp land and believed that the natural swamp lands in Eden Prairie were becoming endangered. Steve Wagner, 8430 Eden Prairie Road, stated that his property would be affected by the Scenic Heights Road alignment and believed that traffic on County Road 09 was substantial now. Wagner requested that Staff and the Planning Commission Minutes 17 April 10, 1989 Planning Commission give careful consideration to the traffic patterns in this area. Hoffer commented that he did not see where a transition was being made. He could only see smaller lots being mixed in with larger lots. Larry Moos, 8651 Red Oak Drive, asked what the City was transitioning to. He believed that the Gi1k project would be a nice development. Moos was concerned about the potential increased traffic generation with the proposed extension. Moos asked how the City could control the traffic. Uram summarized the neighbors concerns as the following: 1. Southwest Area Study. 2. Drainage. 3. Right-of-way widths. 4. Zoning issues. 5. Traffic. 6. Utilities. Gray stated the upgrade of County Road #4 and Highway #5 was a MnDot project. He added that the contract had been awarded for the upgrade and should be under construction this summer. Gray noted that by this Fall the developments along the west side of County Road H9 would only have possibly one to two dozen occupancies and that the upgrading of County Road #4 and Highway #5 would correlate well with the new home construction. Gray stated that Staff had not had an opportunity to meet with the neighborhood regarding utilities; however, the City was in the planning process for a storm sewer project in this area, with proposed construction to begin by the end of this year. Gray added that Staff would be looking at the Summit Drive neighborhood for sanitary sewer. Gray stated that the City Council could authorize a feasibility study if the neighborhood generated interest and added that Staff was prepared to proceed witn a feasibility study if the interest was expressed. Gray stated that the existing street right-of-way in this neighborhood was 60 feet and that the proposed developments were planning 50 foot right-of-ways. He said that 50 foot right-of-ways were adequate for residential streets. These streets would not be major collectors. Gray said that there would be no need for sidewalks in this area. He added that if 28 foot streets were constructed there would not be a detectable difference between a 50 foot or a 60 foot right-of-way, the street width would remain the same. I/ Planning Commission Minutes 18 April 10, 1989 Gray stated that it was the City's policy to eliminate unnecessary cul-de-sacs whenever possible. He believed that when Highway 212 was built and Scenic Heights Road was realigned, additional traffic would not use Red Oak Drive. Scenic Heights would be signalized and County Road #4 would become a 4-lane road, allowing for a greater capacity for County Road 14. Bill Sauro, 8750 Meadowvale Drive, asked if County Road #4 would be 4 lane south of Scenic Heights Road. Gray replied that the construction would be done in stages and that eventually County Road 114 would be 4 lane all the way to County Road #1. Gray believed the through connections were justified; however, the neighbors concerns regarding the speed of traffic were valid. Gray added that Summit Drive traffic could decrease with an alternate access to the north. He believed that the traffic would be dispersed evenly. Uram reported that the properties could be developed now as R1-22; however, the change in the zoning to R1-13.5 would force the developers to install utilities. The change in zoning would also give the developers flexibility in the developments. Uram believed that the Harry Rogers property which was zoned R1-22 would not be developed as R1-22. Currently the standard zoning district was R1-13.5. Bye asked Uram what the setback requirements were. Uram replied 30 foot setbacks within the R1-22 zoning. Uram added that the property to the west could meet the 50 foot setbacks. Hallett stated that he was pleased to see the Strawberry Hills project drop the two lots and change the road alignment so that the driveways did not come out onto County Road #4. Hallett was concerned that the Harry Rogers property be protected to avoid land locking his property. Hallett pointed out that when utilities were installed as part of a total development package the costs could be reduced and encouraged the neighbors to consider this fact. He was pleased to see the through street going to Scenic Heights Road, and believed it would improve circulation and provide an internal route for the neighbors. Hallett asked why sidewalks were not being considered in this area and suggested that some type of trail system be established. Hallett asked Uram if there was a trail system along the lake. Uram replied no. Hallett stated that Red Rock View should be more compatible with the existing neighborhood. Ruebling stated that he favored leaving the zoning at R1- 22. He would like to see the utilities installed in this Planning Commission Minutes 19 April 10, 1989 neighborhood and encouraged the developers to install them now. Ruebling said that the lot lines and setbacks should match that of the existing neighborhoods. He considered the through street a plus. Ruebling concurred with Hallett that sidewalks and/or a trail system should be considered. Fell stated that he concurred with Ruebling and Hallett on their recommendations. Fell wanted to have the opportunity to see a set of revised plans showing the layout of the 5 lots for the Strawberry Hills project. Sandstad asked Gray if the street would be curbed and paved. Gray replied that the temporary road would be bituminous and would have a curb. Gray added that Red Rock Drive would a permanent. Sandstad recommended the zoning remain at R1-22. Dodge stated that the Red Rock View addition could not meet the R1-22 zoning on all the lots. Dodge asked if the setbacks could be mixed with some being 30 feet and some being 50 feet. Uram replied that Staff would recommend being consistent and maintain the 50 foot setbacks. Uram added that 3 lots would have to be removed in the Red Rock View project to meet the 125 foot lot widths. Uram reported that on the Gilk property all of the lots on the east would meet the R1-22 zoning requirements; however, 2 lots on the west side would not and required variances. Planning Commission Minutes 20 April 10, 1989 ✓F. RED ROCK SHORES, by Scenic Heights Investment. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 19.77 acres, Preliminary Plat of 19.77 acres into 17 single family lots, 2 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road 84, north and east of Lake Shore Drive. A public hearing. f:n°J • Planning Commission Minutes 21 April 10, 1989 MOTION: Ruebling moved, seconded by to the April 24, 1989 PlanningnCommdission to omeeting.ntinue item Hallett was concerned that two weeks would not be enough time for this item. Smith stated that the developer would be requesting variances on some of the lots. Van Remortel asked where the neighbors stood regarding utilities. Gray recommended the neighbors file a petition with the City to show the City Council that there was an interest on the part of the neighborhood. Gray added that a petition did not obligate the neighbors to anything, it would simply start the process. Van Remortel asked if a certain percentage of the neighbors would have to sign the petition in order for any action to be taken. Gray replied 35 percent. Gray added that a 4/5 vote by the City Council would be required to proceed with the process. He described the formal process to the residents. Sauro, asked how the City would determine if a 5 foot concrete sidewalk or an 8 foot bituminous trail would be installed. Gray replied that it would most likely be a 5 foot concrete sidewalk. Gray added that the costs were basically the same for either system. Smith stated that the developer had had conversations with the Parks & Recreation Department and that it was not recommended to install sidewalks. Hallett stated that the Planning Commission was recommending sidewalks be installed. Motion carried 7-0-0. 8 Ifel/ Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 24, 1989 the square footage added to Lot 4 due to the pending requirements. Motion carried 5-0-0. ✓D. RED_ROCK SHORES, by Scenic Heights Investment. Request for Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 19.77 acres, Preliminary Plat of 19.77 acres into 15 single family lots, 2 out.lots, and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road 04, north and east of Lake Shore Drive. A continued public hearing. Gilk stated that he questioned the wisdom of maintaining the R1-22 zoning. He noted that with R1-13.5 only two variances would be necessary; one for his home, and one for Lot 2 to allow for an 82' lot width. Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that the average lot size would be 35,000 square feet. The plan had been revised to remove 2 lots. Three variances would be necessary with the R1-22 zoning; one shoreline variance and two lot size variances. Uram reported that the variances for Lots 1 & 2 were necessary due to the location of the streets, a variance was required for the existing home site setback, and a variance for the 82' lot width on Lot 2. Uram stated that the rationale by Staff was that it would be more appropriate to request these variances than to change the zoning on the entire parcel. Uram stated that Staff recommended approval of the plan based on the Staff Report of April 21, 1989. Fell asked Uram if the Board of Appeals would take into consideration Gilk's concerns regarding the variances for the two lots what options would be available to the developer. Uram replied that the Board of Appeals may not find the variances acceptable and then the proponent could drop an addition lot or request the R1-13.5 zoning. Fell asked if the Planning Commission should assume that this is the most appropriate action. Enger replied that the proponent would also be able to appeal the Board of Appeals decision to the City Council if the variance were denied. Fell stated that it appeared that Gilk was uncomfortable requesting the variances and questioned if other alternatives were possible. Enger replied that he believed the variance approach to be the most expedient and best solution for both the developer and the City. Roger added that the City Council had indicated the preference of the City was to preserve the larger zoning districts and offer variances. Sandstad asked if the developer or the City had considered the property in Block 3 as public space. Gilk replied that the area was heavily wooded and secluded because of the trees. Sandstad asked Uram if the property would be , Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 24, 1989 too small for the City to consider of value for public space. Uram replied that this had not been considered. Gilk noted that part of the parcel was also zoned Rural. Ruebling stated that this would change the request for rezoning. Uram stated that the proponent was correct and the wording would need to be changed for the appropriate motions. Nancy Nicklay, 16011 Lake Shore Drive, asked if the letter to Harry Rogers would become part of the record related to the road alignment. Uram stated that the letter was considered part of the record. Nicklay added that an agreement had been worked out with Harry Rogers and the City which had contingencies. Sandstad asked Nicklay if she favored this project. Nicklay replied that she did favor the project and added that was why so much time had been spent on the road alignment. MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for Red Rock Shores for a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on approximately 11.99 acres and accept, without prejudice, withdrawal of the Zoning District Change request for Red Rock Shores from R1-22 and Rural to R1-13.5 on approximately 8 acres, based on plans dated April 18, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 7 and 21, 1989. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Fell to further recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Scenic Heights Investment for Preliminary Plat of 19.77 acres into 15 single family lots to be know as Red Rock Shores, based on revised plans dated April 18, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 7 and 21, 1989. Motion carried 5-0-0. • • • �., .� • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-174 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRESERVE SDUTH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT TO THE OVERALL PRESERVE 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, the Preserve South development is considered a proper amendment to the overall Preserve South Planned Unit Development Concept; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the request of BRW, Inc. for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Preserve South Planned Unit Development Concept for the Preserve South development and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on June 6, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Preserve South development PUD Concept Amendment, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Preserve South Planned Unit Development Concept as outlined in the application materials for Preserve South. 3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated May 8, 1989. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 6th day of June, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-125 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive Municipal Plan ("Plan"); and, WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment; and, WHEREAS, the proposal of BRW, Inc., for development of Preserve South for Regional Commercial use requires the amendment of the Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: approximately 9.07 acres located east of Highway A169, south of Medcom Boulevard be modified from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional Commercial. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 6th day of June, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 11�,C CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #89-126 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PRESERVE SOUTH FOR BRW, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Preserve South for BRW, Inc., dated June 2, 1989, consisting of 13 acres into two lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 6th day of June, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk { EDEN PRAIRIE RESIDENTS OPPOSED TO PROPOSED THEATRE DEVELOPMENT ON MEDCOM BLVD. • 4 C i Background on residents' opposition. o August 11, 1988 Residents submitted petition against rezoning and development. o January 11, 1989 Residents attended presentation of proposed development and voiced opposition to theatre concept. o Today We remain opposed to proposed development and Regional Commercial zoning on that site. Limited Neighborhood Commercial may be OK. ll�J1 ( ( Problems foreseen by residents as submitted with petition dated August 11, 1988, o Decreased natural, aesthetic quality of the area. - Fewer trees, loss of wildlife, more lights, noise and potential for debris o Depressed residential property values. o Pedestrian traffic through our residential properties as well as increased vehicle traffic on streets and highways. o Greater potential for criminal activity. o Creation of frustrated / disillusioned / disenchanted current and prospective homeowners. / 47 (7 Data on Proposed Development / Theatre, o 1,520 seats o 8 screens o 507 parking spaces required / 353 proposed o 5 1/2 acres of hard surface Il?,:), • Let's put this proposed theatre in perspective with others in the Twin Cities. o 46 theatres in the Twin Cities o 36 of 46 show last movie around 9:30 PM - Traffic till at least midnight o 8 of 46 show last movie after 11:30 PM - Traffic till at least 2 AM! - Eden Prairie included, sets precedence for next theatre in Eden Prairie o 3 of 46 have 8 or more screens - Burnhaven 8 - Har Mar - Brookdale Square - This theatre would be the 4th ( ( This proposed development is too BIG, It just doesn't fit! o Requires variance to City Guide Plan. - Replaces Neighborhood Commercial - Decreases Open Space o Requires change to Planned Unit Development (PUD). o Requires variance to reduce parking spaces. o Requires variance to property subdivision standards, - Proposes 2 lots in a parcel that's too small based on city subdivision standards o Requires rezoning of Lot 2 without a specific plan. o Requires variance for off-site signage. o Site is off the end of a dead end street, C C Theatre traffic presents multiple problems. o Theatre traffic is during what's supposed to be residential quality time. o Peak theatre traffic exiting onto 169 will be gridlocked. Because, at 7 - 8 PM there are; - 1,400 cars per hour on highway 169 (one every 2 1/2 seconds), - 350 cars per hour (one every 10 seconds) needs to leave the theatre, and - At the same time there would be substantial incoming traffic. - We believe that a car every 10 seconds cannot exit onto highway 169 under those conditions f C We are concerned about the loss of trees, wildlife and the large natural buffer area between existing commercial and residential. We are extremely concerned about the negative, broader and long-term impact on Eden Lake, Upper Eden Lake, wetlands and floodplains. In 1987, we experienced water levels that filled the floodplain and more. • C This proposed theatre, which would be one of the 4 largest in the Twin Cities, would have been under water. See our illustration of the 1987 high water level on development plans. r,` In the words of Chris Enger, Eden Prairie's Director of Planning: "What Eden Prairie doesn't need is another failure," Enger said. "It sends out the wrong message." (Eden Prairie News, February 15, 1989) rid Richard L.Jensen 8680 Grier Lane Eden Prairie,MN 55344 n44-7528 March 24, 1989 Re: Preserve South movie theater proposal on Medcom Blvd. To the Eden Prairie Planning Commission: Although a prior commitment keeps us from attending the meeting on the 27th of March, we thought we would set our thoughts down as to why we feel you should find this proposal inappropriate. We live, with our two children, at 8680 Grier Lane. This is on the lake side of Grier, about in the middle of the main body of water. We are very concerned over commercial development in our area. Careful planning and design can blend commercial properties into a neighborhood with benefits for the commercial property and the neighborhood. Poor planning can result in lower residential property values and a steady decline in the quality of a neighborhood. We believe this proposal is not consistent with the existing residential characteristics in the area. Among our reasons for this belief are the following: 1. The peak period of operation of a movie theater, and the lights, noise and traffic generated, will occur during the evenings and on weekends when local residents are trying to enjoy their homes and yards. Other development, for example an office building, is not as likely to have a peak impact at the prime time for family activities in the neighborhoods. 2. Having had a foot or so of water in our basement in 1987, we are very concerned about changes in the watershed area for Eden Lake. The elimination of several acres of rural land, by putting in a parking lot, increases my concern about quick runoff problems, and it obviously increases the demand on the lake as a holding area. 3. The traffic peaks, especially in the evening, will cause noise and congestion in the area. But as members of this community we are more concerned about access to 169 at Medcom. With the number of left turns at this intersection, and right turns on to high speed 169, I think it will not be long until someone is killed. Access obviously needs to be carefully reviewed along with long range plans for upgrades on 169. These are the basic concerns we have. We feel that this proposal does not fit in a residential area. The developers have put some thought into finding a reasonable means of putting the project in. But, notwithstanding this attempt to accommodate the concerns of neighbors, this project does not fit the site or the neighborhood, and we respectfully ask that you consider our concerns when you deny the proposal. Thank you, Richard and D ora en I C CONCLUSIONS o DEVELOPER'S PLAN: - OPPOSITE OF RESIDENTS' POSITION - NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY PLANS o RESIDENTS' POSITION: - OPPOSITE OF DEVELOPER'S PLAN - IN LINE WITH CITY ZONING - IN LINE WITH CITY COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN - DOES NOT MATCH CITY'S PUD BUT, • PUD WAS CREATED BASED ON A DEVELOPER'S VIEW PUD WAS DEVELOPED BEFORE RESIDENTS MOVED IN AND WITHOUT CURRENT RESIDENTS' INPUT • PUD WAS A CONCEPT PLAN ONLY o RESIDENTS MUST DISALLOW ZONING TO COMMERCIAL AND STOP DEVELOPMENT PLANS o CITY SHOULD CHANGE PUD BASED ON INPUT OF RESIDENTS - POSITION STATEMENT DATED AUGUST 11, 1988 Marc and JoAnn Syverson 11912 Joy Circle Eden Prairie, MN 55344 941-1019 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: BRW, Inc. , is attempting to receive approval to build a movie theatre complex in Eden Prairie. We would like to stress the following reason for rejecting their proposal. The representative from BRW, Inc., testified that many of their theatres run shows with starting times as late as midnight. In addition, the theatres are operated on weekends and all holidays. Due to the proximity of the proposed theatre complex to present private homes, we feel this is not an acceptable use of the proposed site. The noise level when the movies let out (200 cars) would be quite high at all hours of the night. Two hundred engines starting, with doors slamming, radios playing, along with loud talking and laughing would definitely carry to nearby houses. The obvious noise would be a distraction at 2 a.m., especially on warm nights when windows would likely be open. The situation would be intolerable. Surely the land is better suited for an office building or an apartment complex where the movement of people would be more compatible with the bordering residential areas. Please consider the interests of the residents of Eden Prairie with property close to the proposed site. Eden Prairie is a wonderful place to live. Hopefully, people in charge of planning the development of our community will keep it that way. Sincerely, 2 �lKi K/ix`' 64: 7s- uit.ah---\ arc an JoAnn S erson C 1 May 1989 Eden Prairie Planning Commission 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN We hope you will approve the movie theatre development project. The same developer built Lariat Center and did a first rate job on it. He used quality building materials, brick & stone, and made an attractive center. We are confident that Mr.. Flaherty will do a good job on the theatre & it will be an asset to the community. Regards Alan S. John O'Neill 3501 14th Ave. So. Minneapolis, MN 55407 C (" \IARI( I.. I'FISTER A"1"l'oltNEN AT LAW SI'I7'F:n10 701 FYII'K'1'11 A1'7:\I'i;S01 i'11 \IINNI APOIJ1.\1111'F:S11"1'.1 ,01.1:1:13 61n1:1 April .14, 1989 Eden Prairie Planning Commission 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Proposed Preserve South Movie Theater Project South of Medcom Blvd. on north end of Eden Lake by Lariat Companies Members of Planning Commission: I live at 11929 Joy Circle which is 300 to 400 feet southeast of this proposed project. I have participated in all of the Planning Commission meetings, the neighborhood meeting, the site visit, etc. since being notified of this proposal shortly before the first public hearing on February 27, 1989. I have also had discussions with Don Dram and Bob Obermeyer regarding the project. I am making these written comments because of the time restraints at the public hearings and because I suspect that decisions will be made prior to the next public hearing on April 24, 1989. I am hopeful that all members of the Commission will review this letter prior to that meeting. I would like to preface these remarks to note that I understand that the Planning Commission must consider the interests of all of the residents of Eden Prairie as well as the interests of the owner/developer of property and the neighborhood residents impacted by the proposed development. I agree that Mr. Flaherty, Lariat Companies and BRW have made a high quality development proposal. Nonetheless, I have serious concerns regarding this proposed development and, at this point, any development of the north end of Eden Lake. COMMENTS REGARDING ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY I am presently against any development of the north end of Eden Lake because of the potential water problems for the 15 homes on the east side of Eden Lake. I am very concerned about the cumulative impact of all of the commercial developments and parking lots on the water levels of Eden Lake when we get heavy rains and when we move out of the cyclical drought conditions which presently exist. As you know, we had the floods of July 1987 when we had water in about 12 of the walkout basements of the homes along the lake (my t C Page 2 April 14, 1989 home included). Last year we had drought conditions, yet when we had a few heavy rains in the Fall, the lake water level got high enough to spill over onto my lawn by several feet or more. The water level of Eden Lake is very sensitive to rainfall because the drainage system is designed for the run-off from the commercial development of the Shopping Center area to go into Eden Lake. It can rise very quickly (several feet in a few hours) and it goes down very slowly (taking days or weeks) because it is drained by a 15" drain pipe to Neill Lake. Last Fall, the Lund's project was still under construction, construction on the Lariat Center project north of Medcom had just started and there was no construction around the Firestone store to the north. These projects are now completed with parking lots, etc. or are underway. There remains substantial other property to be developed around the Shopping Center--all which will increase the run-off to Eden Lake. Bob Obermeyer has indicated that the run-off from this project will not have an appreciable impact on water levels and I don't question that opinion. However, it is more complex than that. This development will initially remove about 7 acres (development of Lot 2 will remove another 5 acres) which act as a high water storage area (as do our back yards) and an area which will absorb the run-off from the Shopping Center area developments. The south end of the proposed development will be built up from its current elevation of 812-814 to the top of the south berm at 822. The so-called "hundred-year flood level" is at 815 (normal level of lower Eden Lake is 808). Even assuming all of the calculations are accurate and that all of the necessary assumptions have been made, this only means that there is a 1% chance that 815 will be exceeded in any given year. It does not mean that since we exceeded that level in 1987 that it will not occur for another 100 years. Also, remember we got to that level without consideration of all of the development that has taken place since and that remains around the Shopping Center (and with the north end of Eden Lake undeveloped). Further the water level on lower Eden Lake got to about 819 (4 feet over the "hf 1") and it probably would have been several feet higher if the water had not flooded the ball fields and streets to the south. I am very skeptical of the conclusions reached concerning the impact on Eden Lake water levels as a result of the commercial development around the Shopping Center. This is based on my observations of the lake and events over the last 2 years. If t Page 3 April 14, 1989 any of you do not share my skepticism, I would invite you to view a 30 minute video tape of the Eden Lake area I took after the 1987 floods--that is reality. On April 11, 1989, Channel 11 News reported that the Red River area of northwestern Minnesota is exceeding "hundred-year flood levels" every 10 years--that is reality. The reported reason is simple--development of the wetlands. The wetlands act as a "sponge" to absorb run-off. The development of the north end of Eden Lake destroys its capacity to store and act as a "sponge" for the run-off from all of the commercial development surrounding the Shopping Center. I don't think there should be any development of this property until development around the Eden Prairie Shopping Center is completed and we have several years to observe the impact on Eden Lake water levels and the adjoining property. DISPARITY IN CONSIDERATION/TREATMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS The disparity in consideration and treatment of neighborhood concerns raised regarding proposed development projects disturbs me. I am making specific reference to comments and actions taken at the February 27, 1989 Planning Commission meeting regarding the Lake Heights 3rd Addition involving 3.11 acres at the southwest corner of Preserve Blvd. and Anderson Lakes Pkwy. This property had apparently been guideplanned or there was some agreement for multiple-family and there was a proposal to put in 6 single family homes. Many of the same concerns were raised by the neighborhood regarding that proposed project as are being raised regarding the Preserve South proposal; e.g., potential water problems, removal of trees, destruction of privacy and open spaces. The comments and actions taken by several of the commissioners exhibited a much more receptive attitude than has been displayed regarding the Preserve South proposal when these concerns would seem to have at least as much merit, if not more, on this project. I think this is so obvious that a detailed comparison is unnecessary. When the concern regarding water problems was raised on Lake Heights one commissioner commented to the effect that the "hundred-year flood level" figure is of little consolation when one has experienced the reality of the consequences of the flood. Two or three of the duplexes to the east of this proposed project on Preserve Blvd. were impacted by the high water. None of the single family homes to the south had water in their basements. Development of this property would have raised its elevation 4 , C C Page 4 April 14, 1989 probably providing an additional buffer from water which would come from a flooding of Eden Lake. Another commissioner "championed" all of the concerns raised and wanted to have completion of a "hills and wetlands study" before any consideration was given to the development of the Lake Heights property. Strangely, there has been no mention of this on the Preserve South project proposal where no one can question that there will be a significantly greater impact to existing wetlands--including removal of many acres of trees which act as a visual and noise buffer to the commercial development surrounding the Shopping Center and Highway 169; substantially filling wetlands (up to 10 feet above existing elevations) and paving with a parking lot; alteration of upper Eden Lake and Pond "K"; disruption and destruction of nesting areas and habitat of many species of wildlife; creation of a regional commercial establishment on property adjoining single family residential property which is incompatible because it will generate peak usage and traffic during the nighttime hours and weekends. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE MOVIE THEATER PROPOSAL It is apparent from discussions on the site visit that some of the commissioners apparently misunderstood what Mr. Ron Reed, the movie theater's representative, said at the last public hearing regarding the hours that movies would be shown. He only "guaranteed" that no movie would start after midnight, not that they would end by midnight. He indicated that normally the last movies would start at about 10:15 P.M. and end around midnight. However, the popular movies may have a midnight showing which would end around 2 A.M. As indicated above, this is a top quality proposal, but it remains incompatible with the location for the reasons discussed above. While I do not question the intentions of Mr. Flaherty, representations are being made to win approval of the project which are not provided for on the Plans. For example, Mr. Flaherty indicated at the site visit that there would be 8 to 10 foot evergreens along the south bermed area. In fact, the Plans call for 6 foot evergreens and the Staff Report only suggests 8 and 10 foot evergreens on the east property line. Mr. Flaherty even went so far as to suggest that he lives across the lake from this proposed project when, in fact, he lives on the south side of Neill Lake, not Eden Lake. At this point, I am unclear on the proposal for the south berm because there appears to be conflict between the Plans, the Staff Report and what was said at times during the site visit. It appears that it is necessary to berm the entire southern property Page 5 .i April 14, 1989 line to hide the parking lot. As pointed out in the Staff Report, this would result in a berm about 8 to 10 feet above existing elevations which would be very conspicuous and out of character with the surrounding area. If this proposed project gets approved then I think it is imperative that greater attention be paid to the landscape plan. It is certainly feasible to landscape the south and east property lines to better provide for a noise, privacy and light barrier/buffer (as complete as possible) which is aesthetically acceptable and compatible with the environment. This includes appropriately landscaping the outside portions of the berm so that it is not conspicuous because of the 8 to 10 foot change in elevation. Also, there has to be an irrigation/sprinkler system to assure the survival of the landscaping. If the Planning Commission approves an inherently incompatible commercial development adjacent to a residential area, the cost to the developer should be of secondary concern. ,Si erely, , P Mark !L. Pfister MLP:mmi cc: Eden Prairie City Council Don Uram, Planning Department BRW, Inc. Tom Walters Various Neighbors i, 1: 9 4.7 Richard L.Jensen ,( 8680 Grier Lane Eden Prairie,MN 55344 944.2528 April 19, 1989 Eden Prairie Planning Commission 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Preserve South, Movie Theater proposal on Medcom Dear members of the Planning Commission: We live, with our two children, at 8680 Grier Lane. This is on the lake side of Eden Lake, about in the middle of the main body of water. We have lived hear for almost two years and plan on being long term residents. We oppose the Preserve South proposal for a change, from Rural to Regional Commercial, for the Medcom site for the following reasons: 1. The operation of a movie theater is inconsistent with a residential neighborhood. Its peak period of operation, the summer months, and peak hours, the evening hours, are exactly the time when residents, like ourselves, are trying to enjoy their yards. 2. The theater will bring noise from cars and patrons directly into our backyards. Auto and parking lot lights will be another nuisance. 3. After seeing where on the site the parking lot will be placed, we are even more opposed. The lot will come very close to the water, will eliminate hundreds of trees and shrubs which offer a natural buffer, and is tilted towards prime residential areas. The lake then will funnel noise directly into residential areas. 4. We are also concerned about the elimination of land that will help buffer flooding. Paving over a marsh, and the land near it, will not improve the ability of Eden Lake to operate as a water retention area. We heard from Barr engineering at the last public hearing. They seem convinced that this development will not be a problem. We feel they are wrong. Having watched the lake flood in 1987, and its response to drought and the rainstorms since that time, we are convinced that the holding capacity of the lake is limited. The water level { fell little if at all during last summer's drought. We see evidence that the lake is now spring fed. A quick look at the topography shows why that may be the case. Making a wetland into a lake probably did not increase the water retention capacity of the area, we suspect just the opposite. Removing plant life and paving over many acres of this property has to have adverse affects on the water problems we hope to avoid in the future. 5. Traffic on 169 is going to be a problem. Access to this site is marginal at best, and left turns off a major highway to the theater will be dangerous and increase the problems in already congested intersections south of the regional center. 6. The wildlife in the area will be harmed by the removal of nesting areas and habitat near the lake. To sum up, we feel this proposal just does not fit this site. If the property is to be developed, there are many possibilities including residential use and office buildings that could be adapted to the site without the problems we note above. Although the staff report seems to point to the theater as a lesser evil, we feel quite the opposite. The site could be developed to take advantage of the lake and marsh, in a manner that is consistent with neighboring homes. This proposal just doesn't fit the site, the neighborhood, and is not the kind of responsible development needed in this community. S'ncerely, ichard and Deborah Jensen cc. Eden Prairie City Council Page - 2 { 1 I . UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Department or Food Science and Nutrition 71:7.a 1 TWIN CITIES 1334 Eckles Avenue St.Paul,Minnesota 55108 April 25, 1989 Eden Prairie Planning Commission 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Re: Proposed Preserve Sourth theatre complex I live at 8698 Grier Lane and would like to make some comments on the theater project proposed on the north end of Eden Lake. We moved to Eden Praire in June 1986 after living for 5 years in Prior Lake. We felt the development of Prior Lake was not well planned-You never knew when a new strip mall would be developed in your background. In talking about potential communities to live in,we were impressed with what we heard about Eden Prairie's committment to schools,parks,and planned development. When we first looked at the Rottlund development on Eden Lake,we were concerned with adjoining properties that were yet to be developed. We talked with some people at City Hall and were told that the parcel just to our north(now a Zachman middle density development) was a low density development and that the residential area to our northwest would not be changed(now has large Coldwell Banker commercial"for sale"signs),and the area to our south on Anderson Lakes Parkway was for multiple family(now on hold for single family). We also asked about the development of the other side of Eden Lake and were told that it would be multiple residential or an office building. We both work full time and have tried to keep up with the changes that have been discussed at Planning Commission Meetings. We have spent hours of our time at Planning Commission Meetings and don't feel that the concerns of our neighborhood have been adequately heard and considered before zoing changes are made. Hence,this letter. Eden Lake Mark Pfister has already offered to show videos of our flood scene in July 1986. We moved into our house in late June that year and then flew to Norway for vacation. When r C we arrived home,it was 2 days after the peak of the flood and everything in our basement was ruined. Since we were not there to move anything to safety,we lost a stereo system, antique furniture we were refinishing,slides and a slide projector,golf clubs,tennis rackets,clothes,all our pictures,hundreds of books,baby pictures,etc. Of course,we had no flood insurance so all the losses were ours to absorb. The insulation in the basement had to be taken out and replaced. We have many pictures that show clearly the awful state of the basement and our entire backyard in July 1986. I hope the storm was the "storm of the century",but I would like to have someone in city hall assure me that the proposed developments will not affect runoff into Eden Lake. After the last flood,I got no satisfaction from the City of Eden Prairie-just comments like this is the storm of the century. I would like a written reply on who I should contact when Eden Lake again floods into my basement. One year when we lived in Prior Lake the water level rose in the spring and many homes on the lake were flooded. I can remember comments like"Well,that's what they get for living on the lake-they shouldn't have built a house so close to the shore line". I expect to get equal sympathy when my basement floods the next time. I would like to know who at city hall will come to my aid-who will pay,besides me,for poor planning and inappropriate development? Planned development I know it is not your problem,but I find it quite depressing to have so many empty stores and strip malls in Eden Prairie. We already have an empty shopping center with an empty theater. Add to that an empty Rocky's and an empty Lairat I. Not to mention an empty strip mall next to Lund's. Maybe we'll get lucky and the new theater will also be empty. Add another eye sore to the neighborhood! As I mentioned at the latest public hearing,I also am concerned with the amount of traffic in our neighborhood. We have no sidewalk currently on Franlo Rd.on the way to the Lund's Store and many kids ride their tricycles up Franlo. The traffic on Preserve is already unbearable. The idea of routing more traffic through our neighborhood is most discouraging. We like our Eden Lake neighborhood. We have a strong neighborhood group,block parties,play groups,etc. We would like to keep the neighborhood as nice as possible. I feel the movie theater is not in the best interest of our residential area or in the best interest L) C C.. of Eden Prairie. I recommend that the developer look for other uses for the property. Besides an X-rated bookstore,I'm not sure there could be a worse choice than a large movie complex. Si cerely, Joanne Slavin,Ph.D. Associate Professor cc. Eden Prairie City Council Don Uram,Planning Department various neighbors Richard L.Jensen 8680 Grier Lane Eden Prairie,MN 55344 944-2528 March 24, 1989 Re: Preserve South movie theater proposal on Medcom Blvd. To the Eden Prairie Planning Commission: Although a prior commitment keeps us from attending the meeting on the 27th of Marcn, we thought we would set our thoughts down as to why we feel you should find this proposal inappropriate. We live, with our two children, at 8680 Grier Lane. This is on the lake side of Grier, about in the middle of the main body of water. We are very concerned over commercial development in our area. Careful planning and design can blend commercial properties into a neighborhood with benefits for the commercial property and the neighborhood. Poor planning can result in lower residential property values and a steady decline in the quality of a neighborhood. We believe this proposal is not consistent with the existing residential characteristics in the area. Among our reasons for this belief are the following: 1. The peak period of operation of a movie theater, and the lights, noise and traffic generated, will occur during the evenings and on weekends when local residents are trying to enjoy their homes and yards. Other development, for example an office building, is not as likely to have a peak impact at the prime time for family activities in the neighborhoods. 2. Having had a foot or so of water in our basement in 1987, we are very concerned about changes in the watershed area for Eden Lake. The elimination of several acres of rural land, by putting in a parking lot, increases my concern about quick runoff problems, and it obviously increases the demand on the lake as a holding area. 3. The traffic peaks, especially in the evening, will cause noise and congestion in the area. But as members of this community we are more concerned about access to 169 at Medcom. With the number of left turns at this intersection, and right turns on to high speed 169, I think it will not be long until someone is killed. Access obviously needs to be carefully reviewed along with long range plans for upgrades on 169. These are the basic concerns we have. We feel that this proposal does not fit in a residential area. The developers have put some thought into finding a reasonable means of putting the project in. But, notwithstanding this attempt to accommodate the concerns of neighbors, this project does not fit the site or the neighborhood, and we respectfully ask that you consider our concerns when you deny the proposal. Thank you, Rut-ONCL-kg Richard and D ora�n t March 20, 1909 Eden Prairie Planning Commission 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Members of Planning Commission, We believe there was a misconception at our last meeting (Public Hearing on February 27 regarding Preserve South) that the residents have not been willing to meet with or discuss development plans with Mr. Ed Flaherty or BRW. This letter presents the history of correspondence and meetings with Flaherty and BRW. This history shows that the residents have put forth much effort and that Flaherty and BRW have often lacked initiative and follow-through. Please read through the attached record and draw your own conclusions. We look forward to our next meetings and seeing you act in the best interest of residents. We are concerned about the proposed development as well as the condition of and impact on the surrounding areas. Sincerely, Eden Prairie Residents -1G('') ti Page 1 , .. `• 4 t c Residents' Letter To Eden Prairie Planning Commission History Of Meetings And Correspondence March 20, 1989 3/20/89 Have not yet received new/revised plans from BRW. 3/11/89 Received meeting notice letter from Richard Woldorsky (R.W.) , BRW. Meeting to be on 3/22. (Note: not much time for residents to prepare before 3/27.) 3/8/89 Received call from R.W. to say they were scheduling meeting. Said he will send Lighting Plan. Reminded him he had already told us he would send it. Says he can't send other plans because they aren't done yet. 2/27/89 Public Hearing before the Planning Commission. 2/27/89 Called R.W. and asked if any changes since we last met. He said they have a new Lighting Plan and would get us a copy. 2/21/89 Received copy of final text submitted to city from ERW. It had been submitted to city that same day. 2/17/89 Met with R.W. at BRW downtown, reviewed development plans, received 2 copies of plans and copy of preliminary text submitted to city. 2/15/89 Received call from R.W. Set up meeting on 2/17. 2/14/89 Called R.W. He committed to provide a complete package of what has or will be submitted to city. Supposed to get package on 2/16. He said he did not get phone message left for him on 2/8. 2/8/89 Called R.W. , he was out so, left message with BRW secretary requesting him to send copy of plans as submitted to city and to return call. (Had not yet received notification of them staking out property boundaries or copy of traffic study.) 1/19/89 Received call from R.W. They want to meet to go over technical details, have not made any changes to concept or base development plans. Reiterated to him that residents had made it clear at 1/11 meeting that theatre concept was unacceptable so, why have a meeting on details? He said he would send a copy of traffic study, have someone stake out property and call back to notify us when done. Page 2 Residents' Letter To Eden Prairie Planning Commission History Of Meetings And Correspondence March 20, 1989 1/11/89 Small group of residents representing Porcupine Ct. and part of Darnel Rd. received presentation on proposed plans by Mr. Ed Flaherty, Flaherty's attorney and 2 representatives of ERW. Residents voiced opposition to entire theatre concept as too heavy a commercial land use so close to homes, in lowland area, etc. (as well as problems cited in position statement and petition submitted to city on 8/11/88). Here is an example of the negative approach and attitude of Flaherty at that meeting (direct quote): "If you don't like a theatre, how would you like an AIDS hospice there?" said Flaherty. 1/9/89 Received notification letter from R.W. of plan presentation on 1/11. ( 1/6/89 Called R.W. Received verbal intent to do plan presentation on 1/11. 1/5/89 Received call from R.W. requesting names and addresses of people that signed petition submitted to city on 8/11/88 to use as the mailing list for meeting notice. 1/5/89 Called R.W. and requested them to schedule an indoor meeting (suggested it be at city office or community center) and contact residents. 1/4/89 Received call from R.W. He said they want to submit their plans to the city on 1/13 and requested a 1/7 AM or 1/9 PM meeting on-site, to "roll out the plans" and discuss them. Of course, we had some discussion then about this being late notice and how inappropriate it is to meet outdoors in the middle of winter. This was our first contact with BRW. We have never had direct contact with the developer except for the 2 meetings at the city offices; plan presentation on 1/11 and Public Hearing on 2/27. ii Page 3 t ( John R. Simacek Shirley E. Simacek 8662 Grier Lane Planning Commission Eden Prairie, MN 55344 City of Eden Prairie February 28, 1989 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re. : Preserve South Project East of Highway #169, South of Medcom Boulevard Applicant: Lariat Companies I, first, want to thank each of you for donating your time to serve on the Planning Commission. As Past Chairman and member of the City of Richfield Planning Commission I know you dedicate many hours of your time and receive little thanks other than your personal gratification. The City of Eden Prairie had a Comprehensive Plan Completed some time ago. This is a plan that starts the planning process, a plan that prospective land buyers (home buyers), as well as developers, should be able to use and buy with some confidence that the area surrounding their investment will be as planned. This trust should not be destroyed because of developers greed to maximize the use and value of a parcel of land. In this particular parcel, the land purchasers had the opportunity to view the Comprehensive plan, as we the Homeowners did, to determine how they could develope this land. It should not have been a surprise that they were asking for a change from the Comprehensive Plan when submitting this project for approval. I, as a homeowner, did look at the Comprehensive Plan and felt confident that any development would conform, meaning "open area" along the lake, and "residential commercial" towards the other commercial development. The reason for this zoning was to have a buffer area between the commercial development and residential area plus preserve the natural waterland area. Please refer to the City of Minneapolis and their lake development. If the City Forefathers did not have the foresite and preserved the area around their lakes they would not have the beautiful City of Lakes they have today. I was disturbed with the Planning Commisions' and the City representatives' comments at your 2-27-89 meeting to the effect that: "The development could be worse." This is the type of comment I would expect from a developer, using a "Scare" tactic. It is the charge of a Planning Commission and the City to make certain the proposal meets with all ordinances and codes, meets with the prudent use of the land harmoniously with the surrounding area and complies with the Master Plan. Exceptions should be made only when they are in the best interests of the City, Not the greed of some developer. Similarly, if the next developer did not meet the requirements on the Master Plan, that proposal, too, would and should be defeated. As I stated at the 2-27-88 meeting, a denial of a proposal that is not congruous with the { Master Plan would be upheld by the Courts, Law has been established along these lines. /,' i 1 c t Each of you has accepted your appointment as a Planning Commission Member to represent the best interests of the City. Please do not let a developer remove the trust we, as Homeowners, have in you. Thank You fo serving. er / ohn R. Simacek • j l MARK L. PFISTER • ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 810 701 FOURTH AVENCE SO17I1 MINNEAI'OIJS MI1NNESOTA 55415 1H 1 2�3:1:1.490:1 March 14, 1989 Mr. Robert Obermeyer Barr Engineering Co. 7803 Glenroy Road Bloomington, MN 55435 Re: Proposed Preserve South Movie Theater Development on north end of Eden Lake in Eden Prairie Dear Mr. Obermeyer: Don Uram, Eden Prairie planner, gave me your name as the representative of the Watershed District responsible for Eden Lake. I called, but you were going to be out of the office until March 16. I live at 11929 Joy Circle just to the southeast of this proposed development. I am very concerned about the possible ramifications of this development on the water levels of Eden Lake when we get heavy rains. As you know, we had the floods of July, 1987 when we had water in most of the basements of the homes along the lake (my home included). Last year we had drought conditions, yet when we had a few heavy rains in the Fall, the lake water levels got high enough to spill over onto my lawn by several feet or more. Last Fall, the Lund's project had just started, the Lariat Center project north of Medcom had barely begun and there was no construction around the Firestone store to the north. These projects are now completed with parking lots, etc. or are underway. All of these will increase the run-off to Eden Lake. The proposed Preserve South project would involve extensive development of the 18 acres on the north end of Eden Lake including (to begin with) over 5 acres of parking lot. I would like to obtain any information available regarding any studies which have been done regarding the impact of proposed development in the area on Eden Lake. Also, what study or investigation has been done to determine whether any preliminary conclusions should be modified due to the experience of the floods of July, 1987? Has any study or investigation been done to determine the impact of development of the north end of Eden I ( C Page 2 March 14, 1989 Lake particularly considering the cumulative impact of development of the surrounding area around the Eden Prairie Shopping Center? Since I will be out of town until the middle of next week, I would appreciate it if you could send copies of any information covering the subjects raised above to my neighbor, Joe Zweber, 11917 Joy Circle, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. ncerely, 7/3 t-4/1 "'•-• -- Mark L. Pfister MLP:mmi cc: Joe Zweber on ram Tom Walters 1 Business Grammar June 1, 1989 \�\ Review by Sytersan City of Eden Prairie Hennepin County, Minnesota Dear Eden Prairie City Council Members and Mayor Peterson: Recently the Eden Prairie Planning Commission voted (not unani- mously) to rezone an area of land in our city from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space into Regional Commercial. This was done to enable the development of the proposed Preserve South Movie Project. The parking lot for this project (large enough to hold 372 cars and possibly being expanded to hold 507 cars) will be located approximately 300 feet from homes in the Eden Lake neighborhood. This project would unquestionably lower our home values and would affect our quality of life. We are strongly opposed to the rezoning of this land for the movie complex.. The questions needing consideration before you vote on this issue are: . Is it fair, just, or appropriate to REZONE a piece of land which borders a residential area without the consent of the existing residents, especially when the rezoning will decrease the residents' home values and greatly diminish their quality of life? Is an eight-theatre movie complex with a 400-500 car parking lot an acceptable use of land which borders a residential area? . Is the noise level caused by up to a few hundred cars--simul- taneously starting at all hours of the day and night, every day, every night, every weekend, every holiday--acceptable when the noise level will definitely disturb nearby residents? The last start time has been promised to be no later than 11 p.m., which means the last release time will be 1-2 a.m.! CAN YOU ANSWER "YES" TO THESE QUESTIONS? We built our homes in the Eden Lake area knowing that the land near to us would someday be developed. However, the Guide Plan said it would be developed Neighborhood Commercial, and we BELIEVED it. An office building, a multi-family dwelling, 11912 Joy Circle• Eden Prairie. MN 55344•612-941-1019 -2- a small shopping strip would all be acceptable uses of this land. We cannot imagine a more distasteful use than that of the proposal-- a multi-movie theatre complex with an extraordinarily high level of noise at all hours of the night! BRW, Inc. , may try to screen it from our view, but they could not stop the unacceptable noise level at outrageous times of night! Certainly, you can see our point. The Planning Commission recently opposed another development-- the Lake Heights 3rd Addition--involving 3.11 acres at the south- west corner of Preserve Boulevard and Anderson Lakes Parkway. This was a proposal to build six single-family homes on that site. Many of the same concerns were raised by that neighborhood regarding the Lake Heights proposal as those we have raised regarding the Preserve South proposal (potential water problems, removal of trees, destruction of privacy and open spaces, generated traffic increase). Our neighborhood is still confused by the different attitude the Commission had toward a neighborhood that was against "split-levels--after all, someone with an in-ground pool might have to look at a split!" (expressed by a petition- bearing lady who visited us),and our neighborhood's REAL CONCERN over a multi-movie theatre with a monstrous parking lot a stone's throw away! I am sorry to mudsling, but this unfairness needs to be addressed. Richard Anderson, the major OPPONENT of the Lake Heights proposal and the major PROPONENT of the Preserve South project, lives very near to the area which was the proposed six-home site. It seems he may have had a personal interest in these issues. When BRW, Inc., presents their case to you Tuesday night, please listen to their reasoning. They seem to draw some conclusions without adequate reasoning. We doubt if they will bring up the "noise issue," since they cannot answer it. We are depending on you to put the burden of proof on them since they are asking FOR THE CHANGE from the Guide PLan. Our apologies for such a long letter, but we thank you for taking the time to read it because the issue is so vital to our neighbor- hood. We have always felt the Eden Prairie City Council and Mayor Peterson to be just--to do what was best for Eden Prairie residents. We trust in your consideration and fairness, Sincerely, Marc and Ann Syver, n cc: City Council Members ( J Mayor Gary Peterson //. i3 • Richard L.Jensen 8680 Grier Lane Eden Prairie,MN 55344 944-2528 3 June 1, 1989 To the Eden Prairie City Council Re: Preserve South Movie Theater Development Proposal Dear Council Members: I am a resident of Eden Lake North. My wife and I have been pleased to become residents of this community. But we are very concerned that the proposed development will diminish the quality of life we have come to know and will keep us from the full enjoyment of our home. We ask that you deny this proposal for the following reasons. 1. The property is currently zoned rural. The proponent has not met the burden of proving that a change to Regional Commercial is justified. 2. There is no need to zone the second lot, slotted for parking under city rules, as Regional Commercial. 3. The operation of a movie theater with peak periods, as testified to by the proponent, in the spring and summer, during the evening hours is inconsistent with a residential neighborhood. 4. Noise generated in the evening hours by patrons will carry across Eden Lake an impinge on the quiet enjoyment of our properties. As you are probably well aware, noise of any kind carries for long distances over water. 5. Staff for the city seems to be focused on the extension of Medcom Blvd. as a key to this project. This extension will result in increased traffic through our neighborhood from patrons of this project leaving for homes in the south, southwest and southeast 6. There was no mention by the planning commission of the laws and regulations applicable to public waters and wetlands, and if this city has complied with that law, and if this project will comply with state law. 7. Notwithstanding the report by Barr Engineering, Eden Lake is very sensitive to flooding over its banks when rains in excess of 1 inch are experienced. This disrupts the nesting areas of protected wildlife and we are often subjected to the loss of use of substantial portions of our property. Adding five acres or so of impervious area to the watershed will aggravate this problem. 8. The proponent suggests he has DNR approval for this project. This cannot be the case as this lake, although subject to state law and regulation, is subject to Page - 1 `� regulation by the city. I have some concern that no wetlands study has been made and no guidelines consistent with state law have been adopted for the development of property adjacent to lakes and wetlands in this city. 9. The council and its members have an obligation to developers and residents to ensure that commercial development is consistent with existing uses of nearby property. Placing commercial development in a residential area requires great care. Although the guideplan allows for commercial development, the plan is twenty some years old and this council is certainly not obligated to approve every proposed use for this property. The land is unique because of its lake shore and wetlands, and the site will require a different kind of project to fit in with surrounding homes. We certainly do not oppose all development on this site. An office building, residences or some other commercial application might fit very well. This proposal just doesn't make sense at this location at this time. We ask that you deny this request and allow the proponent to bring a proposal for review that is consistent with the residential areas that surround this property. Si rely Rich . J nsen • Page - 2 ' , 1 JOHN R. SIMACEK SHIRLEY E. SIMACEK 8662 Grier Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 942 0094 June 01, 1989 Honorable Gary Peterson, Mayor Members of the Council City of Eden Prairie Re. : Preserve South Project Eden Lake, North Dear Gentle People You are going to have before you a proposal to rezone the land and approve a project for Lariat Companies. Before you make your decision I would like to offer a few considerations. Before my wife and I purchased our home I reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Eden Prairie. Since I had served on the City of Richfield Planning Commission for over six years I knew that the Comprehensive Plan would govern the type of development in my area. I purchased my home feeling comfortable that the area would remain -esidential, or open/residential commercial on the North end of Lake .den. This still would be the quiet neighborhood we looked foreword to retiring in. Unfortunately, the first development is requesting a change in zoning, plus is requesting to construct a theater complex that will operate when a residential neighborhood should be at their quiet time. The developer had the same opportunity as I and my neighbors did, to examine the Comprehensive Plan. It should not have been any surprise that the planned development was in violation of the zoning for that parcel of land. They, also, could find out what was acceptable under the current zoning of Open/Residential Commercial. The developer has stated in their presentation to the Planning Commission that shows would start as late as 11:00 P.M. on week ends and holidays. With a normal show running about 2 1/2 hours that means traffic will start leaving as late as 1:30 A.M. , a time when most people are in bed. This project is within 300 to 500 feet from homes, with open space between these homes and the parking lot. I'm sure you will agree, this is not conducive to a quiet, residential setting. Unlike Retail or Office Commercial, a theater will generate traffic and noise during the hours when a residential neighborhood is at home, starting to enjoy their home and yard. This certainly is a violation of our peace. r fhe traffic configuration is such that traffic traveling to the Southeast will use Franlo Road and Greir Lane for ingress and egress once Medcom Boulevard is put through. These are residential streets not ment for commercial traffic. The developer made promises that they would maintain the area, not allow anyone to use their game room without buying a theater ticket, not start shows after 11:00 P.M., plus several other promises. If they sell to someone else how are you going to govern these agreements? Once the land has been rezoned, you cannot change it back again and start over. I ask these questions. Does this project merit the rezoning? Is this the best use of this land? Eden Prairie has a great opportunity in that there is a good amount of undeveloped land and you can adhere to your Comprehensive Plan, not accept just anything that comes along. Please do not set a precedent in changing zoning from your Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for taking your time to read this letter, if you do have any questions. please call. Sincerely,/ 627/ `(`"/ (/ dinSimacek v May 31, 1989 Eden Prairie City Council Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Proposed Preserve Sourth theatre complex We live at 8698 Grier Lane but will be out of town when the City Council meets on June 6. Therefore,we would like to make some written comments on the theater project proposed on the north end of Eden Lake. We moved to Eden Prairie in June 1986. When we first looked at the Rottlund development on Eden Lake,we were concerned with adjoining properties that were yet to be developed. We talked with some people at City Hall and were told that the residential area to our northwest would not be changed (now has large Coldwell Banker commercial'for sale"signs). We also asked about the development of the other side of Eden Lake and were told that it would be multiple residential or an office building. We are not anti-development;we recognize that the property will be developed and we would be happy with an office building or multiple residential. In our dealings with the planning commission,we were repeatedly told that we should appreciate all the efforts of the developer-they could zone the area for something worse than a movie complex. I don't believe that is a good way to deal with our neighborhood. Let's work together to develop a plan consistent with everyone's needs. We also am concerned with the amount of traffic in our neighborhood. We have no sidewalk currently on Franlo Rd. on the way to the Lund's Store and many kids ride their tricycles up Franlo. The traffic on Preserve is already unbearable. Has the city studied the problems that will result when Medcom is connected to Franlo and the traffic in our neighborhood increases more? The noise that will be generated when movies get out when we are trying to sleep will make our neighborhood less desirable. The developer has offered to 1 plant trees,not have movies after midnight,etc.,but the real issue here is that 1. the movie complex will greatly reduce our quality of life. Why can't the developer make some efforts to develop the property with the current zoning? A development more appropriate to its close proximity to a residential area should be considered. We would also like some thought paid to the problems of Eden Lake and potential runoff from all the new developments in the area. The developments south of the Lunds store will also affect the lake and no one seems to see the big picture here. What do we have to look forward to when the existing homes are sold and that area is developed? We like our Eden Lake neighborhood. We have a strong neighborhood group, block parties,play groups,etc. We would like to keep the neighborhood as nice as possible. We want to protect our area from more noise and more traffic. We feel the movie theater is not in the best interest of our residential area or in the best interest of Eden Prairie. As our elected representatives,we would appreciate your help in evaluating the proposed development around Eden Lake and recommending some creative solutions. Sincerely, Mark Engstrom rary_ .adzikli_____, Joanne Slavin Amy Engstrom 4 \\ Sarah En trom /- 1101 C f ;;H�i.�,i,l)�'�ift!'!1�f�. M111,E AP:, Li? in pro mcn . W:vn,,nn Date: March 22, 1989 MEMORANDUM To: Don Uram City of Eden Prairie • From: Dave Warner Re: Trip Generation and Circulation 1 Flaherty Development I/II Eden Prairie As you requested, I have prepared a brief traffic analysis of the proposed Preserve South development with respect to trip generation and expected effect on traffic operations in the immediate area. The analysis included: o Comparison of expected and allowable P.M. peak hour trip generation by • the proposed development. !. o Evaluation of traffic expected at the hour of peak trip generation by the movie theater. o Consideration of circulation issues. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation Previous analysis by BRW1 considered expected and allowable trip generation for an 18.4 acre parcel of which the Preserve Souta development is a part. Table 2 of that analysis shows that the entire parcel is allowed to generate 424 p.m. • peak hour trip ends. It was estimated at that time that the development proposed at that time (Automall and Flaherty Center) would generate 155 p.m. peak hour trip ends. The remainder of the parcel, Flaherty Development I/II, could generate up to 269 p.m. peak hour trip ends and remain within the overall zone allocation. The site is expected to be developed in two parcels. An eight-screen movie theatre will be constructed on Parcel I. Several alternatives are being considered for Parcel II. Trip generation is a function of the type and size of • development. Estimates of the daily and P.M. peak hour trip generation and the amount of development or possible under existing trip generation guidelines are listed in the table. With the eight-screen theater on Parcel I, any one of the developments listed in Part II could be constructed without exceeding the total • P.M. peak hour trip generation allowance established for the site. 1Memorandum from Nancy Heuer, BRW, to Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner, City of Eden Prairie, June 3, 1988. • MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST PETERSBURG C Don Uram March 22, 1989 Page 2 { TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation (trip ends) Daily P.M. Peak Hour Parcel Development Unit Size Rate Number Rate Number Allowable P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation2 269 (Parcel I plus Parcel II) I Movie Theatre Screen 8 153.33 1226 244 192 Remaining Allowable P.M. Peak Hour Trip 77 Generation (Parcel II) II Parcel II Development Alternatives a. Office K GSF 45 12.35 554 1.76 77 b. Apartments Units 115 6.17 702 D.678 77 c. Medical Clinic K GSF 31 259 775 2.510 77 d. Office/Warehousell K GSF 65 9.712 630 1.1913 77 2Ibid. 3Trip Generation, 4th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., February, 1988. 4Ibid. 5Prairie Center Drive/County Road 18 Traffic Study, prepared for the City of Eden Prairie by BRW, Inc., April, 1985. 6Ibid. 7Ibid. 8Ibid. 9Ibid. 10Ibid. 11Assumes 65% office and 35% warehouse use. 12Prairie Center Drive/County Road 18 Traffic Study 13Ibid. Don Uram March 22, 1989 Page 3 Traffic Expected at Movie Theater Peak Hour The overall peak traffic in the major center area will occur during the 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. period. This overall peak does not coincide with the peak traffic activity for a theater, which generally occurs in the 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. period. Theater generated traffic in the critical outbound direction will be about 3D percent higher during that period than during the overall peak hour. But, during the 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. period, overall traffic volumes are about one-third less than during the peak hour. The result is that while exiting theater traffic increases from about 113 trips during the overall peak hour to about 145 trips during the theater peak hour, total traffic on the busiest affected roadway (TH 169) decreases from about 2,100 vehicles per hour during the overall peak hour to about 1,400 vehicles per hour during the theater peak hour. Operating conditions during the peak theater hour will be significantly better than during the overall peak hour. Site Circulation Proposed access to the theater site is via one driveway on Medcom Boulevard. At the intersection with Medcom Boulevard, and for a distance of 250 feet, the entrance will include two outbound lanes and one inbound lane, with a total width of 40 feet. The two outbound lanes allow separate queueing of left and right turning vehicles. Given the relatively low peak period and peak hour volumes associated with the theater, and the relatively low volumes expected on Medcom Boulevard, no significant queueing or delays are expected at the theater exit to Medcom Boulevard. On-site circulation appears to work well. Entering and exiting traffic is separated from the drop-off/pickup area, minimizing potential vehicle pedestrian conflicts. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please contact me. DW/jm P408905 / 9 ( C — r- � ")1 E . �,� p PLANNING L � TRANSPORTATION u_; EN(TINELRING NRw INC 111f1E SHEft s'OUANI NO 133.I75iH3 f.I ticur•f NIN.,r..1,II.PANI.l',J,',50 i, FPri)Nf 1,, 1ro0:00 fAA 612 J1O 1378 . k Date: March 22, 1969 MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Al Gray il City of Eden Prairie t From: David M. Warner, P.EI//" I Associate Re: Medcom Boulevard Extension to Franlo Boulevard is As you requested, I have prepared an estimate of the traffic volume which would be expected on Medcom Boulevard if Medcom were to be extended to an intersection f ti with Franlo Boulevard. j k• I The area between TH 169 and Franlo Boulevard, south of Prairie Center Drive, now • has access to TH 169 via Medcom Boulevard and to Prairie Center Drive via Joiner L. A Way (right in/right out only). This access pattern results in circuitous travel for trips from the east on ( Prairie Center Drive, and for trips to the west on Prairie Center Drive. In addition, as traffic on TH 169 grows, the left turn from Medcom Boulevard to TH ` j 169, and the movement from Medcom to the west on Prairie Center Drive will be subjected to significant delays and weaving conflicts during peak periods. j The circuitous travel and the significant delays can be mitigated by extension I, e of Medcom Boulevard to the east to Franlo Boulevard. Trips from the east on 1 Prairie Center Drive and to the west on Prairie Center Drive would be able to 4, use Medcom Boulevard and Franlo Boulevard to reach Prairie Center Drive. Trips I to the south on TH 169 may also choose to use Franlo Boulevard and Prairie i 4 Center Drive rather than experience delays up to several minutes at the intersection of Medcom Boulevard and TH 169. If Medcom Boulevard is extended to Franlo Boulevard, it is expected that, when the area is fully developed, the average daily traffic volume would be about + 3,600 vehicles per day, and the p.m. peak hour traffic volume would be about 300 • vehicles per hour. i i' If you have any questions, please call me. i I MINNEAPOEIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON S.PETERSBURG C MEMO TO: • Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THRDUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 5, 1989 PROJECT: PRESERVE SOUTH At the April 24, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, Ed Flaherty, developer for Preserve South, requested a continuance for two weeks to allow the necessary time to resolve two technical issues. These issues included: 1) The additional berming to be provided at the south side of the parking lot with a maximum of 3:1 slopes. 2) Determine the location of the entrance to the new auto mall and resolve the preliminary grades proposed for the entrance. Concerns raised by the Planning Commission included the screening of the parking lot from the south and east property lines. It was suggested that a recommendation from the City Forester should be submitted for Planning Commission review. In response, the City Forester examined the site and is recommending that as much of the natural vegetation along the southern property line be preserved as possible. In response to this and the Staff Report dated April 7, 1989, a revised landscape and berming plan has been submitted. Specific recommendations from the April 7, 1989, Staff Report included: 1. Revise the landscape plan to reflect 8 and 10-foot evergreens adjacent the east property line. 2. Revise the grading plan to reflect a berm along the south property line. The berm shall be raised in height at a maximum slope of 3:1. The landscape plan has been revised to reflect a combination of 6 and 10-foot evergreens. There are a total of 18, 10-foot evergreens proposed along the east property line and within the south corner of the property. In addition, there are a total of 16, 6-foot evergreens proposed along the southern property line, the majority of which are underneath the power easement. The previous landscape plan had indicated 6-foot evergreens throughout the entire project. The grading plan has also been revised to raise the berms from 822 on the previous plan, to a maximum height of 824 on the current plan. At an elevation of 824, the berm would be approximately 6 feet higher than the curb along the south property line. It is anticipated that the 6-foot berm in addition to 6 and 10-foot evergreens will provide screening for the parking lot up to the first planting island. Because of elevation, cars parked beyond the first island will be visible. The proponent has indicated that information regarding the driveway to the auto mall to the north would be available at the May 8, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 7, 1989 PROJECT: Preserve South LOCATION: East of Highway #169, south of Medcom Boulevard APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Lariat Companies REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 1B acres with waivers. 3. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional Commercial on 9.07 acres. y 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on 9.07 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 2 lots. Background ' OFC j ?—aa.. C=REG Thi s i tern was continued from the M-6.fr N\/�. March 27, 1989, Planning Commission ., ,,W meeting, to allow the proponent time „ ' to address issues raised in the / RM ,• staff report dated February 24, PUB B 198g, to have an additional neighborhood meeting, and to address /0 REG ER those issues raised by the neighbor- C R hood at this meeting. Concerns %� I I C REG SE� voiced at the neighborhood meeting Op. �47,--4 Ihel d on March 22, 1989, included: �. 4.�����0: access to the properties located RM-2. �,a adjacent Highway #169, noise, ,��•;%ttvet*it ` " - ;vo. lighting (both parking lot and — - headlights), drainage, land use, Z(, , \;. ,;,r:,, ^ _ tree loss, property values, O:r=""'.'. PROPOSED/SITE t!�+ vandalism, theft, pedestrian traffic :` ,,,•, •�•"_` through adjacent yards, hours of \ R 1 ii yp1-13.5.\:_, .. .. , r;�t AREA LOCATION MAP i Preserve South 2 April 7, 1989 operation for the theater, transition to the single family residents to the south, east, and west, and emergency vehicle access (see attached memo's from the Fire Marshal and Police Department). Other issues raised by the Planning Commission included the incompatibility of the land use proposed, the need for further traffic analysis, and the extension of Medcom Boulevard. A comparison between land uses allowed within the Neighborhood Commercial Guide Plan designation and the theater was also requested. Plan Revisions The primary plan revisions identified in the February 24, 1989, Staff report, were: A. Revise the grading plan to reflect the extension of Medcom Boulevard to the east based upon preliminary plans. B. Submit additional traffic information which analyzes a need for the extension of Medcom Boulevard and also reviews the internal circulation system for pedestrian/automobile traffic conflicts. In response to this, the grading plan has been revised to include the extension of Medcom Boulevard to the east, which requires approximately 12 feet of fill in front of the proposed building. Because of the extension, and the desire to keep the finished floor elevation of the theater at 828, a series of five, 32-foot retaining walls are required in the northeast corner of the project site. Further changes to the grading plan includes the reduction of berm heights along the south property line from approximately 826 to 822. In order to provide additional screening of this area, the berms shall be raised at a 3:1 slope and extended along the entire south property line. Finally, the grading plan shall be revised to indicate how the extension of Medcom Boulevard effects the property to the north. Proposed access to the site is by one driveway on Medcom Boulevard which includes one inbound and two outbound lanes. An internal loop circulation system is provided within the parking area and a one-way drive lane around the building. This revision addresses issues raised in the Staff Report including provision for a more efficient and safe drop-off area in front of the building while the sidewalk to the rear of the building has been increased to 13 feet which allows 10 feet of clear space once the theater exit doors are open. To allow for emergency vehicle access, the Fire Marshal is recommending that the driveway, which is 24 feet in width, be increased to 30 feet. All radii within this project site should be reviewed with the Fire Marshal to ensure adequate distance for emergency vehicle turning movements. Further, the proponent shall agree to provide access to the property to the south and west with the development of Lot 2. The benefits of an additional access would be for emergency vehicles and to provide full access to the properties adjacent U.S. #169. A traffic study was conducted to analyze the effect the extension of Medcom Boulevard would have on existing intersections at Medcom Boulevard/T.H. #169 and Joiner Way/Prairie Center Drive. Table 2 of the traffic study, dated March 28, 1989, details the Medcom Boulevard/Joiner Way estimated traffic volumes with and without the Medcom Boulevard extension (see attached traffic study). Based on this information, it is estimated that the traffic volumes at the Medcom Boulevard/T.H. #169 intersection would be reduced by an average of 43.5% for all development scenarios. The development scenarios include both before and after the theater is / x is Preserve South 3 April 7, 1989 built and at full development. In conclusion, "the extension of Medcom Boulevard to Franlo Road offers clear advan:aies in terms of access, traffic operations and capacity, and travel safety." If the project is approved, it should be made contingent upon the proponent constructing Medcom Boulevard to the eastern property line. The remaining portion of Medcom Boulevard would be constructed as part of a City improvement project. Finally, a previous Staff recommendation stated that prior to Council review, the landscape plan shall be revised to include an additional 135 caliper inches of plant material. The current plans indicate a total of 417.5 cal iper inches. This is based upon a total of 50 overstory trees averaging 3 caliper inches, 51, 6-foot evergreen trees, and 70, 2 caliper inch ornamental trees. Typically, the landscape ordinance does not allow credit for ornamental trees. However, because a 165-foot Northern States Power easement exists through the center portion of the site, and that anything planted below the power lines must not exceed 20 feet in height, Staff recommends that full credit be given for the ornamental trees depicted on the landscape plans. LAND USE COMPARISON In order to review the effect different land uses would have on the property, a comparison has been made between the proposed theater, office and/or commercial , and the approved Area F POD. The comparisons made are based on City Code requirements, the approved PUD, and the specific plans for the theater. LAND USE THEATER OFFICE COMMERCIAL OFFICE (PUD) RESIDENTIAL (PUD) LOT SIZE 7.85 AC. 7.85 AC. 7.85 AC. 8.3 AC. 8.3 AC. GUIDE PLAN REG. COMMERCIAL NEIGH. COMMERCIAL NEIGH. COMMERCIAL REG. COMMERCIAL HIGH DENSITY RES. ZONING C-REG-SER OFC N-COMM. OFC RM-2.5 I BUILDING SIZE 25,248 SO. FT. 50,000 SO. FT. 50,000 S0. FT. 158,240 S0. FT. 150 UNITS B.A.R.(K) 7.4 14.6 14.6 30.0 F.A.R.(K) 7.4 14.6 14.6 50.0 18 UN./AC. PARKING 507 250 300 633 300 TRAFFIC DAILY 615 1,750 1,946 915 1,226 P.M. PEAK 85 130 269 101 192 BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT 70 35 35 35 35 SIDE 150 20 20 20 20 SIDE 100 20 20 20 20 REAR 400 10 10 20 25 JJ Preserve South 4 April 7, 1989 Theatre Office Commercial Pros Small FAR & BAR Less daily?p.m.peak Less p.m.peak Off-peak traffic traffic traffic Large setbacks Meets G.P. designation Meets G.P.designation Specific land use No night traffic No night traffic Less required parking Less required parking Less required parking Cons Night traffic Building size Building size Parking lot size Possible bldg. height Daily traffic Smaller setbacks Smaller setbacks Unidentified land uses PUO Office Apartments Pros No night traffic Residential character Less daily & p.m. peak hour traffic Cons Large building Density at 18 units/acre Building height Number of parking stalls (may require parking deck) Smaller setbacks As the comparisons reveals, all development scenarios have both pros and cons which argue in favor or against a specific proposal. Development with an office land use in conformance with the approved PUO appears to be the most intense while an office building of less than 50,000 square feet would be the least. The theater proposal fits between an office building of less than 50,000 square feet and the approved PUD land uses. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change In the Staff Report dated February 24, 1989, Staff reviewed the appropriateness of the Neighborhood Commercial Guide Plan designation for the property south of Medcom Boulevard. At that time, it was determined that this area was still appropriate for Neighborhood Commercial land uses. A major concern in reviewing this proposal is whether an appropriate transition has been made to the residential properties located to the south, east, and west. In response to the need for transition, the site plan depicts a 60-foot buffer strip along the south property line, a conservation easement containing 2.45 acres including upper Eden Lake and Pond "K", and an additional 10 feet of parking lot setback along the eastern property line to allow for a buffer landscape adjacent the residential neighborhood. Distances from the existing homes within Eden Lake North and Lake Eden North range from approximately 350 feet to 400 feet from the property line of Lot 1. Additional distance is achieved due to increased setbacks. Between Lake Eden North and the proposed project, there is a significant stand of trees which also helps to buffer the single family homes located southwest of the project (see Attachment A). Jr Preserve South 5 April 7, 1989 From a technical standpoint, the construction of the 8-screen movie theater is possible based upon the information and plans submitted by the proponent. However, the question still exists as to whether a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Regional Commercial has been justified. Summary It is the responsibility of the proponent requesting the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to provide substantial evidence which warrants a change. The primary question which must be answered is whether the requested Guide Plan Change provides for a better use of the land. As the land use comparison reveals, development as either office, commercial, or consistent with the approved PUD may be more intense than what is currently being proposed, based upon City Code requirements. However, the maximum allowed by Code may not be possible because of site planning constraints. What this indicates, is that the property could be developed with land uses consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The Planning Commission must make a recommendation regarding the appropriateness of the land use and the technical aspects of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS If the Planning Commission feels that the proponent has demonstrated a compelling arguement for a change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan and that the technical aspects of the project are satisfactory, appropriate action would be to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 18 acres with waivers, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional Commercial on 9.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 2 lots, based upon revised plans dated March 23, 1989, based upon Staff Reports dated February 24, 1989, and April 7, 1989, Fire Marshal's memo dated March 28, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the landscape plan to reflect 8 and 1D-foot evergreens adjacent the east property line. Provide additional detail regarding sizes and types of plant material on the landscape plan. B. Revise the grading plan to reflect a berm along the south property line. The berm shall be raised in height at a maximum slope of 3:1. C. Revise the grading plan to indicate how the extension of Medcom Boulevard affects the property to the north. D. Enter into a special assessment agreement with the City of Eden Prairie for the future upgrading of Medcom Boulevard. Development of the project would be contingent upon the construciton of Medcom Boulevard to the east property line. E. Submit an overall signage plan which shall be submitted depicting size, color, letter type, and location on the building. F. Provide colors and samples of the exterior building materials. j(' Preserve South 6 April 7, 1989 { 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. Provide detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. C. Provide a cross parking agreement guaranteeing Lot 1, the use of 127 parking stalls on Lot 2. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 4B hours in advance of grading. B. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshal. 4. With the development of Lot 2, the proponent shall agree to provide access to the properties to the south and west. If the Planning Commission does not feel that a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change has been substantiated, then the appropriate action would be for denial. .., .4.• .* ,;,• •.. ‘: i • "-',§A - ' rill/ ri; ' ' , • 31 t a b .t, 4,‘ • . , , .. ,,,„, _ o . . t Su, ! r . . e. kt\Q., *: k•� t . b. .. t e a ,i..:iT.',';' 1 ` ' I^� f i \ 't '`C 7 '/' Ve t- • ••.t'. . r ,4'y. . : ��� ,�tad( • .. •....p. . ,.. • .,,i.•. ,,vit„,...• ._ppy• . • ,. �.. , ,�(�illlli{Il111U111v.. ' ..,,i t• -..,,),s—.,i,...- ..,. .)t.;..., -—.,.• . -,,•_,..•• _ .. ,.-.• . ,,..,_.. ,, ,i.„01‘ • Wooded Area A'` ''' .•• '' .♦ J ' 11.43e c '' .\' a• e 3 b Fy l .i 'k, J •kw e �.74r , li-1' '.,ter .".. • �• ai .` 44,4 �..4 ; 1'`.k _.,+' ' is \ �" 1 s• ' 4s�_t. ~jr'. , ," 4ieTA -Tyr t . - • X!t YAP • , �' �t y r2.p{. .`� �v Pik P • ;' .�u•a--q6 ii •r zoir .' _ 4-9 a N. t C 4 iRA N`.yFf ifito l Afir7�� J' f NG NEE,,IUN g `„ _) URBANOE;;ILiN WNW rue. 1,00ESFIE N:;):.1ANI • 100i))Ih)SINEE i SOUK • NI,N,APUL,5'+).i.l"^IA=,',ai' PHONF GI',$70010p IAA ,12.,,,,,,B Date: April 4, 1989 (; MEMORANDUM . I To: Don Uram r k City of Eden Prairie From: Dave Warner( Re: Trip Generation and Circulation Flaherty Development I/II Eden Prairie As you requested, I have prepared a brief traffic analysis of the proposed 1, Preserve South development with respect to trip generation and expected effect ; on traffic operations in the immediate area. The analysis included: it o Comparison of expected and allowable P.M. peak hour trip generation by il the proposed development. e o the luationtofatf raffic expected at the hour of peak trip generation by r. !y o Consideration of circulation issues. j P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation L. Previous analysis by BRW1 considered expected and allowable trip generation for an 18.4 acre parcel of which the Preserve South development is a part. Table 2 4 2 of that analysis shows that the entire parcel is allowed to generate 424 p.m. peak hour trip ends. It was estimated at that time that the development ly proposed at that time (Automall and Flaherty Center) would generate 155 p.m. peak hour trip ends. The remainder of the parcel, Flaherty Development I/II, could generate up to 269 p.m. peak hour trip ends and remain within the overall a zone allocation. S �. The site is expected to be developed in two parcels. An eight-screen movie r theater will be constructed on Parcel I. Several alternatives are being r considered for Parcel II. Tript_Z generation is a function of the type and size E the amount of development or possible under existing trip generation guidelines are listed in the table. With the eight-screen theater on Parcel I, any one of 11, t r, 1Memorandum from Nancy Heuer, BRW, to Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner, .1 City of Eden Prairie, June 3, 1988. Y r I MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST PETERSBURG I Mr. Don Uram April 5, 1989 Page 2 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation (trip ends) Daily P.M. Peak Hour Parcel Development Unit Size Rate Number Rate Number Allowable P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation2 269 (Parcel I plus Parcel II) I Movie Theater Screen 8 153.33 1226 244 192 Remaining Allowable P.M. Peak Hour Trip 77 Generation (Parcel II) II Parcel II Development Alternatives a. Office K GSF 45 12.35 554 1.76 77 b. Apartments Units 115 6.17 702 0.678 77 c. Medical Clinic K GSF 31 259 775 2.510 77 d. Office/Warehouse11 K GSF 65 9.712 63D 1.1913 77 the developments listed in Part II could be constructed without exceeding the total P.M. peak hour trip generation allowance established for the site. 2lbid. 3Trip Generation, 4th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., February, 1988. 4lbid. 5Prairie Center Drive/County Road 18 Traffic Study, prepared for the City of Eden Prairie by BRW, Inc., April, 1985. 6lbid. 7lbid. 8lbid. 9lbid. 10Ibid. 11Assumes 65% office and 35% warehouse use. 12Prairie Center Drive/County Road 18 Traffic Study 13lbid. Mr. Don Uram April 5, 1989 Page 3 Traffic Expected at Movie Theater Peak Hour The overall peak traffic in the major center area will occur during the 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. period. This overall peak does not coincide with the peak traffic activity for a theater, which generally occurs in the 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. period. Theater generated traffic in the critical outbound direction will be about 30 percent higher during that period than during the overall peak hour. But, during the 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. period, overall traffic volumes are about one-third less than during the peak hour. The result is that while exiting theater traffic increases from about 113 trips during the overall peak hour to about 145 trips during the theater peak hour, total traffic on the busiest affected roadway (TH 169) decreases from about 2,100 vehicles per hour during the overall peak hour to about 1,400 vehicles per hour during the theater peak hour. Operating conditions during the peak theater hour will be significantly better than during the overall peak hour. Site Circulation Proposed access to the theater site is via one driveway on Medcom Boulevard. At the intersection with Medcom Boulevard, and for a distance of 250 feet, the entrance will include two outbound lanes and one inbound lane, with a total width of 40 feet. The two outbound lanes allow separate queueing of left and right turning vehicles. Under normal operating conditions, one driveway will adequately serve site access needs. This is possible due to the staggered start and finish times of movies in a multi-screen theater. Even though the parking lot will accomodate approximately 380 parked vehicles, only 145 vehicles are expected to exit during the busiest hour. Given the relatively low peak period and peak hour volumes associated with the theater, and the relatively low volumes expected on Medcom Boulevard, no significant queueing or delays are expected at the theater exit to Medcom Boulevard. On-site circulation appears to work well. Entering and exiting traffic is separated from the drop-off/pickup area, minimizing potential vehicle pedestrian confl icts. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please contact me. DW/jm P408905 1 • DATE: March Z8, 1989 TO: Don Uram • FROM: Phil Mathiowetz • SUBJ: Project Review, Preserve South The following revisions are required for the above named project. 1) 6" Watermain must be increased to a minimum of 8" and should ideally be looped to the main extending down the access roadway. 2) Access roadway must be a minimum of 30 feet wide. This width should include the section of road running along the south side of the building. 3) Due to limited accessibility the building should be of entirely non-combustible construction. Please contact me, if you have any questions or need further comments. • 1 • 1 _. ;u9 TO: DON UIS M FROM: JIM CLAk'SkY SUBJECT: PROPOSED MOB:[E THEAFER After review of the plans for the proposed theater on Medccm Blvd. 1 could make the following recommendations on behalf of the Police Oepartment. - That there be consideration given to a video monitoring system for the parking lot. dll parking lots for commercial and retail buildings tend to provide opportunities for theft and other mischief. we have Found that where these systems have been installed, crime risk has dropped in those particular parking lots. The concern for this particular parking lot is compounded by the fact that the building faces away from the lot. - That there be further review into the need for a game room to the theater. Our experience with game rooms attached to a business of this type is that they become attractive to young_ people who loiter and become involved in other mischief. These areas typically are not well supervised and consequently become problematic. The overall impact on crime that this theater would have is difficult to assess. Our experience with theaters in the City is limited to the Movies at the Eden Prairie Center and the Flying Cloud Oi ive-in. Moth of these theaters are unique to this proposed theater. Consequently I consulted with Edina and Bloomington Police who have experience with theaters other than drive-in or contained in a mall. In both rases they indicated that the theaters were not "unusual" seneiaturs of problems For the Police Oepartmonts. Tien problems and concerns that we have had with the existing • theaters in our Cit could have been prevented or resolved find there heen a morn active participation by the management. 'Mould .nu need 1u ther assistance please call. PI ANNING - I 1HAN=,rdrv�;l;y '- �_ Hlr rt iEFHiNG , l �, u11i�r,Nut .GN dfi0e INc If+P[S.ILP SQUARE r001H,110SIPf f1 S��In�- '�PII.y��TOOL IS IANNL:,(li.:y}gtS 1'rUN( 61,310010p IP. Pi, i C3'j, 1 { ]IOU/P �UUVVV •�4. Date: March 28, 1989 �,� ; �a \E MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Al Gray D City of Eden Prairie From: David M. Warner, P.E. Associate Re: Medcom Boulevard Extension to Franlo Boulevard As you requested, I have analyzed the traffic volume and operations impacts of the extension of Medcom Boulevard to an intersection with Franlo Boulevard. The area between TH 169 and Franlo Boulevard, south of Prairie Center Drive, now has access to TH 169 via Medcom Boulevard and to Prairie Center Drive via Joiner • Way (right in/right out only). This access pattern results in circuitous travel for trips from the east on Prairie Center Drive, and for trips to the west on Prairie Center Drive. In addition, as traffic on TH 169 grows, the left turn from Medcom Boulevard to TH 169, and the movement from Medcom to the west on Prairie Center Drive will be subjected to significant delays and weaving conflicts during peak periods. The circuitous travel and the significant delays can be mitigated by extension of Medcom Boulevard to the east to Franlo Boulevard. Trips from the east on Prairie Center Drive and to the west on Prairie Center Drive would be able to use Medcom Boulevard and Franlo Boulevard to reach Prairie Center Drive. Trips to the south on TH 169 may also choose to use Franlo Boulevard and Prairie Center Drive rather than experience delays up to several minutes at the intersection of Medcom Boulevard and TH 169. Trip Generation Estimates Medcom Boulevard and Joiner Way serve the area between TH 169 and Franlo Boulevard, south of Prairie Center Drive. All trips expected to use these two roads are generated within that area. Trip generation estimates have been prepared for three development conditions: o Before Theater - Includes existing development and development currently under construction. MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST PETERSBURG C Mr. Al Gray March 28, 1989 Page 2 o After Theater - Assumes theater project is constructed as currently proposed. o Full Development - Assumes that the area is developed as outlined in the "Prairie Center Drive/County Road 18 Traffic Study," April, 1985 (includes 20 percent reduction in p.m. peak hour trip generation by new development). Trip generation estimates for each of these three conditions as well as for the existing condition are shown in Table 1. Traffic Volumes Traffic volume estimates have been prepared for two access conditions and three development conditions. The two access conditions are: o Medcom Boulevard is extended to Franlo Boulevard o Medcom Boulevard is not extended to Franlo Boulevard The three development conditions, as described above, are: o Before Theater o After Theater o Full Development Each combination of access condition and development condition results in a unique traffic forecast. The forecasts are shown in Table 2. The traffic volumes expected on the streets serving this area are directly proportional to the trips generated in the area. Very few, if any through trips will use these streets because the trips can be made more quickly and conveniently using other streets. The trips generated within the area were assigned to the street network consistent with traffic assignments prepared for Major Center Area traffic forecasts. Comparison of the forecasts for the two access conditions shows that the significant result of the extension of Medcom Boulevard to Franlo Boulevard is to reduce the traffic volume on Medcom at TH 169. Without the extension of Medcom to Franlo, the intersection of Medcom with TH 169 must serve most travel into and out of the area. The other available access point, Joiner Way at Prairie Center Drive, allows only right in/right out access, and serves only trips inbound from the west (possibly from the north) or outbound to the east. The extension of Medcom to Franlo provides an alternative route for circuitous or otherwise difficult movements. These movements include: o Inbound trips from the east which would turn left at Prairie Center Mr. Al Gray March 28, 1989 Page 3 Drive and left at Medcom will be able to turn left at Franlo and right at Medcom. o Outbound trips to the west which would turn right to TH 169 under heavy traffic, and weave across two lanes of traffic to turn left to Prairie Center Drive will be able to turn right from Medcom to Franlo and then left to Prairie Center Drive. o Outbound trips to the south which would turn left from Medcom to TH 169 and which would be subjected to long delays during peak periods will be able to use Medcom to Franlo to Prairie Center Drive to TH 169 to avoid the long delays. Traffic Operations The change in access to this area caused by extension of Medcom Boulevard to Franlo Boulevard will have positive effects on traffic operations at Medcom Boulevard and TH 169. Capacity analysis of the intersection of Medcom Boulevard and TH 169 was conducted with and without the extension of Medcom to Franlo Boulevard assuming the following conditions: o Full development of the area served by Medcom and Joiner. o Full development of the Major Center Area. o Medcom and TH 169 is a T-intersection. o Medcom and TH 169 is unsignalized. The condition is which Medcom is not extended to Franlo results in traffic operations just within capacity of the intersection. Three key movements occurring at this intersection are discussed below: o Medcom to TH 169 Northbound (right turn) - Expected to operate at Level of Service "C" (average traffic delays). Approximately one- third of traffic making this movement is bound for westbound Prairie Center Drive, and must weave across the two through lanes into the left turn lane at Prairie Center Drive. This weaving movement will be difficult due to the relatively high speed of traffic on TH 169 and the short distance (about 400 feet) between the two intersections. o Southbound TH 169 to Medcom (left turn) - Expected to operate at Level of Service "D" (long traffic delays). Approximately 40 percent of traffic making this turn was westbound on Prairie Center Drive. Since there is no access to this area from Prairie Center Drive, traffic is forced to turn left to TH 169 and then left to Medcom. The left turns at TH 169 place additional pressure on an intersection which will be operating near capacity. The vehicles turning left to Medcom, because of the long delays during peak periods, may be tempted to make the turn into gaps in traffic of minimal or inadequate length, creating ( ( Mr. Al Gray March 28, 1989 Page 4 hazardous operating conditions. The delays will also cause queuing on southbound TH 169. o Medcom to TH 169 Southbound (left turn) - The forecasted volume of this movement is very low (about 20 vehicles per hour during the peak hour). Due to the high volume of traffic expected on TH 169, however, the movement will operate at Level of Service "E" (capacity, very long traffic delays). Average delays would be approximately three minutes. Vehicles waiting to make this turn may also be tempted to make the turn into gaps in traffic of minimal or inadequate length, creating hazardous operating conditions. The extension of Medcom Boulevard to Franlo Boulevard will mitigate all three of these conditions because of the improved accessibility of the area. Specifically: o Medcom to TH 169 Northbound (right turn) - Traffic bound for westbound Prairie Center Drive will have the option of taking Medcom and Franlo to Prairie Center Drive, and then passing through the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and TH 169 in an east-west movement. o Southbound TH 169 to Medcom (left turn) - Those trips coming from the east on Prairie Center Drive will be able to access the area by turning left on Franlo to Medcom. The operations at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and TH 169, and at TH 169 and Medcom will be enhanced. o Medcom to TH 169 Southbound (left turn) - Trips making this movement during the peak periods will have the option of using Franlo and Prairie Center Drive. Even the trip would be a little longer in terms of distance, it will be a faster and safer trip. The extension of Medcom Boulevard to Franlo Boulevard offers clear advantages in terms of access, traffic operations and capacity, and travel safety. If you have any questions, please call me. • �� �tl C Mr. Al Gray March 28, 1989 Page 5 11 Table 1 MEDCOM BOULEVARD/JOINER WAY AREA TRIP GENERATION Development Size/Units Rate Volume Rate/% Volume Existin inic 6 k sq. ft. 25 150 10.0% 15 Restaurant 3.9 k sq. ft. I64.4 641 6.4% 41 General Commercial 6.8 k sq. ft. 35 238 7.4% 18 Sum Existing 1,029 74 Before Theater (increment) Automall 832 62 Flaherty Center 1,359 93 Sum Before Theater 3,220 229 - After Theater (increment) Theater 8 screens 153.3 1,226 24 192 Sum After Theater 4,446 421 Full Development (Existing plus 80% of 12,033 1,006 increment identified in 1985 Study) t t Mr. Al Gray March 28, 1989 Page 6 I Table 2 MEDCOM BOULEVARD/JOINER WAY AREA ESTIMATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Without With Development Scenario Medcom Extension Medcom Extension Location Daily PM Pk Hr Daily PM Pk Hr Existing Medcom Blvd. at TH 169 700 50 4D0 30 Medcom Blvd. at Franlo Blvd. -- -- 400 20 Joiner Way at Prairie Center Dr. 300 20 200 20 Before Theater Medcom Blvd. at TH 169 2,400 170 1,400 100 Medcom Blvd. at Franlo Blvd. -- -- 1,100 80 Joiner Way at Prairie Center Dr. 800 60 700 50 After Theater Medcom Blvd. at TH 169 3,200 310 2,000 190 Medcom Blvd. at Franlo Blvd. -- -- 1,400 130 Joiner Way at Prairie Center Dr. 1,200 110 1,000 1D0 Full Development .— Medcom Blvd. at TH 169 8,800 730 5,400 450 Medcom Blvd. at Franlo Blvd. -- -- 3,600 300 Joiner Way at Prairie Center Dr. 3,200 270 3,000 250 I • 4. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: February 24, 1989 PROJECT: Preserve South LOCATION: East of Highway 4169, south of Medcom Boulevard APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Lariat Companies REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 18 acres with waivers. 3. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional Commercial on 9.D7 acres. 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on 9.07 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 2 lots. 9 • oFc A• C-REG Background ....h.. ' MrThis site is part of the Preserve .i. 4 -;q'` w N.,^` Commercial Park South which was "'U approved in 1974. The approved PUD / F3M-25.,- for the property south of Medcom 1, �'` Boulevard depicted either an office P U B• building (5-story maximum) or P ,,. -, `tea apartments (150 units) on the east C R �E C REG ER side of the existing pond while • .• C-REG-S •,2 either medical, office, or apart- 7 \ 10;;;:44:<4 � iments were conceptually approved on � �� --'� i=� the west side. The proponent is ��j.\, \,�i+O� ../.4 .. q RM-2.5 t�< requesting a PUD Amendment to allow ,�, \r4.t40.�444����, r ^`A for the construction of an B-screen movie theatre on the eastern portion \ .� =" + rEillmil�" ,,'ram of the property. No specific land --- -, uses are being proposed on the ---- ��" PROPOSED SITE � � western side of the property. At ,`t rC- this time, it is being used for :o ``3-.81-13 5:, R1-1,4;5_.:.! ca,t proof-of-parking. �, .. \;.. i.;_Jv�f.1, . ' OFC-:-,- . •- to RM-A AREA LOCATION MAP r Preserve South 2 February 24, 1989 Comprehensive Guide Plan Change/Land Use During the review of the Eden Prairie Auto Mall on the site where the Lariat Center is currently being built, the City initiated a Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Regional Commercial on approximately 15.9 acres of land. A Regional Commercial designation was felt to be more appropriate than Neighborhood Commercial because of the property's location on U.S. Highway #169, the land uses which were already built in the area including Rocky Rococco and Goodyear Tire, and the proximity to the Eden Prairie Shopping Center. In addition, the approved 1974 PUD depicted Regional Commercial typo land uses for the property north of Medcom Boulevard. Staff also reviewed the appropriateness of the Neighbcrhood Commercial Guide Plan designation for the property south of Medcom Boulevard. After review, it was determined that this area was still appropriate for Neighborhood Commercial land uses because of its proximity to the adjoining residential land uses. It was also felt that any future commercial land uses should be of neighborhood scale in size and residential in character to be compatible with the adjoining neighborhoods. The uses which were previously approved with the 1974 PUD could be allowed within the Neighorhood Commercial Guide Plan designation. The proponent is currently requesting a Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Regional Commercial to allow for the development of an 8-screen movie theatre. In considering a Guide Plan Change on this piece of property, the main considerations are whether an appropriate transition has been made to the residential properties located to the south and whether the approved PUD depicting office or apartments is still valid. If the proponent can demonstrate that an appropriate transition to the single family neighborhoods has been made, and that the movie theatre is an acceptable land use, then a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change to Regional Commercial may be warranted. Site Plan/Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat depicts the subdivision of 0utlot E, Preserve Commercial Park South, containing 13.D3 acres, into 2 lots. Lot 1, the location of the proposed B- screen movie theatre, contains 7.85 acres, while Lot 2 contains 5.1 acres. As part of the plat, approximately 2.45 acres will be kept in a conservation easement on Lot 1 and approximately I.52 acres on Lot 2. The conservation easements include between 3D and 60 feet along the south property line, Pond "K", and upper Eden Lake. Although these areas are to be kept in a conservation easement, the entire site is being graded which will disturb the natural site features. The site plan depicts the construction of a 25,248 square foot, 8-screen movie theatre, at a Base Area Ratio (B.A.R.) and Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 7.4%. The C- Regional Service zoning district allows a maximum 20% B.A.R. and a 40% F.A.R.. All other C-Regional Service zoning district requirements are being met with the exception of off-site parking. A total of 1,520 seats are proposed within the building which requires 507 parking stalls at a Code requirement of 1 parking stall per 3 seats. According to the proponent, the industry standard for the movie theatres is 1 parking stall for every 4 seats, or 380 parking stalls. The site plan depicts 353 actual parking stalls and 23 proof-of-parking stalls on Lot 1. In order to meet City Code, 131 proof-of- parking stalls are provided on Lot 2. A variance will be required for off-site parking. A shared parking agreement must be recorded for Lots 1 and 2 which guarantees that 131 parking stalls would be available to Lot 1 if they are required. / /' Preserve South 3 February 24, 1989 Access One of the major concerns regarding this development is access. Currently, access to this site is provided from Medcom Boulevard, which can only be accessed from Joiner Way, or U.S. Highway #169. Access is limited due to an unsignalized intersection at U.S. Highway #169 and a right-in/right-out only at the intersection of Joiner Way and Prairie Center Drive. With the previous development proposal for the Lariat Center, the proponent petitioned for the extension of Medcom Boulevard. Since that time, preliminary plans have been developed which indicate that Medcom Boulevard could be extended, but would require extensive grading work for completion. With the development of the Lariat Center, that portion of the traffic study regarding the need for Medcom Boulevard was postponed until a specific development was proposed for this site. The proponent has not provided any information regarding the need for Medcom Boulevard. Prior to the approval of this project, a more complete traffic analysis should be completed in order to study the need for Medcom Boulevard. Access to the project is provided from Medcom Boulevard which is currently a dead- end street. There are 3 access points provided including a two-lane, one-way entrance point into proposed theatre site, a one-way exit, and a full intersection located to the west of Pond K . The one-way access into the site is a two-lane driveway with an additional drop-off lane in front of the theatre. Because of the entry vestibule and the design of the drop-off point, pedestrian and traffic conflicts will likely occur in front of the building. This design should be re- evaluated regarding these potential conflicts. In addition, the one-way exit behind the building measures 16 feet in width. The proponent should consider whether the drive should be increased to 24 feet to allow for a full 2-lane exit. There is also a loop circulation system provided in conjunction with Lot 2 which helps to provide overall traffic circulation in the area. South of Pond "K", there are a total of 18 proof-of-parking stalls proposed. If these are required, all parked vehicles would have to back into the main circulation lane in order to exit. Further review regarding on-site circulation is required. Finally, due to the construction of a median within U.S. Highway #169, concern has been raised regarding access to the properties to the west. One alternative would be to provide a road from Medcom Boulevard through the project site to intersect with Fountain Place and U.S. Highway #169 (see Attachment A). Traffic Because the site is located within the Major Center Area (MCA), it is subject to the 1985 MCA traffic study. With the development of the Lariat Center, a total of 269 p.m. peak hour trips remain for the development of this project site. The movie theatre, with a p.m. peak hour trip generation rate of 24 trips per screen, equals 192 trips. A total of 77 trips for different development alternatives remain. A comparison of alternative land uses which generate 77 p.m. peak hour trips include 45,000 square feet of office, 115 apartment units, 31,000 square feet of a medical clinic, or 65,000 square feet of office/warehouse, assuming 65% office, and 35% warehouse. The alternatives proposed are consistent with the approved PUD. Grading Elevations on this site range from a high point of 868 in the northeast corner to a low point of 812 which is upper Eden Lake. The site slopes in a south and easterly _/ Preserve South 4 February 24, 1989 direction. Approximately 18 feet of cut occurs within the northeast corner where two tiers of 3-foot high keystone retaining walls and a 2:1 slope is proposed, while a maximum fill amount of approximately 14 feet is required for the berm in the southeast corner. Pond "K", will be relocated further to the west in order to allow for the construction of the proposed building pad and the driveway entrance. In order to relocate the pond, approximately 13 feet of fill is required on the east side while a cut of approximately 12 feet is required on the west side. In order to help screen the parking lot from the lake and the neighborhoods to the south and west, a series of berms are provided along the south property line which are approximately 10 feet in height. Although berms are effective in partially screening the parking areas, they will look out of character due to the levelness of this site adjacent to the lake. Additional landscaping and no berms or smaller berms may provide a more natural transition. As previously mentioned, the extension of Medcom Boulevard to Franlo Road would require approximately 12 feet of fill to the front of this project site. Because it is anticipated that Medcom Boulevard will be extended, the proposed plans should be revised to reflect the required grades for the extension of Medcom Boulevard. Utilities Water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer service is available to this site. Connections for these services will be made to an B-inch watermain and a 6-inch sanitary sewer line located within Medcom Boulevard. In addition, there is an 8- inch sanitary sewer line located within Lot 2 along the western side of Pond "K". A sanitary sewer connection shall be made from the existing manhole located in the southwest corner and extended to the eastern property line. Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected within a series of catch basins located within the parking lot and adjacent the building. Discharge from the catch basin systems will be into Pond "K" and Eden Lake. Storm water run-off plans must be submitted for review by the City, Watershed District, and the Department of Natural Resources. Landscaping Based upon a building size of 25,248 square feet, a total of 79 caliper inches of plant material is required. Because the building exceeds 20 feet in height, the amount of landscaping must be doubled. The proposed landscape plan depicts a total of 243 caliper inches which meets the City Code requirements. Due to the amount of grading occuring on-site, a total of 22D caliper inches of significant trees are being removed. Based upon a landscape plan which requires 158 caliper inches and a tree requirement plan for 220 caliper inches, 37B caliper inches are required. The landscape plan shall he revised to reflect an additional 135 caliper inches of plant material. Architecture The 25,248 square foot, 8-screen movie theatre, is rectangular in shape and has an east/west orientation. The primary building material is facebrick, with additional materials consisting of cast stone, stucco, glass, and tile. The building is approximately 1B6 feet in length and approximately 135 feet wide with a maximum Preserve South 5 February 24, 1989 height of 34 feet. All mechanical equipment is proposed to be screened by a parapet. Building material samples and colors must be submitted prior to Council review. One area of concern regarding the architecture of the proposed building is the exit doors along the east elevation. Along this side of the building, there i a 10-foot sidewalk which has been designed for pedestrian access to the parking lot to the south. There are three, 3-foot doors which exit to the sidewalk which, when opened, would limit the width of the sidewalk to approximately 7 feet. This may create potential pedestrian/traffic conflicts when the doors are open and vehicular traffic is leaving the theatre site. Solutions to this problem may include relocating the driveway further to the east and/or providing some sort of protection around the areas where the doors will open. Signage/Lighting Lighting standards proposed are 20-foot downcast luminars throughout the parking lot and custom ornamental fixtures located on the building. The primary signage for the theatre will be the marquee at the entrance. In addition to tr,is, a freestanding sign is proposed for the southeast corner of the intersection of Joiner Way and Prairie Center Drive which would require a waiver from the City Code. An overall signage plan including color, size, and letter style shall be submitted prior to Council review. Summary From a technical standpoint, the construction of an B-screen movie theatre could be accomplished on this site with minor revisions. The primary revision would include the construction of Medcom Boulevard to the east as the preliminary plans indicate for future extension. Technical questions which remain unanswered include a traffic analysis of the need for the Medcom Boulevard extension and also a further analysis of the access and circulation system. From a land use standpoint, the question exists as to whether a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Regional Commercial has been justified. As was stated in a previous Staff Report, one of the reasons why Staff was not recommending a Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Regional Commercial, was that this piece of property was located to adjacent single family neighborhoods located to the south, east, and west. These single family homes still exist. The primary reason to stay within a Neighborhood Commercial Guide Plan designation is to provide an appropriate transition from this site to the adjacent single family neighborhoods. However, because the movie theatre is being built at a 7.4,", F.A.R. which is extremely, low any other type of development would be comparable in size with similar site impacts. If the Planning Commission feels that the proponent has demonstrated that an appropriate transition has been made, and that the land use proposed and site impacts including traffic, access, and tree loss are acceptable, then a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change may be warranted. However, if the site plan does not address these issues adequately, a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change may not be substantiated. With these factors in mind, the Planning Commission must make a recommendation regarding the appropriateness of the land use, the validity of the Neighborhood Commercial Guide Plan designation, and the technical aspects of the project. Preserve South 6 February 24, 1989 t STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS If the Planning Commission feels that the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change has been justified and that the site plan, as proposed, is acceptable, then Staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 18 acres with waivers, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional Commercial on 9.07 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on 9.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 2 lots, based upon plans dated February 21, I989, based upon the Staff Report dated February 24, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the landscape plan to reflect an additional I35 caliper inches of plant material. B. Revise the grading plan to reflect the extension of Medcom Boulevard to the east based upon preliminary plans. C. Submit an additional traffic analysis which analyzes the need for the extension of Medcom Boulevard and also reviews internal circulation system for potential pedestrian/automobile traffic conflicts. D. Submit an overall signage plan which shall be submitted depicting size, color, letter type, and location on the building. E. Submit an overall lighting plan which includes 20-foot downcast luminars and would be of the same style as that of Lariat Center to the north. F. Colors and samples of the exterior building materials shall be provided. G. 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. Provide detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. C. Provide a cross parking agreement guaranteeing Lot 1, the use of 131 parking stalls on Lot 2. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshal. Preserve South 7 February 24, 1989 On the other hand, if the Planning Commission feels that the traffic study regarding the extension of Medcom Boulevard and on-site circulation and access be completed prior to approval, and that the revisions identified above require review, then the appropriate action would be to continue the project for 30 days. If the Planning Commission does not feel that Comprehensive Guide Plan Change has not been warranted and that the technical aspects of the projects cannot be resolved, then the appropriate action would be for denial. Staff would recommend that the project be continued for thirty days in order to allow the proponent time for plan revisions. 7/ • .;- ' �� -.. gin —it* P �, , . 51 a .- ;44-1fill" . N. 7 • , .. 7;.• t* /..N 1.11#417:4 - • - 4 . 4 A.. y .. ,i, . 33 , _ • ls,..% . , 33 - .. ,,. , . , :....,... ,k;It cr . t -2 \ , A lie ,, . -i4", ? r ,•,* '',..0fr . ., ,..0.•411111111, 111111011111 j . .Ir'''' `:'' 4410:7,' " r a..VA S� I ft I.# 44d _ # • � . �. •'� •;* fir, • t8� e _ I m -i '. / \' y • ... �• y .may, _ ,; ;' `' �' l- `(, as Fil ! - ay \ ' • • I �9+ OM ice - FRANLO ROAD -. e / . \ ,Ii:0-. ,:;--72';'1;:---4'-'1"?.:' ' ''Q / i , 0 --n! 1 : .....•''''..-/:,:;'. . • ki, twit.. ... 1 t eit :, _ , ri . "c _ . `x I ATTACHMENT A 0 . 1 r _ ow' • Vie:K " ��e ,' POSSIBLE ROAD EXT., c PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 8, 1989 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Doug Fell STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: I. APPROVAL_OF AGENDA MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Ruebling to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0-0. II. MFMBERS REPORTS III. MINUTES MOTION: Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to approve the Minutes of the April 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 3-0-2. Anderson and Bye abstained. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS v A. PRESERVE SOUTH, by DRW, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, a Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 18 acres with waivers, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Spice to Regional Commercial on 9.07 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9.07 .acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25,248 square foot theatre complex. Location: East of Highway 41699, south of Medcom Boulevard. A continued public hearing. Miles Lindberg, representing the proponent, stated that the 8`t grade for Medccm Boulevard could be met; however, the the east entrance to the Auto Mall may have to be I ,J Manning Cemniesion Minutes 2 May 8, 1389 closest. The entrance could not be accomplish without City cooperation. The buffer to the south had been revised based on the recommendation by the City Forester to leave the existing vegetation in place. The berm would be raised on the southeast and southwest corners. The high point of the berm would be 6 to 8 feet above the grade of the parking lot, and approximately 10 feet above the existing grade. Thu proponent proposed to plant 8 to 10 foot high conifer trees along the southern boundary and provide additional landscaping in the island areas throughout the parking lot. The screening would consist of both earth berm and conifers. The eastern property line would have a berm approximately 2 feet above the pavement level with conifer trees, which should screen the headlights adequately from the residents. Uram reported that from a technical standpoint this project could be built. The question before the Planning Commission was if a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change had been substantiated with the following considerations in mind: 1. Was this a Letter use of the land? 2. Was the transition adequate for the areas to the southeast and west. Ruebling asked what the height of the berm to the east would be from the street level to the top of the berm. Lindberg replied it would be approximately 2 feet higher than the parking lot. Ed Flaherty gave a slide presentation with the following points emphasized: 1. Compares the various possible land uses, with the theatre providing the least intense use. 2. The issues of building orientation, buffering and screening, flooding, traffic, security, and theatre operations had all been addressed. 3. There would be no special showing starting after 11 PM. 4. There would be no day time use of the theatre. 5. A ticket would be required to gain access to the gems room. Flaherty stated that the impact on the land related to the size of the area would be minimal. The change from Neighborhood Commercial to Regional Commercial would not have .3 negative impact on the area. He noted that in many ,nmunities, theitrre were designated Neighborhood Commercial. Tb< impact to the ru:;i lun : weold he minimal The import to exiting vegetation and topography of the land had been mitigated. Flaherty bellowed the project would be the catalyst for the extension of Medcom 1 Boulevard, whiuL would be a positive hett.fjt Lo the existing neighhor rids and businesses. Flaherty concluded / Planning Commission Minutes 3 May 9, 1989 by stating that the Lariat Company had positively resolved every issue and had demonstrated that a Comprehensive Guide Plan change was appropriate. Bye asked if the parking lot would be able to be closed off after the last show. Flaherty replied that the possibility of closing off the harking lot had been investigated and it had been determined that this would create additional problems related to police and fire access to the property. • Mark Pfister, 11029 Joy Circle, presented a new petition from the neighborhood to the southeast stating their opposition to the project. A major concern was the impact of the development on the water level. Pfister showed photos of the water standing from just the minimal amount of rain in the previous two days. He said that the land was effected even by insignificant amounts of rainfall. Pfister did not agree with Flaherty's statement that the project would not generate traffic in the residential area and added that with the extension of Medcom Boulevard he believed traffic to the residential area would increase. Charles Pufahl, ISEO Fraulu Road, stated that his property was one of the few which actually bordered the development. He stated that he favored the theatre project. Pufahl noted that Eden Lake had always fluctuated. JoAnn Syverson, 11912 Joy Circle, stated that she did not believe that the noise levels would be mitigated by the herming and trees. She said that the doors slammirj and the radios playing from the cars would still be disturbing and that most of the noise would be late at night end on weekends. Syverson stated that she had been at a City Council meeting several months ago where an industrial development was being considered next to a residential neighborhood and the Council limited the hours the company could operate the machinery as a consideration of the residents. She questioned why their neighborhood was not being given the same consideration. Syverson believed that the impact of this development on Eden Lake had not been addressed adequately and that the proponent had not proven justification for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. MOTION 1: Anderson ;caved, .. ese%d d by RuLi'l inr :-lose the i l 1 public hearing. Motion :�irrie�7 ,, Anderson stated hint he believed Hethis pro:pesal to Le the best use :f ti',. ., .n,. .nl�lci] ;,h::t ".bi , had become ;a very emotional ._.Sue. Anderson believed that there was .arming "wmmiso,inn Minutes 4 May 8, 1989 traffic noise currently from Hl ihw.ay !1169 and would Increase in the area when the 4-lane road was constructed. He said that all the issues had been addressed by the proponent and he believed this to he the proposal which offered the least amount of impact to the neighbors. Ruebling stated that he concurred with Commissioner Anderson. Ruebling asked what the City's control would be if the theatre failed and the property would be used for another purpose which could be more intense than the theatre because of the proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. Uram replied that the building could he converted to office use. Ruebling asked if the City would lose any control if another use was proposed. dram replied that if another use were proposed, the proponent would have to come hack to the Planning Commission. Bye asked Pram If the proponent would be required to come back to the Planning Commission if only the interior of the building were remodeled to accommodate another use. Pram replied that if only the interior of the building were remodeled, the proponent would not have to come before the Planning Commission. Ruebling asked the proponent if an irrigation system would be provided. Flaherty replied yes. Hallett stated that he understood the neighbors concerns; however, another proposal could have ,t more drastic Impact on the vegetation and the land. Hallett believed that the proponent had been sensitive to the neighbors concerns and added that several changes had occurred In the plan due to the neighbors involvement. Dodge believed that the project would he a nice development; however, she strongly believed in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and that the Planning Commission owed it to the residents to be able to rely on the Comprehensive Guide Plan designations. The hours of operation were also a concern for which the proponent; could do nothing to change. Dodge was uncomfortable with the evening and weekend use. Anderson stated that the alternatives could be a 5-story office building or an apartment building which could be viewed by far more residents. Bye stated that Neiyl;horhood Commercial would ;also yyoneratc eveninj :,ncl weekend noise and traffic and that any project wh'.ch would 1.e developed would impact Eden Lake. ".audstel s.tatel that the rri,peuent had rrsented good arguments to .sad i.t:antlate a Comprehensive Guide Plan Planning Co uis:.•iur, M'inuten May ';, 1919 Change; however, he concurred with Commissioner Dodge that the present designation should he upheld and, therefore, could not vote in favor of the ::ening change. Ruehliny believed that the Comprehensive Guide Plan was important al;e, yet at times it was ,appropriate to be flexible. Ruebling stated that this was a close call and believed that this project had demonstrated that the process does take a project and increase its quality through suggestions from Staff, the Planning Commission, and the neighborhood. Rueblicy stated that the proposed development would provide a lower intensity use than what was allowed in Neighborhood Commercial. Rumbling questioned how the City could enforce the starting time of the last show. Uram replied that it would be difficult to enforce; however, it could he a condition of the Developer's Agreement. Fumbling asked what the consequences would be if the starting time were violated. Uram replied that this should be addressed by the City Attorney. MOTION 2: Anderson moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of BRW, Inc., for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Neighhorheed 1 Commercial and Open Space to Regional Commercial un 9.07 acre:: for construction of a 25,248 square foot theatre complex to be know as Preserve South, bared on revised plans dated March 22, and May 5, 1909, traffic study dated April 2, 1939, aubject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated February 24, April 7, .and May 5, 1939. Fumbling asked that a notation he made that teased on the technical information received by the Planning Commission there would be no significant difference related to water run off. Motion carried 9-2-0. Dodge and San,9atad voted "NO". MCT t rtl_i,: Anderunei moved, and sec;cab-cl by Rueb:iny to recommend to the City Council approval of the :ague:;t of BRW, Inc., for Planned Unit Development Concept Amy-rid cent: on approximately 18 acres, for. a 25,2.11 '--,quAre feet theatre c e:uplcx to he known as Preserve South, !,,at:d or, r.evl-ed plwrce dated March .. .ernd May 1 .,9 [•: 'l ', 1219, subject to the rectaon,'.ati .a:, of the Staff • Planning Commission Minutes 6 May 8, 1989 Reports dated February 24, Apr11 7, .aud May 5, 1939. Motion carried 4-2-0. Dodge and Sandetad voted "NO". Anderson moved, socnnded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of BRW, Inc., for Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 13 acres, with waivers, and Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9.07 acres, for construction of a 25,243 square feet theatre complex to be know as Preserve South, based on revised plans dated March 23, and May 5, 1989, traffic study dated April 3, 1939, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated February 24, April 7, and May 5, 1989 with the addition that the Developers Agreement include a commitment by the proponent that the starting time of the last snow not start after 11 PM •and that a paid ticket be required to gain entrance to the game room. Bye requested that a specific time for the closing of the game room be addressed prior to City Council review. Motion carried 4-2-0. Dodge and Sandetad voted "NO". MOTION 5: { Anderson moved, seconded by Ruebling to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of DRW, Inc., fro Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into two lots for construction of a 25,248 square feet theatre complex to be know as Preserve South, based on revised plans dated March 23, and May 5, 1989, traffic study dated April 3, 1939, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated February 24, April 7, and May 5, 1939 with the addition that the Developers Agreement include a commitment by the proponent that the starting time of the last show not start after 11 PM and that a paid ticket be required to gain entrance to the game room. Motion carried 4-2-0. Dodge and Sandstad voted "NO". • PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1989 6:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Julianne Bye, Richard Anderson, Christine Dodge, Doug Fell, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling, Douglas Sandstad STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant Planner; Alan Gray, City Engineer; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: I. APPROVAL. OF AGENDA MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Dodge to approve the Agenda as amended. MOVE: Election of Officers moved to Item V.A. Motion carried 7-0-0. II. MEMBERS_REPORTS A. Election of Officers. III. MINUTES MOTION: Ruebling moved, seconded by Fell to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held March 27, 1989 as •published. Motion carried 6-0-1. Hallett abstained. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ✓A. PRESERVE SOUTH, by BRW, Inc. Request for. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, a Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 18 acres with waivers, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional Commercial on 9.07 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 10, 1989 13 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25,248 square foot theater complex. Location: East of Highway k 169, south of Medcom Boulevard. A continued public hearing. Miles Lindberg presented the following changes made to the plan: 1. The extension of Medcom Boulevard. 2. Internal circulation changed to allow passengers being dropped off to exit the car from the passenger side of the vehicle. 3. Retaining walls constructed along the road right- of-way to the north. 4. The configuration of the parking lot changed to provide a 25-foot setback along the east property line. 5. The lighting layout changed to reduce lighting to a 1/2 foot candle at the property lines. 6. Additional berming proposed along the southern boundary. 7. Due to the change in the configuration of the parking lot, the proof of parking for Lot 2 had been increased. Ron Reed, representing Cinemark, stated that Cinemark currently operated 80 facilities throughout the Country, totaling approximately 400 screens. Five locations were in the planning stages for the Twin Cities, which would assure Cinemarks intention for a long term commitment in this area. Reed emphasized the importance of quality control to Cinemark and its desire to provide first class family oriented entertainment. In response to the residents concerns regarding late shows, Reed stated that it was Cinemark's policy to start the last regular showing by 10:15 PM and that any special showing would not start past midnight. Cinemark has chosen not to run Rocky-Horror films as late show. In response to the parking problem and traffic issues, Reed stated that surveys had been conducted throughout the country which indicated that multi-plex theaters had a decreased parking load. He added that the peak traffic hour for the theater would be approximately 9 PM, with the majority of business generated between 7 to 10 PM. Computerized ticketing also available at the theater would help relieve traffic congestion, because customers could purchase a ticket for any showing throughout the day. Reed concluded by stating that more theaters required larger staffs, which in turn produced a cleaner, safer theater. He added that Cinemark would provide security for the parking lot if it became an issue. l Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 10, 1989 Anderson asked Reed if the theater would have a game room. Reed replied that the theater would have a game room; however, there would not be an outside entrance to the game room and it would be adequately supervised. Dodge asked Reed what the reason was for having a game room. Reed replied that Cinemark wanted to create a non- threaten environment in which the whole family could have fun, it also provided entertainment while waiting for the movies to start. Dodge asked if it was a prerequisite to purchase a ticket to obtain entry to the game room. Reed replied that Cinemark was not selling the game room as a separate entity. He added that he could not guarantee that everyone would purchase a ticket. Reed stated that it would not be in Cinemark's best interest to have children loitering in the lobby. He said the equipment was the state of the art and that Cinemark had an interest in maintaining its property. Hallett asked what type of signage would be provided to help customers find the theater. Flaherty replied that a sign was being proposed for Prairie Center Drive. He added the sign would advertise both Applebees and the theater. Fell asked if Cinemark had ever had a complex and sold it or changed the use of the building. Reed replied no. Fell asked Reed if Cinemark had experienced any daytime usage. Reed replied that the theater could be rented for classes or slide presentations. Reed added that Cinemark would prefer to have daytime use; however it was difficult to develop because of the auditorium type seating. Fell asked if a traffic study had been done regarding potential daytime traffic. Flaherty replied that a study had not been conducted for daytime use; however, he believed the traffic would be nominal. Uram reported that the major question before the Planning Commission was if this development was an appropriate land use for this location. Staff had compared various land uses and the traffic generated, with the conclusion that an office building of 50,000 square feet would generate the least amount of traffic. Uram stated that any office building that would be developed on this property would probably contain more than 50,000 square feet. He added that the current PUD could allow the development of a 5- story office complex, which could generate approximately 2000 daily trips. The movie theater offered an inbetween use. Uram stated that Staff was not recommending approval or denial of the project at this time; however, if the Planning Commission believed that the proponent had demonstrated a compelling argument for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change, the Staff would recommend the r Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 10, 1989 conditions as outlined in the Staff Report dated April 7, 1989. Tom Walters, 12490 Porcupine Court, stated that the neighborhoods position was to not develop the theater. The plan should be rejected for the following reasons: 1. Concern for Lake Eden and the surrounding watershed area. 2. Loss of open space and wooded area. 3. Loss of wildlife. 4. Land use incompatible with residential development because the peak hours of operation would be at the time when residents would be home and trying to enjoy their yards and homes. Walters stated the above objections followed the intent of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He said that the neighbors had tried to work with the developer and the BRW. Sandstad asked Walters what type of land use he would propose. Walters replied that he could not give a specific use; however, he would like to see a less intense development. Walters added that he was not opposed to development of the property. Richard Jensen, 8680 Grier Lane, stated that he was concerned about the potential for a drainage problem. He added that the water drained very slowly in the area currently and was concerned about the addition of 5 acres of asphalt and its affect on the drainage. Jensen believed that the land use proposed was incompatible with a residential neighborhood due to the noise, light and late night hours of operation. Jensen added a concern regarding potential traffic congestion on Medcom Boulevard, especially with traffic wishing to make a left hand turn. John Simacek, 8662 Grier Lane, stated that he had bought • his property based on the understanding that the southern portion of the property in question was guided for Open Space on the City's Master Plan. Simacek was concerned about the location of the parking lot at the end of the development and about the kids using the theater game room as a hang out. Ray Hoveland, 11924 Joy Circle, stated that he was concerned about the drainage issue because the land between his property and the proposed development was low. Hoveland said that when he had considered buying his home in Eden Prairie he had been impressed by the high priority the City placed on land usage. He added that he would be disappointed if the Planning Commission voted to allow the theater development. Hoveland believed that the traffic would be at the worst possible time for residents. He is Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 10, 1989 believed the parking lot would be desolate and expressed a concern about the security of the parking lot since it was far away from any major street. Hallett asked Hoveland what he would suggest as the appropriate use of the land. Hoveland replied office use. Hoveland added that the developer had tried to be co- operative with the neighbors to make an incompatible project compatible. Flaherty stated that the key issue was the designation between Neighborhood Commercial or C-Regional Commercial. He believed there was a significant distance between the existing neighborhood and the proposed development and that a natural boundary was created. All of the technical issues raised by the residents and Staff had been addressed. Flaherty said that he had compared the proposed land use to other land uses and believed this use to be less intense and the best use of the property. He added that a 50,000 square foot office building on this property would not be economically feasible. The theater would provide a needed service to the community. The police department pointed out that management was an important issue and he believed that Cinemark had the type of quality management necessary for a successful project. Flaherty said that a single user facility was much easier to control than a multiple tenant complex. He believed that the other possible uses proposed would add to the traffic problems especially on Prairie Center Drive and Highway # 169, this use produced no morning traffic. Flaherty concluded by stating that development would come to this area and he believed this project to be the least intense use. He added that he too lived in the community and desired to produce a quality development. He believed this was an opportunity to produce a landmark development. Fell asked Flaherty if the building were converted to an office how many square feet would it be. Flaherty replied it could be converted to a 2-story office building of 50,000 square feet without any expansion of the building. Fell stated that he liked the project, but believed this was not the appropriate location. He said the property would be developed ultimately and the neighbors should he aware of this. Fell was encouraged to see the neighbors working together. The Guide Plan change may be inappropriate because of the nature of the traffic, not the magnitude. Ruebling asked Gray to address the drainage issues. Gray stated that this property was within the Eden Lake Watershed District. Gray said that development of the property had been anticipated and believed that adequate ponding was provided. Gray noted that the problem was Planning Commission Minutes 6 April 10, 1989 relying on a large storage space and a small hydraulic system. Gray introduced Bob Obermeyer of Barr Engineering to explain further details. Bob Obermeyer stated that the Watershed District had not taken any formal action regarding this project as it was the Watershed District's policy not to take action until a project had gone through the full City process; however, he was here tonight at the request of the City Staff to answer any questions. A re-analysis of this area had been conducted and the finding was that the current system was adequate. He said that the system was designed to handle a 100 year storm. The flood elevations were based on ultimate development conditions consistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Lake Eden was a man-made pond developed in 1973 to provide storm water storage. A 15" pipe drains to Neil Lake marsh and ultimately drained into Purgatory Creek. Obermeyer said that the homes adjacent to the pond were required to be 2 feet above the flood elevation. Ruebling asked how this project compared related to water run off with other possible land uses. Gray replied there would be no significant detectable difference. Ruebling asked if 350 parking spaces would be adequate for a capacity of 1500 seats and if there would be a problem with overlapping traffic for show changes. Reed replied that several firms confirmed by independent studies that 1 space for every 3 to 4 seats was adequate. Reed said that the theater would never sell out 1500 seats for each seating and that multi-complex theaters actually decreased the parking demand. Ruebling question the residents statement regarding this area being designated for open space. Uram replied the City was trying to protect the water; however, the City would want to protect the ponds and trees with any development of the property. Ruebling stated that his major concern was with the parking lot; its location, the timing of the traffic, the light and the noise produced. Hallett asked Uram if the proposed lighting for the parking lot would be offensive to the neighbors and if he could use another similar project for comparison. Uram replied that while he could not speak for the residents, the lighting would be downcast and that a similar project would be the Crosstown Tennis Club's southern parking lot which was adjacent to residential. Hallett questioned the 300 to 400 foot buffer. Uram replied that this was measured to the lot lines and /r\, Planning Commission Minutes 7 April 10, 1989 believed the distance to be substantial. Hallett asked if a different proposal would change the buffer zone. Uram replied that the rear lot line setback could be as close as 10 feet to the southern lot lines, the proposed project was proposing a 60-foot setback. Franzen stated that no matter what the proposed use of the land, a buffer zone would be necessary. Franzen added that there would still be lighting and traffic for any use and that the hard surface would probably remain the same for another use. Hallett stated that there seemed to be a lot of trees between the development and the neighbors. Uram noted that the area to the southeast had no vegetation; however, the area to the southwest did have significant vegetation. Hallett believed that this vegetation should reduce the effect of the noise and light. Hallett questioned how much noise would actually be heard by the residents considering the distance between the development and the residents. Ruebling asked if there could be additional development on Lot 2. Uram replied that proof of parking for 130 spaces was required on Lot 2 and that development of Lot 2 could only occur if a cross-parking agreement was obtain. Uram believed that use would have to be for an office complex and added that Staff would be concerned about the buffer zone if Lot 2 were developed. Hallett asked if it would be possible to install a fence. to separate the proposed development from the residents. Uram stated that a 6 to 8 foot berm was being proposed at the southern boundary. Uram added that originally a trail was proposed to the elementary school; however, the Parks & Recreation Department had withdrawn its request because of the neighborhoods concerns about pedestrian traffic through their yards. Hallett believed it was important that a movie ticket be purchased in order to gain entry to the game room. Dodge stated that she believed this to be a well thought out project. She was not concerned with the intensity of the use, but the type and hours of use for this project. Dodge said that she was not comfortable supporting the project because it was not allowed under the Neighborhood Commercial designation. Sandstad believed that the parking lot design was not realistic because the walking distance from Lot 2 would be too great. He was concerned about the land use compatibility issues raised by the residents and had not been convinced of the need for a Guide Plan Change. Anderson stated that a 1/2 candle foot lighting would not be excessive and that the noise generated by this project /. Planning Commission Minutes 8 April 10, 1989 would not be any greater than other possible uses. Anderson commented that the neighbors were probably already experiencing traffic noise from Highway $169. Anderson believed the visual impact from this project would be less than other possible developments. Bye stated that office use would create limited travel after 7 PM. Ruebling stated that the noise would be later at night and asked why the building was placed in the proposed location. Flaherty replied that he had wanted to keep the building as far away from the lake as possible because of the inconsistency with the residential homes. Flaherty added that to minimize the visual impact he had decided to tuck the building into the hillside as much as possible and then to provide additional berming. Hallett stated that he was not ready to vote for or to deny the project at this time. Hallett asked if it would be possible to walk the area with the proponent and a few of the neighbors to get a better feel for how the project would layout in its relationship to the residents. Anderson asked how the effect of noise could be measured. Sandstad stated that a noise impact study would probably not show anything that Staff had not already pointed out. Bye commented that the noise issue was a judgement call, what was offensive to one individual would not be to another. Gray replied that this type of noise study would be difficult to conduct and analysis. Fell stated that his main concern was the transient nature of the traffic and its direct reflection on the proposed regional land use. Bye concurred with Hallett's recommendation to visit the site. Flaherty stated that he did not object to a continuance and would be available to provide a site visit at the Planning Commission's convenience. Anderson asked Flaherty to comment on the possibility of a fence. Flaherty stated that he would consider fencing off the property if the Planning Commission could give compelling rationale, he added that at this time he could not justify the need for a fence. M(TTnN: Hallett moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item to the April 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and that within one weeks time the Planning Commission, one Staff member and 4 to 5 concerned neighbors meet to examine the / IL+ Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 10, 1989 proposed development site. Staff to co-ordinate the meeting. Motion carried 7-0-0. 1J(. • Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 24, 1989 IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. PRESERVE SOUTH_, by BRW, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, a Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 18 acres with waivers, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional Commercial on 9.07 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25,248 square foot theater complex. Location: East of Highway R169, south of Medcom Boulevard. A continued public hearing. Ed Flaherty, developer, requested a continuance for two weeks to allow the necessary time to resolve two technical issues. Miles Lindberg, BRW, Inc., thanked the Commissioners and the neighbors for attending the site viewing. Lindberg presented the following issues to be resolved: 1. Additional berming to be provided at the south side of the parking lot, with 3 to 1 slopes provided for berming at the south property line. 2. Determine the location of the entrance to the new Auto Mall and resolve the preliminary grades proposed for the entrance. Lindberg stated that the additional berming being proposed along the southern boundaries would involve a substantial increase in costs for the project, which the proponent wished to explore further. Also, the Auto Mall driveway might not be able to be installed with the proposed grade on the extension of Medcom Boulevard. Sandstad asked what stage of development the Auto Mall was presently at. Lindberg replied that construction of the building was almost completed and asphalt had already been put in for the parking area. The question which needed to be addressed was how Medcom Boulevard would be constructed and what the City's participation would be. Lindberg believed that all of the issues could be resolved by the next Planning Commission meeting. Ruebling noted that the proposed plan depicted the berm dropping at the grove of trees. Lindberg replied that was correct; however, Staff was also recommending that grading start at the south property line and the proponent would prefer the grading start approximately 10 to 12 feet away from the property line. Hallett requested that clarification be provided by the next meeting on the following: 1. The starting time of the last show. • Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 24, 1989 2. The exact policy to be implemented for gaining admittance to the game room. (Hallett added that the Planning Commission had requested that proof of purchase of a movie ticket he required before entrance to the game room was permitted. ) 3. what type of plant material would be used for screening and would it provide for year round screening? 9. Would it be possible to close off the parking lot area after the theater closed? Uram recommended the Planning Commission give the proponent direction on the berming and/or plant material required and added that Staff would be comfortable allowing a two week continuance. Ruebling asked Uram what the City was proposing as a solution for the Auto Mall entrance. Uram replied that Staff was presently working on possible alternatives. Lindberg added that the two private parties involved and the City needed to all work together to determine an acceptable solution. Hallett asked Uram if the City Forester had reviewed the site and approved the proposed landscape plan. Uram replied that City Forester, Stu Fox, had not done a site review. Ruebling noted that the issue related to the substantiation of a Comprehensive Guide Plan change had not yet been resolved and believed that further discussion was needed. Dodge believed that a recommendation from the City Forester was Important; however, she was also concerned about the possible additional delay past the recommended two week period. Ruebling stated that the developments affect on the site and its natural features was one of the issues raised in the evaluation for substantiating a Comprehensive Guide Plan change. Uram stated that he would relay the City Forester's recommendations to the proponent as soon as possible, and the proponent should examine both alternatives. Lindberg stated that the proponent would examine all the information and would present to the Planning Commission at the next meeting the landscape plan the proponent preferred. Sandstad stated that he appreciated the care and the time the proponent had taken to address the Planning Commission's and neighborhood's concern;. He added that /� 71 Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 24, 1989 this item had been reviewed at thrnA previous Planning Commission meetings and that to delay it any further than the next meeting would be unreasonable. The residents had been through some very long meetings and he believed the residents needed to be assured that this issue would not drag on endlessly and that a decision would be made at the next Planning Commission meeting. Lindberg concurred that a decision should be made at the next Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Ruebling to continue this item to the May 8, 1989 Planning Commission meeting; noting that further continuance would not be approved. Tom Walters, 12490 Porcupine Court, thanked Commissioner Sandstad for his appreciation of the residents time. Walters believed the request for a continuance by the developer was unnecessary and was only a ploy to wear down the neighborhoods resistance. Walters did not believe that a Comprehensive Guide Plan change had been substantiated and questioned how residents buying property could rely on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. He said the neighbors had been against the proposal from the beginning and had expressed that opposition in the form of a petition in August 1988 and neighbors had been present at several meeting to voice their opposition. Walters believed that many of the neighbors believed this was a "done deal" and that nothing would be gained by further expression of opposition. Walters concluded by stating that the proposal should be rejected because it did not fit the current Comprehensive Guide Plan regulations. Carl Guggenberger, 12460 Porcupine Court, believed that Cinemark had been vague on the exact starting time of the last show, how many special showings would take place, and what the day time use would be for the theater, if any. Dodge noted that the Commissioners had indicated the need • for answers to these questions at the next Planning Commission meeting. Joanne Slaven, 8698 Crier Lane, stated that there was an existing traffic problem on Preserve Boulevard which needed to be addressed before additional development created an increase in traffic. Motion to continue this item to the May 8, 1989 Planning Commission meeting carried 5-0-0. Planning Commission Minutes 2 MARCH 27, 1989 I ✓B. PRESERVE SOUTH, by BRW, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, a Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 18 acres with waivers, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional 7 Planning Commission Minutes 3 MARCH 27, 1989 Commercial on 9.07 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25,248 square foot thf Highay II 169, eaterplex. Ao continued n: East opublicwhearing. Uram reported that a neighborhood meeting had been held with approximately 40 residents in attendance on Wednesday, March 22, 1989. He added that a new set of plans had been presented by the proponent at the neighborhood meeting, which did not allow adequate time for Staff to review the plans and prepare a Staff Report for tonight's meeting. Uram stated that the new plans were being reviewed by the Fire Marshall and the Police Department. The main issues related to the project are; access, traffic, and transition to the single family homes. Staff felt that the project was technically feasible to build; however, the neighborhood's position was that a movie theater would not be an appropriate use for the land. Sandstad asked Uram if the project would have a connection to Franlo Road. Uram replied that it had been proposed to extend Medcom Boulevard to Franlo Road. A general discussion took place regarding the pros and cons of Neighborhood Commercial usage for the project versus C-Regional Commercial usage related to the parking lot safety and traffic issues. Uram recommended a two-week continuance. OTION• Fell moved, seconded by Anderson to continue the Public Hearing to the April 10, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. /� �r r" T anning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 X ` E. PRESERVE SOUTH, by BRW, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres, a Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 18 acres with waivers, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space to Regional Commercial on 9.07 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25,248 square foot theater complex. Location: East of Highway N169, south of Medcom Boulevard. A public hearing. Miles Lindberg, BRW, Incorporated, representing the proponent, stated that the proposed site was approximately 13 acres located south of Medcom Boulevard. The existing land uses adjacent to the property varied from various commercial uses to the north, to residential on the east, west, and southeast, and an outlot to the south. The proponent was requesting a Guide Plan Change to Regional Commercial but vas making special efforts to preserve the natural environment and the open spaces areas on the site as originally intended on the Guide Plan.. Lindberg stated that the proposal was to construct a 25,248 square foot 8-screen movie theater on the eastern lot of the property. He added that at this time the western lot would be utilized for proof-of-parking. The theaters would have a total seating capacity of 1520 which ^/r ./ Planning Commission Minutes 23 February 27, 1989 required a total of 350 parking spaces. Lindberg said that Lariat Companies would retain ownership of the building and would lease the space to Cinemart Corporation of Dallas. The Lariat Companies would be responsible for the grounds and building maintenance. Hours of operation would be from 5 PM to 9 PM during the week and from 11 AM to 9:30 PM on weekends. it is expected that when the last show of the evening started, the outside marquee lights would go out and that everyone was expected to be off-site by midnight. Estimated trip generation for the theater was 192. He added that 277 trips were allocated to the area. The peak hours would be between 7 PM and 9 PM. Lindberg noted that the previous designated land uses would have a significantly higher PM peak hour generation. The storm pond would be filled in on the eastern side and excavated on the western side to provide adequate storm- water storage. Conservation easements would be provided to assure that the outer perimeters of the property were not developed. He said the building layout on the property had been changed based on the concerns voiced by the neighbors and the Staff's recommendations. Lindberg said the exterior of the building would be primarily brick. He added the building height would be approximately 40 feet and that a 10-foot berm would be constructed along the southern border to provide additional screening. Lindberg stated that utilities would be extended from Medcom Boulevard. Lindberg asked Staff who would be responsible to pay for the extension of the sanitary sewer. Gray replied that to be consistent with other developments, the developer would be responsible to pay for the extension. Lighting would be provided in the parking lot as per the Staff's recommendations with a 20-foot maximum height and noted that lighting affect would be equivalent to residential street lighting. Lindberg concluded by stating that the landscaping would be provided as per Staff's recommendations with an emphasis on screening the southern area. John O'Neil, 3501 14th Avenue South, stated that he owned property adjacent to the proposed site and wanted to know how access would be provided to his property. O'Neil said that he did not object to the project. Marc Syverson, 11912 Joy Circle, stated that he was concerned that he lived within sight distance of this project and had not heard from the developer or City Staff ' 1 /,� , Planning Commission Minutes 24 February 27, 1989 regarding the development of this site. Syverson said that there were problems with water and soil conditions in the area. Syverson believed this property should be classified as a swamp and was concerned about the loss of trees and the wildlife which lived in the proposed development area. Syverson did not believe this property should be zoned Regional-Commercial due to the close proximity of residential homes and the affect of the noise and lighting from a Regional-Commercial development. Syverson was concerned about the isolation of the parking lot and the potential for it to become a hangout. He also questioned if the project was economically feasible, related to the need for another theater in Eden Prairie, and suggested an economic study be done. Syverson believed that accessibility would be poor from Highway 169 and Prairie Center Drive. Syverson suggested that more neighborhood input be allowed prior to the design process and the presentation of Staff recommendations. Syverson believed that all the issues were resolved and the outcome determined by Staff before the public hearing took place. Bye replied that notices were mailed out according to the State statues of 350 feet and added that many times there were modifications made to plans at the Planning Commission level. Uram stated that Staff had mailed notices to residents within 1000 feet of the proposed site in order to notify more residents. Ruebling stated that the Planning Commission depended on Staff to make recommendations; however, no recommendation was final or legally binding until the City Council approved it. Bye added that the Planning Commission merely advised the City Council on it's opinion based on the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan and zoning regulations. Schuck added that many of the Commission members had a technical background to evaluate the plans. Syverson was concerned that the Planning Commission was hesitant to deny a project because of possible legal action. Bye replied that the Planning Commission wanted to assure each developer that due process was given. Mark Pfister, 11929 Joy Circle, stated that the residents on Joy Circle had not been notified by the developer of a neighborhood meeting and in fact only had heard about this public hearing from other residents. Pfister was mainly concerned about the potential for water level problems. Pfister was concerned about the impact to the land from the loss of trees, the altering of the existing drainage pond and the construction of a large building with a massive parking area. Pfister believed that because of the increased development of the Eden Lake area there was less ground surface area for the water to seep into. Pfister added that the area was already sensitive to rainfall and added that a 3 to 4 inch rainfall had a drastic affect. Pfister was concerned about this / ,I, 'lanning Commission Minutes 25 February 27, 1989 development's affect on the noise barrier from Highway { 169. Pfister was concerned about the impact on the waterfowl in the area. Pfister asked if the developer could provide berming on the eastern and southeastern boundaries. Tom Walters, 12490 Porcupine Court, stated that he was asking the Planning Commission to reject the total concept plan for this development until the developer could find an appropriate use for the area. Walters asked that the Planning Commission deny the request for rezoning and the request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change. On August 11, 1988 the residents of the area had submitted a petition to the City against this proposal. Walters said that on January 11, 1989 a neighborhood meeting was held to present the proposal to the residents. Walters added that the residents opposed the proposal on January 11, 1989 and remained opposed to a Regional-Commercial zoning. Walters stated that the residents wanted the area to remain zoned for limited neighborhood-commercial development. Walters presented the following concerns: 1. Decrease in the natural aesthetics. 2. Existing residential property value would be decreased. 3. Increase in vandalism and theft. 4. Major increase of pedestrian traffic through residents yards. Walters believed that the above problems would lead to disillusioned current and potential property owners. Walters noted that the City had mailed 171 notices to residents and added that he believed this to be a significant number of properties affected by this project. Walters stated that he had researched the movie theaters in the Twin Cities and found the following: 1. 46 movie theaters in the Twin Cities. 2. 36 of the 46 produced traffic after midnight. 3. Eden Prairie Theater currently had late night shows on weekends. 4. Only 3 of the 46 theaters had 8 screens. Walters believed the proposed development to be too big for the area and that the requests for changes in the City's requirements necessary to develop this project were excessive. ` Walters said the project was off a dead end street and 4 added that the residents did not want Medcom Boulevard extended to Franlo Road because the street was designed to 'tanning Commission Min..ttes 2C February 27, 1989 e- handle residential traffic. Walters believed the residential quality of the neighborhood would be impacted because the peak traffic from this development would be from 7 PM to 9PM, which vas typically the times residents were trying to enjoy the outdoors. Walters presented diagrams which illustrated that the proposed theater would be under water. Walters vas concerned about the long term effects of the wetlands and the Eden Lake Region. Walters presented a plan to develop a movie theater in the existing Outlet Center, which was also by Cinemart. Walters concluded by stating that the residents were willing to work with the developer to develop a less heavy use of the land. Ray Hoveland, 11924 Joy Circle, stated that there would be no visual or noise barrier between his property and the proposed project. Hoveland believed that the Joy Circle side of the project had not been taken into consideration on this project. John Simacek, 8662 Grier Lane, stated that he had served on the Richfield Planning Commission for 8 years. Simacek said that the City had a wonderful opportunity to develop this vacant land. Simacek encouraged the Planning Commission to stand by the Comprehensive Guide Plan, which was the one thing the City had to hang on to. Uram reported that from a technical standpoint the project could be built but stated that the main question was whether a Comprehensive Guide Plan change had been substantiated. Uram noted that based on previous Staff reports the recommendation vas that the area south of Medcom Boulevard should stay guided for neighborhood- commercial based on the proximity to the existing residential homes. Anderson believed that a Comprehensive Guide Plan change had not been justified. Hallett commented that it was not the Planning Commission's responsibility to determine if this project was going to be profitable. Hallett said the residents needed to understand that this property would be developed and there would be additional traffic, noise, and lights with any commercial development. Hallett believed that this particular location was not appropriate for a movie theater and that justification had not been provided for a Regional-Commercial Development. Hallett believed the City needed to be careful of what it approved to be lanning Commission Minutes 27 February 27, 1989 F. constructed on this site and needed to take into consideration the existing neighborhoods. Ruebling stated that many of the arguments used against this project could be used against any project that could be constructed on this property. Ruebling said that he did not believe a Comprehensive Guide Plan change had been justified. Uram commented that a neighborhood commercial guide plan designation allowed a building up to 50,000 square feet, which could be a more intensive development than this proposal. Anderson asked what the traffic restrictions would be on this project. Franzen replied that a total of 277 trips were left for the entire PUD. Franzen stated that the 50,000 square feet would be a limit; however, the developer would have to provide justification for the architecture, transition, drainage, and lighting. Ed Flaherty, the proponent, stated that Lariat Companies plan was to build and own the property and added that the developer was not one that was looking a quick profit and then to leave the area. A lot of time had been taken to address the appropriate use of this property. He added that the developer had rejected neighborhood-commercial because of the intense impact to the neighborhood. He said that a lot of additional expense was added to the project to provide berming and screening for the neighborhoods. Flaherty stated that the neighborhoods residents had been asked to meet with the developer to provide additional input regarding their concerns, but the residents had refused to meet with the developer. A 10 foot berm had been added to the southeastern area, depicted by the plan. The project was required to be constructed within State guidelines related to construction on floodplains. Cinemart was considering two completely different types of movie theaters. He added that the Outlet Center was designed to be a $1.00 movie theater, while there project was the upscaled version. Cinemart would prefer to proceed with the upscaled version if possible. Flaherty assured the Planning Commission that the developer had the financial capability to develop the project and added that if the movie theater did not succeed, the building was designed to be converted to office space. Anderson stated that more traffic study need to be done. Anderson suggested that Public Safety should review the plan. Anderson was concerned that the open space was being reduced. Anderson encouraged the neighborhood and the developer to meet again. .=,nnina Commission Minutes 28 February '27, 1989 Bye stated that neighborhood commercial development could operate 24 hours a day and would be more intense to the neighborhood. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Schuck to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. Uram noted that the Staff recommendation was to continue this item for 30 days to allow time to address technical issues and the issues presented by the residents. Uram stated that if the Planning Commission did not believe that the developer had provided justification for the Guide Plan change, the option would be to deny the project. Bye asked the proponent if their preference would be for a continuance or a denial and then to proceed to the City Council without the Planning Commission recommendation. Flaherty replied that the developer would prefer a continuance. Schuck strongly recommended that a neighborhood meeting take place. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Schuck to continue the public hearing on Preserve South pending revision of the plans as discussed at this meeting to the March 27, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0. �" , CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 1189-129 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF COUNTRY GLEN FOR COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Country Glen for Coffman Development, dated June 2, 1989, consisting of 9.3 acres into 20 single family lots, 1 outlot, and road right- of-way, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council cn the 6th day of June, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk n Eden Prairie City Council 1„,ia.;;F c,;3.? 7r5.00 E:-.0s,rutive Dr Eden F rairie„MN. 55..346 From: Patrick.J and Ann Luecl: 1 Duck Lake Road Eden Prairie,MN 554b SUBJECT PUBLIC HEARING-Country rillen project,Stenehlem Addition Council members: In regard to the proposed zoning change of a nine acre parcel of land immediately adjacent to our property, I offer the following: our house and property(.1.5 acres approitmately)is soutlr.vest of the parcel,::oncerned and borders only a small portion of it. It will,however, border the west-ward eitension of Country Glen road,as depicted on the plat. submitted by Coffraan Development 2. We have lived in this,part of Eden Prairie for nine: years and hays- adopted a life style accommodating the largely rural setting we moved to. We enjoy city services and use Duck Lake Road as:access. We would not leave this area.if that setting and city services were not to change. 3. While we have heard rumors of pending development in the area (specifically the 20 acre northwest corner of Duck Lake Road and Townline Road),we had no specifics until the notice of hearing arrived in the mail. I did tall:to one person (name unknown)about."....possibility of sellinvour property..."in late March. He did not follow up. 4. The plat as filed by Coffman Development is a complete surprise to us. The lot and street lines that are drawn into our property and that of our neighbor (Jacobsen, (345.)Duck Lake Road)were done without any consultation with us. 5. It is obvious that the westward e:.:tensdon of Country Glen Road,if accomplished,will be paid for by either the owners/cievelopers of the two parcels (6 1 and 6.345)or assessed against the properties. Larger properties Call substantially benefit by development and sale of building lots;smaller ones may net Jr any event,our I Lueck i situation is a desire to / ri not have the development take place. Knowing that it will:we wish to { reduce the impact of any fee/assessment for roads/improvernents. To reduce this impact,we respectfully request the city council to delay the approval of the Coffman Development protect and require Coffman to discuss their plans fully with us. "Ott I`7ank trick Lue::1: Ann AI Lueck /r, a C t 7 April, 1989 City Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344 Coffman Development 7400 Metro Blvd. Suite 115 Edina, Mn. 55435 We submit for your review and consideration proposals for a Preliminary Plat and Rezoning from Rural to R-1 13.5 on Outlot "A", Stenehjem Addition. The property consists of approximately Nine Acres adjacent to Townline Road ( Crosstown - 62 ). We are also petitioning for City installed Improvements. May we thank you at this time for your consideration. \Rep�s.j ectfully William Coffman • i r' i'i I i f�E rrff • APR 0 71980 ..'i 1`.' O! ( 7 April, 1989 Proposal The Proposal submitted is for Rezoning from Rural to R-1 13.5, and Preliminary Plat approval. Guide Plan The City Guide Plan calls for Low Density Residential. The Proposal requires no change. Zoning Present Zoning is Rural. Proposed Zoning is R-1 13.5 Variances No Variances are required Existing Land Use Existing Land Use is Open. Phasing and Schedule The proposal is for One Phase being constructed in 1989. Development Method The Lots will be sold to Builders. Excess Land Outlot A will be deeded to the property owner adjacent. Water, Wildlife Habitat There is no Habitat or water on site that will be impacted with the exception of a small horse watering manmade depression. Soils There are no constraints for single family construction Existing Structures The existing Barn will be removed. 6, Ayiil, 19G9 Lot Sizes - Hidden Glen , Eden Prairie, Mn. Block 1 Lot 1 16,000 Sq. Ft. Lot 2 13,500 Sq. Ft. Lot 3 13,500 Sq. Ft. Lot 4 13,500 Sq. Ft. Lot 5 13,500 Sq. Ft. Lot 6 13,500 Sq. Ft. Lot 7 13,500 Sq. Ft. Lot 8 15,000 Sq. Ft. Block 2 Lot 1 14,000 Sq. Ft. Lot 2 15,500 Sq. Ft. Lot 3 14,200 Sq. Ft. Lot 4 14,700 Sq. Ft. Lot 5 13,700 Sq. Ft. Block 3 ( Lot 1 14,500 Sq. Ft. Lot 2 13,500 Sq. Ft. Lot 3 14,000 Sq. Ft. Lot 4 17,500 Sq. Ft. Lot 5 15,500 Sq. Ft. Lot 6 14,500 Sq. Ft. Lot 7 16,500 Sq. Ft. • • r STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 5, 1989 PROJECT: Country Glen LOCATION: South of Townline Road, west of Claycross Way APPLICANT: Coffman Development FEE OWNER: Kathleen Stenehjem REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.3 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 9.3 acres into 20 single family lots and 1 outlot. Background PROPOSED SITE 1 i This site, as well as the adjacent _ .. -_ _. _ _ _ )! ....-_._.__. properties, are guided Low Density �. t`" ••�� i. a -_ Residential. Specific land uses in , %1'°'`-' �,.i� l\ 1 this area include Chatham Wood, 'fI111rTS • 44 ' \) ., ,A,4-„ R•�'F zoned R1 13.5 to the east, Stenehjem 14-fir"-. ' 1R1-9.5 ;••;T „ Addition, zoned R1-13.5 to the 3=�'' $ •�•� •<:c . ,,,,. south, large lot single family =_�L_)Z�. ' • i�i..�t 1-i3. ' `- residential, zoned Rural to the 'R'" , �i�i!•�! i " \ west, and Townline Road to the north. The proponent is currently ��` °';, _ requesting a Zoning District Change -.•�.v,:.: t ---' 1 from Rural to R1-13.5 and a ) �'r, 1 `-1:. : F -� ,, Preliminary Plat of approximately (� I ;' a . P ;R1,�1 9.3 acres into 20 single family ;- lots. ���' ��\ .1\\i- •- Raz = y/. Site Plan/Preliminary Plat_;- -;rl �-- w 1 The site plan depicts the sub- a Rirf division of the 9.3-acre parcel into ) `- "I, f -'`—' - 20 single family lots and 1 outlot. !f 1� T. --c• : 1` , Ico.U:i.: [�...,: Outlot A, located between Lots 3 and / 9F.22 r,,..-J r_r7,:. -�4.-IJ 4, Block 3, will be the future p.5 . • l .; -"' 1-1 t'I,,_1.-C -1i, location of an B-foot bituminous �',a -jj ' ; . 1�-:j:i1.�1 -i "r" ;11 ,:�- trail. Lot sizes within the pro- , ,' t ,-.0 . -T..•.. • J _'" posed subdivision range from a -li--i ' PUB AREA LOCATION MAP Country Glen 2 May 5, 1989 minimum of 13,500 square feet to a maximum of 18,700 square feet. The average lot size is 14,660 square feet. All the lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1- 13.5 zoning district. Access to this site would be provided by the extension of Claycross Way from the east and Townline Road from the north (see Attachment A). The conceptual overall development plan indicates that Claycross Way and Country Road would be extended to Duck Lake Trail with the development of the adjacent properties. Grading Elevations on this site range from high points of 916 in the extreme southwest corner, and 914 within Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, to a low point within Outlot A at an elevation of approximately 882. The site slopes primarily towards the east. Cut and fill amounts range from approximately 6 feet of cut on Lot 8, Block 1, and a fill amount of approximately 10 to 12 feet within Outlot A to allow for the construction of building pads. The majority of the project is proposed to be graded. A number of trees exist on this site and consist primarily of box elder which are not subject to replacement. The proponent has indicated that they would be transplanting on-site, 5, 8-foot spruce trees. Utilities Water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer are available to this site. Connections for sanitary sewer and water would be made to an 8-inch waterline and 8-inch sanitary sewer line located within Claycross Way. In addition, a 12-inch waterline exists along the east property line within Townline Road. This waterline shall be extended to the west property line and a connection made to the waterline within proposed Country Road. Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected within a catch basin system located throughout the street system and discharged into a storm sewer pipe and ultimately into Outlot D. Outlot D, located on the adjacent property, provides for ultimate discharge into Purgatory Creek. Detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans shall be submitted for review by the Watershed District and the City Engineer. Pedestrian Systems A 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided along the west and north sides of Country Road with an ultimate connection to Duck Lake Road and Townline Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.3 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 9.3 acres into 20 single family lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way based upon plans dated April 18, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 5, 1989, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the plans to reflect the street location and sidewalk location within the right-of-way. Country Glen 3 May 5, 1989 B. Submit a petition for the construction of Country Road. C. Revise the plans to reflect the extension of the 12 inch waterline within Townline road to the parcel's west property line. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Provide 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 46 hours in advance of grading. B. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. r! • <,..• q. i :.::. oc› .., .:1 . .,..cs4 i ,\ 01.01 0,::. ........ • , „ A __________,____________ - _._ ..t. r- .....:: ''..-- • 1 i ;: aP a 1 °Ma ;` ° tbountry Glen 1 \I • o 0 O • /r Il 1 • 1 I .--- ----- - I \, WO N o O' I S1 Qa o 0 13, \ Q_-. __o 1 d•"` ion O 1` II o .-o gip I F:io « It I a \ '\ 4.i:".:.,t02.4..::; ii4.t(.4t,.t(0,..,.0. . , . .., \ - I_____ ------.— 0 f".."1-1 t \ t �,�is�.. ATTACHMENT A • igno NYS 1 I:a 1 , 1 i.\ Townline Road Ext. f 01 1 10° °r' 1 di 0 11/1! ill l ‘k.. *U. 4.2 / \ • t '' • • « i 3........... • ? . Planning Cuinmi ion Minutes 8 May 8, 1989 t ‘,'c. CntJNTRY GLEN, by Coffman Devolopment. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.3 acres, and PPreli inary;;Plataof 9.3 acres into 20 :jingle family Iota, d right-of-way. Loc ticn: South of Townline Road, west of Claycross Way. 1 public hearing. Ron Rastyr, representing the proponent, presented plan; for 20 single-family lots on 9.3 acre,., with R1-13.5 ^fanning Commission Minute:; 9 May 8, 1989 coning. Two accr:;♦:c:, would be provided; thy_ m.rjur ,.rc(7res coming from Townline Rood, with the secondary accea, being the extension of Claycross Way. The utilities would be petitioned 100 by the proponent. Thu homes would be constructed by custom builder:;, with ,an architectural review required on each home by a review committee. tJr.om reported that Staff recommended approval of the project based on the May 5, 1989 Staff Report recommendations. Pat Lueck, 6381 Duck Lake Road, presented a letter to the Planning Commission addressing his concerns. Its :aid that the neighbors had not been contacted by the proponent, lot lines had not been verified, and he questioned stilt the cost of the road improvement.; outlined in the proposed plat would be to the small property owner, such as himself. Lueck requested that; the project be delayed until the proponent had talked with the neighboring residents and given the residents an opportunity to have input to possibly reduce the financial impact of Clen Country Road. He believed that the proposed cul-de-sac would be too long. Doreen Seal, 63f8 Chandler Court, stated that she would prefer to see the orator homes rather than sportrsent buildings. She questioned where the water would be directed from this project and would it impact her property. She believed the cul-de-sac would h Lee 1.)ntj. was Way wa a busy t currentlyreetwith the speed of the cars increasing daily. Seal stated that she wild like to see a play lot provided for the children of the neighborhood. Uram noted that when a development was being proposed adjacent to vacant Lots, Staff suggested to the proponent to layout the area showing how the whole area could be best developed. He added that the project could proceed with or without neighborhood knowledge; however, he concurred that the proponent should meet with Mr. Lueck regarding the road extenalons. Uram believed that the 550-foot cul-de-sac would be acceptable based on the City's intent to have a connection to Duck Lake Road. The original Tnwnline Road would end in a cul-de-sac to the west of this project, directing the majority of the traffic to Chatham Way. The additional traffic generation from thin development :cola Le. ,ipproximaP.cll 200 trip per day, which would he evenly distributed with the propu.:,e•d reel improvement in '.he ;rea. ttic-un :tafed tt:,:t .a tot:lat had not been planned with this prnjr'i t, but: eiej n:;tr'd tieit the Pork & Recreation Deportment review the area to determine if .a tetl,d eai.rld h ,;iT Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 8, 1089 Hallett believed that it was important for the developer to meet with Mr. Luuek and inform him of the options available. Bastyr replied that he would meet with the owners of the properties to the west during the next week to discuss possible road alternatives. Bastyr stater] that a continuance would hurt the project due to the time of the year and added that he would prefer if possible to work out the details with Staff. Anderson suggested a continuance for two ,ieeks and publish this item for the City Council agenda for June 6, 1989. Anderson believed there were valid reasons to consider a neighborhood meeting. Bye concurred with Anderson and added that she would like to review the project again after the road alignments had been clarified. MOTTOM: Anderson moved, seconded by Hallett to continue the Public Hearing for 2 weeks and to place this item on the City Council Agenda for its June 6, 1989 meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. r 1 • Viking Press Expansion CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-127 A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR VIKING PRESS EXPANSION WHEREAS, Viking Press has applied for site plan review for construction of a 26,844 sq. ft. building expansion on 6.7 acres on property located at 7000 Washington Avenue, currently zoned I-5; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its May 8, 1989, Planning Commission meeting and recommends approval of said site plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its June 6, 1989, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Viking Press for construction of a 26,844 sq. ft. building addition, based on plans dated April 25, 1989, subject to the following conditions: A. Developer agrees to submit to the City Engineer and Watershed District, and to obtain the City Engineer's approval and Watershed District's approval of storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility plans for the property. 8. Developer agrees to notify City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of any grading on the property. C. Prior to issuance of any grading permit on the property, Developer shall stake the construction limits of the property with snow fencing. D. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Fire Marshal, and to obtain the Fire Marshal's approval of, fire protection of the property. E. Prior to building permit issuance on the property, Developer shall pay the appropriate cash park fee. ADOPTED by the City Council on June 6, 1989. • Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: 4r John D. Frane, City Clerk 4 STAFF REPORT i TO: Planning Department FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 5, 1989 PROJECT: Viking Press Building Addition LOCATION: 7000 Washington Avenue South APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Viking Press REQUEST: 1. Site Plan Review within the I-5 zoning district on 6.7 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Background /".t 1- �`�� This site is currently designated on GAS/ ' i the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide �-, Plan for Industrial land uses. I Surrounding properties to the north, = / I... . south, east, and west, are also r •,1�:� Il- ' ' 1 designated Industrial. The property (-d , .,L,.�,i was zoned I-5 in 1969. 2 r_ T= 11_, There is an existing 98,558 square (_2 : , foot building on this site. The original 58,245 square foot building 1 j N \„ was constructed in 1978 and a i + _ �,.\ building addition of approximately 1 1 40,028 square feet was constructed in 1985. 1 The current proposal is to construct (_2 :` �Fi;,'�^! an additional 26,844 square feet of r, i;. Ioffice and warehouse space and a • �_2 ..•,; PROPOSE SITE .. single-story parking structure. t1 I �' Site Plan L.1, �JI L,_ :I; 1` f The site plan depicts the con- > i 1,,j I i struction of a two-phase building r2 ' (-2� '' 1 expansion to the existing Viking " Press building. The first phase � would consist of approximately (�lf -j_ OFG. 1.-2 i I2,984 square feet and be the two- 1 i story portion of the building • AREA LOCATION MAP Viking Press Addition 2 May 5, 1989 located adjacent Washington Avenue. The second story of this building will primarily be used for office space while the first floor would be used for production. The second phase includes a 13,860 square foot warehouse expansion. In addition, a 26,000 square foot parking structure is being constructed to the rear of the building and would hold 78 parking spaces. With the construction of the parking structure, there will be a total of 274 parking stalls on-site with 251 being built with this proposal. City Code requires 274 parking stalls based upon the use of the building. The 27 proof-of-parking stalls located towards the front of the building will be maintained as a landscaped area until the parking stalls are needed. Based upon a site size of 6.75 acres, a Base Area Ratio (B.A.R.) of 40.2% has been calculated. City Code allows up to a 30% B.A.R. in the I-5 zoning district. The building expansion in 1985 required an Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) variance which was granted to 32.5%. In 1985, the building was single-story and the B.A.R. Code requirement did not exist. The building meets all other I-5 zoning district requirements. The variance request may have merit based on the following criteria. First, the B.A.R. variance does not create additional variances for number of parking stalls, parking setbacks, or building setbacks. Usually F.A.R. or B.A.R. variances create a need for additional variances. Second, the additional building area should not adversely impact parking or traffic in the industrial area as split work shifts are utilized. Third, the F.A.R. of the two-story building is consistent with Code requirements. Last, the visual impact is mitigated by the use of additional plant material on site. Architecture The building expansion is designed as a continuation of the existing building in terms of both color and architecture. Building materials consist of single and four-scored concrete block and smooth precast concrete for the parking structure. Single-scored concrete block and smooth precast concrete do not meet the Code requirement in the I-5 zoning district. However, because the existing building has been constructed with single-scored concrete block, the proponent will request a variance to allow for the continuation of this material. Revised architectural plans for the parking structure shall be submitted indicating a textured precast concrete. Grading This site has been previously graded with the development of the building and parking areas. The only grading to occur on this site would be to the rear of the building, which is the location of the proposed parking structure. Elevations at this location range from a high point of approximately 880 which would be lowered to the 876 contour to allow for the construction of the parking structure. This area is wooded and based upon the proposed grading plan, a significant tree loss of 242 caliper inches has been calculated. No tree replacement is required because previous approvals for the building indicated parking in this area. Landscaping The landscape plan depicts a total of 176 caliper inches provided on-site. The building size would require a total of 127 caliper inches. Signage/Lighting No additional signage is proposed with this building. Lighting would consist of four additional 30-foot light poles. Viking Press Addition 3 May 5, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the request from Viking Press for a Site Plan Review on 6.7 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals subject to plans dated April 25, 1989, the Staff Report dated May 5, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Submit revised plans indicating the correct dimensional figures for the parking areas which would be consistent with the landscape plan. B. Submit revised building elevations for the parking structure indicating textured precast concrete. 2. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Submit storm water run-off, erosion control, and any utility plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Submit storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. C. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. D. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshal. 3. Apply for, and receive, a variance from the Board of Appeals to allow a Base Area Ratio to exceed 3D% and to permit single-scored concrete block in the 1-5 Park zoning district. tv— • rlanning Commission Minutes 13 May 9, '989 J E. IMXINC PRESS., INC_ EXPIaNSICN, by Fortier and Associates, Inc. Request for Site Plan Review within the I-5 zoning district on 6.7 acres with variances to he reviewed by the Board of Appeals for construction of an Addition to .a building. Location: 7000 Washington Avenue South. A public hearing. Darrell Fortier, representing the proponent, stated that he concurred with the Staff Report. Franzen reported that Staff recommended approval based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report dated May 5, 1989. Hallett asked what type of pedestrian walkway systems were being provided. Franzen replied that currently there were no sidewalks along Washington Avenue. The buildings for this project would be setback approximately 50 to 75 feet, which could allow for sidewalks to he constructed in the future in the road right-of-way. Hallett believed that; the City had started a sidewalk system along Smetana Lane. Franzen replied that the trail was constructed from Southwest Crossing I to Golden Triangle Drive. Hallett stated that he would like the Park & Recreation Department to review sidewalks for this area in the future. MOTION1: Anderson moved, seconded by Dodge to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Andrrr.son moved, cocend by Ruahlin.; recommend to the City Council approval of the request .af *'artier and • Associates, Inc., For Site Plan approval within the I-5 Zoning Pirtr.ict err ,.7 ,acres, sith variances to 're reviewed by the Ecard of Appeals, f;r acn natruc:tion of .an Planniny Commibsion Minutes 14 May A,, 1959 addition to an existing structure, based on plans dated April 25, 1939, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report date May 5, 1989 with the addition that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Department review the trial movement for the area. Motion carried 5-0-0. �� c May 8, 1989 Eden Prairie Planning Commission 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: May 8, 1989 Planning Commission Hearing - request of Mr. Alex Dorenkemper for zoning variance Dear Sirs: With respect to the above referenced request, we are writing to express or concerns and questions. Our understanding is that the area known as Crestwood was subdivided into residential lots prior to an ordinance, which banned further subdivisions of land into parcels of less than 10 acres in size because of density and sanitation/septic reasons. We basically oppose this request for several reasons. Amoung our concerns are the following: 1. The new lots would have a size of less than 3/4 acre and would be among the smallest in the area. 2. We are wondering if Mr. Dorekemper is moving out of the neighborhood because of the "For-Sale" sign in front of his house. If so, his motive for requesting the variance is to increase the potential sales proceeds from selling his property at the detriment of his neighbors. 3. To grant this request would set a precedent for others wishing to parcel off their property. We moved to this area in order to escape the high density of city\suburban living. We understood at the time we purchased the property that public utilities would not be available to the area until approximately the year 2000, which we understand, is still the target date. We can accept that the density will increase at that time and will deal with it when it comes. In the meantime, we see no reason to further increase the density in excess of the current levels. CA, N Corwin R. and MaryJean D. Davidson 18375 Pioneer Trail Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 /?27. C January 23, 1989 City of Eden Prairie Chris Enger, City Planner 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minn., 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: This letter is to confirm that we permit Alex Dorenkemper, 18925 Pioneer Trail, Chaska, Minn., to act for us to plat the lot at 9659 Dell Drive, Eden Prairie, Minn. The plot shall conform to the legal description as described in our abstract of title. The abstract can be obtained from: Equity Title Suite 200 6800 France Ave. Edina, Minn., 55435 Att: Equity Title File # 14834 Sin erelyi, Richar L. Wilson Judith E. Wilson 4272 Sawkaw N.E., Apt. 201 Grand Rapids, Mich., 49505 Telephone # 616-363-9376-Home 616-784-7921-Off ice cc: Carl Julie, City Manager Eden Prairie lilex Dorenkemper DORO HY t1:AN".AN notary pjbti Oita.:: ouny,!At My Commirion E:.ciroa Feb.6,1960 Acting in Kent County,Michigan • • • 1n ,; 7 STAFF REPORT ( TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 5, 1989 PROJECT: Outlot A Crestwood '89 LOCATION: Northeast quadrant of Dell Drive and Crestwood Terrace APPLICANT: Alex Dorenkemper and Richard Wilson REQUEST: 1. Rezoning of 2.17 acres from Rural to R1-22. 2. Preliminary Plat approval of 2.17 acres into 3 lots. Background r- A .?,__• ,F_ i . In 1973, the Cityapproved -.... a Zoning � 'j �" 1 District Change to R1-22 and a Final /;\ Plat into 20 single family lots to / 7,7 1 -. be known as Crestwood Terrace (see �\ /�;\\---- -- 1 Attachment A). As a condition of - approval, since this area was in the ,,^ Rural area of the City and outside \ '�-_- `+',•: PROPOSED SITE of the M.U.S.A. Line, the City %1 \` ,', II required a land hold agreement (see ---1 Attachment B). This was signed by \ \ • J Mr. Alex Dorenkemper and Mr. Richard r Wilson. This agreement states that ---4---� they would not petition the City of \ > : �„ Eden Prairie for any further •` Pl.. _y i- . platting of any part of the property i until public sewer and water service ,' ; became available to the property or ` i.,- until a date five years from the p date thereof (September 12, 1973) r 1 whichever would come first. This I �- was also predicated upon recognizing l'-- .-.- -- and acknowledging that this agree- ment 1.-- and does not waive any building requirements and platting and subdivision requirements or any 1 i� other City Ordinances. /�— -^-? In 1979, Alex Dorenkemper applied _ for a zoning district change from AREA LOCATION MAP /�.-", Outlot A Crestwood '89 2 May 5, 1989 Rural to R1-22 and a preliminary plat of 2.17 acres into 3 lots for Outlot A of the Crestwood '73 subdivision. Outlot A was part of the land area that was previously put into a landhold agreement. This 1979 request was denied by the Planning Commission and by the City Council. Resolution #79-83 indicates the reasons for denial of the request to rezone Outlot A Crestwood '73 (2.17 acres) from Rural to R1-22 (see Attachment C). Subsequent to the denial of the proposed subdivision, Mr. Alex Dorenkemper sued the City of Eden Prairie. Judge Chester Durda heard the case and dismissed it in favor of the City. Development Request The current request is identical to the 1979 case. A rezoning from Rural to R1-22 and preliminary plat of 2.17 acres into 3 lots is requested. Comprehensive Guide Plan This site is guided Low Density Residential for up to 21/2 units per acre with public sewer and water. However, this site is outside of the M.U.S.A. line. Sewer and water service are not proposed to be extended out to this area until at least the Year 2D00. Rural Zoning District This site is currently zoned Rural. Section 11.10, Subd. (1) states that "one of the purposes of the Rural zoning district is to prevent premature urban development of certain lands which will eventually be appropriate for urban uses until installation of drainage works, streets, utilities, and community facilities and the ability to objectively determine and project appropriate land use patterns makes orderly development possible." Outlot A is 2.17 acres and is currently zoned Rural. The City's current zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 10 acres for the construction of single family homes in the Rural zoning district. Zoning A zoning change is requested from Rural to R1-22. The R1-22 district has a minimum lot size of 22,000 square feet, a minimum frontage of 90 feet, a minimum depth of 125 feet, and a minimum width of 90 feet. All of the lots meet the minimum dimensional and square footage requirements for the R1-22 district. The R1-22 zoning district setback requirements are a 30-foot front yard requirement, a 15-foot sideyard requirement (combined sideyard of 30 feet), and a rear yard setback of 25 feet. The R1-22 district also requires public sewer and water which will not be available to the site until after the Year 2000. The existing house on proposed Lot 1 does not meet the minimum sideyard setback requirement for the R1-22 district. The plat depicts a 10-foot sideyard setback. The Code requires a minimum of 15 feet. This would require a variance from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Access The existing home has access to Dell Drive off a hard surface cul-de-sac which is not constructed to City standards. Proposed Lot 2 could also have access to Dell /2) Outlot A Crestwood '89 3 May 5, 1989 Drive, but proposed Lot 3 would require an extension of the hard surface of Dell Drive to its easterly line for proper access since the hard surface cul-de-sac terminates midway across proposed Lot 2. Septic Tank Systems Minnesota Law 7D-8D states requirements for homes with private sewer systems as follows: 1. 10-foot setback from all property lines. 2. 50-foot setback from any wells. 3. Provide room for a back-up system on-site. The proposed Lots 2 & 3 meet requirements 1 and 2, but there is not enough room on- site to provide a back-up system due to the Williams Brothers pipe line easement and since wells are proposed in the front yards. The back-up system is required if the first system fails. A mound system is the only feasible method of providing on-site septic system for Lots 2. & 3 since the preliminary soils information provided by the proponent indicates the soils are not suitable for septic fields. The mound system on proposed Lot 2 will remove existing natural vegetation. This vegetation is mostly elm and ash with some oak. Grading. The grading to accommodate the proposed houses is minimal since the sites are relatively level adjacent to Dell Drive. No significant trees would be lost due to house pad grading. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend denial of the rezoning of 2.17 acres into 3 lots and rezoning from Rural to R1-22 for the following reasons: 1. The rezoning to R1-22 and subdivision of 2.17 acres into 3 lots would not be in conformance with the comprehensive plan. Outlot A is situated outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (M.U.S.A.) as determined by the Metropolitan Council and does not have available to it municipal sewer and water facilities at this time, and the Metropolitan Council prohibits development in those portions of the metropolitan area outside such service area. 2. The R1-22 zoning district requires public sewer and water which will not be available until after the Year 20D0. 3. City Code requires a 10-acre minimum lot size for the construction of a single family dwelling in a Rural district, and in addition, minimum lot width of 3D0 feet and 300 feet of depth. Lots 1, 2, and 3, are less than the 1D acres in area, and are less than 3D0 feet wide. Lots 2 & 3 are less than the 3D0-foot in depth. These lots do not meet the minimum requirements of City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 2B. In'u ) Outlot A Crestwood '89 4 May 5, 1989 l 4. There is an existing house on proposed Lot 1 and approval of a subdivision would result in the easterly line being within a distance of 10 feet. The R1-22 zoning district has a minimum side yard setback requirement of 15 feet. The subdivision would result in the east line of the single family dwelling situated on Lot 1 being in violation of the zoning ordinance. 5. The zoning ordinance requires single family detached dwellings in the Rural District to be situated at least 50 feet from side lot lines. The existing house on proposed Lot 1 is setback 30 feet from the side lot line. 6. The subdivision does not contain adequate provisions for access to public streets for all of the proposed lots. 'b - 1 ! i R 4(...6.2..„, (6) , . * — IVO V NV,.4.•.• ,;.... (3 lor Irili . ", i „ ,...,0 ). 1 (3) z 6 I « a il 1 •••• . • - . ..-",• ':*,,,!! a a .-s-:;,.'.. . ..41,,•-•• va-. , z •. .. •,,,,., . • 2,,,.. *, . a • = 5) 0 .N.4-i (e) 8 - '4,p • t., .0 . •'•,,2, ... .. •• • I • 1 (e) 17,...V's. i ;,. ,i, (8, 4 - . m.ro IVO 0 4 • NI .X,. (7) , , 1 , 2 M.N. P*) -2 g. VI ,131. yv .• 0• I _ , .0•' .,. (IQ '- , 4 N t , (141v 4 4 "V •',- •I II) 4.r144....'......%=V14.0III2,2a4z4....... \ ,.....-,„,.„ -.. ...,...7.., ..,.' (le) .,s ...s. ..„,.. ••1, . 1 0111101P.,:-.7-_.. , 1.2 on . '•-• '. , - • f ( .,,: , of 1.6 ' n..,.. II ". 10... 00 to .'"': 43) . I. .4.,.. . KO. •,i A ..,.. - (40,', 4. , -:.;s.* . - 4141,'• . " a--. r. ," ,•,',"..,,,,, -r. ,44. —, (6) .4 b. ' 1.,!! ":. I ', '3 . ..• s.. . ..s'o IETh '...P1 • ,i` • 44 ' ..4.,,, , , •i .Z it (5) -. ',. , ;' .4 ,.1,7%Nt, 1-• I 3 .... R.O. e (1) /04 . •. . . a ,. ",....=.0 . , i . •..- -•- " 't-:Num.- . • '- ''-. '''• (e) ( ) a 10 ; (") -.. ' , •.' ,..- , ,. a • • t. • et,". ..:= '• 6 L :, . 2 (153. ; ' ..•z• N ., . 41/, ,oil ' '. (20) 11— 41••‘ . '' ' I(I)) . a()) 4. It:, . , _ .. ....— . . ' . (IQ ;. '; — (10) ' • '‘; r Warr..4'4M5)M....77.72.X, • (73) )Y3r' -„ ..: Crestwood Terrace Attachment A • mq,,,,P R . (4) 1 [ ; ,..5 k' . i e I ! c? cc (6) i • r WPM.5, .4•0( r4 177 '''' . 1 (5) -171;. 3 • 3 . • ...' .1,',,ir Z Z .4,•''' '''.-. ... ''',. bkl i g(4)Ni:p,..2, ) , . a) az... .ts-4' (6) ,.c, -0 " .\1•., , , (,)1.,, 1 ,..4 () - ft,. . I 'l't () . h 2 0, (20) ,,,, ,• r i 0.;• Op nr....rt . .,. (Z).&11.14;' 4 \ \ .. . ,' 17 (18) I vs ) • . • TO'. C 3 (3) IC) 11. (21)3 • L43.4 it1.1.• ,y1,., 14. ' "••It (13) , . \r*. ' ' ' (213) A '''t .4. •,. (14)::, 7.4.• , -... a) t. : ,3 . 4 ,q..•--..---..-_,1 . •q; (13) . '. (0 8 i.: '• ,,4 :i ., , •'' ,e3,..3.6, . ,, (2) R n 02 a •.-pit P i q II' (10) •. ,. • ''i t. -_ (I) (4) (3) ' ..%.• •0,,,', .' . ,, ., . .t'• ' "8 • •.• . (6) i '-. (1,) . C'.•, ' . /3.,* ,,, 't ‘1,3, • i!,46 - 44' . 4 N•iss, ' ' l ) 4*(,3) - .., "°) (.), , .)* "4•;;;; . . d ,.. . . . . ,..,, . .. .) 4.„.„, -41:,,, ,, 11 1 11 $1 t• G` ••.. ' (1(06-7.: 0 ii(224 ' ...,- . • ••••• • . . 43, ‘..* ‘'0031errIlt=.4."33.01.0:' „ . • - ( Land Hold Agreement Area Attachment B ... DECLARATION 1RQ'ItPAS, the undersigned, Alex and Irene Doronkemper, husband and wife; represent they are legal owners of real estate lying within the following described property situated in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, to-wit: All that part of Government Lots 1 and 2, and of the SE 33 of the NW 1;of Section 30, Township 116, Range 22, described as follows; Beginning at a point in the North and South center line of said Section 30, distant 47 rods South of the point of intersection of said North and South center line with the cuter line of County Road Ho. 1, said point of beginning being 844 feet South of the North 14 Corner of Said Section 30; thence South along the North and South center line of said Section to the center of said Section 30; thence West along tho East and West center line of said section to the Southwest corner of Govern- ment Lot 2 in said Section 30; thence North along the West line of Section 30 to the center line of said County Road No. 1; thence Northeasterly along the center line of said road to its inter- section with the center lire of the new right of way of the Minn- eapolis&St. Louis Railroad Company; thence North asterly along the center line of said new railroad right of way/(8ifit 1383.65 • feet Southwesterly, measured along the center line of said right of way from its intersection with the Du:in line of said Section 30; thence South 62°06' East 569.43 feet to a point in the Southeasterly line of above mentioned County Road No. 1; thence Northeasterly along the Southeasterly line of said road 1373.6E feet to the point of intersection of said Southeasterly line with a line drawn parallel with and 21 rods West of the North and South center line of Section 30; thence South along said parallel line 593.35 feet to its intersection with a line drawn westerly from the point of beginning and at a right angle to the North and South center line of said Section 30; thence at a right angle East 21 rods to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom a strip of land 75 feet wide along the Southeasterly side of the center line of said railroad right of way which strip is a part of said right of way. For purposes of this description, the North line of Government Lot 1, being the North line of Section 30, Township 116, Range 22, is assumed to be a due East and West line, 1MM. _AS, the undnrsigred are desirous of platting their property into blocks and lots and outlets, pursuant to the requirements of the Village of Eden Prairie; and WNE4EAS, the preliminary plat of'Crestwood 73"has been approved by • the Village of Edon Prairie; and Land Hold Agreement ��,�� Attachment B The Village of Eden Prairie has found that WHEREAS,/in order to so plat to aforementioned property as above indicated, it is not practical nor feasible at this time to develop all of the proposed lots therein, and WHEREAS, IT IS AGREED, by the undersigned that the obovo-msntionod land cannot be served by municipal water and sewage facilities and other services, at this time; THEREFORE, the undersigned on behalf of themselves, their heirs, grantees, and assigns makes the following declaration and agreement as condition to obtaining final plat approval as to lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 2, and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, Black 3, All in "Crestwood 73": 1. That the undersigned will not petition the Village of Edon Prairie for any further platting of any part of the premises first afore- mentioned until municipal and water services become available to said premises or until a date five years from the date hereof, which comes first. 2. That the undersigned recognize and acknowledge that this agreement shall not waive building requirements and platting and subdivision requirements and all other village ordinances. IN tl7TN SS HHPItE0F, the undersigned have executed this Declaration this/4 7f,day of,QF.PTI;M h, ff 1973.� , Alex'Dorenkemoer Irene Doreni:e per STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) as. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On thisarLday of sr.Preilh , 1973, appeared before me a Notary Public, Alex Doren:cerper and Irene Dorenkecper, to me personally known, who, being the persona described, in and who executed t:le foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same em their free act and deed. Land Hold Agreement Attachment B fOn'75'7O DFCLARATIO N IhGREAS, the undersigned, Alex and Irene DorenY.emper, husband and wife; Scheel and Madsen, Inc., a Minnesota corporation; Richard L. and Judith E. Wilson, husband and wife; William H. Myrvold end Patricia J. Myrvold, husband and wife; and Plchal Blacktopping, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, aro legal or equitable owners or mortgagees of parcels of real estate lying within the following described property situated in the State of Minnes6t3','County of Hennepin, to-wit: That part of the Southwest 1 of the Northeast a (SW1a of Miry.) lying Northerly and Easterly of Maplewood Park Estates and Section 30, Township 116, North, Rango 22, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian,and That part of the Northwest 14 of the Southeast 4:(Mb. -of ail) of Section 30, Township 116, Range 22, West of the.Fifth Principal Meridian, lying North of Maplewood Park Estates; and •r, WH REAS, the undersigned are desirous of platting their'property into blocks end lots and outlots, pursuant to the requirements of the Village of ml..Anaiee"...x e.m'n`,m 7; Eden Prairie; and WHEREAS, the preliminary plat of "Crestwood 73"has been approved by the Village of Eden Prairie; and The Village of Eden Prairie has found that HFIEREAS,An order to so plat the aforementioned property as above indicated, it is not practical nor feasible at this time to develop all of the proposed lots therein, and WHEREAS, IT IS AGREED, by the undersigned that the above-mentioned land and other services, cannot be served by municipal water and sewage facilitios/at this time; NM, T}EREF'ORE, the undersigned on behalf of themselves, their heirs, grantees, and assigns make the following delcaration and agreement as condition to obtaining final plat approval as to Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, lots 1, 2, 3 and L, Block 2, and Lots 1, 2, 3, L, $, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, Block 3, all in "Crestwood 73!: 1. That the undersigned will not petition the Village of Edon Prairie for any further platting of any part of the premises first aforementioned until Land Hold Agreement Attachment B fivo years from thui date hereof, which'comes first. ' 2. That the undersigned recognize and acknowledge that this agreement shall not waive building requirements and platting and subdivision requirements and all other villago ordinances. IN WITNESS WfffgLOF, the undersigned have executed this Declaration this _!day of Alba' , 1973. • SCHOELL AND WSON, INC. W D. be oe , .ts President • Car • -e t1a�,3n, s" r u—• --._•- /31 day oQ ift F,i4 jrg t1973 chard L. Wilson ana • ~- , J Judith son�� J /9Th day of.S4Pjrigbr�{ ,1973 A.MARTIN HOMES, \t'4: DE, r.:);�. '3 By I ri .4 :•'1�'i;.J r, ,...•„...... .kr7... Marti jape, Presideennt an = 1 ry • .r►/..v/'. ! ,dd/�✓.ice i` `• ` . S. Erin, • 's dent ',;'.....,,l . /212 day of.QFPMAfhad/ ,1973 Terrence • Mar. an. Barbara L. Martin /.MTh day ofSEPTEti+/�G-R 1 ` '�� •�•1-4- ---�`, 973 William H. Myprvold an 7 �ti�J • . Patricia J. My rvo • � nil, day ofr/fyrr�l!>ai2 1 ''I" • --�_, 973 r PLEHAL KTOPPINO, INC. �' ,. By 47• irw. .ck D. P1eha , President.an ..; '"'' `• r """.,s LA i vice- ---�.`...:'.:: ;' �6 Ireciaen / i.day of.QF•PTF.H/jER ,19731 ilex Doranhc - 'er ana one Dorcnke,-q,er r /77/r day of.C%gTFMhFg .147l',.STATE;AANY nr rue,siece,, •:'..''. Land Hold Agreement Attachment B /C L , CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MIf1NESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 79-83 A RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST OF ALEX DORENI:EMPER AND RICHARD WILSON TO REZONE OUTLOT A, CRESTWOOD 73, 2.17 ACRES FROM RURAL TO R1-22 BE IT RESOLVED, that the request of Alex Dorenkemper and Richard Wilson to rezone Outlot A, Crestwood 73, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota from Rural District to R1-22 District under Ordinance 135, as amended, is hereby denied. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that with respect to the request of Alex Dorenkemper and Richard Wilson for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision of Outlot A, Crest:ood 73, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, into Parcels A, B, and C according to a survey thereof by Schoell and Madsen, Inc. dated January 25, 1979 (subdivision), it is found as follows: 1. Ordinance 135, as amended, ("Zoning Ordinance") requires at least 5 acres for construction of a single family dwelling in a Rural District and in addition, minimum lot width of 300 feet and depth of 300 feet. 2. Parcels A, B and C are each less than 5 acres in area, are less than 300 feet tilde and in the case of the East line of Parcel B and all of Parcel C are less than 300 feet in depth, and do not meet the requirement of Ordinance 93 that the minimum dimension and area of a lot in a subdivision shall be not less than those required by the Zoning Ordinance. 3. There is situated on Parcel A a house and approval of the Subdivision would result in the Easterly line of the house being within a distance of 10 feet from the Easterly line of Parcel A thereof, which line constitutes a side lot line as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The Zoning Ordinance requires single family detached dwellings in Rural District to be situated at least 50 feet from side lot lines. 5. The Subdivision would result in the East line of the single family dwelling situated on Parcel A being in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The proposed Subdivision also does not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for lots in the proposed R1-22 District in that the East line of the single family dwelling is 10 feet from the East line of Parcel A, whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires 15 feet and the width of Parcel A is 96.49 feet whereas the Zoning Ordinance requires a width of 100 feet. 7. The Subdivision does not contain adequate provisions for access to public streets for all of the parcels contained therein, 8. Outlot A is situated outside the Metropolitan Urban Service_ Area as determined by the Metropolitan Council and does not have available to it municipal sewer and water facilities at this time, and the Metropolitan Council has discouraged development in those portions of the metropolitan area outside of such service area. �. 7 Attachment C 79-83 f' ae Two ced upon the foregoing and all of the evidence and arguments made and presented,Et est of Alex Dorenkemper and Richard Wilson to subdivide said Outlot A, Crestwood'r is in all things denied. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this 17th day of April 1979. • • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ST: . D. Frane, City Clerk Attachment C Planning Commission Minutes 10 May 8, 1989 ve6. PLOT A, CRESTWOOD 73, by Alex DorenkenpeY Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 2.]7 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 2.17 acres into 3 single family lots. Location: North of Dell Road. A public hearing. Alex Dorenkemper, the proponent, stated that the City had made a mistake in 1979 regarding his side lot, which had created a hardship case as addressed in his letter to the City. He believed that the City would now have the opportunity to correct its error by allowing the 3 lots to be platted. Dorenkemper added that at the time the project was originally proposed a blacktop road was located 20 feet from the Wilson property. Franzen reported that the proposed plan was a 2.17 acres parcel designated Rural, which was outside the MU.SA Line. The same request had hPen before the Planning Commission and the City Council In 1979, and added that Staff's position had not changed since that time. Franzen stated the following Staff concerns: 1. Utilities would not be provided, which were required with an R1-22 Zoning District. 2. A lot line setback variance would be required. 3. Would it be possible to provide in <d]eguate drainage and well system and would there be enough room for a hi.ckup system? 4. Would this set a precedent? Planning Commission Minutes 11 May 9, 1989 Franzen stated that Staff recommended denial of the request based on the above concerns as identified in the Staff Report.. Bye noted that a letter dated May 1, 1989 had been received from Corwin s Mary Jean Davidson addressing concerns related to this development. Anderson believed that setting a precedent at this time would he a mistake and, therefore, supported Staff's recommendation. Ruebliny asked when the other lots along Crestwood had been platted and why these Tuts were not platted at the same time. Franzen replied that the lots along Crestwood had been platted in 1973 and the proposed 3 lots had been designated as an outlet. Dodge asked what the purpose of the outlot had been. Dorenkernper replied that when the plat had been approved he had dedicated the; street to the City in 1973, the house had been huilt in dune of 1173 and the plat approved in August. Derenkemper added that he had been required Lu build the blacktop road. Ho did not believe that allowing the platting of these three lots would set a precedent. Ruebling asked how the other lots in the are were serviced by utilities. Franzen replied the lots had private wells and sewer systems. Footling asked if homes could be constructed nn the lot„ which had been platted. Franzen replied if the property were properly zoned, if the lots had street access, and it the home met with City Codes. Franzen noted that requirement had changed regarding drainage systems over the years and were now more restrictive than before. Fran en said that when the subdivision had originally been reviewed the lot size was a minimum of 5 acres. When Crestwood Terrace was approved, as a tradeoff for lots smaller than 5 acres the City required that the remainder of the undeveloped land be placed in a Land Hold Agreement to prevent the continuance of small lot subdivisions in this area being developed before City sewer and water was available. Franzen noted that originally it was believed that utilities would be provided to the area within five years; however, the it will be approximately another 10 years before utilities would be. available. Dorenkemper staled that if Chi:; were a new project he tell nut: cer.�i,ler ,i:.;',iny fur platting. He agreed with the City':: current policy; however, he !id put in the blacktop read believing the lots would te platted. Herenkemper said that he then wee Loll he had Lu sign. the Land Hold Agreement or the remaining lot:: along Crestwood would not be platted. Ile did not believe the City hail • �a�; • Planning Commission Minutes l2 May 3, 1989 given him a choice. Hallett asked Franzen to explain further the action taken by the Court. Joe Nilin, Assitant City Attorney, stated that this matter had started in 1963 with a Preliminary Plat for 90 acres with 113 lots being approved. In 1969 a Final Plat was approved fcr 26 of the 113 lots and then subsequently the proponent applied Cot a Final Plat for an additional 26 lots for which the City approved 19 lots. In exchange for the approval of the 19 lots Dorenkemper agreed not to pursue further the development of any additional lots in the area, therefore, the reference to the Land Hold Agreement previously mentioned or until sewer and water were provided. In 1974 Dorenkemper made 3 separate applications to the City with proposals similar to the proposal tonight for which the City Council denied' the requests. In 1977 a lawsuit was filed against the City. In 1979 Dorenkemper again made a similar application for the 3 lots and was again the request was denied by the City Council. Dorenkemper filed a malpractice suit against the attorney representing him. The results of the court action against the City resulted in a determination by the Court that Dorenkemper had waited to long to bring action and there were not sufficient grounds to support the allegations. Dorenkemper then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court in 1986, where it was determined that the lower courts decision should be upheld. Nilan stated that he did not feel competent to speak on whether the proposal shield be approved or not. He added that one issue which had been raised was the sale of the property to Mr. Wilson and the construction of a home on the 2.17 acres in question. Wilson had then deeded back the 2 parcels in question tonight to Dorenkemper, which was noted in the minutes of the July 16, 1974 Planning Commission meeting. Rye commented that the prop)aal should be judged on its merits today. Planning Commission Minutes 13 ;9.yy 8, 1989 timuy Anderson moved, seconded by Sandstad to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried G-0-0. MOTION 3: Anderson moved, seconded by Sardstad to recommend to the City Council denial of the request of Alex Dorenkemper for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 2.17 acres, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeal:;, and denial of the request for preliminary plat of 2.17 acres into three single family lots, based on plans dated April 18, 1989, based on the findings of the Staff Report dated May 5, 1989. Motion carried G-0-0. • • • • • Tires Plus Eden Prairie Auto Mall--Lariat Center CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-130 A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TIRES PLUS WITHIN EDEN PRAIRIE AUTO MALL--LARIAT CENTER WHEREAS, Eden Prairie Auto Mall has requested a site plan amendment to amend the sign criteria for the Eden Prairie Auto Mall for the Tires Plus tenant within the Eden Prairie Auto Mall, located south of Prairie Center Drive, north of Medcom Boulevard, and east of Joiner Way, within the Commercial-Regional-Service zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its May 22, 1989, Planning Commission meeting and recommends approval of said site plan amendment; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its June 6, 19139, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that approval of a site plan amendment to amend the sign criteria for the Eden Prairie Auto Mall for the Tires Plus tenant within the Eden Prairie Auto Mall, subject to the following conditions: A. The sign criteria for Eden Prairie Auto Mall shall be amended to allow a twenty-four (24) inch "Tires Plus" sign on the curved brick wall . B. There shall be no second pylon sign allowed for the Eden Prairie Auto Mall property. ADOPTED by the City Council on June 6, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk //,2 Co Amendment to Sign Criteria Eden Prairie Auto Mall The sign criteria for the Eden Prairie Auto Mall is hereby amended as follows: 1. The entrance to the Tires Plus leasehold with the canopy over the entrance doors is a continuation of the sign band and as such individually lit letters of 24" in height are allowed over said entrance and on said canopy. More specifically, this sign shall be the words "Tires Plus" 2. The oval area in the Tires Plus leasehold shall be a further continuation of the sign band in conformance with the sign criteria. Said signage shall be also limited to 24" letters with the name "Tires Plus" in individually lit letters. 3. The Tires Plus sign band over the bay doors shall allow a single cabinet sign with radius corners in a dimension of 2' high by 22' long setting forth the brands of tires sold by Tires Plus. There shall be no other additional signage on said sign band over the bay doors other than said brand sign. 4. The auto mall shall use gold and or red neon as the two colors for all signage. j-- �f / This amendment is approved this J day of //'/'/ by M. Austin Smith as Landlord. M Austin th (Landlord) • • /2v 2 11.1•..M... .-. INIM=1~....m... G. .. ... ; ____-----\r--------- ! , , I \ _ ( S. ,- . ; g ; 6 n3 i - qhmit‘lft , • 3 .. . ,.. . . _./___...--/ • . . . . . ,• 3 . : In 1n,__...--------Yr----- 5, ( 1 ,'.. .• / -11 c.. %.• ill19 1111:11 ' .— i- STAFF REPORT TO; Planning Commission FROM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 19, 1989 PROJECT: Tires Plus LOCATION: Eden Prairie Auto Mall APPLICANT: M. Austin Smith REQUEST: Change to the Approved Sign Criteria Tires Plus is a retail use in the Eden Prairie Auto Mall Center and received approval in conjunction with the Lariat Center. The Eden Prairie Auto Mall and Lariat Center are located between Prairie Center Drive, Joiner Way and MedCom Boulevard. The Developers Agreements required coordinated sign criteria depicting size, color, letter type, and location. The two projects are constructed with matching brick and copper colored sign band awnings. The sign criteria established did require all signs to be located upon the sign band. The coordinated sign criteria includes: Individual ivory letters Red or gold neon lighting Maximum letter height of 30 inches Location on the sign band This sign band design is illustrated on Attachment 1. A common practice is to allow the anchor tenant greater signage, and this was done for Applebee's which has the pylon sign, a north wall sign, and signs on the sign band. To date, Tires Plus has approval for a 2' x 12.75' wall sign reading "Tires Plus", and three tire brand names (Bridgestone, Michelin, Uniroyal) measuring 12" x 39'. These wall signs will be on the copper sign band. See Attachment 2. Identical sign criteria for uses in a multi-tenant commercial center is difficult to achieve because national franchise businesses want to maintain their corporate colors and style in their signs. Unless the building owner/manager is willing to administer a sign criteria it places continual requests for changes on the City. 1 Coordinated sign criteria with common elements of letter style, height, color, location, etc., is beneficial in improving the appearance of a retail center or group of buildings. This has been achieved in some commercial and office developments and is required by Code in the industrial districts. MS-7 Although City Sign Code regulations allow numerous style, colors, and sizes for wall signs, Staff believes a coordinated sign program is an important factor in the planning and site design of a center. Signs can make the project, or detract from a project's appearance. The site Plan Amendment request before the City is whether a tenant wall sign should be installed on the curved brick wall facing U.S. N169. The effect of the request is that Tires Plus would take on the appearance of another anchor tenant. An option available to the building owner and Tires Plus is to have a free-standing sign at the corner of this project. See Attachment 3. This sign could serve more than one function by identifying the Eden Prairie Auto Mall and 1 or more of the auto mall's tenants. Three basic sign options exist: 1. Maintain the sign criteria todate - Tires Plus wall sign on the copper band and possibility of Tires Plus on a free-standing sign. 2. Amend the criteria to allow "Tires Plus" on the curved brick wall and condition upon no free-standing sign advertising Tires Plus at this corner. 3. Amend the criteria to allow Tires Plus on the curved brick wall with no conditions. Staff favors Option 2. , P- d d m;m bm r 1 m i Z _ I ' i ,. I 1 I - 1 ' 4© i 1 P ,,, L.L.' 1 111'; {ill I I .. i ' Ii1I I,, I 1 tip Ali lid i t d; 1 1� j , [ , . 1 04 I. 1 [ ' PR ! [' , !n11 ATTACHMENT 1 2X ( ill ' — • .i.! i i I .. — z. 0 i 0 1?43 1 I I. ?—)- IfT, 1, (rs > ,..,., 1 . , fir 0,, 1 1 ; Iiil 1 i IR 1 i lilt II _ 1 If . ! 11111111 1, IL- 11 'fl - -1, 1 : 1-1-2:7 ! m 1 I ' .12 , r Tire Plus's signs approved todate 7— : hi ! Ei 1 , I' ATTACHMENT 2 7 Qr) \s\ r - 1� -\' ALTERNATIVE: Place freestanding sign i*`/ \ \ - -- at corner of MedCom and 4 a� :Y \'\ \\ Joiner Way. ' / e;(�` ` \• Sian request is for this \ / i` "� �,\\\ . brick wall area. \ y N.; ' \\ \ • s; \:\ \\ f -1 O i I ' \ -....te ..,,,,. \ • ' / a* ':i o / > t S I k\ // • M•74 ma's vo , ■ ,I ��av, �/. i �'< rnm I� ) , / I 1 ,FIY 2.5:_, , • i i cr, b •\ , a� i ATTACHMENT 3 I % 11- y -b / / /r PLANNKCI CoMMI stuN 5-22-89 UNRIPROVED MtNUTe5 B. TIRES PLUS, by M. Austin Smith. Request for the Eder: Prairie Auto Mall to allow a Tire_ Plus sign on the building's northwcnt side which deer, not have'a sign band designation. Loccctiun: 8153 Joiner Way. A public beuzlug. • Jean Johnson Zoning Administrator stated that the proponent was requesting an amendment to the oriyinai sign criteria to place a "Tires Plus" sign on the-curved portion of the wall facing Medcom Boulevard and Joiner Way. Johnson outlined the three options provided in the Staff Report. She added that Staff had visited the site several times and was n.;:t c:;,0:;e•d to the proposed charge; Sandstad that if the brand names were eliminated from the copper ban it would appear more attractive. Smith replied that the copper ban signage had been approved and had already been ordered. Smith added that he already had approval to install a free-standing pylon sign for "Tires Plus"; however, he believed it would be more attractive tc have the sign on the curved wall. Smith said that he had worked closely with Staff to develop an acceptable signage package, which had been difficult due to the national franchises of the tenants. Oallett stated that he would prefer the sign on the building rather than another pylon. MOTION 1: Anderson moved, seconded t'y Dodge to close the public Dearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 2: Anderson moved, seconded by Dodge to recommend to the City , Council approval of the request of M. Austin Smith for Planned Unit Development District Review Amendment to amend the Development Framework for Lariat Center regarding z,ignage for the Tires Plus use according to { recommendation 12 of the Staff Report dated May 19, 1019, which should read: Amend the criteria to allow a 24" "Tires Plus" sign on the curved brick ws'1 excluding the re of a single tenant f:ee-_standing pylon aign advertising Tires Plus. Motion carried -0-0_ 1^ 1 JUNE 6,1989 51008 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 793.19 51009 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 5418.03 51010 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 257.90 11 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 5849.94 .12 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 3480.26 51013 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 1091.50 51014 QUALITY WINE CO LIQUOR 5441.90 51015 BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER 3652.00 51016 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 5845.14 51017 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER 11459.60 51018 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 444.70 51019 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 123E10.85 51020 MIDWEST COCA CDLA BOTTLING CO MIX 759.35 51021 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MIX 440.45 51022 RC BEVERAGE-TWIN CITIES MIX 151.72 51023 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 22108.40 51024 TWIN CITY HOME JUICE MIX 32.2B 51025 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-CITY HALL 5000.00 51026 PATRICIA'S FRAME SHOP SERVICE AWARD PLAQUE-POLICE DEPT 56.60 51027 AT&T SERVICE 844.03 51028 KIMBERLY HARTMAN REFUND-EXERCISE CLASS 20.57 51029 TREVOR HOLLAND REFUND-SWIMMING LESSDNS 20.00 51030 NEELAM KACKER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 22.00 51031 MN UC FUND PAYROLL 4/2B/89 2590.13 51032 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 10.40 51033 OLD LOG THEATRE -OLD LOG THEATRE OUTING-SENIOR PROGRAMS/ 1I6.00 FEES PAID 51034 TRAVELERS DIRECTORY SERVICE ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 254.00 "'15 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 140.47 =6 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 4937.15 51037 RICHARD DEATON REIMBURSEMENT OF SOFTBALL TEAM SPONSORSHIP 900.00 51038 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING-RECREATION SUPERVISOR 33.60 51039 RADIO SHACK -TELEPHONE NUMBER RECORDING DEVICE-POLICE 99.95 FORFEITURE-DRUGS 51040 STEPHEN H WAGNER -REIMBURSEMENT FOR DAMAGE DUE TO TRUNK 2100.00 WATERMAIN INSTALLATION 51041 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 51042 MNAPA CONFERENCE-PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER 50.00 51043 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH-OUTDOOR CENTER 50.00 51044 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE APRIL 89 SALES TAX 18215.13 51045 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 120.32 51046 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 4800.09 51047 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 6825.56 51048 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 3200.66 51049 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 739.33 51050 QUALITY WINE CO LIQUOR 2742.48 51051 CHRIS ENGER APRIL 89 EXPENSES L00.60 51052 MN DEPARTMENT OF P/S MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS 32.00 51053 SANDRA ASNESS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 44.00 51054 SUSAN GEKAS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.00 51055 CHRISTOPHER JULIUS REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS 36.00 51056 NICK JULIUS REFUND-SUMMER AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 5.00 51057 TERRI LANDBERG REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 12.00 51058 MARGARET LONGLET REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 f 9 JEANNE LYONS REFUND-ADULT GOLF LESSONS 22.00 13387968 /,.:/" JUNE 6,1989 51060 TERESA NEELEY REFUND-ADULT GOLF LESSONS 27.00 51061 ERIKA PETERSEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 12.00 51062 CORTNEY TAUER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 53 ROGERS SERVICE CO -SNOWPLOW MOTOR REPAIR/ALTERNATOR & 681.75 STARTER REPAIRS-EOUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51064 SEXTON/CIS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 94.70 51065 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO 1989 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CDMMUNITY CTR 540.75 51066 CITY-COUNTY CREOIT UNION PAYROLL 5/12/89 1363.00 51067 COMMISSIONER DF REVENUE PAYROLL 5/12/89 11276.36 51068 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES PAYROLL 5/12/89 276.00 51069 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 5/12/89 55096.42 51070 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 5/12/89 4401.00 5I07I HENN CTY SUPPDRT & COLLECTION SER PAYROLL 5/12/89 I94.76 51072 ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION PAYROLL 5/12/89 1278.92 51073 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG MAY 89 UNION DUES 92I.00 51074 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT PAYROLL 5/12/89 25.00 51075 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 5/12/89 27869.15 51076 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA JUNE 89 LIFE INSURANCE 99.00 51077 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 5/12/89 246.50 51078 SIBLEY HOUSE ASSOC ADULT PROGRAM EXPENSES/FEES PD 32.00 51079 LOIS BOETTCHER SERVICE-PARKS/REC & NATURAL COMM MEETING 96.72 51080 HENNEPIN COUNTY DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES 22.00 51081 CHRIS LUPO REFUNO-TENNIS CLASSES 13.00 51082 CHRIP LUPO REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 9.00 51083 JUDY GOODENOUGH REFUND-GARDEN PLOT I2.00 51064 ELAINE JACQUES -EARNEST MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF RILEY LANE I00.00 PARK ACOUISTIDN 51085 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOCIATION SOFTBALL REGISTRATION-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 3616.00 51086 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 55.25 i7 NORTHERN STATES POWER CD SERVICE 2780.89 ..:,8B U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 80.48 51089 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SCHOOL-ASSESSING DEPT 405.00 51090 ST CLOUD UNIVERSITY ANNUAL INSTITUTE ON AGING-SENIOR CENTER 165.00 51091 STATISTICAL ENGINEERING BOOK.-ASSESSING DEPT 34.95 51092 MN DEPT OF P/S MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION & EXCISE TAX 1973.27 51093 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING 656.70 51094 U SPCA REGION 1B CANINE FIELD TRIALS-POLICE DEPT 35.00 51095 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 1530.00 51096 AT&T SERVICE 321.66 51097 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 29194.82 51098 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 3898.39 51099 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 528.73 51100 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 480.97 51101 AMERICAN AMUSEMENT ARCADE REFUND-LICENSE OVERPAYMENT 12.00 51102 MARJORIE HITCHCOCK -REFUNO-SPRING FESTIVAL TRIP-SENIOR 23.00 CITIZENS PROGRAM 51103 CHRISTINE MADSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 10.00 51104 GAY POPE REFUND-YOUTH TENNIS LESSONS 16.00 51105 STATE OF MINNESOTA UNCLAIMED PROPERTY 1056.25 51106 STATE TREASURER STATE OF MINNESO LICENSE FEE-WATER DEPT 15.00 51107 AM INSTITUTE OF REAL ESTATE APPRA BOOK-ASSESSING DEPT 30.00 51108 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 20.85 51109 AT&T SERVICE 831.75 51110 STATE OF MINNESOTA BIKE REGISTRATIONS 155.00 ' ;I BIRTCHER WELSH JUNE 89 RENT-CITY HALL 19880.79 17251278 /,(1 t JUNE 6,1989 51112 SUPPLIES 7 HI ENTER INC JUNF 89 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 4665.53 ( 3 DOUGLAS E ANDREWS FIRE CALLS 1069.00 04 JUERGEN A BOHLEN FIRE CALLS 1246.00 51115 GERALD BORN FIRE CALLS 648.00 51116 LANCE BRACE FIRE CALLS 2062.00 51117 DUANE CABLE FIRE CALLS 794.00 51118 SPENCER L CONRAD FIRE CALLS 2524.00 51119 GENE DAHLKE FIRE CALLS 1345.00 51120 RICHARD DEATON FIRE CALLS 2253.00 51121 LARRY DOIG FIRE CALLS 1784.00 51122 PATRICIA J ENFIELD FIRE CALLS 656.00 51123 GEORGE ESBENSEN FIRE CALLS 2481.00 51124 KEITH FARNIOK FIRE CALLS 848.00 51125 CHARLES FERN FIRE CALLS 1757.00 51126 DAVID GILMORE FIRE CALLS 798.00 51127 CHARLES GOBLE FIRE CALLS 1337.00 51128 ROBERT GRANT FIRE CALLS 1245.00 51129 RICK HAMMERSCHMIDT FIRE CALLS 1540.00 51130 ALAN HANSON FIRE CALLS 216.00 51131 ROBERT HAUGEN FIRE CALLS 1077.00 51132 JOHN T HOBBS FIRE CALLS 1986.00 51133 WALTER JAMES FIRE CALLS 1094.00 51134 DAVID R JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 714.00 51135 JAMMS GLENN JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 1482.00 51136 MICHAEL JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 1450.00 51137 RONALD JOHNSON FIRE CALLS '38 SCOTT E JOHNSON FIRE CALLS 193.00 5 43.00 9 STEVEN KOERING FIRE CALLS 420.00 51140 MICHAEL D LADEN FIRE CALLS 1604.00 51141 MARVIN A LAHTI FIRE CALLS 1298.00 51142 SANDRA A LANDUCCI FIRE CALLS 937.00 51143 MALLARD E LANE FIRE CALLS 22.00 51144 LOWELL D LUND FIRE CALLS 1I5.00 51145 REGAN L MASSEE FIRE CALLS 1032.00 51146 PHILIP 6 MATHIOWETI FIRE CALLS 2167.00 51147 JAMES L MATSON FIRE CALLS 1319.00 51148 BRIAN G MCGRAW FIRE CALLS 913.00 51149 GARY L MEYER FIRE CALLS 1971.00 51150 THOMAS H MONTGOMERY FIRE CALLS 2065.00 51151 CURTIS R DBERLANDER FIRE CALLS 3084.00 51152 KATHLEEN O'CONNOR FIRE CALLS 1728.00 51153 KEITH A OLSON FIRE CALLS 1291.00 51154 DONALD W OVERBEY FIRE CALLS 1409.00 51155 JOHN E PAF1:O FIRE CALLS 1681.00 51156 JAMES PELTIER FIRE CALLS 1885.00 51157 TIMOTHY J PELTIER FIRE CALLS 1593.00 51158 DOUGLAS L PLEHAL FIRE CALLS 2161.00 51159 GARY L RADTKE FIRE CALLS 1398.00 51160 JOHN D RIEGERT FIRE CALLS 1583.00 51161 WANDA 0 RIEGERT FIRE CALLS 156.00 51162 JOHN D ROCHFORD FIRE CALLS 1144.00 51163 MICHAEL J ROGERS FIRE CALLS 1370.00 ' 4 TIMOTHY A SATHER FIRE CALLS 2288.00 5..65 CHARLES C SCHAITBERGER FIRE CALLS 2429.00 51166 ROGER H SCHMIDTKE FIRE CALLS 1167.00 8207653 JUNE 6,1989 51167 THOMAS SCHMITZ FIRE CALLS 571.00 51168 LEE A SCHNEIDER FIRE CALLS 989.00 51169 SCOTT G SCHRAM FIRE CALLS 1509.00 70 JAMES 0 SHAW FIRE CALLS 1219.00 .71 RODNEY SIMONSON FIRE CALLS 36.00 51172 TODD SKATRUD FIRE CALLS 1963.00 51173 JOHN J SKRANKA FIRE CALLS 1473.00 51174 MARK E SNETTING FIRE CALLS 1467.00 51175 GENE R SPANDE FIRE CALLS 1154.00 51176 MICHELE M SUNDBERG FIRE CALLS 1066.00 5I177 SCOTT EUGENE TAYLOR FIRE CALLS 1512.00 51178 MARC L THIELMAN FIRE CALLS 2063.00 51179 DOUGLAS THIES FIRE CALLS 831.00 51180 TODD TOMCZIK FIRE CALLS 824.00 51181 RODNEY J UTING FIKE CALLS 1318.00 51182 MARK A VANDENBERGHE FIRE CALLS 2273.00 51183 PAUL D WELCOME FIRE CALLS 1767.00 51184 THOMAS D WILSON FIRE CALLS 1813.00 51185 PETTY CASH -REIMBURSE PETTY CASH-OUTDOOR CENTER- 48.75 STARING LAKE PARK 51186 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING DEFENSIVE DRIVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID I61.00 5I187 A 0 K RENTAL CENTER EQUIPMENT RENTAL-ELECTIONS I52.92 51188 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER EQUIPMENT RENTAL-STREET MAINTENANCE 71.02 51189 ABBOTT PAINT & CARPET COMPANY PAINT/PAINT SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 266.12 51190 ACE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 230.70 51191 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 242.93 51192 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 51193 ADVANCED TIME CLOCK CASH REGISTER-COMMUNITY CENTER 3745.50 5..94 AG SYSTEMS INC SOLAR TANK FITTINGS-PARK MAINTENANCE 25.48 5 AIRSIGNAL INC PAGER SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER 3.93 51196 ALASKAN AIR CONDITIONING INC AIR CONDITIONING REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 155.00 51197 ALEXANDER BATTERY NORTH BATTERIES-POLICE DEPT 66.00 5119E AMERICAN CAMPING ASSOCIATION BOOKS-OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE PARK 38.38 51199 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CD -UNIFORMS-WATER DEPT/BUILDING INSPECTIONS 1331.82 -DEPT/FACILITIES DEPT/STREET DEPT/SEWER -DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINT/PARK MAINT/COMMUNITY CENTER/LIQUOR STORE 51200 AMERICAN RED CROSS LIFE SAVING SUPPLIES-AQUATICS SUPERVISOR II5.00 5120I AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC BOOKS-WATER DEPT 27.25 51202 RON ANOERSON EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 17.65 5I203 AOUA ENGINEERING INC PVC PIPE/COUPLINGS/VALVES-PARK MAINTENANCE 60.19 51204 ARMOR SECURITY INC -LOCK REPAIR/KEYS-FACILITIES/PROGRAM 286.30 -SUPERVISOR/2ND QUARTER SECURITY SYSTEM- OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE PARK 51205 GERALD ARNESON REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 24.00 5I206 ARTISANS INC 390 T SHIRTS-YOUTH TENNIS 1254.24 51207 ASSOCIATED WELL GRILLERS INC WELL ABANDONMENT-RED ROCK LAKE PA.aI( 900.00 51208 AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS -INSTALLATION OF UPGRADED PHONE/INTERCOM 840.00 SYSTEM-WATER DEPT 51209 BARTLEY SALES CO PAPER TOWEL DISPENSERS-FACILITIES DEPT 187.20 51210 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -LAMPS/BATTERIES/SPARK PLUGS/FLASHERS/ 304.05 -WINDSHIELD WASHER FLUID/FUSES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 5I2I1 BECKER & ASSOCIATES INC RUBBER FLOORING/ADHESIVE-COMMUNITY CENTER 3766.40 2 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-TRAFFIC STUDY 7700.00 4586983 io 11.... ii JUNE 6,1989 51213 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY SERVICE-CITY HALL 396.50 51214 BEST BUY CO -VCR TAPES-FIRE DEPT/CAMERA-COMMUNITY 387.38 CENTER '15 BRUCE BETTENDORF SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 240.00 1 216 BFI MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS SERVICE 82.50 51217 BIFFS INC' WASTE DISPOSAL-PAR< MAINTENANCE 1240.18 51218 BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION 358.48 51219 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY -FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT/PLANNING 138.26 DEPT/HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 51220 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON APRIL 89 ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICE 887.00 51221 BLOOMINGTON LOCK & SAFE CO SAFE-COMMUNITY CENTER 195.00 51222 LOIS BOETTCHER MINUTES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 52.31 51223 ED BRION SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 180.00 51224 BRO-TEX INC TOWELS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 139.60 51225 BRW INC SERVICE-TRAFFIC STUDIES 3248.27 51226 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC GRAVEL-STREET MAINTENANCE 55.42 51227 BURTON EQUIPMENT INC CART/HAND TRUCK-WATER DEPT 235.71 51228 BSN CORP TENNIS BALLS-SPRING SKILL DEVELDPMENT 99.99 51229 BUTLER PAPER COMPANY XEROX PAPER-CITY HALL 746.76 51230 C & H DISTRIBUTORS INC -SAFETY CABINET-$498.3I/2 CABINETS- 2113.34 $l067.55-WATER DEPT 51231 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 165.59 51232 C & N W TRANSP CO SANITARY SEWER RENTAL AGREEMENT 180.00 51233 C-AIRE INC AIRCONDITIONING PART-FACILITIES DEPT 59.88 51234 BDB CARLSON CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 33.60 51235 CHAPIN PUBLISHING COMPANY LEGAL ADS-FRANLO PARK/HIODEN GLEN PARK 140.40 51236 CHASE BRACKETT COMPANY APPRAISAL FEE-EDEN COURT 350.00 5I237 CLEVELANO COTTON PRODUCTS TOWELS-WATER DEPT 96.44 "'38 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE-HWY 5 & EDEN PRAIRIE RD 72.74 39 COMPUTER PLACE -COMPUTER/MONITOR/NETWORK STATIONS/CABLES/ 13359.90 -CONNECTORS/SOFTWARE/INSTALLATION-POLICE FORFEITURE-ORUGS 51240 CONCRETE RAISING INC CURBING-FIRE STATION 300.00 51241 JOYCE CONLEY EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 29.90 51242 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 661.99 51243 CONTECH CONST PRODUCTS INC STEEL PIPE/CULVERT BANDS-DRAINAGE CONTROL 205.04 51244 FRITZ COULTER VIDEO TAPING-FIRE DEPT 78.00 51245 BARBARA CROSS FILM PROCESSING/MILEAGE-PARK PLANNING 144.71 51246 CUSTOM AUTOBOOV TRUCK REPAIR-WATER DEPT 373.75 5I247 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER OEPT 5012.19 51248 DALCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER OEPT/FACILITIES 550.89 DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER 51249 OAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO HYDRANT PARTS-WATER DEPT 143.39 51250 DEM CON LANOFILL INC APRIL 89 WASTE OISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 72.00 51251 DICTAPHONE CORPORATION DICTAPHONE-POLICE OEPT 546.00 51252 OPC INDUSTRIES INC CHLORINE-WATER OEPT 1230.00 51253 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU -EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER/POLICE OEPT/ 57.21 SENIOR CENTER 51254 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 55.15 51255 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 140.78 51256 EASTMAN KOOAK COMPANY MARCH 89 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY MALL 336.37 51257 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATION DIVISION MAY 89 SERVICE-FIRE STATIONS 121.50 51258 E P PHOTO FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE OEPT 41.81 51259 CITY OF EOINA APRIL 89 WATER TESTS-WATER DEPT 166.00 ,0 DEB EOLUND MINUTES-CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION 425.00 3594693 M.)) JUNE 6,1989 51261 ELSMORE AQUATIC -13 SHORTS-$197.00/10 SHIRTS-S277.75-ROUND 474.75 LAKE BEACH/RILEY LAKE BEACH 51262 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC -EAR PROTECTION/JACKETS/PANTS/OVERALLS/ 407.75 -EAR PLUGS-WATER DEPT/STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT 51263 CHRIS ENGER FEBRUARY & MAY 89 EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 400.00 51264 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE-PLANNING DEPT 20.42 51265 FACILITY SYSTEMS INC INSTALLATION OF PARTITIONS-FINANCE DEPT 1432.25 51266 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 7519.00 51267 THE FENDLER COMPANY REFUND-OVERPAYMENT OF BUILDING PERMIT 202.50 51268 FIRE CHIEF SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT 28.00 51269 FIVE STAR CONSTRUCTION INC -INSTALLATION OF HANDICAP SIDEWALK: ACCESS- 580.00 CITY HALL 51270 FLAGHOUSE INC 2 CASSETTE RECORDERS-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 89.10 51271 FLAHERTY EOUIPMENT CORPORATION -FUEL PUMP/GASKETS/SPARK PLUGS/LEAD/POINT 60.82 SET-FIRE DEPT 51272 FLOYD SECURITY -3RD QUARTER 89 SECURITY SYSTEM-CUMMINS 60.00 GRILL HOUSE 51273 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 1079.98 51274 FOX MCCUE & MURPHY 1988 AUDIT SERVICE 6000.00 51275 JOHN FRANE APRIL 89 EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT 200.00 51276 FRESHWATER FOUNDATION DUES-FORESTRY DEPT 50.00 51277 FRANK REFRIGERATION & APPLIANCE S -WASHERS/BEARINGS/NUT/SCREW/VALVE-PARK 63.75 MAINTENANCE 51278 G & K SERVICES -COVERALLS/TOWELS-WATER DEPT/PARK MAINT/ 476.61 LIQUOR STORE 51279 DARRELL GEDNEY HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 40.00 51280 GENERAL SHEET METAL REFUND-OVERPAYMENT OF BUILDING PERMIT 10.00 51281 GETTING TO KNOW YOU ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 99.00 82 GOPHER OIL COMPANY HYDRAULIC 01L-WATER DEPT 98.85 .,.283 W W GRAINGER INC -DRUM VALVE/CRADLE & FAUCET-STREET MAINT/ 592.82 13 CORO REELS-FIRE DEPT 51284 GRANT MERRITT & ASSOCIATES LTD -LEGAL SERVICE-APRIL 89 FLYING CLOUD I3249.90 LANDFILL 51285 ALAN GRAY APRIL 89 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 200.00 51286 GREAT FACES INC RECRUITING POSTERS-FIRE DEPT 427.00 51287 GROSS OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 898.83 51288 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC CIRCUIT BREAKER REPAIR-PARK MAINTENANCE 42.00 51289 HACH CO LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 296.61 51290 JEAN HARRIS MARCH & APRIL 89 EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER 200.00 51291 HAYDEN MURPHY EQUIPMENT CD -CUTTERS/POINTS-STREET MAINT/EQUIPMENT 215.40 MAINTENANCE 5I292 HEDLUND ENGINEERING REFUND-LAND DEVELOPMENT PAYMENT 1400.00 51293 HEDMAN SALES & SERVICE CHECK PROTECTOR PLATE-FINANCE DEPT 167.50 51294 HELLER'S CARBONIC WEST INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 270.68 51295 TILFORD E NELLIE JR SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 165.00 51296 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT APRIL 89 BOOKING FEE-POLICE DEPT 802.67 51297 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITED PROCEEDS 103.60 51298 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE-PLANNING DEPT 804.00 51299 HENN CTY DEPT OF PROPERTY TAX POSTAGE-VOTER REGISTRATION VERIFICATIONS 93.75 51300 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER BOOK-FIRE DEPT 21.95 51301 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS FILING FEE-ENGINEERING DEPT 248.50 51302 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT I82.00 51303 HOFFERS INC FIELD MARKING PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE 394.90 04 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC -CLEANING SUPPLIES/GASKET-ICE ARENA- 269.62 COMMUNITY CENTER 40433951 51305 HONEYWELL INC -APRIL 89 TO APRIL 90 MAINTENANCE 15235.00 -AGREEMENTS FOR AIR COMPRESSORS & HEATING -VENTILATING & AIR CONDITIONING UNITS- WATER DEPT 51306 THE HOWE COMPANY -FERTILIZER-CDMMUNITY GARDENS-ADULT 210.00 PROGRAMS ,07 HUGIN SWEDA INC -JUNE 89 TO JUNE 90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 230.00 CONCESSION STAND-COMMUNITY CENTER 51308 DONNA HYATT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 25.58 51309 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST $272 -JANITORIAL SERVICE-JULY 88 THRU JUNE 89- 14453.78 -$11143.00-WATER PLANT/SENIOR CENTER- -$2750.00/ROOM RENTAL-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS/ -COMMUNITY BAND/EXPENSES-ELECTIONS/ 1988 HALLOWEEN PARTY 51310 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT 70.42 51311 INSTY-PRINTS PRINTING-POLICE DEPT/PUBLIC INFORMATION 319.70 51312 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC -MAY 89 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL/ 265.38 POLICE DEPT 51313 JEMS SUBSCRIPTIONS-FIRE DEPT 159.76 51314 JESCO INC -REPLACE REMOVABLE CONCRETE SLAB DVER WASH 3800.00 WATER RECDVERY PUMP-WATER DEPT 51315 CHRISTOPHER M JESSEN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 105.00 51316 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/FIRE DEPT 262.17 51317 JOHNSON CONTROLS HEATING SYSTEM REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 118.00 51318 JEAN JOHNSON CONFERENCE-PLANNING DEPT 301.76 51319 JUSTUS LUMBER CO -PLYWOOD/SANDPAPER/TREATED TIMBERS/MAILBOX- 140.00 STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT 51320 KAR PRODUCTS -SOLDER SLEEVE/BUTANE TORCH & REFILLS- 77.76 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51321 KEYS WELL DRILLING CO REMOVE & REPLACE PUMP-WATER DEPT 843.75 5'722 JAMES S KILDAHL SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID I50.00 ( 23 SCOTT KIPP MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT 9.10 51124 RON KIRSCH VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 486.00 51325 KLEVE HEATING & A/C REFUND-MECHANICAL PERMIT 22.05 51326 JAMES KLINE CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 20.00 51327 KRAEMER'S HOME CENTER -HITCHBALLS/HOSES/CONNECTORS/SPRINKLERS/ 299.71 -CAR WASH SOAP/CAULKING/PUMPS/GASKETS/ -SPRAYER EXTENSIONS/PUMP SEALS/VALVES/ -PROPANE TORCH-WATER DEPT/SEWER DEPT/ STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT/EQUIPMENT MAINT 51328 LAND OF LAKES TILE CO -SERVICE-INDOOR SWIMMING PDOL REMODELING- 27774.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 51329 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY -WATER SAMPLING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/SAFETY 256.77 LADDER-$203.91-POLICE DEPT 51330 LAGERQUIST CORPORATION ELEVATOR REPAIR-WATER DEPT 516.25 51331 ROBERT LAMBERT -MAY 89 EXPENSES-PARKS RECREATION & 204.00 NATURAL RESOURCES 51332 LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS CENTER SHRUBS-FORESTRY DEPT 80.00 51333 LANDSCAPE & TURF GRASS SEED-PARK MAINTENANCE 3940.00 51334 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD DECEMBER 88 LEGAL SERVICE 14705.84 51335 LANTON PRINTING INC CODE BOOK INDEXER TABS-BUILDING DEPT 102.70 51336 LEAGUE OF MN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISS DUES-HUMAN SERVICES 68.00 51337 LEEF BROS INC -COVERALLS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/MATS- 134.70 LIQUOR STORE R538718 1 '7 JUNE 6,1989 51338 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC -APRIL 89 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 15303.93 LANDFILL 51339 DAVID LINDAHL EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 2.00 F'-40 LOFFLER BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS I -2 POCKET RECORDERS-3518.00/10 CASSETTES- 568.00 PARK PLANNING/FORESTRY DEPT 5. 4I LOGIS MARCH 89 SERVICE 19346.53 51342 DYLAN LOHONEN SOFTBALL & WALLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 132.00 51343 LOUISVILLE LANDFILL INC -APRIL 89 WASTE DISPOSAL-STREET MAINT/PARK 145.40 MAINTENANCE 51344 LYMAN LUMBER CO OAK BOARDS-STREET MAINTENANCE 24.66 51345 MACOUEEN EQUIPMENT INC -3 MAIN BROOMS/3 GUTTER BROOMS-EQUIPMENT 975.00 MAINTENANCE 51346 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 27.60 51347 MASYS CORPORATION JUNE 89 COMPUTER MAINTENANCE-POLICE DEPT 1295.00 51348 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 56.00 51349 MBA DESKTOP PUBLISHING PLUS PRINTING-4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION FLYERS 30.00 51350 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 45.00 51351 MERLINS HAROWARE HANK WATER CANS/PLEXIGLASS-PARK MAINTENANCE 90.38 51352 METRO PRINTING INC EMBLEMS-FIRE DEPT 98.00 51353 METRO FONE COMMUNICATIONS INC PAGER RENTAL-POLICE OEPT 12.95 51354 METRO SYSTEMS FURNITURE 2 CHAIRS-PLANNING DEPT 549.00 51355 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL HELIPORT FEASIBILITY STUDY 10.00 51356 METROPOLITAN SENIOR FEDERATION DUES-SENIOR PROGRAMS 35.00 51357 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS APRIL 89 SAC CHARGES 41555.25 51358 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS JUNE 89 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES 154033.51 51359 R G MODEEN INC PAINTING-POLICE BUILDING 255.00 51360 MID CENTRAL INC -19 AXES-3314.95/22 500 WATT LIGHTS- 2712.05 FIRE DEPT 51361 MIOWEST ASPHALT CORP SEALCOATING-STREET MAINTENANCE 46.64 2 MIOWEST FIRE PROTECTION INC REFUND-MECHANICAL PERMIT 64.50 5. .,3 HERMAN MILLER INC PARTITION-FINANCE DEPT 164.64 51364 MPLS ST PAUL METROPOLITAN AIRPORT -ATHLETIC FIELOS RENTAL-FLYING CLOUD 556.80 AIRPORT-PARK MAINTENANCE 51365 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY -EXTINGUISHER RECHARGING/0 RINGS/PATCHING 2772.00 -KIT/14 ADAPTERS-31380.00/4 BALL VALVES- 31048.88/BRACKETS/PITCHFORKS-FIRE DEPT 51366 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSN DUES-PARKS RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES 57.00 51367 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS AOVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 439.20 51368 MINNESOTA REAL ESTATE JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTION-ASSESSING DEPT 45.00 51369 MINNESOTA VALLEY LANOSCAPE INC TREE REMOVAL-FORESTRY DEPT 427.50 51370 MINNESOTA VALLEY WHOLESALE INC TREES-FORESTRY DEPT 159.00 51371 MINNESOTA WANNER CO NOZZLE/EXTENSION/AOAPTER-PARK MAINTENANCE 40.93 51372 MINUTEMAN PRESS -PRINTING-4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION FLYERS- 795.90 -3352.90/SWIMMING CERTIFICATES-AQUATICS SUPERVISOR 51373 MODERN TIRE CO TIRE REPAIR-EOUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 5.00 51374 W M MONTGOMERY -APRIL 89 RADIO ENGINEERING SERVICE-POLICE 128.00 DEPT 51375 BERNAOINE MORGAN EXPENSES/KIDS KORNER INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 478.64 51376 MOTOROLA INC 2 MOBILE RADIOS-FIRE DEPT 4323.00 51377 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIR-FIRE DEPT 372.50 51378 MR SIGN BANNER-POLICE DEPT 80.00 51379 MTI OISTRIBUTING CO PULLEY/KEY/SCREW/BELT SET-PARK MAINTENANCE 58.94 51380 WM MUELLER & SONS INC GRAVEL-PARK MAINTENANCE 94.01 5'-'1 BETH MUNDY EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 17.18 24842B64 /n/° JUNE 6,1989 51382 MUNICILITE CO -HANDLE ASSEMBLY/STROBE LIGHT-WATER DEPT/ 301.38 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51383 NATIONAL RECREATION & PARK ASSN DUES-PARKS & RECREATION DEPT 250.00 4 784 NATIONAL SCREENPRINT 75 T SHIRTS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 314.20 k 85 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES 2241.70 51386 JP NOREX 'INC -SERVICE-REPAIR WELL COLLECTOR LINE ON 2130.00 CORPORATE WAY/ROSEMOUNT ENGINEERING 51387 NORTH STAR TURF INC -SHOCKS/SPRINGS/SCREEN/CASTERS/WASHERS/PIN- 296.31 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE 51388 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE-HOMEWARD HILLS ROAD 585.00 51389 NORTHERN STATES SUPPLY INC WRENCH SET/PIPE WRENCH-WATER DEPT 140.19 51390 NORTHLAND SECTION ACA -CANOE YOKE PADS-OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING 41.25 LAKE PARK 51391 NORTHWEST POWER PRODUCTS INC GEAR DRIVE BEARING/GEAR REDUCER-WATER DEPT 1240.55 51392 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC PRINTER REPAIR-PLANNING DEPT 225.00 51393 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC HOOKS/CHAIN ASSEMBLY-SEWER DEPT 282.42 5I394 HARRY ORTLOFF SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 255.00 51395 DONALD W OVERBEY LICENSE FEE-SEWER DEPT 7.50 51396 PAPER WAREHOUSE -PAPER TABLECOVERS/CUPS-OUTDOOR CENTER- 14.00 STARING LAKE PARK 5I397 PARK AUTO UPHOLSTERY PANEL REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 75.00 51398 NADINE PATTERSON SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 168.00 51399 JENNIFER PAYNE MILEAGE-ROUND LAKE MARINA 99.75 51400 PEDERSON SELLS EQUIP CO INC -SEAL REPLACEMENT KIT/RUBBER PLUGS- 58.56 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51401 J W PEPPER OF MPLS SHEET MUSIC-COMMUNITY BAND 370.00 51402 THE PINK COMPANIES CARPETING-COMMUNITY CENTER 6745.76 51403 PITNEY BOWES TAPE/INK ROLLERS/SEALS-POLICE DEPT 87.B0 51404 POMMER COMPANY INC PLAQUES/TROPHIES-DRGANIZED ATHLETICS 295.00 05 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -REPLACE CIRCUIT BREAKER/REPAIR HAIRDRYER- 145.75 COMMUNITY CENTER 51406 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN REPAIR STONE STAMPER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 36.90 51407 PROTODL -HARD HATS/CHIN STRAPS/SAFETY GLASSES/ 442.98 BRODMS-STREET MAINTENANCE 51408 PSQ BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS INC TELEPHONE SERVICE-CITY HALL 256.00 51409 R & R SPECIALTIES INC -FILTER ELEMENT/TIMING BELT/ZAMBONI BLADES 130.80 SHARPENED-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CENTER 51410 AAGE REFFSGAARD EXPENSES-BUILDING DEPT 15.00 51411 RESCUE SUBSCRIPTIONS-FIRE DEPT 79.60 51412 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MN CASH REGISTER TAPE-LIQUOR STORES 161.97 51413 RFG PET & SUPPLY CO CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 3B7.65 51414 RICHARDS ASPHALT COMPANY CRACKFILLER-STREET MAINTENANCE 495.00 51415 RIDGE DOOR SALES & SERVICE INC DOOR REPAIR-FIRE STATIONS 17I.50 51416 RDAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO -TRUCK BDDY-$7328.00/CRANE INSTALLATION- 9176.96 -$5660.00-SEWER DEPT/HITCH ARM/SPRINGS- -EQUIPMENT MAINT/TOOL BOX-$239.26-PARK -MAINT/3 TOOL BOXES-$684.00-PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 51417 ROAD RESCUE INC FIRST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT 2B5.4B 51418 ROLLINS OIL CO GAS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 9953.50 51419 ROYAL COIN ASSORTED CANDY-SOCIAL EVENTS 385.23 51420 RfAN CONSTRUCTION REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT 4.00 51421 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO -OFFICE SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER/POLICE 40.78 DEPT ' '2 THE SANDWICH FACTORY INC EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 13.84 3B40731 2:'.i JUKE 6,1989 51423 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 pf 24 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 102.60 1, 25 DALE SCHMIDT EXPENSES-STREET DEPT 21.72 31426 SCHMIDT READY MIX INC CEMENT-ETRFET MAINTENANCE 240.75 51427 MARCIA SCOTT -MN TRAILS WORKSHOP INSTRUCT•^.R-OUTDOOR 25.00 CENTER-STARING LAKE PARK 51428 SEELYE PLASTICS INC -PVC PIPE/ADAPTORS/COUPLINGS/BUSHINGS- 361.89 WATER DEPT 51429 J L SHIELY COMPANY GRAVEL-STREET MAINTENANCE 490.84 51430 SHORELINE GLOVES-ANIMAL CONTROL 23.00 51431 STEVEN R SINELL MAY 89 EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT 206.00 51432 SING SING A SONG MUSIC BOOK-SENIOR PROGRAMS 18.00 51433 SMILE ADVERTISING COMPANY ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 365.00 51434 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP -PADS/EXTENSION SETS/COUPLERS/STRAPS/ 1060.90 -WRENCH SETS/PUNCHES/CHISELS/U JOINTS/ -SCRAPERS/HAMMERS/PLIERS/SOCKETS-WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51435 SNAP PRINT PRINTING-LAWN WATERING NOTICES-WATER DEPT 675.50 51436 SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COU FIRST QUARTER 89 SEVICE-HUMAN SERVICES 2850.00 51437 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 355.52 51438 SPECIALTY SALES SERVICE INC DOOR LOCK REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 45.25 51439 STATE OF MINNESOTA OISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE PROCEEDS 51.80 51440 STATE TREASURER APRIL 89 BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGES 4277.61 51441 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EU -LAMPS/CIRCUIT BOARD/SWITCH/CHEMICAL 4067.36 -SENSOR-$1491.00/3 STROBE LIGHTS-$679.87/ -2 LIGHT-SIREN SWITCHES-$1737.00-POLICE DEPT ' 2 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC -SEPTIC TANK UNCOVERED/PUMPED & FILLED- 400.00 RED ROCK LAKE PARK 51443 SUPERIOR HIKING TRAIL INC -MN TRAIL WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR-OUTDOOR 25.00 CENTER-STARING LAKE PARK 51444 SUN ELECTRIC CORP SOFTWARE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50.49 51445 SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC VIDEO FILM-SOCIAL EVENTS 99.50 51446 NATALIE SWAGGERT MAY B9 EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES 200.00 51447 TENNANT COMPANY -DOOR SKIRTS/DEFLEECTOR BLADE/FILTER-PARK 162.60 MAINTENANCE 51448 TEXGAS -VALVES FOR BLACKTOP HOT BOX-EQUIPMENT 175.80 MAINTENANCE 51449 THANE HAWKINS CHEVROLET 89 3/4 TON 4X4 PICKUP-STREET DEPT 12404.00 51450 THORBECK & LAMBERT ARCHITECTS LTD -SERVICE-APRIL 89 MODIFICATION STUDY OF 200.00 POLICE BUILDING 51451 LOWELL THONE LICENSE FEE-BUILOING DEPT 32.50 51452 TJ'S OF EDEN PRAIRIE EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 23.53 51453 LINDA ISO REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 60.38 51454 TURF SUPPLY CO FERTILIZER-PARK MAINTENANCE 903.92 51455 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS/BATTERIES-POLICE DEPT 347.40 51456 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC -SAFETY GLOVES/CONNECTORS/WASHERS/GRINDING 431.88 WHEELS/CARRIAGE BOLTS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 51457 VAN 0 LITES INC LIGHT BULBS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 38.50 51458 VESSCO INC GEAR-WATER DEPT 726.80 51459 VICOM INC -MAY 89 WIRE MAINTENANCE-COMMUNITY CENTER/ 12.25 JUNE B9 WIRE MAINTENANCE-PUBLIC WORKS BLDG 5 1 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS-POOL-COMMUNITY CENTER 27.00 5. ,I VWR SCIENTIFIC INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 90.25 51462 KEITH WALL MAY 89 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 208.00 3185854 /,/\ 1' JUNE 6,1989 51463 REBECCA WARNER MILEAGE-FINANCE DEPT/ELECTIONS 31.00 51464 WATER PRODUCTS CO -BLOWER-$758.68-SEWER DEPT/2 BLOWERS- 5187.78 -$1326.00/COUPLINGS/COPPER TUBING/TUBING ( -CUTTER/3 1 1/2 1000 GAL METERS-$954.72/4 -2. 1000 GAL METERS-$I823.12-WATER DEPT/ HOSE CONNECTION-FIRE DEPT 51465 WATERITE INC PIPE ELBOWS-COMMUNITY CENTER 11.21 51466 SANDRA F WERTS CONFERENCE-SENIOR CENTER 64.90 51467 WEST PHOTO -CAMERA/2 LENS/FLASH/CASE-POLICE 840.34 FORFEITURE-DRUGS 51468 DAVID WHITEFORD -SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID/MILEAGE- 131.50 ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 51469 WILSON TANNER GRAPHICS -LETTERHEAD/ENVELOPES-WATER DEPT/CITY HALL 763.00 -COUNCIL BOARD COVERS/BUSINESS CARDS • - -CDUNCILMEMBER/ASSESSING DEPT/WATER DEPT/ SEWER DEPT/POLICE DEPT 51470 WINGFIELD PERFORMANCE ENGINEERING TRANSMISSION REBUILT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 561.50 51471 WOMEN IN LEISURE SERVICES DUES-PARK PLANNING 20.00 51472 ZACK'S INC -CLEANING SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/ 217.64 PARK MAINTENANCE 51473 JIM ZAIC EXPENSES-BUILDING DEPT 15.00 51474 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE -FIRST AID SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/STREET MAINT/ 181.50 PARK MAINTENANCE 51475 ZIEGLER INC GENERATOR/REGULATOR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 467.63 50915 VOID DUT CHECK 23.60- 50952 VOID DUT CHECK 99.95- 50957 VOID OUT CHECK 651.75- 50968 VOID OUT CHECK 99.93- "970 VOID OUT CHECK 40.75- { 757702 $922383.95 DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS 10 GENERAL 452796.68 11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 23536.89 15 LIQUOR STORE-F V M 69341.44 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 52194.60 21 POLICE DRUG FORFEITURE 14138.24 22 STATE AID CONST 530.00 31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 6201.65 33 UTILITY BOND FUND 2589.73 39 86 FIRE STATION CONST 5472.05 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 450.00 57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 754.89 73 WATER FUND 75890.79 77 SEWER FUND 206014.46 80 POLICE CONFISCATED FUNDS 155.40 81 TRUST Q< ESCROW FUND 12317.13 $922383.95 n.1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #89-122 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CABRIOLE CENTER FOR HANSEN, THDRP, PELLINEN, OLSDN, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Cabriole Center for Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc, dated June 2, 1989, consisting of 10.3 acres into two lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 6th day of June, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk i / 7�, • FABYANSKE. SVOBODA,WESTRA & DAVIS M.T.FABYANSKE A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION VINCENT W.KING GERALD L.SVOBOOA KYLE E:HART MARS w WESTRA $300 MINNESOTA WORLD TRADE CENTER GARY E ALBRECHT ROBERT L.DAVIS THIRTY EAST SEVENTH STREET OORDON I.GENDLER MARK C.PETERSON JEREMIAH J.K wR Ev SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 MARKJ.KALLA ROBERT J.TUBER N TELEPHONE 612-226-0R6 JOHN R.MGDONALD TELECOPIER 612-226-0734 THOMAS R.OLSON JAmES F.CNRISTOEFEL JuDITH E.KROW SCOTT LLOYD ANDERSON 1150 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE II HOLLY A,R.HART THOMAS L.BIRD CHRISTOPHER A.ELLIOTT 920 SECONO AVENUE SOUTH A.RELATEREDWARDS JEFFREY C.RAULSON MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 R1 ARD G.JENSEN PAUL L.RATELLE TELEPHONE 612-336-OII11 THOMAS J.TUCCI DEAN B.THOMSON GARY C.EIDSON HASKA [LECOPIER B12-33B-JB9T KEVIN R. A.CAR ARLES G.CARPENTER 131 KEVIN V.ELL1S May 12, 1989 REPLY TO: Minneapolis Mr. Chris Enger Head of Planning City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Cross Easement Agreement Cabriole Center Building, Eden Prairie, MN Dear Mr. Enger: At Joe Ryan's request, I enclose a copy of the current draft of the proposed Declaration of Easements with regard to the above-referenced property. Joe has asked me to inform you that, although this document is not fully negotiated, the document to be executed by the parties will be in form substantially similar to the enclosed. After your review of this document, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch with Joe or me. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, d�tl C� 'L Cu: Judith E. Krow JEK:smh Enclosure cc: Joe Ryan • 46051089 16398J0 10.03 DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS This Declaration of Easements made this day of ,1989, by Lexington Cabriole Limited Partnership, a❑ linois limited partnership Lexington")and Wallingford Properties Company, a Minnesota corporation "Wallingford"). RECITALS A. Lexington is the owner of certain real property located in Hennepin County,Minnesota,legally described as Parcel 1 on attached Exhibit A("Lexington Site"). B. Wallingford is the owner of certain real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as Parcel 2 on attached Exhibit A ("Wallingford Site"). Currently located on the Wallingford Site is a four story office building. C. The Wallingford Site and the Lexington Site are contiguous and adjacent and will be referred to herein collectively as the"Property." D. The parties hereto intend to develop and operate certain portions of the Property for traffic circulation,access to and from the Lexington Site and the Wallingford Site,parking facilities,provision of utilities and for other purposes set forth herein_ E. To effectuate the common use and operation of the Property,the parties desire to declare and establish certain duties and obligations both on themselves,and on and for the benefit of their respective successors and assigns,on, to,over and across the Lexington Site and the Wallingford Site. Now,therefore,in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein,and for other valuable consideration,the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1. Defined Terms, Unless the context otherwise requires,the terms defncd in this agreement will have the following definitions: 1.1.1. Lexington Access Easement shall mean that access easement as set forth in Section 2.1 and as identified in Fxhibit B. 1.1.2. Parking Facilities shall mean collectively,all parking easements and parking rights as set forth in Article 4. 1.1.3. Parking License shall mean that license as set forth in Article 4.3. 1.1.4. Parking Lot Easement shall mean that parking lot easement as set forth in Article 4.1 and as identified in Fxhibit B. �L (, 1.1.5. Parking Ramp Easement shall mean that parkin.2 ramp easement as set forth in Article 4.2 and as identified in Exhibit D. 1.1.6. Permittees shall mean either Lexington or Wall ggf'ord,or both,their respective agents,employees, contractors,guests, invitees, te:ants,licensees and other parties designated as a Permittee by either Lexington or Wallingford. 1.1.7. Sanitary Sewer Easement shall mean that easement as set forth in Article 3.1 and as identified in Exhibit C. 1.1.8. Temporary Construction License shall mean that license as set forth in Article 4.7. 1.1.9. Temporary Parking Lot shall mean that temporary parking facility as set forth in Article 43. 1.1.10. Wallingford Access Easement shall mean that access easement as set forth in Section 2.2 and as identified in Exhibit B. ARTICLE 2. ACCESS EASEMENT 2.1. Lexington Access Easement, exington grants to Wallingford and Wallingford's Permittees a perpetual non-exclusive easement for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress on,to,over and across the Lexington Site,to and from the Wallingford Site and adjoining Public and private streets and roads which easement is identified on attached Exhibit B. This easement will include those portions of any parking lots, parking ramp or other similar facility now on or hereafter located on the Lexington Site used as access to and from the Lexington Site to and from any adjoining public or private streets and roads.("Lexington Access Easement"). 2.2. Wallingford Access Easement Wallingford grants to Lexington and Lexington's Permittees a perpetual non-exclusive easement for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress on, to,over and across the Wallingford Site,to and from the Lexington Site and adjoining public and private streets and roads which easement is identified on attached Exhibit B ("Wallingford Access Easement") (collectively, the Wallingford and Lexington Access Easements, the"Access Easements"). 2.3. Regulations. The Access Easements granted in this Article 2 shall be subject to such joint reasonable regulations relating to the use thereof as the parties may jointly impose including the regulations attached as Exhibit E;provided, however, that(a)that such regulations shall apply equally to all Permittees and users of the Access Easements and(b)such regulations shall not frustrate or vitiate the easement and rights of use and access provided for in this agreement. Except as -2- otherwise provided herein,the Access Easements are for purposes of ingress and egress only and shall not be construed to grant to any Permrttee parking privileges in any parking facility located on the Property. ARTICLE 3. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT 3.1. Grant of Easement Wallingford grants to Lexington and Lexington's Permittees a perpetual non-exclusive easement to maintain,operate,repair,replace and construct a sanitary sewer in,to,over and across the Wallingford Site which easement is identified on attached Exhibit F("Sanitary Sewer Easement").The location,size and elevation of the sanitary sewer line to be constructed within the Sanitary Sewer Easement shall be subject to the prior approval of Wallingford. If Lexington desires at any time to make alterations to the improvements constructed by it within the Sanitary Sewer Easement, Lexington will first submit the plans for such alterations to Wallingford for its approval. Lexington at its expense will construct, maintain and repair such sanitary sewer lines and the equipment appurtenant thereto in a first-class condition. The Sanitary Sewer Easement will include the right to go in, to, over or across the Wallingford Site as may be reasonably necessary to maintain,operate,repair,replace and construct the sanitary sewer lying within the Sanitary Sewer Easement; provided, however, that (a) Lexington shall have given Wallingford 30 days prior written not}ce of its intent to enter the Wallingford Site so as to exercise its rights under the Sanitary Sewer Easement, but in the event of an emergency, Lexington shall give Wallingford reasonable notice,(b)Wallingford shall have consented to the method and timing of the exercise of such rights, (c)such exercise shall not unreasonably interfere with Wallingford's use and occupancy of the Wallingford Site and shall be calculated so as to minimize any interference with such use and occupance,(d)such exercise shall be at the sole cost e of romtly repair,replace and esdtorepthe sWallingford tS teon aandnd (any improvements e) Lexington lthereupon including landscaping,sod,and pavement to the condition that existed prior to exercise of its rights under the Sanitary Sewer Easement. 3.2. Limitation of Easement,This Sanitary Sewer Easement shall be used only for an underground sanitary sewer pipe and for only those other purposes provided herein. ARTICLE 4. PARKING LOT EASEMENT 4.1. Parking Lot Easement, Lexington grants to Wallingford and Wallingford's Permittees and Wallingford grants to Lexington and Lexington Permittees,a perpetual non-exclusive easement for parking purposes and pedestrian and vehicular access on, to, over and across that parking lot ("Parking Lot") substantially located on the Lexington Site which parking lot and easement are identified on attached Exhibit B("Parking Lot Easement"). -3- /,.1<" 4.2. Parking Ramp Easement.Lexington intends to construct a parking ramp on the Lexington Site so as to be located thereon as shown on attached Exhibit D ("Parking Ramp"). Lexington hereby grants to Wallingford and Wallingford's Permittees a perpetual non-exclusive easement for parking purposes and pedestrian and vehicular access on, to,over and across the Parking Ramp. To the extent that any portion of the Parking Ramp is located on the Wallingford Site,Wallingford hereby grants to Lexington and Lexington's Permittees a perpetual non-exclusive easement for parking purposes and pedestrian and vehicular access on.to,over and across the Parking Ramp(the easements granted in this Section 4.2,"Parking Ramp Easement"). Lexington will construct, at it expense, the Parking Ramp in accordance with plans and specifications reasonably approved by Wallingford and will not alter,deviate,modify or change the approved plans for such Parking Ramp without the prior written consent of Wallingford which consent Wallingford will not unreasonable withhold;provided,however,that Wallingford shall not withhold its approval for any alterations, deviations or changes required by the City of Eden Prairie. 4.3. Parking License. In the event the construction of the Parking Ramp reduces all or any number of parking spaces in the Parking Lot available to Wallingford or Wallingford's Permittees,or interferes with Wallingford's or its Permittees'benefit, use and enjoyment of the Parking Lot Easement,Lexington shall provide,at its own expense,a temporary parking facility on the Lexington Site ("Temporary Parking Lot") whose location and size shall be subject to the reasonable approval of Wallingford. The Temporary Parking Lot shall be paved and shall provide for the use by Wallingford and its Permittees,at a minimum, an equal number of stalls as were disrupted by such construction. Accordingly, Lexington grants to Wallingford and Wallingford's Permittees an exclusive license to use the Temporary Parking Lot for parking purposes and pedestrian and vehicular access ("Parking License"). Lexington shall continuously provide to Wallingford the Temporary Parking Lot until the Parking Ramp is lawfully available for occupancy and all necessary repairs to make the Parking Lot usable have been completed. Once the Parking Ramp has been constructed so as to enable Wallingford and its Permittees to lawfully enjoy and use the Parking Ramp and the Parking Ramp Easement,the Parking License shall terminate. 4.4. Maintenance and Operation of Parking Facilities Lexington shall operate and maintain the area and location over which the Parking Lot,the Parking Lot Easement, the Parking Ramp, the Parking Ramp Easement,the Temporary Parking Lot and the Parking License are granted (collectively, all the parking easements and rights provided herein for parking purposes,"Parking Facilities"), including,but not limited to,driveways,pavement,sidewalks,landscape,drainage, public utilities,painting services,lighting facilities,and shall ensure that the Parking Facilities are maintained in a first-class condition so as to fulfill the purposes of this agreement. Lexington shall separately meter the lighting facilities for the Parking Facilities. The cost of maintaining the Parking Facilities shall be shared by the parties in proportion to the square footage of their respective sites over the total square footage of the Property. Maintenance expenses will not include all real estate taxes and assessments relating to the Lexington Site and Lexington shall pay -4- • all such costs. 4.5. Parking Requirements, Lexington and Wallingford acknowledge that the improvements currently constructed on the Wallingford Site do not include parking sufficient to satisfy the code requirements of Eden Prairie,Minnesota. Lexington shall provide on the Lexington Site the Parking Facilities so as to satisfy the current parking requirements of all state,federal and local authorities including the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,for the improvements now located on the Wallingford Site. 4.6. General Conditions and Limitations The easements granted in this Article 4 shall include such rights of use of the driveways and pedestrian ways established for vehicle and pedestrian use within the Property as shall be reasonably necessary to gain access to and egress from the Parking Facilities by vehicles and pedestrians and shall also include portions of any improvements located on the Property which are identified for use as a roadway or pedestrian way providing ingress to and egress from the areas of the Property which are subject to the easements granted in this Article 4. Lexington shall at all times provide free access to the Parking Lot Facilities and shall guarantee the free access and movement to and from the Wallingford Site,the Lexington Site,the Parking Facilities and any public or private streets and roads.The easements granted in this Article will be subject to such joint regulations as are attached as Exhibit E. 4.7. Temporary Construction License, Wallingford hereby grants to Lexington and Lexington's Permittees,a temporary license for ingress and egress in, to,on,and across the Wallingford Site reasonably necessary only in connection with the construction of the Parking Facilities.('Temporary Construction License"). In no event shall the entry and use by Lexington of the Temporary Construction License unreasonably interfere with the use,operation or enjoyment by Wallingford or its Permittees of the Wallingford Site or any of the Easements or rights granted herein. The Temporary Construction License will include the right to go in,to,over or across the Wallingford Site so as to construct and maintain the Parking Facilities; provided, however, that (a)Lexington shall have given Wallingford 30 days prior written notice of its intent to enter the Wallingford Site so as to exercise its rights under this Temporary Construction License but in the event of an emergency, Lexington shall give Wallingford reasonable notice,(b)Wallingford shall have consented to the method and timing of the exercise of such rights,(c)such exercise shall not unreasonably interfere with Wallingford's use and occupancy of the Wallingford Site and shall be calculated so as to minimize any interference with such use and occupance, (d)such exercise shall be at the sole cost and expense of Lexington and (e) Lexington shall promptly repair, replace and restore the Wallingford Site and any improvements thereupon including landscaping,sod,and pavement to the condition that existed prior to exercise of its rights under the Temporary Construction License. -5- ARTICLE 5. MAINTENANCE 5.1. Maintenance Except as otherwise provided herein,and as provided in Sections 4.4 and 13.3,Lexington and Wallingford agree that each party will at its own expense maintain,repair and replace the easements located on its respective site so as to keep the same in a clean, sightly and safe and first-class condition,in full compliance with any law,mortgage or lease applicable thereto. The parties' obligations shall include (i) maintaining all paved surfaces and curbs of the easement areas in a smooth and evenly covered condition,including the sweeping, restriping,repairing,resurfacing and snowshoveling of such surfaces;(ii)maintaing in a first-class condition any structure located on an easement area;(iii) removing all papers,debris and refuse;(iv) placing and maintaining appropriate directional signs, markers and lines; (v) installing and maintaining lighting facilities;(vi) cleaning and maintaining all landscaped areas and planters;(vii) maintaining, cleaning and repairing storm drains; and (viii) complying with all applicable requirements of governmental agencies pertaining to the easement areas ARTICLE 6. LIMITATIONS 6.1. Limitations. Wallingford and Lexington,in exercising their respective rights and fulfilling their respective obligations under this agreement will(a)not unreasonably interfere with any of the easements or licenses granted hereunder or any other use,occupancy or enjoyment which each party is making of its own site; (b) comply with all reasonable limitations on the use or access to the other party's prod as set forth in tthepjoint regulations as set f tatt written as Exhibitgiven E; (c)comply such witr h all applicable able federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations;(d)comply with all of the applicable provisions of this agreemen;(e)take all reasonable precautions to protect the other party and its property from injury or damage,(f)at each party's own cost,but under the direction of the other party, repair any damage to the other party's property caused by the exercise of any such rights granted hereunder to the conditions which existed prior to such damage,and with sufficient promptness to avoid any delay of the use or occupancy by the other party of its property;(gg)reimburse the other party for any cost occasioned by its negligence or willfulness, or the negligence or willfulness of its Permittees and for any cost occasioned by any damage or interference with the other party's property resulting from the exercise of any rights granted under this agreement contrary to the provisions hereof;(h) not create, maintain or permit to exist on any property over wwr to which such ehich any easement ooyr other right granterty is subject, or offensive use or practice or hereunder runs oany other activity which unreasonably interferes noxwiths ffensithe quiet and peaceful use of the Lexington Site or the Wallingford Site by their respective owners;and(i)exercise their rights in a manner to minimize interference wiLi the other party's use and enjoyment of its site. -6- /nL 1 • 6.2 Rules and Regulations. In the operation or use of any of the rights, licenses or easements granted in this agreement,the parties have adopted the joint rules and regulations attached as Exhibit E for the use of said rights,licenses and easements by themselves and their respective Permittees provided that all such rules and regulations and other matters affecting the users of the said rights,licenses and , easements will apply equally and without discrimination to all similar classes of Permittees. Any amendments to such rules and regulations must be approved by both Lexington and Wallingford whose approval will not be unreasonably withheld. ARTICLE 7. ALTERATIONS 7.1 Alterations. Except as otherwise provided herein,neither Wallingford nor Lexington will make or permit any material exterior or structural alteration or addition,or other material addition or alteration to any part of the Property which will interfere with the exercise of any easement or license granted herein without the prior written consent of the other party which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. ARTICLE 8. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION 8.1 Lexington Insurance. Lexington will maintain(a) comprehensive public liability insurance(comprehensive general liability coverage endorsed for broad form coverage)covering claims for personal and bodily injury or property damage occurring in or on the Lexington Access Easement and the Parking Facilities,in an amount reasonably acceptable to the parties, and which insurance will name Wallingford as an additional insured and (b) hazard insurance for damage or destruction to the Parking Facilities in an amount of their full replacement value. 8.2 Wallingford Insurance. Wallingford will maintain(a)comprehensive public liability insurance(comprehensive general liability coverage endorsed for broad form coverage)covering claims for personal and bodily injury or property damage occurring in or on the Wallingford Access Easement in an amount reasonably acceptable to the parties. 83 Copies of Policies. Wallingford and Lexington will each deliver to the other party upon the written request by the other party certificates of insurance evidencing the insurance required to be carried hereunder which insurance shall provide for thirty(30)days written notice to be sent to the other party in the event of cancellation. ARTICLE 9. WAIVER AND INDEMNIFICATION 9.1 Mutual Waiver of Claims and Subrogation Rights. Lexington and Wallingford each waive all claims for recovery from the other party for any loss or damage to any of its property insured(or required hereunder to be insured)under -7- ir, valid and collectible broad form hazard insurance and comprehensive public liability insurance policies to the extent of any recovery collected under such insurance policies plus any deductible amounts,provided that such a waiver does not invalidate the respective policies required hereunder or impair the insured's ability to collect under such policy or unreasonably increase the premiums for such policy unless the party to be benefited by such waiver pays such increase, and without limiting any release or waiver of liability contained elsewhere in this agreement. Lexington and Wallingford each covenant and agree to use any and all reasonable efforts to collect any amounts due or otherwise available to them under such insurance policies. 9.2 Indemnification. Lexington and Wallingford each covenant and agree,at their respective sole cost and expense,to indemnify and hold harmless the other party("indemnitee")from and against any claims against the indemnitee for losses, liabilities, costs and expenses and any actions or proceedings arising therefrom,by or on behalf of any person,arising from the indemnifying party's or its Permittees' use or enjoyment of any easement or license granted hereunder.The indemnifying patty will not be obligated to indemnify the indemnitee as to any loss, liability, cost or expense as the result of the negligence or willfulness of the indemnitee or the indemnitee's Permittees, for which indemnitee has been reimbursed,or to the extent that payments have been made on indemnitee's behalf by any insurance carrier. In case any action or proceeding is brought against the indemnitee by reason of any such claim,the indemnifying party,upon notice from indemnitee, will defend such action or proceeding with attorneys reasonably satisfactory to the indemnitee. If any loss,liability,cost or expense for which an indemnifying party has agreed to indemnify an indernnitee under this Article is fully covered by the indemnifying party's insurance policies and the insurance carrier has accepted the defense of such claim, then the indemnifying party may satisfy its obligation under this paragraph to the extent such loss, liability,cost or expense is covered by such insurance policy,by tendering the defense of such claim to the attorney selected by such insurance carrier. ARTICLE 10. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS:ZONING 10.1 Compliance with Law. With respect to their respective use,enjoyment and exercise of any rights or obligations hereunder,both Lexington and Wallingford will comply with all laws,regulations and requirements now or hereafter enacted by any entity having jurisdiction of the Property or any portion thereof. If either party does not proceed diligently with any such compliance("non-performing party)and such failure to proceed adversely and materially affects the other party,then the other party may give written notice to the non-performing party specifying the respect in which the cure of such noncompliance is not proceeding diligently. If upon expiration of ten(10)days after the receipt of such notice any such cure of the noncompliance is still not proceeding diligently,then the other party may take all appropriate steps to carry out the same. The other party shall be entitled to reimbursement upon demand from the non-performing party for all costs and -8- f • expenses incurred in connection with such compliance. Notwithstanding the foregoing,either party may contest in good faith any such laws, regulations and requirements including any of the foregoing relating to the imposition of taxes and assessments so long as such contesting party indemnifies and holds the other party harmless from any loss,or expense occasioned by such contest. ARTICLE 11. DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION 11.1 Damage and Destruction. If any portion of the Property over which runs an easement or license granted hereunder is damaged or destroyed,the owner of such damaged or destroyed property to the extent insurance proceeds are available,will repair or restore the damaged or destroyed portions to substantially the same condition as before the damage or destruction within a reasonable time from the date of damage or destruction or within such additional time as is reasonably necessary to repair or restore the damage or destruction. 11.2 Design Standards. Any repair and restoration commenced under the terms of this Article will be substantially in accordance with the existing architectural design and standards of the improvements located on the Property. ARTICLE 12. CONDEMNATION 12.1 Condemnation. If any portion of the Property over which runs an easement or license granted hereunder is taken or condemned,the owner of such property will restore or repair,within a reasonable period thereafter,to the extent of any proceeds from the taking or condemnation,the remaining portion of its site so as to fulfill the terms and conditions of this agreement and to a condition reasonably suitable to both Lexington and Wallingford. In addition to any rights or obligations hereunder, the owner of the Property so taken or condemned will restore or rebuild any portion of the Property including the Parking Facilities so as to maintain the Property in compliance with federal,state and local regulations, rules and laws. 12.2 Design Standards. Any repair and restoration commenced under the terms of this Article will be substantially in accordance with the existing architectural design and standards of the improvements located on the Property. ARTICLE 13, DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES 13.1 Default. A party shall be deemed to be in default of this agreement should a party fail to perform its obligations set forth herein or violate the rights and privileges of the other party as provided herein and such failure to perform or violation continues(a)in the event of a monetary matter,for a period in excess of ten(10)days after notice of default,(b)in the event of a non-monetary matter,for a -9- period in excess of thirty (30) days after notice of default, (c) in the event of a matter which materially impairs use of or access to an easement granted herein,for a period in excess of one (11)hour after notice of default, or(d)in the event of a matter which takes reasonably longer than thirty(30) days to cure, for such reasonable period after notice of default. 13.2 Injunction. In the event of any violation or threatened violation by either Lexington or Wallingford,or their respective Permittees of any of the terms, covenants and conditions in this agreement,either of the parties,or their respective successors or assigns,will have, in addition to the right to collect damages and to pursue any remedy provided herein or available at law or equity,the right to enjoin such violation or threatened violation in a court of competent jurisdiction. Ten(10) days prior to the commencement of any such action,written notice of the violation will be given to the other party or other person responsible for such. 13.3 Clue of Default, In addition to the remedies provided herein,either party may cure the default of another party including without limitation entering the defaulting party's site and constructing,repairing,maintaining,any or all parts of an easement,property or facility in,on,over or across which an easement or license granted herein runs,for the purpose or use for which that easement or license is hereby created and established,and all work shall be done at the sole cost and expense of the defaulting party. 13.4 Damages. If Lexington or Wallingford cures any default of the other party under this agreement, the defaulting party agrees to pay the non-defaulting party all sums incurred by the non-defaulting party to cure the default. These sums will include,without limitation, penalties,attorney's fees, other professional fees and all other expenses incurred by the non-defaulting party to cure said default. So long as such sums remain unpaid,the non-defaulting party will have a lien on the defaulting party's property to secure payment of all sums owing under this agreement which lien shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon either the Lexington Site or the Wallingford Site including the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust. 13.5 Unavoidable Delay. If performance of any act or obligation of any party is prevented or delayed byact of God,war,labor disputes,or other cause beyond the reasonable control of such party,the time for the performance of the act or obligation will be extended for the period that such act or performance is delayed or prevented by any such cause. The party unable to perform will inform the other party in writing of the existence and nature of the delay and the time period reasonably necessary to cure the default.. 13.6 Default Notice. A party will not be in default under this agreement unless the party has been given a written notice specifying the default and fails to cure the default within the allotted time period,or commences to cure the default within such period of time and thereafter does not diligently proceed to cure the default. -10- 13.7 Limitation of Remedy. No breach of this agreement will entitle any party to cancel,rescind,or otherwise terminate this agreement,but this limitation will not affect,in any manner,any other rights or remedies which the parties may have by reason of any breach of this agreement. ARTICLE 14. AMENDMENT$ 14.1 Amendments. This agreement may only be terminated,modified,or amended with the written consent of Lexington and Wallingford or their successors in interest. No termination,modification or amendment will be effective until a written instrument has been recorded in the recorder's office for Hennepin County, Minneapolis,Minnesota. ARTICLE 1.5. LIENS 15.1 Liens. If either Lexington or Wallingford("Lien Party")performs or has performed any work upon its own property or upon the property of the other party ("Creditor Party"), the Lien Party will not permit any mechanic's, materialmen's or other similar liens to stand against the Creditor Party's property for the labor or materials which have been furnished in connection with such work. If any mechanic's, materialmen's or other lien is filed against the property of the Creditor Party as a result of the nonpayment of an amount due which,if due,would not be payable by the Creditor Party by reason of this agreement and which,if due, would be payable by the Lien Party,then the Lien Party will at its sole cost post a bond to procure the discharge of said lien upon written request of the Creditor Party. If theLien Party fails to discharge said lien within ten(10)days from the written request of the Creditor Party,the Creditor Party may bond and contest the validity of any lien, pay the unpaid amount of the lien on its property and purchase the lien rights of the party which furnished the materials or services,and take all other action and expend any sum necessary to remove said lien. The Lien Party to whom the labor and materials were supplied will immediately pay any judgment rendered, all amounts expended by the Creditor Party, and all other expenses incurred by the Creditor Party to release its property from said lien including attorney's fees, interest and costs. The Lien Party or the Creditor Party will immediately notify the other party of any lien filed against the other party's property. ARTICLE 16. MUTUALITY AND RECIPROCITY 16.1 Mutuality and Reciprocity. All of the easements and rights granted in this agreement are appurtenances to the applicable portions of the Property and none of the easements and rights may be transferred,assigned or encumbered except as an appurtenance to such portions. Each and all of the covenants, -11- I:?c(: restrictions and conditions contained in this agreement (whether affirmative or negative in nature)(i)are made for the direct,mutual and reciprocal benefit of the Lexington Site and the Wallingford Site;(ii)will create mutual equitable servitudes upon the Lexington Site and the Wallingford Site in favor of every other parcel;(iii) will constitute covenants running with the land; (iv)will bind every person having any fee, leasehold or other interest in any portion of the Lexington Site or the Wallingford Site at any time to the extent that such portion is affected or bound by the covenant,restriction or condition;and(v)will insure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 16.2 Conveyances. The parties covenant that in each instance in which either of them ever conveys any part of their interest in all or any portion of the Property to a grantee or lessee,the grantor party in such instance will require the grantee or lessee to agree not to use,occupy,or allow any use or occupancy of the Property so conveyed in any manner which would constitute a violation or breach of any of the covenants in this agreement and will require the grantee or lessee to assume and agree to perform all of the obligations of the conveying party under this agreement with respect to the portion of the Property conveyed to such grantee or lessee. On such assumption by a grantee or lessee, the conveying party will thereafter be released from any further obligation under this document arising thereafter with respect to the part of Property so conveyed to the grantee or lessee in compliance with this document. Each party agrees to execute and deliver any documents necessary to evidence the release for the purpose of recording or otherwise,which documents or assurances will be duly executed by the parties or by any grantee or lessee of either,to any such grantor or lessor. 16.3. Superiority of Lien. Except as otherwise provided herein, this agreement and the rights and privileges, easements,covenants,agreements and licenses, tendered with respect to the Property shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon either the Lexington Site or the Wallingford Site including the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust.Without lessening any of the foregoing,no breach herein shall render invalid,diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage or any deed of trust,but all of the easements,covenants,conditions, restrictions,licenses and terms contained in this agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or party(including any mortgagee or beneficiary under a deed of trust)who acquires title to any site or any portion thereof by foreclosure,trust deeds,deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise. ARTICLE 17, DEDICATION 17.1 Dedication. Nothing contained in this agreement will be deemed to be a gift or dedication of any portion of the Lexington Site or the Wallingford Site to the general public or for the general public or for any public purpose whatsoever, it being the intention of the parties that this agreement will be strictly limited to and for the purposes expressed in this agreement. -12- /t'' ARTICLE 18. SEVERABILITX 18.1 Severabiiity. If any clause,sentence or other portion of the terms, conditions or covenants of this agreement become illegal,null or void for any reason or be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be so,the remaining portions will remain in full force and effect. ARTICLE 19, NOTICES 19.1 Notices. All notices, statements, demands, approvals or other communications to be given pursuant to this agreement will be in writing,addressed to the parties and will be delivered in person,or by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses, or to any other address which the parties may from time to time designate: If to Lexington: Lexington Cabriole Limited Partnership with a copy to: Ms.Judith E.!Crow Fabyanske,Svoboda,Westra& Davis 1150 International Centre II 920 Second Avenue South Minneapolis,MN 55402 If to Wallingford: Wallingford Properties Company 5201 West 73d Street Edina,MN 55435 With a copy to: James R.Gruepner,Esq. Siegel,Brill,Greupner&Duffy,P.A. Suite 1350,100 Washington Square Minneapolis,Minnesota 55401 ARTICLE 20, GENERAL 20.1 Headings. The headings of articles in this agreement are for convenience of reference only and will not in any way limit or define the content, substance or effect of the articles. -13- In, / 20.2 Abandonment. Easements created hereunder will not be presumed abandoned by non-use and rights and the easements and rights created hereunder will not terminate due to the occurrence of any damage or destruction of portions of the Property subject to an easement or other right except as provided expressly herein. 20.3 Governing Law. This agreement will be governed in accordance with the laws of Minnesota,including without limitation matters affecting title to all real property described herein. 20.4 No Third Party Beneficiary. This agreement is not intended to give or confer any benefits, rights,privileges,claims,actions or remedies to any person or entity,including the public,as a third party beneficiary or under any statutes,laws, codes,ordinances,rules,regulations,orders,decrees or otherwise. 20.5 Status of Parties. The parties have not become and do not intend to become partners or joint venturers and nothing herein shall be construed or applied to constitute the parties as partners or joint venturers. 20.6 Mortgagee Protection. The holders of any first mortgage affecting any part of the Property or any improvements thereon will be entitled to receive notices given in the manner provided in this agreement. If the holder of any mortgage shall succeed to any party's interest in the Property,whether by foreclosure sale or by deed in lieu thereof,then the holder of such mortgage will not be liable for the acts or omissions of such party occurring prior to the date the holder of such mortgage succeeds to such party's interest in its parcel. The holders of any first mortgage affecting any part of the Property or any improvements thereon shall have the right but not the obligation to cure a default hereunder. 20.7 Estoppel. Wallingford and Lexington agree,within ten(10)days after written notice from the other party, to execute and acknowledge an estoppel certificate stating whether(i)this agreement is in full force and effect, (ii)this agreement has been modified or amended,(iii)this agreement is in default,(iv)any sums are owing under this agreement and if so,how much and (v)any other information reasonably requested by the other party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned have executed this Declaration of Easement effective the date and year first above written. Lexington Cabriole Limited Partnership By: Its: (signatures continued) -14- Wallingford Properties Company By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989,by the of Lexington Cabnole Limited Partnership,an Illinois lunited partnership,on behalf of the limited partnership. Notary Public STATE OF MINN'ESOTA) 1 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)ss. • • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,19 by the of Wallingford Property Company,a Minnesota corporation,on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public The Travelers Indemnity Company,a Connecticut Corporation,hereby consents to the terms and conditions of this Declaration of Easement. The Travelers Indemnity Company By: Its: -15- /�C'. STATE OF MIN'NESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,1989,by the of the 1"ravelers indemnity Company,a Connecucut corporauon,on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public -16- M91 • ( ( STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: March 10, 1989 PROJECT: Cabriole Center LOCATION: South of I-494 and West 78th Street, and north of Anderson Lakes APPLICANT: Hansen, Thorpe, Pellinen, and Olson, Inc. FEE OWNER: Lexington Company REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 10.3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. 2. Preliminary Plat of 10.3 acres into 2 lots. Background 1j 11; _2• The current proposal is for the 2nd \ ]. phase of the Cabriole Center, which E iOFC is an office development located on . West 78th Street. This project was �- .." - Y --- . approved by Ordinance N78-26 on June • ,, � _. -' r- 7, I978, which changed the zoning ---" '', — classification from Rural to Office on approximately 12 acres. OF C Site Plan/Preliminary Plat G MINI'' . • . .._. The proponent is requesting a zoning . PROPOSED SITE district amendment to allow for the - •- -"-. -' ' construction of Phase 2 of the " 1-5 . ' k•�•$f";\N, ►.Op•:$: Cabriole Center originally approved OF-C OF ...��4 in 1978. Phase 2 building will •Q•QQ.! \• •, •••�•�•e. contain 65,040 square feet on a lot N w. - containing 5.8 acres in addition to ��R� 'j , a one-level parking ramp containing •' PUB' <.,. 144 parking stalls. The Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) will be 25.8% which ,.., is allowable in the Office zoning • q ;. district. Overall square footage on ,� the site, which includes 63,850 a s ( N 4 ,14 c'+ R , ,. square feet for Phase I, would be 128,890 square feet. The overall FP -. square footage includes one level of 839 _ underground parking beneath each , %> , \�'' j building. Maximum F.A.R. has %. AREA LOCATION MAP calculated at approximately 28.6 . c Cabriole Center 2 March 10, 1989 The proponent is subdividing the 10.3-acre tract into 2 tracts. Lot 1, which is the location of the existing building, would contain 4.5 acres, while Lot 2 would contain 5.8 acres. Because of the lot line which runs down the center of the property, a number of variances are being requested. These variances would include a sideyard setback for the existing building, a zero lot line setback to the parking lot on Lot 1, a zero lot line setback to the parking ramp on Lot 2, and off-site parking. A height variance for the future building is also being requested to allow a building height to 45 feet. Maximum height allowed in the Office zoning district is 30 feet. Based upon a total building square footage of 128,890 square feet, parking requirements have been calculated at 4.2 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet, or 552 parking stalls. A total of 542 parking stalls are provided on-site. This figure includes 256 parking stalls on-grade, 144 parking stalls within the ramp, 73 parking stalls within the buildings, and 71 proof-of-parking stalls. With the exception of those stalls within the parking structure, the majority of the parking stalls have already been constructed. With the proposed lot subdivision, cross- parking, access, and maintenance agreements over the entire parking lot are necessary. In regards to the approved project, the parking ramp is in approximately the same location; however, because the building design has changed, it is approximately 80 feet further down the slope. In the 1978 Staff Report, concern was raised regarding how far down the slope the building would go. In the June 7, 1978, Developer's Agreement, item #15 required that "A barrier of either dense landscaping or fencing for the purpose of preventing physical intrusion into the wildlife area south of the 852 contour shall be designed and submitted to City Staff for approval prior to construction. The barrier should be placed at or north of the 852 contour." Because the building has moved further down the site, grading is occuring to approximately the 846 contour elevation. In order to come into conformance with the Developer's Agreement, the building would have to be relocated. Traffic The 1978 Staff Report discussed a neighborhood concern regarding traffic avoiding the West 78th Street/County Road #18 intersection by proceeding through on Ensign Road to gain access to County Road #18. Since this time, a connection has been made from West 78th Street to merge with the off-ramp from I-494, thereby providing additional access to County Road #18. Finally the original Staff Report anticipated approximately 100,000 square feet of office to be developed which would generate a total of 1,400 daily trips. Based upon the current proposal of approximately 110,000 square feet, a total of 1,353 daily trips are expected. The difference is a caused by a change in trip generation rates from 14 daily trips/1,000 square feet of office in 1978 to 12.3 daily trips/1,000 square feet of office in 1989. Grading The majority of the site to be utilized for Phase II has already been constructed upon. Grading ;s proposed with the parking structure and additional grading is necessary for the future building. Due to the slopes on the site, the building has been designed to step down the hillside. Approximately 10 feet of grade difference exists between the first floor elevation and the garage floor elevation. About 10 Cabriole Center 3 March 10, 1989 feet of fill is proposed along the front of the building and approximately 10 feet to the rear of the building. As previously mentioned, a natural barrier was to have been constructed at the 852 contour elevation, but was never installed. The previous approval depicted a building to be built at approximately the 870 contour elevation. The proposed building extends to the 854 contour elevation. The Phase 2 building would either have to be relocated and/or redesigned in order to conform with the approved concept plan. In addition, an approved landscape plan was submitted which depicted all plant material placed above the 844 contour elevation. The current proposal has plant material to the 840 elevation. The plans shall be revised to include all plant material above the 846 contour elevation. Utilities Water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer service is available to this building by connections made to existing stubs in West 78th Street and along the western property line. Storm water run-off is proposed to sheet drain across the parking lot to West 78th Street as it is currently. An additional storm sewer pipe and catch basin will be installed to collect water from the building and from the parking lot and discharged into the ditch along West 78th Street. Detailed utility plans shall be submitted for review by the Engineering Department and the Watershed District. Landscaping Based upon a building square footage of 65,050 square feet, a total of 203 caliper inches are required. In addition, the development proposal indicates a removal of 74 caliper inches of trees which would equal 100% replacement. Based upon this information, 277 caliper inches are required. The landscape plan has depicted a total of 291 caliper inches of plant material being planted on the site and 96 caliper inches of existing material to be transplanted. The landscape plan is designed to help buffer the building and some parking areas from the adjacent neighbors to the east and south per the Developer's Agreement. Architecture Because of inefficiences in the original building design, the proposed building has been designed in a more diagonal fashion. As originally required in 1978, the building has been designed to step down the hillside in order to take advantage of the natural slopes on the site. Building materials and colors will be consistent with the existing building. The proposed parking structure shall also be constructed of the same building material as the proposed building. Samples and colors shall be submitted for review prior to Council action. Signage/Lighting All signage and lighting is proposed to be consistent with that approved and built with Phase 1. Prior to Council review, a detailed signage and lighting plan shall be submitted for review. C Cabriole Center 4 March 10, 1989 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the amount of revision required to the current plans in order to conform with the originally approved plans, Staff would recommend that this item be continued for thirty days to allow the proponent time to complete the following revisions: 1. Revise the grading plan to eliminate all grading below the 852 contour elevation. 2. Revise the plans to depict the relocation of the building as originally approved. 3. Revise the landscape plan to locate all plant material above the 844 contour elevation. Implement the approved landscape plan. On the other hand, if the Planning Commission does not feel that a 30 day continuance would allow the proponent enough time to complete the revisions, then the appropriate action would be to close the public hearing and return the plans to the proponent. nnC' Planning Commission Minutes 9 April 10, 1989 proposed development site. Staff to co-ordinate the meeting. Motion carried 7-0-0. ✓B. CABRIOLE CENTER, by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 10.3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 10.3 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 65,000 square foot office building. Location: South of I-494 and West 78th Street, and north of Anderson Lakes. A continued public hearing. Franzen reported that this item had been continued at the Planning Commission's March 13, 1989 meeting and that no major changes had been made to the plans. The proponent had withdrawn the zoning request; however, would like to proceed with the request for approval of the Preliminary Plat subdivided into 2 lots. Joe Ryan, representing Lexington Company, stated that the request for the subdivision of the property between the lot lines for Phase I and Phase II. The proponent was not prepared to address the neighbors and Planning Commission's concerns related to the building design for Phase II. The rationale for the subdivision was to allow adequate time to study Phase II and to re-evaluate the design of the building proposed for Phase II. The subdivision of the property would allow financing • alternatives. Ryan stated that the major concern raised against the subdivision of the property at the last Planning Commission meeting was the parking lot requirements. Ryan proposed a cross-parking easement agreement. Ryan concluded by stating that he was not requesting a revision to the Developers Agreement, only to separate the property into two lots. Anderson asked Ryan if the proponent had met with the residents since the last Planning Commission meeting to discuss the concerns regarding the commitments not upheld with the development of Phase I related to landscaping. Ryan replied that the proponent had not met with the residents at this time. He added that Phase I had been developed approximately 10 years ago and that Lexington Company had only been involved for the past 4 years. Lexington Company had not addressed the issues created by the former developer. Franzen stated that the question was whether the Planning Commission was comfortable with approving the Preliminary Plat with the Site Plan to be worked out in the future. There were several open-ended questions which remained unresolved.. Franzen questioned if the Preliminary Plat were approved for subdivision would the City necessarily be working with Lexington Company in the future or would the property be sold to another developer. Franzen Ic6�';� Planning Commission Minutes 10 April 10, 1989 questioned what controls the City might lose if the subdivision was approved. Sandstad asked if it would be appropriate to include a time frame condition to bring Phase I into compliance with the Developers Agreement. Franzen recommended that Staff • consult the City Attorney. Franzen commented that the proponent wished to keep all its options open. The proponent did not have definite plans for the property at this time, while Staff would be more comfortable having more control. Ruebling stated that he was hesitant to ask the proponent to correct problems created by the former developer in order to receive approval for the Preliminary Plat. Ruebling was more concerned with the loss of control over the implementation of the City's policies. He believed a decision was complicated because of the cross-parking, cross easements, and the fact that Phase I would have no parking. Anderson asked exactly what controls would the City lose. Franzen replied that with the current Site Plan Ordinance the City would have more control than in the past. Ruebling asked if the City could take steps to require compliance with the Developers Agreement. Franzen replied that the City could state specific conditions under which the second site could develop; the Developers Agreement could be rewritten to require that the concerns of the neighbors and the Planning Commission be addressed to bring both sites into compliance with the Developers Agreement. Dale Hubred, 8056 Ensign Road, Bloomington, stated that he was concerned about the property being subdivided and Phase II being sold to another developer, which would not work with the Phase I developer. The building location could be changed. The neighbors were afraid because of the past history of this project. Hubred said that the site had been graded for the building to be constructed together. Hubred asked if there was any way for the City to keep the two lots tied together and require that the developer work with the neighbors. Sandstad stated that the two lots would be legally connected through easements. Franzen suggested asking the City Attorney if it would be appropriate to have the Developers Agreement run with the property, which would make the owner of the property responsible to uphold the City's conditions. ��_,) Planning Commission Minutes 11 April 10, 1989 Ruebling stated that the cross-parking easement would tie the properties together. He added that the Planning Commission and Staff historically requested all developers to work with the neighbors and that major issues were resolved before the Planning Commission would approve a project. . Anderson stated that it would be difficult to enforce the consistency of the architectural design if the property was subdivided. Hubred stated that the Environmental Quality Control Board had worked on the original project and was concerned that the City not lose anything already established by that Board. Ryan reiterated that the main reason for the request was for the flexibility of financing. Fell stated that he was concerned about the control being lost by the City, that the Planning Commission was possibly overlooking some aspect. He encouraged review by the City Attorney before proceeding. Ruebling asked if the PUD would change. Franzen replied no. Ruebling concurred with Fell that the Planning Commission needed to review this carefully before proceeding and supported the recommendation for clarification by the City Attorney. Dodge stated that the Planning Commission should not proceed if there was concern about losing control of the project. Fell asked Franzen if Item 1 of the proposed Motion 2 in the Staff report was specific enough in reference to the wording "to the degree possible". Franzen noted that the building for Phase I was not in compliance with City Code and would require a variance. He added that the City needed to look at its legal controls without creating other problems. Anderson stated that this was a financial issue on the part of the proponent and added that this was not an uncommon request. Dodge requested clarification; if the Preliminary Plat was approved Phase I would require off-site parking and the building height for Phase II would require a variance, which would not be required if the property remained as one parcel. Franzen replied that the Board of Appeals would have to approve the height variance in order for Phase II of the project to proceed. J1�' Planning Commission Minutes 12 April 10, 1989 MnTInN 1: Anderson moved, seconded by Ruebling to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0-0. MOTION Ruebling moved, seconded by Sandstad to accept, without prejudice, the withdrawal of the zoning district amendment of Cabriole Center at this time. Further, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Lexington Properties for preliminary plat of Cabriole Center, based on plans and written materials dated March 6, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 10, 1969, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Developer shall move immediately to bring the existing plan into conformance with requirements of the existing Developer's Agreement on the property to the degree possible. 2. Developer shall begin discussions immediately with the residents in Bloomington to mitigate their concerns regarding this proposed development. 3. Developer shall agree to site plan review according to City Code requirements prior to any building permit issuance for Phase II of the Cabriole Center. 4. Developer shall draft all necessary cross parking and cross access easements prior to final plat review by the City Council. 5. Developer shall agree to a restriction on the vacant lot created to provide for all necessary permanent parking for the existing Phase I building and to provide all necessary parking for Phase II in a parking structure. 6. Developer shall proceed immediately to the Board of Appeals for review of variances for setback to lot line, parking off-site, and height variance for the building on Phase I. 7. Developer shall agree to return to the Planning Commission with a Development Proposal in compliance with the current PUD or an amendment to the PUD. 8. Prior to City Council action Staff request the City Attorney to review this proposal and to identify any other restrictions necessary to maintain the normal amount of control for the City. Anderson asked if any Eden Prairie residents would be affected by this project. Uram replied no. Motion carried 7-0-0. { • Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 13, 1989 yhnxlOLE CENTER, by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Office District on 10.3 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 10.3 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 65,000 square foot office building. Location: South of I-4 4 and West 78th Street, and north of Anderson Lakes. Joe Ryan, representing the Lexington Company, stated that the company had purchased the Cabriole Center Phase I in 1985 from the original developer of the project. Ryan �`� Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 13, 1989 noted that the request was for a Preliminary Plat and Site Plan approval per the direction from City Staff. Ryan believed that the Site Plan for Phase II would be in compliance with the original Developer's Agreement of 1978 established between the City and Sutherland Corporation. Ryan stated that the goals of the proponent were to be sensitive to the concerns of the Bloomington residents and to keep within the Developer's Agreement guidelines. The four-story building which reduced to two-stories on the east side was designed to best fit the contours of the land. In the development of the building design and location the proponent had taken into consideration the existing vegetation in the front of the building, materials which would compliment the existing building and the introduction of an open atrium, which contained three levels on the lake side of the building. The exterior material to be used would be an exposed granite aggregate. Ryan noted that Staff had expressed a concern regarding the layout of the building; however, he believed the building layout was sensitive to the topography of the land, the trees, and the lake. Ryan stated that the project is preliminary in design. He added that a start date had not been determined; however, based on discussions with prospective tenants, construction could begin within 12 to 18 months. Enger reported that the proponent desired to split the parcel in order to be able to market the Phase II parcel, and to obtain a Site Plan approval based on the plans presented tonight; however, if the final plans changed substantially the proponent was aware that a return to the Planning Commission would be required. Enger added that if the Planning Commission was not comfortable approving the Phase II Site Plan, the proponent would desire the subdivision request to be considered. Enger stated that Staff was concerned with the present Site Plan because the building was being moved 80' closer to the Bloomington residents and the lake. Staff would suggest that if the Planning Commission approved the Site Plan that the proponent work further with Staff and the neighbors. Enger stated that if the Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat the following conditions were recommended: 1. Developer shall move immediately to bring the existing plan into conformance with Developer's Agreement to the degree possible. 2. Developer shall begin discussions immediately with the residents in Bloomington to mitigate their concerns regarding this proposed development. 3. Developer shall agree to site plan review according to City Code requirements prior to any /2'11 Planning Commission Minutes 6 March 13, 1989 building permit issuance for Phase II of the Cabriole Center. 4. Developer shall draft all necessary cross parking and cross access easements prior to final plat review by the City Council. 5. Developer shall agree to a restriction on the vacant lot created to provide for all necessary permanent parking for the existing Phase I building and to provide all necessary parking for Phase II in a parking structure. 6. Developer shall proceed immediately to the Board of Appeals for review of variances for setback to lot line and parking off-site. Enger noted that a height variance had been given in the original request to allow a 45 foot height; however, a small percentage of the existing building was 52 foot in height, which would mean the existing building was in non- compliance with zoning ordinances. Dale Hubred, 8056 Ensign Road, Bloomington, stated that he had lived in his home since 1978 and had been concerned with the Cabriole project from the beginning. Hubred said that the building for Phase I was to be a smaller building than what was constructed. He added that the 50 trees to be transplanted as a buffer between his property and the Phase I building were not taken care of and consequently the majority of them had died. Hubred believed that the Phase I building was very plain and was concerned that the Phase II building would not blend in well with the existing facility. Hubred suggested the establishment of covenants to provide evergreens to be planted to screen the garage. Hubred said that the Phase II building would not have a view of the lake, but would be looking directing into his yard. Hubred believed that the present berming was not adequate because it was planted at the bottom of the hill and the majority of the vegetation had died. Hubred was concerned about the City giving the proponent permission to build without any definite commitment to build until a firm tenant was found. Hubred did not want to see the property subdivided. He believed the property had been mismanaged from the beginning. Ryan stated that he appreciated the residents concerns related to Phase I and added that it was the proponents intent to work with the residents and the City regarding the concerns. He said that the model represented what the proponent wished to build and added that the proponent's intent was to be a part of the community on a long term basis. Enger shared the residents frustration with the original development; however, because of the new tree replacement ordinance and site plan review ordinance the developer o a ;� • Planning Commission Minutes 7 March 13, 1989 would be held accountable to insure that the required amount of trees survived and that if the plan varied substantially or if the project was not constructed within the two year limit it would require additional review by the City. Anderson stated that he was uncomfortable with this proposal because of the controversial history of Phase I and that a neighborhood meeting had not been held recently. Ryan replied that a neighborhood meeting had been held approximately a year ago and the proponent had meet with the City of Bloomington regarding a drainage easement. Ruebling stated that the splitting of the property presented several complicated issues. He believed that the exterior of Phase I was bland but was concerned that the proposed exterior materials for Phase II would be too much of a contrast and recommended the proponent try to obtain consistency rather than contrast. Ruebling believed the curve of the existing building was attractive and recommended smoothing out the angles of Phase II to blend in with Phase I. Ruebling was concerned about the appearance of the building mass if moved 80 feet closer to the Bloomington residents. Dodge asked if the Planning Commission could request that the landscaping, berming, and screening for Phase I be upgraded as part of the conditions for Phase II . Enger replied that the Planning Commission could recommend that Phase I be brought into conformance with the original Developers Agreement. Enger noted that the issue for the Planning Commission to consider was if it was comfortable approving a site plan with the information presented tonight or if it preferred to wait until the proponent had a definite tenant. Sandstad asked what type of notification had been given to the residents. Enger replied that approximately 60 notices had been mailed out and notice published in the newspaper. Sandstad asked if Staff had received any other comments from residents. Enger replied that a couple of the residents had come into the office to look at the plans; however, no comments were made in writing. Sandstad said he would be comfortable approving the Plat; however, he agreed that Phase I should be brought into compliance with the Developers Agreement. Hubred asked how close the proposed building would come to the Bloomington property. Ryan replied within 35 feet. Hubred asked how the parking lots would be split if the property was subdivided. Hubred believed the property needed to remain as one parcel. • Planning Commission Minutes 8 March 13, 1989 Anderson asked if 35 feet would be within the City's height setback requirement. Enger replied that the 35 foot setback was in conformance with the existing City Code. An ordinance related to the exact proportion had not been developed at this time. Enger added that it had been suggested to double the setback to the lot line. Anderson believed the Planning Commission should have more information especially regarding the subdivision of the lots and parking lot requirements. Ruebling stated that he would favor the project if it were more consistent with the original plan. Ruebling did not see a rationale for the building being moved 80 feet closer to the Bloomington properties and the lake. Dodge asked if Phase II never came about would the City gain control again if the subdivision were approved. Enger noted that Staff had advised the proponent that in order for the City to consider a subdivision of the property, a rationale would need to be established. Enger said that presenting this speculative plan had placed the proponent in a difficult position. Enger added that he was not sure how strong the City's position would be if the property was subdivided related to requiring the construction of the parking deck on Phase II to serve Phase I. Anderson stated that he would like to see the proponent work more with Staff and believed the plan should be closer to the original proposal. Hallett suggested that the proponent meet again with the neighbors to try to develop a good faith relationship. Ruebling stated that he would be comfortable with asking the proponent to withdraw the proposal. After a discussion regarding the pros and cons of a continuance versus a withdrawal of the proposal, Ryan requested a 30 day continuance. He added he would prefer to have the architect available for the presentation. MOTTON: Ruebling moved, seconded by Dodge to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting on April 24, 1989 according to the Planning Commission discussions. Motion carried 5-0-0. V. OLD BUSINESS VI. NEW BUSINESS /'' 4 allowed in one spot. 2. The Park Department wanted full dedication in the park land. 3. The area does not drain well--as a result there were grading restraints. They had thought the process would be ordinary, but it turned out to be difficult. 4. The curves needed specific curvature (according to City Engineering Dept.) Two variances were needed. He noted the two interior lots (reverse pie shapes). One was 11,000 sq. ft. and the other was 21,000 sq. ft. All lots have 30' as a setback, including the two in question. Those two are 70' wide at the setback line. They had adjusted the plat to come up with only two lots that needed variances. He felt it would be a good development. Uram noted that the City has been in the process of looking at less frontage on curved roads for some time. Anderson asked if there would be any variances necessary regarding construction of the homes. If this was approved, would Uban agree to no additional variances on lot 11? Uban answered that there would not be any necessary. They have a specific housing pattern and it has been provided to the City. Yes, he would agree to that. He noted that ordinance requires 70' at frontage, and these lots are 70' at setback. Freemyer felt the curve looked severe. Uban noted that it had been O.K.'d by the City. Uram added that the City did not require the curve, but did review the plans as submitted and approved them as they are. Harvey asked how many lots had been dropped. He noted that the area did have a lot of water two years ago. He felt the situation was unique and had no problem because of the curvature of the streets and the decision in the number of lots, which had been reduced to 49. Bozonie felt he was in favor of the variance. Longman asked about the bracket of the homes. A representative iron Halley Homes replied $140.000 to 823O.00O. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 89-19 subje_t to the following conditions: That no additional variances be allowed for Lot 11 , Block 12 or Lot 8 , Block 4.The situation was considered unique because of the curvature of the streets---creating a hardship. Harvey seconded the motion and added the additional hard- ship to be noted as drainage constraints. Motion passed tuiianimously. D. Request #89-20, submitted fa Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson Inc. for Cabriole Center II for property located at 9521 West treat, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2 B (1) To permit the existing office building on proposed Lot 1 -flock with a side yard setback of 2 feet, City Code requires 20 feet,-2ubdivision 3� H��g d to permit off-site parking for proposed Lot 1 Block 1. City Code requires off-street arkin facilities to be on the same parcel they shall serve, 3 ubdivision 3 Hi 5 b, to permit 5 surface parking 0' from a side lot line for existing parKinq on proposed Lot 1 BlockT City Code requires a 10' side yard setback, (4) Section 1703, Subdivision 2 B, to permit a building height of 52 feet for the existing building on proposed Lot s Block 1. City Code permits a building height of 30 feet in the Office Zoning District, Section 11.50, Subdivision s B, to permit the existing building on proposed Lot 1, Block 1 with a building height of 52' within a Shoreland area. City Code maximum building height within a Shoreland area is 30'. Joe Ryan of Lexington Company appeared to represent the owner of Cabriole Center. The parcel in question is approximately 10.5 acres. They had acquired the property about 4 years ago. The project had been built 10 years ago. They are requesting a subdivision of the lot (basically in half) to about 4.5 and 6 acres. The existing financing on the lot is through Travelers Insurance Co, and they want to divide the financing between the lots and proceed with the development of the second phase. Travelers ins. Co. does not wish to expand on the loan. Harvey noted it was a unique lot line between the two lots. He asked if the applicant had read the Staff report. Ryan answered that he had read it briefly. Harvey asked if Ryan had considered the option of retaining the property as one lot and condominiumize the lot. Ryan said they had discussed that option with City Staff and decided it was not an option. These condos do not work well in commercial projects. It is also important to keep the lots separate from a cost standpoint. Harvey asked if the property at 169 and Valley View Road was a condo office project. Uram answered it was the property was a townhouse development. Anderson asked if City West Parkway was a condo development. Uram answered yes, it has a common parking agreement. Uram introduced Rick Rosow, City Attorney for Eden Prairie. Harvey asked Rosow what was available in terms of condominiumizing the property- this an option in this instance? It would avoid many variances. Rosow said it could be done legally. The move would create the current unit as one building and create a footprint of a second unit. The remainder would be a common area. The problem would be that adhering to that footprint can be difficult to do.The current building could also be condominiumized and create a second unit. There is no legal description to sell it off. Legally, it can be done, but practically it is expensive. Ryan's assistant, Paul Thorpe , came forward and stated that the reason for having the lot line as it is was the parking lot/ramp. The ramp will be built over a portion of the lot. 1304 8 { 6 Anderson stated that he understood the need for this change to accomodate long term goals. He felt that the situation created would create problems with the tenants. Lot 1 would have the building and Lot 2 would have the parking. Ryan stated that easement and access agreement is being drafted. He cited many others who have such situations. Anderson said he believed all those had 100% use of common area. Ryan said it was important that they own all the property so no decision making problems arise with others. Anderson asked if Travelers was the lien holder. Ryan answered yes, but they are no longer financing real estate in this area. There is a release provision in place. Harvey asked if Travelers would allow the division. Ryan answered that they would allow it as long as there was cross access. Anderson asked if a subdivision could be created now for construction purposes and condo type platting be effective later. He felt that would be easier to manage and would create a variance that would be conditional on 1 or 2 years . Harvey asked if the green and parking areas would not have to be sold or dedicated to the association. Rosow said it would have to be dedicated. He did not think the Board had that kind of authority to do as Anderson had suggested. Ryan said it would make it complicated for the lenders also. Freemyer asked if the ramp will require a variance. Ryan's assistant, Paul Thorpe, answered that it would. Freemyer asked if the line parallel to the building could be pushed in a north easterly direction. Ryan's assistant, Paul Thorpe , stated that it will require a variance one way or the other. Harvey asked what the minimum lot size in that district is at this time. Uram answered it is 20,000 sq. ft. Ryan noted that they had tried to bring as much parking as possible close to the building. Longman felt it was unusual to grant a request creating five variances to accommodate financing purposes. He felt it was not a viable hardship. He asked for input from the audience. 7 Dale Hubred, neighbor to the east of the property, came forward. He explained that he had moved in in 1976 and at that time the property was rural. The first builder took two years with his project and took down many trees. The building was made larger than it should have been and there were not buffers as had been promised. He said that the matter was going to the Council on the 16th and it had not yet gone to the Planning Commission. He felt the process was being skirted on some issues and that condominiumizing the area would make more sense. How about fire lanes, drainage? He felt Ryan was asking for the variance from himself and there was no one to protest. He mentioned a possible building (65,000 sq ft) to be built. Uram noted that this item had been to the Planning Commission two times. A public hearing had been held for the preliminary plat. He added that enforcement had been less than expected regarding the issue of trees being taken down and that Ryan would be expected to plant additional trees. Harvey asked if landscaping ordinance would be complied with on the backlots. Uram answered that it would. Rosow asked who the purchase agreement was with now. Ryan answered they would keep the entire ownership of lot 2 and would be strongly involved in the project. (the other lot) Harvey clarified that after the possible lot division, Ryan's client would still be a party of both parts. Ryan affirmed the statement. Rosow said while he did not feel it would be a problem legally, the Board should keep in mind it would set a precedent for future variances. The hardship would be how the city approved the lot split. Anderson outlined how the real estate taxes and differences in value would cause problems and objections with the tenants. Ryan answered that the same situation existed in other cases. Longman said the Board has not allowed for financial hardships in the past. Harvey added that economic hardship alone in not considered a hardship--what else exists here? It would allow the construction of a second office building and the property would no longer be used for it's intended purpose. Rod Pauser came forward from the audience and said he was concerned about the aesthetics. He said there had been no attempt to plant additional trees and some of the small ones had already died. He said he had a good relationship with other nearby developers, but felt this developer had not done much. Ryan said he did not realize the hardship was necessary and/or required. He said he did not build the original building or cut down the trees. He did 1?D 6 8 not know what would be built there at this time. Regarding the landscaping matter, the people here had not come to him about it. He agreed it was a financial situ.otlon, and if it was not allowable, possibly they were out of luck. He asked if he should withdraw the request. Longman answered that the Board could act, or Ryan could get a continuance. If the Board should turn the matter down, it could be appealed to the Council. Uram added that if Ryan withdrew the request, he would need to come back to the Board before he could go to the council. If it were denied, he could appeal. To summarize, the three options would be: 1. Continuance:(no purpose) 2. Withdraw- could feel out the Council's thoughts on the matter and come back to the Board. 3. Decision this evening: if denied, appeal to Council. Ryan said he preferred option #3. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board deny variance request 89-20 and not create the five variances on the grounds that the only hardship demonstrated was economic& that was not considered a viable reason for a hardship according to code. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Anderson noted that the variance had not been turned down because of the quality of the project, but because of the hardship issue (which had not been demonstrated.) Recess taken from 9:10 to 9:20. E. Request #89-21, submitted 11 Crosstown Investors for property located west of Shady Oak Road and south of Crosstown #62 Eden raaiir-ie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code. Chapter 11, Section 1I.02, Subdivision 2, B, (1) To permit proposed Lot 1, Chasewood Addition at 1.26 acres, (21. To permit proposed Lot Chasewood Addition at 132 acres. City Code requires a 2 acre minimum in the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. (1r) To 20Omit a lot width of 184' for proposed Lot 1. City Code requires Jim Ostenson, a partner in Chase Point, came forward and showed the sketch. He explained that it include future extension of City West Parkway. The parcel consists of 7.9 acres and a rezoning for commercial property was desired. There were plans for a gas station/convenience store and day care center.The original property was 5 acres. They have dedicated property for the extension of City West Parkway and other property in the Crosstown revamping. A variance was needed to allow for use of property under 2 acres and 184' frontage. (as opposed to 200') The lot line would be created for ownership purposes. He cited the hardship as: 1. The land has been subdivided and condemned so many times--it was too small for a PUD. 2. Three smaller parcels were desired rather than one larger one for ownership reasons. 3. The property was in close proximity to three major roads. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 15-89 BE IT ORDAINED by the Eden Prairie City Council that the following street shall be renamed: FROM: Diamond Circle TO: LaRivier Court FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on June 6, 1989 and finally read, adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on the June 20, 1969. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-113 RESOLUTION RECEIVING 100% PETITION, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS & PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR I.C. 52-171 Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Paving for Proposed County Road and Claycross Way with the Plat of Country Glen BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: 1. The owners of 100% of the real property abutting upon and to be benefitted from the proposed improvements have petitioned the City Council to construct said improvements and to assess the entire cost against their property. 2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, and upon recommendation of the City Engineer, said improvements are hereby ordered and the City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for said improvements in accordance with City Standards and advertise for bids thereon, with the assistance of R.C.M, Inc. 3. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish a copy of this resolution once in the official newspaper, and further a contract for construction of said improve- ments shall not be approved by the City Council prior to 30 days following publication of this Resolution in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on June 6, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk 130.1.9 16 May, 1989 PROPOSED COUNTRY GLEN PLAT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 1008 PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: The undersigned are all the fee owners of the real property described below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to proceed with making the following described improvements: (General Location) X Sanitary Sewer Proposed Country Road and Claycross Way X Watermain X Storm.Sewer X Street Paving Other Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the undersigned hereby waive any public hearing to be held on said improvements, and further state and agree that the total cost of said improvements shall be specially as- sessed against the property described below in accordance with the City's special assessment policies. We further understand that the preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements is Street Address or other Legal Names and addresses of Petitioners Description of Property to be Served (Must be ownerS of record) Outlnt A_ Ctrnehjrm tinn X /, ,, 222 4b-,rt-il/[Y &-. (For City Use) Date Received /7 /1S/ 5 R, Project NO. ,SZ' /7 Council Consideration (Tun C 6, /?s'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MAYORAL TERM MAYORAL TERM STUDY COMMITTEE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA MAY 1989 Whether the term of office for the Eden Prairie mayor should be extended from two years to four has been the focus of study and discussion for the Mayoral Term Study Committee over the past two months. Ramifications from such a decision have philosophical and operational importance. Arguments to retain a two-year mayoral term are valid; however, after considering the issues surrounding four-year terms, Committee members found the reasons for extending the mayoral term to be more compelling. For reasons stated throughout this report, the Committee recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance this year which establishes the mayoral term to be four years. The Essential Issues: Under the statutory Optional Plan B (council-manager) form of government which Eden Prairie operates, a city council is comprised of a mayor and four councilmembers. The mayor serves a two-year term and councilmembers have staggered four-year terms. With this plan, voters have the opportunity to change the majority of a city council every two years. Duties, responsibilities, and authority of a mayor are substantially the same as other members of the council. All councilmembers and the mayor are elected at large. The mayor's vote counts the same as that of any other councilmember's, and the mayor does not have any veto authority. Mayors perform many ceremonial functions. Most of the mayor's obligations are technical in nature and done on behalf of the council: the mayor presides at council meetings, signs legal documents, and has titular responsibility for some state and federal laws. A two-year term is the only substantive matter that makes the position of mayor different from other councilmembers. What distinguishes the mayor's office is largely symbolic. Several advantages would exist if the mayoral term were extended to four years. These benefits, which will be discussed more fully below, include greater stability and continuity on the council, fewer distractions from constant campaigning, and an improved quality of decision-making. Given that the mayor has no real additional authority or power, the term of office should the same as that of other councilmembers. Essentially, the Committee focused on a few questions. What are the benefits to voters to be able to change the majority of the council every two years? What advantages could be realized with a longer mayoral term? Is the community better served by a longer mayoral term when compared to the ability for the voters to change the direction of the council more frequently? Primary Advantages of a Four-Year Term: A two-year mayoral term satisfies a political philosophy that opportunities for major changes should be frequent. Another, equally valid philosophy holds that responsible governance results from persons who are elected to offices with a longer term. One need only look to the federal system with two-year representatives, a four-year president, and six-year senators to see both of these lines of thought at work. The following advantages derived from a four-year mayoral term would better serve the Eden Prairie community. - 2 - 1) Avoid Disservice to Community from Frequent Change: f�fictive policy-making and efficient service delivery are enhanced by stability in governance. Having frequent - i.e., two year - changes on the council introduces possible volatility into the council's business. Volatility may result in short-term time- frames and lack of resolve to carry out decisions. Dver time, council actions may be inconsistent. 2) Continuity: Any person elected to a city council takes several months to learn what is involved with his/her position. The community benefits from a four-year councilmember's ability to use his/her experience and historical knowledge gained on the Council for decisions which need to be made. Having the potential for a mayor who may serve only one two-year term deprives the community of these advantages of continuity. 3) Improved Quality of Decision-making Process: The quality of a decision-making process is affected by the environment in which the decision is made. A four-year mayoral term improves this environment. Having continuity, having enough time to see policies and programs implemented, not having to be concerned about how actions will affect an election campaign which starts up again within a few months, all will help the mayor serve the community more effectively. 4) Avoid Distractions of Frequent Campaigning: A four-year term would permit a mayor to focus on community issues instead of being distracted frequently by the pressures of an imminent election. With a two-year term, no sooner does one get elected to be mayor than one looks ahead another 16 - 2D months for an election campaign to begin again. Campaigning can take a significant amount of time away from the business of the Council. This amount of time has increased as the City's population and the amount of money spent on mayoral campaigns have risen dramatically. 5) Mayor's Voting Power is Equal: As has been mentioned before, the mayor's powers are not that much different than his/her colleagues on the council, particularly when it comes to voting on decisions. The mayor should have the same amount of less time to act on and accomplish a campaign agenda as any other councilmember. The Committee could find no compelling reason why the mayoral term should be treated differently. 6) Change Well-Received in Other Cities: As part of its research, the Committee sent a short survey to twelve metropolitan communities which have switched to a four-year mayoral term. Of the eleven communities responding, all but one mentioned that the longer term had been well-received; public reaction was minimal (if any); and no negative impacts were identified. In the remaining community, a small outlying city, some unfavorable public response came as a reaction to the incumbent rather than the concept of a four-year mayoral term. i . - 3 - 7) Elections Send Messages: While a change of the majority of a Council is possible at every election, historically wholesale changes rarely occur. If two council seats changed during the non-mayoral election year, voters would still be sending strong messages to the other councilmembers that change is desired. Public Comment: Given the sixty-day period in which to prepare this report to the City Council, Committee members relied on their own experiences, observations, and discussions as well as responses to a survey of other cities. Council may receive public comment during its consideration of an ordinance to establish a four-year term. How To Change The Term: The City Attorney advises that the only way a statutory city such as Eden Prairie may change the mayoral term is by ordinance. Statutory authority for an advisory or binding referendum on this matter does not exist. The ordinance would be effective for the next election scheduled for the year after which it was adopted. For example, an ordinance adopted in 1989 would affect the election in 1990; if it were adopted in 1990, it would apply to the 1992 election. The Committee recommends that the Council adopt an ordinance in 1989 to extend the mayoral term to four years. To do so would have the mayoral race occur in an off-year (i.e., non-presidential) election. In this way, the mayoral election would be less likely politicized with national issues. Additionally, the mayoral race could increase voter interest and turnout in off-year elections. { The Committee further recommends that this ordinance proceed through the Council through the normal review and consideration process. Publicity should be handled through usual channels. * * * * * * The Mayoral Term Study Committee is proud to have served the Eden Prairie City Council. We are pleased to present this report to the Council and trust that Councilmembers will give due regard to our findings and recommendations. Councilmember Jean Harris, Chair Charles Ruebling 10860 Forestview Circle 55344 17195 Daniel Lane 55346 Marge Friederichs Councilmember Doug Tenpas 6421 Kurtz Lane 55346 10005 Amsden Way 55347 Fred LeGrand Craig Dawson, Staff Liaison 9866 Linden Drive 55347 Assistant to the City Manager jdp ,EDEN PRAIRIE b , otifeE ASSOCIATION P.O.BOX 443-027 EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344 TO; Park & Recreation Board FROM: EPSA DATE: April 26, 1989 RE: Conditions at Flying Cloud Fields After last years drought the field conditions at Flying Cloud have deteriorated. A large area of approximately one half of our field of play was plowed and seeded last fall. However, some problems still exist and we see others incurring. It is our proposal that a well be dug and above ground sprinkling systems be installed. In the time frame before this can take place we would like to see the fields watered when really needed by tanker trucks or some similar form of watering. As an association we would be glad to help with man hours in any way that we could. We appreciate the outstanding job that Mr. Lambert and his staff does for our association. With over 700 boys and girls participating in spring and fall soccer we feel we touch a significant amount of Eden Prairie residents. MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources f\j DATE: April 27, 1989 c������ SUBJECT: Flying Cloud Field Request by Eden Prairie Soccer Association The staff has recently examined the condition of the turf at Flying Cloud Fields and we do agree with the Soccer Association's observation that the field conditions are very poor. The reason for the lack of turf is twofold; first, the drought last year and secondly, the extensive use the fields receive from April to October each year. At the present time, the fields are scheduled for baseball seven (7) days a week and soccer six (6) days per week. When this summer use is combined with the football season in the fall, the turf gets no "rest" or time to rejuvenate itself. Certainly, irrigation of the fields would provide water necessary for the maintenance of healthy grass; however, this is not the only factor to consider in regards to installation of an irrigation system at Flying Cloud Fields. Other factors include: 1. Time frame of lease/future expansion - At the present time, the lease of the property is very insecure. Both the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission have indicated that the area is either a number one or two priority for expansion of the airport; namely, for hanger space. Unless a long term lease of 6-10 years is available, it would be difficult to justify irrigation. 2. Cost of installation - To put in a "portable - temporary" system to irrigate the fields would cost approximately $50,000. This is for electrical service, well, pump, piping and walking sprinklers. Additional cost would include labor to monitor and move the sprinklers. This cost for a short term lease is expensive. 3. Reseeding and growth time - Even with ideal conditions, the restoration of the turf at Flying Cloud Fields will take time. It is impossible to grow grass while a field is being used for athletic purposes. In order to restore the turf, it would be necessary to take a portion or all of the fields out of service for 100-150 days during the growing season. Ideally, this would mean renovation and seeding in August and not using the fields until June 1 of the following year. n/ ) Up until last year the turf condition at Flying Cloud was "tolerable", because a seed mixture was selected for the soil/water conditions present on those fields. With the drought it went from tolerable to terrible and won't get better until we can take some of the fields out of play, reseed and give the turf the time necessary to establish itself. Perhaps this means that the Associations who use the Flying Cloud Fields will have to scale back their programs, but in talking with other communities the staff has learned that our non-irrigated athletic fields are in the same shape as many other communities and unfortunately it will take time to restore them. SAF:mdd /'/9 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources "�r� FROM: Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources DATE: May 11, 1989 SUBJECT: Athletic Field Condition Report BACKGROUND: At the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission meeting of May 1, 1989, a request was made by the Eden Prairie Soccer Association for irrigation of Flying Cloud Fields. During the discussion of the problems at Flying Cloud Fields, the point was made that many of the athletic fields that are currently being used by a number of the associations are in very bad shape. The Commission requested that a report be made at the next meeting regarding the athletic field conditions and recommendations as to their usage. During the week of May 8, the staff toured the various parks and athletic field complexes and submits the following report. In order to understand the usage of these fields, it is important to understand the extent of the field scheduling, as well as the number of fields that are involved. Attached is a field schedule and condition report showing the different facilities, the days of the week that the facilities are used, the present field conditions, along with maintenance needs and miscellaneous notes. Some of the fields that are listed on this report do not have a field condition or need notes, because they are fields that are maintained by the School District. However, the Commission will also note that some of these fields are unavailable for play due to the School District renovation, reconditioning program for these athletic facilities. PRESENT CONDITIONS: When reviewing the field conditions of many of our athletic facilities, the staff was pleased to see that the overseeding projects that had been done last fall were coming along quite nicely. A number of the fields that have been overseeded are looking quite nice and if the current weather conditions and precipitation amounts continue, these fields will continue to improve in their playability. The one exception to the overseeding projects that were done last fall and the area of greatest need is the athletic complex at Flying Cloud Fields. The major reason for these fields being in such poor condition is twofold, first the dry conditions of the summer of 1988 combined with the double usage of • 1 � the fields. The fields at Flying Cloud are currently used for two seasons of activities. The soccer fields are used for a summer and fall soccer program and the baseball field area is used for baseball during the summer and overlaid with football fields in the fall. The drought conditions of these outfield areas are quiet extensive and there is a major dieback of the turf areas. The soccer fields are not in nearly as bad a condition; however, the turf is in poor enough condition that we feel that it is necessary that something be done as far as overseeding and renovation of these fields. Additionally, there are fields at some of the neighborhood parks that are in poor condition and these seem to be limited to areas where there has been either over usage of that facility or the field has just recently been constructed. Examples of these fields that were just recently constructed are the Forest Hills field on the east side of the building, the two T-ballfields at Eden Lake Elementary School, and the outfield area of the baseball field at Edenvale Park, which was overseeded due to construction damage with the well house adjacent to that field. The parks which seem to indicate over usage include the softball field at Pheasant Woods Park; the baseball/softball field at Prairie View Park, particularly the northerly fields, and the two softball fields adjacent to the Cummins/Grill House at Staring Lake Park. Last summer the City in conjunction with the School District, hired John Hopco to evaluate the conditions of the turf at a number of our facilities. According to his report, there are a number of factors which can lead to poor turf on athletic fields. The biggest factor in maintaining turf, according to his recommendations, were correct selection of turf grasses, to make sure that the fields were used on a reasonable level of activity, and that relatively uniform maintenance practices such aeration and fertilization be carried out on these fields. The staff would recommend that we need to evaluate the current level of these practices on all our fields and develop a more intensive management plan as the summer goes on and we get a better feeling for just what the summer weather will be like in terms of precipitation and temperatures. RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPTIONS: The staff in evaluating the fields this past week has come up with a number of observations that are listed on the attached sheets. At the current time, the staff would recommend a number of small overseeding projects in terms of spot overseeding or renovation of several fields. This renovation could be done this fall and will probably not affect the playability of these particular fields. However, there are some major things that need to be done in terms of Flying Cloud Fields and the renovation and restoration of the fields at this particular complex. ThP staff would propose a couple of alternatives for these facilities including: /` 1. Usage of the soccer fields be placed on a three or four year rotation. 2. The baseball fields at Flying Cloud Fields should also be placed into a rotation of renovation, so that one-fourth of the fields could be taken out of service for one year at a time. 3. In periods of extreme heat and dry weather, as well as extremely wet, cool spring weather the Athletic Associations maintain an open dialogue with the staff regarding potential damage to the turf areas due to over usage or poor climatic conditions. 4. Limit the amount of games played on the fields to lessen the over use. At the present time, the staff realizes that any changes in the current level of facilities or number of people served by those programs is a difficult and unpopular decision. However, on the other hand, the staff does not want to see the participants in these programs injured because of poor playing conditions caused by poor turf or lack of turf on the fields. It is going to be very difficult to bring the fields that have suffered drought damage back up to even playable status in a short period of time, and as the programs continue to grow, the pressures will become greater and more emphasis placed on the need for additional facilities. At the current time, the staff would recommend that the use of the soccer fields at Flying Cloud be discontinued for the fall soccer season. To accommodate the fall program the remaining available fields could be divided between the Soccer Association and Soccer Club, which would allow both to have a fall season but on a much reduced level. The staff feels that we could to move the football program from Flying Cloud Fields to another site; namely, Round Lake Park and place certain rcatricts on the number of fields that are used, as well as the days that the fields are used. The reality of this move would be that the fall adult softball program would be faced with cutbacks due to the youth usage of the fields and the fields could be subject the type of abuse that was evident two years ago, which almost resulted in the need to totally renovate the adult softball fields. In addition, we are recommending that the two softball fields at Staring Lake Park be taken out of service for some major renovation due to the lack of good turf conditions. With this in mind, the staff will have to evaluate how many fields would be available for adult programs and make an adjustment in the fall softball program in terms of the number of fields and the number of teams that would be able to play on those fields. At the current time, any recommendations that are made will affect both youth and adults programs and the staff will have to continually upgrade and monitor the situation of our fields to make the appropriate recommendations. The best solution for maintaining good turf at any of athletic facilities is to develop a comprehensive maintenance plan and to inform the Athletic Associations regarding the number of fields available,a s well the amount of time and effort and money that are being spend in order to renovate fields and keep them in good playable condition. SAW:mdd - • • /?) . - gt :. _ t tw s m c E - u- U . a`Fo � uwY• -w n- . m Y g, .. m y 2 O 8V c Y F 8 u `o P C E pP CW O L Q ^ O JY ww € _ L W P N > Y P la s W& oY o N a E C 0 LL UI�� rvM ry NN , NN MMM N M N M b. N 1 U 0 6 U T T N N y N N N x — m m0. > X ii 6 r d % m m vuiti %x T m x2o m T O .2 i 2.2 2 p 2 x m m N N ' Zr x 2 x x x X T m x b' m Qm — - 3 iXzzz" TTEnY,Y,Y, IX i xxXX x� m En u c m i z i z S x m m N N N a� 22x 20,' xX xX m X m m • i=i x TT Hv U ,g i i x � x x x x u „ x u Z.,'p x ziz" mmHu, 22' 1-4 xxxx z X T. m ry N ry — ry ~ _ i1.1 $ — % 1,1. . . 2 a B u 22 t BB22 B$ BB22 .. N_ vN uu O P H O N N W LL v•.• >' m m P m N mY O m H m N Y N p j y T P m m C Y Y pd {� Y 88 y Vol F - g fr 5 0 t` I 0. o¢70 - v a a -- Y $ m Y aq u i i i P E 0 I V V . Y Y 4 4 i 1, W_ EE Y O LT a0 u - - F.x - §' 8 & 241 C C i J i G G C S �Y M M Qi A u *'T v� n pp o o y u u 2 C u 2 2 w 0 2 p w v - $ Y Y i m Y P w mo o m C �m _ P� Y Y WN w YP- • E. Y-. .5 w w . 2 V �W w /- T T T - v w O YT ' ]TT y Yy q > 31 # ?N N o > > O > Y^ Y > iO O ; y > O NQ p N Y N O LL UI M N N P� N M M N NM M M M M M M M N C j u X T m l0 a0 m p0 g g g M X w w 0..(O 10 cC C s x Y m m V V V A A m N N 0 X S S V V T T V g 2 m x s m m m m m g m ix m m m m m m m> i Nx SV m mm44 gg M Nx NNMIGmmmm y1 U {! U Y Y T T N N T N N T U U U T T>T T T ix m% m T T U U N N T N N 0 T x EE :EE X ili O C \ tt \ L ] J J r A L K O N O Y m r m 0 0 W O N o. m N LL . 1 in it m m T N LL m T 0 m 0 O L T 4 2 T v v h v y Ic n n5 u w nL 6 m x 10 'a • - l. i ) # , $ / \ . P/ )) k) ■ § ; gg k) T - ..�....���.��..� �� {� \ "§ ! �... . , - -® , : : ifl. ; E t D P 2 1 M:Z., @ g;.,- k � /k\/} 222 § !7- !--||g! . § ,.,...,a,,,,,, �..� .., - _ 1/Ci !a�\/ ( �.,,�,�..,., 222 " "•_‹�« {}!) ,.�„ .���„���� 1 02= , `,,m.. -,� ® Z!!!) : § «»+ -- ES'§§! . , q- k.. &;! 5! ' &4 k 1" 0 9( )... .2 h> .. » (!2 aa _� .;. .7 (3 \ )� - T/)1-5 2„!®�=�I ° !1715 • ƒ \ '. ( Z(3LJ0}\000 0 ƒ 1>8 . < ,k r,a Q■!a = ,44] /\ . . .......... ,...., wi 0 .., N,7) 0, . 8.4 , 0, r A Ntc 4 1 f 0 ,.. ,. .. 1 1116` .121N r4114111\ N...., E. ••4 —.- :, ..... ... .......... w 4 111. U) • I e :F. ..1 __J I • .9 a. .'94 rr 7:'"', 'S'•!•.:::''.•'•:iV.71-.;.'..i.l':•.. -!v•-: F.3 D I J in icr\ ,,...F 1 * I i .777 ..-',:i•• '.:.,,':',M;3-?'k;.11P;.:'1, LI I..:'''''.!.'. ''.', : '..• ..'''''',':• .•'•1 . 0 lil k g —I c 1 tf e_ 1 i co 4 cn C.) / I Y —- 1 en 3, I li • __I I 4 in (33 ul 4 in U en . ' IL a I I , I I Ni • ko aa v:, (33 en H H r)..„, W - z . z 44 u) E ,:;,,,?,-,./,:=,,.•••;• 14 Oil '2•.)...1.-,#4..ti, . ; :i,:th4ctoF1.!h;,i, ealf,,,,I;i1A,gfr P?:Ri • APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION i1,nday, My 1, 1989 7:30 p.m., City Hall 1 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Breitenstein, chairperson; Bud Baker (late), Karon Joyer, Brian Mikkeison, Pat Richard COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Moe Cook, Charles Shaw COMMISSION STAFF: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources, Barb Cross, Landscape Architect, Laurie Belling, Recreation Manager, Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order. at 7:35 p.m. by Pat Breitenstein, chairperson. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Joyer moved to approve the agenda as printed. Richard seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 1989 MOTION: Richard moved to approve the minutes as mailed. There was no second to the motion. Joyer and Mikkelson abstained. The minutes will be approved at the next meeting. IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Request of Eden Prairie Soccer Association Refer to memo dated April 27, 1989 from Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources. Kevin Dahl of the Eden Prairie Soccer Association was present at the meeting to present the request. Dahl said he understood that there is a new three year contract at Flying Cloud Fields and the Soccer Association feels the fields are in need of irrigation. There are currently_ 400 youth registered to play soccer, along with 200 on a traveling team. Lambert said the lease at Flying Cloud Fields can still be terminated with 90 days notice. This is a concern since the cost to irrigate the fields would be a minimum of $50,000. Staff has the same concerns about the condition of the fields, but the baseball field conditions are even worse than the soccer fields. Baseball fields are scheduled for use seven days a week and soccer fields are used six days a week. / ' '.2 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. May 1, 1989 _2_ Dahl suggested that the Soccer Association may have to have a fund raiser in order to raise funds to help subsidize the cost of irrigating Flying Cloud Fields. Lambert said he felt no decision should be made on irrigating the fields until the airport expansion issue is resolved. Fox added that if the fields are seeded, they would not be useable for 120 to 150 days. Joyer asked if any kids have been turned away from the soccer programs because of a shortage of fields. Dahl said not at this point. Joyer asked what is being done to the fields now. Fox said the fields were overseeded last fall. Dahl said registration for soccer is in late May and early June. Mikkelson agreed that a decision has to be made soon. Helling asked the commission to keep in mind that there is also a traveling team which should be treated in the same manner as the regular soccer teams. After discussion, it was decided that more information would be brought back to the commission at the next meeting in two weeks. Lambert asked that Fox comment on the correct maintenance procedures for the fields in the fall and discuss cutting programs at the next meeting. B. High School Request for Community Center Use Refer to memo dated April 13, 1989 from Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. A request was received from the high school for additional pool time and some exclusive pool time and a reassessment of ice rental. The pool time was requested for use by the girl 's swim team. Loss of income would be significant, as some swim classes would have to be eliminated. Estimated loss would be $7680. Staff recommends that the school be charged for the exclusive use of pool time, but not charged for lost revenue. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. May 15, 1989 -3- VI. OLD BUSINESS None VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Recommendations for Athletic Field Maintenance and Future Scheduling of Athletic Fields Refer to memo dated May 11 , 1989 from Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources. Fox reported that after an inspection of all athletic fields to check their condition, Flying Cloud Fields are in the worst shape. The only realistic approach is a process of renovation including restricting use by both adults and youth, the Soccer Association and Soccer Club. The only fair way to do this is to take Flying Cloud Fields out of use and divide the rest of the fields between the Soccer Club and Soccer Association. The softball program could be moved to Round Lake which may mean bumping some of the adult softball teams. The Staring Lake Grill fields should also be redone which would take away two more softball fields. Baseball fields at neighborhood parks are in much better shape since they are not used as much. Fox added that certain fields also need to be designated to be renovated and removed from use like the school district does. He feels that it is fortunate there have been no serious injuries on these fields. Joyer asked if there is a policy regarding priority on the fields - kids or adults. Fox said that most fields are designated for either adult or youth use. Helling added that fields 1-6 at Round Lake and fields 1-2 at Staring Lake are designated, but staff will have to look at limiting adult programs to accommodate youth. There is no written policy at this point. Baker asked if there are any school fields which are not used during the summer. Helling said the school has removed one new soccer field and an east-west field at the high school and the CMS stadium field for renovation. In addition, the school will be keeping the CMS field for their exclusive use. Baker strongly suggested that as a temporary situation, contacts should be made with the school district requesting use of the CMS field until conditions at the other fields improve. He feels this is not an unreasonable request since the field is not used all summer. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. May 15, 1989 _q- Helling said that using this field would be a possibility, but the school district must be in agreement. Cook asked if there will be any fields available for use at Cedar Ridge School. Cross said there are not any fields at the school because of limited space. Baker asked if the neighborhood parks are being used to the maximum. Fox said yes. Cook said staff's recommendation is an acceptable one in order to protect youth from injury. Richard said assuming normal precipitation, will a full schedule be possible at these fields next year. Fox said they could probably pull 1-2 fields per year for renovation and still be in good shape. Cook commented that since April to June seems to be the busiest time for youth programs, why can't the associations change their schedule. Baker agreed. Helling said lengthening the season could also be considered which would mean less practices per week on the fields. Both baseball and softball could do this. Joyer asked Helling if she felt the athletic associations would agree to this. Helling said the City still has control over the fields, but she feels the associations will be somewhat accommodating. Joyer asked if more kids could be accommodated if there was a longer season. Helling said there will still be limited facilities for a certain number of teams. Baker asked if this plan would improve the turf conditions. Helling said yes. Fox added that it would be better if youth programs did not start until mid May so the turf would be much more established before fields are being used. Kevin Dahl said the Soccer Association feels this would be a reasonable request and, as a parent, he would have no problem with this. His main concern is for the safety of the kids. Fox said he would like to speak to the athletic associations first about adjusting their schedules and then go to the City Council. I UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. May 15, 1989 -5- ` Dahl said a decision needs to be made quickly, as registration for fall soccer is beginning. Cook added that he feels more strongly about fall softball and spring baseball being limited because soccer has both a spring and fall season and most of the kids play on both. Dahl said that only about 20% of the kids play both seasons. Cook asked if this was true. Helling said she did not see the registrations for these programs. Richard asked if the issue of postponing fall soccer decided. Fox said that has not been resolved yet. Fox said that something has to be done with Flying Cloud Fields this fall and, again, the only fair way is to divide the remaining fields between the Soccer Association and Soccer Club. He added that when irrigation at Franlo Park is complete, it may be possible to accommodate downsized fields at this park although parking would be a problem. MOTION: Richard moved to recomend that Flying Cloud Fields be removed from use and that the soccer programs are cut in half with the remaining fields being divided between the Soccer Association an the Soccer Club. It is also recommended that the soccer program is started later next spring. In addition, a lighter program should be started next year. Also, contact should be made with the school district to try and get some use out of the CMS field. Shaw seconded the motion. On call for discussion, Cook added that staff should discuss these cuts with the individual athletic associations. Dahl encouraged locking the gates at Flying Cloud Fields and posting a "no trespassing" sign while they are being renovated with a notice in the paper advising the public. The motion passed 5-0. VIII. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF A. Reports of Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources 1 . Inver Grove Heights Park Dedication Survey Refer to memo dated May 9, 1989 from Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources.