Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 07/18/1989AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1989 COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Ten pas 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 t Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES A. City Council and Timber Lakes Homeowner's Association Meeting held Tuesday, November 15, 1988 B. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, November 15, 1988 C. Special Eden Prairie City Council Meeting held Tuesday, November 29, 1988 D. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, December 13, 1988 E. City Council and Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting held Thursday, June 27, 1989 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. HIDDEN GLEN IV, by Frontier Midwest Homes Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #10-89, Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 on 7.5 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Hidden Glen IV; and Adoption of Resolution #89-121, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #10-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 7.13 acres into 26 single family lots. Location: South and east of Highway #101, west of Dell Road. (Ordinance #10-89, Rezoning; Resolution #89-121, Authorizing Summary and Publication) C. CHATHAM RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, by Centex Real Estate Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #20-89, Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 8.13 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Chatham Ridge 2nd Addition; and Adoption of Resolution #89-165, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #20-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 8.13 acres into 23 single family lots. Location: North and west of Cumberland Road, northeast of Wellington Drive. (Ordinance #20-89, Rezoning; Resolution #89-165, Authorizing Summary and Publications). Page 1642 Page 1647 Page 1666 Page 1678 Page 1705 Page 1712 Page 1713 Page 1720 Cit y Council A g enda - 2 - Tues.,Jul y 13, 1989 D. Final Plat Approval of Rid g ewood West 6th Addition (located south o(-Tnderson Lakes Parkwa y aFIT-gorth of Wellin g ton Driv el Pesolufion No. 89-159. E. Final Plat Approval of Hidden Glen 4th Addition ilo cated south -aTia-east of wy 101 and 7,/FE of-Dell Road) Resolution 1T67-E79=F53. F. Approve Plans and Authorize Bids for Countr y Glen Street and Utilit y Tiii5FOvements, I.C. 577171 --TReso 1 utioiENTi. 89-160). G. Chan g e Order No. 1, Trunk Watermain Extension, Eden Prairie Road (C.S.A.4711 and-ITTOneer Trail (C.S.A.H. 1), I.C. 52-147. Pa g e 1726 Pa g e 1729 Pa g e 1731 Pa g e 1732 H. Approval of Multifamil y Housin g Revenue Refundin g Bonds oun ain-71ace Apartments Projea -77-7hase , $T77670,000 Resolution #89-162. I. Approval of an Ordinance Amendin g Cit y Code Section 3.05. u d. 8. -67 Te-1 -6-57-15. Liens for MunicITY7 Utilit y Char es dop tT g y Rfrenc FZITY -76cle Chapter 1, Except Section 173 hereo .-0rThinarET-7121-89. J. Authorizin g Sale of $2,700,000 in Refundin g Bonds for the Lakeview Business -Tenter. (ResTiTution #89-1)7- K. Approve Special Assessment A g reement for Fountain Place AiiT.T5e-nts L. Approve Plans and Authorize Bids for Bluff Road Improvements, I.C. 52-144. (Resolution #89-164 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. EDENVALE CROSSINGS, b y Marcor Properties, Inc. Re q uest for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Nei g hborhood Commercial to Communit y Commercial on 21 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review on 21 acres with waivers, Zonin g District Amendment within the C-Corn Zonin g District on 7.5 acres, Site Plan Review, and Preliminar y Plat of 7.5 acres into 1 lot for construction of 38,056 s q uare feet of commercial uses. Location: East of Mitchell Road, southeast of Martin Drive, Mitchell Road intersection. A public hearin g . (Resolution #89-134, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment ; Resolution #89-135, PUD Concept Amendment ; Ordinance #23-89-PUD-6-89, PUD District and Rezonin g; Resolution #89-136, Preliminar y Plat) B. GUILLE ADDITION, b y David and Linda Guille. Re q uest for 7(571-in g District Chan g e from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.47 acres, and Preliminar y Plat of 1.47 acres into three sin g le famil y lots and road ri g ht-of-wa y . Location: Southeast corner of Starrwood Circle and Mitchell Road. A public hearing. (Ordinance #24-89, Rezonin g; Resolution #89-161, Preliminar y Plat) Pa g e 1733 Pa g e 1739 Pa g e 1740 Pa g e 1744 Pa g e 1745 Pa g e 1772 City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,July 18, 1989 C. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW. Request for amending Subdivision 6A, Section 11.03, Chapter 11, requiring site plan and architectural design review prior to building permit issuance in all districts and with respect to allowing for extension of approval. (Ordinance #25-89) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members I. Discussion on City Hall B. Report of City Manager C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Planning E. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources F. Report of Director of Public Works G. Report of Finance Director XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT Page 1775 Page 1779 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL UNAPPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1988 COUNCIL MEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: All Members Present I. INTRODUCTIONS 6:00 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund II. DISCUSSION WITH TIMBER LAKES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ROARD QE DIRECTORS RE: HOMEOWNEU ASSOCIATION MEETING Lambert reported that a month ago the Council had met with the Board of the Timber Lakes Homeowners Association to review the City's existing scenic easements and those held by the Timber Lakes Homeowners Association. At the conclusion of the last meeting the Board of the Homeowners Association had requested to take the information presented back to its members for discussion and to return to the Council with the results of that meeting. Lambert summarized the memorandum for the Association Board members, which stated that the City had the authority to enforce its own scenic easements. The major question had been was what was the potential for controlling the undeveloped areas around Mitchell Lake to the west and north when development occurs. Lambert noted that if a developer was in compliance with all the ordinances and codes, the City did not have the leverage to request a scenic easement unless the City would try to purchase or negotiate ownership of the shoreline. Tim Crain, 7917 South Bay Curve, understood the City to be saying that it controlled very little of the shoreline on Mitchell Lake and could not get control. Lambert replied this was correct. Bentley added that the City could negotiate with the developers of the north and west shores to dedicate scenic easements. Pidcock asked if the normal procedure was to request dedication of the scenic easements around the lakes. Lambert replied that the City always recommended trying to negotiate for scenic easements; however, it was not always possible and did not occur on all lakes. Crain reported that he had met with the general membership and City Council Minutes 2 November 15, 1988 had received a good turnout. Crain stated that the main issues were docks, as the land below the high water mark was not controlled by the Homeowners Association's scenic easement. Crain said that to his knowledge no live vegetation had been removed from the lakeshore, the only removal had been of the dead trees. He was aware of 4 violations of the scenic easements: 1) an asphalt road, 2) a split rail fence, 3) stairs going to a dock, and 4) 2 sand beaches. The consensus of the membership was that the existing covenants did not reflect the desires and needs of the association today. The membership would like to have control of the scenic easement within reason. The residents would like to be able to put benches, gazebos, and sand within reason. The members would like to rewrite the convenants. Brian Halt, 7970 Island Road -, stated that the association had not received complaints from residents in the development regarding the scenic easement. Knaak believed that the asphalt road had been inspected and approved by the City. Hult added that it had been inspected after the road had been installed; however, the owner did understand that he would be responsible if any work by the City had to be done. Peterson asked Lambert if this property would fall under the jurisdiction of the City's Shoreland Ordinance, which would restrict the construction of gazebos, docks, etc. Lambert replied that it would restrict the location and size of the gazebos and docks. Bentley believed that the compromise outlined in the Staff Report suggested allowing for the removal of 50% of the natural vegetation in a "corridor" to the lake from each home made sense. Bentley believed that further definition of a corridor and what would be considered in the 50%. Lambert gave the example of having a 100-foot lot and 50 feet of the property could be cleared of natural vegetation, which would leave 25 feet on each side of the lot, which would accomplish keeping the natural appearance of the lake. Peterson believed that the compromise would be a sound one if it reflected the values of the land owners. Peterson added that the compromise had merit and should be worked on in more detail. Knaak stated that the weather had a lot of affect on the properties. She added that on her property alone 200 trees had been lost. Bentley believed the issue was how to accommodate the maintenance of the natural view of the shoreline, accommodate the general expectation of development of Mitchell Lake, and allow the residents to be able to get down to the lake to utilize it. City Council Minutes 3 November 15, 1988 Crain stated that the members of the association would like to have the capability to have docks. Knack added that not every homeowner would have a dock. Crain said that the members did not have any comments on the vegetation removal and added that he believed the clearing of the corridor would be more than adequate. Anderson stated that the City had made a tremendous investment into Mitchell Lake and the whole chain-of-lakes drainage; he believed that a reforestation project should be implemented, not to Just take out the dead trees, but to replace them to maintain the natural character of the lake. Knack asked if the City was willing to help finance the restoration. Bentley said that if the City were to participate funds would not be available until 1990 because it had not budgeted for 1989. Bentley added that while he might agree that restoration would be nice, the City did not have a means for requiring this work currently. Anderson said that the scenic easements were working well in the Preserve area; however, the scenic easements did not appear to be working well on Mitchell Lake. Bill Scholz, 7924 Island Road, stated that another solution could be to raise the level of the lake by a foot or two, which a lot of the residents would like to see happen. Scholz believed that part of the problem was the absence of a Homeowners Board for a period of time and a lack of proper policing of the scenic easements. Scholz stated that the question was where does the Homeowners Association go from here. Pidcock replied that the Association had to accept conditions as they are and go on. Bentley stated that three options had been outlined by Staff and he would add that another option could be added regarding the reforestation project. Bentley believed that the compromise would be the best alternative with the issue of docks still remaining to be addressed. There was further discussion on the possibility of a reforestation program, if it was legal for the City to do so on private property. Lambert stated that special legislation at one time had been given to replace diseased trees only. Hult believed that the City had raised the level of the lake and asked if the City could have possibly contributed to the death of the trees: if so, the City could be responsible to restore them. Peterson stated that allegationwould have to be proved first. Hult stated that many of the residents would like to replace the trees and believed a compromise where the City and the homeowners worked together would be the best possible solution. Anderson commented that a reforestation program would be of mutual benefit. Pauly stated that he would look into the possibility of this approach. Crain stated that it appeared that the City was more interested in the damage which had occurred and not interested in the violations. Peterson concluded that the issues were related jj City Council Minutes 4 November 15, 1988 yet separate and added that the City would obtain a legal opinion on the reforestation issue. Anderson stated that the reason that he had brought forward the issue regarding reforestation was his concern for the present loss of trees and now with the proposed compromise it would allow for an additional 50% removal of vegetation. Peterson believed that the compromise would allow for the removal of dead trees. Bentley stated that this compromise did not specify dead trees only and added that the wording needed to be clarified. Pauly replied that a specific date could be determined and aerial photos taken to determine the amount of existing vegetation and 50% removal could be determined at that time. Bentley understood Pauly to be requesting an inventory then. Pauly replied yes it would be necessary. Hult suggested that anything larger than a certain size tree could not be removed. Anderson believed that Weston Bay should also be considered to have the same guidelines. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Peterson to direct Staff to draft a compromise from the existing scenic easement relative to Mitchell Lake based on the guidelines outlined in the Staff memo and the discussions presented tonight. Motion carried unanimously. It was noted that the motion would allow the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources to clarify the wording related to the 50% removal of the vegetation in the corridor and Staff was to return to the Council with the final draft of the compromise. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to direct Staff to Investigate the possibility of the level of City participation in the removal of the dead trees and a possible reforestation program and to return to the Council with the information. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to request the DNR to review the property in question in relation to vegetation and wildlife and to recommend proper management practices. Motion carried unanimously. 1101TON: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to direct Staff to work with the Timber Lakes Homeowners Association and to ask it to join the City in the implementation of new restrictions. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 5 November 15, 1988 III. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:20 PM. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL UNAPPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1988 COUNCIL MEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Harris Absent I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the Agenda as published and amended. ADDITIONS:, Add Item 111.1, Parkway Apartment Project. Add Item 111.3, Resolution No. 88-274, CSM Fountain Place Apartment. Add Item VII.C, Request from Touch of Class for the Council to Review an Appeal for the Board of Appeals decision. Add Item VII.D, Request from Elim Shores for the Council to Review an Appeal for the Board of Appeals decision. Add Item VII.E, Request from the Crosstown Racquet Club for an early Grading Permit. Add Item X.A.1, Comments to Staff for support of December 6, 1988 program for Lois Gibbs. Add Item X.A.2, Environmental Commission. Add Item X.A.3, Dean Edstrom's letter regarding a ballot. M OVE:, Jullie reported that Item J listed under Public Hearings did not require a public hearing and, therefore, suggested that this item regarding Rogers Cable TV be moved to the Consent Calendar, Item III.H. There was no one from the audience who wished to address this item. City Council Minutes 2 November 15,1988 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to Move Item J from the Public Hearings to Item H under the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. Motion carried unanimously to approve the Agenda. 11. mTNuTu A. city Council Special Assessment Hearing held Thursday,. September 8, 1988 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Minutes of the Special Assessment Hearing held Thursday, September 8, 1988 as published. Motion carried unanimously. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Preliminary & Final Plat Apprpyal of Welters PursAtory Agres_5th_Addition (Located north of Pioneer Trail and west of Bennett Place) Resolution No. 88-262 C. Resolutjon No. 88-266 regarding_State Fundingp,f Minneapolls and St. Paul Combined Sewer overflow Selpaign_PrOjec_t_ D. Resolution No. 88-267, Approving a .7o1nt Public Hearing before the Southwest Cable Commission op a Propped Tta_nsfer of Qwnership Relating to the Cable Communication Franchise for thi?._city....otaden_Eralat E. Cable TV - Resolution No, 88-271, Approving the Ezlension of__Tille_tor the Execution of_Transfer Documents F. Resolution No. 88-272„ Granting a 15-day Extension for the Closing on $1,850,M___In_tulti-iamil,y_ligusino ,Bopds_fos ErgaerYC_PIACe_AgartMentl G. Resolution No. 88-273, Granting a 1-Year .Extensionpf Approval for the Prairie Village Apartments to December 2 1989 H. APPROVAL OF STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE_AND EXHIBITS (Exhibit AA - Letter from Rogers Cable TV dated August 18, 1988 to Adrian Herbst; Exhibit BB - Resolution No. 88-268, Approving a Settlement with the Grantee Under the City's Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance Regarding the Extension of the Term of the CATV Relief Ordinance, Based Upon Certain Modifications Thereof, to a City Council Minutes 3 November 15,1988 Proposed Transferee of the Franchi3e for the City's Cable Communication System; Exhibit CC 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 57-88 Amending CATV Relief Ordinance, Ordinance No. 12-85, Providing Modifications in Contemplation of a Transfer of Ownership of the City's Cable Communications Franchise and Permitting Continuance of Relief to the Transferee of the Franchise in Accordance with this Ordinance; and Exhibit DD - Amendment to Performance Agreement) (MOVED FROM IV.J) I. Parkway ADartment Project Release of a restrictive covenant for Chestnut Place property. (ADDED TO THE AGENDA) J. CSM Fountain Place APartment, Resolution No. 88-274 (ADDED TO THE AGENDA) MQTJON; Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Items A through J on the Consent Calendar. 5TFMC Peterson believed that there were several factors which needed to be considered on this issue after talking to a representative from St. Paul and requested a continuance to allow time to receive more information on this item. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to amend the previous Motion by continuing Item III.C. Motion carried unanimously. ITEM Pidcock asked why a one-year extension was necessary. Jullie replied that there had been difficulty putting this project together and the project had now been sold to another party as the transfer process would take longer than what was presently allowed the request for an extension was necessary. Motion carried unanimously to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. IV. PULIC. HEAR1N_CS A. TIMBER BLUFFS by Brown Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 19 acres with waiver of the public road requirement and requirement for frontage of lots on a public street, rezoning from Rural to R1-22 on approximately 15 acres, and Preliminary City Council Minutes 4 November 15,1988 Plat of 44.4 acres into 14 single family lots, and 2 outlets. Location: South of Riverview Road, west of County Road 18, and east of Huntington Drive. (Ordinance No. 50-88-PUD-14-88 - PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-258 - Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had been sent to 8 surrounding property owners and published In the November 2, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Mike Gair, representing the proponent, presented the plan for the development of 14 large "prestige" houses on approximately 41 acres. Thepossibility that two Indian burial grounds were present on the land was presently under investigation by the Minnesota Historical Society. The Watershed District Was reviewing the storm drainage plan. Gair stated that 18 acres of the property were heavily wooded and noted that the tree inventory had been completed. A private road system was planned with a security gate at the entrance to the subdivision. Gair gave a slide presentation showing the home sites and demonstrating the sight-line view from the development. A 150-foot strip would be maintained for a private open space. The home pads would be 120'x100'. Enger reported that this item had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its October 24, 1988 meeting and had received unanimous approval based on the Staff recommendations outlined in the October 21, 1988 Staff Report. Enger stated that the tree loss was expected to he approximately 17%; however, the proponent planned to save additional trees by the individual placement of the homes on the lots. Enger said that the proponent had requested a private road to be able to forego the public road rights-of-way, which would lessen the encroachment of the larger building pads on the Minnesota River bluff. The private road would also allow for the security gate and special road surface requested by the proponent. The Planning Commission had approved the request for the private road due to the uniqueness of the circumstances that created the need for the private road. Enger noted that 2 to 3 private sanitary sewer lift stations would be necessary. Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had reviewed this item at its November 6, 1988 meeting and recommended approval with a 6-0 vote based on the Staff Report, and further recommend that the City accept as a gift the 150-foot strip of land along the Minnesota River. The main items discussed at the Commission meeting related to this project were bluff and tree protection, and the Minnesota Wildlife Refuge Plan which the Council had approved in 1983. Lambert stated that with the approval of that Plan there were 161 I cf= City Council Minutes 5 November 15,1988 acres for which a portion was to be acquired by the City. Lambert stated that the Staff recommendation was to acquire a 150-foot strip along the Minnesota River in order to accomplish the protection of the riverfront and provide a trail corridor from the Purgatory Creek Trail westerly to the Minnesota Wildlife Refuge Trail system. Lambert added that the owners of the property should be notified that the City intended to purchase an additional 15 acres of floodplain in the future. Bentley asked if there were any development restrictions on the prairie area below the bluffs. Lambert replied that the only restrictions would apply to the floodplain. Lambert added that this area had been farmed for over 100 years. Bentley asked the proponent what the long-range plans were for the area below the bluffs. David Brown replied that there were no long-range plans: the land would be used as a horse pasture at first and the trout pond would be cleaned up. Brown added that structures could not be built up on the property. Peterson asked how emergency vehicles would be able to access to the property with the proposed security system. Brown replied that this issue would be addressed with the police department. Enger added that the security system had not been designed at this time, but would be subject to review by the police department. Peterson requested that information regarding the security system be available by the 2nd Reading. Anderson asked the proponent if it was willing to plat the 150-foot strip along with the existing plat. Brown replied that for tax purposes the property would be deeded; however, it would not be given immediately. Anderson then asked if the proponent would be able to provide the City with a date by which the property would be given to the City prior to the 2nd Reading. Brown replied that the date would depend on the market and what time would be best for tax advantages. Brown added that a letter would be provided to the City that the property would belong to the City, but a definite date would not be included. Anderson asked City Attorney Pauly the City's position without a definite time provided. Pauly replied that he would not be able to reply until he had reviewed the letter, which he had not been provided at this time. Bentley stated that because of the tax requirements a commitment by the proponent at this time would not allow the land to be considered a gift. Pauly concurred. Anderson stated that he would be more comfortable with at least a letter of intent. Anderson added that this parcel would be important to the City's trail system. Pidcock noted that the proponent could not proceed with any development of that portion of the property without City approval first. City Council Minutes 6 November 15,1988 Anderson asked the proponent if it would make a commitment that no trees be removed from the 150-foot strip. Brown replied that no trees would be removed. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 50-88- PUD-14-88 for DUD District Review and Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to adopt Resolution No. 88-258 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council conditions that a letter of intent for the gift of the 150-foot strip of land be presented to the City Attorney, the security systems had received approval by the police department, and that no trees would be removed on the 150-foot strip of land. Motion carried unanimously. Bentley commented that this proposal was an excellent first step to preserve the bluff area and added that both the Staff and the proponent should be complimented for their efforts. B. PRAIRIE GREEN MINI:STORAGE by Prairie Green Associates. Request for Site Plan Review within the 1-2 Zoning District on 0.69 acres, Preliminary Plat of 7.2 acres into 2 lots for construction of 8,575 square feet of additional storage space. Location: East of County Road No. 4, South of Terrey Pine Drive. (Ordinance No. 52-88 - Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 88-259 - Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had been sent to owners of 40 surrounding properties and published in the November 2, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Brian Cluts, representing the proponent, presented the plan for an addition to the existing mini-storage facility. He added that the Planning Commission recommendations had been incorporated into the final plan. City Council Minutes 7 November 15,1988 Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this item at its October 24, 1988 meeting and had recommended approval based on the Staff Report of October 21, 1988. Enger called the Council's attention to the November 9, 1988 Memorandum which presented two minor modifications to the plan, in compliance with the zoning requirements. Enger added that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had not reviewed this item. There were no comments from the audience. Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 52-88 for Zoning District Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 88-259 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to prepare an addendum to the Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. C. SAMIFF_PROPERTy.. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on two lots comprising 0.95 acres. Location: 7070 and 7080 Eden Prairie Road. (Ordinance No. 53-88 - Rezoning) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had been sent to owners of 43 surrounding properties and published in the November 10, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Enger reported that this was a City initiated rezoning of two lots. He added that houses had been located on these lots for twenty-five years, but were not placed in the appropriate zoning category when the City adopted its initial zoning ordinance. The adjacent zoning was RI- 13.5. There were no comments from the audience. Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 53-88 for Rezoning. City Council Minutes 8 November 15,1988 Peterson asked if the proposed rezoning was acceptable to the homeowners. Enger replied that he had discussed the rezoning with the property owners and they had agreed. Motion carried unanimously. D. SMERwIN-WILLIAMS by Wirtanen Clark Larsen Architects, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C- Regional Service on 1.01 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 1.01 acres into one lot for construction of a retail paint store. Location: Along Plaza Drive in front of the Menard's Center. (Ordinance No. 54-88 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-260 - Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had been sent to owners of 4 surrounding properties and published in the November 2, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. David Clark, representing the proponent, presented the site plan which had been revised based on the Staff recommendations. The proponent had revised the drive access from Plaza Drive, added extra landscaping, revised the number of parking spaces, extended the canopies, and had been working with Staff related to the color ranges for the exterior of the facility. Enger reported that this item had been reviewed at the October 24, 1988 Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report dated October 21, 1988. Enger noted that all recommended changes had been completed. There were no comments from the audience. MO TION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 54-88 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MQ5IQXL Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to adopt Resolution No. 88-260 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION,: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 9 November 15,1988 E. MTS SYSTEMS CORPoRATION ADDITION by MTS Systems Corporation. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-5 on 36.8 acres for construction of an 85,000 square foot addition to the MTS building. Location: South of Highway No. 5, north of Technology Drive, west of Purgatory Creek (Ordinance No. 55-88 - Rezoning) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had been sent to owners of 10 surrounding properties and published in the November 2, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Steve Johnson, representing the proponent, presented the plans for additional office space, conference room, and cafeteria. Johnson noted that all City requirements had been met. Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this item at its November 14, 1938 meeting and unanimously recommended approval of the project based on the Staff Report of November 10, 1988. Enger stated that this was the first change requested by MTS. He added that the change was consistent with the original Planned Unit Development and with the City's zoning ordinances. LambPrt reported that this item had been reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission at its November 7, 1988 meeting and recommended approval of the project with a 6-0 vote based on the Planning Staff Report. Lambert noted that discussion took place at the meeting regarding the donation of the floodplain. MTS had stated that it preferred to wait and donate the floodplain to the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. Anderson asked what the immediate plans were for the floodplain. Johnson replied that MTS had no immediate plans for the floodplain; however, it wished to keep options open. Anderson believed that the creek was part of the project and because the parking lot was being planned adjacent to the creek, a plan should be available. Johnson stated that MTS did not wish to zone the entire parcel, but rather to move back to the west of the line noted in the 1982 PUD. Anderson understood that property owned by MTS extended to the creek. Bentley commented that if a portion of the property was not going to be rezoned then it should be replatted. Bentley question if rezoning only a portion of the parcel would affect the hearing process. Enger replied that this concept had not been discussed with Staff; however, the Public Hearing regarding the zoning request before the Council tonight would cover the request made by the proponent. Enger suggested that the line be drawn to reflect all the parking area required by the City for proof-of-parking, which would consist of 200 parking spaces. Johnson noted City Council Minutes 10 November 15,1988 that the proof-of-parking would be included in the area to be rezoned. Enger asked Johnson if the plans being presented tonight were the ones presented to Staff. Johnson replied that thin plan was discussed last evening at the Planning Commission meeting. Bentley believed that what the Planning Commission had wanted to see was on the plan being presented at this time and that encroachment into the floodplain was not occurring. Anderson was concerned that the plan may have been altered from the plan reviewed by the City's commissions. Johnson replied that the plan was different; however, it was discussed last evening. Enger stated that there appeared to be confusion on who had reviewed what plan and, therefore, recommended that Staff work with the proponent prior to 2nd Reading to provide the revised zoning description depicting the smaller area. Enger wanted the time between 1st and 2nd Reading to make sure that the proof-of-parking was being met. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 55-88 for Rezoning to the point delineated on the plan before the Council this evening to be identified by Staff as exhibit I. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to prepare an Addendum to the Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendation and to include that the zoned parcel will show the necessary proof-of-parking. Motion carried unanimously. F. ELIM SHORES by Brauer & Associates. Request for a Zoning District Amendment within the RM-2.5 Zoning District on 8.36 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 3 lots for construction of a 64-unit senior housing development. Location: West of County Road No. 4, east of Mitchell Lake (Ordinance No. 56-88 - Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 88-261 - Preliminary Plat) MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item to the December 13, 1988 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 11 November 15,1988 G. ELIM SHORES. Resolution No. 88-269, Approving Housing Plan for Elim Shores The audience had been informed during the approval of the Agenda that this item was a technical issue related to the approval of the concept for the Senior Housing Plan, which needed to be forwarded to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Jullie recommended that the Public Hearing process be opened and public comment be taken; however, action on the Resolution should be continued to the December 13, 1988 City Council meeting. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to continue this item to the December 13, 1988 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. H. VACATION 88-12 - Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements within Lot 1, Block 1, Eden Glen (Resolution No. 88-263) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing was published in the November 2, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. There were no comments from the audience. Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-263 to vacate the easements. Motion carried unanimously. I. VACATION 88-13 - Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements in Wyndham Nob (Resolution No. 88-264) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had been published in the November 2, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-264 to vacate these easements. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 12 November 15,1988 J APPROVAL OF STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AND EXHIBITS (Exhibit AA - Letter from Rogers Cable TV dated August 18, 1988 to Adrian Herbst; Exhibit BB - Resolution No. 88-268, Approving a Settlement with the Grantee Under the City's Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance Regarding the Extension of the Term of the CATV Relief Ordinance, Based Upon Certain Modifications Thereof, to a Proposed Transferee of the Franchise for the City's Cable Communication System; Exhibit CC 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 57-88 Amending CATV Relief Ordinance, Ordinance No. 12-85, Providing Modifications in Contemplation of a Transfer of Ownership of the City's Cable Communications Franchise and Permitting Continuance of Relief to the Transferee of the Franchise in Accordance with this Ordinance; and Exhibit DD - Amendment to Performance Agreement) (MOVED TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTTQN:. Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Claim No. 46661 through No. 46968. ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Bentley, Pidcock, and Peterson all voted "AYE". VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution No. 83-279, Amending_Fee Resolution No. 88-09 Regulating. Fees and Charges for..nnici.p.al Service*, sPt,cificallY as_TheY Jullie reported that Staff recommended approval of the resolution which would bring the City's building permit fees in line with the 1985 version of Uniform Building Code, and take affect December 5, 1988. Bentley asked why this action was being taken now and not after the first of the year. Jullie replied that these fees were consistent with what other cities were doing. Bentley was concerned that this would start a process whereby the City did not keep with its original schedule of changes in fees and added that he did not see the benefit of accelerating the process by one month. Jullie replied that this change had been discussed at budget review time and he had indicated to the Council that this proposal would be forthcoming. Jullie added that it would be the normal practice of the City to follow the original schedules. Pidcock believed that this change should come with the other scheduled fees and added that this action would send out a wrong message. Peterson asked if the developers had been notified. Jullie replied that the developers and builders had not been notified; however, the developers and builders would be notified and they would have a chance to amend their bids. City Council Minutes 13 November 15,1988 11 0 TTQN.; Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No. 88-270 amending the Fee Resolution for charges relating to building permits. Motion carried 3-1, with Pidcock voting "NO". VII. PETITIONS 4 REQUES.TS_ & COMMUNJCATIONS A. FeavAJQK Liquor License from_Applebee_s Ftotaur.ant MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to grant the request for a liquor license by Midwest Restaurant Corporation (dba Applebee's Neighborhood Restaurant & Grill). Anderson believed it would have been more appropriate to discuss how the remaining number of licenses were to be used before voting to approve a new license. Motion carried unanimously. B. APProve_TH 212 LAyout Plan (Resolution No. 88 -265) Dietz presented the highlights of the TN 212 Layout Plan and the six recommended corrections to the plan as noted in Resolution No.88-265, Items A through F. Dietz stated that MnDot had agreed to extend Technology Drive to Wallace Road to offset the loss of the access at Wallace Road. Peterson asked if MnDot had agreed to buy the land for the extension of Technology Drive. Dietz replied this was indicated in the letter from MnDot. Dietz added that the right-of-way needed to be protected for Technology Drive, which was noted in Item D of the Resolution. The extension of Technology Drive and the existing Martin Drive would provide frontage roads for both the north and the south sides of the highway in this area. Pidcock asked if 9 lanes were planned at the Mitchell Road interchange. Dietz replied from 9 to 11 lanes. Bentley stated that it seemed that the City would be losing something by having the split diamond at Mitchell Road. Dietz replied that access would be limited with the split diamonds at Mitchell Road and Wallace Road; however, Staff believed that it was more important to have access to Highway #5. Peterson believed that because the majority of the city's traffic was eastbound it was more important to provide easy access for eastbound traffic. Bentley was concerned that truck traffic would be directed into the residential area. Dietz noted that a public City Council Minutes 14 November 15,1988 hearing would be required to complete the official mapping process and that comments from the affected property owners could affect MnDot's decision. Bentley asked what would happen if the change at Wallace Road were not made. Dietz replied the Resolution would need to be changed. Dietz added that at this point the City was not committed to the layout. Jullie asked if the extension of Technology Drive would be lost if Wallace Road were changed. Dietz believed that it might be possible to still have MnDot extend Technology Drive. Peterson asked Dietz how Staff had arrived at the decision to request the change at Wallace Road. Dietz replied that It was always known that there would have to be a compromise at Wallace Road; based on circulation, Staff believed that the propoLied access would be the best way to provide access to the road system. Jullie added that this circulation pattern would best serve the local traffic. Bentley believed this access would relieve some of the stn?s:3 on Mitchell Road. Dietz believed that local access to Highway #5 at Mitchell Road was important and added that it would not be possible to have access to both Highway #5 and TN 212. Anderson questioned if Wallace Road were changed would additional pressure be placed on Valley View Road. Dietz replied that there was merit in leaving Wallace Road as proposed. Bentley recommended leaving Wallace Road as proposed in the Resolution and between now and the Final approval have Staff give a more detailed rationale for the requested change. Dietz concurred. Dietz reported that the last issue to be resolved was the Intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Highway #212. Dietz said that originally Staff had believed that a compressed diamond intersection would be the recommended solution for this intersection; however, after reviewing the plan drawn by BRW it appeared that the compressed diamond would provide a worse situation than that proposed by MnDot. He added that the intersection at W. 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive would be over capacity. The new recommendation was to provide for a ramp from northbound Prairie Center Drive to eastbound 1-494. The recommendation did not request that the ramp be constructed at this time, but that right-of-way be protected for the area to allow construction in the future. Peterson asked Dietz to explain the traffic flow for Technology Drive. Dietz replied that Technology Drive would be realigned to the south to accommodate the ramp access. Anderson asked if traffic could be directed one- way to avoid the congestion and confusion at Highway #169. Dietz stated that this could be considered in the future. City Council Minutes 15 November 15,1988 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No. 88-265 approving th PH 212 Layout Plan. Motion carried unanimously. C. Touch of Class Appeal of the Board of Appals Decision Jullie reported that Touch of Class wished to appeal the denial for the variance request for exterior building material by the Board of Appeals. Jullie recommended setting December 13, 1988 City Council meeting for reviewing the appeal. MOT30_:. Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to review the appeal request by Touch of Class at the December 13, 1988 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. D. El is Shores Appeal of the Bpard of Appeals Decision MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to review the appeal request by Elim Shores at the December 13, 1988 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. E. Request from Crosstown Racquet Club to construct a Temporary Jullie reported that the Crosstown Racquet Club was requesting an early grading permit to begin construction of a temporary parking area to the south of the facility to be used while the new parking ramp was being constructed. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the issuance of an early grading permit for Crosstown Racquet Club with the understanding that they would be proceeding at their own risk. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY.COMMJSSIONS A. parks, Recr.eations.&.Natural Resources CommJsslon - Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan Peterson noted that the Council would hear the presentation by Barton-Aschman Associates tonight and would set a special meeting to discuss this item in more depth. City Council Minutes 16 November 15,1988 Lambert reported that another recommendation for a trap and skeet range had been added to the plan last evening at the Planning Commission meeting. Lambert introduced Barry Warner, representative from Barton-Aschman Associates, to present the plan. Warner stated that the purpose of the Comprehensive Park and Open Space System Plan was to identify the City's needs for parks and open spaces currently, in the year 1995, and in the year 2000. He reported that the following processes had been used to complete the study: 1) Population growth study, which indicated a high percentage of young adults with children, 2) Population density study, 3) Open space map updated, 3) Written Inventory prepared for each existing park, 4) Needs and demands analysis study,-5) Survey of residents conducted through a local newspaper, 6) Holding four neighborhood meetings. Warner reported the following conclusions from the study: 1) A broad base of community support for the development of parks, trails, and open spaces was present, 2) Additional land acquisition and facility development should occur, 3) Three areas in the City would not have adequate park facilities: southwest area, west central area, and mid-central area, 4) Need for additional youth and adult athletic facilities, 5) Further study completed regarding the function of the Community Center, 6) Completion of the open space system. Warner said the existing policies regarding parks and open spaces had been reviewed and updated. Warner said the study indicated the need for further study of bluff preservation. Warner discussed the feasibility study completed for the consideration of a golf course. He stated that a strong potential existed for development of a golf course, with three possible sites considered, the best location being west of Flying Cloud Airport. Warner said that a considerable amount of land was required for a golf course and a statement needed to be made now for the preservation of the land. Warner presented the following recommendations: 1) Neighborhood park improvements, 2) Outdoor swimming facility, 3) Golf course development, 4) Trail system development, 5) Land acquisition, 6) Special use facilities developed, 7) Purgatory Creek Recreation area developed, 8) Resolution regarding the function of Community Center Facility, 9) Miller Park developed with youth facilities developed to compliment the park. Warner outlined the priorities as determined by Barton-Aschman and the priorities of the Planning Commission and Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. City Council Minutes 17 November 15,1988 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to schedule a Special City Council meeting for Monday, November 21, 1988 at 5:30 PM. IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Flyjng Clond_Airlort Advi_sory Commi_s_slon - Appointment of a representative from the Flying Cloud Businessmen to fill an unexpired term to February 28, 1990 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to recommend the appointment of Tim Ashenfelter to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission. Motion carried unanimously. X. REPORTS_ OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & ummissioNs A. Reports of Council Members 1. 401a.A.J.U.,5_ Pidcock complimented Staff on making arrangements for the Lois Gibbs Rally planned for December 6, 1988 and would appreciate a memorandum be sent to Staff to encourage their attendance. 2. Election Procedures Pidcock asked what could be done to allow greater privacy when casting a ballot. Anderson stated that the news media had addressed the concern regarding the difficulty of understanding the ballots, especially for the elderly. Jullie noted that Staff would address these issues. Pidcock asked that Staff provide a status report within the next 60 days. 3. COnqiclera_tiOn_Of_Eroll.r.O.11Mental_COMMI.s541n Pidcock suggested that an Environmental Commission be considered due to the many new issues being raised regarding waste management, landfills, etc. Pidcock requested this be placed on the Agenda for discussion within the next two weeks. Anderson commented that this issue had been brought up 3 or 4 times prior to this. Anderson questioned if the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission should be split into two Commissions because of the new issues City Council Minutes 18 November 15,1988 related to natural resources. Anderson added that Bloomington had two separate commissions. Bentley asked how the expertise of the commissioners would be balanced. B. Rekort of City Manager 1. New Conditions for On -sale_IhteXAcating_Liquor Licenses Jullie reported that the City was limited in the number of licenses to be issued. He questioned if the Council would prefer to completely remove the limits regarding the number of licenses or reserve some of the licenses for the downtown area. Bentley stated that if 2 were set aside for hotels and 3 to 4 for the downtown area, this would leave 2 floating licenses, which should be adequate at this time. Peterson stated that he would be reluctant to reserve 2 for hotels and 4 for downtown, when the development of the downtown area was not definite at this time. He believed that 1 license for hotels would be adequate. Pidcock stated that she would prefer that a full Council be available for the discussion of the issue. Anderson stated a concern about issuing licenses all over the City and would prefer that the licenses were restricted to certain locations. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item to the December 20, 1988 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Third. au.ArtK.,19.88_Gtperal Fumj_g_e_po_rt MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to receive the Third Quarter 1988 General Fund Financial Report. Motion carried unanimously. 3. A.U ir Mati ve Ag t ion.Plan MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson that an Affirmative Action Plan Report be submitted to the State for review. Motion carried unanimously. C. Report_ of City_ Attorney City Council Minutes 19 November 15,1988 D. Report (A Dir.ectIr of Planning. E. Director of Parks, Recreatlon & Natural Resource5 F. Report of Director sg PubiLig_Works G. flegel_t_ot_FiraDqe_PArector IX. RFW.J.31.1.31NE55. X. ANOUNMEUT Meeting adjourned at 10:55 PM. ! EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL UNAPPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1988 COUNCIL MEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public - Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All Members Present I. APPRQVAL_PF..AgEnkAND=1-1FR ITEMS OF_WSINEU MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. II. PRESENTATION BY METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSIDNAN_DRAFT MASTER PLAN FOR FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT Members of MAC Present: Mark Ryan, Airport Planner; Jim Fortman, Director of Airport Development; Gary Schmidt, Manager of Reliever Airport Systems; Greg Albjerg, representing the Consultant, Howard Needles Tammen Bergendoff. AlbJerg stated that the presentation would be an update of the Master Plan originally done in 1976. Albjerg added that the update was necessary due to the ongoing changes in aviation. The following had been completed to update the Master Plan: 1) An inventory of existing conditions at the airport, 2) traffic and forecasts to the year 2010, 3) facility requirements determined based on the forecasts, and 4) alternatives developed considering constrained and unconstrained development. The number of flights had been steadily increasing since 1982. AlbJerg stated that the unconstrained forecast would he an increase in the number of operations from 210,000 currently to 390,000 projected for the year 2010, with the constrained forecast showing an increase to 255,000 by the year 2010. The FAA projected an increase to 310,000 by the City council Minutes 2 November 29, 1988 year 2010. The number of aircraft based at the airport would increase from 492 currently to 858 by the year 2010. AlbJerg stated that the majority of the air traffic would remain single-engine-piston and multi-engine-piston planes; however, there would be an increase in jet and turbo-prop operations. AlbJerg presented the following facility requirements, based on the forecasts: 1) Increase the area for hanger storage from the current 90 acres to 129 acres, and 2) the runway be lengthened from the current 3900 feet to 5000 feet. Six Jets currently use Flying Cloud Airport and were considered the critical aircraft for the airport. The FAA planning criteria stated that the critical aircraft should be the main concern when planning an airport; therefore, a proposal resulted to lengthen the runway. The ideal runway length for a small Jet would be 5500 feet; however, the State limit for the Flying Cloud Airport was 5000 feet. AlbJerg added that the Jets could only operate on a limited basis with the current runway length of 3900 feet. AlbJerg outlined four alternatives for the building locations and three alternatives for the runway length. AlbJerg stated that the noise levels appeared to be the major concern of the residents. The noise contours were used to evaluate the noise levels, based on the Ldn, or the average of the noise generated over a year's time. Albjerg explained the four noise levels used by MAC and the appropriate land uses for each level. The FAA and HUD consider any land use to be compatible with a 65 Ldn noise level. The EPA documents stated that 87% of all urban areas have an Ldn rating of 55 or greater. Albjerg stated that the noise levels would increase; however, based on the data collected, he did not believe the impact would be great because the increase would occur gradually over the next 20 years. AlbJerg stated that the preferred alternative of the Consultant would be Alternate A for the runway to 5000 feet and Alternate 1 for the building location placing new hangers to the north of the MAC property, immediately west of the existing hangers and south of Pioneer Trail. He noted that MAC had not stated a preference at this time. Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson reported that the City had received a number of letters regarding the proposed preferred alternate presented by Howard, Needles, Tammen& Bergendorf. The Planning Department found the preferred alternative to be incompatible with surrounding land uses and the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan for the six reasons outlined on Page 6 and 7 of the Staff Report dated October 26, 1988. A study was currently being done for a proposed Minor Airport at a location in the northwestern Hennepin County area, and Staff believed this new airport would better serve the small Jets and corporate planes. Planning Staff believed that City Council Minutes 3 November 29, 1988 Alternative C, the no-build alternative would respond well to the majority of users at the airport and would adequately meet the demands for the next 10 years or more. Johnson suggested that the present hangers be rehabilitated prior to a new hanger area being studied. The Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission voted 3-2 to approve the recommendation of HNTB. The Planning Commission had reviewed the documents and voted 7-0 to support the Planning Staff recommendation per the Staff Report dated October 26, 1988. Lambert reported that this item was reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission at its November 7, 1989 meeting and voted 6-0 to support the Planning Staff's recommendation for the no-build alternative per the Staff Report dated October 26, 1988. Bentley asked City Manager Jullie for clarification on what action was expected of the City Council at this time. Jullie replied that the purpose of the meeting tonight was to provide a public forum for MAC to present its proposal. MAC would then take the comments of the City Council, City Staff, and the public under advisement. Jullie recommended that the Council take the matter under advisement, allow time to review the public's comments, and review the legal rights of the City. Bentley said that the City's position would only be advisory and the Council did not have the authority approve or deny. City Attorney Pauly replied that MAC had the authority to adopt various regulatory ordinances; however, at the time that the legislature gave authority to locate and site a new major airport, there was a provision inserted in that authority which permitted local regulation in the case of a major airport. Pauly added that a major airport was one that serves regularly scheduled flights: by definition, Flying Cloud Airport would not be considered a major airport. Pauly believed that there was local authority. Pauly stated that there were State provisions which provided for the development of joint airport zoning boards, which stated that in the event of a conflict between local regulations, other regulations, and regulations imposed by a joint airport zoning board the more restrictive regulation would prevail. Pauly suggested seeking an opinion of the State Attorney General for the interpretation of the provision. Peterson suggested that after hearing all the information presented the Council should consider one of three possible actions: 1) no action, 2) defer action, and 3) take action immediately. Anderson stated that he was concerned because the airport expansion was an important issue and he was not sure of where the City stood and what rules needed to be followed. Pauly replied that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to gather information, react, and comment regarding the information presented. City Council Minutes 4 November 29, 1988 Harris asked at what point in MAC's process would the City Council have an opportunity to react to the final proposal. Jim Fortman concurred with City Attorney Pauly regarding the purpose of tonight's meeting. He added that it did not require Council action at this time. The next step for MAC would be to hold a public hearing to bring out the issues, the recommendation for a public hearing would be presented to the Metropolitan Airports Commission on December 19, 1988 with the actual hearing scheduled for sometime in January, after which the information would be forwarded through the committee process. The final recommendation would be considered by MAC in March 1989. Bentley asked Fortman if the action by MAC would be to adopt the favored alternative as part of the Master Plan, but any actual development would require another plan. Fortman concurred. Fortman added that additional public hearings would be required. Anderson asked Fortman if the flight data presented tonight was prepared before or after action was taken at the major airport to limit use by small aircraft. Anderson then asked if MAC was actively attempting to direct the smaller aircraft to the minor airports. Fortman replied that MAC owned 7 airports in the Metropolitan area; a major facility at MSP International, an intermediate facility in St. Paul, and the five minor facilities. Fortman added that the forecasts were developed after MAC established the policy to encourage small aircraft to use other facilities; however, there was nothing in the forecast stating that a specific number of flights would be directed to Flying Cloud Airport. Peterson asked Schmidt if the evaluation summary had taken into consideration the proposed land uses and safety zones which are currently within the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Schmidt replied that the noise zones where established to let potential property owners know that a noise factor would be expected for that property area. He added that 20 existing homes were located in Zone D; however, this study did not project any potential new development. Schmidt said that the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan depicted safety zones; however, as the Joint Zoning Board ceased in 1980, and there were no established safety zones at Flying Cloud Airport. Schmidt stated that Safety Zone A would suggest no residential development (but possible be use for a park or a golf course); Safety Zone B would suggest 1 residential home per 3-acre lot. Schmidt added that actual safety zones would not be determined Until a Joint zoninf,1 Board W. e6tabliEthed to tak action. Pidccuk asked Schmidt how recent were the data regarding the number of homes in the noise evaluation study. Schmidt replied that aerial photos had been taken in 1987 and a street survey conducted in 1988. City Council Minutes November 29, 1988 Pidcock asked Fortman for clarification of MAC'S position regarding the redirection of small aircraft traffic. Pidcock commented that she understood that directing the small aircraft to the outlying airports would have a negative affect on areas around those airports. Fortman replied that the MAC as d matter of policy was trying to encourage general aviation to use facilities other than Wald Chamberlin Field. He added that MAC had invested considerable money in the St. Paul- Downtown Airport to encourage the business Jets to use this facility. Fort-man said that in some instances it was uneconomical for businesses to have the business jets at outlying airports; depending on how the firms used their aircraft. Schmidt asked to respond to the Planning Staff's memo. Schmidt stated that MAC disagreed with Staff's comment that the forecasts indicated that Flying Cloud Airport would be adequate until 2003. He said the current number of operations was at 209,000, which was quickly closing in on the year 2003 prediction of 229,000. Schmidt did not believe that rehabilitating the existing hangers would provide additional hanger storage. He said the existing hangers were designed to provide the most efficient use of space possible and added that if the existing hangers were rehabilitated using the current development standard of larger single door hangers, there would be less density. Schmidt disagreed that developable acreage would be removed from Zones A & B. He added that Zone A could be compatible for park use and/or a golf course and that Zone 13 could be gelded for residential use. Schmidt stated that a Joint Zoning Board would enact the guidelines. Schmidt believed that the concerns regarding the landfill and the US Fish and Wildlife Refuge being incompatible were unfounded. He said that MAC had donated land to the US Fish and Wildlife Refuge and noted that the land elevations tended to keep the birds in the Refuge area and not affect the aircraft. Schmidt said that the landfill was not currently in operation and the FAA had not determined it necessary to take action at this time to suspend operations of the landfill. Schmidt concluded by stating that the flight patterns would not change drastically from the existing patterns. The Downtown-St. Paul Airport served the mix of corporate jets and n11-engine planes without any major difficulty and the MAC team believed the same operation could occur at Flying Cloud Airport. Schmidt did not view the mix of jets and small- engine aircraft as a major safety issue. Doug Fell, 10449 Huntington Drive, believed that the City needed to weigh who made up the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission and what its business relations were to Flying City Council Minutes November 29, 1988 Cloud Airport. Fell questioned the claims that the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport would benefit Eden Prairie and added the he had not seen any facts or figures to substantiate any benefit to Eden Prairie. Fell asked MAC to comment on what percentage of the flights at Flying Cloud Airport were corporate business flights, a type which would contribute to Eden Prairie's success. Fell stated that the noise studies had been conducted during the week and asked if a further study would be done for the weekend air traffic. Fell believed that the noise data presented were inadequate and that the frequency of flights should also be considered as a major factor. Fell asked why Flying Cloud Airport was able to accommodate 440,000 operations in 1968, yet MAC indicated that in the year 2013 the airport would not be able to accommodate 392,000. Fell believed that there was no true need for the expansion; however, he also believed that the City or its residents' comments would not have any effect if MAC wanted the airport expanded. Fell asked what the current weight class was for aircraft utilizing Flying Cloud Airport and how the weight limits would be increased. He stated that Flying Cloud Airport was currently classified as a small airport; however, it would only take the action of the Legislature to change the classification to a major airport. Fell concluded by stating that he would not like to see this expansion as part of the Master Plan and added that the Eden Prairie Planning Commission had voted for the denial of the plan. Ron Funk, 13700 Theresa Place, stated that as a pilot and owner of planes located at Flying Cloud Airport, he believed that Flying Cloud Airport was good in its current state. Funk added that Flying Cloud Airport was like a club, a place to communicate with other pilots. Funk believed that special consideration regarding safety measures needed to be considered when combining the small jets and the small-engine planes. Mary Jane Swanson, 9440 Eden Prairie Road, stated that she was concerned that the noise level studies were done before the opening the ILS (Instrument Landing System). She believed that the ILS system would drastically change the character of Flying Cloud Airport. Swanson added that Flying Cloud Airport could become a training field for the pilots which needed to re-certify for instrument training. Swanson said that because Flying Cloud Airport was a controlled field the pilots considered it a safer field than the Lakeville Airport. Swanson believed that a noise study should be conducted after the ILS was installed. Swanson asked if the projection for operations included City Council Minutes 7 November 29, 1988 training flights. She asked why MAC believed it was necessary to house more aircraft when new airplane sales were at a minimum. Swanson believed that the installation of the US and the extension of the runway indicated the encouragement of the turbine aircraft moving to Flying Cloud Airport. She added that due to the minimal sales of the new turbine aircraft the planes would be the older turbines, which were noisier than the new models. Kent Barker, 15801 Cedar Ridge Road, stated that he had served on the original Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, which had been developed due to the noise disturbance to the surrounding neighborhoods. Barker stated that the now-defunct FTC wanted to use Flying Cloud Airport as a touch-and-go training area for jets. He added that MAC and the City of Eden Prairie had worked Jointly to block this use of Flying Cloud Airport. Barker said that an agreement had been made reluctantly to increase the length of the runway to its present length and to have some additional navigational support. Barker said that MAC's rationale was that by directing the traffic over the river it would decrease the noise over the homes; however, the actual control over the flight pattern still remained with the pilot. The noise level regulations of FAR 36 for Flying Cloud Airport were the same as those for JFK or O'Hare . MAC wanted heavier aircraft and had agreed to a 20,000 pound gross limit; however, it had never been enforced. Barker added that at the time when the heavier limits were permitted MAC agreed that it would not request any further expansion of the limits and in fact had indicated that the purchase of the Lakeville Airport would be the airport of choice for the jet traffic due to the convenience of ground transportation at 1-35. The objective of the Flying Cloud Airport Commission was to create a balance between the businessmen in the community to help create a better relationship between the community and the airport. Barker questioned where the expansion would stop, it was now considered that the proposed expansion was to accommodate the critical aircraft, which were the 6 jets currently housed at Flying Cloud Airport, but what will happen when heavier aircraft is brought in, will further expansions again be necessary. Barker stated that MAC had said that there was no significant Impact to the residential area; however, on two separate occasions noise level readings had been taken from his yard which indicated noise levels which exceeded the acceptable levels of MAC. He added that MAC had said these levels were aberrations caused by inversions. Barker asked if the residents of Eden Prairie, because it was considered a quiet area, should be subject to the addition of aircraft noise because Eden Prairie was not up to the acceptable noise level. Barker stated that another subject, which had not been mentioned, was the helicopter traffic. He added there was no City Council Minutes 8 November 29, 1988 control over the flight patterns or the elevations of the helicopters, which were very noisy. Barker also questioned what the possible tax loss could be to the community if Flying Cloud Airport continued to buy up more and more land. Barker questioned what the limits would be on night traffic at the airport and would any regulations be enforced. Barker concluded by stating that he lived as a neighbor to the airport and did not have a problem with the airport as it was originally intended to operate. Barker believed that the community had given a great deal to the airport, but with the proposed expansion questioned if Flying Cloud Airport would continue to be a good neighbor in the community. Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, stated that Mr. Barker had addressed many of the p6ints he had intended to make and endorsed Barker's comments. Edstrom believed that Flying Cloud Airport was to become a reliever for the International Airport to solve MAC'S problem of small Jet aircraft at the International Airport. He did not believe that this type of aircraft would be compatible with a residential area. Edstrom did not see any benefit to Eden Prairie. Edstrom believed that there would be pressure from the businesses to bring the small Jet aircraft to Eden Prairie rather than the St. Paul- Downtown facility. He added that he considered this to be a breach of an agreement. Edstrom believed that these issues had all been resolved with the agreement made years ago that no further expansion would be requested. Wallace Hustad, 10470 White Tail crossing, believed that the original agreement had been to keep the Jets out of Flying Cloud Airport, which MAC had said would be accomplished by not providing jet fuel at Flying Cloud Airport. Hustad believed the current existence of the 6 jets housed at the airport as a direct violation of a commitment made by MAC. Larry Simonson, 16199 Valley Road, stated that he and 7 other residents on Valley Road opposed the extension of the runway. Simonson believed that the expansion would open many issues in the future and added that he would prefer the airport remained as is. Clark Horn, 7608 Erie Avenue, Chanhassen, stated that he was a pilot of one of the smaller aircraft housed at Flying Cloud Airport and added that he would like to keep his plane at Flying Cloud. Hangar space is in demand at Flying Cloud and he questioned if the hangar space was needed for the jets. He believed that the greatest demand for hangar space was currently coming from the smaller aircraft. Horn noted that MAC was also conducting hearings on how to handle the operating deficits at the outlying airports, which included Flying Cloud Airport, and added that he was concerned that the hangar space rent would be increased, which would drastically affect the smaller operators. Horn stated that if Mode C was City Council Minutes 9 November 29, 1988 accepted additional navigational equipment would have to be installed in the smaller aircraft or they would no longer be able to use the Flying Cloud facility. Horn believed that the character of Flying Cloud Airport should be kept to accommodate the small aviation pilots. Horn said that instead of having no Jet fuel available at Flying Cloud Airport, the situation was just the opposite and with limited fuel available for the smaller aircraft. Doug Sandstad, 8921 Knollwood Drive, stated that he was pleased with the Staff Report and believed the Master Plan had been nicely summarized. Sandstad encouraged the Council to listen to the Staff's recommendations. Chad Worcester, 17120 Cedarcrest Drive, stated that he was still confused on what Eden Prairie could do to stop the expansion of the airport. Worcester stated that he had been informed when he purchased the property that his home was in the flight pattern, but had also been told that it was not a problem. Worcester concurred that currently there was no real problem with noise with the exception of one noisy Jet. Worcester was concerned about the jet traffic increasing and the affect on the noise levels. He noted that a DC9 could conceivably land on a 5,000 foot runway. Worcester was concerned about the value of his property being reduced if the jet traffic was allowed to be increased. Peterson asked City Attorney Pauly to address what the position of the City was at this time. Pauly replied that the answers were not clear at this time and he recommended taking steps to acquire information from the Attorney General. Bob Gardner, 15701 Cedar Ridge Road, stated that he had replaced Kent Barker on the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission. FMC's intent was to keep aircraft flying and the airport operating and, therefore, was not sensitive to the residents of the community. Gardner noted that the airport control tower was only open from 6AM to lOPM; however, planes did land at Flying Cloud Airport after 10PM. He added that MAC had not acknowledged that planes did land after 10PM or were flying too low and current regulations were not being enforced. Gardner believed that the noise data provided were biased and should be obtained from an independent group. Gardner requested that the City collect its own data. Jack VanRemortel, 16031 Summit Drive, stated that he was not bothered by the planes; however, he had noticed an increase in the use by jets. He believed that Staff had given the Council a disservice by not presenting both sides of the issue, both negative and positive aspects of the plan. VanRemortel said that many residents throughout the country today had a "not in my backyard" attitude. He believed that the expanded airport would be an asset to the community which should be shared with the surrounding communities. VanRemortel stated that he did City counc12 Minutes 10 November 29, 1988 not have enough information at this time to support a plan. He presented the Council with an article written about "grid- lock" for our airports. VanRemortel believed that the City needed to begin preparing today for the needs of the future. Daryl Benson, 8676 Shiloh Court, believed that Staff had done a good job in considering the facts. Benson noted that not only was the noise study done during the week but it did not include any jet traffic. Benson added that he was concerned about the control over the flight patterns; because the pilot determined the pattern now, he believed there should be more control. Benson stated that at the end of the proposed runway was a riding stable where horses had actually run through fences when Jets had flown over. Scott Mace, 16150 Valley Road, stated that he was opposed to the expansion. He believed that Flying Cloud Airport was a tolerable neighbor now, but an expansion would not be tolerable. Noise was the primary objection and it was this area of the study which he considered to be the least accurate. Mace believed the study to be unscientific, there was no information regarding peak traffic noise levels. He believed that the consultants had avoided areas that would conflict with the result that it wanted. Mace concluded that the use would be incompatible with the area. Joel Lehrke, 8901 Knollwood Drive, stated that he was in favor of the airport expansion. Lehrke believed that an economic benefit would be realized by Eden Prairie from the surrounding communities. Lehrke noted that the new Citation 3 engine which was newer and quieter than the older jets would not be able to land at Flying Cloud Airport because of the 20,000 pound weight restriction. The newer aircraft also needed a longer runway to operate, which would also create a safer runway. Lehrke noted that the safety zone limits were to limit the height of the buildings constructed in the area. Lehrke stated that being a pilot for Northwest Airlines, he believed that it would not be feasible to bring in the larger aircraft such as the DC9 or the 727 because of the larger ground support which would be necessary to serve these larger airplanes. Jay Olson, a Richfield resident and Flying Cloud Airport businessman and member of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, stated that an open house was scheduled for December 3, 1938 to show the type of aircraft which would be utilizing Flying Cloud Airport and extended an invitation for the Council to attend. The Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission did want a good neighbor policy. The airport did contribute to the community and was totally self-supporting. 100 aircraft housed at Flying Cloud Airport were owned by Eden Prairie residents and 72 percent of the flights were business related. 43 percent of those having aircraft at Flying Cloud Airport had said they would relocate their businesses if City Council Minutes 11 November 29, 1988 Flying Cloud Airport was not available. Jay Peterson, 8626 Coachman Lane, stated that his concern was the impact of lengthening the runway and the increased noise. He had noted a big difference in noise levels between the small engine planes and the Jets. He believed that any Increase in Jet traffic would contribute to unacceptable and intolerable noise levels. Fortman stated that he appreciated everyone coming out to present their opinions. He requested a copy of the tape being made of the meeting to allow MAC to respond in detail to the many questions presented tonight. Mayor Peterson acknowledged that a copy of the tape would be provided. Fortman stated that the reason for the meeting tonight was because MAC did consider the residents of Eden Prairie to be important. He added that this was why the study had been presented to the Planning Commission, the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission and two open public meetings had been conducted. Fortman stated that noise was always a sensitive subject and was difficult due to the different perceptions by individuals of acceptable and unacceptable levels. Fortman stated that the noise study was a scientific study accomplished by using accepted procedures. Fortman understood the sentiments of the residents. Fortman stated that MAC was responsible for providing aviation facilities for the 7-county metro area. It was the current policy to update plans every 5 years. Fortman questioned how MAC was to fulfill its obligations without having an airport in someone's "backyard". He commented that the same comments made here tonight were heard in each community. MAC's policy was to maximize the use of all existing facilities before building new ones. Fortman noted that this proposal was part of a planning process and not that of a construction process. Fortman stated that a substantial investment was being projected; however, if the users could not help support the facility, it would be unlikely that MAC would proceed with the investment. Fortman noted that there would be no financial contribution from the City of Eden Prairie as all revenues for the airport were derived from the users, or State and Federal funding which comes from user taxes. Pidcock asked Fortman if after hearing the same objections from every community, MAC had not become blase to the comments. Fortman replied that it actually reinforced to MAC that the concerns were real. Anderson was concerned about the City having little or no control over the expansion. Bentley stated that what he heard from the residents tonight was a concern about the potential for a completely different use than what currently existed with the number one concern being the increased jet traffic. Bentley believed that there City Council Minutes 12 November 29, 1988 was an economic benefit to the community. The flaw in the report was that it did not address the concept of the entire metro area, it only addressed what was proposed for Flying Cloud Airport. He said it would have been helpful to see where Flying Cloud Airport fits in with the 7-county airport scheme. Bentley noted that it would only take the addition of one foot to the proposed 5000-foot runway to have Flying Cloud Airport classified as an intermediate airport. He believed that the fear of many of the residents was that the push was to eventually create an intermediate facility. Bentley believed that the residents were not concerned with an increase in air traffic, but rather the type of air traffic. Bentley did not believe that Eden Prairie could tolerate an increase in jet traffic and added that he did not believe that the report had shown the need for the increase. Peterson stated that he was concerned with the recurring theme that the City of Eden Prairie or the MAC has little control over the recreational and commercial aviation and that there was an absolute right of these aircraft to land whenever and wherever they wanted. Peterson noted that as a city Eden Prairie exerts its authority to monitor recreational water craft, but it yet could not control the air traffic. Peterson believed that if MAC could not control the number of planes or the noise level of those planes, then it was MAC'S responsibility to look ahead and purchase the land to allow recreational and commercial aircraft absolute access to the facility. Peterson did not believe that the residents of Eden Prairie were saying "not in my backyard", but by asking that the good-neighbor relationship be continued, they were simply expressing their legitimate concern about the increase in jet traffic. Peterson believed that the residents wanted to let MAC know that Eden Prairie had rights too, and added that those rights were just as absolute as those who will use the airport. He believed that MAC needed to either manage the air traffic or buy the land. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to accept the reports of the Planning Commission, Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission, and Staff to deny the proposed plan by MAC for the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport. Motion carried unanimously. III. OTHER BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1968 COUNCIL MEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING HRA MEETING Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and Patricia Pidcock City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members present. PRESENTATION BY RILEY PURGATORY_CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT OF FUNDING FOR THE CHAIN-OF-LAKES PROJECT Howard Peterson, representing the Watershed District, prese n t e d M a y o r Peterson with a check for $119,000 for the Chain-of-Lakes p r o j e c t . I. APPROVAL_OF AGENDA AND OTHER_JTEMS OF_BUSINESS MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Agenda as published and amended. ADDITIONS: Add Item XI.A.1, Minnesota River. Add Item XI.C.1, Settl e m e n t on Community Center Litigation. Motion carried unanimously. II. AWARD BID OF $9,800,000 IN GENERAL OBLIGATION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS (Resolution No. 88 -296) Dave MacGillivray, a representative from Springsted, Inc. , presented the bid tabulation for the $9,800,000 G.O. improvement bonds, recommending the award to Prudential-B a c h e Securities, noting that MBIA Insurance was requested by t h e City Council Minutes 2 December 13, 1988 bidder at no cost to Eden Prairie. The net interest rate was 7.008%. MQTIDN: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 88- 296 awarding the G.0. Improvement Bonds to Prudential-Bache Securities. Motion carried unanimously. III. MINUTES A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, Stptember.6, .. _1988 MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, September 6, 1988 as published and amended. CORRECTIONS: Page 15, paragraph 4 should read: Harris commented that she viewed the ordinance.... Page 23, Item X.F.2, paragraph 1, should read: owned on the west side of Prairie Center Drive.... Motion carried unanimously. B. City Counci_l_Meetillq_kLaTueSdaY.,..._5.1gte_Mber mcIT.I QM: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, September 20, 1988 as published and amended. CQRRECTIONS: Page 18, paragraph 2, should read: the final design had not been determined.... Motion carried unanimously. C. City Council Meeting held Tuesday. Novembtr 1, 1988 MOTION.: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, November 1, 1988 as published and amended. 7ity Council Minutes 3 December 13, 1988 CORRECTIONS: Page 14, paragraph 2, should read: Anderson stated that as a coach at Bloomington-Kennedy.... Paye 14, paragraph 6, should be removed completely. Motion carried unanimously. D. SPecial SatY councll Me_etinS held TliesdAY.,..NOMeillter_29 4., 3.9 88 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Bentley to approve the minutes of the Special City Council meeting held Tuesday, November 29, 1988 as published. Motion carried unanimously. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's Liceose List B. Tax Forfeited Lands C. Approve Bids for 4-Whee3 Drive Tractor/Snowblower D. 2nd_ReadiRs of Ordinance No, V1-88, PfOlddiRa Modifications in Contemplation of a Transfer Of Qwflekqi112 of the City's Cable Communications Franchise & Permitting Continuance of Relief to the Transferee of the Franchise in Accofdance with this Ordinance E. RRAIRIEVIEW_II_ by Curt Johnson Properties, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 43-88, Zoning District Amendment within the C-Regional Service Zoning District on 2.17; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Prairieview II; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-251, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 43-88, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 12,658 square foot retail/office use. Location: North of Plaza Drive, east of the Prairie View Shopping Center. (Ordinance No. 43-88, Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 88-251, Authorizing Summary and Publication) F. BOULDER POINTE (AKA RED ROCK RANCH) Robert H. Mason Homes, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 35 -88 -PUD-9-88, Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 52 acres with waivers and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1- 13.5 on approximately 52 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Approving Developer's Agreement for Red Rock Ranch; and Adoption of Resolution No. 88-203, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 35-88- PUD-9-88, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 150 acres into 61 single family lots, 5 outlots, and road City Council minutes 4 December 13, 1988 right-of-way. Location: West of Mitchell Road, east of Red Rock Lake. (Ordinance No. 35-88-PUD-9-88, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-203, Authorizing Summary and Publication) G. APPIO_Ye_cslarlectiOn Q.L_Proko5e(1_5her.Aill Y11114.B.P...13.010.10.9. totropolitan Waste Contri21 Commission Eacilitlg.s. LOCAttd On_RIAZAADX_Ive (Resolution No. 88-281) H. Fiaal.Plat_APProval of B1pestem BAII.S.5.0-4dAlt1911 ilocatel.op the westerly_extension of Bluestem Lane, west gt_aelloett Elaqg arid east of Purciatory_Cree_ki (Resolution No. 88-279) I. Receive Petition and Order Feasibility Report for the Extension of the Collector Road through Boulder Pointe (aka Red Rock Ranch) to CSAH 1, I.C. 52-156 (Resolution No. 88-282) J. Resolution Assuring_ MnDot that Eden Prairie will Participate in_ the Cot of T.11, 5ImpKvenoJe_nts. 071 (Resolution No. 88-283) K. MnpoT_4.greement_f9x_Aue .st Colltrol_algng_T.H. 169, south of_Andeison Lakes Parkway (Resolution No. 88-284) L. Resolution_correcting Final Assessment Roll for 1988 Special_Asse_sAments, (Resolution No. 88-285) MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to approve Items A through L on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITION by Gustafson & Associates Company. Request for Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 1.67 acres with front yard setback variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, for construction of 4 single family lots. Location: 6801, 6855-59, 6871- 75, and 6887-91 Stonewood Court. (Ordinance No. 49-88, Rezoning) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been sent to owners of 33 surrounding properties and published in the November 30, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Ron Krueger, representing the proponent, stated that additional information had been presented to the Council to establish the benefits to be obtained by the development of single-family homes versus twin-homes. Krueger stated that less of the lot would be disturbed by a single-family home, allowing additional tree savings. ! 71ty Council Minutes 5 December 13, 1988 Krueger added that there would be less traffic and p a r k i n g problems in the cul-de-sac with single-family homes. Enger reported that the Planning Commission had revie w e d this item at its September 26, 1988 meeting and noted t h a t the Staff Report of September 23, 1988 was being carr i e d forward. The main issue had been the compatibility o f single-family homes adjacent to duplexes. Two alternatives were presented in the Staff Report with t h e Planning Commission recommending that only one lot be approved for rezoning. Enger concluded by stating th a t the Staff recommendations remained the same. Bentley stated that when this item had been presented originally the only reason given for the request for a zoning change had been economic and, therefore, he h a d opposed the proposal. Bentley now believed that th e n e w information presented established valid reasons to p r o c e e d with the proposal. Scott Anderson, 6825 Stonewood Court, stated that he wanted to see owners of homes, not renters. The tre n d o n Stonewood Court was to build cheaper twinhomes becau s e they did not sell well. Anderson believed that even though single-family houses might not blend as well a s twinhomes, it was important to the neighborhood to h a v e homeowners. Peterson, Pidcock, and Harris all stated that they h a d been in favor of the proposal originally and remaine d i n favor of the project at this time. Anderson stated that he could not support the proposa l because if the issue were reversed, blending twinhom e s i n a single-family residential neighborhood, it would be considered poor zoning. Anderson added that he had a l w a y s been consistent in his vote on zoning issues and, therefore, could not support this proposal. No further comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Publ i c Hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 49-88 for Rezoning. Motion carried 4-1, with Anderson voting "NO". m9TJON:. Harris moved, seconded by Pldcock to direct Staff t o prepare a Development Agreement incorporating releva n t Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carrie d 4 - 1 , with Anderson voting "NO". 7ity Council Minutes 6 December 13, 1988 B. ZACHMAN BROTHERS 1ST ADDITION by Zachman Development Corporation. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural and RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 on 5 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 5 acres into 20 single family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: The southwest corner of Franlo Road and Preserve Boulevard. (Resolution No. 88-276, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Ordinance No. 58-88, Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-277, Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was sent to owners of 82 surrounding properties and published in the November 30, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Bob Smith, representing the proponent, stated that based on recommendations presented by the neighbors, Staff, and the Planning Commission, the cluster homes had been removed from the project to provide a better transition. The flow-through drive had been eliminated to Preserve Boulevard and the plan revised to depict a cul-de-sac accessing to Franlo Road. Another issue raised by the neighbors was the storm water run-off. Smith added that the drainage would be collected in catch basins located in the cul-de-sac and diverted to Preserve Boulevard. Smith stated that originally 16 variances were necessary to achieve the R1-9.5 zoning. The Planning Commission believed that the number of variances required was excessive and recommended the elimination of an additional lot, which reduced the number of lots to 16 and the number of variances required to 4. Smith stated that the density would be 3.2 units per acre, with the average lot size being 11,612 square feet. Smith noted that the Engineering Department had approved the plans for the overflow and swales. Smith stated that the proponent would like to request an early grading permit to allow sand to be brought onto the site and to move the soil to create the building sites; however, he noted there would not be mass grading. Enger reported that this item had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its October 24, 1988 and November 28, 1988 meetings and received approval for the 16-lot plan based on the recommendations as outlined in the November 25, 1988 Staff Report. Peterson questioned the number of variances outlined in the November 25, 1988 Staff Report and if they were to be based on the final plan. Enger replied that the plan had been revised to eliminate an additional lot after the November 25, 1988 Staff Report had been prepared and 12 of 7ity CJuncil Minutes 7 December 13, 1988 the 16 variances had been eliminated. Bentley asked why fill was currently being dumped on the south end of the property. Smith replied that this was fill from another site. Bentley then asked if there was an outlet for the pond area so that it was not land- locked. Smith replied that there was an existing catch basin. Smith added that the pond size and capacity would be increased and the overflow would be directed to Franlo Road. Peterson asked how much attention had been given to egress traffic during rush hour. Dietz replied that a signal was planned for Preserve Boulevard at Prairie Center Drive, which would create the necessary gaps in the traffic and added that there was the possibility for a signal at Frani° Road and Prairie Center Drive. Anderson asked Dietz if the traffic coming out of this development could be limited to a right turn only. Dietz replied that if it was warranted a signal or a 4-way stop could be installed. Dietz believed that this development would not add a significant amount of traffic; however, he stated that Staff would watch this intersection. Pidcock asked Smith to clarify the storm water drainage for the project. Smith replied that the storm water would be collected in catch basins in the cul-de-sac and directed to Preserve Boulevard. Pidcock then asked if the basement levels would be above the catch basin. Smith replied the basements would be approximately 2 feet above the catch basin. Pidcock stated that she was concerned with the possibility of water in the basements. Smith replied that the proponent had changed the plan to increase the capacity of the pending area and redirect the overflow to the streets to correct an existing problem with water in the basements. Dean Malotky, 8687 Kathryn Court, stated that he was in favor of the improvement in the drainage system and also favored single-family homes, which he believed to be a reasonable transition. Dietz asked for clarification on the purpose of bringing sand onto the site. Smith replied that the sand was required for the preparation of the building pads. Smith added that due to the timing of the season the proponent wished to have the sand hauled in now and placed along the boulevard. Dietz then asked if the grading would all be done at one time. Smith replied that minor grading would be required on some sites and the top soil would be stripped and sand placed on the site to create the building pads. City Council Minutes 8 December 13, 1988 Anderon asked if grading had already taken place on this site without a grading permit. Zachman replied that he had placed approximately 700 yards of sand on the site when Krueger & Associates had informed him that he needed a grading permit to do this. Zachman added that he had stopped hauling the sand at that point and was here to request an early grading permit to allow an additional 300 yard of sand to be placed on the site to solve the drainage problem before road weight restrictions. The sand will be placed along Preserve Boulevard and will not interfere with the drainage pond. Anderson believed that the developer had been working in Eden Prairie long enough to know that a grading permit was required and was disturbed that grading had started on this project prior to approval by the City Council. Smith replied that this could have been an errok due to the Watershed District not requiring a grading permit for under one acre. Smith added that the proponent did curtail further grading immediately upon notification that a permit was necessary. Bentley concurred with Anderson that knowledge of the City's requirements was the responsibility of the developer; however, in this case no amenities had been harmed and the proponent had stopped upon notification that a permit was required. No further comments from the audience. MPTION:. Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-276 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 58-88 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 88-277 approving the Preliminary Plat and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to grant an early grading permit with the understanding that the developer proceed at its own risk. Anderson asked Dietz what the cost of the grading permit / C51,7 71ty Council Minutes 9 December 13, 1988 would be. Dietz replied that the cost was based on cubic yards and estimated the cost to be approximately $200. Anderson then asked if there should not be two permits, one for what was already done and one for what he proposed to do at this time. Dietz replied that the permit cost would include what had already been brought onto the site in addition to what was proposed. Motion carried unanimously. C. FAIRFIELD PHASES 2 THROUGH 6 by Tandem Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers for street frontage and lot size on 118.2 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 82.7 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 33.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 118.2 acres into 299 single family lots, 28 outlots, and road right-of-way, for construction of a residential development. Location: West of County Road No. 4, southeast of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad. (Ordinance No. 59-88-PUD-15-88, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 88-278, Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was sent to owners of 63 surrounding properties and published in the November 30, 1988 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Jim Ostenson, representing the proponent, presented that final plans for Phases 2 through 6 for the Fairfield Subdivision. Based on the results of the Southwest Area Study the phasing had been reconfigured to have Phase 2 be developed at the time when Scenic Heights Road would be realigned with the balance of the project to proceed from east to west following Phase 2. Ostenson stated that the courtyard areas would have the architectural diversity as recommended by Staff and presented the Council with several of the designs being proposed. Enger reported that this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its October 13, 1989 meeting and recommended approval of the project based on the Staff Report dated November 10, 1988. Enger stated that it was important that no further development take place until Scenic Heights Road was realigned and the improvements to County Road #4 were completed. Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission did not review this plan beyond the original review. Peterson asked for clarification on when this phase of the project would be constructed and questioned why the Council was approving a Preliminary Plat in 1988 for development in 1990. Enger replied that it was the proponents desire to present to everyone as firm an Council Minutes 10 December 13, 1988 expectation as possible for what would be developed in the area. Bentley asked what the proponents grading plan was and if It included mass grading of the entire site. Ostenson replied the grading had been completed for Phase I and at some point in the future the proponent would like to export fill material from the site. Ostenson added that at that time the proponent would come in for grading and mining permits; however, the proponent did not wish to have this tied to rezoning. Bentley stated that he would like to have grading be tied to the development phases as part of the Developers Agreement. Ostenson replied that some overlapping of grading could occur from one phase to another. Enger replied that the language in the Developers Agreement coOld read such that the grading for a particular phase would not exceed the proposed grading plan by over 20%. Steve Wagner, 8430 Eden Prairie Road, stated that he would like direction from the Council on what to expect with the road alignments, what the impact would be to his property, will the property be cut in half, where is the proposed alignment for Scenic Heights Road to be located, and how are the property owners to proceed while all these issues are left undecided. Dietz replied that the road alignments were still in the planning stages. Dietz added that on December 20, 1988 there would be a public hearing on the official mapping of Highway #212 and in January there would be a public hearing on the Southwest Study Area Plan. Dietz stated that a feasibility study would be required for road improvements and specific answers would not be available until that study had been completed; however, there would be some flexibility for the alignment of Scenic Heights Road. Wagner then asked how the Council would respond to a development proposal for his property In relation to Scenic Heights Road. Dietz replied that if a development proposal was presented a negotiation process would begin to determine road alignments. Enger added that if Wagner came to the City with a proposal he would be told that provisions would be necessary for the continuance of Scenic Heights Road. Enger added that there would be some flexibility of a few feet to the north or south for the alignment of Scenic Heights Road. Wagner stated that he did not believe that he had been allowed to offer any input as to where Scenic Heights Road would be located on his property. No further comments from the audience. MOTION:_ Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 59-88- O City Council Minutes 11 December 13, 1988 PUD-15-88 for PUD District Review Approval and Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 88-278 approving the Preliminary Plat and direct Staff to prepare a Special Assessment Agreement and a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council conditions related to grading. Motion carried unanimously. Bentley requested that Staff work with the property owners on the east side of the project and request that the proponent meet with the neighborhood residents regarding the road alignments. Jim Ostensen replied that the proponent had met with the neighbors and that access had been provided to their properties. Ostensen added that the proponent did not have control over the road alignment between this proposed plat and County Road #4. D. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP ANO CO1TRQL4U4O.I.V.T.E.REZ.L.Q.F...T. ...... CABLE SYSTEM (Resolution No. 88-297, Recommending Approval of the Acquisition of Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., by KBL Cable Inc.; Resolution No. 88-298, Giving Final Approval of the Transfer, and Approval of Consent Agreement & Guaranty of Performance Document with 3 Exhibits) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been properly published. Jullie noted that the approval of the Resolution was recommended by the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission. Bentley asked what services would change. Jullie replied that the same operating team would operate the system. Jullie added that the parent company's philosophy was that decisions related to programming would remain at the local level. Pidcock noted that the parent company was Houston Industries, which was a utility company with the reputation for having long-term investments versus short- term investments. She believed this would have a stabilizing effect on the cable system. No further comments from the audience. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pldcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-298 for final approval .7it7 Council Minutes 12 December 13, 1988 of the transfer, and approval of the Consent Agreement and Guaranty of Performance Documents (including 3 exhibits). Motion carried unanimously. E. AMENDED.HOUSING PLAN FOR PRAIRIE VILLAGE APARTMENTS (Resolution No. 88-293) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been properly published. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION.;_ Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 88-293 to amend the Housing Plan for the Prairie Village Apartments. Motion carried unanimously. AT THIS TIME THE COUNCIL CONSIDERED ITEM VIII.B. F. ELIM SHORES by Brauer & Associates. Request for a Zoning District Amendment within the RM-2.5 Zoning District on 8.36 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Plat of 8.36 acres into 3 lots for construction of a 64-unit senior housing development. Location: West of County Road No. 4, east of Mitchell Lake. (Ordinance No. 56-88, Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 88-275, Preliminary Plat) Continued from 11/15/88 Jullie reported that the proper notices had been mailed to the affected property owners. John Miller, representing Elim Homes, presented that plans for a 64-unit senior citizens housing project. Miller stated that 9 variances had been requested with 6 being approved and 3 being denied by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. He added that two of the variances dealt with the height of the building and the third related to setback requirements from Mitchell Lake, which had been withdrawn. A Corps of Engineers grading permit had been issued. Enger reported that the plan had been reviewed at the November 28, 1988 Planning Commission and had received approval based on the recommendations outlined in the November 25, 1988 Staff Report. Enger noted that the plan was not reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. 7,ity Council Minutes 13 December 13, 1988 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 56-88 for Zoning District Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION; Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 88-275 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously. MOTI ON.1 Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Anderson asked that the consideration of the color of the brick and the roof design be incorporated in the Developers Agreement. Bentley suggested that an earth tone color would be appropriate due to the colors of the surrounding homes. Enger recommended that the proponent provide color samples for the brick, trim, and shingles prior to 2nd Reading. Motion carried unanimously. G. FLIM_SHOREg. (Continued from 11/15/88) Resolution No. 88-294, Approving Housing Plan for Elim Shores Tr MN) Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item to the December 20, 1989 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. H. ELIM SHORES. Tax Increment Financing Plan (Resolution No. 88-295) MQ1I0141, Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to continue this item to the December 20, 1989 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. VI. PAYMUT QE_SLAiga MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Payment of Claims No. 46969 through No. 47564. ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Bentley, Harris, Pidcock, Peterson all voting "AYE". Motion carried unanimously. 'ity Council Minutes 14 December 13, 1988 VII. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution yQ,J0:266__LtS.Arding State Runding_Qt Minneapolls and St. Paul Combined Sewer_Ove_rtlow Sgpaxation project (continued from 11/15/88) Peterson stated that he would vote against the proposed resolution. Peterson added that he supported the program mandated by the Legislature and that Eden Prairie was not automatically opposed to what the legislature determined was good for the core cities. Bentley stated that the core cities had already received forgiveness for $32 million and were now requesting an additional $49 million because federal money which had been pledged was not forthcoming. Bentley did not believe action by this Council would change the outcome; however, It did give Eden Prairie a chance to voice its opinion. MOTION:_ Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No. 88-266 supporting the position of the Suburban Rate Authority. Motion carried 3-2, with Peterson and Pidcock voting "NO". B. Draft Ordinance regarding Recreational Vehicles MOTION; Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to redraft the proposed ordinance to include the recommendations from the Planning Commission. Simon Root, 7286 Topview Road, stated support for the ordinance. He encouraged the City to act as quickly as possible as the ordinance had been with Staff and the Council for sometime. Bernadine Moser, 7263 Topview Road, asked why the process was taking so long and why it seemed that the Council and Staff were hesitant to make a decision. Peterson replied that Staff and the Council would be taking a major step with the motion made by Councilmember Bentley. Peterson added that the ordinance would have a significant impact on the residents of Eden Prairie and believed that it was appropriate to allow sufficient time to allow residents to comment. He concluded by stating that this was a careful process. City Attorney Pauly wished to address the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Pauly stated that the Planning Commission had requested that grandfathering provisions be limited to specific vehicles. Pauly added ('ity Council Minutes 15 December 13, 1988 that the grandfathering as currently described provided for continuance of the uses that were legal at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. Pauly believed that limiting the grandfather policy to specific vehicles could not be allowed. Pauly recommended that the applicability of a grandfathering clause would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The recommendation that a vehicle was required to be in a safe and operable condition with a current license had already been addressed clearly in the current draft. Pauly requested clarification on what the Planning Commission had considered for the height of a recreational vehicle and the recommendation to minimize storage in the front yards. Enger replied that the Planning Commission had requested that the restriction referenced in the Nebraska draft relating to parking across sidewalks and/or'trails be included in the ordinance, that a minimum sideyard setback be provided, and that as the 7-foot height restriction might not be appropriate, further study should be done. Enger added that the Planning Commission believed that the ordinance would be clearer if a specific time limit was set for the abandonment period. Anderson stated that a van was 7 feet in height and a pickup with a topper was lower in height than a van. Anderson was concerned about the number of times the residents had been to the Council meetings and had not been heard until late in the agenda and, therefore, recommended that when the public hearing regarding the ordinance was held that it be at the beginning of the agenda. Anderson believed that the residents had been patient and that the process was taking a long time. Forrest Colston, 7215 Topview Road, stated that he had a recreational vehicle which was an 11-foot Winnebago. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS CPMMOLgATION1 A. TUCH_QF_CIASS--Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for Variance Request No. 88-51. Kate Halverson, believed that the letter dated November 7, 1988 presented the rationale for the variance request. Halverson presented additional facts which had not been presented to the Hoard of Appeals and Adjustments. Halverson stated that several meetings had been held with the Shelard Group related to the development of the property. She added that a finalization for the purchase of the adjacent property was near completion and, therefore, the entire parcel would be developed. Halverson noted two other cases in the vicinity where the Council had been flexible related to siding. Halverson City Council Minutes 16 December 13, 1988 believed that the requests were realistic and reasonable. Peterson stated that this was a transitional area, the property had been well maintained since it had been changed to commercial use. Peterson noted the reason for the requirement of a brick or better exterior material for commercial buildings was to provide easy maintenance. Peterson did not believe it was the intent of the ordinance that all commercial facilities conform immediately and recommended an extension of the time period to conform to three years or until such time as any contiguous property was developed. Peterson added that if a contiguous property developed Touch of Class would be notified to appear within 30 days to determine conformance. Pidcock believed it would create undue hardship on the property owner to use a brick exterior when the state of the surrounding properties had not been determined. Harris concurred that the property had been well maintained; however, she preferred to delimit a time for review. Bentley believed that a conditional use permit should be utilized in this type of situation and added that the ordinance was designed to create conformity, not to cause undue hardship for the property owners. Bentley questioned the long-term existence of the buildings in their current state. Bentley added that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments had not acted improperly and had performed correctly based on its interpretation of the City Code. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to reverse the Board of Appeals decision related to Variance Request No. 88-51, that the reversal be for a period of three years and reconsideration take place when the property was sold or significant alteration of the property took place. Motion carried unanimously. B. ELIM SHORES--Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for Variance Request No. 88-57. Enger reported that the Board of Appeals was concerned about the Shoreland setback variance and the building height variance. Enger stated that the proponent was prepared to withdraw the variance request at this time for the Shoreland setback. Enger noted that the original plan for the building was at a height of 57 feet. The Shoreland Ordinance allows for a height of 30 feet. Enger said that approximately one year ago a variance was 7ity Council Minutes 17 December 13, 1988 approved on this property to allow a height in excess of the 30 feet based on the rationale of the difference between a flat roof and a pitched roof, with the Board of Appeals and Adjustments believing that a pitched roof would be more appropriate adjacent to a residential area. The proposed 57-foot height consisted of a 4-story building with a walk-out and a pitched roof. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments heard testimony from residents that believed this height would be out of character with the existing structures in the area and that sufficient evidence had not been presented for a hardship case. Therefore, the request was denied by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Enger reported that the proponent had revised the plan to depict 3 stories by changing the mix of the units to retain the 64 units originally proposed. The proponent wished to maintain the walk-out and the pitched roof. Enger noted that the walk-out would not affect the height of the building. Enger stated that Staff concurred with the proponent that a pitched roof would be more compatible with the existing neighborhood. Bentley asked what the proposed height of the building was at this time. John Miller, representing Elim Shores, stated that the height of the building presently would be 37 feet from grade to the peak of the roof on three sides. Miller added that if the walk-out were retained the height would be 47 feet for the front of the building facing the lake. Enger replied that the variance request at this time was for 47 feet if the walk-out were retained. Harris stated that the walk-out area would include the service areas and asked if the services would be eliminated if the walk-out were not possible. Miller replied that extensive berming and landscaping was being proposed to mitigate the height of the building. Miller added that with the elimination of one story, the units had been compacted, and the dining room, kitchen, and service areas had been moved to the lower level. Miller believed that the kitchen and dining area needed natural light to make it a useable space. Peterson asked for clarification on the mention of residents being "Christian" over the age of 62. Miller replied that the facility would be nondenominational, with the average age of the resident expected to be 75 years. The units would be privately subsidized by Elim Shores and Elim Homes. Twenty-five units were pre-registered at this time. Peterson stated that the wording was not intended to be restrictive in any way. Miller replied that this was correct. City Council Minutes 18 December 13, 1988 Bill Schulz, 7924 Island Road, read into the record a letter from the Timberlakes Homeowners Association which stated objection to the 48-foot proposed building height. Scholz noted that this request would represent approximately a 60% increase above the existing 30-foot requirement. Scholz stated that the second objection related to the fact that existing homeowners had purchased their property with the knowledge of the present zoning restrictions and believed that a precedent would set which he believed could pose a negative effect on the resident's faith in the zoning system. Scholz believed that the variance should not be approved. Scholz presented a slide presentation viewing the existing neighborhood both from the lake and the land proposed to be developed. Scholz was concerned not only with the height of the building but also the total mass size of the structure. Scholz added that this size of a building did not blend well into a single-family area. Colleen Petree, 7906 Island Road, stated that she would be able to see the building from her back yard. She believed the building would appear extremely large and added that the 30-foot height rstriction should be maintained. Charles Kuvaya, 7902 Island Road, stated that he applauded the purpose for providing senior housing; however, he opposed the design. Kuvaya believed this structure would have a negative effect on the property values of the existing homes. He added that he had invested over $200,000 for his home and had planned to live out his life In this home, but if this facility was allowed to be built his view of the lake and the whole appearance of the neighborhood would change. Kuvaya believed the 30-foot height limit should be upheld. Dwight Harvey, a member of the Board of Appeals, stated that while he appreciated the proponents reducing the height from 57 feet to 48 feet, he believed that the Shoreland Ordinance was designed for a reason. Harvey added that the highest portion of the building would face toward the lake and the Shoreland Ordinance protected the view of the lake. Harvey asked the proponent if nursing services would be provided. Miller replied that there would be home health care services. Harvey then asked if the beauty shop would be a commercial shop and if this were allowed in a residential area. Peterson replied that it would be allowed, but only for the residents of the facility, not the general public. Brian Foltz, 8008 Island Road, concurred with Mr. Harvey that the Shoreland Ordinance existed for a reason, and although great strides have been made by the proponent to revise the plan, he believed that the 30-foot height restriction should be respected and upheld. City Council Minutes 19 December 13, 1988 Kermit Hansen, 8002 Timber Lake Drive, stated that he recommended approval of the project. Hansen added that other alternatives for development of this property could be worse. Hansen stated that if a flat roof were used on the building it could meet the 30-foot height restriction; however, he concurred that a flat roof would not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Hansen stated that Elim Shores had spent a considerable amount of time and effort in the design of the building and the landscaping plans to try to conceal the buildings view from the lake. Hansen concluded by stating that he believed that the plans as presented by Elim Shores were the best that could be expected for this parcel. Anderson asked Enger if site elevation comparisons had been done. Enger replied they had not Anderson then asked if this development would be higher or lower than the homes along the south shore as shown on the slide presentation by Mr. Sholz. Enger replied that he did not have the exact elevation; however, he believed this facility would be lower than the homes to the south. The proponent stated that the height of the building would be similar to the existing homes. Miller added that due to access available to the facility it would be difficult to lower the elevation further without redistributing the parking area. Jack Pointer, member of the Northbay Homeowners Association, stated that this property had been stagnant for sometime and believed that development of the property would improve the existing property values. Pointer believed that other alternatives for development would be less desirable. Pointer believed that this was a quality project. Pointer noted that the single-family homes on Island Road were multi-story with walk-outs, which would be similar in height to what was being proposed by Elim Shores. Pointer stated that the property was zoned multi- family and believed that any structure to be developed on this site would be larger than the single-family homes. Pointer concluded by stating that the Board of the Northbay Homeowners Association had recommended approval of the project. Bob Holt, 7970 Island Road, stated that there were reasons why the Shoreland Ordinance was written and questioned what criteria wPre used to determine if a variance should be allowed. Holt said that he did not object to the quality of the project or its intent, however, what he did object to was the physical size of the building. Holt believed that the color of the brick could help to mask the size and asked if a definite color had been determined. Miller replied that the color had not established and added that it would work to have the color be compatible. Pauly replied that the answer related to 7ity Council Minutes 20 December 13, 1988 the criteria for a variance was proof by the applicant that an undue hardship was being placed on the property due to the ordinance. Charles Kuyava, 7902 Island Road, believed that because this and another project were meeting opposition at the planning stages of development, that possibly the property was incorrectly zoned and could the zoning be changed at this time Kuyava believed that the proponent had done the best it could to development a quality project; however, he wished that another type of project could be considered for this property. Peterson replied that it would be unlikely that a developer would consider down zoning this property and added that if a project were brought before the Council, which met all the City Codes, the Council could not deny the developer to proceed. • Dave Orlowsky, 7920 Timber Lake Drive, believed that this was the highest quality project that had been proposed over the years for this property. He added that the developer had worked cooperatively to try to develop a project which would fit in with the existing neighborhood and to protect the property values of the surrounding properties. Orlowsky was concerned that if the height of the building were reduced the length and width would be increased, which he believed would be more detrimental to property values for the adjacent properties. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION:„ Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to reverse the decision made by the Board of Appeals. Bentley believed that in essence what was being approved was the equivalent of a three-story building due to the fourth story being buried and the site heavily landscaped and bermed. The pitched roof which added to the height added quality to the building and helped to blend in with the surrounding properties. He stated that the developer was providing subsidized senior housing which had been mandated by the Metropolitan Council. Bentley concluded by stating that because the height of the building had been reduced after the Board of Appeals decision he would support the motion to reverse the decision of the Board of Appeals. Harris stated that she understood the concerns of the residents; however, an extra effort had been made on the part of the developer to give this project a residential character. Harris believed that if the height of the building were reduced and the length and width increased, the result would be less desirable. Harris added that if r, City Council Minutes 21 December 13, 1988 a flat roof were proposed the developer would be closer to the required height; however, she believed that the Pitched roof would be more attractive. Harris supported the motion. Peterson believed that undue hardship had not been proven. He said that the developer had stated that the project could be constructed with one less story and, therefore, would not support the motion. Motion carried 4-1, with Peterson voting "NO". Pidcock stated that she believed the City had a moral obligation to provide housing for the elderly in Eden Prairie, MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to recess the City Council meeting and proceed with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting. Motion carried unanimously. C. Request for Exterior Changes to Eden Puirie c&riter Pidcock asked what the building materials would be. Larry Johnson, architect, replied that the exterior would be stucco with brick peers. The facia would be curved with 5 horizontal reveal bands with 5/8" red neon tubing. The new Eden Prairie logo would be placed on the reveals. The columns would be enlarged, wrapped with steel, and possibly illuminated. The canopy would also be made of steel with a Teflon sleeve, which would be illuminated. The purpose of the exterior renovations was to make a grander statement and to draw attention to the entrances. A slide presentation was made showing the proposed entrances and the other interior renovations taking place at the center. Bentley asked if the proposed neon lighting and signage would be allowed within the City's sign ordinance criteria. Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator, replied that the signage had not been formally reviewed. She added that discussions had taken place regarding what would be necessary and what might be allowed in the future. Larry Johnson replied that the intent was to have the Council review the preliminary plans so that the project did not progress only to find out it would not be permitted. Bentley believed that if any action were taken by the Council tonight it should be to review the sign proposal and its compliance with the City's sign ordinance. Jean Johnson stated that the Eden Prairie Center signage had been approved as part of the original PUD in 1976 and was part of a total sign package. She -ity Council Minutes 22 December 13, 1388 added that the plans that were reviewed by Staff would meet the code requirements and the proponent would be returning to the Planning Commission and the Council with an overall signage plan. Peterson believed this proposal should be presented to Staff and the Planning Commission before any Council action. D. Request from Fgrtier & Associates for a Grading_aerMit on t_he Beddor proper_ty located at the N.E. quadrant of Dell Road and T.H. 5 for aite Graltillg and q21 trlICtion of a Gravel Access Road Dietz reported that based on an onsite inspection by Staff it was recommended that therequest be denied due to the fact that the reasons presented for the request were determined to be unfounded. Darrell Fortier, representing the proponent, stated that Highway #5 would be upgraded at sometime in the future. He added that currently the land was leased and being farmed: access on the property was limited by the gravel road and an existing structure. The proponent wanted to eliminate the draw to provide a smooth contiguous road. Fortier stated that the request was in compliance with the requirements of the Land Alteration Permit; however, he did not disagree with Staff that the same results could be accomplished with less grading. The other alternative road alignme,nts were not favorable to the proponent at this time. Bentley stated that Land Alteration permits were not typically granted without the review of a development plan. He added that allowing speculative grading was not a policy of the City of Eden Prairie and, therefore, could not support the issuance of a Land Alteration permit without a specific proposal being presented to the Council. Peterson asked what purpose the road would serve. Fortier replied that the road would provide access to and from the property and the farm land. Fortier added that there was nothing in the ordinance which referenced the requirement of the plan. Dietz asked Fortier if Staff had informed him that a development plan was not necessary. Fortier replied that Staff had advised him of what information was necessary to receive the Land Alteration permit and upon receipt of the information requested the issue of tree removal was brought up: there had been no reference by Staff that a development plan was required. Fortier believed that this was not speculative grading. Bentley recommended that the proponent work with Staff to resolve the issues. , *ity Council Minutes 23 December 13, 1988 Peterson believed that this same parcel had been before the Council within the last 2 to 3 years for rezoning without a development plan. Enger replied that there had been a request for rezoning and a hypothetical plan had been presented. Enger added that the problems then were that the plan was only hypothetical and that parts of the plan were in conflict with City ordinances. Dietz stated that the fact remains that significant grading was being requested without sufficient rationale. Peterson believed that adequate access was provided for farming at this time. Fortier replied that the proponent was currently trying to market the property and wished to be able to drive a car on the road surface. Pauly concurred with Councilmember Bentley's recommendation to refer this item back to Staff. He added that there was not sufficient information provided in the Staff Report to determine if all the criteria had been met to meet City Code. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to refer the request for a land alteration permit back to Staff. Motion carried unanimously. IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS X. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of one member to the Southwest Metro Transit c9111111S_Siun MOTI ON :_ Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to nominate Mayor Peterson for the 3-year term to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Motion carried unanimously. MOTTON.:. Bentley moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the nominations and to cast a unanimous ballot. Motion carried unanimously. XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOAR9SA_COMMLSSIO1S A. pLQjSQnci MeMbAK.P. 1. Minnesota River - National Park Advisg_ry_Colacfl Anderson stated that there was a bill before the City Council Minutes 24 December 13, 1988 Legislature which would give national park status within the metropolitan area on the Mississippi River. He added that upon further investigation he believed that the Minnesota River could be included in the Bill to be presented to the Legislature. The State of Minnesota and the DNR were currently in the process of trying to clean up the Minnesota River and Anderson believed that the City of Eden Prairie should support this effort and request Staff to investigate further the possibility of including the Minnesota River in the Bill to be presented to the Legislature as part of the Durenberger plan. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to investigate including the Minnesota River in the Durenberger plan to be presented to the Legislature. Motion carried unanimously. B. Report of City_Manager 1. Temporary Funding for the Cash Fee Park Improvement Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the transfer of funds as outlined in the Staff Report. Motion carried unanimously. C. Report of ClAY_Attorney 1. Set Agreement on Community Center Litigation MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to accept the terms outlined by the City Attorney and abide by them. Motion carried unanimously. D. Report of Director of e_unryina E. alLectpr Park*...,3ggx.g.a_tisuLA....N.4.tur.4.1__Rtg.Qur.cgg. 1 . RelPe.S.t..frP.M_F2Kif.t SwIM Cltib David Goble, representing the Foxjets, believed that the Foxiets pay rental fees approximately twice that of other teams in the metro area. Goble stated that currently the Foxjets were paying $22 for 6 metered lanes and added that the request was to have the fee be in line with what other teams are paying. He said that Staff's contention was that if this reduction was granted, other teams would also he requesting reductions. City Council Minutes 25 December 13, 1988 Ldmbert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission's recommendation was to continue with the existing rates. The purpose of the fees was to pay for the operational costs of the Community Center. It was further recommended that the Foxjets continue to pay on the $4,000 debt, and that the rates not be increased but remain the same. Anderson stated that the original intent was that the operational costs of the facility would be paid for by the users of the facility. Lambert replied that the original theory on rates had been for the City to meet operational costs as well as be in a comparable range with other areas. Lambert added that compared to other municipal facilities Eden Prairie was competitive; however, compared with the rates charged by schools, the Community Center was higher. Peterson asked how many of the FoxJets were residents of Eden Prairie. Goble replied that currently 80% are Eden Prairie residents. Lambert commented that Staff believed that the operational costs to operate the pool and the ice arena were similar. He added that the charge is $72 per hour for ice and only $28 per hour for the pool. Lambert stated that the pool costs were being subsidized. Bentley stated that the original intent of the Community Center was to provide a facility which would be open to the public the majority of the time; however, the majority of the time the Center currently was occupied by organized groups which infringed on the public use of the facility. Bentley believed that the City's operating philosophy could not justify a reduction in fees unless there was a correlating change in membership fee. Goble noted that the Foxjets did not use the entire pool at any given time. He added that the Foxjets would be willing to extend the time and reduce the number of lanes used at any time. Anderson stated that athletics had changed over the years and the costs had become dramatic. Goble concluded by stating that the request was to receive similar rates as other communities and noted that the Foxjels did utilize extensive fund raising programs. m (gI g Ni. Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to deny the request by the FoxJets based on the Staff Memo. Motion carried unanimously. :*.ity Council Minutes 26 December 13, 1988 2. Recommendation on Revised ca_sh Park Fees Lambert reported that it was the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission to further study this issue. Anderson recommended that a certain percent of the Cash Park Fee be set aside as a trail fee. Lambert replied that would require an additional fee. Lambert added that County Road #4 and County Road #1 were the only missing links in the trail system and believed that a referendum would be the best way to receive the funds to complete the trail system. Anderson stated that recommendations for trails along County Road #4 and County Road #1 were made back in 1975 and added that because of lack of funds there were still unsafe areas within Eden Prairie. Lambert believed that Eden Prairie had one of the best trail systems in the metro area. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Harris to direct Staff to draft a memorandum with recommendations for the 1989 Cash Park Fees and to include the consideration of an additional amount to be utilized for trail systems. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Janikula PropertY MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson to withdraw the request for the purchase of the Janikula property. Motion carried unanimously. 4. tOm 1 ba_Par_k_oR_Rel_13.00_14Ke MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to name the new park in the Boulder Pointe Subdivision, Red Rock Lake Park. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION:, Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to have a contest to name the old Red Rock Park, considering the top three recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. F. Rekort_Ol_DiLectAr_91.._Ellblig_YD_Ilsa G. Report of Fironce_Pirect9r XII. NEW BUS IN. '7.ity Council Minutes 27 December 13, 1988 XIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 AM. CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSDINTS JOINT MEETING Tuesday, June 27, 1989 CITY comcn: BOARD MEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: RECORDING SECRETARY: PLANNING COMMISSION: 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: 7:30 PM, Council Chambers at City Offices 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, MN Richard Anderson (Chairman), Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Douglas Tenpas, Gary Peterson Steve Longman (Chairman), Bill Arockiasamy, Michael Bozonie, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Neil Akemann Assistant to the City Manager, Craig W Dawson Sharon Swenson Assistant Planner, Jean Johnson Acting mayor Richard Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. C. Peterson absent. II. BOARD PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION Dawson explained that this meeting was one of a continuing series of meetings between the Board and the Council. It had been several years since the last meeting and there had been a membership turnover on both groups since that time. Communication issues needed to be discussed. Johnson gave a simunry of the variances, stating that the average number per year came to 40-60. She explained the process of applying for a variance, and clarified the zoning, platting, and POD processes. She noted the summary of the 1988 variances in the packet. She added that the degree of the variance requested was a major issue that the Board wished to discuss. Pidcock asked if the code should be adjusted, since there seems to be a number of variances as neighborhoods upgrade. Tenpas felt the Council should examine the development and review process. Harvey asked how much time was spent on development projects at the City Council levd at the first reading? Acting Mayor Anderson answered that it can be considerable, expecially when they involve lake frontage. The developer may be giving something to the City as nrcptiaiien takes place. Harris noted that the quality of the project was also considered and whether it fit into the design of the City. Harvey asked if there were any "sacred" code sections. Discussion took place on R1-44 and R1-22 2ming district standards. Pidcock believed it was important to preserve our natural enviroment especially bluffs and lakeshore. Tennas felt that the Staff did a good job of working with the developers before projects came to the Council. He thought before they were presented to the Council, the applicants probably had a pretty good idea of what would or would not be approved. Longman noted that the issue for the Board was that after they had spent about 3 hours on a variance, what decision would the Council make? Five of the six decisions that the Board considered to be most important were overturned by the Council. He added that he realized the applicant would be coming to the Council on these variances, and that Council members may see them differently. But, he added, that if five of those six in the last two years had been over- turned, why did the Board spend so much time deliberating those variances? Harvey asked what information the Council had available when they hear the variances. Tenpas answered that the Council Members read the minutes of the Board and reviewed the same reports that were available to the Board Members. Longman cited the examples of Touch of Class and Cabriole Center. S Anderson suggested that possibly the Chairman of the Board of Appeals speak at variance appeals at Council Meetings. In this way, the opinion of the Board could be clearly stated. Harvey asked if appeals of Board decisions were a public hearing. R Anderson answered no, they were public meetings. Longman felt it was unfortunate that the Board members believed they had to be at Council meetings defending their decisions. Harris noted that regarding the two variances cited (Touch of Class and Cabriole Center) the Council took other issues into consideration. Denying people the use of their property can involve legal matters. R Anderson noted that the vote on the Touch of Class variance was not unanimous. Harvey stated that at the Council Meeting, Touch of Class presented it's reasons why the Board decision should be overturned. The Board members were not asked for their opinions. Four members had been present. r ,z; 3 Harris noted that anyone who wishes to speak at the Council meeting may do so. She said she could not recall a time when a member of the Board presented an issue. R Anderson reminded those present that the Board is a recommending body. He suggested that when Board members feel strongly, they should come to the Council meeting and address the Council personally. Many aspects need to be wisai o v vEldsAution and he had personally been upset at decisions made Bozonie asked what. the Council view on economic hardship was. Harris said it was part of many factors that were considered. S Anderson explained the history of the Touch of Class variance for the benefit of those not familiar with the background. Freemyer said he had been taking classes on land use planning and planning ordinances. The statutes say the final decision is to come from the City Council, but the City Council can use only the same criteria as the Board of Appeals. The Council may disagree, but need to follow the same criteria. Tenpas felt it was a commercial use that blends in with a residential area. Pidcock explained that the applicants did not want to change the exterior to brick because of the planned highway development. R Anderson noted that both State law and City ordinances came into play here. Longmian stated that regarding the Touch of Class, the Board was not taking or restricting the use of the property--just asking them to bring it closer to code. Tenpas said Staff attended the meetings where there are questions on variances. Arockiasamv believed that this joint meeting was an excellent idea. He said that he had been a member of the Board of Appeals for many years and this was the first time he had attended a joint meeting. The Board is an extension of the Council. Meetings such as these should be held every six months and the instances where the Board decisions were overturned should be discussed. He thought there were two groups of variances--contingent and non -contingent-- and he explained the differences. These can involve existing property or developments. Developments were more difficult and if the Planning Commission and the Council reviewed these first, there should he some communication with the Board. Regarding the Touch of Class case, there was a compromise the first time it was reviewed by the Board. After one year, they came back and had not done anything so it was extended another year. After the second year it was the same-- nothing had been done and they stated that they did not want to do anything. He agreed that it was not appropriate for the Board to speak as a body at the Council Meeting, only each as a resident. If the Council had invited opinion, Board members would have spoken. The applicant had given a brief presentation, there was not discussion or deliberation, and the request was granted. Board members had been under the opinion that the Council would consider this an important decision because of their presence. 4 He continued as he quoted from the code:"undue hardship because of unusual circumstances on the property," He agreed with that reason, but went on to give the definition of "undue hardship" as being: the property cannot be put to a reasonable use." Touch of Class was already using the property. It could continue to be used, with the expense of a few more dollars. Harvey added that Touch of Class was symptomatic of a problem. Procedural things may be done to help the problem. The Board had an obligation to explain to the applicant why the variance was approved or denied. The Board would like some explanation from the Council in return. They wished to know where they had made a mistake. Pidcock noted that people arrive at their decisions from different points of view. - Harvey felt that just as the proponet needed an opportunity to present his case, so did the Board need that opportunity. Harris said the Board did not make a mistake--the Council had used the same information, hut looked at future plans and road changes. It was not an economic hardship alone. Tenpas said hecould understand the Council decision taking into consideration the road plam for that area. Maybe some modification in the code regarding the use of brick should be considered. uawson noted that the Board ileedS ts) take the code as its direction. Changes to the code would be initiated by the Council and Planning Commission. Akemann said the Board was not able to find undue hardship. The hardhsip was uncertainty--which cannot be used as a hardship. Would it be possible to limit or set a percentage of the variance that must be completed within a one year time frame? jU11116011 bald sue nelieved the une year limit came from State Statutes. If the proponent does not comply or get an extension, they can be taken to court. Freemyer felt that code needed to be looked at from time to time and reviewed or revised. Arockiasamy felt the shoreline variances should he reviewed carefully as well as the height of the buildings. Harris said she felt the Board should consider having representation at the Council meetings when such issues come up. She thought the use of signs, brick, and glass should be reviewed. Longman noted that glass and masonry eliminated maintenance problems. Pidcock noted that Touch of Class building will need to add brick or move to another site within 2 years. I I- 5 R Anderson noted that non-conforming use issues were the toughest. He would like to see the Board make up a list of things it would like to see the Council consider. He added that members should come to the Council meeting on any matter on which they have strong feelings. Harvey noted two upcoming issues: Access easements to lakes for owners of non-lakefront properties and preservation of trees. R Anderson told the Board to write up its recommendations and submit to Johnson. Harvey suggested two more issues: Horsepower of motors on lakes and outside storage of recreational vehicles. Freemver noted that the proponent from Cabriole Center had stated that he did not know that economic hardship was not a"hardship .: Tenpas said the value of the mortgage is based on the rental value of the property. The present owner of the building was not the original owner. As long as those lots were considered one lot, nothing could be developed on the second lot. Anderson said tax allocation could be a real problem. It could have been done a condomintmlassociation as was City West. Dawson added that the cross-parking easement was required before the final plat was approved. Freemver said if there will be lots of "phase developments" in the future, what can be done to eliminate the problem? Dawson suggested flexibility when considering criteria related to "when circumstances are not of property owner's making." Arockiasamy felt there will be tall buildings in Major Center area--if that was indeed true, why should they go through the variance process? Discussion took place on building height, multiple-family units, shorelines, trees, Wooddale Church steeple. Pidcock thanked the Board for its comments and work on each decision. Harris added that the dedication of such as the Board members makes Eden Prairie great. Nothing is cast in concrete and the code may need to be re-examined. 6 Johnson affirmed that Staff will do research on the topics that had been mentioned at this meeting. R Anderson suggested to Johnson that theater signs be added to that list. He reminded the other members of the Council that anytime they get a decision, it should be carefully considered. Bozonie felt that,regarding the multi-theaters, it seemed that the code was saying that 9 or 12 screens together was not desirable. If a developer were to ask, would he be told that there could be a compromise or that his proposal does not fit the City. If it were granted, it may promote other developments similar in nature. Freemyer felt the Board did not have the right to say no-it cannot be done. Tenpas expressed his appreciation to the Board. S Anderson felt there was an incredible opportunity in Eden Prairie now with the Major Center area. He suggested using a minimum floor ratio instead of a maximum floor ratio. III. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Pidcock moved that the Council/Board meeting adjourn. Tenpas seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Adjournment at 9:40 PM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES have transcribed, directly from a tape recording (name) of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting of , the minutes. The approved minutes including any rewording, corrections, and deletions, have been initiated and authorized by City Staff and by the Board of Adjustments and Appeal members at the time of final approval. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST July 18, 1989 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) New Edition, Inc. Palm Construction S & B Partners Glen Sandness Construction Stiglich Construction, Inc. CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Covenant Construction Co. Giertsen Company Pineview Overlook, Inc. TLCSN, Inc. PLUMBING UTILITY INSTALLER .A-1 Rootmaster GAS FITTER Custom Plumbing, Inc. Klamm Mechanical Contractors Wm. F. Ridler Plumbing & Heating HEATING & VENTILATING Custom Refrigeration, Inc. Klamm Mechanical Contracting Palm Brothers, Inc. A-1 Rootmaster Klamm Mechanical Contractors Robert C. Wyllie Plumbing PEDDLAR Leonard Anthony Buehl (Seafood at PDQ) George Stutter (Seafood at PDQ) Stephanie Stein (Blue Bell Ice Cream) These licenses have been approved by the departmnet heads responsible for the licensed activity. A Pat Solie: Licensing 171a HIDDEN GLEN 4TH ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 10-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance . (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the RM-6.5 District and be placed in the R1-9.5 District. Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the RM-6.5 District and shall be included hereafter in the R1-9.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph 8, shall be, and are amended accordingly. Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of July 18, 1989, entered into between Frontier Midwest Home Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 21st day of March, 1989, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 18th day of July, 1989. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1989 EXHIBIT A HIDDEN GLEN 4TH PUD Concept Amendment Blocks 1-7, inclusive, Hidden Glen Addition; Blocks 1-3, inclusive, Hidden Glen 2nd Addition; Blocks 1-6, inclusive and Outlots A-E inclusive, Hidden Glen 3rd Addition, all situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Rezoning Lots 12-22 inclusive, Block 1 and Lots 1-9 inclusive, Block 2 and Outlots A, B, and E, Hidden Glen 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Preliminary Plat Lots 12-22 inclusive, Block 1 and Lots 1-9 inclusive, Block 2, Hidden Glen 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Hidden Glen IV DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1989, by Frontier Midwest Homes Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 68 acres, with waiver for density in the R1-9.5 Zoning District, Rezoning from RM-6.5 to PUD-10-89-R1-9.5 on approximately seven (7) acres, and Preliminary Plat of seven acres into 26 lots, for construction of single family homes, all situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #10-89, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated March 16, 1989, reviewed and approved by the City Council on March 21, 1989, and attached hereto as Exhibit 13, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Concurrent with, and as part of the final plat for property, Developer has submitted to the City and obtained City's approval of easement vacations along the previous platted lot lines of the property. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the 1715- final plat for the property until such time as all costs associated with relocation of any utilities within said easements, including, but not limited to, water, sewer, storm sewer, cable television, electric, telephone, and gas lines, have been paid for by Developer. 4. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and erosion control for the property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 5. Prior to release by the City of the final plat, Developer agrees to submit to the Building Department, and to obtain the Building Department's approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls indicated on the grading plan in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of - materials, and method of construction to be used for said retaining walls. Upon approval by the Building Department, Developer agrees to construct said retaining wall improvements as stated above, as approved by the Building Department, concurrent with the grading and street construction on the property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. Prior to issuance of any grading permit upon the property, Developer agrees to substantially complete the grading within the land covered by the entire Hidden Glen North Planned Unit Development for the area. Said Planned Unit Development area is that consisting of approximately 68 acres as described in the agreement between the City of Eden Prairie and Derrick Land Company dated June 17, 1986, known as the Hidden Glen North Developer's Agreement, in Exhibit A of said agreement and depicted graphically in Exhibit B of said agreement. 7. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property. 8. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of an architectural diversity plan for the property which shall key specific unit types to each lot. Said plan shall provide that no two substantially similar unit types shall be located directly adjacent to each other, directly across from each other, diagonally across from each other, or within two units of each other. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to implement, or cause to be implemented, said architectural diversity plan, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 9. Prior to issuance of any building permit on Lots 11 - 13, Block 1, inclusive, on the property, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning and to the Hennepin County Transportation Department, and to obtain the Director's and County's approval of, plans for grading and reforestation of the slope along the Highway #101 frontage of said lots which will be disturbed by the construction to upgrade Highway #101. Developer and City acknowledge that County shall be responsible for the construction and implementation of said grading and reforestation plan, as approved by the Director of Planning and the County. Developer agrees to provide the necessary construction easements to the County for construction of said Highway #101 adjacent to said Lots 11 - 13, Block 1, of the property. Developer further agrees to be-responsible for providing information . to the purchasers of said Lots 11 - 13, Block 1, that the existing trees on said lots shall be removed and roadway construction for Highway #101 and reforestation shall be implemented along the Highway #101 frontage of said lots. 10. Developer has submitted to the City, and obtained the City's approval of a landscape screening plan for those lots adjacent to State Highway #101, not including Lots 11 - 13, Block 1, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Prior to release of the final plat for the property, Developer agrees to submit to the City, and to obtain the City's approval of, a security (bond, cashier's check, etc.) equal to an amount 1.5 times the cost of implementing said landscape screening plan, including watering and maintenance of the plant materials thereon for a period of two years. Upon approval of said security, Developer agrees to implement said landscape screening plan, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 11. Developer acknowledges that City will not issue a building permit for Outlot A, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, until such time as there is resolution regarding the use of the property to the east, adjacent to said outlot. 1r1/7 HIDDEN GLEN 4TH ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-121 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 10-89 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 10-89 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City of Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 18th day of July, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN - PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 10-89, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body tye no smaller than non-pareil, or six-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 10-89 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publications required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on July 18, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 1918 HIDDEN GLEN 4TH ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 10-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located south and east of Highway #101, west of Dell Road, from the RM-6.5 District to the R1-9.5- District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. Attest: /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1989. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk). IV) CHATHAM RIDGE 2ND ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 20-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MIN N E S O T A , R E M O V I N G C E R T A I N L A N D F R O M O N E ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, A M E N D I N G T H E L E G A L D E S C R I P T I O N S O F L A N D IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE C I T Y C O D E C H A P T E R 1 A N D S E C T I O N 1 1 . 9 9 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PRO V I S I O N S . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, M I N N E S O T A , O R D A I N S : Section 1. That the land which is the subject of th i s O r d i n a n c e (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described i n E x h i b i t A a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a n d m a d e a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing th a t t h e l a n d b e removed from, the R1-13.5 District and be pla c e d i n t h e R 1 - 9 . 5 D i s t r i c t . Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the l a n d s h a l l b e , and hereby is removed from the R1-13.5 Distri c t , a n d t h e l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n s o f l a n d in each District referred to in City Co d e , S e c t i o n 1 1 . 0 3 , S u b d i v i s i o n 1 , Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended acco r d i n g l y . Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General P r o v i s i o n s a n d Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code I n c l u d i n g P e n a l t y f o r V i o l a t i o n s " a n d Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misde m e a n o r " a r e h e r e b y a d o p t e d i n t h e i r entirety, by reference, as though repeated ver b a t i m h e r e i n . Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and c o n d i t i o n s o f that certain Developer's Agreement dated as o f J u l y 1 8 , 1 9 8 9 , e n t e r e d i n t o b e t w e e n Centex Homes Midwest, Inc., a Nevada Corpo r a t i o n , a n d t h e C i t y o f E d e n P r a i r i e , which Agreement is hereby made a part of. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from a n d a f t e r i t s passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City C o u n c i l o f t h e C i t y o f E d e n Prairie on the 20th day of June, 1989, and f i n a l l y r e a d a n d a d o p t e d a n d o r d e r e d published at a regular meeting of the City Co u n c i l o f s a i d C i t y o n t h e 1 3 t h d a y o f July, 1989. ATTEST: John O. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1989. I We EXHIBIT A CHATHAM RIDGE 2ND R.U.D.AMENDMENT AND P.U.D. DISTRICT REVIEW Lots 1 through 27, inclusive, Block I, RIDGEWOOD WEST. Lots 1 through 8, inclusive, Block 2, RIDGEWOOD WEST. Lots 1 through 8, inclusive, Block 4, RIDGEWOOD WEST. Lots 1 through 18, inclusive, Block 5, RIDGEWOOD WEST. Lots 52 through 62, inclusive, Block 1, RIDGEWOOD WEST, excep t t h a t p a r t of Lots 60, 61 and 62, platted in WESTOVER WOODS. Outlot B, RIDGEWOOD WEST. All of Block 1; and Outlots A through H, inclusive, RIDGEWO O D W E S T P L A T T W O . All of Block 1; and Lots 1 through 43, inclusive, Block 2; a n d O u t l o t s A through G, inclusive, and Outlots H through L, inclusive, a l l i n R I D G E W O O D WEST PLAT THREE. All of Blocks 1 and 2; and Outlots A, B and C, RIDGEWOOD WE S T P L A T F O U R . All of Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4; and Outlots A through E, inclusive, RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT FIVE. Blocks 1, 2 and 3, and Outlots A and C, WESTOVER WOODS. REZONING FROM RI -13.5 TO R1 -9.5 AND PRELIMINARY PLAT Outlot B, RIDGEWOOD VEST; Lots 52 through 62 inclusive, Block 1 , R I D G E W O O D V E S T except that part of said lots 60,61 and 62 which lie within t h e r e c o r d e d p l a t of WESTOVER WOODS; all of Bertly Court (a.k.a. Bently Cour t ) w h i c h l i e s northerly of the northerly right-of-way line of Wellington D r i v e , a s dedicated in RIDGEWOOD WEST. Also, Outlot C, Westover Woods Chatham Ridge 2nd Addition DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1989, by Centex Homes Midwest, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Develoment Concept Amendment on approximately 101 acres known as the Ridgewood Westover Planned Unit Development, Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 8.13 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.13 acres into 23 single family lots, all said acreage situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property:" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #20-89, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated June 14, 1989, reviewed and approved by the City Council on June 20, 1989, and attached hereto as Exhibit subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and erosion control for the property, including staking of construction limits with erosion control fencing. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of, an architectural diversity plan for the property which provides that no two units shall be substantially the same next to each other, directly across from each other, diagonally across from each other. Upon approval by the Director of Planning of said architectural - diversity plan, Developer agrees to implement, or cause to be implemented, said plan as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. Concurrent with street and utility construction on the property, Developer agrees to construct a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Cumberland Road. Developer further agrees that said sidewalk shall be constructed in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Gary D. Peterson, Mayor Carl J. Jullie, City Manager CHATHAM RIDGE 2ND ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-165 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 20-89 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 20-89 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City of Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 18th day of July, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 20-89, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body tye no smaller than non-pareil, or six-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 20-89 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publications required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on July 20, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk CHATHAM RIDGE 2ND ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 10-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located north and west of Cumberland Road, northeast of Wellington Drive from the R1-13.5 District to the R1-9.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement: Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. Attest: /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1989. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk). CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-159 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF RIDGEWOOD WEST 6TH ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of RIDGEWOOD WEST 6TH ADDITION has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for RIDGEWOOD WEST 6TH ADDITION is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated JULY 13, 1989. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on JULY 18, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk I 7,940 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician DATE: July 13, 1989 SUBJECT: Ridgewood West 6th Addition (Resolution No. 89-159) PROPOSAL: Centex Homes has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Ridgewood West 6th Addition. The plat is located southwest of Anderson Lakes Parkway and north of Cumberland Road in the North Half of Section 22. This proposal is a replat of Outlot B and Lots 52 through 62, Block 1 of Ridgewood West. The plat contains 8.13 acres to be divided into 23 single family homesites and right-of-way dedication for street purposes. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council June 20, 1989 per Resolution No. 89-139. Second reading of Ordinance No. 20-89, changing zoning from RI-13.5 to R1-9.5, is scheduled for final approval July 18, 1989. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution July 18, 1989. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed thorugh the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities and streets will be installed by the Developer in conformance with City Standards. To avoid possible confusion with regard to street names, the north/south cul-de-sac named Essex Court shall be renamed. Prior to release of the final plat, all underlying drainage and utility easements and street right-of-way for Bently Court shall be vacated. PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication shall conform to the requirements of City Code and the Developer's Agreement. 1797 PAGE 2 OF 2 RIDGEWOOD WEST 6TH ADDITION JULY 13, 1989 (RESOLUTION NO. 89-159) BONDING: Bonding for municipal utilities and streets must be provi d e d p r i o r to release of the final plat and conform to City C o d e a n d t h e Developer's Agreement requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Ridgewood Wes t 6 t h Addition subject to the requirements of this report, th e D e v e l o p e r ' s Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $712.00. 2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $1,404.00 . 3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $920.00. 4. Completion of vacation process for all underlying dra i n a g e a n d utility easements and street wight-of-way for Bently Cour t . 5. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. 6. Revision of street name. JJ:ssa cc: Centex Homes Westwood Engineering Oa % CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-153 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF HIDDEN GLEN 4TH ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of HIDDEN GLEN 4TH ADDITION has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for HIDDEN GLEN 4TH ADDITION is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated JULY 6, 1989. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on JULY 18, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk 1'09 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician DATE: July 6, 1989 SUBJECT: HIDDEN GLEN 4TH ADDITION PROPOSAL: The Developer's, Frontier _Midwest Homes, Corporation, have requested City Council approval of the final plat of Hidden Glen 4th Addition. Located south and east of State Highway No. 101 and west of Dell Road, the plat contains 7 acres to be divided into 26 single family lots. This proposal is a replat of Lots 12 through 22, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 9, Block 2, of Hidden Glen 3rd Addition. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council March 21, 1989, per Resolution No. 89-59. Second reading of Ordinance No. 10-89, Zoning District rezoning from RM- 6.5 to PUD-10-89-R1-9.5, is scheduled for final approval July 11, 1989. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution July 11, 1989. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, streets and walkways are currently in place and available to serve this project. This area was originally intended for double homesites and two sewer and water services were provided for each lot. Each unused sewer and water service must be properly abandoned according to City Specifications. PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication shall conform to the requirements of City Code and the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: Bonding for proposed utility and street work must be provided prior to release of the final plat and conform to City Code and the Developer's Agreement requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Hidden Glen 4th Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following; 1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $1,000.00. JJ:ssa CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-160 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer through RCM, Inc. has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 52-171 (Country Glen Street & Utility 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 3 weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be received until 10:00 A.M., August 10, 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, August 15, 1989 at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600 Executive Road, Eden Prairie. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 18, 1989. Gary D.Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk o 31 CHANCE ORDER 01 I.C. 52-147 COUNTY ROAD 1 4 — Street and Utility Improvements TO: City of Eden Prairie Changes made for work performed in this contract: NATURE OF CHANGES: 1. Tie into existing water main at sta. 18+61 2. Tie into existing water main at sta. 11+98 3. Raise fire hydrants due to water main lowering 4. Remove tree at cemetery 5. Relocate release MN after Contractor had pipe in place 6. Change ARM to allow outside vent pipes 7. Install CMF under cemetery road 8. Raise fire hydrants due to water main lowering ADJUSTMENTS TO CONTRACT COSTS: 1. Add labor costs $ 1550.00 2. Add labor costs 1627.00 3. Add labor & parts costs 2411.00 4. Add labor costs 300.00 5. Add labor costs 894.00 6. Add labor costs 673.00 7. Add labor costs 583.55 8. Add labor E. parts costs 1126.00 Total Additions $ S164.55 THE ABOVE CHANGES ARE APPROVED Engineer City of Eden Prairie BY 72-----e/AlaV4.171-% Date By Date gIL RESOLUTION NO. 89-162 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA TO ISSUE NOT TO EXCEED $12,600,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (FOUNTAIN PLACE APARTMENTS-- PHASE II) SERIES 1989A AND SERIES 19898, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO REFUND THE ISSUER'S MULTIFAMILY REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS (FOUNTAIN PLACE APARTMENTS PROJECT—PHASE II) SERIES 1988, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH WILL PROVIDE PERMANENT FINANCING FOR A PROJECT CONSISTING OF 158 UNITS OF RENTAL HOUSING, INCLUDING REAL ESTATE, BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, IMPROVEMENTS, FIXTURES, MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUER TO ENTER INTO A TRUST INDENTURE, LOAN AGREEMENT, AMENDMENT TO REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT; AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUER TO TAKE SUCH FURTHER ACTION AS IS NECESSARY OR REQUIRED WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS. WHEREAS, The City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "Issuer") proposes to issue its Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Fountain Place Apartments--Phase II) Series 1989A and Series 1989B, in a principal amount not to exceed $12,600,000 (the "Bonds"), for the purpose of refunding a like principal amount of its Multifamily Refunding Revenue Bonds (Fountain Place Apartments Project--Phase II) Series 1988 (the "Refunded Bonds") which were issued to refund the outstanding principal amount of the Issuer's Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Fountain Place Apartments Project) Series 1985 (the "Original Bonds") which had been issued to finance the costs of the acquisition, construction and equipping of the multifamily housing development located within the jurisdiction of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (such development and any additions thereto hereafter approved by the Issuer, the "Project"), all in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the Act requires adoption of a program after a public hearing has been held following publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation at least 15 days in advance of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 1985, in accordance with the requirements of the Act and TEFRA, the Issuer held a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a program (the "Program") which provided for issuance of the Original Bonds following 5555f the publication of notice duly published in a newspaper of general circulation in the jurisdictional boundaries of the Issuer, and at said meeting all members of the public desir- ing to express their views on said issuance were given such an opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Issuer, in connection with the issuance of the Original Bonds, adopted a Housing Plan pursuant to and in conformity with the Act following a public hearing thereon after one publication of notice in a newspaper circulating generally in the Issuer; and WHEREAS, in connection with the issuance of the Original Bonds, the Issuer adopted the Program by the passage of Resolution No. 85-267; and WHEREAS, the Program was submitted to the Metropolitan Council, and the Metropolitan Council was afforded an oppor- tunity to present comments at the public hearing, all as required by the Act; and WHEREAS, the Program was submitted to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (the "Agency"); and WHEREAS, on the date hereof, in accordance with the requirements of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the Issuer has held a public hearing, after the publication of notice at least 14 days prior to the date hereof, of the proposed issuance of the Bonds in a newspaper of general circulation, and at said hearing all members of the public desiring to express their views on the issuance of the Bonds were given such an opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Issuer finds and determines that in fur- therance of the purposes and pursuant to the provisions of the Act, it is necessary and advisable and in the best inter- est of the Issuer to proceed with the issuance of the Bonds to refund the Refunded Bonds and to apply the remaining proceeds of the Original Bonds in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement (as hereinafter defined); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the Issuer further finds and determines that it is necessary and desirable that the Issuer enter into (i) a Trust Indenture (the "Indenture") with First Trust National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota (the "Trustee"), for the purpose of issuing the Bonds to refund the Refunded Bonds and securing the Bonds as herein- after provided, (ii) a Loan Agreement (the "Agreement") with Fountain Place II Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Developer"), under which the loan to the -2 - 5555f Developer will be funded upon satisfaction of certain condi- tions set forth therein, (iii) an Amendment to Regulatory Agreement dated as of July 1, 1989 among the Developer, the Trustee and the Issuer (the "Amendment to Regulatory Agreement") and (iv) a Bond Purchase Contract (the "Bond Purchase Contract") with Dain Bosworth Incorporated and Downing & Company Inc. (the "Underwriters") pursuant to which the Bonds will be purchased by the Underwriters; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The Issuer has heretofore deter- mined, and does hereby determine, as follows: A. The Issuer is authorized and empowered by the Act to issue its revenue bonds for the purposes of refunding its revenue bonds which were issued to finance a housing program for the financing of a multifamily housing development. B. The Project constitutes and will constitute a "multifamily housing development" within the meaning of the Act. C. That the preservation of the quality of life in the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota is dependent upon the maintenance, provision and preservation of an adequate housing stock which is affordable to persons and families of low or moderate income, that accomplish- ing this is a public purpose and that many would-be providers of housing units in the City of Eden Prairie are either unable to afford mortgage credit at present market rates of interest or are unable to obtain mort- gage credit because the mortgage credit market is severely restricted. D. That it is in the best interest of the Issuer that it issue the Bonds to refund the remaining portion of the Refunded Bonds and use the proceeds of the Origi- nal Bonds to make a mortgage loan (the "Mortgage Loan") to the Developer pursuant to the Program (as may from time to time be amended in accordance with law) in order to provide affordable housing to persons and families of low and moderate income. Section 2. Authorization of and Security for the Bonds. The Issuer is hereby authorized to issue the Bonds for the purpose of refunding a portion of the Refunded Bonds and using a portion of the proceeds of the Original Bonds to -3- 5555f '7 provide permaneLt financing, upon satisfaction of certain conditions, to the Developer to pay the cost of purchase and construction of 158 units comprising a portion of the Project, in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $12,600,000. The Bonds shall bear such dates, shall be in such denominations, shall be in such forms and shall be issued in such manner subject to such provisions, covenants and agreements, as are set forth in the Indenture. Each series of the Bonds shall bear interest at such rate as shall be provided for in the Indenture and shall mature on July 15, 2019. The Bonds shall be payable solely out of the Trust Estate provided in the Indenture, and such Trust Estate shall be pledged and assigned to the Trustee as security for the payment of the Bonds as provided in the Indenture. Section 3. Authorization of the Indenture. The Issuer is hereby authorized to enter into the Indenture under which the Issuer shall pledge and assign its interest in the Trust Estate to the Trustee for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds upon the terms and conditions as set forth in said form of Indenture in substantially the form submitted to and reviewed by the City Council on the date hereof, with such changes therein as shall be approved or required by the representatives of the Issuer executing the Indenture, such representatives' signatures thereon being conclusive evidence of their approval thereof. Section 4. Authorization of the Agreement. The Issuer is hereby authorized to enter into the Agreement under which the loan to the Developer will be funded in substantially the form submitted to and reviewed by the City Council on the date hereof, with such changes therein as shall be approved or required by the representatives of the Issuer executing the Agreement, such representatives' signatures thereon being conclusive evidence of their approval thereof. Section 5. Authorization of Amendment To Reoulatorv Acreement. The Issuer is hereby authorized to enter into the amendment to Regulatory Agreement executed by the Issuer in connection with the issuance of the Refunded Bonds under which the Developer agrees to comply with certain require- ments of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, in substantially the form submitted to and reviewed by the City Council on the date hereof, with such changes therein as shall be approved or required by the representaives of the Issur executing the Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, such representatives' signatures thereon being conclusive evidence of their approval thereof. -4- 55551 Section 6. Authorization of BOLIC_Eurchase Contract. The Issuer is hereby authorized to enter into the Bond Pur- chase Contract under which the Issuer shall sell the Bonds to the underwriters upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract in substantially the form sub- mitted to and reviewed by the City Council on the date hereof at a purchase price equal to not less than ninety-five per- cent (95%) of the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds with such changes therein as shall be approved or required by the representatives of the Issuer executing the Bond Purchase Contract, such representatives signatures thereon being conclusive evidence of their approval thereof. The foregoing approval of the authorized Issuer representative shall be conclusively evidenced by such officers' execution of the Bond Purchase Contract. Section 7. Authorization of Use of Certain Information in Official Statement. The Underwriters are authorized to use the information relating to the Issuer in the Official Statement in connection with the offering and sale of the Bonds. Section 8. Execution of the Bonds and Documents. The Mayor and City Manager of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bonds and to deliver the Bonds to the Trustee for authentication for and on behalf of and as the act and deed of the Issuer in the manner provided in the Indenture. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver, and the City Manager is hereby author- ized and directed to attest, the Indenture, the Agreement, the Bond Purchase Contract and the Amendment to Regulatory Agreement for and on behalf of and as the act and deed of the Issuer. Section 9. Further Authority. The Issuer shall, and the officers and agents of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to, take such action, expend such funds and execute such other documents, certificates and instruments as may be necessary or desirable to carry out and comply with the intent of this Resolution and to carry out, comply with and perform the duties of the Issuer with respect to the Bonds, the Indenture, the Agreement, the Bond Purchase Con- tract, and the Amendment to Regulatory Agreement. In the event of the inability or unavailability of any official of the Issuer to perform any duty assigned to such official by the terms of this Resolution, any officer or employee of the Issuer authorized to act for such official is hereby author- ized and directed to do so. -5- 5555f r ORDINANCE NO. 21-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 3.05. SUBD. 8. B. RELATING TO LIENS FOR MUNICIPAL UTILITY CHARGES AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1, EXCEPT SECTION 1.03 THEREOF. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 3.05 Subd. 8. B. is amended to read as follows: B. Each such charge is hereby made a lien upon the premises served. If a charge in excess of $40.00 is past due for more than thirty (30) days on September 30 of any year, or any other date determined by the City Clerk-Treasurer, the total amount past due shall be certified by the City Clerk-Treasurer to the County Auditor prior to the October 25 occurring thereafter and the City Clerk-Treasurer in certifying such charges to the County Auditor shall specify the amount thereof and the description of the premises served. The amount so certified shall be extended by the Auditor on the tax rolls against such premises in the same manner as other taxes, and collected by the County Treasurer, and paid to the City along with other taxes. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" except Section 1.03 thereof is hereby adopted by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on this 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. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the , 1989. day of ; '? RESOLUTION NO. 89-163 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS TO REFINANCE A PROJECT (LAXEVIEW BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Council has received a proposal from Gerald A. Portnoy (the "Company") that the City undertake to refinance a certain Project as herein described, and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165 (the "Act"), through issuance by the City of its $2,700,000 Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1989 (Lakeview Business Center Project) (the "Bonds"), and in accordance with a Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") between the City, the Company, and Allison-Williams Company (the "Bond Purchaser"). 2. It is proposed that, pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated as of July 1, 1989, between the City and the Company (the "Loan Agreement"), the City loan the proceeds of the Bonds to the Company to partially redeem and refund the City's $2,750,000 Commercial Development Revenue Note of 1984 (Gerald A. Portnoy Project) dated October 24, 1984 (the "Prior Note") which was issued to partially finance the cost of the Company's office/showroom facility in the City (the "Project). The basic payments to be made by the Company under the Loan Agreement are fixed so as to produce revenue sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due. It is further proposed that the City assign its rights to the basic payments and certain other rights under the Loan Agreement to National City Bank of Minneapolis, in Minneapolis, Minnesota (the "Trustee") as security for payment of the Bonds under an Indenture of Trust datea as of July 1, 1989 (the "Indenture"). Payment of the Bonds is initially secured by an Irrevocable Letter of Credit to be issued by American National Bank and Trust Company, St. Paul, Minnesota in favor of the Trustee (the "Letter of Credit") in an amount equal to the principal amount of the Bonds plus 195 days' interest thereon. 3. Pursuant to the preliminary approval of the Council, forms of the following documents have been submitted to the Council for approval: (a) The Loan Agreement. (b) The Indenture. (c) The Letter of Credit. (d) The Purchase Agreement. (e) The Preliminary Official Statement used by the Purchaser to market the Bonds. 4. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) it is desirable that the Bonds be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture; (b) the basic payments under the Loan Agreement are fixed to produce revenue sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds issued under the Indenture when due, and the Loan Agreement and Indenture also provide that the Company is required to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project Premises and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement and Indenture; and (c) under the provisions of Minnesotz. Statutes, Section 469.155, and as provided in the Loan Agreement and Indenture, the Bonds are not to be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no holder of any Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise by the City of its taxing powers to pay any of the Bonds or the interest or premium thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall recite that the Bonds are issued without moral obligation on the part of the state or its political subdivisions, and that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof; and, the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. 5. Subject to the final approval of the City Attorney thP forms of the Loan Agreement, the Purchase Agreement and Indenture and exhibits thereto and all other documents described in paragraph 4 hereof are approved substantially in the form submitted. The Loan Agreement, Indenture and Purchase Agreement, in substantially the form submitted, are directed to be executed in r7c1) 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 and delivered by the appropriate City officers. Copies of all of the documents necessary to the transaction herein described shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided herein and in the Loan Agreement and Indenture. 6. The City has not prepared nor made any independent investigation of the information contained in the Preliminary or Final Official Statement used by the Bond Purchaser to sell the Bonds, other than the section therein captioned "Issuer," and the City takes no responsibility for any other information contained in the Official Statement. 7. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue its Bonds, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture. The offer of the Bond Purchaser to purchase the Bonds at par plus accrued interest to the date of delivery at the interest rate or rates specified in the Indenture is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to prepare and execute the Bonds as prescribed in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee for authentication and delivery to the Bond Purchaser. 8. The Mayor and City Manager 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, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. 9. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by the City Attorney and the City officials authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and said City officials are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the City. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In the absence of the Mayor or Manager, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed by the Acting Mayor or the City Manager, respectively. Passed: July 18, 1989 Attest Mayor City Clerk (SEAL) MF503 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-164 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer through HTPO has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 52-144 (Bluff Rd. Sanitary Sewer, Watermain and Street 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 3 weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be received until 10:00 A.M., August 10, 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, August 15, 1989 at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600 Executive Road, Eden Prairie. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 18, 1989. Gary D.Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk I ig 4 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #89-136 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EDENVALE CROSSINGS FOR MARCOR PROPERTIES, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Edenvale Crossings for Marcor Properties, Inc. dated July 14, 1989, consisting of 7.5 acres, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 1st day of July 18, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk I 4r CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-135 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EDENVALE CROSSINGS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT TO THE OVERALL EDENVALE 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 Edenvale Crossings development is considered a proper amendment to the overall Edenvale Planned Unit Development Concept; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the request of Marcor Properties, Inc. for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall . Edenvale Planned Unit Development Concept for the Edenvale Crossings development and ' recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on July 18, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Edenvale Crossings 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 Edenvale Planned Unit Development Concept as outlined in the application materials for Edenvale Crossings. 3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated June 26, 1989. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 18th day of July, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-134 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 Marcor Properties, Inc. for development of Edenvale Crossings for Community 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 21 acres located east of Mitchell Road, southeast of Martin Drive, Mitchell Road intersection be modified from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 18th day of July, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk /Ac-c 111-21 .,• PROPOSED SITE V*2.11-:-1. I 1I11-1 _T -7---7 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner Chris Enger, Director of Planning June 23, 1989 Edenvale Crossings East of Mitchell Road, north of McDonald's and Mexican Village Restaurants Marcor Properties 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial on 21 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 21 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 21 acres. 3. Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District on 7.5 acres. 4. Site Plan Review on 7.5 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into one lot. FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: REQUEST: Background This is a continued item from the June 12, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission recommended that the plans be returned to the proponent for revisions as identified in the June 9, 1989 Staff Report. AREA LOCATION MAP Edenvale Crossings 2 June 23, 1989 Site Plan Revisions 1. Modify the site plan according to the recommendations in the traffic study to improve access and internal circulation. The site plan has been revised according to recommendations in the July 9, 1989, traffic study. The June 22, 1989, memo from Benshoof and Associates indicates that the driveway entrance opposite Martin Drive could be 32 feet wide for one lane in and one land out. This would be a temporary access. When the property to the north develops, or Highway #212 is constructed, it will be necessary to construct a right turn lane and widen the driveway to 40 feet. 2. Modify the site plan to depict sidewalk connections from the trail on Mitchell Road to the buildings on site and indicate the location of an 8 foot wide trail between the bridge and trail along State Highway #5. The site plan has been revised to provide a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk connection along the south side of the property. The location of the 8 foot wide trail from the foot bridge to the trail along Highway #5 will be determined by the Parks and Recreation Staff and as recommended by the Parks Commission. Once that trail location is finalized, this project must provide a sidewalk connection to that trail from the east side of the building. 3. Modify the landscape plan . to screen parking areas from Mitchell Road and to provide a better transition to Purgatory Creek from the east. The landscape plan has been modified to provide better screening from Mitchell Road. However, the proof of parking area to the west of the future gas station would eliminate berming and plantings. It is recommended that the future parking area be relocated on the back side of the building. In this location there should be a berm constructed to the maximum height possible at a three to one slope and mass planted with conifer trees. The landscape plan has been revised to provide a substantial amount of lowland plantings along the east side of the building to provide a visual transition to Purgatory Creek. 4. Provide a more definitive sign plan depicting an architecturally defined area on all buildings with details depicting the size, style, and color of the lettering. Provide plans for the location of a pylon sign and details of the shape and height of this sign per City Code. A sign band area has been defined by building material on the office building and the strip center. The attached sign criteria indicates a consistant size for the letters and spacing of the sign areas between the individual tenants on the building. During the day all lettering will appear as a clear to white color, since the face of the individual letters will be a translucent acryllic base. Illumination would be by neon tubing. At night there would be different colors for each of the tenants. The sign criteria does not control the lettering style or colors. Staff would suggest limiting the lettering style and color to three types. I 4•C)' Edenvale Crossings 3 June 23, 1989 At this time the proponent does not have plans for a pylon sign advertising the center. One pylon sign is allowed per Code. If a pylon sign is constructed in the future, it should be to Code at a 20 foot height and 80 square feet of sign surface. Lettering and materials should be consistent with the center. 5. Modify the exterior building elevations for the retail strip center and the two-story office building to be in compliance with the City Code for 77 face brick and glass. The building elevations have been revised to meet City Code. 6. Submit samples of all exterior building materials for review. At this time the Staff has not received samples of the exterior building materials. Construction Phasing The Planning Commission requested that the developer prepare a construction phasing plan to provide access to the Greenstreet restaurant and Kindercare during the reconstruction of the entrance to Mitchell Road. This has not been completed at this time. Staff Recommendations The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood to Commercial to Community Commercial on 21 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review on 21 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District on 7.5 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into one lot, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 23 and June 9, 1989 based on revised plans dated June 21, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to review by the City Council proponent shall: a. Modify the sign plan to limit the number of lettering styles and colors to three types. b. Provide a phasing construction plan to provide access to Greenstreet's and Kindercare when the main entrance of Mitchell Road is reconstructed. C . Revise the landscape plan to provide a berm and conifer trees west of the future gas station. d. Submit samples of all exterior building materials for review. 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. trI5) Edenvale Crossings 4 June 23, 1989 3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: a. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. b. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. c. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshal. d. Provide samples of exterior materials for review. e. Provide the final sign plan with details for review. f. Provide the final lighting plan with details for review. 4. Concurrent with site construction, construct the 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk connections between the trail on Mitchell Road and buildings on this site and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk connection between the buildings and and 8 foot wide trail along Purgatory Creek. Construct an 8 foot wide bituminous trail connection between the bridge and the existing trail along State Highway #5 per recommendations of the Parks Commission. 5. The 1975 Edenvale Recreational PUD is amended to include the Edenvale Crossings proposal, a future office site east of the Mexican Village restaurant, and two sites to the north of Edenvale Crossings for convenience store/gas station and a fast food restaurant. 5. Prior to building permit issuance for any of the future PUD land uses including the convenience/gas, and fast food on the north parcel and the office use east of Mexican Village will require a review by the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with City Codes and the Site Plan Review Ordinance. 7. Concept approval is granted for the proposed gas station on the Edenvale Crossings site. Prior to building permit issuance for this future gas station proponent will be required to submit plans of the building architecture and the canopy for review by the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with City Codes and the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The design for the gas station should reflect the same architecture, roof pitch, and materials as the office building and retail building. The canopy for the gas station should utilize brick columns and the exterior face be either wood or shingles. Signs are to be consistent with the office and retail signs. 8. Dedicate the area depicted as a drainage utility conservancy easement on the Preliminary Plat to the City free and clear of all liens and incumberances, and mortgages. 9. Approval of this project is subject to all recommendations of the Benshoof Traffic Report. 10. When the future land uses to the north of Edenvale Crossings are ready to develop, it will be required that a right turn lane be installed. This will require the reconstruction of the driveway, including concrete curb and gutter. 1'75/ STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner Chris Enger, Director of Planning June 9, 1989 Edenvale Crossings East of Mitchell Road, north of McDonald's and Mexican Village , Restaurants Marcor Properties 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial on 21 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 21 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 21 acres. 3. Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial zoning district on 7.5 acres. 4. Site Plan Review on 7.5 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into 1 lot. ‘49A-N I C -651 TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: REQUEST: Background This site is currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. This site is currently zoned Community Commer- cial according to the 1975 Edenvale Family Recreational Center Planned Unit Development (Pun) (See Attach- ment A). Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment The 1968 Guide Plan identified the entire 21-acre Edenvale Recreational PUD site as Highway Service Commercial. The 1982 Guide Plan Update redesignated this site to Neighborhood Commercial. This 21- acre area should be designated AREA LOCATION MAP, Edenvale Crossings 2 June 9, 1989 Community Commercial for the following reasons: (1) existing and proposed uses would be in excess of 50,000 square feet; (2) the site is adjacent to the intersection of Highway #5 and Mitchell Road; (3) the proposed uses for the Edenvale Crossings strip retail center and existing office and restaurant uses serves a much a larger area than Neighborhood Commercial; and, (4) surrounding land uses are industrial and open space. Planned Unit Development Amendment The 1975 Edenvale Family Recreation Center PUD included a racquet club, skating rink, bowling alley, movie theatres, and restaurant. Between 1977 and 1981, the property adjacent to Highway #5 was amended to accommodate the present uses including McDonald's, Mexican Village, Green Streets, Kindercare, and Pheasant Run Office Building. The PUD is being amended to provide a 23,000 square foot strip retail building, 10,000 square foot, 2-story office building, a 1,500 square foot gas station, and three sites for a fast food restaurant, convenience gas, and office. The change in use in the PUD is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. Some of the uses initially contemplated in the 1975 POD are now being provided elsewhere in the community. In the last 5 years, 2 athletic clubs have been constructed and existing movie theatres in the Eden Prairie Center expanded. Baker's Square, Ciatti's, and Applebee's restaurants have also been added to the community. 2. The construction of Highway #212 will remove the McDonald's Restaurant, Green Streets Restaurant, and the Pheasant Run Office Building. The amendment to the POD to add office and restaurant provides the opportunity for uses displaced by #212 construction to be relocated in the same area. 3. The amount of convenience retail within 1-1/2 miles of the site is limited to 10,000 square feet at the PDQ. Site Plan The site plan depicts the construction of 34,900 total square feet of building on 7.5 acres. Building A is a 23,400 square foot strip retail center; Building B is a 2-story, 10,000 square foot office building; and, Building C is a 1,500 square foot gas/convenience store. The gas station/convenience store would be comparable to the Amoco gas stations in Eden Prairie which have limited retail goods. This site is being developed at 0.11 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Community Commercial zoning districts would allow up to a 0.20 FAR. The FAR is low since approximately 2 acres of this site is a recreational easement to the City. The building and parking areas meet the minimum setback requirements of the Community Commercial zoning district. Total parking required for this project would be 199 parking spaces. The site plan should be amended to add an additional 3 parking spaces. The site plan depicts 2 property lines. One is an existing property line adjacent to Mitchell Road; the second property line is shown to allow for the upgrading of Mitchell Road when #212 is built. Approximately 0.6 acres of land will be taken for Edenvale Crossings 3 June 9, 1989 freeway development by the State Highway Department. Access and Circulation There are short-term and long-term access and circulation plans to serve this project. Before #212 is constructed, access will be provided to this area as depicted on Sheet Al entitled "Site Plan". The plan shows how access will be provided to link 3 development areas together including the McDonald's, Mexican Village, and Green Streets Restaurant area to the south, the Edenvale Crossings project in the middle, and future development to the north. The "s" curve entrance by McDonald's will be changed and parking relocated to a different area on the Mexican Village site. The main access into the Edenvale Crossings project will be opposite Martin Drive. A 32-foot wide protected lane is the main access corridor connecting all 3 areas. When #212 is constructed, the access into this area will change since there will be no direct access from #212. The main access to Mexican Village, Kindercare, and the future office building to the south of Edenvale Crossings will be the protected 32- foot wide protected lane. Traffic The City commissioned Benshoof and Associates to conduct a traffic study for the proposed project. The traffic study indicates that the amount of traffic to be generated from this project would be less than the approved PUD and would not affect the level of service at the intersection of Mitchell Road and Highway #5. The intersection currently operates at Level of Service D which is the design level standard for intersections. The traffic study does, however, indicate a number of site plan changes to improve access and internal circulation. This is noted on Figure #1 of the traffic study. Architecture Architectural plans have been provided for the office building and the strip retail building. The buildings are residential in character with a pitched roof. The building elevations depict the use of brick, glass, and wood, as the primary building materials. Although the plans do not specifically indicate the percentage of brick and glass required per Code, it is estimated that the project is approximately 50% brick and glass and 50% wood. The plans should be revised to meet the City Code requirement for 75% facebrick and glass. Architectural plans for the gas station are not available at this time. Staff is concerned about architectural continuity within the project. There needs to be a strong architectural and material tie to the commercial buildings. The future design of the gas station should reflect the same architecture, roof pitch, and exterior materials. The canopy for the gas station should utilize brick columns and the exterior of the canopy to be constructed of either wood or shingles. Since the architectural plans are not available, the plans will have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at a later date prior to the issuance of the building permit in accordance with the provisions of the site plan ordinance. The canopy proposed across the front of the building should be a minimum of 8 feet in width and extended across the full length of the building where shown on Attachment B. This would be consistent with canopies on other shopping centers of a Edenvale Crossings 4 June 9, 1989 comparable size. Grading The site had been previously graded in accordance with the approved 1975 PUD plan. The site, as it exists today, is relatively level with some lowland vegetation, mostly scattered poplar. Minor grading work will be done to bring the project to final grade for the building pads and parking. Shoreland Ordinance This site is adjacent to Purgatory Creek and provisions of the Shorel and Management apply to relative to General Development Waters. The project meets the requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance. Purgatory Creek Master Plan This project is in the Conservancy and Transitional areas of the Purgatory Creek Master Plan. The building and parking areas are in the Transitional zone. The Conservancy zone is the drainage utility easement on the plat. This area was previously designated as a permanent open space easement to the City as part of the approval of the original industrial zoning of the site prior to the 1975 Edenvale PUD. The developer's agreement for the Edenvale Recreational Center requires that this conservancy easement be dedicated to the City. Landscaping The amount of landscaping required for this project is based upon a caliper inch requirement based upon building square footage, screening of parking areas, and transition to Purgatory Creek. The plan meets the minimum caliper inch requirement. The plan does not screen parking from Mitchell Road. The parking area sits approximately 10 feet lower than Mitchell Road. The proposed landscape plan shows limited use of overstory trees and conifers which will improve the esthetics of the project; however, none of the plants listed will provide screening of the parking as required in the ordinance. Because of the change in grade adjacent to Mitchell Road, it is not possible to construct a berm to screen the parking. Therefore, screening must rely exclusively on the use of plant materials. Attachment B indicates where additional conifers and mass shrub plantings should be located to screen the parking areas. Since this project encroaches on the Conservancy zone and occurs entirely within the Transition zone of Purgatory Creek, there should be extensive natural plantings on the east side of the building to mitigate the adverse visual impact of the project on the Purgatory Creek corridor. This was a requirement of the 1975 developer's agreement for the Edenvale Recreational Center. The amount of proposed landscaping is not adequate enough to mitigate the adverse visual impacts to the creek corridor and it is recommended that additional lowland mass plantings and overstory trees be added where shown on Attachment B. Sunburst Honey Locust proposed for the parking lot area in front of the building do not survive well in non-protected locations. It is recommended that these plants be reduced in number. The red pine proposed adjacent to Mitchell Road are not salt tolerant and is recommended that another type of conifer be substituted. !";),' Edenvale Crossings 5 June 9, 1939 Signs A schematic plan for the location of wall signs has been submitted. Wall signs are proposed across the front of the building for tenant identification. Considering that between 8 to 12 tenants may occupy the building, for a project of this size, a wall covered with unregulated signs in terms of quantity, size, location, color, and lighting, would not be visually attractive and would contribute to "sign clutter". Controlled signs can be accomplished by limiting the sign area to an architecturally defined band. The architectural band could be defined by texture, color, or a recessed sign area. Examples of architecturally controlled sign bands would be Shady Oak Center and Lunds Center. Keeping the signs to this architectural area, designed as part of the overall building appearance should provide for a visually attractive and uncluttered look. This approach is applicable for the 2-story office building and the gas station. All wall signs on the strip center, office building, and gas station should be individual backlighted letters of a consistent size with limited styles and colors. The plan does not depict pylon sign locations. One pylon sign is permitted per Code for this project. Pylon signs must be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the property line. The signs can be constructed to a maximum height of 20 feet and 80 square feet in sign surface. Prior to review by the City Council, the proponent must submit a more defined sign program with an architecturally defined sign band depicting the lettering size, style, and color. The plan must also include the location of the pylon sign and construction details. Lighting A lighting plan has been submitted which is a combination of decorative lighting on 12-foot poles and normal downcast parking lot lighting on 18-foot poles. The location of lighting and type of lighting standards is acceptable. Utilities Sewer and water service are adjacent to this site. Storm water run-off is proposed to drain through a series of catch basins and storm sewer pipe systems into an existing sedimentation pond before discharge into Purgatory Creek. Sidewalks/Trails There is an existing 8-foot bituminous trail along the east side of Mitchell Road. There should be connections between this trail and the buildings on-site. As part of the overall trail system, an 8-foot wide bituminous trail should be constructed between the bridge and the trail along Highway #5. Locations for trails and sidewalks are shown on Attachment B. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial, PUD Concept Amendment, Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning District Amendment within the existing Community Commercial zoning district, Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into 1 lot, based on plans dated Edenvale Crossings 6 June 9, 1989 May 24, 1989, subject to the recommendations in the Staff Report dated June 9,1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Modify the site plan according to recommendations in the traffic Study to improve access and internal circulation. B. Modify the site plan to depict 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk connections from the trail on Mitchell Road to the buildings on-site where shown on Attachment B. Indicate the location of the 8-foot wide trail between the bridge and trail along State Highway #5. C. Modify the landscape plan according to Attachment B to screen parking areas to Code from Mitchell Road and to provide a better transition to Purgatory Creek to the east. D. Provide a more definitive sign plan depicting an architecturally defined area on all buildings with details depicting the size, style, and color of the lettering. Provide plans for the location of a pylon sign and details of the shape and height of sign per City Code. E. Modify the exterior building elevations for the retail strip center and the 2-story office building to be in compliance with City Code for 75% facebrick and glass. F. Submit samples of all exterior building materials for review. 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. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. C. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshall. D. Provide samples of all exterior building materials for review. E. Provide the final sign plan with details for review. F. Provide the final lighting plan with details for review. 4. Concurrent with site construction, construct the 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk connections between the trail on Mitchell Road and buildings on- Edenvale Crossings 7 June 9, 1989 site and the 8-foot wide trail connection betwee n t h e b r i d g e a n d t h e existing trail along State Highway #5. 5. The 1975 Edenvale Recreational PUD is amended to i n c l u d e t h e E d e n v a l e Crossings proposal, a future office site east of t h e M e x i c a n V i l l a g e Restaurant, and 2 sites to the north of Edenvale Crossi n g s f o r a c o n v e n i e n c e store/gas station, and a fast-food restaurant. 6. Prior to building permit issuance for any of the fu t u r e u s e s ( i n c l u d i n g convenience gas and fast food on the north parcel and o f f i c e e a s t o f M e x i c a n Village) will require review by the Planning Commissi o n a n d C i t y C o u n c i l i n accordance with City Codes and the Site Plan Review Ord i n a n c e . 7. Dedicate the area depicted as the drainage/utility cons e r v a n c y e a s e m e n t o n the plat to the City free and clear of all liens, e n c u m b r a n c e s , a n d mortgages. 8. Approval is subject to the recommendations of the B e n s h o o f T r a f f i c r e p o r t . If the Planning Commission is uncomfortable with th e p l a n s a s p r o p o s e d , i t w o u l d b e appropriate to return the plans to the proponent for r e v i s i o n s . 1,75s : c I! n -5g4n1,P- - , 4:-Parirn -7T f 517 • Innin:•n=.1 development plan II -2 ) . •• I . ' . • .. Mo.•••••• Vito aro• 0 ••••.n • Mr:X. r,. n-• 070E7 11,1be- to_2Auli ! -1k am - - r0- oil It - *5) Fit-fra 7.717.71:192irj 9?-12V HVU.14LLUILL dr•nnn family recreation center • ...... • • •• • •••••, eddnvale • Attachment - A (10004,111# RESTAURANT 19i9 7711 Michtell Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • (612) 937-2233 May 31, 1989 Chris Enger City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Edenvale Crossings Private Drive Road Reconfiguration Dear Chris: We have had opportunity to review the plans that are attached and are in agreement with the use of our land for the reconfiguration of the private drive serving as access to Edenvale Crossings' Mexican Village, McDonald's, Green Streets, day care and Pheasant Run. This would include the reconfiguration of the driveway immediately to the north of our building so that it lined up with the driveway throat to Edenvale Crossings. We authorize this work provided that it shall be at no cost to us and that it shall be done in a timely and efficient manner so as not to impede our business. We look forward to the Edenvale Crossings Development as a complement to our neighborhood and are enthusiastic about your approval of this project. Sincerely, Brian Tally, Oesident Mexican Village crc088 CC: Jim Winkels Marcor Development 5775 Wayzata Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Whitney Peyton Coldwell Banker 7760 France Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55435 1'7 it,C, EDEN LAND SALES, INC. 14875 Martin Drive • Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 • (612)937-8300 Planoin -4 Dartmaat City Ct Fraizie Eze ,,_utive Drivc Edon Prairte, Mn. 553.4 Attention: Micheal Franzen Suhe 1;r3g f3entlemen As you kn)w, T attendeci the planhin.4 comaission mcetial; that considered ths, devisp:r,ont plans for the :dery i1. praperty north ef State Highway 5 ac i erit of N5,tcni1l road. Unfortunotoiy, provirus aornittmeut cut of town keeps re from stSen,Lns tht: second meetiri; seheouled tcr projuct. I .;oulel like to clLa-ify a coupia af issue in tiie p:-coty co d v U3 th a t i3 the suoject of ide FUD applicatiev. Ao ta have reql.estea PUD approval for a 0 fcr e senvelence ford resteuzi:rt, anticipating that the ul.timatai de ,Jelopant of the Mitahell Road-Highway 5 intensso•Lion 0.1; re.,00ye the •0istin4 McL,:na:.d .s. We prepooe re::cving approxirately I acre for this si e. On the ill 00(0 ef the sits, we a:e fecuesticg PUD ar.p.roval for a convenience i;roeery :iith e.11 In that the site it approximatcly 2 lore: in siae deelcpLent may include additioni'. retnii, muca 11!“:2 the exj.ot.i7 ,0 FDC , store tenter. We have had preldminay Ci•,:curisians with users for tha site, and as you knoa, some of toe usero in this narhet include a lare,sq- store that includes sot te doll itms as well so groceries. The marketplace will influence the ulCimate zonfigeration and U:,;e3. w As to cur souther '.y site, Sc are requestin,.7 PUD -apprcval for oFfire use. The road pattern that will coanact the site with the site inmediatei.y to the north should remain flexibla so that the beot traffir pattern for ourselves, Nexican Village restaurant and the day care centar can be accemmdated in the future. In addition, iO is important that *he roadwal , aattern does not unnecessarily divide the to mai Log the ultimate development impractical. We support the site plan aad uses defined by Marcor on the property as sh•wn on the documents of Desirn raitnertship. !'",7 /11.1110maaNsell. Kinder Care Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc. • 2198 Gladstone Ct • Save J • Glendale Hetghts.1111noss 60139 • (312) 351-5803 June 7, 1989 Mr. Chris Enger CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: EDENVALE CROSSING Dear Mr. Enger: VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AIRBILL #3704407350 Pursuant to a notice sent to me by Mr. Whitney Peyton of Coldwell Banker, I was supplied a copy of the proposed site plan and have reviewed same, as well as discussed the project with Mr. Peyton. My main concern, as expressed to Mr. Peyton, is in the proposed schedule of construction of the improved roads. Should the access to our site be disturbed during the business hours, between 6:30 AM and 6:00 PM, this could have a dramatic impact on our facility's ability to operate, and could prove a safety hazard to the parents and children who utilize our facility daily. It is for this reason that I must request from the board the reconstruction of the access drive onto Mitchell Road be limited to non-operating hours, with all work stopped before our opening, and peak times in the morning. Please ensure, as well, that the Developer takes adequate safety measures; marking the construction zone and having people available, if required, to direct the traffic into our, McDonald's and Mexican Villages, parking facility so to avoid a possible accident and/or injury to any citizen. With these concerns, Kinder-Care has no objections to the proposed development at this time. Should you have any questions or require further information, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, KINDER-CARE LEARNING CENTERS, INC. Dan Winkle Division Construction Manager DW:da For the Pre -school time of their lives" cc: Whitney Peyton )2:e;•-- ColdweilBanxer CommemalReaiEstMeServiir ( . 7 7W f ram, Ayewe ',AA!lIC 770 Mwnedwy, Maw , ,5435-5282 ( Nr111111731211 RECEIVED JUN 5 1989 And May 31, 1989 Dan Winkle Kinder-Care Learning Center 2198 Gladstone Court, Suite J Glendale Heights, IL 60139 RE: Edenvale Crossings Eden Prairie, MN Dear Dan: Enclosed please find a copy of the plans submitted to the City for the Edenvale Crossings Development neighboring your property. As you will note, the road system as it is planned offers access to both Martin Drive and a newly configured access to Mitchell Road. Marcor Properties will be moving forward for approval on this process at the June 12th Planning Commission meeting with subsequent hearings by the Council. We look forward to your support and approval. Please feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, 676(69 - 5-m) - MAR-00 ,2, S -7 -7 5— uj4,1 2444 glats. ST. P &A. k_ 4;Y V E,1EA P44-feL2. vdtTao 5-6'344 0(4;2) hie EPeyton Sales Consultant 924-4633 crc093 Enclosure BENSHO(OF & ASSOCIATE, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CI 011D DRIVE SUITE 119/ EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 / (612) 944-7590/ FAX (612) 944-9322 REFER 10 FILE June 22, 1989 89-34-08 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Franzen, City of Eden Prairie FROM: Mitch Wonson fza9 RE: Addendum to Traffic Analysis of Proposed Eden Vale Crossings The purpose of this memorandum is to offer comments on the revised site plan for Eden Vale Crossings dated 6/9/89. The revised plan has Incorporated the suggested refinements/ revisions presented on Figure 1 of our memorandum of June 7, 1989. The current plan does indicate, however, a change from the previous plan regz,rding the design of the Martin Drive access point. The design shown on the 6/9/89 site plan is not acceptable in part due to lane widths and the relationship of the roadway curve to the right turn lane taper. There are two viable options for construction of the Martin Drive access at this time. The first, and preferred option, is construction of the access drive as shown on the previously reviewed plan. This design entails a straight 40-foot drive (one lane in/two lanes out) generally "centered" on the common lot line between this site and the property to the north. This layout is preferred for various reasons Including engineering criteria and consistency with the ultimate design/construction of this access drive. This design will be required when either T.H. 212/Mitchell Rd. is constructed or the property to the north is developed. Option two Is an interim option only and could be located principally on the Eden Vale Crossings site. The design would consist of construction of a 32-foot wide drive (one lane in/one lane out), with an approximate 135-foot center line radius on the curved portion. It is expected that this design would operate effectively until T.H. 212 construction or development of the property to the north. It should be noted that if this Interim solution is chosen, the permanent construction will include not only additional pavement/curb construction north of the interim roadway, but also removal of pavement/curb on the south side of the Interim access drive. BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119 / EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 / (612)944.7590 / FAX (612) 944-9322 June 7, 1989 REFER TO FILE 89-34-08 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Franzen, City of Eden Prairie FROM: Mitch Wonson RE: Traffic Analysis of Proposed Eden Vale Crossings PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this memorandum is to document the analyses and findings of our traffic study concerning the proposed Eden Vale Crossings commercial development. The project is to consist of a 23,400 sq. ft. retail strip center, a 10,000 sq. ft. office, and a gas/convenience service facility of approximately 1,000 sq. ft. The site is located northeast of the intersection of TH 5 and Mitchell Road (CSAH 60) on part of the recreational center component previously approved with the Eden Vale PUD. Our analysis focused on three principal Issues: . a comparison of the trip generation characteristics of the previously approved recreation center with those of the current and proposed development of the site • Impacts of the Eden Vale Crossings development on traffic operations at the intersection of TH 5/ Mitchell Road prior to TH 212 construction • assistance in developing a site access and circulation plan which would operate effectively both prior to and upon completion of TH 212 improvements A variety of work tasks have been performed since February 1989 when we became involved in this project. These tasks have included: . preparation of PM peak period traffic counts on Mitchell Road between Martin Drive and TH 5 and at developments representative of land uses analyzed . meetings with City staff and the project development team to resolve site development issues . meetings with MnDOT District 5 staff to gain concurrence with proposed improvements • development of alternative access concepts for both the interim and post TH 212 scenarios . preparation and analysis of traffic forecasts for alternative access concepts 'VP Mr. Michael Franzen -2- June 7, 1989 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON The approved Eden Vale PUD (1975) contained a family recreation center on this site, as well as on the vacant property to the north and the developed area to the south. The area has developed in a manner different from originally Intended and the Eden Vale Crossings proposal will continue this trend. To assist in analyzing general impacts on the roadway system of these land use changes, trip generation characteristics of the alternative development scenarios were calculated. Table 1 presents the various development statistics utilized In the trip generation comparison." These include the approved recreation center, existing development within the boundaries of the recreation center, the current Eden Vale Crossings proposal, assumptions concerning development on the vacant property to the north (Eden Gate) which was a component of the recreation center, and expected full development of the area after TH 212 condemnation and construction (which will remove the McDonalds and Greenstreets restaurants). Utilizing these development statistics, trip generation of the various components was calculated based upon trip rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and rates developed by Benshoof & Associates, Inc. from traffic counts at representative land uses. The trip generation calculations account for both new trips on the roadway system (trips whose principal purposes are destinations within the development, such as from home to a movie theater) and Intercepted/diverted trips (trips already on the roadway system which are "intercepted" by a land use, such as stopping for gas on the way home from work). In general, developments which generate a greater proportion of new trips to Intercepted/diverted trips have a greater Impact on the overall roadway system. Table 2 presents both the trip characteristics of the various components currently expected within the 'recreation center" area as well as trip generation comparisons with the approved development. As can be noted, the approved development would have been expected to generate a total of 1000 PM peak hour trips in and out of the site. (approximately 67% being new trips). Existing development plus Eden Vale Crossings Is expected to generate approximately 860 PM peak hour trips, of which 557. are new trips; while full development of the area after TH 212 construction is expected to generate approximately 1060 trips (56% new trips). Mr. Michael Franzen -3- June 7. 1989 TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS FOR TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Approved Family Recreation Center • Two Fast Food Restaurants - 8,000 sq. ft. • Sit-down Restaurant - 6,000 sq. ft. • Theatre - 2 screens/450 seats • Bowling Alley - 36 lanes • Roller Rink 20.000 sq. ft. • Health Club - 4 tennis courts 4 racquetball courts pool/exercise rooms Existing Development within recreation center location . Fast Food Restaurant - 3,500 sq. ft. . Two Sit-down Restaurants - 8.000 sq. ft. . Day Care Center - 6,000 sq. ft. Edenvale Crossings - Current Proposal . Office - 10,000 sq. ft. . Retail - 23.400 sq. ft. . Gas/Convenience - 1,000 sq. ft. Eden Gate ProPertv to North - (assumed development) . Fast Food Restaurant - 3,500 sq. ft. . Convenience Store/Gas - 3,000 sq. ft. Development Currently Expected After TH212 Construction . Sit-down Restaurant - 3,2000 sq. ft. . Day Care Center - 6,000 sq. ft. • Edenvale Crossings - as proposed • Eden Gate - as assumed 171e? Mr. Michael Franzen -4- June 7, 1989 TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPARISONS TO APPROVED DEVELOPMENT Intercepted/ Net Total New Trips Diverted Trips Trips Net In Out In Out In Out Trips 135 116 89 79 224 195 419 102 122 107 111 209 233 442 99 88 120 III 219 199 418 Development Scenario Existing Development within Approved PUD Edenvale Crossings Eden Gate Approved Planned 407 267 183 143 590 410 1000 Development Existing Development 237 238 196 190 433 428 861 + Edenvale Crossings Development Expected 272 318 238 229 510 547 1057 After TH 212 * Refer to Table 1 for development assumptions 176 Mr. Michael Franzen -5- June 7. 1989 Based upon these comparisons. it Is concluded that traffic generated by the Eden Vale Crossings proposal Is generally consistent with traffic volumes expected from the previously approved recreation center. As such, from a general transportation perspective, this proposal will not result in significantly different impacts from those previously anticipated. IMPACTS AT INTERSECTION OF TH 5 AND MITCHELL ROAD To assess the specific implications of the Eden Vale Crossings proposal at this intersection, traffic forecasts were prepared to account for conditions prior to completion of TH 212 improvements (the year 1995 was used, as current schedules call for construction to commence In 1993). The forecasts accounted for both background traffic and traffic associated with this proposal. Background traffic forecasts were prepared by adjusting existing PM peak hour counts (February 16. 1989) by a growth factor of two percent per year. Development traffic forecasts were prepared based on the trip generation statistics previously presented and accounted for both new and Intercepted/diverted trips. Trip distribution for new trips was based upon population densities within the market area and existing traffic patterns, while "distribution" of intercepted trips was based upon current traffic volumes and patterns. Utilizing these forecasts, levels of service analyses based upon procedures published in the Highway Capacity Manual, 1985 were performed. The intersection currently operates at a level of service D. Utilizing the 1995 forecasts (growth in background traffic plus development traffic), the level of service remains at 0, while overall Intersection delay Increases slightly. Based upon this analysis, It is expected that traffic associated with Eden Vale Crossings can be accommodated safely and effectively at the TM 5 and Mitchell Road intersection. ACCESS AND SITE CIRCULATION PLAN The development of an effective access/circulation plan for the site presented particular challenges given the need to account for both current roadway/site conditions and conditions after construction of TM 212. TH 212 construction will Include relocation of existing Mitchell Road to the east and construction of a bridge over TH 212. Through a series of meetings with City staff, the project development team, and MnDOT (the agency responsible for design and reconstruction of revised Mitchell Road as well as TM 212), the key Issues have been resolved and concurrence reached on the basic access concepts. 17(0i Mr. Michael Franzen -6- June 7, 1989 The post TH 212 access plan Is conceptually shown on sheet A2 of the site plan submission. Full movement access will be at Martin Drive, where a traffic signal may ultimately be warranted, with right In only access from Mitchell Road at approximately the location of the current drive to the existing development. As noted, this concept is acceptable to MnDOT. The specific design of the right in only will need to be refined slightly; however, the overall access concept Is expected to operate effectively and provide appropriate access not only to Eden Vale Crossings but also the adjacent properties to the north and south. The access plan for conditions prior to TH 212 construction (sheet Al of the site plan) requires a variety of minor refinements as shown on Figure I. Conceptually, this access plan is expected to provide effective access/circulation for both this site and the adjacent sites. It is also expected to improve operations at the existing driveway to Mitchell Road serving the area restaurants, through relocation and design improvements at this location. It should be noted that, In conjunction with ultimate construction of the Eden Vale Crossings proposal, the official map and preliminary design for the TN 212 Improvements should be revised to reflect the future access concept developed for this proposal. It Is expected that this "administrative" Issue can be resolved through a coordinated effort by the City and MnDOT staffs. CONCLUSIONS The principal conclusions of our analysis of the traffic Impacts of the proposed Eden Vale Crossings development include: The trip generation characteristics of this proposal combined with the existing development are consistent with the trip generation expected from this area under the previously approved plan for a recreation center. Development traffic can be effectively accommodated by the public roadway system prior to TH 212 construc- tion. . The access plan for the area after TH 212 construction Is expected to operate effectively. • The interim access/circulation plan requires modifications, but conceptually is expected to provide safe, effective traffic operations. ELIMINATE I P I IMPROVE TAPER III ELIMINATE PARKING SPACES IN IMPROVE RADII AT ALL ACCESS POINTS TO MAIN DRIVE AISLES fiiTT CLOSE ACCESS/PROVIDE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ALIGN DRIVEWAYS REALIGN ACCESS DRIVE irlicAwm"Of i% FIGURE I RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO SITE/ACCESS PLAN lr?r71 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR EDEN VALE CROSSINGS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #89-161 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF GUILLE ADDITION FOR DAVID AND LINDA GUILLE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Guille Addition for David and Linda Guille, dated July 12, 1989, consisting of 1.47 acres into three single family lots and road right-of- way, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 1st day of July 18, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk r 72. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission Scott A. Kipp, Assistant Planner Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner June 23, 1989 Guille Addition Southeast corner of Starrwood Circle and Twin Lakes Drive (AKA Mitchell Road) Dave Guille Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.47 acres and Preliminary Platting of 1.47 acres into 3 single family lots and road right-of-way. FROM: THROUGH: DATE: PROJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: REQUEST: Background The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts a low density residential land use for this property. Surrounding land uses consist of the Starrwood Addition to the north and east zoned R1-13.5, a single family house to the south zoned Rural, and a Medium Density Residential guided site to 741 the west for future Red Rock Ranch multiple family use. The site is currently zoned Rural and occupied by a single family residence owned by Mr. Guille. Preliminary Plat The proposal is to subdivide the 1.47 acre parcel into three single family lots and road right-of-way at a density of 2.0 units per acre. The Guide Plan would allow up to 2.5 units per acre. The average lot size is 17,700 square feet, with a minimum lot size of 13,500 square feet. All lots meet width, depth, and road frontage requirements. As part of the Preliminary Plat, the garage and breezeway of the existing structure will be relocated to the south side of the property in order to satisfy the structure setback from the lot line. Outlot A of the Starrwood Addition will be deeded to this site to provide lot frontage for Lot 2 to Starrwood Circle. Guille Addition 2 June 23, 1989 Gradinq The property sits at a slightly higher elevation than the easterly portion of the Starrwood subdivision and gradually slopes towards the south. Some significant evergreen trees occupy the property together with scattered elm and a twelve inch ash tree. A few smaller over-story trees are also on the property which are not subject to the Tree Preservation Policy. Minimal grading is proposed on the property. The majority of the grading will take place on the northern half, lowering the elevation to meet the street grade of Starrwood Circle. A portion of the proposed grading encroachs on Lot 10 of the Starrwood Addition. Currently, Lot 10 is vacant and is owned by the developer of the Starrwood Addition. He has indicated his permission for this earthwork. The tree inventory indicates that all significant vegetation will remain. A 6 inch oak tree and two small pine trees can be relocated. The developer shall be required . to install snow fencing around the existing trees at the limits of grading prior to the grading permit issuance. Utilities This property can be served with sewer and water with connection to Starrwood Circle and Twin Lakes Drive. The existing home utilizes City water at this time with connection to the main along Twin Lakes Drive. Sanitary sewer will be available to the existing house when the upgrading of Twin Lakes Drive is completed this summer. As part of the rezoning approval for this property, the developer will be required to remove the existing septic system and connect to City sewer concurrent with Twin Lakes Drive construction. Pedestrian System As part of the upgrading of Twin Lakes Drive, the City will be installing an 8 ft. wide bituminous trail along the west side. No sidewalk or trail construction will be required for this subdivision. Recommendations Staff would recommend approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.47 acres and Preliminary Plat of 1.47 acres into 3 single family lots and road right-of-way subject to plans dated June 20, 1989 and the following: 1. Prior to Final Plat, the proponent shall submit detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plans to the City Engineer and Watershed District for approval. 2. Prior to release of the Final Plat, the proponent shall relocate the garage and breezeway of the existing structure to meet property line setbacks. 3. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall erect a snowfence along the grading limits where significant trees are located. 4. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall pay the Cash Park Fee. 5. Concurrent with the upgrading of Twin Lakes Drive, the proponent shall remove the existing septic system and connect up to City sewer. )`77.4 MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: June 23, 1989 SUBJECT: Site Plan Ordinance Revisions The Site Plan Review Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on Februar y 2 1 , 1 9 8 9 . There are three proposed amendments to the existing site plan ordinance. 1. This is a clarification of Section lA which refers to when a site plan review would be required.- Previously, all uses in the RM-6.5 • Zoning District were exempt from the provisions of the Code. The revision would be to exempt only duplexes, but would still require review for quads, townhouses, and manor homes. 2. The current site plan ordinance is not however, applicable in the Rural District. Since public uses are permitted uses in all districts including the Rural District (i.e. schools, fire stations, and public utilities, etc.) it was necessary to clarify this section by referring to public uses requiring a site plan review within a Rural District. 3. The current site plan ordinance indicates that a site plan approval is effective for a two year time period. The ordinance did not allow for time extensions to be granted by the City Council. The amendment would allow the Council to extend a site plan approval in 2 year increments. This would be similar to the Council's disgression with regard to the extension of developer's agreements. This would be applicable primarily to projects that have not changed. Site plans that change substantially from the approved plan would be required to be reviewed again by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the revisions as proposed . )7?c CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. -89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)" BY AMENDING SECTION 11.03, SUBD. 6. A. AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAINS PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 6. A. is amended to read as follows: Subd. 6. Site Plan and Architectural Design Review. A. Approval Required. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any (i) building or structure situated or to be constructed within any District, except, (a) those within the Rural District or One-Family Residential Districts, and (b) duplexes (dwellings designed for or occupied by two families), or (ii) building or structure constituting a public facility and service, situated or to be constructed within any District, including but not limited to Rural and One-Family Residential Districts, unless it shall conform to a Site Plan and Architectural Design as described in C. hereof, or an amendment thereof, which has been approved by the Council and such approval is effective as hereinafter provided. -1- No building permit shall be issued for the construction of an alteration or enlargement of a (i) building or structure situated within any District, except, (a) those within the Rural District or One-Family Residential Districts, and (b) duplexes (dwellings designed for or occupied by two families), or (ii) building or structure constituting a public facility and service, including but not limited to Rural and One-Family Residential Districts, unless it shall conform to a Site Plan and Architectural Design as described in t. hereof, or an amendment thereof, which has been approved by the Council and such approval is effective as hereinafter provided. The approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Design shall be effective for a period of two years from the date first approved by the Council, provided however, the Council may within the two year period (or any extension thereof as hereinafter pro- vided) extend the two year period for an additional period or periods of two years each. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. -2- 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. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1989. -3- tr?ri JULY 18.1989 52178 CIRCUS PIZZA TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM/FEES PAID 57179 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 6/23/89 3 0 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 6/23/89 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 52182 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 6/23/89 52183 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 6123/89 52194 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 6/23/89 52185 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SFR CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 52186 ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION PAYROLL 6/23/89 52187 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 6/23/89 52188 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLL 6/9/89 & 6/23/89 52189 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 6/23189 52190 ELIZABETH ABRAMOWITZ REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 52191 APPLE RIVER TUBING TUBE RENTAL DEPOSIT-SPECIAL EVENTS 52192 BIRTCHER WELSH JULY 89 RENT-CITY HALL 52193 BLUEBERRY COMPANY ENTERTAINMENT-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 52194 BRADLEY PRODUCTIONS ENTERTAINMENT-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 52195 EARL DREBENRTEDT ENTERTAINMENT-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 52196 CITY OF EAGAN -REIMBURSEMENT FOR UTILITY BILLING PAYMENT DEPOSITED IN OUR CITY'S ACCOUNT 52197 TOM & ROSE FULCHER REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 52198 SUZANNE GILL REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 52199 JASON-NORTHCO PROP LF41 JULY 89 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 52200 MARGE JENNINGS REFUND-ADULT MEMBERSHIP 52201 jihMY ALLEN ARTIST MGM7 LID ENTERTAINMENT-JULY 479 CELEBRATIUN 52202 TOM KOCH -ENTERTAINMENT-CONCERTS iN THE PARK- HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 7 JUDY LIEBER CARICATURES-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 4 LAURA LITTELI REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 52.:05 LINDA MAREK REFUND-JATING LESSONS 52206 JOHN MCGRATH REFUND-CIRCUS PIZZA-SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS 52207 TERRI MCQUILLAN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 52209 KATHLEEN MID7HUN REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 52209 VOID OUT CHECK 52210 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSN SOFTBALL REGISTRATION-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 52211 MGSHPA DUES-HORSESHOE LEAGUE-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 52212 PETTY CASH -APPRECIATION PICNIC FOR EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY BAND 52213 PETTY CASH CHANGE FUND-POLICE AUCTION 52214 BARBARA SCHREIER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 52215 JANE TEMPLIN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 52216 DANIELLE THYGESEN REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 52217 TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTIONS I ENTERTAINMENT-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 52218 MARY WALENTINY REFUND-CIRCUS PIZZA-SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS 52219 SANDRA WALTERS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 52220 RENEE WILLIAMS REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 52221 ZUCCHINI MIME ARTIST MIME ARTIST-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 52222 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 52223 PETTY CASH CASH AWARD-JULY 4 '89 SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT 52224 PETTY CASH CASH AWARD-JULY 4 '89 SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT 52225 PETTY CASH -CHANGE FUND-JULY 4TH ICE CREAM STAND- HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 52726 AT&T SERVICE f„(7 MINNEGASCO SERVICE NSF SERVICE 1589 11 36 140.00 1363.00 11406.90 186.00 26842.84 55480.11 4491.00 194.76 1469.92 25.00 1000.00 246.50 36.00 25.00 19880.79 80.00 100.00 75.00 58.91 40.00 13.25 6141.94 51.30 1870.00 303.00 150.00 11.00 38.25 24.00 21.00 5.00 0.00 3300.00 72.00 200.00 100.00 17.00 3.00 19.00 650.00 12.00 17.00 5.00 130.00 377.16 50.00 25.00 200.00 231.73 4173.89 17562.12 SERVICE SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS/FEES PAID CONFERENCE-PARKS DEPT CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT FIREWORKS DISPLAY -JULY 4TH CELEBRATION -APPLICATION FEE FOR AMENDED PERMIT TO RAISE RED ROCK LAKE LEVEL SERVICE SERVICE ERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND-CIRCUS PIZIA-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND REFUND-BASFBALL LEAGUE 909.42 31.00 0.00 30.00 60.00 204.92 7000.00 75.00 539.76 98.67 192,65 465.71 9974.83 171.39 278.84 9.00 19.00 19.00 8.00 12.50 19.00 13.00 REFUND-BASEBALL LEAGUE/TENNIS & SAILING LESSONS 37.00 REFUND-PRESCHOOL TLAYGROUND 19.00 REFUND-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 5.00 REFUND-TENNIS LEAGUE 20.00 REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 25.00 CONFERENCE-FINANCE DEPT 160.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 40.50 -ENTERTAINMENT-SUNDAY VARIETY IN THE PARK- 225.00 HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION EXPENSES-CITY HALL 71.25 FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 293.75 -ENTERTAINMENT-SUNDAY VARIETY IN THE PARK- 90.00 HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION -ENTERTAINMENT-SUNDAY VARIETY IN THE PARK- 100.00 HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION JULY 18.1999 52229 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS 52230 CHUCK E CHEESE :1 VOID OUT CHECK -32 MN SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE 52233 MCPO A 52234 SAWMILL INN 52275 AMERICANA FIREWORKS DISPLAY CO 522;, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 52237 AT&T 52238 AT&T CREDIT CORPORATION 52239 AT&T CON:Y.4ER PRODUCTS DIV 52240 MINNEGASCO 52241 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 52242 NORTHERN STATES POWER CT 5224: U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS 52244 MEGAN BEAUVAIS 52245 KATHY BOWMAN 52246 APRIL CONNELL 52247 JAN DALY 52248 LISA ESPINOSA 52249 BARBARA FOX 52250 KIMBERLY HAVERSTOCT' 52251 STEPHEN HEINIGER 52252 FRED KING 52253 KATIE MC COMB 52254 MIKE NELSON F"-5 !LISA SMITH 6 BUSINESS EDUCATION SERVICES 52z57 DEAUVILLE PUBLICATIONS 52258 JEFF BROOKS 52259 PEPPERS SW GRILL 52260 SUNSET PRINTING 52261 STEVE BUDAS 52262 DALE O'BRIEN 52263 VOID OUT CHECK 52264 MC DONALD'S 52265 RAINBOW FOODS 52266 MC DONALD'S 52267 RAINBOW FOODS 52268 BEAVER MOUNTAIN WATERSLIDE 52269 BEER WHOLESALERS INC 52270 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO 52271 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO 52272 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO 52273 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 52274 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO 52275 PEPSI COLA COMPANY 52276 RC BEVERAGE-TWIN CITIES 52:77 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY ' 8 TWIN CITY HOME JUICE ALLIED PACKTOP COMPANY EXPENSES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND EXPENSES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND EXPENSES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND EXPENSES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND GOLF/WATERSLIDING-SPECIAL EVENTS/FEES PAID BEER BEER BEER BEER BEER MIX MIX MIX BEER MIX SERVICE -1989 BITUMINOUS SEALCOATING 0.00 4.52 16.39 4.52 16.39 655.00 3906.15 6440.35 22121.50 649.40 22839.95 1101.85 566.15 395.05 34093.25 60.96 128497.95 24258807 JULY 18.1989 52280 BROWN & CRIS INC A RICHARD KNUTSON INC NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO 52283 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO 52284 ACE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS INC 52285 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC 52286 ALASKAN AIR CONDITIONING INC 52287 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO 52288 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO 52289 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK 52290 AMERICAN RED CROSS 52291 AMERICAN SPEEDY PRINTING CENTER 52292 AMERICAN SPEEDY PRINTING CENTERS 52293 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC 52294 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC 52295 ANDERSON'S GARDEN 52296 LOIS ANDERSON 52297 RICHARD ANDERSON 52298 ASTLEFORD INTL INC 52299 BACOVS ELECTRIC CO -,0 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC 5:01 VOID OUT CHECK 52302 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC 52707 BRUCE BETTENDORF 52304 BIERS INC 52305 JAMES BITTNER 52306 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 52307 BLOOMINGTON LOCK & SAFE CO 52308 LOIS BOETTCHER 52309 GREGORY BONGAARTS 52310 LEE m BRANDT 52311 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC 52312 ED BRION 52313 BROWN'S ICE CREAM CO 52314 EIRW INC 52315 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC 52316 NATHAN D BUCK 52317 MATT BULLOCK CONTRACTING CO 52318 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION 52319 ROBERT BURGUYNE 52320 BUSINESS CREDIT LEASING INC 52321 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS 2 CHAPIN PUBLISHING COMPANY -SERVICE-HAMILTON RD ST & STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS SERVICE-COUNTY ROADS #1 & 44 .WATERMAIN SERVICE-FRANLO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS -SERVICE-UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN LEGION PARK CLEANING SUPPLIES-EOU1PMENT MAINTENANCE -OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/CHAIR-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT -REPAIR ICE ARENA REFRIGERATION SYSTEM- COMMUNITY CENTER EQUIPMENT LOCK/ANCHOR-OUTDOOR CENTER -UNIFORMS-SEWER DEPT/STREET DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE BOND PAYMENT INSTRUCTOR MANUALS-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND PRINTING FORMS-FINANCE DEPT PRINTING FORMS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS BOOKS-WATER DEPT SIGNS-STREET DEPT EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT/SPECIAL EVENTS DECALS-ANIMAL CONTROL EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER PIN SET/GASKET/BEARINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINT -REPLACE TINE METERS t INDICATOR LIGHTS/ -LIGHTS/REPLACE OUTSIDE LIGHT AT WELL #4/ LOCATE CIRCUIT BREAKER PROBLEM-WATER DEPT -SEAL BEARINGS/WIRE/STARTING UNIT CABLES- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SERVICE-MCA TRAFFIC STUDY SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID MAY 89 ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICE KEYS-COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION MILEAGE/EXPENSES-WATER DEPT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID -SERVICE-COUNTY ROAD #4 & #1 WATERMAIN/ RESEARCH & MITCHELL RD ST IMPROVEMENTS SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID EXPENSES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION -SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE AT 1-494/ VALLEY VIEW RD FROM HWY 169 TO 1-494 GRAVEL-STREET DEPT SOFTBALL & VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID SERVICE-STARING LAKE PARK SERVICE REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING AUGUST 89 COPIER RENTAL-FIRE DEPT -REBUILT RIDING LAWN MOWER-$770.05-WATER DEPT/OIL/CABLE-PARK MAINTENANCE -LEGAL ADS-STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS/CEDAR -RIDGE STORM SEWER/BY-PASS & TURN LANE IMPROVEMENTS 76388.90 21272.17 17370.41 7747.23 237.60 1123.07 205.00 60.00 1227.12 176412.50 40.00 79.15 40.90 258.60 77.40 149.99 142.16 950.00 140.95 1832.98 380.88 0.00 555.00 210.00 238.00 90.00 556.00 17.98 71.69 78.58 195.00 3614.05 75.00 476.80 1504.59 52.65 1218.00 19933.24 600.00 68.44 182.75 807.55 320.40 33700273 I7E ) 52325 CITIZENS LEAGUE OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 52324 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC -12 FLOOR RUNNERS-$350.00/10 TARPS-8875.00/ ROPE-$145.60/6 COUPLINGS-4930.00-FIRE DEPT 52325 CLEAN SWEEP INC STREET & PARKING LOT SWEEPING-STREET MAINT 126 CLEVELAND COTTON PRODUCTS PAPER TOWELS-WATER DEPT 27 CLUTCH A TRANSMISSION SEP INC -BEARINGS/SEALS/SPRINGS/WHEEL CYLINDER/ BRAKE LINING-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52328 COMMERICAL ASPHALT CO BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 52529 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER MOBILE RADIO-WATER DEPT 52330 COMPUTER PLACE COMPUTER TOOLS/DISKETTE-POLICE DEPT 52331 CONCEPT MICROFILM INC MICROFILMING-ENGINEERING DEPT 52332 CONCRETE RAISING INC CURBING-TICONDEROGA TRAIL-DRAINAGE CONTROL 52333 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC SEALCOATING-STREET MAINTENANCE 52334 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REP A I R - E Q U I P M E N T M A I N T E N A N C E 52355 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC -2 SAFETY BLOCKS-82954.00/2 AIR PACKS- -4635.90/RETRIEVAL LINES/HOOKS/HARNESSES- WATER DEPT 523:6 COPY EQUIPMENT INC -FIBERGLASS TAPE-SEWER DEPT/OFFICE SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING DEPT 52337 CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE -FIRST QUARTER 89 SERVICE FOR BATTERED WOMEN 52338 L CRAMER CON INC REFUND-PARK DEDICATION FEE 52759 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC -SCREWS/WASHERS/KEY BLANKS/HEAT GUN! 52340 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC 52341 CUSTOM AUTOBODY 52342 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY 52343 WARD F DAHLBERG 52344 DAKTRONICS INC 52345 DALCO 44 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO 52347 MONICA DAY 52548 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR A INDUSTRY 52349 DIAMOND ACCEPTANCE 52350 DPC INDUSTRIES INC 52351 DYNA SYSTEMS 52352 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 52553 CITY OF EDINA 52354 EDINA REALTY 52555 ELECTRIC SYSTEMS OF ANOKA INC 52356 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC 52357 FLORENCE V EMME 52358 EVER-TITE PLUGS INC 52359 EXPRESS MESSENGER 52360 FIDELITY PRODUCTS CO 52361 FIRE COMMAND 52562 FLAGHOUSE INC 52363 FLOYD SECURITY 5298 LUBRICANT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE TIRE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE REPAIR & REFINISH PICKUP TRUCK-WATER DEPT QUiCELIME-WATFR DEPT JUNE 89 MILEAGE/EXPENSES-LIQUOR STORES SCOREBOARD REPAIR-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CTR -CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/PARK MA1NT/ COMMUNITY CENTER -40 VALVE BOX RISERS-$858.40/LIDS/ EXTENSION PIECES-WATER DEPT -SERVICE-EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT BOILER LICENSE-COMMUNITY CENTER -AUGUST 89 COPIER INSTALLMENT PAYMENT- POLICE DEPT CHLORINE-WATER DEPT DRILL BITS/WASHERS/SCREWS/NUTS-WATER DEPT EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION MAY 89 WATER TESTS-WATER DEPT REFUND-OVERPAYMENT-UTILITY BILLING SERVICE-CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN REPAIR -JACKETS/APRONS/SAFETY VESTS/BOOTS-WATER DEPT REIMBURSE BOND COUPON-UNCLAIMED PROPERTY PLUGS-SEWER DEPT POSTAGE-PLANNING DEPT GARBAGE BAGS-WATER DEPT SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT -GAMES/BALLS/JUMP ROPES/BAT-NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM -3RD QUARTER 89 SECURITY SYSTEM-LIQUOR STORE 8.00 2328.00 1007.10 96.44 586.57 2251.58 1106.00 38.99 2094.76 200.00 1584.00 50.00 4126.86 132.74 2000.00 720.00 442.08 93.90 506.33 8349.27 100.72 248.75 1127.14 1408.40 260.00 50.00 500.00 1351.50 231.01 6.50 182.00 24.49 38.00 250.93 550.00 44.75 17.84 233.10 17.50 169.73 398.00 I r)? 52364 JOHN FRANE JUNE 89 EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT 52365 GAB BUSINESS SERVICES INC LIABILITY INSURANCE 52366 KATE GARWOOD MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT 52367 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL f3 JOSEPH GLEASON HOCKEY & SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID ,9 GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIES COMPUTER SUPPLIES-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRU G S 52370 GOPHER STAGE LIGHTING INC STAGE LIGHTING RENTAL-SPECIAL EVENTS 52371 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC JUNE 89 EXPENSES-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 52372 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE -CONFERENCES-POLICE DEPT/STRATEGIC PLANNING-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 52373 GRANT MERRITT & ASSOCIATES LTD -JUNE 89 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 52374 MARK GRANOWSK1 SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 52:75 ALAN GRAY JUNE 89 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 52376 GROSS OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT/CIVIL DEF E N S E 52377 HACH CO LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 52:78 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC -SERVICE-PIONEER TRAIL & COUNTY RD 18 -DRAINAGE STUDIES/HAMILTON RD/BLUFF RD/ -COUNTY RD 4 & PIONEER TRAIL WATERMAIN/ CEDAR RIDGE STORM SEWER/RIVERVIEW RD 52379 1111 11 TINTED WINDSHIELD-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52380 11 11 1 REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 52381 11 1 CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CE N T E R 52382 1 111 1 MAY 89 BOOKING FEE-POLICE DEPT 5238: 111 11 111 FILING FEE-PLANNING DEPT 52384 111 11 111 MAY 89 BOARD OF PRISONERS-POLICE DEPT 52395 11 111 FILING FEE-PARK DEPT 52386 11 11 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FIRE DEPT/WATER D E P T 52387 11 A1 FIELD MARKING PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE 57I89 11111 1 11 -COMPRESSOR REPAIR/FILTERS/VENT TUBE ASSEMBLY-COMMUNITY CENTER 5L,d9 HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERVICES -709 QUARTER 89 SECURITY SYSTEM-LIQUOR STORE 52390 HOPKINS BOWL ENTERTAINMENT CENT E R - S E R V I C E - B O W L I N G - N E I G H B O R H O O D O U T R E A C H PROGRAM 52:91 IBM CORPORATION AUGUST 89 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HA L L 52392 VINCENT IMMORDINO REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 52:93 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL GIST $272 -ROOM RENTAL-ADULT PROGRAMS/PRINTING- RECREATION SUPERVISOR 523 9 4 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT 52395 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC TONER-WATER DEPT/CITY HALL 52396 GARY ISAACS SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 52397 J R H EQUIPMENT REFUND-MECHANICAL PERMIT 52398 WALTER JAMES MILEAGE/EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 52399 MARK JENSEN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 52400 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC -OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/STREET MA1N T / FIRE DEPT 52401 JOHNSON CONTROLS -3RD QUARTER 89 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/ FILTERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 52402 KAHNKE PROS INC DIRT-STREET MAINTENANCE 52403 KEITH KAPITAN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 52404 TOM KEEFE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 52405 KEYS WELL DRILLING CO PUMP & WELL REPAIR-WATER DEPT 52406 SCOTT A KIPP MILEAGE/EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 77605 200.00 :92.70 8.00 115.29 :33.00 105.19 984.00 1814.67 678.04 2075.57 30.00 220.32 352.86 55.34 23177.34 137.22 11.08 121.00 274.21 455.00 4381.40 16.65 142.53 359.00 518.84 441.31 10.00 424.32 :1.0: 73.92 131.04 377.00 690.00 48.40 118.49 15.00 266.59 1097.75 30.00 255.00 270.00 25832.50 9.45 riZ,2) JULY 18.1'789 52407 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC -HOME PLATE SPIKES/VOLLEYBALLS/BASES-PARK MAINTENANCE/ORGANIZED ATHLETICS GEORGANNA KRUEGER REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 52409 RICHARD KYLLO REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 52410 CINDY LANENBERG MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT 52411 LANOLINE COMMUNICATION SERVICES I -LINE TRACER-12020.00/2 RANGER MONITORS- -$3885.o0/CALIBRATION KIT-0270.00-WATER DEPT 52412 LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS CENTER -SOIL/TREES-WATER DEPT/SHRUBBERY-STARING LAKE PARK 52413 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD JANUARY 89 LEGAL SERVICE 52414 LANO EQUIPMENT INC SEIDLOADER RENTAL-STREET MAINTENANCE 52415 GREG LARSON SPORTS INC 36 INCREDIBALLS-YOUTH ATHLETICS 52416 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES MEMBERSHIP DUES 52417 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES DIRECTORY OF MN CITY OFFICIALS-CITY HALL 52418 LMCIT LIABILITY INSURANCE 52419 LESMANN ENTERPRISES INC REPAIR & PAINT 2 VEHICLES-EQUIPMENT MAINT 52420 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC COVER/SPOOL/WASHER-PARK MAINTENANCE 52421 LUNDGREN BROS CONST REFUND-PARK DEDICATION FEE 52422 ROBERT MASON HOMES REFUND -PARK DEDICATION FEE 52423 PAT MC CARTY MILEAGE/EXPENSES-WATER DEPT 52424 BARBARA A MC CORMICK EXPENSES-SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS 52425 MEDICINE LAKE LINES BUS SERVICE-ORCHESTRAL HALL-ADULT PROGRAMS 52426 MERLINS HARDWARE HANK FENCE WIRE/SCREWS-STREET MAINTENANCE 52427 MERRILL LYNCH REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 52428 METRO ALARM INC SECURITY ALARM REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 52424 METRO PRINTING INC PRINTING FORMS-POLICE DEPT/FORESTRY DEPT ' '0 METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 1_ 1 METROPOLITAN MECHANICAL CONTRACT° WATER CLOSET REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 52432 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS JULY 89 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES 52433 MID AMERICA GOLF SUPPLY GOLF BALLS-SUMMER SKILL DEVELOPMENT 52474 MIDAS BRAKE & MUFFLER -EXHAUST PIPE & EXTENSION-EQUIPMENT MAINT/ WATER DEPT 52475 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 52436 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP/SEALCOATING-STREET MAINTENANCE 52437 MIDWEST LAWN SPRINKLER SERVICE-FRANLO PARK IRRIGATION 52438 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP -JULY 89 PAGER SERVICE-SEWER DEPT/WATER DEPT/FIRE DEPT 52439 IN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY EXTINGUISHER RECHARGING-FIRE DEPT 52440 MINNESOTA ICE ARENA MANAGER'S ASS DUES-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CENTER 52441 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER 52442 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 52443 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING FLYERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 52444 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIR-FIRE DEPT 52445 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO PULLEY-EQUIPMENT MAINT/CANOPY-PARK MAINT 52446 BETH NILSSON SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 52447 JP NOREX INC SERVICE-WATERMAIN REPAIR ON DELL ROAD 52448 NORTH STAR TURF INC PULLEY-PARK MAINTENANCE 52449 NORTHERN POWER PRODUCTS INC CARBURETOR ASSEMBLY/GASKET-EQUIPMENT MAINT 52450 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE-LEGION DRIVE 52451 NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA N A BOND PAYMENT 52452 OCHS BRICK & TILE CO CEMENT-SEWER DEPT 5'53 HARRY ORTLOFF SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 4 PERSONNEL POOL SERVICE-PLANNING DEPT 5' 55 CONNIE L PETERS MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 77760004 544.42 15.00 31.82 52.50 6175.00 382.00 18984.77 1254.80 122.61 7295.00 13.00 119866.00 744.00 48.61 720.00 720.00 78.58 79.60 79.00 8.29 65.94 111.95 1384.43 20.24 198.00 154033.51 103.50 55.00 257.66 2038.97 24210.00 128.50 112.30 75.00 40.60 279.96 258.80 168.00 308.20 209.72 823.94 3.35 212.42 350.00 433933.30 67.50 315.00 598.00 21.25 52465 PRAIRIE HARDWARE 52466 PRAIRIE HARDWARE REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING PRINTS-PLANNING DEPT CARPETING-COMMUNITY CENTER BEDDING PLANTS-PARK MAINTENANCE SPRINKLER HEADS/FITTINGS-WATER DEPT REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT TROPHIES-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION -SCREWS/WEATHER STRIPPING/BLADES/STEEL ROD/ WASHERS/RIVETS-FIRE DEPT -SCREWS/BRACKETS/BATTERIES/LIGHT BULB/ -KEYS/FUSES/FUSE PULLER/CABLE/CLAMPS/ -PLIERS/LEVEL/SAW/TAPE MEASURE/FLASHLIGHT/ -SCREWDRIVER/FLASHLIGHT/DOOR STOPS/BUNGE -CORDS/SHOWER CURTAIN RODS/CAR WAX-CITY HALL/FACILITIES DEPT/SENIOR CTR/FIRE DEPT -LAWN CHAIRS/LAWN RAKE/KEYS/HOSES/SHOVELS/ -GLOVES/FORKS/WASHERS/NOZZLE/COUPLINGS/ -GLUE/TAPE/GREASE:SPRINKLERS/BATTERY/BOLTS - COMMUNITY CENTER -CABLE CLAMP/NUTS & BOLTS/SPIKES/HOOKS/ -BRUSHES/DOOR PULL/TAPE/NOZZLES/KNIVES/ -LIGHTBULBS/MOTOR OIL/BUCKET/SQUEEGEES/ -CORDS/HANGERS-PARK PAINT/OUTDOOR CENTER/ HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION SPONGE MOP/CLEANING SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT -ANTI-SLIP STRIPS/FILE/SIGN/PLUG/VARNISH/ -RECEPTACLE & PLATE/OUTLET BOX/POWER LOCK/ SPRAY PAINT-SEWER DEPT -HAND CLEANER/ANT TRAPS/BARREL BOLT/PAINT PENS-CABLE-STREET DEPT -THINNER/FILTERS/SPRINKLERS/HOSE/BOLTS/ -NUTS/WASHERS/BATTERIES/CORDS/FUNNELS/GAS CANS/KEY-WATER DEPT/SEWER DEPT LAWN TRACTOR REPAIR-EOUIPMENT MAINTENANCE PRINTING-ELECTIONS SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID BOILER INSURANCE-WATER DEPT -LETTERHEAD-CITY HALL/EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER- HUMAN RESOURCES SAND-STREET MAINTENANCE -JUNE JULY & AUGUST 89 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FACILITIES DEPT -SPRINGS/EYE BOLT/ZAMBONI BLADE SHARPENED/ BUSHING KIT/LIFT BARS/GASKET-ZAMBONI REPAIR-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CENTER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID -SERVICE-MITCHELL & RESEARCH STREET -IMPROVEMENTS/HIDDEN GLEN NORTH 3RD ADDITION -SERVICE-PURGATORY CREEK & EDEN LAKE FLOOD PLAIN FIRST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT BLACKTOP ROLLER RENTAL-STREET MAINTENANCE GAMES-NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM -GAMES/TOYS-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND/SPECIAL EVENTS/JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 52467 PRAIRIE HARDWARE 52468 PRAIRIE HARDWARE L J9 PRAIRIE HARDWARE 52470 PRAIRIE HARDWARE 52471 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 5247 2 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING 52473 THOMAS PRENDERGAST 52474 J A PRICE AGENCY INC 52475 PRINT GALLEY INC 52476 PRIOR LAKE AGGREGATE INC 52477 PSO LEASING & MAINTENANCE 52478 R & R SPECIALTIES INC 52479 SCOTT REIN 52480 RIEKE-CARROLL-muLLER ASSOC INC 52481 RILEY PURGATORY BLUFF CREEK 52482 ROAD RESCUE INC . 5 4 83 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO 4 StSARTS & CRAFTS 5,485 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS INC JULY 18,1989 52456 WILLIAM PETERS PHOTOS INC ;8 THE PINK COMPANIES 5z459 PICHA GREENHOUSE 52460 PIONEER MIDWEST INC 52461 PLYMOUTH PLUMBING INC 52462 ROHNER COMPANY INC 52463 PRAIRIE HARDWARE 52464 PRAIRIE HARDWARE 55.90 125.00 5864.38 465.00 69.51 20.50 35.00 31.11 386.51 144.71 305.05 7.90 68.66 47.60 273.50 23.13 34.55 90.00 8029.00 624.00 10.65 1465.00 980.00 405.00 5659.85 12085.94 55.31 600.00 115.88 925.62 3900426 ri Cf)" 52486 THE SANDWICH FACTORY INC EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 52487 SAX ARTS & CRAFTS -TOYS/GAMES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND/AFTERNOON ADVENTURE/NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM 5^488 SEARS WRENCH-SEWER DEPT/BATTERY-FIRE DEPT 19 CYNTHIA SEVERTSON VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID J L SH1ELY COMPANY GRAVEL-STREET MAINTENANCE 52491 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS INC UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 52492 THE SKETCH PAD PRINTING FORMS-FINANCE DEPT 52497 W GORDON SMITH CO -PLIERS/LUBRICANTS/GAS/OIL/BULB-WATER DEPT/ POLICE DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52494 SNELL MECHANICAL INC WATER HEATER REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 52495 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP -IMPACT HAMMER/SCRAPER/WRENCH-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52496 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC -POSTAGE-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION FLYERS/ ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 52497 SPORTS WORLD USA SHIRTS-WALLEYBALL/COMMUNITY BAND 52498 MICHELLE SPRINGER TOYS-CENTER CARE 52499 DOUGLAS STEEN REFUND-OVERPAYMENT-UTILITY BILLING 52500 STOREFRONT YOUTH ACTION -YOUTH COUNSELING & REFERRAL SERVICES- HUMAN RESOURCES 550I STANDARD SPRING CO -FRONT & REAR AXEL REPAIR/NUTS & BOLTS/ -BLOCK/SPRINGS/CENTER STEERING WHEEL-SEWER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52502 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ -POLICE BARRICADES/AMMUNITION/19 POINT BLANK -COVERS FOR BALLISTIC VESTS-8864.85-POLICE DEPT/REVOLVER-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 52503 STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH INC -MAY 89 SERVICE-DELL ROAD/SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD STUDY 52504 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC LIGHTBULBS-LIQUOR STORE ' 15 DANIEL SWZYMANSKI -SERVICE-CIRCUMINNESOTA-OUTDOOR CENTER- STARING LAKE PARK 52506 TENNANT COMPANY SWEEPER BRUSHES-PARK MAINTENANCE 52507 THORPE REALTY REFUND-UTILITY BILLING 52508 YEN IRAN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 52509 TROPICAL SNO OF MN CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-ROUND LAKE PARK 52510 TURF PRO INC MOWING-FORESTRY DEPT 52511 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO -OXYGEN/REGULATOR VALVE REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52512 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC WASHERS/NUTS & BOLTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 5251$ VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDER-COMMUNITY CENTER 52514 VAN WATERS & ROGERS CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 52515 VESSCO INC -GASKETS/CONNECTIONS/FITTINGS/VALVES/ 0-RINGS FOR CHEMTLAL FEEDER-WATER DEPT 52516 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS/SIGNS-POOL-COMMUNITY CENTER 52517 WATER PRODUCTS CO -50 100 GAL REMOTES-$900.00/BUSHINGS/PIPE/ -ADAPTOR/1 16" BUTTERFLY VALVE-42750.861 VALVE BOX-WATER DEPT 52518 WATERITE INC PVC FLOW METER-POOL-COMMUNITY CENTER 52519 DAVID WHITEFORD SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/COORDINATOR/FEES PAID 52520 THE WORK CONNECTION SERVICE-STREET DEPT 52521 ZACK'S INC OUTSIDE SECURITY MIRROR-STREET MAINTENANCE 52522 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE FIRST AID SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 52523 ZIEGLER INC -PIN/PLUG/1 CATERPILLAR-$90151.00- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/STREET DEPT 04342 34.47 465.64 88.87 162.00 326.72 237.50 15.00 1664.2$ 456.84 173.85 777.92 458.00 91.09 32.26 2500.00 1370.60 1456.26 2094.38 5.97 75.00 658.80 48.24 216.00 760.80 862.50 62.28 102.80 14.22 1862.50 3756.79 140.84 3300.73 45.33 453.00 1320.00 95.76 68.55 90187.68 JULY 18,1989 52524 NODLAND CONSTRUCTION CO 25 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO -SERVICE-HIDDEN GLEN 3RD ADDITION/WYNDHAM CREST -SERVICE-MITCHELL & RESEARCH . RD & WEST -76TH ST IMPROVEMENT/GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE/ COUNTY RD 1 WATERAAIN 24742.70 29508.70 5 425140 01827430.31 39 DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS 10 5ENIF4,I 520091.67 11 C'ER1 IFICA1L Of IND( 141 r,1198.60 15 LIDUOR STORE ---r - V M 68435.22 17 LTOOOR SlOPL-FRESFRVE 72453.81 21 POLICE DRUG FORFEITURE 550.19 30 CASH PAM f-FFS 2160.0u 71 PARR ACOUIST !z , DEVELOP 44405.09 7: NTILIP; POND FUND 28094.55 39 86 FIRE STATION CON5l 2328.00 44 UTILITY DEPT Ft ND 50.00 45 UTILITY DEBT FD ARE 176762.50 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 185470.3: 55 IMPROVEMENT DEBT FUND ARE 473933.70 77 WATER FUND 82362.75 77 SEWER FUND 155547.16 81 TRUST S ESCROW FOND 1460.97 87 CDBE FUND 421.62 90 TAY INCUMINT FUND 15(14.59 t1P274:0.71 1'7E6 • o C-0 - 1 o