Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/05/1982 cI1Y (1• ,;11 .' ,.'; • ' • 701 DAY, 19(i2 7:30 PM, CITY HALL C01;!1CI L 14,Mi!PS: !'ayor 1:)o1 fr_,;,og Pure el, George Bentley, D, • Fd•,trom, Paul Redpath and :eorye lanyen 1.7111' f(?U'%IL S1f.iF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie; City Atturr,er Bayer Pauly; Finance Director Join franc; Planning Director Chris Pntrer; Director of Cosununity Services Bob lambert; Director crf Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Baron Michael P1 ETV. 01 Al 1.1 GiANCE • 111VOCAIIt?rt: Cnuncilran Ceorye Bentley ROLL CALI. • ]_ LOMDEN:IAI IONS 10 SIIP1 RVISOWS Of PURL iC SAFETY RESURVP UNIT, SGT. BOB M,3011,t,l SS AS!) SGT. DON F1I;r, la. DONATiS,tl 01 PLAQUE OR THE. COBMUNITY CENTER FROPI SM]!CY GLOITER ASSOCIATES, Pg.1929 INC. 111. ?ifi'RUV•Al. OF ASiNDA AND OTHER ITEMS Of BUSiNCSS 1y. t Iicuii S OF 1HE REGUL AR CITY COUNCIL Mill TING iwLD 1UiSDAY, SEPTLW,BER 7, 1982 Pg.193O ( 1. CONSENT Cil EDOAR • - R. Clerk's License List Pg.1938 B. Chanue Order Number 3, Water Supple Wells, 1_C. 51-354, Contract 4•1 Pg,1939 • T,. Chan; C ti r h'u;rlier I, Elevated Storage Reservoir, 1_C_51-354, Contract Pg.1941 412 1). 2nd Rtaclino of Ordinance No. 82-19, rezoning fdenvale 15th Addition from Pg.1943 RureI to Al; 6.5 for Ir. nr cusp s and aptrrova1 of d^veloiler's agree nt. located at tee end of tdenvale boulevard. • final Plat approval for City West (Resolution No. 82-238) Pg.1910 F. Set Public Hi irInu date for Nover,l,er 16, 19R2 on modification of the development prc r t for Devetoi:unt District No. 3 and e r,t ibi ichm nt of p opoced 1ax ]mean nt strict No. 3 and the do tion of a Tax Incrcrunt 1 inanr_ing Plan relatingthereto • VI_ IC 1'1AR1N;S A. 19B? SI'f(1111 A.SS!SSMIN1S PUB! 1C }IFAR1NG (Resolution No. 82-230) Continued !rent .`St p1 r::,Irrr A I, I Oi;2 CHI WO In1P1,111NG CODLORATION by flrerne Coolrar.ting Corporation. Request. Yo rernne 1/.43 acres trout Industrial to Utf ice for a M3,040 sq. ft. Pg.1330 e.orivaat;' hear=, rarters and approval of an Envir-en::cital Asse,,smcnt Workcheet. located mutt, of W. I:',th Street (I-491) fr a :,:oe road ant! trnte.in Gelro a,rd C,.`r I.,It Cr nler, IOrrtinanrr Br. 4-82 - t e7nnirrq; Gi•t,oitrl inn No. £" 224 - ',Telit.Hr,,.ry plat, and Ie,.0lutit,n No. 82-i':' • FAn) Centineed frct;tr Septc:r.1,er 23. I'G1 lues.,O(tc,t,er 5, lc . City • • C. P Cr Sl FOG H,USING Ri'VI NIII BONUS BY G E D i iII I HPRI SES (BAYPOINT Mr,NOR pg 19,,1 /.PIckil;iitis) IN IHE "•,)11N1 0f $7,000,O00.00 (Resolution No. 82-239) 0. BURGER KING by Burger King Corp. Request for rezoning of .8 acre from Pg,1953 Rural to C-Reg-Ser., and preliminary plat approval to construct a Burger King restaurant. Located in the northwest corner of Glen Lane and Singictree Lane. (Ordinance No. 6-82 - rezoning, and Resolution No. 82-234 - prel. plat) E. [DINTALE 9TH ADD]TI0N (REVISED) by Equitable Life Assurance Society, P• 2004 Request for drvelc�ieart of Edenvale ITO 70-04, Planned Unit Development g' Concept a proval for office and industrial uses on 100 acres, preliminary plat approval, and possible variances. Located north of TH 5 and west of proposed Prairie Center Drive. (Resolution No. 82-235 - PUD Dev., and Resolution No. 82-236 - preliminary plat) F. V0HIN1IIRK OF AMERICA request to amend 10-12 PUD (Bryant take Center PIID1 to construct an enclosed walkway between buildings 5 8 6 with a zerolol Pg,2025 line setback. 7460 Market Place Drive. (Resolution No. 82-2371 G. VACATION OF IASiMLNTS IN RIDGIW'OOD 14LST (Resolution No. 82-241) Pg.2042 UII. PAYi•11hJT Of CLAIMS NOS. 3977 _ 4.176 Pg.2046 V]11. REPORTS Of ADVISORY C0HN]KSI0NS ORD1NANCIS & RISOLUIIONS A. Resolution No. 82-232, setting fees for the City of Eden Prairie Pg.2050 B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 5-82, rezoning 2.5 acres from Rural to Pg.2051 — —C_Reg_Ser. for Northwestern National Brnksouth by Banco Pro ernes, Inc. and developer's r+grrenient X. REPOR1S OF Off ]CIRS, BOARDS F COI.MISSIONS A. Report s of Council i•',erbers B. Ru;urt_of City Manager 1. Resolution No. 82-240, ajgrrOV t ng.the 1983, City Budget C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Public Works 1. Receive ION petition for preliminary_grading of Sinoletre_e I Pg.2059 Line and authorize pry}'oration of_plans and specifications_ I.C. 52-0:8 (Resolution No. 82-242) 1, NIW 8tr.INISS X11. AD,1011R=NT. k To: Mayor and Council From: John Frane Re: City Hall Roof Date: October 5, 1982 We have in the past years applied "band-aids" to the roofing of the City Hall. The roofing on the original building and the addition are in need of repairs and modification. The original section needs to be sloped slightly and additional insulation added. The roofing on the addition should have additional insulation and a different roofing material. Both of the roofs leak during a hard rain and when snow is melting. We can continue to apply "band-aids" but new leaks are constantly appearing. I recommend the Council appropriate about $20,000 from the General Fund Balance and take bids for new roofing. • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council TIIRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: September 30, 1982 SUBJECT: Donation of Plaque From Smiley Glotter Associates Gary Nyberg,of Smiley Glotter Associates, architect for the Eden Prairie Community Center will be in attendance at the October 5, 1982 meeting to present a plaque for the Community Center. This brushed aluminum plaque has the following simple message "Dedicated to the Citizens of Eden Prairie and Their Spirit of Recreation". The plaque will be mounted in the vestibule just to the right of the main entrance door. The plaque, valued at appruaimatcly $250, is being donated by Smiley Glotter Associates. BL:md • 1 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, George Bentley, Dean Edstrom, Paul Redpath and George Tangen COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Planning Director Chris Enger, Director of Community Services Bob Lampert, Director of Public !forks Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION: Councilman Paul Redpath ROLL CALL: all were present 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following items were moved from the Regular Agenda to the Consent Calen- dar: VII. B. Request by Hans Hagen to extend Northmark 4th time limit from July, 1982 toJu . 1983 became item III. L. and VI1. C. Request from Historical & Cultural Commission - Resolution No. 82-221, recognizing "Sunbonnet Day': as an official civic event became item III. M. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Agenda and Other Items of Business as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES A. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, August 3, 1962 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, August 3, 1982, as published. Motion carried with Edstrom abstaining. B. Minutes of the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting held Tuesdal, August 17, 1982 Page 2, para. 2, line 3: delete "from reading the Planning Commission minutes" Page 3, para. 3, line 2: delete "and the City Council" MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve the Minutes of the Joint City Council/Planning Conrnission Meeting held Tuesday, August 17, 1982, as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes -2- September 7, 1982 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Final Plat approval, Cardinal Creek 4th Addition (Resolution No. 82-216) B. Final Plat approval, Cardinal Creek 5th Addition (Resolution No. 82-217) C. Receive 1007' petition for utility_ and street improvements for CNR Golden Strip £ast(iesolution No. 82-218) D. Resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of 1982 Special_Assessment Rolls and setting Public Hearing for 7:30 p.m., September 21, 1982 (Resolution No. 82-220) E. DNR License for well collector line (2 creek crossings), I.C. 51-354, Phase III F. Receive petition for utility_and street improvements for Anderson Lakes Parkway between Mitchell Road and TN 169 and authorize the preparation of a feasibility report (Resolution No. 82-219) G. Clerk's License List H. Resolution approving lease agreement with DNR for trail around Staring Lake (Resolution No. 82-215) I. Award bids for construction of sidewalk on Franlo Road J. Award bids for construction of bike trail on County Road 1 west of County Road 4 K. Resolution No. 82-214, requesting Hennepin County to administer C.D.B.G. Rehabilitation Program L. Regiest by_HansHagen to extend Northmark 4th time limit from July, 1982 to July, 1983 M. Request from Historical & Cultural Commission - Resolution No. B2-221, recognizing "Sunbonnet Day" as an official civic event MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Edstrom, to approve items A - M on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ARBOR GLEN BY BFK PARTNERSHIP. Request for PUD approval on 40 acres for residential uses, rezoning from Rural to R1-13:5 for 24 acres for 51 units and from Rural to RN 6.5 for 8 acres for 28 units, and preliminary plat approval for the construction of 51 single and 28 townhouse units and possible variances. Located in the northeast corner of Baker Road and Valley View Road, and south of Cardinal Creek. (Resolution No. 82-211 - PUD, Ordinance No. 82-23 - rezoning, and Resolution No. 82-212 - preliminary plat) / ' City Council Minutes -3- September 7, 1982 Howard Kyllo, representing the developer, BEK, was present as was James Hill, architect for the developer, who addressed the proposal. Director of Planning Enger stated the proposal had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its August 9, 1982, meeting at which time it voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations contained in the Staff Report of August 5, 1982. Director of Community Services Lambert noted the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Conmission had reviewed the proposal at its August 16, 1982 meeting at which time it recommended approval subject to the recommendations included in the Staff Report and with the addition of a trail connection. The Commission also recommended there be a future trail on the east side of Baker Road. Lambert noted the best location for a trail along Valley View Road would be on the south side. Penzel asked if the City would have an easement to connect to the south- east. Lambert stated the City would own "Outlot A" which would take care of that. Redpath noted the number of single family lots available in the City and asked why this site was chosen for development. Hill said the Cardinal Creek development to the north had proven to be very successful and the developers of this property decided to come forth with their proposal largely due to the success of adjacent property. Iiill said they hope to market both the single-family and townhomes at the same time. Jerrold T. Miller, 7120 Gerard Drive, had a question regarding the eastern boundary of the project -- his concern centered largely on the hill on the property line. Hill said they have submitted a grading plan for the area. It is the developers' intention to maintain the slopes. Enger said the ex- isting 2:1 slopes would remain. Bentley expressed concern about the problem of marketability of the south- western single-family lots which back up to the townhouses. Miller said he would hope the trees would not be removed -- this is largely dependent on the machine operators. Penzel said the City would require staking and snow fencing in areas not to be touched. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 82-211, approving the Arbor Glen Planned Unit Development and amending the Guide Plan. Motion carried unanimously. MDTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 2-82, rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 for 24 acres and from Rural to RM 6.5 for 8 acres. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to instruct Staff to draft the Developer's Agreement including the recommendations contained in the August • City Council Minutes -4- September 7, 1982 5, 1982, Staff Report; staking and snow-fencing the areas not to be dis- turbed during grading; and the road to be constructed as one project. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No. 82-212, approving the preliminary plat of Arbor Glen. Motion carried unanimously. B. NORSEMAN INDUSTRIAL_ PARK 5th ADDITION by Herleiv Helle,. Request for rezoning plat approval. Located south of West 74th Street extended. (Ordinance No. 3-82 - rezoning and Resolution No. 82-213 - preliminary plat) Herleiv Helle was present and spoke to the rezoning and preliminary plat requests. Director of Planning Enger stated the Planning Commission had reviewed the requests at its August 9, 1982, meeting at which time it recommended approval subject to the Staff Report of August 4, 1982. The Commission also recommen- ded that prior to further platting in this industrial park the owner be required to update the concept plan of the proposed development and road alignment. This recommendation came from a discussion as to the need to connect West 74th Street westerly and then northerly to Valley View Road. There was no report from the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commis- sion. Bentley asked how many parcels are left to be developed. Helle said there are 30.6 acres undeveloped. Bentley asked why there is no PUD for the pro- ject. Helle said since the zoning is all the same it was his understanding a PUD was not necessary. Bentley said he would like to see what Helle has in mind for the rest of the site -- a concept plan. Helle said he felt the road connection recommended by the Planning Commis- sion is in his interest because he needs it to market the project. MOTION: Edstrom moved seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 3-82, rezoning 2 acres from Rural to 1-2 Park. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No. 82-213, approving the preliminary plat of Norseman Industrial Park 5th Addition. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Rcdpath, to instruct Staff to draft a Developer's Agreement taking into consideration the recommendations included in the Staff Report of August 4, 1052; noting no further zonings will be con- sidered unless a plan for the remaining land is presented; and other recommen- dations of the Commission as noted here this evening, Motion carried unanimous], ,' i City Council Minutes -5- September 7, 1982 C. USE OF REVENUE SHARING FUNDS { Penzel noted Finance Director Franc's memorandum of September 2, 1982. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Edstrom moved, seconded by Bentley, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt the Staff recommendations for the use of Revenue Sharing Funds as outlined in Director of Finance Franc's memorandum of September 2, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 3406 - 3717 The Council discussed the pro rata refunding of license payments. It was determined that, specifically in the case of liquor licenses, this might be construed as a license transfer. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve Payment of Claims Nos. 3406 - 3717, withholding payment on Claim No. 3563. Roll call vote: Bentley, Edstrom (abstained on Claim No. 3633), Redpath, Tangen and Penzel voted "aye. ' Motion carried. VI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS There were no reports. VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Petition from Frank Smetana, Jr. Frank J. Smetana, 7722 Smetana Lane, referred to a petition of August 12, 1982, which had been submitted to the City regarding the non-residential use of Smetana Lane. Smetana spoke to the reasons the residents do not wish to have trucks on their street and gave a brief history as to how this came about. Penzel asked City Manager Jullie if there had been a permit issued for the crossing of the creek and the grading work. Jullie said the upgrading was minor and was over an existing crossing. The watershed district was asked to look at this and concurred with the City. Don Sorensen, attorney for Smetana, stated that Pearson had violated Ordinance f103. He gave additional background information on the issue. Redpath suggested Pearson and Helle get together to discuss a north/south road through their properties to Valley View Road. Jullie said he had spoken with Pearson on Friday and he had agreed to have no trucks travel on Smetana Lane prior to 9 a.m. Ile had also said he would be willing to work with the City to find a location for a turn- around at the end of Smetana Lane so that school buses could go to the end of the road to pick up children. Jullie, Pearson, and school repro- • City Council Minutes -6- September 7, 1982 sentatives had met at the site on Friday afternoon to discuss a possible location and it appeared there would be adequate space and this is accep- table to the school. Pearson would supply the aggregate for the cul-de-sac turnaround). Pearson has oiled the road. Smetana said he would accept the turnaround but he objects to the road being used for other than residential purposes. A letter from Marilyn Heath, 7665 Smetana Lane, was submitted for inclusion with the Minutes (see attached.) MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Edstrom, to instruct Staff to post Smetana Lane "no trucks" and to instruct Public Safety to enforce this posting. Pearson is to be notified of this as soon as possible. The road improvements are to begin also. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request by Hans Hagen to extend Northmark 4th time limit from July, 1982 to July, 1983 This item was moved to the Consent Calendar as item III. L. C. Request from Historical & Cultural Commission - Resolution No. 82-221, recognizing "Sunbonnet Day" as an official civic event. This item was moved to the Consent Calendar as item III, M. VIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members I. Penzel - called attention to a letter from Senator Rudy Boschwitz (see attached) regarding cable tv legislation. 2. Penzel - noted a letter from Jerry Wigen regarding the fees at the Community Center (see attached.) B. Report of City Manager 1. Proposed 1982 (bal.) and 1983 budget for Southwest Suburban Cable Commission City Manager Jullie addressed the proposed Cable Commission budget. Redpath noted what had transpired at the Cable Commission meeting the other evening regarding the budget. Redpath stated the Commission is in the process of hiring a manager. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Proposed Budget for 1982 and 1983 for Southwest Suburban Cable Commission. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes -7- September 7, 1982 2. Set hearing date for City_Buget MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to set Tuesday, Septem- ber 14, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. as the time and date for a special Council Meeting at which time the budget will be reviewed. Motion carried unanimously. C. Report of City Attorney_ There was no report. X. NEW BUSINESS There was none. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The following items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk as attachments to the September 7, 1982, Minutes of the City Council: 1. Letter dated August 30, 1982, from Senator Rudy Boschwitz regarding Cable Telecommunications Act of 1982. 2. Letter from Marilyn Heath, dated September 7, 1982, regarding the Smetana Lane situation. 3. Letter from Jerry Wigen, dated August 30, 1982, regarding the Community Center fees. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST October 5, 1982 CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) Excel Builders, Inc. L & D Custom Remodeling Minnesota Earth Shelter, Inc. P & R Builders, Inc. Prairie Construction PLUMBING Dependable Well Co. SEPTIC SYS1EMS Haas & Haas, Inc. WELL DRILLING E. H. Renner & Sons VENDING MACHINES Samll Change Company These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. C:—:), • Pat Solie, Licensing EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA WATER WORKS IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 51-354 • CONTRACT NO. 1 WATER SUPPLY WELLS NO. 4, NO. 5 AND NO. 6 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 I. SCOPE This Change Order No. 3 includes adjustments in contract price related to (1) the gravel drive at Well No. 6 and (2) final work quantities. II. ORDER A. GRAVEL DRIVE. A gravel drive connecting Valley View Road with Well No. 6 shall be con- structed of a 6 inch thick layer of gravel and 14 feet wide. Gravel shall be ?EiD 3138, Class 5. B. FINAL WORK OUANTITIES. In accordance with the provisions of the Contract Documents, the contract price shall be adjusted to reflect the actual amount of work done and materials furnished. The following table lists the estimated quantities, actual quantities of work, and the corresponding changes in price. Estimated Actual Unit Change in Descri tp ion Quantity Quantity Unit Price Price 30 Inch Drive Pipe 465 531 ft 110.00 $7,260.00 29 Inch Hole 180 125 ft 60.00 -(3,300.00) 24 Inch Well Casing 645 656 ft 42.50 467.50 24 Inch Open Hole 465 504 ft 50.00 1,950.00 Sacks of Cement 1,200 926 ea 10.00 -(2,740.00) Explosives 1,500 725 lbs 1.00 -( 775.00) Sandstone Removal 600 665 cy 50.00 3,250.00 Test Pumping 108 84 lbs 120.00 -(2,880.00) Pump Column Length (4 6 5) 330 328.18 ft 123.80 -( 225.32) Pump Column Length (6) 165 186.89 ft 144.80 3,169.67 Total Change Due to Final Work Quantities $6,176.85 (EDEN PRAIRIE, MINN) (WATER SUPPLY WELLS) CO3-1 • III. CHANGE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT Adjustments to the contract price resulting from the aforementioned items shall be as shown below. The price for the gravel drive is based upon an agreed to lump sum price and the price for the final work quantities is based upon measured quantities installed. Gravel Drive $ 974.00 Final Work Quantities '6176.85 Total Change Order No. 3 $ 7,150.85 The net change to the contract amount is summarized as follows: Current Contract Price $642,988.00 Change Order No. 3 7,150.85 New Contract Price $650,138.85 IV. ACCEPTANCE The changes and conditions set forth in this Change Order No. 3 are hereby accepted. A&K CONSTRUCTION, INC. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Contractor Owner By By Date Date By _ City Manager Date (EP3:N PRAIRIE, MINN) (WATER SUPPLY WELLS) CO3-2 EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA WATER WORKS IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 51-354, CONTRACT NO. 2 1 M.G. ELEVATED STORAGE RESERVOIR AND WATER MAIN CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 I. SCOPE • This Change Order No. 1 includes adjustments in contract price related to (1) deletion of City's name to be painted on elevated reservoir, (2) electrical power service connection to the elevated reservoir, and (3) changes to the layout of buried piping near Baker Road Reservoir. II. ORDER A. PAINTED LETTERING. The specified requirement that the name "EDEN PRAIRIE" be painted on opposite sides of the reservoir is hereby deleted. B. ELECTRICAL POWER SERVICE CONNECTION. Buried electrical power service connection between the NSP power pole and the elevated reservoir shall be installed under this contract. The connec- tion shall be made with three conductor No. 2 AWG copper cable designed for buried service (approximately 150 feet long). This addition to the contracted scope of work is made necessary by a change in policy by Northern States Power Co. C. BURIED PIPING AT BAKER ROAD RESERVOIR. The orientation of the buried piping at Baker Road Reservoir shall be modified from that shown on the drawings to accomodate the locations of the existing piping as it was discovered to be in the field. The changes in the piping require two additional 16 x 16 x 16 tees, a 16 inch elbow in place of a 12 inch elbow, deletion of a 16 inch 45° bend, an additional 12 inch elbow, and an additional cut into an existing 16 inch pipe. (EDEN PRAIRIE, MINN (1 MC ELEV. STORAGE RES.) CO1-1 • III. CHANGE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT Adjustments to the contract price resulting from the aforementioned items shall be as shown below. The prices for all three items are based upon agreed to lump sum prices. Painted Lettering $-(660.00) Electrical Power Service Connection 875.00 Buride Piping at Baker Road Reservoir 3,870.00 • Total Change Order No. 1 $4,085.00 The net change to the contract amount is summarized as follows: Current Contract Price $888,350.00 Change Order No. 1 4,085.00 New Contract Price $892,435.00 IV. ACCEPTANCE The changes and conditions set forth in this Change Order No. 1 are hereby accepted. PITTSBURGH-DES MOINES CORPORATION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Contractor Owner By By Mayor Date Date By City Manager Date • (EDEN PRAIRIE, MINN (1 MG ELEV. STORAGE RES.) CO1-2 r111 • Edenvale 15th Add. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1982 by and among Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, a New York Corporation, Equitable Life Mortgage and Realty Investors, a Massa- chusetts voluntary association of the type commonly known as a Massachusetts business trust under a Declaration of Trust dated September 15, 1910 as amended having its principal office at One Federal Street, Boston, Massa- chusetts, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and the CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City to rezone from Rural to RM 6.5 approximately 17 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described as Outlot D, Edenvale 3rd Addition, hereinafter referred to 3s "the property", and WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property for construction of 106 townhouse residential units. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. 82-19 and Resolution 82-117, Owner covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Owner shall plat and develop the property in conformance with the material dated May 11, 1982 reviewed and approved by the City Council on July 20, 198? and attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Owner shall not develop, construct upon or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Owner covenants and agrees to the perforamnce and observance by Owner at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit 8, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Developer's Agreement-Edenvale 15th Addition page 2 3. Owner shall construct a totlot with structure as depicted on Exhibit A. Said structure shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions contained in Exhihit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Such totlot shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the 5th building permit and shall he main- tained by Owner until the totlot is transferred. Owner shall only transfer the totlot to the homeowner's association, and shall require such association to maintain the totlot. 4. Concurrent with street and utility construction, Owner shall construct a 5 foot wide 4 inch thick concrete sidewalk within • the right-of-way and west and south of the driving surface of Lesley lane cer ;.encing at the property's western boundary and • • terminating at Edenvale Blvd. All as depicted on Exhibit.A • and according to the specifications of the City Engineer. 5. Owner shall file and record declarations of covenants, con- ditions, and restrictions, on the property which contain • provision to exclusion of recreational vehicles, and maintenance of open space. Prior to filing and recording, said declaration shall be approved by the Planning Director. b. Prior to any work upon the site, Owner shall install snow fencing around trees to be preserved and adjacent to stands of trees • to he preserved, all as depicted on Exhibit A, and as approved by the Com;nunity Services Director. Said fencing shall remain in place until the Community Services Director determines the property is restored. 7. Owner shall not construct, nor permit to be constructed, any • units upon the property until such time Edenvale Boulevard is constructed (or under construction) from its present terminous northwesterly past Lesley Lane's northerly most intersection with Edenvale Boulevard. 8. Concurrent with street and utility construction, and prior to issuance of any permit to build upon the property, Owner shall construct a 5 foot high vertical cedar board fence along the property's eastern boundary as depicted on Exhibit A. 9. In implementation of POD 70-04 and as variance from certain provisions imposed by City Ordinance 135, as amended, City authorizes the use of wood as an exterior material. 10. Owner shall execute an assessment agreement with the City of Fden Prairie for the improvements to Edenvale Boulevard south of Birch Island Road by 9/1/82. The elements of the agreement are to stoolri:e the verbal and written ccelinittmonts of the remaining • items to he constructed along,the Fd<envale Boulevard. Such ayree..ent shdll include but not be limited to : street, concrete curb, utilities, Nthway, and sidreaalk improvements, and other improvements requirud by the City Engineer. Developer's Agreement-Edcnvale 15th Addition page 3 IN WITNESS I.$EREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • s by Wolfgang II. Penzel, Mayor by Carl. J. Jul 1ie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNFY OF IHENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1982 by Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor and Carl J. Jul lie the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation on of the corporati on. Notary Public — -- --- EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES & EQUITABLE LIFE MORIGAGE AND REALTY INVESTORS Hum,7r<.ys, s tan t • ion i• lager /� STATE OF MINNESOIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 22-- day of ,, ' :('-t'�, 1982 by Jack M. Hurnp'hreys, Assistant Division Manager of fyu Table Life Assurance Society of the United States and Equitable Life Mortgage and Realty Investors, a New York corporation, on behalf of the corporation. /� l%+ ' r CF ` Nota ry Public / t tires ,.iy la 5 y • --- . . --. -.- -, _._,...-----> ..,-;--:, :- • ' • - _ � ( ?,! �I 11 I; I ",.- 1 '',- Y. :►_ 7 , \ l f '=.--i / \�' i ' ,' 1 i 1 1_c� 1 -i• .. \.{ \I�i) \ \ ��-- / ,r am5 "''' :), C").,,-"Z. ' ''' .. ' ---\ k:,,,,'‹s•,'''\ \ " ''. - ( .,,e_ .. (s:('''), '"',\\\—Y,..\\\ • ' / " • ',_„... /, •••,. . c.:„,y71 \ , k:,,, ,_ li, / . ` /. .7;/ (.--'; ' tt } • .._ _l\ 1 l 1 i � , _ � 71 ) 1 � ,1'1 �� }14 -- \his, a- -'i .� // i,/,/ r , i , I P'• 1)' ei•/- /i, . ';- , i, ( -i , � .„ ,, „--) .., , •\ , ,, iiii.f / rL\ J I.: li (1„ 1-,-,,,; i__.,-"- , ir, x., . , . \.----,.. ' .. . • i '1 l• ; 1(...1...../' '''''A_'1') \i,,,.: ..,•, !., _ A. , , ',..'''. i _, /1.,. ! I, • � . {( 7\` ' \` 1 i, qj- )1; 1�/t _!_ _ 1 � # ,\ �. I �� ' , ( - ///7 , � �" t ;. Q large trees to be Id / 11 - /// 1 � '{� I ( \ / /i stands of trees to \ 7 preserved i',i. III t� iN6C i' / ..s\ - bui1din�.)s to be shi` i I \/h / \ preserve trees ,1.1\ '\\ / ;,,/.. 5 foot high cedar ' I ', \, 'v / 1 • EYIIicili A , 5klctin\Y. /' -' /!'i� May 1 i, 1'll'2 • CITY Of EDEN PRAIRIE HE.NNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 82-19 Edenvale 15th AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Appendix A of City Code is amended as follows: The property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as Outlot D, Edenvale 3rd Addition shall be and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the RM 6.5 District. Section 2. The above described property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of 1982 between Equitable Life Mortgage and Realty Investors and Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and the City of Eden Prairie which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject to all City Codes, rules and regualtions of the City of Eden Prairie relating to the RM 6.5 District. Section 3. This ordinance shall be come 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 20th of July, I982 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular mretinq of the City Council of said City on the day of _ ,1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: John Ci, franc, _City Clerk 11101 I':I11 i) in the Eden Prairie News on the __ of _ , 1982 October 5, 1982 CITY OF E[HN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MiLU LSOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-238 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF CITY WEST • WHEREAS, the plat of City West has been sub- mitted in the N.anner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the 1•Sinnesota 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 ordin- ances 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 City West is approved upon compliance with the recoucnendation of the City Engineer's Report on this plat dated September 28, 1982. B. That. the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution in the office of the Register of Deed and/or Regis- trar of Titles for their use as required by MSA 462.358, Subd. 3. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to Execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon com- pliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on October 5, 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk !;' CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Pepzel and City Council Members • THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works FROM: David Olson, Engineering Technician DATE: September 28, 1982 SUBJECT: CITY WEST PROPOSAL: The developer, Richard W. Anderson, Inc. has requested City Council approval of the• final plat of City West. This plat is a Planned Unit Development consisting of approximately 87 acres located east and north of Shady Oak Road and west of T.N. 169-212 in Section 1. HISTORY: The Planned Unit Development of approximately 87 acres for office, commercial and residential uses was approved by the City Council on November 17, 1981, per Resolution No. 81-226. The Planned lLiit Development Agreement referred to within this report • as the PUD Agreement was executed on February 16, 1982. • The preliminary plat for approximately 16 acres (Lots 1 through 7, Block • 1 of the submitted final plat) was approved by the City Council on April 6, 1982, per Resolution 82-60. Zoning to Office for the 1G acre area previously described was finally read and approved by the City Council on April 20, 1982, per Ordinance No. B2-07. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed on April 15, 1982. This Developer's Agreement covers the 16 acre area described above. Outlot A will be owned by the developer and will be rezoned and replatted at a later date. Outlot B consists of a ponding area the level of which 011 be maintained by a private well and pump. Ownership of Outlot 3 and maintenance responsibilities for the well and pumping equipment will be conveyed by the developer to property owners within City West. VARIANCES: Variances to be allowed are described in the Developer's Agreement. All other variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. In conformance with the PUD Agreement, the developer must follow the rezoning process for all areas other than Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, prior to the issuance of building permits or the approval of replats. ) Pg. 2 - Final Mat City West UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities, roadways and walkways, will be installed throughout the development in conformance with City standards and the requirements of the Developer's Agreement and the PUD Agreement. Drainage and utility easements •consistent with the requirements of the Engineering Department will be placed on the plat prior to release. An agreement between the developer and the City to cover the maintenance • of the decorative street lighting to be used within the plat will be necessary prior to release of the plat. PARK DEDICATIDN: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: The requirements for bonding are covered in the Developer's Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Reconsnend approval of the final plat of City West subject to the requirements of this report, the PUD Agreement, the Developer's Agree- ment and the following: 1. Receipt of cash deposit for street signs in the amount of $280.00. 2. Execution of street lighting agreement. DLO:sg } 1 • RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE to NDS PGLi: ANT TO CHAPTER 462C, MINN[ESOTA STATUTES; ADOPTING A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the City) , as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. By the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 46C, as amended (the Act) , the City is authorized to pl5,n, administer, issue and sell revenue bonds or obli- gations to make or purchase loans to finance one or more multifamily housing developments within its boundaries which revenue bonds or obligations shall be payable solely from the revenues of the development. 1.02. The Act provides that, prior to issuing revenue bonds or obligations to finance a multifamily housing development, the City musti"e8uc.,_lop a housing plan and, after holding a public hearing thereon alter notice published at least thirty days prior thereto, submit the housing plan for review to the regional development commission. 1.03. On February 2, 1982, after thirty days published notice, this Council adopted to City of Eden Prairie's Comprehensive Guide Plan and Housing Assistance Plan (which is with the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Guide Plan) . The Comprehensive Guide Plan was approved by Metropolitan Council pursuant to Subdivision 1 of Section 462C.04 of the Act on March 11, 1982. 1.04. The Act further provides that the City may plan, administer and make or purchase a loan or loans to finance one or more developments of the kinds described in Subdivisions 2,3,4 and 7 of Section 462C.05 of the Act upon adoption of a program setting forth the information required by Subdivision G of Section 462C.05 of the Act after a public hearing thereon and upon approval by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency as provided by Section 462C.01 of the Act en the basis of the considerations stated in Section 462C.04 of the Act. 1.05. The City has caused to be prepared a program for a multifamily housing development pursuant to the require- ments of Subdivision 5 of Section 462C.05 of the Act (the Program). A public hearing was held on the Program on October 5, 1982; notice of said public hearing was published in the Eden prairie New, and t;he Minne:+t,o.irs Star and Tribune at: least. 1.1! I 'c n days prior to the date cif the hearing. All pea tics Wishing to be heard were heard. 1: Section 2. Approvals and Authorization. 1.01. The Program is hereby adopted by the City pursuant to Subdivision 5 of Section 462C.05 of the Act. 1.02. The Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk and other officers and employees of the City are hereby authorized to submit the Program, accompani.e_d by the Housing Plan, to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for review and approval pursuant to Subdivision 2 of Section 462C.04 of the Act. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 5th day of October, 1982. Mayor Attest: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. -2- EXHIBIT A • PROGRAM FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT UNDER CHAPTER 462C - BAYPOINT MANOR PROJECT Messrs. Walter D. Doelz and James E. Gratz (the Developer), who will be general partners in Raypoint • Manor, a Minnesota partnership (the Partnership), have acquired and intend to exercise an option to purchase certain land located at 11111 Neil Lake Road in the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the City), for the purpose of constructing thereon a 152-unit rental apartment building (the Project). Unit size composition of the Project will be as follows: 20 one-bedroom units and 132 two-bedroom units. Consistent with the housing needs of the City described in the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan (the Comprehensive Plan), a report prepared by the City and Brauer & Associates, Inc. , the Project will enable the City to meet its two housing goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan: encourage a variety of housing types and prices through innovative architectural and land use and encourage low income housing throughout the City. The Plan Elements chapter of the housing section of the Comprehensive Plan calls for continued cooperation between the public sector and private industry to insure the production of modest cost housing for middle income households. The Project will be designed to be affordable by persons and families with adjusted gross income not in excess of the limits set forth in Section 462C.03, Subdivision 2, Minnesota Statutes and by other persons and families to the extent necessary to further a policy of economic integration. At least 31 units in the Project will be held for occupancy by families or individuals with adjusted gross income not in excess of 80 percent of the median family income estimated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Minneapolis-St. Paul standard metropolitan statistical area and at least 84 units in the Project will be held for occupancy by families or individuals whose adjusted gross income does not exceed sixty-six times the gross rental for the applicable dwelling unit, provided such gross rental ahall not exceed 120 percent of the Fair Market Rents for the geographical area in which the Project is located as determined and adjusted from time to time by HUD. The remainder of the units in the Project will be occupied by individuals anti families without regard to income limits. The authorization of revenue bonds to finance the Project will make the Project feasible. -7- 1c c 7 A It is anticipated that housing development { revenue bonds of the City will be issued and sold pursuant to Section 462.07, Minnesota Statutes, for the purpose of providing construction and long-term financing for the Project, in the aggregate principal amount of approximately $7,000,000, which is the amount presently estimated to be necessary to pay a portion of total development and financing costs. • -S- I � f� P, HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES CONSULTING PLANNERS ONE G R O V E L A N O TERRACE MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55403 6i2•3))•1E.3E 8 September 1982 William Dearman, Chairman Members of the Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Honorable Chairman and Members: The attached materials are intended to suplement that which has already been submitted in support of the proposed Burger King Restaurant in the Eden Glen Development. This information is presented in summary form Lo expedite your review and includes the following: 1. An Eden Glen PUD Update, 2. A discussion of the marketability of the proposed Burger King Restaurant versus the office use previously proposed, and 3. A summary of the traffic report prepared for the Burger King Restaurant by benehoof and Associates, Transportation Planning and Engineering Consultants. . EDEN GLEN DUD UPDATE 1. Original Anrnoval. The Eden Glen Planned Unit Development was given concept approval. by the Eden Prairie City Council in January 1961. A copy of that: approved plan was included in the previous submission and is once again included to facilitate your review (see Figure 5). As Figure 5 illustrates, this plan called for a total of eight buildings on seven lots and the development summary included two fast foot restaurants, one Class I restaurant, one retail lot (two buildings), and three office uses. 2. Review of Development Activity end Ar;nrovels to Date. A full- sized print his been attached to this letter which illustrates the existing Hardee's restaurant, the approved De:Laria's KFC restaurant, the approved Sheraton Hotel, the proposed Purger King restaurant, and the current status of the three remaining parcels. As the Commission is aware, the, approval of the first two fast food William ltearnan, Chairman Members of the Planning Commission City at Eden Prairie 8 September 1982 Page 2 restaurants were virtually identical to the proposed CUD, but the approval of the 152 room Sheraton Hotel, on 6 April of this year, represented a significant change in the tone and direction of the PUD. As the attached PUD update drawing illustrates, the approved Sheraton Hotel entailed not only a change in the proposed use of this parcel, but also, a considerable enlargement of its size. The negotiations to facilitate this increase in size also brought about another very beneficial change, i.e., the purchase and • inclusion of the one (*) acre Beckman property in the Eden Glen Development. Beginning with the existing Hardee's restaurant in the northeast corner of the development and proceeding in a clock-wise direction, the following is a report of the status of each of the planned parcels. a. Hardee's Restaurant. The existing Hardee's Restaurant is the only devcic vent approved within Eden Glen which has been constructed to date. The restaurant has been very successful in this location, greatly exceeding North Central Foods expectations for it. b. DeLaria's Kentucky Fried ('hicken Restaurant. The DeLaria's RFC Restaurant has been approved and the property is now owned by DeLaria' Kitchens Inc. We understand that construction drawings have been completed for this use and that Mr. DeLaria is in the process of negotiating financing for the facility. It is expected to be built as approved. C. Lot 3, Class I Restaurant. Interest has been expressed regarding the construction of a standard, family restaurant on this site, and as the PUD Update Plan illustrates, Jesco continues to propose this use for the parcel. d. Lot 4, Retail. Jesco, Inc. has received and considered an offer for the purchase of this lot and the development of a small retail center. This proposal called for a single building as opposed to the two suggested on the Concept Plan, but the land use was essentially the same. The Update Plan continues to project the end use of this valuable parcel as retail. e. Lot Ii, Proposed Corder King Restaurant. Lot 5 was approved for an office use on the original PUD. Please refer to the sections 7 ' William Beaman, Chairman Memhers of the Planning Commission City of Eden Frairi.e 8 September 1982 Page 3 which follow for a discussion of this change. f. Lot G, Office Use. With the increase in the size of the Sheraton Is cel and the inclusion of the Beckman property in the PUD, the shape and size of. Lot 5 has also changed. Interestingly, the size of the parcel has only been decreased by 0.1 (i) acre and the building square footage remains essentially the same. As noted above, the approval of the Sheraton Hotel and the proposed Burger King Restaurant have change the tone and direction of the Eden Glen Development. It was previously an office-restaurant-service oriented development with some retail, and it has now shifted more strongly in the direction of a restaurant-service uses PUD, with again a single retail component. The PUD Update drawing continues to designate this site for office, consistent with the original CUD. Some interest has been expressed in the development of a small professional office building and a satellite bank facility. However, with the approval of the Sheraton and the Burger King proposal, there seems to be some merit in the development of another standard restaurant on this site. Jesco, Inc. would appreciate hearing the Planning Commission and City Council's feelings regarding this change. g. Sheraton Intel Site. As the Commission is aware, the designa- tion of Lot ] of the original Eden Glen Planned Unit Development was changed with the approval of the 152 room Sheraton hotel. This hotel facility is still expected to be developed as approved. MARKETABILITY OF A BURGER KING RESTAURANT VERSUS OFFICE A survey, completed in April of 1982, of existing available office space in Suburban Minneapolis has been prepaied by Eberhardt Real Estate Company and is included in this report as Figure 1. The portion of the study area south of Crosstown 62 and west of I-35W is known as the southwest area and encompasses the Eden Glen Planned Unit Development. On page 11 of the survey the office space absorption study is summarized. As indicated in the summary table, the southwest area has an over abundance of vacant office space. The absorption rate of the existing 2,017,800 sivare feet of office space available in the southwest area r f William Bcarman, Chairman Members of the Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8 September 1982 Page 4 is 126 months (10.5 years). The study reveals that the southwest area has at least four times as much vacant office space as the other areas studied. The potential market, as revealed in this survey, for as much office space as proposed in the original Eden Glen PUD is at this time very low. In contrast to the marketability of office space in the southwest area a great market potential for restaurants does exist. Please refer to the market study for restaurants in the Major Center Area which has been prepared by Burger King (Figure 2). SUMMARY OF THE; TRAFFIC REPORT Attached is a summary (Figure 3) of a traffic report prepared by Benshoof and Associates for the Burger King Restaurant. CONCLUS I ON The market potential for a Burger King Restaurant on the Eden Glen PUD is far greater than that for an office building. As the office space survey indicated, the market for office space in the southwest area is extremely soft. The traffic analysis prepared by Benshoof and Associates supports the development of a restaurant and forsees no adverse impacts created by the traffic generated. Howard Dahlgren Associates, Inc. support the development of the Burger King in Eden Glen and hope the Planning Commission will recognize the restaurant as a viable addition to the City. Sincerely, C John W. Shardlow Principal Planner enclosures Figure 1 i C ( x1 1mI = 1 ° IaI ° IccI0li • ' O cc Y a a m .: _Q W co CV 6'= N — e. " ,o Z 0 CO s?.m I, o'er-1.��._�" ;<, Z -Ir a '— _ e al�� a '�'1f,) r , '' ---, + id / z: ; x _ _,__a_ __ : 0 ,,:i ,i•,,,,•/„..; ,)--- z.•,,,--.7) 1\1 f 1..,;:::,.4 ., ,s, . — 1- ).\:.--?) 4i' k,y)-7-/•,•-- t:1 ‘_,-" • .,,...., -,2 ' ,-0/..:_,W- / y •••= ,,, Z - 1 i >i?iiii . D -,, ,.___. 7 ----7;/ t `fib ?_. 4 x ' - I 2 I O 1 a f O I - 1 - I r- -6- I - --- - - --) Figure 1 r L: OFFICE SPACE ABSORPTION STUDY S MINNEAPOLIS SUBURBS JUNE 1, 1981-APRIL 1, 1982 . CURRE• .. USEABLE RENTABLE % % RENTABLE RENTAP. r.,f.P AREA AREA LEASED LEASED SQ.FT. SQ.FT. ' 0. BUILOTOG SQ.FT. SQ.FT. 6/1/31 4/1/82 LEASED UNLEA1' -SOUTH 1 Appletree Square T.o 100,00D 115,DDD 0 0 D 115,Ou: i 2 Petro Office Park New 200,000 230,000 96 98 '4,60D 4,6Ce Old 312,000 358,800 98 98 7,200 7,20 ] 3 Alpha Business Center 8100 20,400 23,500 0 100 23,500 8140 20,400 23,500 0 100 23,500. `` Atrium '9D,OOJ 0 30 27,000 63,0' 4 BLN Office Park A 63,000 60 92 20,200 5,0b LIB 63,000 0 0 63,0C 5 Airport Business 0 Center Two 41,300 100 41,300 6 Valley Office Park 54,000 62,100 85 90 3,100 6,20 r '7 Southtown Office Park 127,ODO 146,D00 92 90 (3,000) 14,6C TOTAL SOUTH 1,515,700 ' 147,400 278,0 SOUTHWEST • . 9 Northwestern Financial Center 432,754 99 97 (8,650) 13,0': .� 10 York Place 54,944 96 100 2,200 11 Northland Executive I Office Center Q Phase One 192,D00 220,000 26 70 96,800 66,0'f Phase Two 192,000 220,000 0 0 220,C; Q12 Edina Business Plaza 84,000 50 42,00D . 42,C' tf 14 Southdate 177,000 202,000 95 86 (18,200) 28,3, 16 Pentagon Office Park 645,000 742,000 99 91 (59,400) 66,0 I 17 Paramount Plaza Two 27,719 31,900 0 92 29,300 2,`., Three 71,606 82,400 0 0 82, Four 29,191 33,700 0 0 33,1: -8- iii • 77G0 W AGM 51.MINN/6POIIS.MN,- Figure 1 • OFFICE SPACE ABSORPTION S1UDY I . IMINNEAPOLIS SUBURBS DUNE 1, 1981-APRIL 1, .1982 CURRENT USEABLE RENTABLE RENTABLE RENTABi.L • M4P • AREA • AREA LEASED LEASED SQ.FT. SQ.FT. , 4%3 BUILDING SQ.FT. SQ.FT. 6/1/81 4/1/82 LEASED UNLEAS !? 18 Cabriole 47,000 54,050 70 95 13,500 2,700', 1 19 Prairie Lakes Bus. Park 132,000 .35 46,200 85,80U 20 Minn. Prot. Life 53,250 61,200 84 80 2,500 12,2501 i ] 23 Southdale Office Center 381,000 438,000 98 95 (13,140) 22,000 25 Titus 51,278 59,000 100 96 (2,400) 2,400 27 Edina Executive Plaza ... 40,000 70 92 17,000 3,300 i 1 28 One Corporate Center Four 98,000 112,700 0 0 112,7001 1 29 7400 Metro 88,000 101,200 90 100 10,120 30 Century Corporate Plaza 98,000 0 0 98,000I I 1 ' Metro Place 40,700 0 0 40,700: 1 32 France Place 175,000 201,250 • 0 0 201,250, 33 France Drive In Bldg One 375,000 0 0 375,000I 1 34 Eden Borough 101,000 0 0 101,000 35 Normandale Lake 300,000 0 0 300,000 36 Braemar Office Park 106,000 0 0 106,00E TOTAL SOUTHWEST 5,191,500 159,630 2,017,80C II;EST 1 1 3E3 Opus Center 321,000 85 272,850 48,150 39 Brenwood Office Park Phase Three 40,100 46,100 0 100 46,100 C 40 Woodhill Plaza 50,000 54,517 80 93 7,100 3,80C- 1 41 Parkdale Office Park Plaza 208,000 90 98 16,640 4,2(0' _n_ 1 E erti rc . „so W.61"St.MINNIAPOI IS.MINN Figure 1 OFFICE SPACE ABSORPTION STUDY MINNEAPOLIS SUBURBS JUNE 1,1981-APRIL 1,1982 SUMMARY TABLE 10 MONTH PERIOD • (A) (B) (C) (0) (E) (F) SQ.FT. LEASED MONTHS TO LEASE UP TOTAL SQ.FT. RENTABLE PER MONTH PRESENT AT LAST 10 MD. RATE AREA RENTABLE SIFT. LEASED (C : 10) VACANCY (E D) SOUTH 1,515,700 , 147,400 14,74D 278,600 19 SOUTHWEST 5,191,500 159,63D 15,96D 2,017,800 126 WEST 3,040,000 438,29D 43,830 545,800 12 NORTHWEST 835,800 63,000 6,300 250,130 40 ALL 10,583,000 808,300 80,830 3,092,300 38 • • -11- Eberhardt • 3250 W.0011131.MINNWOLIS.MINN 55.35 Figure 2 MARKET STUDY PROPOSED BURGER KING RESTAURANT • GLEN LANE & SINGLETREE LANE EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA The proposed Burger King site is located across from the Eden Prairie Center near the main entrance to this Regional Mall. The mall is an- chored by Sears on one end and Powers Department store on the other end--Powers being one of the larger local retailers. Today this Cen- ter and the surrounding community are becoming the focal point for the entire area. Several large office complexes have recently been completed and new office-industrial complexes are under construction. A 150-room Sheraton Hotel is proposed for a parcel just north of the Burger King site. • The market study showed that there are over 19,000 people in the trade area with a median age of 2D. The study also revealed that there are approximately 10,000 people employed in various businesses within 2 miles of the proposed Burger King location. This will provide the area with a tremendous lunch potential. In addition to the above the most recent traffic count on Highway 169 showed a traffic count of 28,200 cars per day which will also provide an excellent potential for business. The combination of the foregoing data clearly shows that there is more than enough business potential to support several restaurants in this development including the existing Hardees and proposed Burger King. Figure 3 BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE,SUITE 119/EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNLSOTA 55344/(612)944.7590 REFER TO FILE: 82-34-09 MEMORANDUM TO: Dennis K. Trisler, Burger King Corporation FROM: James A. Benshoof (it SUBJ: Transportation Analysis of Proposed Burger King Restaurant at Singletree Lane and Glen Lane in Eden Prairie, Minnesota DATE: September 2, 1982 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This is to document a detailed traffic analysis of the pro- posed Burger King restaurant to be located at the intersec- tion of Singletree Lane and Glen Lane in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. This analysis has been conducted in order to assess the capability of the roadway system to effectively accommodate total projected volumes, including trips to/ from the proposed restaurant. Work performed included counting existing traffic volumes at Singletree Lane and Highway 169, observing existing traffic conditions for road- ways near the site, forecasting the amount of traffic added by the proposed restaurant and other uses in the Eden Glen development, and analyzing the capability of the roadway system to accommodate the total post-development volumes. Major findings from the analysis are as follows: e The complete Eden Glen development, with the approved uses and the proposed Burger King restaurant, would add about the same amount of traffic to the roadway system during the p.m. peak hour as would occur if the proper- ties developed in accord with the original Eden Glen P.U.D. • Most Burger King traffic would use the signalized inter- section of Singletree Lane/Highway 169. The planned extension of Singletree Lane to Prairie Center Drive will be beneficial in improving access to the southwest, west and northwest. Very little Burger King traffic will use Eden Road via the Eden Road/Highway 169 intersection. • The roadway system, particularly the intersection of Singletree Lane/Highway 169, has adequate capacity to effectively accommodate the peak noon hour traffic to/from the Burger King restaurant without any adverse effects. Dennis K. Trisler -2- September 2, 1982 • The roadway system, particularly the intersection of Singletree Lane/Highway 169, has adequate capacity to effectively accommodate total post-development volumes during the p.m. peak hour, including existing traffic, Burger King traffic, and trips to/from all other parcels in the Eden Glen development. Based on these findings, an overall conclusion from the traffic analysis is that the roadway system can effectively accommodate trips to/from the proposed Burger King restaurant without any adverse effects. Dennis K. Trisler -3- September 2, 1982 INTRODUCTION/TRAFFIC QUESTIONS Per your request, we have completed a detailed analysis of the potential traffic effects of your proposed Burger King restaurant at Singletree Lane and Glen Lane in Eden Prairie. The basic question we have addressed is: Would the roadway system adequately accommodate traffic to/from the Burger King restaurant, in conjunction with existing traffic and other anticipated volume increases? In responding to this question , the following additional specific points have been addressed: • How much traffic would the proposed Burger King restaurant add to the roadway system? • How much traffic would the complete Eden Glen develop- ment, with Hardees ' , the Sheraton , DeLaria's, and Burger King, add to the roadway system, as compared to the ori- ginal approved P.U.D. plan? • Would the roadway system adequately accommodate total traffic volumes during the noon hour peak period of the Burger King restaurant? • During the p.m. peak hour, would traffic volumes at Highway 169/Singletree Lane be significantly different under current development proposals, as compared to the original P.U.D.? • Does the intersection of Highway 169/Singletree Lane provide adequate capacity to accommodate the total pro- jected volumes? To effectively address these questions, the following three step analysis Was undertaken: 1 ) Collect existing noon hour and p.m. peak period traffic counts at the intersection of Highway 169/Singletree Lane. 2) Observe existing traffic operation in the vicinity of the site during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods and during the noon hour period. The a.m. peak period was observed even though, under present plans, Burger King does not intend to open until 10:00 a.m. 3) Complete a detailed analysis of the potential traffic implications of the proposed Burger King restaurant. Given that the restaurant would open late in 1982, the analy- sis focuses on the existing roadway system. Major roadway improvements are under construction or planned (e.g:, ring road and extension of Singletree Lane to Prairie Center Drive) that will reduce the volumes on Highway 169 and generally upgrade traffic conditions. Dennis K. Trisler -4- September 2, 1982 { TRAFFIC ADDED BY BURGER KING RESTAURANT AND OTHER EDEN GLEN DEVELOPMENTS Burger King staff have performed extensive traffic surveys of their existing restaurant facilities in order to provide a base of information for new restaurant proposals. One finding from these surveys is that a significant portion of the trips to/from a typical new Burger King restaurant are not "new" trips, but are trips already using the nearby roadway system. One example is an existing through trip that in the future includes a stop at the restaurant. Another example is an existing trip to a nearby store that in the future also stops at the restaurant. This situation, and the resultant need to account for multi-purpose and intercepted trips, has been recognized in traffic studies for many other commercial developments. An article en- titled, "Reductions in Estimates of Traffic Impacts of Regional Shopping Centers",1 indicates that up to 65 percent of the trips to/from a new shopping center are trips that already exist on the roadway system. Previous studies have indicated that the potential for reduction in new trips is related to the amount of commer- cial , office, and residential development in the immediate vicinity. Since the amount of such development in the Eden Prairie Center area is undergoing major growth and since data are limited on the amount of trip reduction that applies to different circumstances, a "worst case" approach has been applied in this analysis--no reduction factor has been applied to the Burger King trips. A second important finding from the Burger King traffic surveys involves variations in tripmaking to/from the restaurant according to the month of year, day of week, and, of course, hour of day. Specific related findings include: • July is the busiest month of the year, accounting for about 10 percent of the total annual business. The next busiest months are June, August, and October. O Friday is the peak day of the week, accounting for about 18 percent of the weekly business . • The busiest hour of the day typically is from 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m. , during which time about 19 percent of the daily business occurs. 1 "Reductions in Estimates of Traffic Impacts of Regional Shopping Centers", ITE Journal_, Institute of Transportation Engineers, January, 1981. I" Dennis K. Trisler -5- September 2, 1982 Based on traffic surveys at other Burger King restaurants, it is expected that there would be 150 vehicle trips to/from the proposed Burger King restaurant during a typical 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m. peak hour--75 in and 75 out. Dividing the projected 150 vehicle trip ends by the proposed restaurant size of 2,000 sq.ft. results in a trip generation rate of 75.0 vehicle trip ends per 1,000 sq.ft. CFA. This rate is very similar to the rate of 78.8 trip ends per 1,000 sq.ft. which has been published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.1 Some of these 150 trips would be new trips, whereas others would be trips that already occur on Highway 169 or other nearby roadways. In addition to the noon hour peak, it also is important to project the amount of development traffic that wouldwoccur during the p.m. peak hour, about 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. , traffic on Highway 169 is at its highest level . The pro- jected p.m. peak hour trip generation for each parcel in the Eden Glen P.U.D. is presented in Tables 1 and 2. It should be emphasized that the statistics in these tables represent total development trips, existing trips on Highway 169 that will include a stop at the new development, as well as new trips. Table 1 is for development per the original P.U.D. plan, and Table 2 is for the Eden Glen development with Hardee' s, Sheraton, DeLaria's, and Burger King instead of the uses shown in the original P.U.D. for those parcels. These tables show that the current Eden Glen development , with the approved uses and the proposed Burger King restaurant would generate about the same amount of traffic during the p.m. peak hour as the original approved P.U.D., with a more equal balance of ins and outs. On a daily basis, the current Eden Glen development would generate about 10 percent more traffic due to the effects of the Sheraton and Burger King. 1 ' Trip Generation", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1979. - 1' Dennis K. Trisler -6- September 2, 1982 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION FOR APPROVED EDEN GLEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT P.M. Peak Hr. Trip Daily Trip Generation Generation Parcel Type of Size Rates1 Trip Ends Trip No. Use (ft.2) In Out In Out Total Rate Ends2 1 fast food 4,000 17.0 14.6 68 58 126 553.0 2,212 2 fast food 4,000 17.0 14.6 68 58 126 553.0 2,212 3 Class I 6,000 2.14 1.3 13 8 21 56.3 338 restaurant 4 retail 33,000 7.4 7.3 244 241 485 115.8 3,821 5 office 13,000 .36 1.84 5 24 29 12.3 160 6 office 13,000 .36 1.84 5 24 29 12.3 160 7 office 40,000 .36 1.84 14 74 88 12.3 492 Totals 417 487 904 9,395 1 Source: "Trip Generation", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1979. 2 A trip end is either an origin or destination. Thus one trip end occurs when a motorist arrives at a restaurant, and a second occurs when he leaves. Dennis K. Trisler -7- September 2, 1982 TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION FOR EDEN GLEN DEVELOPMENT WITH HARDEE'S, SHERATON, DE LARIA'S, AND BURGER KING P.M. Peak Hr. Trip Daily Trip Generation Generation Parcel Type of Size Rates' Trip Ends Trip No. Use (ft.2) In Out In Out Total Rate Ends2 1 Hardee's 4,000 17.0 14.6 68 58 126 553.0 2,212 2 DeLaria's ' 2,700 17.0 14.6 46 39 85 553.0 1,493 3 Class I 6,000 2.14 1.3 13 8 21 56.3 338 restaurant 4 retail 33,000 7.4 7.3 244 241 485 115.8 3,821 5 Burger 2,000 17.0 14.6 34 29 63 553.0 1,106 King 6 office 12,0003 .36 1.84 4 22 26 12.3 148 7 Sheraton 152 rms.4 .36 .37 44 45 89 10.5 1,281 Totals 453 442 895 10,399 1 Source: "Trip Generation", Institute of Transportation Engineers , 1979. 2 A trip end is either an origin or destination. Thus one trip end occurs when a motorist arrives at a restaurant, and a second occurs when he leaves. 3 Considering the specific boundaries of the Sheraton and Burger King parcels, this parcel would have 1.25 acres, slightly smaller than in the original P.U.D. (1.34 acres). The amount of office space on this site is correspondingly reduced. 4 The trip generation rates are per occupied room. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the hotel would operate at 80 percent occupancy. Dennis K. Trisler -8- September 2, 1982 TRIP DISTRIBUTION The next step in the traffic analysis is to allocate the development traffic to the roadway system in accordance with expected traffic patterns. Based on existing traffic turning movements at the Singletree Lane/Highway 169 inter- section and on development patterns in the area, it is expected that trips to/from Eden Glen development will be distributed as shown in Figure I. It will be noted that the predominant approach directions are from the north and south on Highway 169. Development traffic on both of these routes is expected to be reduced following completion of Singletree Lane to Prairie Center Drive. Figure 1 also indicates the close proximity to the Burger King restaurant to the Singletree Lane/Highway 169 intersec- tion, which has traffic signal control . With this close proximity, it is expected that the vast majority of Burger King traffic will use the Singletree Lane/Highway 169 inter- section. Very few Burger King trips are expected to enter via the Eden Road/Highway 169 intersection due to the greater travel times involved. Figure 1 -9- Trip Distribution x 22% Percent Of Total Trips To/From Eden Glen Development Parcels 30%4096 WINEMMEMOOMEI With Existing Roadway System 0 Alter Extension Of Singletree Lane 0 To Prairie Center Drive p To W. 78th St., jf1, N. On 1-494, F Note: Specific outiasa For Traffic Generated V N.E. On Hwy. 1 By Eden Glen Development Vary By Parcel ) l And E. On I-49,? Depending On Location And Accocs �, Configuration�tjc° a ti , Hardee s ::�; tr . r s Restaurant Approved Sheraton Hotel . ,1,2; .•�)`� a`r X 0 r ,�0 ' t ' Approved Detari, =,f ��_ F 1 j Kentucky Fried r: ; ,� �,1 ,s:1 I „i Chicken ',I --+,, .. .0 + 6: '' 1 Restaurant Nw' � EY ��r, iiin-i jf i) Z J l: I. 1;.� .,��..,,1 .T;�,.:!g) i, a::„ 1„. i7y � iiIN71= ,,,. . '. :-.,1 I L7:I >1- .4,,r7,,,ti...1 --1t) ',,,/// Proposed Burger , . „ -) f, /.�i King Restaurant I i:- s S Y-' (�r,;, To E. On 78th St. ;�. E0', c :7'1 % j•I S / 5-.7° i To Prairie Center ji \'� Drive To Eden Prairie Center To S. On 169 �``Nit, 15%8® 15% 30 , f 35% - Note: Graphic Is From Original Eden Prairie P.U.D. Application. The Specic Layouts Of Hardee s, DeLaria's, Sheraton And Burger Ling Are Somewhat Different From What Is Shown. " Dennis K. Trisler -10- September 2, 1982 TRAFFIC FORECAST AND ANALYSIS The preceding sections have addressed questions about the amount of traffic added by the proposed Burger King restaurant and other Eden Glen developments. The next point involves the capability of the roadway system to accommodate total traffic volumes during the noon hour peak period of the restaurant. Figure 2 shows the existing traffic volumes at Singletree Lane and Highway 169 during the hour of 12:00 noon to I:00 p.m. , together with the volumes expected after opening of the Burger King restaurant. Since the restaurant would increase existing traffic through the intersection by only five percent , it is expected that the quality of traffic operation through the intersection would not be perceptibly changed. In addition to meeting the noon hour traffic needs, it also is important that the intersection of Singletree Lane/ Highway 169 provide effective traffic operation during the p.m. peak hour (about 4:30 to 5:30 p.m.). Applying the pre- ceding trip generation and distribution statistics and an analysis of traffic routings to/from each individual parcel in the Eden Glen development , total Eden Glen development traffic volumes have been projected for the Singletree Lane/Highway 169 intersection. The results are shown in Figure 3, both for development in accord with the approved P.U.O. and for development that includes recently approved uses and the proposed Burger King restaurant. The two sets of volume projections are quite similar; the maximum change in volume from one development condition to the other is about 15 percent. The next step is to relate the projected p.m. peak hour development traffic to the existing traffic using the inter- section so as to assess the capability of the intersection to accommodate the total volumes. For the p.m. peak hours, the existing, development, and total projected volumes for the Singletree Lane/Highway 169 intersection are shown in Figure 4. One point shown in this figure is that the total Eden Glen development will add 20 percent to the existing p.m. peak hour volumes at the intersection. Of this pro- jected 20 percent increase, Burger King would be responsible for less than 2 percent. A detailed capacity analysis has indicated that the intersection provides adequate capacity to effectively accommodate the total post-development vol umes.1 1 The intersection presently provides level of service A during the p.m. peak hour, with the level of service under post-development conditions expected to be on the border- line between A and B. I . -1 1- }firi 0..._• �� VI L L Ql' CV4- E ., G N 0- 3 N Q!N 0 a Y 66Z L L o N ro QL! N el N CO _ C L9 64 o=^ 3•` a 69L i�III1[ VI 4,., O 4.0 •�MH 1 E. ea aJi d a,- Q) r r CC)N. 0 c c[ .., 0 d 3 O C7 M N. C O > E Q1 3 • '+ r �l9 . COOL F V C C E U= +-+ N 1' ` i� ro ^ C u _ •r N 'V 01 N Ql Q) V C1 Vt, n- C'•- L u T �y L al••e- RI L 'r LL C C C QJ �_ cg) ��.M� .p L O N O.m. C J 7..- d L ° V. O 1•' N••-o n • f r m C.� Q7 4, E a) Ca,+-+ N a N d �w c • L•.-a-> O a O N •.� CO C 7 O. N 21 X CO 1., L. ii O1••• j j 1 L CO Cd G 7 0 66Z� L L '0" 44 CD i C L.� a -'- ZEL---:. "0 Sr9 ~ o .c'�3 CO >,L QC L4 CZ .• Oc NO or >, i il 6 9 N Q/ -CU�-0 a- NIn �W NJ f , • _12_ i C¢� QJ ® G `.ram W `- d S U W V �J 0 0 E— a 6 o r•-I._ ....) \ C) >u. n.°2 °4.,' d 4... °- 0 0 eno0 . x R.Z. F c ° SZ----► —6Z N I,. 0.) C =o D C C] E9� �tOL a.. a `I) x> C0G. C NE 0 0i-E. 69L1 . aw N� I 4 0IA C ..6 r�, cv C.c 'ICM d a ..�' d~� el U W rCU MI CI 0 4. 1 o,ate', 0 (1) y C•.- I) 0 in7 41... 4 Cr)© •C n o. a'LT � �� Ntn � 0 C m d A ++ 0'C r. ar 1� 6 \ aca.)) V)o� Q� �°Wa / 10. rnO u.�Qy�• 4) • dco 6Z--t► ( C c cl cu oa u mG- Sf W94 Z6: C x 6.o0 Y >O O dcJo 69L )41I Tc'L CO 0.a aa 'AMEI 6. r in co in -1 3- CCD 0 !I' N C).1:r-• U N c.fN N � �C•= LW Wc ___�� i �� "' d siZ� 91. wE co 3 a 99 oL1--- E---174 9 E, 1;) - yzl---1, r—tZt E36'f9n — _. w 7 „:, 15 cu . per (pl0 C_J 0..co N a) N a,0C . E J o 0 0M d'a.♦+ 0 VI 7 L LL C 0 n CD .(1C I Cr, ++ dco Wed U N � E�� aU C w a 1;:" E 0 o) a �•. as C E L. >, al 6 0 0 U. O. I-• ro • y ��. �� V C C C) C a 0 C `� (0)SZ —)- —(0)6Z d 2 L. la. cp ..- C Jo C) rn F C7 (OL)E9� {Ol)LOL a 0 co to To e La �°+ '.0 *al 15 = 4, 1-1.-4 0 as CU aW cn 'f►MH I o ,r IL a) ;a Orw � Cr' o) dC Si In Uv a• d" 0 v m O)c0 i .- ). 0 0 n0 CJ 0 - E a N - L- P-4- ) j y ►. a atC._ d > > N er (NI d 0 0 fl 8C v.,r .- i 1 U .. d E c StZ 91 > 1411--► -919 T. 1.9-1, i-----OZ oti 74 W 'AMH4 I r I v d d O)C . . 1 1I 7,J in v 7 g aama�r»D » m L. ��» n oOo , !i O_U V t?U.O O V E toa1Do»'CatON w�-i J �n 'Ea; d V; .G a i 1 -F-- I F v; 4V •,�DLL.. . Q]ZC I -oa UOVO.< c Ed1 ------_--- _ 7 cJ�NnanDn '-6w< w 11. U101 — ; N i 1 1 � 'l 1 1 1 �1',.: 1 . pj \I �l t; l -Y m 7 ill � 4: 1j�,1 ( 1 -� �� - E r t a �; U ( �� 1i( '1 ):1-illt,7-: ,. i,��J i \ -, r i ---":- --:,---.2' l'''--,---- —- p --I- (2,// 1 I-I I ,t o I I t` - �'' \ Ilil � �a Y ,!II 1 N- •/ \�. N Ir ] �ky �� r l.. \�/ to I 1 I, f,..L.,1 -Y sax,. . , I I,, tit j „I , b fit— ' pi,ou ---- U3p3 _] I1 :. • • BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES /,✓ TitA':SPOFi i ATION PLANNING AND ENGINi_ERING CONSULTANTS ✓� 79D1 PL1'!NG C:DUD DRIVE,SUITE 119. EDEN PRAIRIE.671NWF.SOTA 5534a.(612)944-7590 • FHEU EH 10 FILE: 82-34-O9 MEMORANDUM TO: Dennis K. Trisler, Burger 'King Corporation FROM: James A. Benshoof\OlR SUBJ: Transportation Analysis of Proposed Burger King Restaurant at Singletree Lane and Glen Lane in • Eden Prairie, Minnesota DATE: September 2, 1982 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This is to document a detailed traffic analysis of the pro- posed Burger King restaurant to be located at the intersec- tion of Singletree Lane and Glen Lane in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. This analysis has been conducted in order to assess the capability of the roadway system to effectively accommodate total projected volumes, including trips to/ from the proposed restaurant . Work performed included counting existing traffic volumes at Singletree Lane and Highway 169, observing existing traffic conditions for road- ways near the site, forecasting the amount of traffic added by the proposed restaurant and other uses in the Eden Glen development, and analyzing the capability of the roadway system to accommodate the total post-development volumes. Major findings from the analysis are as follows: • The complete Eden Glen development, with the approved uses and the proposed Burger King restaurant, would add about the same amount of traffic to the roadway system during the p.m. peak hour as would occur if the proper- ties developed in accord with the original Eden Glen P.U.D. • Most Burger King traffic would use the signalized inter- section of Singletree Lane/Highway 169. The planned extension of Singletree Lane to Prairie Center Drive will be beneficial in improving access to the southwest , west and northwest. Very little Burger King traffic will use Eden Road via the Eden Road/Highway 169 intersection. • The roadway system, particularly the intersection of Singletree Iane!Highway 169, has adequate capacity to effectively accommodate the peak noon hour traffic tolf''or the Furger King restaurant without any adverse • e j • • • Dennis K. Trisler -2- September 2, 1982 • The roadway system, particularly the intersection of Singletree Lane/Highway 169, has adequate capacity to effectively accolamodate total post-development volumes during the p.m. peak hour, including existing traffic, Burger King traffic, and trips to/from all other parcels in the Eden Glen development; Based on these findings, an overall conclusion from the traffic analysis is that the roadway system can effectively accommodate trips to/from the proposed Burger King restaurant without any adverse effects. • I . J ) 1 Dennis K. Trisler -3- September 2, 1962 INTRODUCTION/TRAFFIC QUESTIONS Per your request, we have completed a detailed analysis of the potential traffic effects of your proposed Burger King restaurant at Singletree Lane and Glen Lane in Eden Prairie. The basic question we have addressed is: Would the roadway system adequately accommodate traffic to/from the Burger King restaurant, in conjunction with existing traffic and other anticipated volume increases? In responding to this question, the following additional specific points have been addressed: • How much traffic would the proposed Burger King restaurant add to the roadway system? How much traffic would the complete Eden Glen develop- ment, with Hardees' , the Sheraton, DeLaria' s, and Burger King, add to the roadway system, as compared to the ori- ginal approved P.U.D. plan? • Would the roadway system adequately accommodate total traffic volumes during the noon hour peak period of the Burger King restaurant? 6 During the p.m. peak hour, would traffic volumes at Highway 169/Singletree Lane be significantly different under current development proposals, as compared to the original P.U.D.? o Does the intersection of Highway 169/Singletree Lane provide adequate capacity to accommodate the total pro- jected volumes? To effectively address these questions, the following three step analysis was undertaken: 1) Collect existing noon hour and p.m. peak period traffic counts at the intersection of Highway 169/Singletree Lane. 2) Observe existing traffic operation in the vicinity of the site during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods and during the noon hour period. The a.m. peak period was observed even though, under present plans, Burger King does not intend to open until 10:00 a.m. 3) Complete a detailed analysis of the potential traffic implications of the proposed Burger King restaurant. Given that the restaurant would open late in 1982, the analy- sis focuses on the existing roadway system. Major roadway improvements are under construction or planned (e.g. , ring road and extension of Singletree Lane to Prairie Center Drive) that will reduce the volumes on Highway 169 and generally upgrade traffic conditions. i i 7 Dennis K. Trisler -4- September 2, 1982 TRAFFIC ADDED BY BURGER KING RESTAURANT AND OTHER EDEN GLEN DEVELOPMENTS Burger King staff have performed extensive traffic surveys of their existing restaurant facilities in order to provide a base of information for now restaurant proposals. One finding from these surveys is that a significant portion of ' • the trips to/from a typical new Burger King restaurant are not "new" trips, but are trips already using the nearby roadway system. One example is an existing through trip that in the future includes a stop at the restaurant. Another example is an existing trip to a nearby store that in the future also stops at the restaurant. This situation, and the resultant need to account for multi-purpose and intercepted trips, has been recognized in traffic studies for many other commercial developments. An article en- titled, "Reductions in Estimates of Traffic Impacts of Regional Shopping Centers",1 indicates that up to 65 percent of the trips to/from a new shopping center are trips that already exist on the roadway system. Previous studies have indicated that the potential for reduction in new trips is related to the amount of commer- cial , office, and residential development in the immediate vicinity. Since the amount of such development in the Eden Prairie Center area is undergoing major growth and since data are limited on the amount of trip reduction that applies to different circumstances, a "worst case" approach has been applied in this analysis--no reduction factor has been applied to the Burger King trips. A second important finding from the Burger King traffic surveys involves variations in tripmaking to/from the restaurant according to the month of year, day of week, and, of course, hour of day. Specific related findings include: • July is the busiest month of the year, accounting for about 10 percent of the total annual business. The next busiest months are June, August, and October. • Friday is the peak day of the week, accounting for about 18 percent of the weekly business. • The busiest hour of the day typically is from 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m. , during which time about 19 percent of the daily business occurs. 1 "Reductions in Estimates of Traffic Impacts of Regional Shopping Centers", _1 E Journal , Institute of Transportation Engineers, Jbnuary, 1981, Dennis K. Trisler -5- September 2, 1982 Based on traffic surveys at other Burger King restaurants, it is expected that there would be 150 vehicle trips to/from the proposed Burger King restaurant during a typical 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m. peak hour--75 in and 75 out. Dividing the projected 150 vehicle trip ends by the proposed restaurant size of 2,000 sq.ft. results in a trip generation rate of 75.0 vehicle trip ends per 1 ,000'sq.ft. GFA. This rate is very similar to the rate of 78.8 trip ends per 1,000 sq.ft. which has been published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.] Some of these 150 trips would be new trips, whereas others would be trips that already occur on Highway 169 or other nearby roadways. In addition to the noon hour peak, it also is important to project the amount of development traffic that would occur during the p.m. peak hour, about 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. , when traffic on Highway 169 is at its highest level . The pro- jected p.m. peak hour trip generation for each parcel in the Eden Glen P.U.D. is presented in Tables 1 and 2. It should be emphasized that the statistics in these tables represent total development trips, existing trips on Highway 169 that will include a stop at the new development, as well as new trips. Table 1 is for development per the original P.U.D. plan, and Table 2 is for the Eden Glen development with Hardee's, Sheraton, DeLaria 's, and Burger King instead of the uses shown in the original P.U.D. for those parcels. These tables show that the current Eden Glen development, with the approved uses and the proposed Burger King restaurant would generate about the same amount of traffic during the p.m. peak hour as the original approved P.U.D., with a more equal balance of ins and outs. On a daily basis, the current Eden Glen development would generate about 10 percent more traffic due to the effects of the Sheraton and Burger King. 1 "Trip Generation", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1979. r),-0 • Dennis K. Trisler -6- September 2, 1982 • TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION FOR APPROVED EDEN GLEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT P.M. Peak Hr. Trip Daily Trip Generation Generation Parcel Type of Size Rates' Trip Ends__ Trip No. __ __ Use � _ t.2) In Out In Out Total Rate Ends2 1 fast food 4,000 17.0 14.6 68 58 126 553.0 2,212 2 fast food 4,000 17.0 14.6 68 58 126 553.0 2,212 3 Class 1 6,000 2.14 1.3 13 8 21 56.3 338 restaurant 4 retail 33,000 7.4 7.3 244 241 485 115.8 3,821 5 office 13,000 .36 1.84 5 24 29 12.3 160 6 office 13,000 .36 1.84 5 24 29 12.3 160 7 office 40,000 .36 1.84 14 74 88 12.3 492 --- Totals 417 487 904 9,395 1 Source: "Trip Generation", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1979. 2 A trip end is either an origin or destination. Thus one trip end occurs when a motorist arrives at a restaurant, and a second occurs when he leaves. • Dennis K. Trisler -7- September 2, 1982 TABLE 2 1RIP GENERATION FOR EDEN GLEN DEVELOPMENT WITFI HARDEE'S, SHERATON, DE LARIA'S, AND BURGER KING P.M. Peak Hr. Trip Daily Trip Generation Generation Parcel Type of Size Rat_es1 Trip Ends Trip No Use (ft,2J In Out In Out Total Pate Ends2 1 Hardee's 4,000 17.0 14.6 68 58 126 553.0 2,212 2 DeLaria's 2,700 17.0 14.6 46 39 85 553.0 1,493 3 Class I 6,000 2.14 1.3 13 8 21 56.3 338 restaurant 4 retail 33,000 7.4 7.3 244 241 485 115.8 3,821 5 Burger 2,000 17.0 14.6 34 29 63 553.0 1,106 King 6 office 12,0003 .36 1.84 4 22 26 12.3 148 7 Sheraton 152 rms.4 .36 .37 44 45 89 10.5 1,281 Totals 453 442 895 10,399 1 Source: "Trip Generation", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1979. 2 A trip end is either an origin or destination. Thus one trip end occurs when a motorist arrives at a restaurant, and a second occurs when he leaves. 3 Considering the specific boundaries of the Sheraton and Burger King parcels, this parcel would have 1.25 acres, slightly smaller than in the original P.U.D. (1.34 acres). The amount of office space on this site is correspondingly reduced. 4 The trip generation rates are per occupied room. For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the hotel would operate at 80 percent occupancy. • Dennis K. Trisler -8- September 2, 1982 TRIP DISTRIBUTION • The next step in the traffic analysis is to allocate the development traffic to the roadway system in accordance with expected traffic patterns. Based .on existing traffic • turning movements at the Singletree Lane/Highway 169 inter- section and on development patterns in the area , it is expected that trips to/from Eden Glen development will be distributed as shown in Figure 1. It will be noted that the predominant apprcach directions are from the north and south on Highway 169. Development traffic on both of these routes is expected to be reduced following completion of Singletree • Lane to Prairie Center Drive. Figure 1 also indicates the close proximity to the Burger King restaurant to the Singletree Lane/Highway 169 intersec- tion, which has traffic signal control . With this close proximity, it is expected that the vast majority of Burger King traffic will use the Singletree Lane/Highway 169 inter- section. Very few Burger King trips are expected to enter via the Eden 'Road/Highway 169 intersection due to the greater travel times involved. Figure 1 9 Trip Distribution • ( 22% Percent Of Total Trips To/From Eden Glen Development Parcels 30% 40% ......b. aus With Existing Roadway System 4 , After Extension Of Singletree Lane o f To Prairie Center Drive p f To W. 78th St., 1 N. On 1-494, Note: Specific Rout(n,s For Traffic Generated V r N.E. On Hwy. 169 By Eden Glen Development Vary By Parcel ) l And E. On 1-494 Depending On Location And Access �_ r ,.� Configuration - -.c _.. , ' � t + .i- -Hardee's ` 1 . , , �� I Restaurant Approved Sheraton Hotel • � ,; •, � ,�� ! PPr7`' 3 i e, , �.) `! �, [-,_ ^"�-'-i;F Approved DeLaria's r7 c • ..,i 11: Q-:; -ti'. 2, ;) i Kentucky Fried ii ) - ;,_� /0 .rr• tj Vr'11 Chicken ',1; ,77 C '-r 62' C,r.r;- C� 413. Restaurant N �!�/ j 7 J ljn, p. �41 J w^ -F 3 7 Proposed Burger , o, •' }Y1 --..i +f To E. On 78th St. y -, e l King Restaurant ,.t{?!(y �h c , 1 Jt'�[3:Z'•__ )_ K_Z.i / • /, 15%<.-—— ,-,.-. To Prairie Center I�f I ;/ Drive To Eden Prairie Center To S. On 169 �\�� 15%® �`�" 15% ` 30% to" 35% Note: Graphic Is From Original Eden Prairie P.UD. Application. The Spoci;,;. Layouts 01 Hardc`e's, Detaria's, Sheraton And burger Icing Are Somewhat Different From What Is Shown. Dennis K. Trisler -10- September 2, 1982 TRAFFIC FORECAST AND ANALYSIS The preceding sections have addressed questions about the amount of traffic added by the proposed Purger King restaurant and other Eden Glen developments. The next point involves the capability of the roadway system to accommodate total traffic volumes during the noon hour peak period of the restaurant. figure 2 shows the existing traffic volumes at Singletrce Lane and Highway 169 during the hour of 12:U0 noon to 1:00 p.m. , together with the volumes expected after opening of the Burger King restaurant. Since the restaurant would increase existing traffic through the intersection by,only five percent, it is expected that the quality of traffic operation through the intersection would not be perceptibly changed. In addition to meeting the noon hour traffic needs, it also is important that the intersection of Singletree lane/ Highway 169 provide effective traffic operation during the p.m. peak hour (about 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. ). Applying the pre- ceding trip generation and distribution statistics and an analysis of traffic routings to/from each individual parcel in the Eden Glen development , total Eden Glen development traffic volumes have been projected for the Singletree Lane/Highway 169 intersection. The results are shown in Figure 3, both for development in accord with the approved P.U.D. and for development that includes recently approved uses and the proposed Burger King restaurant. The two sets . of volume projections are quite similar; the maximum change in volume from one development condition to the other is about 15 percent. The next step is to relate the projected p.m. peak hour development traffic to the existing traffic using the inter- section so as to assess the capability of the intersection to accommodate the total volumes. For the p.m. peak hours, the existing, development, and total projected volumes for the Singletree Lane/Highway 169 intersection are shown in Figure 4. One point shown in this figure is that the total Eden Glen development will add 20 percent to the existing p.m. peak hour volumes at the intersection. Of this pro- jected 20 percent increase, Burger King would be responsible for less than 2 percent. A detailed capacity analysis has indicated that the intersection provides adequate capacity to effectively accommodate the total post-development volumcs.l 1 The intersection presently provides level of service A during the p.m. peak hour, with the level of service under post-development conditions expected to be on the border- line between A and B. • ' -1 1- i, • cm0 • lh L) P1 -0 (9 C LL1I� . '+ C • .- N VV L L 0 }JL_ \\ .- E u Ny ic al Y 66I.1 o O. 3 L a) O N y VI C Z.CL-- - .4F --S49 al N C O. E a, ..1 H L9� �64 0 �a 7-¢ -,L X n N 'C 0 V. E0 Wm c > na • C.) 6 9 l 40 ) X C... a.''0 O •ti fiMH C a C m ..+ 7 7 0 �- I- in 0 ¢ a an30 CI C7 A Cr (9 - c o o c 3 E ✓ C - 0) Neu= .' aY NN ••� v rn N N C1 N J ` L W W . IO L to C C C 0, M. I- T Ip L O ✓+ n >, ✓Z Vi A' O 'J u vn•nC �.• K/ CD L • 0) C L c LL • T•- • N a m C'`+C+ ... E a, C a ... ,o C • L•.-+-I O O mt..' N f�) 7 n .! .O X O,u L O �'� C ilLti\:„._/,:i.. Ql o dN a c CCD U C. O,N L.SC CV.CO .0 E ` ` ' .0 L.. Y- cr. .. 0., 7 C O 66L-J' [l L Y RI > m 7 10 v CL. zeL---a. 949 I- o Y'L;`° >, Q e L4 ea •• C '00 a,^ >, 0, Cu L C 0 0 M u 0 E W o m K LO 7,•-• u 7 L la 69l �� r� �N � a, vr0)` •4MH �,.V ¢ a ... m M O O ID N O N m .- p/C C J CO • • • • _12_ • C.a) Q6 N C0= ii, D cJ C o O 'er i.2 E� \\:::....,.C.) MI s+J oI` dr`arn rsc: co , Q t. a wY mo Q CF � y; .. o N cC) sz--JP- s —szcIF F- W C xo° cam �.+ Y> c v 696ais fM(� ID 03 CO ~ U) el!1J' Ca ,�$o� L Z71 i v/ L h C • n '� 0 C �_y • mi *A �' d d Q �` D fD C F w Y 0 E a / N L Z3 ow°- / U i - mo 0 CO W a)u- 5 L = a• N •- a - 0 6Z-0"ch 4 PC C U rr N .� O � W VS Z6 Vd 1� = O b L ry L u. .cO+ O.a 6 9 l rya': 0 LCO 11. Q a a a m m e ara mW , c-J 6 -1 3- U fh N N..• N U./ ` CI) 'ID co ,..)j 1 L,,......: 0 . , ,i, it ._ c .. w SLZ� —91. w E en a S91.L-110- -4 Vt'El o LZG a. a 4Zi� 9L rd) �- d a U N N h Q. C O. CO C—IN AN a) N . W Cto ~ - J o 0N ►, u- c� . -0 8 C h 0 w Cy) E ° °' _� U a) `° T •ct _ �> c E t- (n > C"0 01 zE y y c Cl. 4) c a a` (o)sZ --(o)sZ �, l c., :s (fl `—' m (ol)E9� �(ol)Lo� 0 m c r u. g r o r va 69l 1ri in XnnHc.+._ Ci ..-v Q. VP G S 4 d o m n O C-J f0 4.- E C7W .- o 0 V) u t- ri 4• Z '^. b d ` u O f9 C ve s I �J4L �t slZ—1.4l I.19--7 OZ w .A6m91.41. 11-1 t FA):, rn m rn Q, d) C r CD ; j I • Unapproved Planning Cu,; ;iunion Minutes -2- Sept ocher 13, 1982 P. 4, 8th para., 2nd line, add after 'employees' which is approximately double the average size office for that number of employees. 4, Motion 1, add fur purposes of discussion. P. 5, Motion 2, Discussion, should be Marhule, and strike 'on a typical sized office' add: upon the number of employees forcasted. Marhula seconded, motion carried 4-0-2. Retterath and Sutliff abstained. IV. P11801 IS REPORTS None V. DFVLLUPM!:i0T PRU?OSAI S A. SHADY OAK, A".00O, by A':,ioCO Oil Company. Request for rezoning .93 acres from Rural to Itry-Cons and preliminary plat for construction of a gas station. Located in the southwest corner of Crosstown 62 and Shady Dak Road. A continued public heurin.g. MOTION Gartner moved to continue Shady Oak Amoco to the October 12, 1982 meeting with renntification to the neighbors. Retterath seconded, motion carried 6-D. B. 101RGFR KING, by Burner King Corp. Request for development of P01) hO-41, the Eden Glen P01), rezoning of .8 acres from Rural to C-Pcr,-Ser, and preliid nary plat approval to construct a Burger King restaurant. Located in the northwest corner of Glen Lane and Singletree Lane. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Burger King and Jesco representatives were present. John Shardlow, Howard Dahlgren & Associates, representing both Burger King and Jesco. lie introduced: Mr. Chet 7uzinski, President and Mr. Bill Quinlin, Vice President.. both of Jesco: Mr. Paul Sutherland, Area Operations Manager, Jay VanDelson„ Regional Vice-President, both of Burger King; Dennis lrissler, Site Develop::!rnt Engineer, Rill McParrta, Pro,iect Realtor, Jim Benshoof, Traffic Engineer, and Geoff Martin, Landscape Architect of Howard Dahlgren & Assoc. Shardlomr reviewed the location, basic access would be off Glen Lane, he stated he felt that the stacking distance has been improved since Hardee's. Landscaping is consistent with the overall Eden Glen landscape plan. 34 parking spaces are proposed. Sutherland stated that there will he from 50 to 80 hourly employees employed at one time. he stated that Burger King would like to have a salad bar and stated that they are currently experimenting with breakfast. The Pioneer asked the mnr,ber of employees during peak hour. Sutherland replied the during the lunch rush there would be approxieet.ely 25 employees. The Planner r'viewed the staff report dated 9/3/2? and stated that he was concerned with the nu;r'ber of parking spaces proposed. Unapproved Planning Cohlissiat Minutes -3- September 13, 1982 • Beaman stated that the letters from Mr. Hartman and Mr. Tersan should be made part of the minutes. Sutliff asked why the parcel obtained during the Sheraton site is not included on the overall site plan for [den Glen that the Planning Commission recieved. Shardlow replied that it goes along with the Sheraton site. • Sutliff asked if wood siding is consistent with the Design Framework Manual and Ordinance and also asked if a roof over the drive-up lane is proposed. The Planner replied yes, wood siding conforms. Shardlow replied no drive-up lane is proposed. Sutliff asked Burger King's hours. Sutherland replied 10-11 and stated that the . late night hours are only provided at the drive-thru. Sutliff expressed concern for the number of parking spaces. Beaman asked if the elevations of the existing surrounding homes are higher than Burger King. Shardlow replied yes, approximately 4-5 feet. Beaman asked if landscaping will be provided there. Shardlow replied that a 3-4 foot berm will be placed as a buffer. Beaman asked if a sign is proposed, and if it is lighted during working hours. Shardlow replied yes, a pylon sign. Sutherland replied yes, it will be lighted during working hours. Hallett stated he was concerned with the parking provided for Hardens and asked if off-street parking for Burger King will be necessary. The Planner replied that this situation could be similar, and stated that he felt that eventually, 'no parking' signs will have to be placed along the roads. He stated that the employer will have to find alternative parking places for the employees to park. Hallett asked if Singletree Lane will extend to the ring route. The Planner replied yes. Marhula stated that potential conflict could occur with the drive-thru leading into the picking lot instoad of directly to the road. Shardlow stated that if the Conm-mis.sion felt it would be better to have the exit onto the road, it could be provided. The Planner stated that this proposed stacking lane is identical to Herders'. Sutliff asked if Eden Road will be hard-surfaced. The Planner replied he felt that if Burger King is built by December, hard-surfacing could be done in the next building season. Sutliff asked if ,lcsco will he willing to make sure hard-surfacing goes through. The Planner replied that it is a City project. Bearm;m stated that Mr. Gukenher•g's letter should be made part of the minutes. • Gukenberif stated that he agrees with the pros and cons of the staff report. • • Unapproved Planning Co,enitsion Minutes -4- September 13, 1982 MOTION 1 FSarhula moved to close the public hearing. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 • hMarhule coved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Burger King re- zoning from Rural to C-Ren-Ser as per the plan dated August 12, 1982 and the September 3, 1982 staff report. Sutliff seconded. • • DISCUSSION Sutliff stated that he would like to add strong adhe rence to the City Code. Marhula asked if this project is in conformance with the Eden Glen PUD Design • Frarowork Tianeal. The Planner replied yes. Marhula stated he felt that it would be good to stress adherence to the City Code. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION 3 Marhula roved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated August 12, I982 as per the staff report dated September 3, 1982. Sutliff seconded. DISCUSSION F^arnri asked that public safety place restrictive 'no parking' signs along Glen Lane, Eden Road, and Singletree lane. Marhula and Sutliff agreed to add it to the motion. Motion carried 6-0. C. EDLNVALE 9TH AONTION (REVISED), by Equitable Life Assurance Soc iety. Request for dove lopment of Edenvale PUD 70-04, Planned Unit Development Concept approval for office and industrial uses on 100 acres, preliminary plat approval, and possible variances. Located north of TH 5 and west of proposed Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing. The Planner stated that the proposal is consistent with the Guide Plan Change that was approved in the last couple of months. Dick Krier of Westwood was present to give a presentation. Krier stated that the changes made since the last meeting are all in conformance with all requirements and the approved Guide Plan change. He gave a slide presentation of the project. The Planner asked if an agreement had been made with Banco to grade into Edenvale 9. Krier replied tfiat the trees are on their property, and stated that there is a misunderstanding. He stated that the proponent would rather dedicate the con- servancy zone as an easement. • STAFF RLPORT • TO: Planning Commission FRO'l: Jean Johnson, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Luger, Director of Planning DATE: September 3, 1982 PROJECT: BURGER KING RESTAURANT LOCATION: Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Eden Glen, .8 acre APPLICANT: Burger King Corp. FEE OWNER: Jesco, Inc. REQUEST: Rezoning from Rural to C-geg-Ser Preliminary plat approval BACKGROUND The Eden Glen PUD was approved in June, 1981. The 15 acre PUD included: 2 fast food restaurants 2.5 acres1.5 acres 1 class 1 restaurant 1 retail lot 3 acres 3 office lots 7 acres 1 acre ROW -__ (see fig. 1) 15 acres nd Kentucky two FriedsChicken. Ilerhoos hasve beeofn constructed andved. roperating fforaria's ov Y planned 2.5 acres over a year. These two lots comprise 1.8 acres of the for fast food restaurants. Another use approved, but not yet constructed, is the Sheraton Inn in the northwest corner of the PUD. (b acres), converted from an office site. s Singletree the SteodardlOil SltationtandrSinriletoue Offi Lane to Office, to thenorthhisso a' n are e acre remnant shown in the PUD as office, across Eden Road to the west are resihir tial lots depicted on the Guide Plan as commercial or industrial, to the east is planned Class I restaurant and retail (fig. 1) Jesco. The exception area depicted in the PUD has since been purchased by and part of it utilized for the Sheraton site (fig. 2). F',i1S1INC3 SIT! CON`ITIONS pit>0_t',l. Sr ,stantial amounts of fill. Ih0 lb acre 'i'1p) area ,; .Vied beck in 1- wore triJ ed in to bring the ares's elevation up. No tree vegetation exist on tiro Grn ; r Kiwi site. Staff Report-Burger King page 2 ORDi'1Wi f[I i1i 7TIITS The site is depicted as an office site in the PUO. The proponent has requested C-keg-Ser. The C-Reg-Ser requirements are as follows: C-RoProposed Uses) min.`lot size 10,000 sq. ft. 35,074 sq. ft. ' min. width/depth 80/100' 140/220' setbacks: front 35' 35' min sides 20' (no sides - 3 fronts) Rear 10' 75' max. FAR 20' 1 story 6% max. height 40' 16'6" parking 1/3 seats, 17 stalls 34 stalls plus 1/enpioyee should be provided Parking for the Hardees restaurant is 62 spaces. The restaurant has 129 seating capacity and 4,000 sq. ft. In comparison, Burger King has 34 stalls, 50 seats and 2,000 sq. ft. This is similar ratio as Hardees. Parking congestion is experienced at Hardees and enoloyee's cars and large trucks park along .'.he streets. The Puree,' King use may • relieve narking problems currently experienced at llardee's by taking some of the trade. Although the Curlier i:iriy plan meets ordinance, parking may still occur on public streets and the street's way be signed'no parking'. 31;n parking and vehicle trip analysis submitted by the proponent estimates 150 vehicle during the peak hour of noon to 1:00 PM, 2.5 vehicles/minute, or 1 every 24 seconds. An office hoildinq on this site with 50 employees would generate about 250 vehicles./day., or about 25 ve:hicles/peak hour. Their analysis of the total site development and corresponding trips ' illustrates that the development approved todate, (Hardens, Delaria's Ken- tucky Fried Chicken, Sheraton), plus the Class 1 rentaurant, office and the proposed Purger King, would generate approximately 10' more trips than the original plan. The majority of trips will utilize the signalized intersection of Sin,iletrae Lane and US 169/212. SiTE PIP,N The site plan illustrates a small building near the center of the lot. Parking is located in the north `; of the lot and a drive through lane passes thrnur,h the south ' of the lot. Stacking can occur through the parking lot for the drive thoutine,nijh if the Glen Lane entrance is used. Drainage is to the northeast corner'wher•e it is4icked-up by the Glen Lane storm sewer system. B,'c.rnse the site requires less than 1 acre of grading, no watershed permit is required. All utilities will be subject to City Engineer review and approval. As required of Hardees and Delar•ia's Kentucky Fried Chicken, all roof-top nx•ch::nical equipment must be screened. the lot n.L three street; adjacent to it. Sineletree and Glen Lane are i r is <,till a gravel road nest to this site. This gravel portion slr;; ho r(edniy,ibility for dust control until the road is ir,grroved. bt.:rft : r.l, I''; :t prior to Cnancil final approval on this project., burger King u?d n ,r li't: petition ter the construction of Eden Road. , se 1 page 4 Staff Report-Burger King RECOAmENOr IONS would be: -Findings for approvalEngineer. • 1 All utility plans be reviewed and approved by the City 2. Prior to Council final approval, Burger King as owner, sign a 100% petition for Eden Road improvements. 3. CityaOe and dinance. No roof-top signs willt with the Eden be allowed.Glen PUD and 4. Cash park fee payment be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. All roof-top mechanical equipment must be screened. -Findings for recommending denial would be: 1. An additional fast food restaurant use on this site and the proposed platting is inconsistent with the Eden Glen PUD. 2 Fast food esrestaurant opapark nmay g thhaee adverse impacet upon the hotel and Class 1 3. Noon time traffic is increased. • t 4. Adverse impact upon remaining residential. 5. Will aggrevate parking problems on Eden Road, Si'ngletree Lane and 11 Glen Lane. Trucks from US 169 will be a 1 1 JJ:sh \ . '. "• . 1??:1 Staff Report-Burger Kin, 1 page 3 SIG!l,1G11 pylon 20 feet high and 75 sq. ft. sign aionn Glen Burger. King is proposing a i Lane and will sirens on three sides totalling 89htsqeconsistent PUD. All signage ft, This is tl ' with the Design Framework Manual approved be reviewed and approved by the building Department. LANDSCAPiNG Tle landscape material shown is similar to the overall Cden Glen PUD landscape schcm. Detail review of the plan will be done prior to building permit issuance. • CASH PARK FEE-Development on this site will require cash park fee payment at time of building permit issuance. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS • Disadvantages: Advantages: Site is designated for • Food service use at the opposite office use. end of Eden Glen-not at the same • intersection as Hardees. (relieve Eden Road is not improved. • traffic congestion) • Adds a restaurant into the PUD, A lot of 1 which could he a total hotel/ would remnantntalo whichof acres small restaurant park. for office use. • Addition of this site would bring May hinder the location or' a total amount of fast food up to Class 1 restaurant ini the PUD. 2.6 acres as compared to the PhD � as big which planned for 2.5 acres. The Although use is only total acreage would he made up of ` as hogheu, the only %-through is three uses, rather than two, . planned in the same way with 140' proposed. of stacking distance. There are Provides a further development of i two ways in and out, however. the Eden Glen PUD. i Fast food restaurant park may have • Use is consistent with the Guide adverse impact upon the hotel and Class 1 restaurant locating there. Plan and MCA. '. r Noon time traffic is increased. Stacking can occur within the restaurant's parking lot. Adverse impact upon remaining residential in the area. ' Additional commercial signage required in the area. Will aggrevate parking problems on Eden, Singletree, and Glen Roads. Trucks from US 169 will be a problem. • Will change PUD upon which past proponents have relied and developed. r • i r • 77 NN., ) ' _--/ ..,.........„...."..."?..7. . ' •-•-•.,..,,,. --- --'''''''''''''... . CU/4 l'OF.t.l I (7"...." . I 13 ---- -..,. . . . . . . . . . . .- ::•:•:•:•:•: : : : : :• •••: :•:••:•• • : ii:• . r_.___.__,•_____=______. :::,:::::•::::::•: ::•::: •:•:::•::. .•. ...... :::::::::::::::::::::.::: :•:•:.:•:•:•: :•:•:•: MP L ,•e>. ::H:::: ::Hr. : : : :H: :H:H:H:. • , _._ _:**'%•••••.,".N . . . .•.•. .•.•.•.•••.•.• li . .., . . . r illft! II LEONA-- ROAD -- •-,, `--- Hardee' L!.' L • r it ---:---, .();‘,•0 — s'` LI Dt.i.Ch I sf,,li Sheraton , inn ;:--- sf.".... .....•ilt e ,- /-L----- / Wye ...-::-:- ----------------12--------------- Sub. ir--•--1.4-:•..*•-',0-------._ / Nat'l Ei..;DI •c:, Off '1' c.„ , . PnAw.;;--- • kj. . 24' CE'r rE TZ \ ct . . ;''''' s'•---- . • c' ,., u E.....,,,i: ! CURE 1 ' 1 1 , _ r________ pyopos,J ilorkjer Ki ny u Res t arant—X—FF _ _ • : I. L — — i Edcn..---...-- ---n0"a --- j 11 i,.., „ i1 :-;r� iI p �,tII II f" II:' I j r� r ( / c. 4 I (I Z —�� c a 1 - µ Nt.� ( � ". . c_ F I i I °"�• � 1 `a' V��J ,1 1 ti1";.: HH-11,11 II:Ill; \ > ^ 7 l ,_ 1,,j Ili r 1 i, a - - ' ' \ • \ Y l 11- S.Zc..- (.7 \�-,---... ; c A-- 1 ,�6��� _. �Illi,Ili ���IillIuI/ t . ,l. lrlli I,' ' - — ---a sec`_ -------- ' 'Tr oo r —'-------..— uo n, - .d v C9 N W a.�a t,� 'v (<1 Il.1-,(y r Y N n..i-•1 .. f. R • .,t tiJ r1 "� El r,::is ..irna np •` i O p`(i i'i ii i,C,$�.' UG G0..7 U { �`1Y C, . �I�.Cf fJ4 FIGJRL 2 ‘. . • vc inv • il •;4.c,' ( .,•-• E 0 C hi I OO r,-,,,) ., .2, \ .rel,s,r. ,ettr ... :I '.2 s o• IIHr ,,0, ,,, - " -1: 1; .. ft ,* , (•:;) k.1'1 o,..z._. ,-• 2 ..--.. i._,a)t o „Li L,,,id i.,,,,,,6 d ,101 t 4.7 :A th \ if,"11.h.4.I,,,,• - .- (.) • - • -1,7.1 e 1' - 17,l•nO '...1"v.I ,....._ 11C,l 3. I ---1-A1 ,,. '.'3i----'11-,,,,,.."7----- ;',•,1 ; .7,•7777-7-77.••, '- t'•-77- " I • ,-,. 14 )i I-)r .) •• i ;,:) -• 1 /2. I_ .,. • \_`' i .. • I ,7:7 , 1I O) 1 ),-.: ( • /- ,...1------r u 1.--1'", i' ti9 ( \I., I I --"...=•.0' ...z ..: , r, 1 •.i-,,.., - P :5 r ..... I 1 -IL I I-`s,r.:•.::'t:I . L 7 , , ,, .,-,, 1: 1 0 4") i .2, .71',!. ‘,. ,'t.' ''i'''''• ..-I i(:-T) 4 0 r - ‘ r., ., _.. . . v.,. rri i:,'• , •,,-.: ii ' / I P 0 11,!. I ,11 '''.4 • S!''' ' it, {• r3 _ ,---, ; ,;.L., 1 o- ,„ i In , . ) 17 i, !.---..,..:...:.-;.,.._i L IN ill 14 ci•I - , ' - 4; .'...i; 11-) tt 'i i'' .— --- 4'.`).:- -.• - 4 1, c I jo, :°. '. .. -1" :•" ',:::_......_1,.. i•;',- -- .0 il-.:7711--I I 1 1,,,,- - c:n 9 LI. P• 1:; i .'I !`•• 1 1;.,.!1.j I.....I ---.1. !.._____. _-_____ 1 f.s,•,., .,.. , ":1 :f.:', c , - i i 1 - ,-,•:-.; „, ;, : t-:1,7. .) I k, Z.Zo 0 . :n ''-' ''';': ": ' 1 :.:„I::i ..-' 1 J -, l'ci i: h••---- 1 i 1 '',":1-, \ 1 il '‘, ' I• i .' ''•-i:,11: 4 0 _- cs, 4 .., '''''!'..!•,"-;:r.,13, i __ ‘.0. e• ...?,,,. i .,• 41 d, i . . .., ' '1 . . i- - - . !' . 7•'..:-: '''''--;, 1 ; l'rt. '.i....__.,:....:_i___,•:_—.,._ - .. . _.:',-;. •_. -1 0 ':... .1 ,'• / i... :.-__ ' !' O I. '..: .. I 1 ' ":',c) • - 0 -— 1 ' i., ; ; ! 1:. ,• 1. : 3 1 - \ .. 1:-_-''''.':::...:_''._o.• ,•• 3 l t 0 et i 1 \ rir,....,•;__ . ,.....ir., ir, ,,, fl.1(,:;;„ l r ....... ',:.!: i...' :P i - .t1,:., k•.3, ..• Ns.(,•)• )'!,\ )1V• ,.,,,= -0— 1-:.-..'-S---,..:-..,;,!1i . I•")I•I. • .!/,,.1 . ;.,,•.___...r2,, r..,r,, ')Q ›•i" .• • iv) „^- ...,......2 I•,:-.....4•• . S ;1 A t'/' ___. -- -- • .. • . i Ir Jr' r.. r 4 . r ' 1 i / ; . • ' / 2. ." , 7 j ,_.1,.. 1 GC 6- ". . • ...• • 1 ; •1 I l .;.: . • . , '' ' 'V/-..-- ' '...... ! • j. • ( ••' iv's. V k N . I . • lint 21, 1JIl2 Mays if City Ot Eiien ie n lionoo,h!t lo.qor ;szia Council 11. rs: North l'entrall food vatans, an. ("North Central") is the fon,i• !oil! proisoif. a 1,1,1esi's .loo0twi.i ...it the intLiss•,at io ot Iii tu>ay 1h9 and Ldi..n Itoad described as lot. 1, 1100K 2, Eden Glen. North Centrul objeets to the proposed ch..ings, in designated us,, of pall ('I Lot I., /310:k 1 , Eden tilion Le allow construction of a a. nit last:-foeA re5taurnt Of nature in the Eden Glen NA,1-A.h Central ;2.r...-21:ir- ,1 its hrol)is,,Ly An the t,tihAlvision in the t Lou at !•s:I,M0sing the lot, North Central oblainoJ a icutriati4. s all of the property in Eden Glen abH4ting funny 1h9 an inn: usa for nth fast foc-f restnrant of 1171ircii. A r:islrietion wfc ol other propcity in Eden Gloh for lasi food fesIafro.ns was not obtained only because al]. other le. 0,..,'erty in th0 ,10:-.!J(1,1:11.Pd !or use i.or office building 6(!,,,,Alopn•nt in thc, PIN') pl:on3. thoh a shbdtantiiil business risk and ri t I a 100 of nipilIl In re 1 i upou the proposed 505 showm fl Int, it is inogaitable tor the planned witnin the stirssl,ividion to be so matcri0lly chAns.id aiter No! SI, c0nti-il ,n 11 , aisle 011/1 "situ its investment. Ore 01 th,' an P!..11.1 pniour ni a. 'fti) plan is to assure purchasers of H.Is'elly withis the Plhf that a proper halcince of usaocs will, be wUthin the sul,liYisInn. Nc)Ath :olt it hiA that ly)t- t!,c !,: chAnitio it CO. !,0 t I , 1, (11.1 W,1,1 CitHi)',ruct ivo over-allocation ot u''II'' Ih ',ant lo,Ct ,AdvelA:xly alf,,(AtInq IL o valti,A, of c!If wIlh Iho in,'[ 1. as p-co: cyttos. Th-ri ?.t.isp.-iot iii tv roinis,st I IL-it the proposed cliiingo in t IAA n be, denied. i 1 ty nuhiti t t ed, rot. Pituiship•nt. • • pity of hden Prairie September 13, 19h2 Planni n,; Canalaion • I wish to express some concerns about the proposed Burger Y..ing resturant now before the city. The Eden Glen PUD was presented and adopted with a limitation of two fast food restarants. These were located at the extreme north end and ad jacent to the highway resulting in the mini sum impact on surround ing property. One of the primary objectives expressed by city officials at the time was to avoid a "fast food strip". This was a primary concern of mine also. The proposed site for the Burger King resturant is at the 'front door' of my land west of Eden Road. The proposed site is part of a parcel previously owned by my former partner and I. It was sold to accomodate the wishes of my partner, now deceased. I was very much concerned about the type of development which would occur on this property. The Eden Glen PUD alleviated these concerns. I know the question of the change in the PUD to accomodate the proposed Sheraton will arise. I look at any luxury type hotel as a major plus for property values in the area. I am cert�e_in other near by prop,mrty owners look on this •similarity. The city has to look at the impact and cer,patibility of fast foods surrounding a luxury hotel. I believe a luxury hotel surrounded by quality euppr-r clubs would be much more compatible and better planning. The precedingg ccrrc.acnts should not be looked on as a vote against fast foods. The current Burger King prototype is an excellently designed building in my opinion and well land— scaped. I would certa inly 1 i ke to see them locate in our community. 1 just believe those :are more compatible sites. I see no need to duplicate the bardces type operation in our area of the community at this time. Sincerely, Joirn Y. Teman • Co ol.. 1>, l Eden IOO.iric I;annir,(; Commision We want to state our opposition to the proposed Burger King resturant directly across from our home on Eden Road. We arc very concerned about the noise and traffic this close to our home, particularily the late hour traffic. We are both employed at jobs which start at 6:00 A.M. This means arising at 1 :30 A.:'". and to bed at an early hour. When the initial I'UD for the property was presented we raised no objections because the fast foods were located at the far end of the property and away from the residential area. The office site across from our home was acceptable as it has no night time activity. !:s for the proposed Sheraton hotel, we raised no objection because we considered it a diffrreont environment than a fast food operation. We also considered a luxury hotel as a plus for adjacent property values in the ]onz term. We believe a fast food would have a negative affect. The original PUD was limited to two fast foods. Why do we need two of same so close to each other? We do not consider this good planning, port.iculari.ly a ]:.xury hotel surrounded by fast f:cis. We consider this proposal as a major deviation from the oripir al DUD. Sincerely, Ernest and lielen Partin �J- it ,..I t /7 .>!k/l./ • Burger King Dev. • CITY OF PEN PRAIRIE Eden Glen POD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 82-233 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 80- 41 EDEN GLEN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie ha's by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City, and WHEREAS, the Burger King request ___ is considered a proper amendment to the Eden Glen_ PUD and the Comprehensive Guide Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on Sept.13, 1982 for the PUD Development and considered Burger King's request for approval for development and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on Oct. 5 1982. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Burger King development of PUD 80-41,being in Hennepin County, Minnesota and described as: that part of Lotl,Blockl,Edel. Glen,lying south of a line drawn_peroendicular to the W line of said lot,frnm a point on said W line distant 152' N along said W line from the SW corner of said Lot 1. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Development approval as outlined in the application material dated Aug. 12,1982. 3. That the PUD Development meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated Sept.13, 1982 . ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this _ day of 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: ,John D. Franc, City Clerk SEAL • • CITY of EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-234 • RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BURGER KING -EDLN GLEN 4TH ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED•by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Eden Glen 4th Addition , . dated June 4, 198? , a copy of which is on file at the City Hall ' and amended as follows: • is found to he 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 day of • 1982 . • • Wolfgang H. Pcnzel, Mayor • John D. Franc, City Clerk SEAL F ' .,w., ..,, .. ,.o-. m!.r.•..-r <...sQ..,.. .,«. i.r;+, :.^..'h:.iR.Srd!`G�*^.+nRn:.^.. WESTWOOD PLANNING & ENGINEERING COMPANY September 23, 1982 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attn: Chris Enger, Planning Director Subj: Edenvale Executive Park (Edenvale 9) Dear Mr. Mayor and Council: At the September 13, 1962 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the Edenvale Executive Park with several stipulations. Also, at the September 20 Park Commission meeting, the Park Commission recommended approval of the Edenvale Executive Park with several stipu- lations. The purpose of this letter is to reaffirm our understanding of those stipulations and provide the addi- tional information requested by the Planning and Park Commissions. 1. Platting the conservancy zone into an outlot dedication to the city or providing a scenic easement with pedes- trian subeasements within the conservancy zone. In accord with the Park Commission's recommendation, we are showing a scenic easement with subeasements for pedestrian activity within the scenic easement in the conservancy zone. The conservancy zone was on the original Edenvale PUD as remaining in open space. However, it is extremely important that our client retain ownership of this zone in order to market the small office sites adjacent to the conservancy area. It is our client 's judgement that creating an outlot in this area will substantially diminish the ability to market these offices. 2. Preparing of more detailed framework manual assuring high quality and consistent development. In the original proposal, we have provided protective covenants and restrictions as a development framework. Upon further discussion with the city staff, a need to be more definite in some language relative to the restrictions and coven- ants was indicated. We are prepared to add the follow- ing to the restrictions and covenants previously sub- mitted as: 74,!.M'I+:•'A GC:'lIvktf, Mikkf A>0'.15 54751!!7'.SN•0S55 I 1 1 Honorable Mayor and City Council September 23, 1982 Page 2 • Sim-loge. Materials and design of individual signs should complement the overall building design. Sign size should be in proportion to the building while still visible from the street. Size guidelines shall relate to the City of (den Prairie ordinances; however, all signs shall be groundsigned with brick or stone pedestals or wall signs attached flush to the buildings. landscaping walls screening entrances may be used as building identifi- cation signs. Building directories, stating the name and street' address of the business may be placed in the front yard adjacent to the building. Such building directory may be pedestal sign, with a height not to exceed one half of the building height. • Buildings. In addition to the building controls in the restrictions and covenants, we would suggest the following: - Surface materials be stucco, wood, brick, textured, pretrussed concrete, break-off block stone or equivalent. Metal buildings, plain concrete block buildings, or plain poured concrete buildings without finishing treatment are prohibited. Colors shall not include red, blue, yellow, orange or other similar bright colors. Wherever possible, large blank walls, which arc exposed to public view, should be avoided. These walls should be treated to provide depth or architec- tural interest, as well as being able to blend in with the rest of the building and site landscaping. • Lighting. In addition to requirements in the covenants, the following should be included: - Each lighting fixture should be brown or black in color on a brown or black pole of metal, fiberglass or concrete square illum.inaries. Deflectors should be away from and adjacent property, providing lights on parking areas as well as street and pedestrian areas. Pole heights should conform to city ordinances and be 15-20 feet in parking lots, 30-35 feet in streets and 32 feet, where appropriate, on pedestrian ways. Lighting shall conform to existing city regu- lations with regard to glare. Honorable Mayor and City Council September 23, 1982 Page 3 • Restoration. We have agreed to provide a restoration plan which will conform to the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District requirements which are as follows: - Erosion control measures shall be used and installed prior to commencement of grading and will remain intact until all areas altered have been restored. These measures will consist of various temporary diking and siltation collection facilities, as nec- essary, to insure that eroding material will not enter the creek, tributaries and ponds of the water- shed either directly or inbirectly. - All areas altered because of site grading outside of street right-of-ways must be restored with seed and mulch or sod or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks after completion of grading operations. - If utility and street construction does not commence with the same construction season as grading, the street right-of-ways must be restored with seed or mulch. • Additions to the master landscape plan. Typical plant material to be used shall include: - Evergreen trees: fir, pine, spruce - Shade trees: ash, birch, hackberry, linden, locust, maple - Ornamental trees: cherry, crab, hawthorne, Japanese tree lilac, amber maple, Russian olive, mountain ash, plum In addition to the above, extra landscaping will be pro- vided along Valley View Road and along Purgatory Creek on the upper slopes. This landscaping will be part of the final landscaping plan for the individual sites using the material and concepts showing the overall master plan. • Materials and their design use. These will follow the theme of the master landscape plan to provide a contin- uous and united visual character throughout the executive park. Consideration in design will be given to year-round interest regarding color, texture, size and innovative use of plant material. raterials will be selected that are not susceptible to disease, in appropriate growing zone, and provide low maintenance costs and which do not 1 Honorable Mayor and City Council September 23, 1982 Page 4 constitute a danger to public health/welfare. Shrubs and ground cover, trees and berming will be used together or separately to create screening and visual interest along streets and around buildings and parking areas, as depicted and modified on the master landscape plan. Should you have any questions or comments regarding any of the information contained in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, WETWCD�/PtANNI�NG & ENGINEERING COMPANY fQi/t�^' ` �Xvc/1 Richard C. Krier, AICP RCK/dg 1 • Minutes - Parks, Recreation 8 unapproved Natural Resources CornsInsion -4- September 20, 1982 MOTION: Kingrey moved to recommend to the Council approval of Chernr Contracting Company's request for rezoning with the preservation boundary as proposed by the developer. And, language for the boundary barrier be drawn the same as adjacent owners and to avoid chain link fencing if possible. And, the rezoning line he drawn 50' south of the sewer line from the eastern boundary, westerly to the southernisost parking lot, then to the restore boundary. And, the zoning be changed- irum public to office in relation to the building. And, that cash park fees be required as precedent has already been set by previous developsent proposals. Schwartz seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Friederichs opposed. DISCUSSION: Schwartz said he feels Gel co and Cabriole should be contacted regarding the implementation of barriers and that Cherne should not be required to put theirs in first. He suggested the barriers for all three owners be planned as one project. A 5 minute recess was called at 9:00 p.m. b. Edenvale 9th • Dick Krier was present from Westwood Engineering to request PUG approval for Edenvale 9th. The property is located south of proposed Valley View Road, east of Mitchell Rand, west of proposed Schooner Boulevard. Krier shoed slides of the 99 acre site. The proposed land use is for an executive office park consisting of small office condominium type structures. The developer agrees to grade trails and build a pedestrian bridge. The site plan also consists of heavy berming along the new Valley View Road. Krier said the outlots in the conservancy district would be dedicated in a scenic easement. This would be consistent with all of Purgatory Creek dedications. Lambert said Staff recorrnends accepting dedication of a scenic easement over the conservancy area along Purgatory and dedication • of a trail easfr,ent. Staff also receasronds the developer grade the trail and put in the 5" deep Class 5 as well as a bond for a bridge that will eventually cross the creek. MOTION: Breitenstein moved to rr•coarnend to the Council approval of Edenvale 9th per Staff recorrw!ndations. Friederichs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 2. Rr_(rrn-t on City Con�.truction Projects City Engineer Gene Dietz shorn slides taken in mid August, 1982, of major rn.id imin,ven.ent projects in the City. • Unapproved Planning Concession Minutes -4- September 13, 1982 MOTION 1 Marhula moved to close the public hearing. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 6-0. MOTION 2 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Burger King re- zoning from Rural to C-Reg-Ser as per the plan dated August 12, 1982 and the September 3, 1982 staff report. Sutliff seconded. DISCUSSION Sutliff stated that he would like to add strong adherence to the City Code. Marhula asked if this project is in conformance with the Eden Glen PUD Design Framework Manual. The Planner replied yes. Marhula stated he felt that it would be good to stress adherence to the City Code. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION 3 Marhula moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated August 12, 1982 as per the staff report dated September 3, 1982. Sutliff seconded. DISCUSSION Beaman asked that public safety place restrictive 'no parking' signs along Glen Lane, [den Road, and Singletree Lane. Marhula and Sutliff agreed to add it to the notion. Motion carried 6-0. C. EDfN`YALE 9TH ADDITION (RCVISEP), by Equitable Life Assurance Society. Request for development of Edenvale POD 70-04, Planned Writ. Developm.2nt Concept approval for office and industrial uses on 100 acres, preliminary plat approval, and possible variances. Located north of TH 5 and west of proposed Prairie Center Drive. A public hearing. The Planner stated that the proposal is consistent with the Guide Plan Change that was approved in the last couple of months. Dick Krier of Westwood was present to give a presentation. trier stated that the changes made since the last meeting are all in conformance with all requirements and the approved Guide Plan change. He gave a slide presentation of the project. The Planner asked if an agreement had been made with Banco to grade into Edenvale 9. trier replied that the trees are on their property, and stated that there is a misunderstanding. he stated that the proponent would rather dedicate the con- servancy zone as an casement. Unapproved Planning Comr.iission Minutes -5- September 13, 1982 Krier reviewed the surrounding land uses and stated that '8' lane is a one-way right turn only and 'A' circle is a two way. The site consists of .99 acres of land. The fluodplain is at 928. He reviewed the grading plans and stated that they are preserving the hill. He stated that Watershed District requires seeding and mulching as grading occurs which will be done. Hallett asked who is the owner of the land to the east? Krier replied Mr. Carpenter. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 9/10/82. Hallett asked the number of employees anitipated. Krier replied between 250 and 300. The Planner stated that the LAW was done on the first stage of application. Bearman stated that he felt that providing food service on this site would be good. Bearman stated that he would like the City Attorney to review the covenants and restrictions and the design framework. He stated that it should be up to Equitable life to enforce these. Sutliff asked the percentage of office and warehouse. Krier replied roughly SOY office and 50;'. v.rarehouse. MOTION 1 Sutliff moved to close the public hearing. Gartner seconded, motion carried 5-0-1. Marhula abstained because of a professional conflict. MOTION_2 Sutliff moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the POD as per the plan dated August 19, 1982 and the September 10, 1982 staff report with the addition of having the City Attorney review the covenants and restrictions and the design framework and having at least, a loop road constructed during development. He stated that the covenants, restrictions, and design framework's conformance should be the responsibility of the developer. Retterath seconded. DISCUSSION Hallett asked Chat the possibility of food services within the site be looked into he added to the motion. Sutliff and Retterath agreed. Motion carried 5-0-1. Marhula abstained. MOTION 3 Sut.lifi moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated August 19, 1982 as per the report dated September 10, 1982 with the addition of having the City Attorney review the covenants and restrictions and the design frnmework dnd having at least a loop road constructed during develnHc.unt. He stated that the covenants, restrictions, and design framework's cenformonti should be the responsibility of the developer. Retterath seconded. Unapproved Planning Cormission Minutes -6- September 13, 1982 DISCUSSION . Sutliff stated he would also like snow fences to he placed around the trees to be protected during construction and ask the City Forester to take a tree inventory of the site, erosion control, etc. • Motion carried 5-0-1. Marhula abstained. VI. OLD BUSINESS • None VII. PLANNER'S REPORT None VII. PLANNER'S REPORT The Planner reviewed upcoming items. Mr•MORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council T11RU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community ScrvicesFtL DATE: September 29, 1982 SUBJECT: Edenvale 9th Tree Removal In the original staff review of the grading plan for Edenvale 9th the major concern in removing vegetation was in relationship to the creek valley eye and the hi+;ii ridge line on the eastern bounday. The remaining portion 100 acre site is basically an open, rolling terrain with some shrubbery and a number of oak trees scattered throughout the eastern half of the site. The most significant of these oaks is a group of ten oak trees located on a high, prominent knoll in the center of the site. This high knoll is very visible from Highway 5 and the oaks range in size from 15-21" in diameter. These oaks are not the largest on the site, but are considered significant due to their location on this highly visible knoll. The original staff report of the Planning Department and the Community Services Department refers to a group of appro v mately S oaks at this location. The purpose of this memo is to correct. that report (there are ten oaks in a tight group at that location and another lone oak approximately 200' to the south) cod give a more detailed review of the nui,ther of oal: trees in excess of 12" in diameter that will be removed from this site based on existing grading plans. There will be 37 oak trees in excess of 12" diameter removed from this 100 acre development proposal. There arc 2 oaks 30" in diameter and 10 oaks larger than 25" in diameter. Nearly all of these oaks are east of the cen- trally located high knoll previously mentioned. Thirty-seven oak trees spread over a 100 acre site may be considered insign- ificant, and in fact were really,overlooked by staff upon the first review of this site due to their proximity to other lesser desirable trees. However, staff felt it is important to bring this ma;teri�osyrantIonsdueltue oal the e misinformation on significant trees on the 1reports. be noted that the developer will be required to replace these trees, inch for inch, in his landscape plan. BE:md • • CCrt!tHNITY SFRVICFS DEPARWENT • ULVELOPFNT PROPOSAL CHECK LIST (AT1ACHLD 10 PLANNING STAFF RLPORT) • • JE: Septerlier 14. 1982 • PROACT: hdenvale 9th Addition I'll) • PAPKS, PECRFATION NATIMAL PLSWICES COCFRNS: I. Adjacent to any existing or proposed parks:No • . a. Affect on the park: N/A • . 2. Cash park fee or land dedication: N/A (within rdcnvale PUP) a. If cash park fee, amount based on existing ordinance will total: • b. If park dedication, the number of acres to be dedicated: c. Existing or pending assessments or taxes on the proposed park property will be paid prior to dedication: 3. Adjacent to existing or proposed trails:Sec Planning Staff Report page 6 - PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM • • a. Party re,,ionsible fqr trail construction: DeveloPer is responsible for sidewalks & stall uiIe suggest ,he dcvioper grddu aicl.rck—trIt-4-1—& provide a bond tor the bridge crossing of PprgaWr) Cluck. ROW ti dedicated 4. Grading plan cornents: See Planning Staff Report page 7 • • • 5. Significant vegetation on the site: The majority of the vegetation on this Site • consists mainly of meadow grasses with serittered shrub vegetation. A group of S oak ---- - trees is located in the center of the site on an area that will receive a 20' cut. 6. Adj:ccnt to protected waters:Purc•atory creel: and the adjacent floodnlain meanders • flirouch the i,.estern and southern portion of this site. Restoration of the distinlied soils along the creek slope should be completed as soon as Possible. REFERINCF CHECK 1. MCA - • 2. Neighborhood Facilities Study , The Conservancy :one should be platted into an uutlut dedicatcd 3' ictilrIceirgrinte a F•cenic eas'ement over the entire Conservancy Thne. 4. Shorelafle ttm.laelnt DrdinanceAll lots affected he the Shoreland Hdnagement Act are IH COH:0HCO. floodplain Ordinance nie iirono•.al is in confermince with the Floodplain Ord. 6. Guide Pion The CimiTrehensive Guide Plan dosiendtes this arca as office on the western haII, vorwwreidl -regional service on the easteiu 7. Other • • • • -2- • • RLCU",MLCCATIO'IS Adjacent neighborhood type, and any neighborhood opinion voiced in favor or opposed to the project: Area to the south and west across the creek presently contains three restaurants and finder Care. Area to the east is depicted as regional- commercial. Area to the vest is existing office. rdenvale Apts. is an auroved let;n 1c•c.;tci-ro Tltt+ ilarT171-e.7t=— — 2. Planning Commission hecon'.flendation' Me Planning Commission recommended alailroval as per the Planning Staff Report dated September 10, 1982. • • • 3.• Community Services Staff Recommendation: Community Services Staff recommends approval as per the September 10, 1982 Planning, Staff Report with the following addition: Comumn ity Services Staff feels that this office development will' generate a great deal of pedestrian traffic to the restaurant area located southwest of this site: therefore staff feels that it would be_inpropriate• _ for_tlus_develaper-_le provid0 a bond anfficiont toTry fi._i tm lrctrain bri.d;_;e cm ossing of the creek then sufficient offices are constructed to warrant the need fo" the bridge. Staff would also recommend the Commission and the Council consider requiring the developer to grade and provide the S" deep Class 1' base for the trail adjacent to the creek and the bridge crossing. The purpose of this recommendation is twofold I) that grading can be very easily accomplished by the developer during this massive grading project and • will he accomplished when this entire site is being disturbed and erosion control for the creek is already in place, and 2) it will ensure that the proposed trail alignment is-within an area that is developable for trail purposes. Once the trail Is graded and the base is in place, it is very easy for the City to put down the asphalt when the trail connection can be made to adjacent properties and connected through trails along Prairie Center Drive and Mitchell Road. • Corwunity Services staff would also recor.unond that the pedestrain creek crossing be moved to the vest in order to more directly line up with the restaurant area and the corner of Mitchell Road and State Highway S. • • • • STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FPOM: Stephen Sullivan, Planning Assistant 'IiIROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: September 10, 1982 PROJECT: EDENVALE 9Th ADDITION REVISED Location: oad, ea tt of Mitchell Road, west of hfdcy ew Rproposed Schooner Boulevard. APPLICANT & FEE OWNER: Equitable Life Assurance Society REQUEST: 1. PUD Concept for office and industrial uses on 99 acres. 2. Preliminary plat approval for 5 outlots and road 12-0-W. 3. Grading approval. RAG:GROU:In This area is part of the original 1970 Edenvale PUD and was designated C-Ileg-Ser (Commercial l:egiunal Service) and multiple residential. The slope and floodplain was designated as open space. Neighborhood Locator Key. FIGURE 1 A• . e.... .......... 13 a1...au .......... .. Cc.... ..I• .... >,'..'21 '-'.'"..,' ", --I ','..d 1; I n• o L.\ 1/v.; :'1 K t,.... her i/ i',`t -.-__ h, );11/% h• ; .7..r. .�.,!- iI / edenvale Sti ^cit s r. �i r-..I•,..rn. r . n.in .irr n. n.,.. Staff Report-Edenvale 9th Add. Revised' page 2 The office use is in conformance with the 1973 Major Center Area PUD, however, industrial use was not contemplated in that plan. The 1974 Purgatory Creek Study designated a Conservancy Zone which is not to be built in. The developer proposes an easement over the Conservancy Zone. There is no filling proposed within the floodplain. The project is in conformance with the Flodoplain Ordinance, however, as was recommended in the. May 13, 1982 staff report, lot lines should not extend into the floodplain. The Shoreland i•tanagement Act applys to lots within 300 feet of the Normal High Water i'ark of a creek. All offices shown on the development plan are setback in excess of 250 feet. The impervious coverage allowed is 30Z and the total building height allowed is 30 feet. All lots affected are in conformance with the Shoreland Flanagement Act. Existing zoning on the parcel is Rural. Zoning and platting could occur on individual pieces when actual building and site plans are proposed. The individual zonings should be in conformance with the approved PUD Development Plan. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet is not required on this project because it is part of Edenvale, which was covered by a previous Environ- mental Impact Statement. The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this area as Office on the western half and Commercial Regional Service on the eastern half. On May 19, 1982 the Planning Commission recommended approval regarding the request for a Guide Plan Amendment to change approximately 36 acres of Regional Commercial to Industrial. On July 6, 1932 City Council granted approval to the same. (Resolution No. 82-162). As requested in the Planning Staff report dated May 13, 1982, approval was recommended subject to these items: 1. Submission of more complete and concrete topographic infor- mation (i.e., up-to-date topography or a model, phasing schedule of grading and restoration plans). (new topography and cross sections submitted) 2. flatting of Conservancy Zone into an outlet. (not done) 3. Inclusion of a pedestrian system. (submitted and done according to recommendations) 4. Redesign of industrial area to assure no setback violations and no loading areas visible from differing adjacent land • • uses. (submitted and done according to recommendations) 5. Preparation of a more detailed design framework manual to ( help assure high quality development.(more specifics currently being corked on. G. Preparation of a master landscaping plan to assure continuity of appearance throughout the office/industrial park. (submitted some revisions necessary) Staff Report-Edenvale 9 Revised page 3 • 7. Redesign of some of the smaller office lots accesses to the internal roads. (submitted and done according to reconmiendations) EXISTINGlesi _SITE CIIACIICTERS_ l t.c is boo dered on the south and west by Purgatory Creek. The Creek Valley elevation is at approximately 828. The slopes rise from the Creek Valley at a 15", average, to an elevation around 890. The center of the site falls mostly between the 890 and 900 contours. The highest point on the site, as well as the most prominent topographic feature is a hill to the eastern edge of the site. The hill rises to 940 elevation, but has been gravelled extensively in the area roughly north and west of the proposed road, ('A' Circle). The mined area is shown on the 8/2/82 revised grading plan. Mining spoils have left areas within the site without positive drainage, eroding, and lacking topsoil. The soils in the upland area of the site are sand with gravel bases. Some areas consist of loam soils. These areas are scattered throughout the site. Vegetation within the site consists mainly of meadow grasses. No areas of significant overstory, understory and shrub vegetation is found on the site except in the Creek Valley, the northeast section of the site, and a grouping of five oaks located in the center or the site. All areas of significant vegetation with the exception of the five oaks will be saved. The majority of the vegetation north of the creek slope will he eliminated due to site grading. The slope to the creek will remain undisturbed maintaining its meadow character with the exception of the initial, approximate 20' drop in vertical grade from the top of the slope. Wildlife habitat is sparce with the exception of the Creek Valley. Presently, the grassland landscape provides a niche for bird feeding and nesting. OFFICE AREA CONCEPT The concept is to place office buildings to the west, south and east sides of the industrial park. The concept places larger lots taalong e nguththe Crueller Valley presenting a much more controlled appea . re tlots have been located in the southeast corner of the plat due to the larg hill on highway property to the south that screens them from Highway 5 sight lines. The plans presented contemplate ordinance FAR's of .30 single story and .50 multiple story, although the plan submitted represents significantly less than this. This discrepancy helps to illustrate the pressure which can he expected in the future, if the floodplain and Conservancy Zone are sold with individual lots. The dcvelepirent site plan indicates the intended EAR for site development along the creek slope and floodplain. FAR's equivalent. to maxim,rn zoning standards that influence development along the creek slope will not be acceptable. The Conservancy lone should he platted as an outlot and dedicated to the City as part of the Ldenvale I'U0 open space plan, to help assure consistent treatment of it. • Staff Report-Edenvale 9th Add. Revised page 4 INDUSTRIAL APIA CONCEPT The concept of placing the industrial area in the center of the project was to be able to buffer it from the sensitive areas to the south and west. However, all of the area north of the project is guided as medium density residential and is visually exposed to industrial. Loading areas have been placed away from the north with an industrial site. Setbacks of approximately 8O' from Valley View Road to buildings and parking lots leave adequate space for additional screening and buttering of the parking and large building masses. ARCHITECTURE A deveiopiental framework manual regarding architecture and its components is recommended. The current submission does not go beyond the City's own ordinance except that it provides the developer with architectural control. Special criteria should be established for evaluating types of materials, colors, windows, blandwal1s, treatment of mechanical equipment, lighting, signage, etc. PARKING ANI) LOADING AREAS Parking area as shown per PHD Development Plan appears to provide adequate space for appropriate parking needs in both office and industrial sites. The proponent is indicating mutually shared access to parking and service areas. Such a design approach shall have all legalities taken care of at the time of individual zoning. Specific legal documentation should be submitted which define a detailed framework regarding maintenance, re- construction, liability, use, etc. It must be clearly shown that the use of zero setbacks to common lot lines will be used as a trade-off to increase and consolidate open space in front yard areas, not to maximize coverage on the site. FIGURE 2 shared access shared access 4 1. - ';;:rn:e. ;.,_. :1 r_-w•--azi,-. • Ir.-.7-T ra m 1 i,ii -=*-af ::l _ _! :•—e ^.3 i l-- CD ,I 1� al t ID _.! t j._ .� 0c:C:0p'iC: iO not ac piab!® Joint truck service areas will he allowed only when planned as screened truck courts as i11w•trated in Figure 2. • Staff Report-Edenvale 9th Add. Revised page 5 • All service areas, as shown in the revised (7/30/fl2) developer's site plan shall be oriented away from the north and adjacent roadways. SCCE[I!IhG/LAPi)SCAPItG A landscape screening plan will he required indicating berms and/or plant material between streets and parking clusters. This plan is subject to the City's approval prior to issuance of a building permit and should follow the overall framework of the master landscaping plan submitted. To assure that there is not adverse impact to the residential area to the north, a revised screening plan using berms with additional evergreen and deciduous overstory plant material is recommended. Plant material • should be placed south of Valley View Road to visually soften and break up the architectural element and screen parking areas. In individual sites, plant material should be placed along creek slope to buffer and visually soften buildings and parking lots. The proponent indicates a collenade of deciduous trees along Valley View Road, A-Circle, and B-Lane. Such an approach unifies the visual character of the site. The use of large canopy trees should be carried into each lot to extend this continuity. The use of canopy trees will aid in buffering the industrial buildings from the planned residential to the north. Included in the developmental framework manual, information regarding landscaping and its components is recommended. Special attention should he paid to size, type, amount of plant. material, outdoor lighting, signage, topo, etc. An overall planting schedule should he developed to insure mutual use of similar plant types and overall PUO development design criteria. OR!IINAhC[ Rf7IRF7NTS -Revised hevelopment Site Plan and written material indicate Zoning Ordinance requirements met or exceeded. Proposed Office (Mock 54.9- net acres Total lots 36 Min. lot area 20,000 s.f. Min. lot width 100 ft. Min. yard/bldg. 100 ft. Setbacks: front yard 35 ft. side yard 20 ft./50 ft. total rear yard 20 ft. proposed industrial (Block 2, 3) 37.3- net acres lotel lots 15 Min. lot area 2 acres Min. lot depth 200 ft. Min. yerd/bldg. 300 ft. Setbacks: front yard 50 ft. Side yard 20 ft. rear yard 25 Tt. Public: right-of-way 7.7- net acres Road right-of-way 70 ft. wide • • Staff Report-Edenvale 9th Add. Revised page 6 TRANSPORTATION New Valley View Road is ander construction on the north side of this project at this time. This road will provide the access to this project. An internal industrial loop road is planned with full accesses to Valley View on the cast and west and a right-in/right-out only in th.: center of the project. The project, at total development could generate 7,000-9,000 ADTs. Valley View Road is to be constructed as a four lane road with controlled access, and will be able to handle this traffic. Location and spacing of the access points to Valley View Road have been taken into account in the design of Valley View Road. The internal roads are planned as 38 foot wide industrial streets, with a 70 foot right-of-way. Access to the internal roads should be addressed according to: sight distances, proximity to intersections, and offset • from other accesses. Since the original plan for Edenvale. this area has been designated for high traffic use. The office and industrial (I-2) development will generate less average traffic than the office/regional commercial. Valley View Road ties into the regional transportation network with a direct link to Interstate 494 which connect to State liiglr.,ay (i5, and 169-212. Valley • View Road also ties to proposed Schooner Blvd. which lies east of the site which connects to State ilignway i;5. PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM There will be a sidewalk and a bikeway along proposed Valley View Road. With the employment of several thousand employees within this office/ industrial site, a sidewalk has been placed along both A and B lane. In addition, a 20' easement has been provided from Road A to the southwest of the site and along Purgatory Creek to provide access to restaurants and recreational uses. uTILITIrs The entire project would be served by sewer, water, and storm sewer. Water would loop from Valley View Road, through the site and back to Valley View Road and about half from the south directly from the Purgatory Creek Inter- ceptor. Storm sewer would flow to the Valley View Road system for the northcentral and northeastern portions of the site and the balance would be directed toward Purgatory Creek. The Watershed District would review the sedimentation pond and outlet to Purgatory Creek. • Although schematic at this stage, catch basin spacing and location appears to stretch City engineering standards in several cases, especially considering the large percentage of impervious surface in::the industrial portion. Staff Report-Edenvale 9th Add. Revised' page 7 GRADING The_developer wishes to grade the entire property as soon as possible. The major grading on the site is of the hill on the east end of the project. This hill has been substantially gravelled on the north and west sides. Because of the lack of substantial vegetation on this hill, the past gravelling, and this development's relationship to the proposed Valley View Road; the grading of the balance of this hill is imminent. There is no grading or development proposed on the creek slope in the Conservancy Zone, and the balance of the grading of the slope to create walk out office lots is reasonably natural in appearance. In no case should the grading exceed a 3:1 slope. The western 3/4 of the industrial area basically is 10-20 feet of cut. Although the lots could be left ungraded, there is very little merit in not finishing up the grading outside the loop road. Grading this area all at once will, in this case, presents a more finished appearance initially, and provide more overall grading control. Grading plans for the interior industrial lots should be redone along with the development layout. Grading along creek slope should be restored immediately after grading to insure soil stability. Additional detailed grading and site restoration information is required. Included in this manual would include restoration methods, time- table, cut and fill data. A grading permit for 125,000 cubic yards has previously been given by the City Council. RECOMCNDATTONS Recom.rend approval of: 1) PUD Concept for office and industrial use on 99 acres; 2) preliminary plat approval of five outlots and road right-of- way; 3) grading approval. Approval subject to proponent meeting these criteria: 1. Platting the Conservancy Zone into an outlot and dedication to the City. 2. Preparation of a more detailed framework manual assuring high quality and consistent development. 3. Preparation of a more detailed landscape master plan, depicting additional buffering along Valley View and along the Purgatory Creek upper slope. Plant material sizes should be indicated. 4. A complete restoration plan. 5. Specific documentation defining legal mechanisms for governing shared access roads, to be submitted at time of zoning. SS:sh • Edenvale 9th Dev. Edenvale PUD 70-04 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 82-235 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF EDENVALE WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development of certain areas located within the City, and WHEREAS, the Edenvale 9th plan is considered a proper amendment to the 70-04 PUD, and . WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on September I3, 1982 for PUD Development for Edenvale 9th and recommended approval to the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on October 5, 1982. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Edenvale 9th development of PUD 70-04 being in Hennepin County, Minnesota and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Development approval as outlined in the application material dated August 19 and September 10, 1982 3. And that said approval be contingent upon the Planning Commission's recommendations of Sept. 13, 1982. ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel,Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane , City Clerk SEAL ADDITi0:1 Local DOSCri:7ZiC, f•-•) 31: r...1 .T 1, .1,1 2, rarsAle tet'si^n, ,,,••rsl rf the s.est • brier if 5, lf, Oi; 116, [s•se 72, • ,r,::,raq to t hr :At t:•1 rt.! tr, eq of 1'role as tle of the Lei,,strar of ,t1rs. In and fot so:ol Count:. (r02-5,51 • ICert f ale he. 199672/ ts•st 11, 751at part of 1.1 1, S:r.t, 1, fdrn‘ale 1th le,d:t 50. er2 .toe •:,,o,r•st C,pitPI of the Fs,c. 15sest tot sf re.o.:n it 1,• s)ar 111, At in it. •:tr•Idinq to t,r s:at r r•,..f on f:)• or of ',cord In the off ace I : of t-1.• r,ri:tata cd T1tles in aoe Ionasid County. ITOTSfse) ICertif itokt• to. 191102/ Tr•c1 C, lot 1, S1ork 1, 2.1...•lo It:: ,Cott t''i rant en.lrAit5olin it, e! She St 0,e,e 0.3a:ter sr,. s-.!gstde. V the ! the,st c:ssrl, of the V.sr/er e! 10, 1.1(. 'es 40 77. t"; and state. (AaSTSACT) 1 • EXCEPT 7+4.7 run Cr 101 I,5.110(7,CV.55'0,2....E 1,7h VI-CI IN THE crna ro-nar7y Nr , 11 1 al 75C POI-L.1.-.51,:f 915::55..21:AT A :`-f Lit :i.I ITT I, 05*: 3 2 WIhihS )_!Si K.-7,-E.1) 5E1 SC(t)',CT: I, V 4...+6'2,,1:ye i! , TO A Si 7.4‘ (11. lilt I, It !,1.71E....., 1'Cl Kt' ./5,'S'.2.1 CO ITT I.AS A..1. TrUtt t•AT: r•aorl 5• Tro.rt Os-g!elerrd a, e t. 7-0. 1351. T,•cI',CARLOS! 1Corla I tt Ate no. 191101) XI•Cl X. 11.o. 5o1, Ill of 1/1 of rot ion 10, Ti.s-r•hir 111. orth ,1,4t :2, C t of 0,, !.tt, anc rTrad:.:n. thr cf 1hr t.-st 19X !or, of the t2e at P56.01 feet At10 i..r Al5 ivot :Aso tho 11.•st. 911 f et. I Af IT I •1 ,451' r:rcl t a:v.! ...a this !dl floe in 'Tetuan:a: • 1, pat the,ref lying S.,t5,sesterly of the center lin• of •a `ell ,erd, •ornr ding to the tositrel !totes t:ra rot. (AS.1FACT3 Tree? Co lot a, Cl! fee:lien, scieine to CC, Oat st hf on f and t.1 tr.cre an the of tote of the leg:stet of ,rds in and :ra said Ce.anly. 10115-2AACT) • c5) tf,i IiY kat:.cc Q,1.1'5U;75tk]I;Tel 12t Mit cl D to r,y, (,}12(t):11.11 I, 10'. 5:•:-,^,,!60,mirl tr,,Aj f y:j Y.5 .-1!•rorif2::1::t c3 cad t.,frwr kV.'11 1:1•03'i:f Vree r,r,rr 0 C.L5S1 Z,la".rs< It;•41 ,"!'.r.C/ J c!,,cy ',II 3;cr 't•-3,b4 • !•ri S ref riKrç!VI)Crt IT i t Nt'n,!t V311 des:I I tr4 a 4%.reI' r 41 Ia(' J1: (orNi IS #.(,-CS 1 !1nd I. c,r.) tt.;tow.vi COD k.f'tic! • (r V..04 rft: f:C;IVY C.'0.2 co,l Nrli • if! ,35.1 (Olf ,12,!';n:";,:t.tc!tArrwr e:if lc! ;I'.1) L. IrAra fi CeI iUS!l A Ic!•)r p.vt • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE IlENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-236 • RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EDENVALE 9TH ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED-by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: • That the preliminary plat of Edenvale 9th Alditinn + . dated Aug. 19, 1982 , a copy of which is on file at the City Hall • and amended as follows: • • • is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Toning and Platting ordinances and amendments thereto and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of • 19 • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor • John D. Franc, City Clerk SEAL • • ).x�1 1 ?Nye• 41 1t-; 1 I C r l waters, cluts & o'brien, inc. 7470 market place drive (612)941-4822 eden prairie.minnesota 55344 Septcnber 13, 1982 City Council City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • Members of the Council: On behalf of our client, Volunteers.of America',-Care Facilities, we would appreciate your consideration of a minor change to the overall plan for Lake Ridge Office Park in tte B�ryantt Lake Center on County Road 60. The VOA, owners of Building 7S, will be leasing approximately 50% of the adjacent Building 46 with an option to buy Building i6 in the future. The VOA would like to construct a connecting enclosed corridor between the two buildings. The corridor would be owned solely by the VOA; a portion would be an addition to their building and a portion would be a lease hold improvement to Building #6. We have conferred with the Building Inspection Department and the proposed link would conform to the State Building Code. We have enclosed a scheratic plan and an elevation plan to indicate the location of this proposed link and to show how we intend to integrate this element with the design of the complex of buildings. A copy of the lease agreeront is also enclosed; refer to paragraphs 6, 14 and 15 for information pertinent to this connecting corridor. If you should have any questions or require any further information, please contact us. Very truly yours, Da1' /1 Vlt;2.1`. Daniel S. O'Brien Architect DOB:dd tIne. CC Roh rt Nolte `� i ^ ' � ( no� � ' � ` �~ ` / • LEASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this 1st day of September, 1982, by and between TOWN & COUNTRY CLAIMS SERVICE, INC., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Lessor," and VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA CARE FACILITIES, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Lessee." 1. LEASE - In consideration of the premises and the rent payable hereunder, Lessor hereby leases to Lessee and Lessee hereby agrees to lease from Lessor, upon the terms, covenants and conditions hereinafter stated, the premises shown on the attached Exhibit "A", consisting of approximately 1,650 square feet, which premises consist of a portion of the lot and building located at 7540 Market Place Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally described as: Lot 8, Block 1, Bryant Lake Center, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. BASE RENT - Lessee shall pay to Lessor, during the term of this lease, base rent of $26,400.00 per annum ($16.00 per square foot) , payable in equal monthly installments, in advance, on the first day-of each calendar month. 3. RENT ADJUSTMENTS (a) For the first year of the term of this lease, the rent payable shall be the base rent set forth under Paragraph 2 above, and there shall be no adjustment for said period. (b) For the second year of the term of this lease, the monthly installments shall be at the base rent. At the end of the second year, however, a rent adjustment shall be made for said period on the following basis: (1) The actual costs incurred by Lessor for utilities and association dues during the first year of the term of this lease shall be determined, for Lessor's entire lot and building, on a square foot basis based upon 4,070 square feet for the entire building. The amount of $2.00 shall be added to this sum, representing a stipulated fair cost per square foot for real property taxes. The total shall be referred to as the "base cost amount." 1 • (2) The actual costs incurred by Lessor for utilities, association dues, and real property taxes during the second year of the term of this lease shall be determined on the same square foot basis and compared to the base cost amount. The base rent shall be increased or decreased, as appropriate, by an amount equal to the difference between the cost per square foot for the second year and the base cost amount, multiplied by the number of square feet comprising the leased premises. (3) If such adjustment results in an increase • to the base rent, this amount shall be paid by Lessee to Lessor in a single lump- sum payment following the end of the second year, within thirty (30) days after written notice from Lessor as to the exact amount of such increase. If such adjustment results in a decrease to the base rent, this amount shall be refunded to Lessee following the end of the second year, through a reduction in the monthly rent payment due next after written notice from Lessor as to the exact amount of such decrease. (4) For purposes of this paragraph, the term "utilities" shall include electricity, heating, air conditioning, water and sewer, and gas and oil services; the term "real property taxes" shall mean installments of real property taxes and special assessments payable with respect to Lot 8, Block 1, Bryant Lake Center during the period in question, regardless of the period for which said taxes are assessed; and the term "association dues" shall include all payments required by Lake Ridge Office Park Association for maintenance, common services, or other valid purposes. (c) For the third, fourth, and fifth year of the tern of this lease, the monthly installments shall be at the base rent plus an amount equal to one- twelfth (1/12) of the annual increase for the prior period, or minus an amount equal to one-twelfth (1/12) of the annual decrease for the prior period, whichever is appropriate, and an adjustment shall be made following the end of each year, in a single -2- lump-sum payment or rent credit, in the same manner as provided for after the second year, calculated as follows: (1) The actual costs incurred by Lessor for utilities, association dues, and real property taxes during said year shall be determined on the same square foot basis and compared to the base cost amount. The difference shall be multiplied by the number of square feet comprising the leased premises and added to or subtracted from the base rent, as appropriate, to arrive at the adjusted rent for said year. (2) The difference between the adjusted rent so calculated and the total rent paid in installments for said year shall equal the amount of lump-sum payment or rent credit for the year in question. (d) Lessor shall determine the amount of each adjust- ment, if any, within a reasonable time after all necessary information becomes available. (e) There shall be a pro-rata adjustment of rent for any portion of the lease term which is less than a full year. 4. TERM - The term of this lease shall commence on the 1st day of September, 1982 and shall continue until the 31st day of August, 1987, unless sooner terminated as hereinafter provided. Notwithstanding the above, Lessee shall have the right and option to renew this lease for one (1) additional term of five (5) years, commencing upon the first day following the end of the initial term, upon written notice to Lessor of exercise of said option at least sixty (60) days prior to the end of the initial term. In the event this lease is so renewed, all terms, provisions, and conditions of this lease, except the rent payable, shall be the same as for the initial term. Upon such renewal, the rent payable shall be adjusted to fair market rent for each year during said second term, provided, however, that the rent for each said year shall not exceed an amount equal to $1.00 per square foot over the total rent payable for the last year of the initial term. 5. USE OF PsEMISES - Lessee shall use the leased premises as general offices, or for any other lawful purpose. Lessee shall maintain the leased premises in good condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and shall not commit any nuisance on the premises. 6. LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS - It is expressly understood and agreed that Lo,:cec :;nil have the right to construct, at its own expense, a walk-way corridor between the leased premises and Lessee's own building, approximately as shown on the attached • Exhibit "B", and such other leasehold improvements as may be reasonable and appropriate, during the term of this lease, provided, however, that Lessee must obtain the prior consent of Lessor to the construction plans for such walkway and to the making of other major or structural improvements to the leased premises, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any such improvements shall be the sole property of Lessee. At Lessor's request, and unless Lessee purchases Lessor's entire property pursuant to rights and options granted hereinbelow, Lessee shall remove all leasehold improvements, at its own expense, prior to termination of this lease. 7. PROPERTY TAXES - Lessor shall pay all real property taxes and special assessments, if any, assessed against the leased premises, except as provided under Paragraph 3 above. 8. UTILITIES - Lessor shall provide and pay the cost of all utilities and services required for the leased premises, including electricity, heating, air conditioning, water and sewer, and gas and oil, except as provided under Paragraph 3 above. Lessee shall pay the cost of its own telephone and other such services. 9. ASSOCIATION DUES - Lessor shall pay all association dues and expenses assessea by Lake Ridge Office Park Association for the leased premises, except as provided under Paragraph 3 above. 10. INSURANCE - Lessor agrees to maintain and pay the cost of all fire and extended coverage insurance reasonably required on the leased premises. Lessee agrees to maintain and pay the cost of a comprehensive general liability insurance policy naming Lessor as an additional insured. Said liability coverage shall protect Lessor from liability with respect to accidents occurring on or about the leased premises, in at least the amount of $500,000 for injury or death to any one person and $1,000,000 for injuries or deaths arising out of one accident. Lessee shall be responsible for obtaining and paying the cost of insurance on its equipment and property within the leased premises. 11. SIGNS - Lessee shall have the right to place an identifyingsign or signs on or about the leased premises, providing said sign or signs are reasonable in appearance and in conformity with other building signs in Lake Ridge Office Park. 12. FURNISHINGS - Lessor has provided carpeting, drapes, and other furnishings in the leased premises. Lessee shall have the right to rep;_ace or change any such furnishings, provided that Lessee leaves the leased premises upon termination of the lease with furnishings of at least equal quality and condition as those originally provided, reasonable wear and tear excepted. -4- • 13. SUU-LEASING AND ASSIGNMENT - Lessee shall have the right to sub-lease all or any portion of the leased premises and to assign its leasehold rights hereunder. Lessee shall not, however, have the right to assign or transfer its rights of first refusal nor purchase options hereunder, without the prior written consent of Lessor. 14. REPAIRS - Lessor shall make and pay the cost of all ordinary repairs to the leased premises and to the lot and building in which the leased premises are located. Lessee shall be responsible for the cost of all repairs to the leased premises caused by the acts of its employees and agents, apd of repairs • to its own leasehold improvements, equipment and other property. 15. MAINTENANCE - Lessor shall be responsible for the cost • of all ordinary maintenance to the lot and building in which the leased premises are located. Lessee shall be responsible for the cost of ordinary maintenance to the leased premises and to all leasehold improvements. 16. QUIET POSSESSION - Lessor agrees that Lessee, upon payment of rent required and performance of all obligations provided for hereunder, shall peaceably and quietly have, hold, and enjoy the leased premises for the full term of this lease. It is expressly understood and agreed that Lessor shall operate the heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems to maintain temperatures in the leased premises within a reasonable comfort zone throughout each year of the term of this lease. 17. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL - It is acknowledged that Lessor is currently occupying the remaining portion of the lot and building in which the leased premises are located. In the event that Lessor, during the tern of this lease, wishes to lease said remaining portion to others, Lessee shall have a right of first refusal to lease said premises from Lessor on the same terms as these made by any bona fide offer to Lessor by any third party. If Lessee does not exercise said right by notice to Lessor within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice from Lessor as to the terms of said bona fide offer, Lessor shall be free to enter into said lease. This right shall be renewed upon the termination of any such lease to a third party. It is further agreed that Lessee shall have a right of first refusal to purchase the real property described in Paragraph 1 hereinabove, in the event Lessor wishes to sell said property during the term of this lease. 18. OPTION TO PURCHASE - Provided Lessee has complied with the terms and conuitic;s of this lease, Lessee shall have the -5- exclusive right and option to purchase from Lessor the entire real property described as: Lot 8, Block 1, Bryant Lake Center, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar. of Titles, in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, including the land, buildings, structures and fixtures thereon, collectively hereinafter referred to as the "option property," for the price and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. Lessee's option shall be exercisable on or after the first day of the sixth year of this lease, and until 180 days prior to the end of the tenth year of this lease. Exercise shall be by written notice from Lessee to Lessor postmarked during the exercise period. The purchase price upon exercise of said option shall be fair market value of the option property on the date of exercise, determined in the following manner: (a) by written, executed stipulation of the parties; or (b) if the parties cannot agree on a stipulated fair market value, then by written appraisal • of the option property by an M.A.I. appraiser mutually selected by the parties, which appraiser's fees shall be paid by Lessor; or (c) if the parties cannot agree on the selection of an appraiser, then by the average value of appraisals of the option property by an M.A.I. appraiser selected by Lessor and an M.A.I. appraiser selected by Lessee, in which event each party shall pay the fees of the appraiser each selects. 19. PAYMENT OF OPTION PRICE - In the event the option is exercised by Lessee, the purchase price for the option property shall be payable in the following manner: (a) A credit toward the price shall be allowed Lessee equal to $3.00 per square foot of space rented hereunder, multiplied by the number of years or pro-rated partial years of the lease term prior to the date of exercise-of the option. .(b) If Lessee is able and elects to assume the existing indebtedness on the option property, the balance of the price after said assumption shall be payable as follows: (i) $75,000 cash down payment at closing. (ii) The remainder by promissory note, payable in semi-annual installments of interest only, at 1/2 percent over the New York prime rate prevailing on the date of exercise of the option, with principal due five (5) years from the date of closing. (c) If Lessee is unable or does not elect to assume the existing indebtedness on the option property, the balance of the price after application of the credit under Paragraph 19(a) above, shall be payable as follows: (i) Satisfaction by Lessee of the existing indebtedness on the option property. (ii) $75,000.00 by promissory note, payable in semi-annual installments of interest only, at 1/2 percent over the New York prime. rate Prevailing on the date of exercise of the option, with principal due five (5) years from the date of closing. (iii) The remainder in cash down payment at closing. Upon exercise of Lessee's option, the purchase of the option property shall take place at a time and place mutually agreeable to the parties, but not later than ninety (90) days after the exercise date. 20. ENCUM3PJ NCES - During the term of this lease and until the exercise of Lessee's option, neither party shall create nor allow the creation of liens or encumbrances in addition to those against the option property on the date hereof, without the prior written approval of the other party; except upon lapse or waiver of Lessee's right of first refusal to purchase the option property under Paragraph 17 hereinabove. 21. TITLE INstnriCE - In the event Lessee exercises its option under :'ui.i iaph 18 hereinabove, Lessor shall provide at its expe:, a standard coverage owner's policy of title insurance ir, the Lull amount of the price of the option property, insuring Lessee's title as owner. _7_ _ 22. DEFAULT OF LESSOR - If at any time Lessor shall fail to pay theinstaliments due with respect to the mortgage or other encumbrances on the option property, or shall fail to perform any other covenants or obligations hereunder, and said default has not been cured within twenty (20) days after Lessor's receipt of written notice from Lessee to cure said default, or should Lessor be adjudicated bankrupt, then, in such event, Lessee shall have the following options: (a) To cure said default by payment directly to the creditor involved or performance itself, with an offset for such amount against any rent otherwise due Lessor; or (b) To terminate this lease upon thirty (30) days prior written notice; or (c) To immediately exercise its option to purchase the option property pursuant to Paragraphs 18 an, 19 hereinabove, except the purchase price in such event shall be adjusted to allow lessee an amount equal to any and all costs, expenses, disbursements, or fees reasonably incurred by Lessee in order to exercise this remedy, as a credit against the cash payable at closing. 23. DEFAULT Or LESSEE - If at any time Lessee shall fail to pay rent or ot;itr payments due hereunder, or shall fail to perform any other covenants or obligations hereunder, and said default has not been cured within twenty (20) days after Lessee's receipt of written notice from Lessor to cure such default, or should Lessee be adjudicated bankrupt, then, in such event, Lessor shall have the following options: (a) To terminate this lease upon thirty days prior written notice, and upon termination to re-enter and repossess the leased premises, in which event Lessor shall retain all rent theretofore paid as liquidated damages; or (b) To enforce this lease and recover from Lessee reasonable damages for said default, according to law. 24. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION - If the leased premises or the option property are damaged by fire or other casualty and can be repaired within a reasonable time, then Lessor shall repair • such damage and this lease and all rights thereunder shall continue in full force and effect, but there shall be an abatement in lent during the period of repair in the same • -8- . proportion that the damaged portion of the leased premises bears to the entire leased premises. If the leased premises or the option property are destroyed by fire or other casualty, Lessee shall have the option of declaring this lease terminated and receiving a refund of any unearned rent paid, or of purchasing the existing option property from Lessor at its fair market value, for cash. Said purchase option must be exercised by written notice to Lessor within sixty (60) days from the date of such destruction, and the closing of such sale shall take place within sixty (60) days from the date of such notice. 25. CONDEM_NATION - If the whole or any portion of the option property shall be acquired for public use by eminent domain or other condemnation_, this lease shall terminate. Lessee shall be entitled to a sum equal tc $3.00 per square foot of the leased premises multiplied by the number of years or pro-rated partial years which have expired prior to the termination of this lease for such reason, form any condemnation award. Lessor shall be entitled to the balance of any condemnation award. 26. SUBORDINATTON - At the request of any mortgagee, this lease shall ve,eu ject and subordinate to any mortgage which may now encumber the building or which may, pursuant to consent given under Paracrra.ph 20 above, hereafter encumber the building, and Lessee, upon demand at any time or times, agrees to execute, acknowledge and deliver to Lessor any and all inst.ruments•that may be necessary or proper to subordinate this lease to any such mortgage. Upon request Lessee shall deliver to Lessor a signed statement indicating the rent, term and defaults, if any, in this lease. 27. IND:MNIrTC:?TION - Lessee agrees to pay all sums of money in respect of any labor, services, materials, supplies or equipment furnished or alleged to have been furnished to Lessee in or about the leased premises which may be secured by any mechanic's, materialmen's or other lien against the leased premises or Lessor's interest therein, and will cause each such lien to be discharged, if filed, provided that Lessee may contest such lien upon delivery to Lessor of cash in an amount not less than one and one-half (1-1/2) times the face amount of any such lien. If such lien is reduced to final judgment, then and in such event Lessee shall forthwith pay enci discharge said judgment. Lessor shall have the right to post and maintain on the leased premises, notices of nonresponsibility under the Laws of Minnesota. 28. ASSt'`•IPTTON rF RISK - Lessee assumes all risk of damage to Less e's property within the leased premises which may be caused by water leakage, fire, windstorm, explosion or other cauF. , or by the act or omission of any tenant of Lessee in tne bu.i.ldinq, except the risk of any damage caused by the negiic:cnt: acts or omissions of Lessor. • _o_ • • • 29. SUBROGATION - As long as their respective insurers so permit, Lessor. and Lessee hereby mutually waive their respective rights of recovery against each other for any loss insured by fire, extended coverage and other property insurance policies existing for the benefit of the respective parties. Each party shall obtain any special endorsements, if required by its insurer, to evidence compliance with the foregoing waiver. 30. WAIVER OF LIABILITY - Lessor shall not be liable to Lessee, or those claiming through or. under Lessee, for injury, death or property damage occurring in, on or about the leased premises or appurtenances thereto, and Lessee shall indemnify Lessor and hold it harmless from any claim or damage arising out of any injury, death or property damage occurring in, on or about the leased premises to Lessee or any person or any employee, customer or invitee of Lessee, provided, however, that Lessor shall remain liable and responsible for its own negligent acts or omissions in connection with the leased premises. 31. NOTICES - Any notices required or permitted hereunder shall be properly given if mailed, postage prepaid, to the parties at their respective addresses set forth below, or at such other addresses as either party may establish by written notice to ;he other party in the same manner: • TOWN F: COUNTRY CLAIMS SERVICE, INC. 7540 Market Place Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA CARE FACILITIES 7530 Market Place Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 32. CONTINGENCIES - This lease is expressly contingent upon Lessee receiving the consent or approval of Lake Ridge Office Park Association, all governmental authorities with applicable jurisdiction, and all secured lenders, to the construction and use of the walk-way corridor shown on the attached Exhibit "B". Lessee shall make reasonable efforts to obtain such consent or approval. If these contingencies cannot be met within 180 days from the date of this lease, this lease shall terminate and Lessor shall retain all rent payments for said 180 day period as full and final payment due from Lessee hereunder. Notwithstanding the above, Lessee may, at its option, forego construction of said walkway and waive these contingencies, in which event the lease shall continue in full force and effect. • 33. ENTIRE AGi:IThMENT - This lease contains the entire agree- ment between tiie parties with respect to the leased premises nd the option property, and cannot be modified except by subsequent written agreement executed by both parties. A , • 34. BINDING EFFECT - This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors . and permitted assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written. TOWN & COUNTRY CLAIMS VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA S'RVICE, INC. CARE FACILITIES l`\) n Itams W_'It0-29J_\ Its t(hz STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) NS The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before mesh P . day of �-T`,.,...-2,«e. I 1952, by `':',^-,� ;'e= y W..w.�% . the (w.°.<<T`f'{ (D TOWN & COUNTRY LL.a L 1. SERV iCk.', INC. (yA,/.A4 - Ii L-otary Public /,mot JOSEPH SHERSMQ.''0 GKEENSTEIN i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Ali NOTARY nvaIc•MINNESOTA ) SS. \t r HENNEPIN COUNTY COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) My Comms.ionEXP,NAAU1,faee The for�oinq instrument was acknowledged before )ne this V day ,pf :,- Rn,i..La+A, , 1982, by 4-4, iczLlrh`ir-e, A Ag the -:), . ,gy .Q. 4i of VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA CARE FACILITIES. 4 ( 1 ' ',Notary Public This instrument drafted by: ?. "'" ...•....•►? /;r y, JOSEPH SHERWOOD GREENSTEIN,�p„s NOTARY PUL'LIC•MINNESOTA T MESSERLI, ROE, BALOGH & KRAMER 'rri`'� HENNEPIN CORN 300 Titus Building � .� .,„,HENNEPIN 6550 York Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55435 (612) 929-0041 (\Ak\\51.7 k\ a • • ..........1 -) _' ', ' , 'i ' ''' ...•••-.'''. --.-.1\r 4.?4:-./..--• "a- „ '. s'. :1 --V-2 ";:. t't• - •-,-..-- 1- ''''• , ir " ' — '''• ,14''''.7',''''':'%i ') \i/ , ‘'' r , -7-- 1 % / • ' '' / // / ',% 1 4,';',",' 'I'".-",.;-4-.Z.I .--' 1 ., ... I `\ , Existing uPic.:irtg .i,-'.6 / i./ ... . ,. , _ __„--- / ' / //' , ,i/ / . I Cormectin i Corridor 1 / / // , , , / / ,, 4- ' / 'A II ' `, / , ,, ,, /, .,„....,.„,..,7, . ,,,,,-,4, , /. / ' / tz.,-;...'-.-..1,,./•v - -,--- ,• ''' ' ,/, " '''`',....;"*T.'-':-;;.:,:7-,--;""77-••' :• ,.....e-- ,// ' " , / ' ' '/ •,•':./'••'••-••'::: :`\:•••.;•''--.4. 1-- Existing Bu _ _ ; „'/,// , ,/ , ...(, f'T . r.. '' ,_.._ .. ',/"// ' / / ' / ' / ' ' -17%,"-r,7,'.'„,,:-:-:::',..,-': ':-.--4,", .,--• _ --—•-• C., /7 ,, ,,-.. --;- ..---,...-,• ,,,/, ---- r4-1 • '\• *'........'',,.-,'' ; •',I.*..l. S. - „, ..s.. • ' .4,:,• •,,,,04------T......... —. - -•,?'"--,::::=:. .-''1,,, ', , --- --- ...---,,. 1 I . '' --‘,..._-_. :_-_______,__,,.........--,!,.r.•41 .:-A,(. ':..4.4::'.3:• '..„. * ,.... .41'..,.4,,4,4 14,•,j i d;2, ) 47',IV-.'',,:::••••4.-44-.A.T.,.r..• , /'4. ,s•S' 4i•,,,11 t 1 i •*,',,I,,.',.._ ,*•*,`,T, *!.4.::'''!.7....1.4' ' i^• „- --, / ,,,,,i'''•N;,N•\• ',V /,...i.•••••••_; ----1,,,,r r'ir,•.4",,,..!:.:., 7.2,,,,,,i . --- ......L..,41::;7:4.1: i.•,. .,,:-....::._24 =I: s ' ', >)-..-......,., i.`"Z-• '->'1------' ., L7'1 '''' r ,_,'•,___----',-,' -'s\-"•". • ',..5,:57,..i5_• ,''..,'"-'''x ik I. k-,kJ 4,_ ,.-:-:---e ;,---...,,*-1 L. — -' 't ,1/4,,,i.AI•:,`,..-1,i' ;1.kl,, - '-". '•!--&----.. ... " • . 1 1 .). •`,:. ' ...., .„ , , , , • .„ , , • 1 , / •_. 1 - ---• •••• ......4 - . y.--7•,:,:, ', v..,41..‘,E, rr e 1 .. ., , t. . i II '/.:./7-- '''' '''"'"-'c:.•-% .', ; 404-.••.---I 1 .N.—..„ .. •• i — 4, " i , ,, •• • .1\,•.(.`, , r . ......- •••••••••.21 ,••••-• fv;,,,,Nk:A.,. Is 1........•2 ' • : i I 4% ) i / I•• •••••• 17-,..._. ",---...-7.-.."""."'"1"."""*"'"".."""."."...".4 I Connoci•t:ng Corridor 1 r-,-,--,r,--,--.__-------L„.__:___,._ , , 1 .. .. 2 \ L k n 1, I ' '' ,... nni —44 $ .--, X i 1 ...1,1 — ,r i•,v 7",lvi' , '‘ • __ — ( .. 1----"7 ''"-Asn,L,n° f/ \;\si j(41:44',,,,,zc ,,, • • I 1 . ..... .. 4"-•-_,, 2',i4"-i .... •fr, , .....-4. . C -1\• ' l' • "'''---..--- - •--.'-.' s-z.,.....:,,,-a • r;,,4,,,,,, ",..,.._ -,-,,. / , '...:----- ::' . : c......, 't, .:n.,- -x.,1-1,., -',;-. -.1n,t..: • „.n. - Existing . II ' le1;.-4;'.,t.r .'‘','•---,Z,p.-{• i').• ,' '', --- \t,,r/ .,( f A X •., ,? I • .. .v....;.,,,.__ -•-•7 i,-,';)-1.1 , if-,-"' 2',:,••"- "tr.1: r I,'. 1 ,--------4, ',,, ,,,, ,1!,:,... L.:,1,:r ,,.•• .•,,, -)4 "••••Z ,;,). , ......,,ii.'•%.1 -,-- i".. • r , .., .''':,,•.,.- ;/ ,•::,',7"- ''.;',.',(,•r),'",. .:•-•%:‘ . ;: :--, \'..,."*":„, ',-- -;'• '•••• o :.' ;74.v..-kfs .•A l r., ',..:;•• '- "- - ".•47---',,,,‘ "% 1.. ••-`-'4,,,I'',.7.' i. • • • , '\., \ ‘-\71 ••/' '''-::-:- E--;4.l'‘ ..\ , - ,! -.,, i r !_;,•,-,"' ,.<'-' % r:i '' •-'4•,,•) ,IK• Jk,4"4.4----- --. , ''' -.- .,, ,,.....\4 AIM.. ....-..••••• ..,,,,L.1.-. '' P1 T ,. •-• i‘i— -- " ?/ ------4-:.------,---3: ''',;.°Y ,/, ,',',- .\\ 0.1 -,.• ,...ft--q :' ! . ......, -•,44 • }‘' ' '''. • .• ..•/ I •.-t i -7'''-'1"--."..'7"--fri••%,""-t-t.'1,' --- ' ', I t'-ri\', (., i 1 , _ _ --,-;-- -., .;0 / Ti',,' 71', • : g",:-..)'1 •,-:. 7 1'":•'• '',. `•- ---,;..f.'',':',-'4':'/ .e ;::.-771t.: „, t•,1 ,4. '., ., ,I; ',.,P.,......•....., .',1a. '..i.• '4.' .. .-, ..•• •-•, ? 1. q•' •II ,' 'i n? ' .', 1 i•-• __,, ..,N 'N., "*.• K .- . -• ,•-•- • '• -• i ' , '. '1 H 1 ,t • ,i• .--,— 1 - `'• t.;4-',:. A•--'-'t 7'''- • .• . •••-••• si \\;/ 1 • -‘,----.1.......! i ' • • ',- 'ti :1 / _,.'e 3. ki,—_-,••••.4 t ,....• • : ••:' • ''N f ,......-•,,,,,:..7 ,, , " l' ri.N' • ••% • v -**--. *-s`••,,_ ..,,,•*,N. ;••• *4 --.' i.*: .• • -- .:v't ,•••,. ' - " ii- - ..--;-."..."-i ( -•• u l' TI __,., ._ . .........1...,.....••.........••••.../..,.••• •... i U '' - 1 •••• . , o • 1. • • MEMO • TO: City Council FROM: Chris Enger, Oirector of Planning THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager DATE: September 30, 1982 APPLICANT: Volunteers of America REQUEST: PUO Amendment to allow zero lot line construction of a connecting corridor between Buildings 5 & 6 in Lakeridge Office Park. Included in your packet is a sketch of the proposal, a copy of the lease agreement and a letter of explanation. Since the original office park was approved with variances through the PUD process, this request to build across a lot line has been published as a PUD amendment. Staff has reviewed the request and we have presented it to the Planning Commission. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to Building Department requirements, the plans submitted , and the terms of the lease hold agreement. CE:jj CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ( HENNLPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA• Volunteer's of America Dev. of PUD 80-12 RESOLUTIOtr' .£�2-2�7 A RL:SOLUIION APPROVING THE UEVF1.OPI1ENT OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BRYANT LAKE CENTER WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie ha's by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City, and WHEREAS, the Volunteer's of America plan is considered a proper amendment to the 80-12 PUD and the Comprehensive Guide Plan, and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did review the request on Sept.. 27, 1982 for PUD Development and considered Volunteers of Amen can request for approval for development and variances, and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on _October 5. 19 82 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Volunteer's of America development of PUD 80-_12 _ being in 1lenn:=Fein County, Minnesota, and described as buildings 5 F. 6 of Lakeridge Office Park within the Bryant Lake Center PUD. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Development approval as outlined in the application material dated Sept.13,_1982 ADOPTED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie this ___,.__ day of , 1982. Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor AllEST: John 1). frane, City Clerk SEAL • October 5, 1982 • CITY OF BEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 82-241 VACATION OF UTILITY AND OPAINAGE EASEMENTS IN BLOCK 7 RIDGEWOOD WEST WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain utility and drainage easements descri Led as fol lows: Utility and drainage easements in Block 7 Ridgewood West WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 5, 1982, after due notice as published and posted as required by law; WHEREAS, the public utility companies, namely Northwestern Bell, Minnegasco and Northern States Power have indicated no interest in said utility easement; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said easements are not necessary and have no interest to tie public, therefore, should be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as Follows: 1. Said utility and drainage easements are hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John U. Franc, Clerk r • 1') • • • k 4 ~i s H e • Midwest,Inc. September 13, 1982 Mr'. Fuycne Diet City of i':i,n Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Head f::de n Pi ai rie, tiN. 55344 RE: Ridgewood West Two Dear Mr. Dietz: ]n order to replat the above mentioned parcel, it is necessary for. the City of Edon Prairie to vacate all existing drainage and utility easements'in Block 7 Ri dgewood West.aS Please consider this letter en official request and have the item placed on the City Councils agenda. Sincerely, CENTEX HOMES MIDWEST, INC. MINNEfOTA,D1ViC]ON ♦ Timothy R. Eller President IRE:vlm • 8601 Darnel Hd.Eden Prai+ic,t,t nnosota 55344'1612)944,3210 .. ' \ \N---,...._„,„,-,—.4 ____77.:1 H‘' . 1/ p Zr73 k' t7 I x N I 1 '- m '� "U :r \�..�xt 73 rn 1 i ! { --� F 1 /A��,,• ,g ,fi:, ;7 N --, /, i s 1 D _J — . , r_ rliir" •i ?1 1—4. ., i "0 H> it. �• a s1> c, .D -may:" .^, , 1. Y I , �'�' t ,� r a [ u '. • . — - 1 !rz_ ,i ,Y3! as r• }` - e � • ` t - —I \�\ F•-- 1 '" • i ' . _-1 . e 1. • r , ty \ . , ' if • ,�J i,\.:,,,----","_....,....,_,A ... \r�\� ".. \ �'/tea 1 .J \ i ��\ ,. I _ , r t • / 1 »yy � C\\ \ ma- 1 •‘]...), ..a. / . D. , :1 , yj /``�� 1 -`ram' ? -' uC . ',.....__......60.\ '1,--- ,_,.._,---•-_6. , - 7- 4 ,Q. r ;Q ! ter; (-'5->•.--1-,•.'•.zo)_..v...•-,.0"is\t-.-.)•-•,.,-J..,-._--i� � ~ • • ' ;1 ,.% , -. .. • .•. -.?.' •' ' .•• s - . . — . .'. --'-----,---(/' -—....." '.. '' . '' • •.i i % ,��RI __ 73 it“.\/ i CEMiEx'C'MIS MiDwf Sl v+��{I Ci LWC Dhk tiT TNO OT ti,l,er 6, 1982 Sii,TF OF 01NOL;OTA . CITY OF LIEN PBAIOiE CO( ' OF III h11LP1N The folloi:'ing accounts were audited and allowed as follows: 3069 VOiD OUT CHECK $ (240.00 3977 INSTY PRINTS Printing-Sunbonnet. Days 22.0(: 3978 SANDRA F. WERTS Chauge fund-Sunbonnet Days 75.00 3979 DELL FABRICS Expenses , 33.47 3989 UNITED P00CFL SERVICE Postage 58.(0 3981 NELSON EN/F0I'I1iSES Frciyht charges 16.2C 3982 DEI I.ROY COi:L000 T 1 ON Liquor 1,731. 1.: 3983 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine 1,148.GH . 3984 JOHNSON BROII!'._NS WHOLESALE Liquor 868.to 3935 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO. , INC. Liquor 1,722.`��= 3936 INTFPCUNiINLNlAL PAAKAGING CO. Wine 1,071.G' 3987 ED. PHiI.LiPS F SONS CO. Liquor 929•2 3988 FEDERAL RESLLVE BANK Payroll 17,107.7c., 3989 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE Payroll 7,667.0: 3990 DEPAW(1 /NT OF EMPLOYEE REI ATIONS Payroll 20,169.C:4 3991 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. Payroll 101.0,T 3992 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT Payroll 40.00 3993 GREAT WEST LIEF ASSURANCE CO. Payroll 2,385 0'2 3994 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS Payroll 72- i' 39oc PERA Payroll 13,274.71 39 THRIFTY SCOT MOTEL Expenses-Public Safety 23.6' 399i YOU AND ME, BABY Books-Community Center classes 123.7B 0998 COI'IISSIUE 0 OF REVENUE Fuel tax-August. 235.4;, 3999 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE August sales tax 6,223.0:: 4000 J & A TRAVEL Expenses-Senior Citizens 756.(;,' 4001 MADELINE L. SHULTZ Land 16,630.1`' 4002 MADELINE L. SHULT7 F NW MUTUAL Land 12,3691 4003 HOPKINS POSTMASTER Postage-Utility billing 241.9 4004 ALIERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC. Conference-Engineering Dept. 125 0/ 4005 MI D'WEST WINE CO. Wine 3,208. 4006 TWIN CITY WINE CO. Wine 1,197.0 4007 ED. PHILLIPS & SONS CO. Wine 1,625.7: 4008 JOHNSON BROTIL_R W!IOLESALE LIQUOR Liquor 1,313•0•,' 4009 OLD PEORIA COMPANY Liquor 1,264.1: 4010 GRIGGS, COOPER F CO., INC. Liquor 3,494.,, 4011 INil:RCONTINEN1AL PACKAGING Wine 1,463.1/ 4012 CAPITOL CilY DISTRIBUTING Wine 806.E 4013 STATE_ TREASURER Fee-Well Collector lines 120.1 4014 PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL ASSOCIATES October rent-P V M/Liquor Store 2,141.6:: 4015 I_Eli1'l) ACRAIIAN Softball official 11.0!., 4D16 ACRO-MINT;SUTA INC. Office supplies 219.74 4017 ADDRESS -GRAPH FAWR1l1GTON INC. Imprinters-Election, Liquor Stores 514.br, 4018 STUART AIE:XANHFR Mileage 50.0n 4019 A'1iCAN DATA PRODUCTS Office supplies 485.'.>':- 4D— A:,Ib:ICr/I HIARI P,SSociATiON CPR Materials-Eire Dept. 48.0!' ,,..,ALAI' MANNINO 0/1001AE[EN Duc ,-Piar,ninq Dept. 15.00 I I1GL I. A!!)! ;;SIN F A`E,A IAiES Traffic ~inns 290.2 40'2.3 hi'i'I F VOI LEY HI Ii-F-MIX Concrete-Street Maintenance 833."',' 40:4 A10/ Il S!CUFITY INC. Service•Senior Citizens 90.0o 40/'S ASALIAII0 RE,PILET, INC. Blacktop 444./6 Page two October 5, 1982 40. ATTRACTA SIGN, INC. Signs-Park Maintenance 457.0' 4027 SHANA BAINBRIDGE Refund-Karate 48.CH 4028 PAT BP.RCZAK ' Refund-Exercise class 25.0 4029 B R W Service-Mitchell Road & Technology Drive, 91,657.'.'; City West Streets & Utilities, Shady Oak Feasibility, Valley View Road, Schooner Blvd., T.N. 212 4030 PEG PECK Refund-Dog Obedience 17.00 '4631 BRIAN BEIIGSTROM Softball & Football official 242.0E 4032 GRANT P.k6S'IROM Basketball official 8.0G 4033 DENTS BIILMEYER Softball official 110.0G 4034 FLIER BLACK Refund-Karate 4035 BLACK & VEATCHI Service-Water Treatment Plant 6,221.13 4036 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Service-Mitchell/Technology Road, West 78th 19,996.SIC Street Extension, City West Parking Bridge, Schooner Blvd., 4037 BRUNSON INSTRUMENT CO. Level tripod rod 199.0'1 4038 BUTCH'S LiAR SUPPLY Supplies-Liquor Stores 412.0E 4039 CASH REGISTER SALES, INC. Film-Liquor Store/Prairie Village Mall 51.02 4040 JOAN CASSIDY Refund-Water exercise 19.01; 4041 CLEAN SWEEP PARKING AIFA Service-Round Lake Park 560.GC 4042 ROBERT W. COMPTON, INC. Sidewalk-Franlo Road Trail 10,269.(I 4043 CONCRETE RAISING COMPANY Service-Bentwaod Drive 696.0' 4044 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, INC. Supplies-Street Maintenance 4(' COPY EQUIPMENT INC. Supplies-Park Planning & Engineering Dept. 248.9' 4C CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY Quicklime-Water Dept. 4,571. 4047 DAICO Cleaning supplies-Water Dept & Community Center 449.0E 4043 EUGENE DIETZ Expenses 150.0 4049 DONOHUE ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS Service-B F I 406.4; 4050 DORHOLT PRINTING & STATIONERY Office supplies 50.50 4051 DOUGLAS MAJNUEACIORING CORP. Transfer cases-Election 94.3:' 4052 DRISKILL'S SUPER YALU Supplies-Rec Dept & Police Dept. 498.39 4053 STEVE DURHAM Mileage-Planning Dept. 48.9S 4054 EON LITE, INC. Lights-Community Center 4,641.3C 4055 JOY EBEI'IIART Refund-Karate 54.0n 4056 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL Fuel, Bus Service 4,667.3E 4057 EMERGENCY SERVICE SYSTEMS, INC. Mobile radio repairs & parts-Police Dept. 4058 CHRIS INGER Expenses 4059 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC. Street grates-Street Maintenance 171.0:: 4060 FILM COMMUNICATORS Equipment rental-Fire Dept. 70.0: 4061 FINLEY BROS. LNILKPRISES Tennis court practice hoards-Round Lake & 2,745.0C Staring Lake Park 4052 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN. OF MINN Manuals-Fire Dept. 149.5c . 4063 FIGYD SECURITY Alarm system-Liquor Store/P V M 266.(II - 4064 JAN FLYNN Expenses-Senior Citizens 57.41 • 4365 JOIIN D. FRANF Expenses 158.0' 42n6 GIN!RAI C0):MUNICATIONS, INC. Equipment repair & parts 299.5 4G67 GENERAL SAIETY EQUIPMENT Valve sealkits, hoses, pipe-Fire Dept. 169.7' t;fl,',0 GI EW LAlL BAI;f WY, INC. Cookies-Election 16.7; (:Uir1Alt IIlCIIC COMPANY INC. Equipment repairs-City Hall 31.CE SARAH HAAS Refund-Creative Dance 10.0r 4071 JACK HACKING Expenses 27.41 4072 LORI !IAC VL RSON Refund-Creative Dance 10.U, 4073 IIAYBI N-000i'HY EQOI PMI NT Equipment part 69.4C Page three . October 5, 1982 44, HOLIDA'i P111N1ING & SUPPLY Printing-Codification 2,215.E 4075 ITOEMS1 -N ICE FINKS, INC. Paint-Coe;igwnity Center 418.: . 4076 11301 WEEL I'63lLLlI0N SERVICE Alarm system-Liquor Store/Preserve 277.r. . 4017 ALFxf'I'1 0 HUSSEY Refund-Creative Dunce 10.(;•' 4078 1661'IAT. INC. Supplies-Water Dept. 123.' ' 4079 IN-I I30SIGN INC. Service-P/S & P/W Building • 2,419.i. 4080 J & R 3A[ri0106 CORP. Equipment repair 26•U. 4031 JEAN J0'1'i?)N Mileage t 13.1-;: 4C82 CAR[. JUT' IE Expenses 25. ` 4083 KAPA.K KO1 t0AI10N Evidence pouches-Poi ice Dept. 84.(i; 4084 NIGLL KAPP Refund- wiurning 7.0T' 4085 CR",IG KIRK.LAND Teen Volunteer Program 19.2;' 4086 KELVF i11011NG & AIR CONDITIONING Equipment repair-City Hall 63.0, 4087 KEV111 M. I:OULS Softball & Football official • 253.G'. 4038 MESH 01111 LIIC & GOLF SUPPLY Supplies-Dec Dept. 13.6; 4089 803 L/',I015k1 Conference expenses 744.0 4090 LYNNETTE LFISING Refund-Exercise class 30.0' ' 4091 L.O.G.I.S. August service 2,638.T:L 4092 MACQUCEN EQUIPMENT INC. Equipment parts-Street Maintenance 200.0'T 4093 PETE MARIINE:Z Refund-Skating 8.0T' 4094 ROBEJRT N. MART7. Expenses 159.U', 4095 ANN MARIE' MATT Refund-Rec. Dept. 8.0� 4096 PETER MAY00 Mileage-Forestry Dept. 65.0` 4097 AMY MCIOLALD Refund-Rec Dept. 14.C . 4','' VITRO IONE COMT.IHNICMIONS, INC. October service 149.E 4C I'lkIIlUPOLITAN WASTE C(OFPAL August SAC Charges 75,398.4,T 4100 METRO?OL ITA8 WASTE CONTROL. Sewer Service 50,574.: 4101 C'H1AD MEYER Teen Volunteer program 9.G'- 4102 MID WEST ST ASPHALT LT CORPORATION Black top 421.8r 4103 MINNEAP'OLIS `ruelto e N:role Co. Direction marker-Staring Lake Park 325.0( 4104 MINULSOTA DEPA'(TMENT OF P/S Motor vehicle registration 11.';- 4105 MINNESCITA CAS COT.TPANY Service 5,050.1 4106 MINNESOTA PLAY'i'000D, INC. Hockey net-Community Center 369.re 4107 M180500TA VATILY ELECTRIC Service 35.:t. 4103 6UN1CILITE CO.`0'ANY Strobe lights-Street Maintenance 438.0! 4109 MUNICIPAL. FILOTIIUNIC EQUIPMENT Equipment. repair & parts-Police Dept. 119.3 TT 4110 MARY ITIIRNANE Refund-Fitness class 25.0' 4111 MURI'HY MACHINE, INC. Equipment repair & parts 175.Ci; 4112 MY CHEESE SHOP Sandwiches-Election 255.E 4113 D.E. MYIHI(E Supplies-Liquor Stores 11.5'i' 4114 NATIONAL RECREATION & PARK Dues-Park & Rec Dept. 65.U,. 4115 N S P Service 22,772.2i: 4116 N S P Service 3.7.E 4117 N(1'(1!;FRN SIATLS TOWER SERVICE Radio tower 2,954.1 T 4118 NOr 10/I S i' '' HEIL IMMUNE M i UNE Service 780 4119 N't.Ill?'TTI101 r0S1UMT ':NIGHTS lace paints-Sunbonnet Days 13 4t11 4120 N,nITII'I/i0TTI1N PRINTING Printing-Engineering Dept. 45.4', 4121 TOM O'BRIAN Service-happenings Artwork 25.0. 41"? OFFICE f l311T3UTS OF MINNESOTA Ribbons 30.4i- 4/ E r1 1 r 0 I' 1 r. ION Refund-Exercise class 30.0, I,R1:/NO Pi .; .t;JN Refund-Exercise class 15.0:: Z1:3 111(1Y HEIR I'/Ti6SON Refund-Exercise class 30.r.: 41:'0 PHOTO QUICK Service-ingineerinq Dept. 12.t.: 4137 IIM i'I166k & ANSOC. INC. Service-Schooner Blvd. 832.Cr ,. 'age four to; r 5, 1982 4 4d PiTNEY POSES INC. Equipment rental 55.50 4129 R.L POLK & CO Book-Police Dept. 36.00 4130 PRAIRIE EILLTiIC COMPANY Equipment repair & parts 408.00 4131 iDiAI RIL VILL:,Gi. :31 L A3SOCIATES Second '; of 1502 taxes-Liquor Store/P V M 2,259.iU 4132 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSiEMS, INC. Dictophune recorder-Manager 169.00 4133 QUALITY INDUSTRIES, INC. Picnic tables-Round Lake Park 930.71 4134 R & k SPECIALIILS INC. Equipment. parts-Coteamunity Center 14.11, 4135 RITA RADKE Refund-Exercise class 30.00 4136 PAULA kILHA.RDSON Refund-Exercise class 2.00 4137 R M S Equipment rental-Park & Water Dept. 264.05 4138 ROBERTS LITHO, INC. Printing-Community Education 3,573.34 4139 RYAN'S RUBBER SIAiiP Stamp-Assessing Dept. 7.50 • 4140 SALLY OISTRIBUiLPS INC. Supplies-Sunbonnet Days 34.20 4141 DANA SIANDS Teen Volunteer program 30.00 4142 REID SARLOPA Refund-SAcoming 12.00 • 4143 CANDYCE SCHANKE Refund-Rec Dept. 14.00 4144 BRIAN SIEVER.T ON Softball official 88.00 4145 SOUTHSLST SUBUR3AN PUBLISHING Ads-Liquor Stores • 76.37 ' 4146 SUBURBAN CHE:VROLET CO. Equipment repair & parts 464.97 4147 L'RYAN SULLIVAN Service-Happenings 5.00 4148 SULLIVANS SERVICES, INC. Service-Research Road 50.00 4149 LORNA THWAS Mileage-/Messing Dept. 20.50 • 4150 LOWELL THOSE Expenses-Building Dept. 16.50 41T-' CARRIE TIE17 Service-Park n Rec Commission meeting 42.00 41 TRI-tlATC TRCC SERVICE, INC. Service-Forestry Dept. 540.00 4153 STEVE TURNBUL.L MASONRY Service-Pioneer Trail 4D0.00 4154 TYPE SCULL•DU ,SG;;APH Printing-Park Planning 28.60 4155 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Uniforms-Fire Dept. 458.75 4156 VALLEY LQUIPTIFNT Equipment repair & parts 358.41 4157 VAlkEY INDUSTR1;91. PROPANE, INC. Gas cycliriders-Coeniunity Center 66.5S 4158 VALLEY VIEW ASSOCIATES Equipment repair & parts 58.50 4159 STACY VOLP Refund-Creative Dance 5.75 4160 1:A151 FEN l'ORLICEK Refund-Roc Dept. 16.00 4161 SANPPTr WALTERS Refund-Exercise class 2.60 4162 RECK! WARNER Mileage 39.0E 4163 WARNER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC. Paint-Park Maintenance 295.03 4164 WATER I'RODUCiS COMPANY Equipment parts 274.20 4165 SANORA Wi:RTS Mileage & conference-Community Services 163.''1 4166 WEST PRAIRIE NURSERY Trees-Staring Lake Park 222.21' 4167 XEROX CO:•O ORAiION Service 1,409.91 4158 ZALJICK iNSIULATION Service-Pioneer Trail 1,356.00 4169 DENNIS LADLO Mileage 45.0C 4170 JOAN EPWARDS Expenses 28.8B'' 4171 VERN0.0 NAINIi NANCE, INC. Service-Ironwood Court 52.50 4172 ,IAN FLYNN Mileage 53.10 4173 STR8CTUPAL WOOD PRODUCTS Decking-Round Lake Park 159.1,0 4174 M.F. LIDS., INC. Insurance 500,00 4175 J `,Pr'8S, MO21OPTY, AND WALBURG Land-Miller Park 31,800.(1 41- Wi-NDY BURNS (.ARLSON Instructor-Skating 130.40 TOTAL -- 494,06R.05' ti Jr . • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 232 A RESOLUTION REGULATING FEES AND CHARGES FOR BUSINESS LICENSES, PERMITS AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RESOLVES AS FDLLOWS: INDEX SECTION 1 FEES, CHARGES AND RATES AUTHORIZED AND DEFINED SECTION 2 PRIORITY OF.APPLICATION SECTION 3 BUSINESS LICENSES SECTION 4 PERMITS SECTION 5 DEVELOPMENT FEES SECTION 6 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SEARCHES SECTION 7 MAPS AND PRINTING SECTION 3 UTILITY CHARGES SECTION 9 COMMUNITY CENTER SECTION 10 PARK FACILITY FEES SECTION 11 OTHER FEES SECTION 1. FEES, CHARGES AND RATES AUTHORIZED AND DEFINED The fees, charges and rates for the purposes set forth in this Resolution for licenses, permits and municipal services shall be in the amounts set forth in the following sections. SECTION 2. PRIORITY OF APPLICATION If fees, charges and rates are set forth in Ordinances of the City which are now in effect, but have not been set forth in this Resolution, then the foes, charges and rates hereby specifically set forth shall be effective for all purposes. In the event that such amounts shall appear in Ordinances of the City, but shall appear in this Resolution, the mount; appearing in this Resolution shall supersede the others. `;() • SECTION 3. BUSINESS LICENSES 3.1 CIGARETTES (Ord. 32) Annual 12.00 3.2 CONTRACTORS (Ord. 200) Annual One and two family 15.00 Multi-family & Colton. 25.00 3.3 DANCE HALLS (Ord. 102) Annual Public Dance $400.00 if live musicians are employed $100.00 where music is provided exclusively by electrical or mechanical device(s). Incidental Dance $300.00 if live musicians are employed $ 50.00 where music is provided exclusively by electrical or mechanical device(s). $ 25.00 when live musicians are employed and when the applicant is a religious, charitable or other non-profit organiza- tion and the permit is for a special event or limited period; when music is to be provided exclusively by electrical or mechanical means for such non-profit organization, the fe shall be $10.00. No fee is required for dances conducted by the Park and Recreation Department, any agency of the Eden Prairie School District, or the Eden Prairie Foundation. 3.4 DOGS License: Male annual 4.00 Female annual 4.00 Impounding fees: $25 - 1st offense/year $50 - 2nd offense/year $100 - 3rd offense/year Boarding fee: $5 per day Euthanasia fee: $5 3.5 DOG KENNELS Annual Comnercial 50.00 Private 25.00* *Includes three individual dog licenses and tags. 3.6 DRIVE-IN THEATERS Annual 300.00 (Ord. 3) 3 Cl 3.7 F000 ESTABLISHMENTS A. Restaurants, stores, supermarkets, 225.00 manufacturing and processing plants, etc. Supplementary areas: bar, kitchen, meat market, bakery, grocery store, each 15.00 other. B. Snack bar, soft drinks each 40.00 packaged supplementary area 10.00 C. Other food establishments not in "A" each 175.00 supplementary area 15.00 Itinerant food establishment first day 50.00 each additional day 10.00 Temporary food license 35.00 Retail candy shop When operated in connection with another licensed food establishment 10.00 Retail candy outlet 55.00 Readily perishable food vehicle, first truck 50.00 including bakery food vehicle additional 30.00 Vending machines for food or beverage each 15.00 • Catering food vehicle 100.00 3.8 GAS FITTERS (Ord. 157) Annual 15.00 3.9 GRAVEL MINING (Ord. 142, 226, & 310) Application Annual Performance fee license bond Land alteration incidental mining (0 to 25,000 c.y.) total plan volume $ 200.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,000.00 Borrow pit, with 25,000 - 75,000 c.y. annual plan volume $2,000.00 $ 300.00 $10,000.00 Borrow pit with more than 75,000 c.y. annual plan volume $2,500.00 $ 750.00 $10,000.00 �c. O .. 3.10 HEATING 7 VENTILATING (Ord. 200) Annual 15.00 ( 3.11 LIQUOR Non-Intoxicating Annual Malt Liquors (Ord. 29) Application fee 100.00 On-sale 50.00 Off-sale 10.00 Liquor On-sale Annual 7500.00 Investigation fee 500.00* Liquor On-sale Annual (clubs) (Ord. 158) 100.00 Investigation fee 500.00* Liquor On-sale Annual 2000.00 (wine) Application fee 250.00 Set-ups (Ord. 76) Annual (expires June 30) 200.00 Employee license Annual 10.00 *An investigation fee not to exceed $500 shall be charged an applicant by the City if the investigation is conducted within the State, or the actual cost not to exceed $10,000 if the investigation is required outside the State, shall be charged an applicant by the City. 3.12 PEDDLERS (Ord. 122) Annual - evidence of State license 5.00 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES Public Dumps (Ord. 2) Expires 30th of June following granting of license 100.00 Refuse and garbage Annual collectors (Ord. 151) 1st vehicle 30.00 Each additional vehicle 15.00 Scavengers (Ord. 198) Annual 10.00 3.14 WATER SOFTENING AND FILTERING (Ord. 201) No fee - State License required 3.15 WELLS (Ord.) 43, 212) No fee - State License required C'. 3.16 MECHANICAL AMUSEMENT DEVICES AND AMUSEMENT CENTERS (Ord. 306, 336) Sec. 1.A(1) - Ord. 300 125.00 Sec. 1.A(2) & (3) - Ord. 300 Annual Per machine 25.00 Amusement center, plus $5.00 per machine in excess of three (3) machines operated within Amusement Center 1500.00 3.17 PLUMBING LICENSE No fee - State Bond/Insurance Required SECTION 4. PERMITS 4.1 BUILDING PERMITS Total Valuation Fee $1.00 to $500.00 $10.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $10.00 for the first $500.00 plus $1.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $32.50 for the first $2,000.00 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $170.50 for the first $25,000 plus $4.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,000.01 to $100,000.00 $283.00 for the first $50,000 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 and up $433.00 for the first $100,000 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof. PLAN CHECKING FEES: Plan checking fee shall be 65% of the building permit fee. 4.2 DEMOLISHING OR RAZING BUILDINGS $25.00 4.3 EXCAVATION AND GRADING ( (Chapter 70, U.B.C. 1979 and Ord. 119. City Engineer's approval) l Plan Checking Fees Fees 50 cubic yards of less No fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $10.00 101 to 1000 cubic yards $15.00 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards $20.00 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $20.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $10.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $110.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $6.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 200,001 cubic yards or more $170.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards, plus $3.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Other Insoections & Fees Additional plan review required by changes, additions or re- visions to approve plans: (minimum charge = one-half hour) - $15.00 per hour Grading Permit Fees Fee: 50 cubic yards of less $10.00 51 to 100 cubic yards $15.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $15.00 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $7.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $78.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards plus $6.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $132.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $27.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction therecf. 100,001 or more $375.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards plus $15.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Other Inspections and Fees Inspections outside of normal business hours $15.00 per hour (minimum charge = 2 hours) Reinspection fee assessed under provisions of Section 305(h) $15.00 each Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge = one-half hour) $15.00 per hour 4.4 EXCAVATION OF STREETS $10.00 (Ord. 119) 4.5 FIRE PREVENTION PERMITS Storage & Handling of Flammable Liquids $10.00 Storage & Handling of Corrosive Liquids $10.00 Dry Cleaning Establishments $10.00 Service Garage $10.00 Spraying and Dipping Operation $10.00 Welding and Cutting $10.00 Hazardous Chemicals $10.00 Assembly Occupancy $10.00 Refinishing of Bowling Alleys & Pins $10.00 Delivery of Flammable & Combustible Liquids $10.00 Automobile Wrecking Yards $10.00 Installation of LP Tanks $10.00 Industrial Ovens & Furnaces $10.00 Installation of Flammable & Combustible Liquid Tanks $10.00 Tents $10.00 4.6 HEATING & VENTILATION (Ord. 200) A fee for the issuance of a permit for work and for making in— spections pursuant to applicable ordinances shall be as set forth in the sections which follow, except as provided in the State Building Code. A. Job Valuation 0 to $1,000 2% (.02) of job value - minimum of $10 $1,000 to $10,000 $20 for the first $1,000 plus $1.25 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof to and including $10,000. $10,001 to $50,000 $132.50 for the first $10,000 plus $1.00 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000. $50,001 and up $532.50 for the first $50,000 plus $7.50 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof. B. Gas Piping For 3 openings on gas up to 2" $ 2.00 Each additional opening .75 Over 2" 7.50 Each additional opening .75 4.7 INCINERATORS (ORD. 151) $20.00 4.8 MOVING A BUILDING (ORD. #176, #79-34) $1,000 deposit each from the owners of the building and the building mover. Moving a building $250.00 Moving a garage only 50.00 4.9 PLUMBING (ORD. #157) Fixtures - evch $ 2.50 Rough-in Fixtures 1.50 Setting fixtures on previous 1.50 Floor and roof drains over 2" opening - per inch in diameter 1.00 Beer dispenser (when connected with water supply) 1.50 Blow off basin 3.25 Catch basin 5.00 Electric water heater 2.00 Hydraulic valve 3.25 Manholes 5.00 New ground run for existing building 3.25 Sump and receiving tank 3.25 Water treating device (softener) 5.00 Washer openings 2.00 Sillcocks 2.00 For extending water lines (over 15') up to 1 z" 3.00 over 1Y 5.00 any opening cut into water line 1.50 central vacuum - per opening 1.50 compressed air line 5.00 Sewage disposal (individual) Ordinance #34 10.00 Stop box level change - minimum charge 15.00 Municipal sewer per 100 feet 7.50 Municipal water per 100 feet 7.50 Meter inspection 7.50 Inside change over-sewer, water or both 7.50 Water turn on or off by City (after initial turn on) 5.00 Taps - 3/4" 11.00 Taps - 1" 14.00 '! For 3 opening; on gas up to 2" 2.00 Each additional opening .75 Over 2" 7.50 Each additional opening .75 Storm sewer and sub soil drains per 100 feet 5.00 Gas stove 3.00 Hot water heater, up to 99,O00 BTU 5.00 Gas light 3.00 Bar-b-que 3.00 Incinerator 3.00 Minimum permit fee 5.00 4.10 SIGNS Up to 33 square feet in size 12.00 33 square feet through 60 square feet in size 15.00 61 square feet to 100 square feet in size 18.00 Each additional 100 square feet or portion thereof not exceeding 300 square feet additional - per year 2.00 Each additional 100 square feet or portion thereof over a total of 4(10 square feet additional 2.50 Directional signs for housing projects 5.00 Temporary signs Up to 10 square feet 30 days 3.00 Over 10 square feet 30 days 5.00 Fees shall not be pro-rated for a period of time less than shown. The surfaces of double or multi-faced signs shall be combined for the purpose of determining the amount of the fee. 4.11 SEPTIC SYSTEM PUMPING (Ord. #198) 5.00 4.12 WATER SOFTENING AND FILTERING (Ord. #201) 5.00 4.13 WELLS (ord. #43) 10.00 SECTION 5. DEVELOPMENT FEES 5.1 GUIDE PLAN CHANGE $300 minimum or $5/acre - whichever is greater. 5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (E.A.W.) $300 minimum or $5/acre - whichever is greater 5.3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) $300 minimum or $5/acre - whichever is greater. 5.4 ZONING $300 minimum or $5/unit (residential) - whichever is greater. $300 minimum or $25/acre (commercial, industrial, office, public) whichever if greater. 5.5 PLATTING $200 minimun or $5/lot (residential whichever is greater. $200 minimum or $25/acre (commercial, industrial, office, public) - whichever is greater. 5.6 CASH PARK FEES Single family unit $325 All other residential $250 per unit Office, commercial, industrial $1400/acre 5.7 ENGINEERING SERVICES TO LAND DEVELOPERS For consultations, review of grading, utility and street plans and specifications, general and final inspection of improvements and special assessment division: Residential 50 units or less $30.00/unit (minimum $100.00) over 5 acres $20.00/unit (minimum $1,500) Commercial and Industrial 5 acres of less $100.00 Over 5 acres $ 20.00 per acre Plus cost of review by special consultants necessary as determined by the City Manager. Deposit required. 5.8 APPEAL TO BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS $20.00 5.9 ZONING AMENDMENT AND ZONING APPEAL (Appealing to Board of Appeals) Zoning Amendment $200.00 Zoning Appeal $ 50.00 Plus cost of review by City Staff and/or special consultants necessary as determined by the City Manager. Deposit required. SECTION 6. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SEARCHES $7.5D per parcel. No charge for Eden Prairie residents on searches of their homesteaded property. SECTION 7. MAPS AND PRINTING $.50 per square foot for miscellaneous printing $3.00 each for small size (2' x 3' or less) City maps $5.00 each for large size City maps Duplicating costs: $.50 for the first 5 pages of any file and $.25 for each additional page, plus postage, if any. $12.50/acre for Mark Hurd Co. topography maps previously purchased by the City, except $5.00/sheet if topo map purchased by other than City and with original purchaser's permission. New order through Mark Hurd Co. - their charge plus $.50/acre. $50 annual charge for City Council Minutes (pro-rated) $32 annual charge for Planning Commission Minutes (pro-rated) SECTION 8. UTILITY CHARGES 8.1 SYSTEM ACCESS CHARGES 8.1A For sanitary sewer: as established by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and as agreed by the City Council at its November 17, 1981 meeting. 8.1B For sanitary sewer $100 per R.E.C. $200 each Metro SAC for industrial, public, office $300 each Metro SAC for commercial For water $300 per R.E.C. $600 each Metro SAC for industrial, public, office $900 each Metro SAC for commercial 8.2 USER CHARGES FOR: A. Sanitary sewer - $.95 per 1,000 gallons subject to a minimum of 8,000 gallons per quarter per R.E.C. B. Water - $.71 per 1,000 gallons subject to a minimum of 14,000 gallons per quarter per R.E.C. C. The minimum monthly use charge for uses other than residential shall be the same as 1 R.E.C. D. A residential equivalent connection (R.E.C.) is one dwelling unit. E. In addition to the charges in A., B., C., and D. each R.E.C. will be billed $6.46 each three months. F. Unmetered residential sewer only use charges are $14.57 per quarter and a $3.23 additional charge. C SECTION 9. COMMUNITY CENTER ( 9.1 Ice Arena Rental - prime-time $60/hour Non prime-time $50/hour (midnight to 8 a.m. Monday through Friday) School District Educational Classes 515/hour School District Hockey Team Practice prime-time $55/hour, non prime-time $30/hour Hockey games $60/hour (school provides all of the personnel required to run the games including scorers, referees, ticket takers, etc. - school keeps 1G0 of the gate.) Individual Open Skating Fees 17 years and under $1.00 18 years and older $2.00 Family Skate $4.00/family Recommended Open Skating times: Monday, Wednesday & Friday mornings from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; Friday nights from 8 - 11 p.m.; Saturday after- noons from 1 - 4 p.m.; Saturday nights from 8 - 11 p.m.; and Sunday afternoons (family skate) from 1 - 4 p.m. 9.2 Swimming Pool Rental fee - group reservations: 25 participants or less is $25/hour with 1 Staff person; 25 - 50 participants is $32/hour with 2 Staff persons; and over 50 participants is $40/hour with 3 Staff persons. School District Educational Classes $15/hour School District after School Use (team practice) $20/hour Individual Open Swimming Fees: 18 and older $1.50 5 - 17 years $1.00 Tots 4 years and under $.50 (accompanied by an adult) Recommended open swimming times: Open family and adult swimming times would be spaced throughout the day Monday through Friday. Longer sessions would be available on Saturdays and Sundays. Hours would range front P to 2'z hours Monday through Thursday. Friday, Saturday and Sunday would range 1!-z - 4 ours to accommodate family recrea- tional swimming. 9.3 Racquetball Courts Rental fee - School District use $10/hour for 3 courts (includes use of available racquets and eye protectors) Individual court rate $3/hour Eden Prairie resident rate $6/hour (guest fee $1.50) - maximum 72 hour booking time. �..'1� .c1 �C— • 9.4 Fitness Center Rental room #1 - $15/hour Rental room #2 - $15/hour Rental Rooms #1 and #2 - $30/hour Individual use $.50 9.5 Meeting Rooms Only private profit-oriented groups will be charged for use of meeting rooms. Room #1 - $10/1'1 hours - first floor Room #2 - $10/lo hours - first floor Rooms #1 and #2 - $20/2 hours - first floor Room #3 - $15/1'f, hours - second floor 9.6 Lockers There is no charge for lockers, but members/guests must provide own locks. 9.7 Membership Fees All memberships become due January 1st of any given year; memberships purchased after January 1st are pro-rated on a monthly basis. Swimming & Fitness Membership Family - $75 Individual - $40 Skating & Fitness Membership Family - $65 Individual - $35 Raquetball & Fitness Membership Family - $75 Individual - $40 Swimming, Skating & Fitness Membership Family - $110 Individual - $70 Swimming, Racquetball & Fitness Membership Family - $125 Individual - $75 Swimming, Skating, Racquetball & Fitness Membership (Full Membership) Family - $185 Individual - $100 9.8 Policy on Group Rates and Liabilities Supervision will be at the discretion of the Center Management. This will be based on the number of people to be using the Center as well as the can and type of group. Necessary life guards, building supervisor(s) and people to operate specialized equipment will be provided. Fees are $500 for City residents/groups; $650 for out of town groups - fees are based on use of the Center from 11:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. on a lock-in basis. An insurance bond for liability is also required. The maximum number in a group is 600. Liability limits are $500,000 - bodily injury, $100,000 - property damage, $500,000 - personal injury. SECTION 10. PARK FACILITY FEES Fees are based on the number of people in attendance. If the park is left neat, clean and litter free, a portion of the fee will be refunded. Fee schedule is as follows: Number of persons Deposit Refund Net Cost 25 - 50 $ 25 $ 10 $15 51 -100 50 25 25 101 -150 75 35 40 151 -200 100 50 50 201 -390 150 75 75 No private group of over 300 will be allowed to reserve facilities at any park. SECTION 11. OTHER FEES 11.1 Abatement Fee $5.00 per parcel per year. 11.2 City Code City Code - bound copy - $25.00 City Code - Chapter 11 - $4.00 City Code - Chapter 12 - $3.00 • Fees not stated in this Resolution may be set by the City Manager. c 0 ,)11 Banco DEVELOPER'S :1GRELMLNT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1982 by and between BANCO PROPERTIES, INC. , a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and the CITY OF°EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City to rezone from Rural to C-Reg-Ser approximately 2.5 acreis , situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereafter referred to as "the property", and WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property to construct thereon a Northwestern National RankSouth building. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No.5-82 and Resolution 82-225, Owner covenants and agrees to construction upon, development and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Owner shall plat and develop the property in conformance with the material dated July 27, 1982 reviewed and approved by the City Council on Sept. 21, 1982, revised and reviewed • again at the Council's Sept. 28, 1982 meeting, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Owner shall not develop, construct upon or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Owner covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Owner 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. • Developer's Agrernent-Banco page 2 3. Owner shall convey by Warranty Deed that part of the property shown as Prairie Center Drive right-of-way on Exhibit B, outlined in red to the City immediately upon filing of the plat and prior to issuance of any building permits, according to the specifications of the City Engineer. 4. Owner shall, prior to issuance of any permit for building upon the property, submit to the City Engineer and obtain the City Engineer's approval thereof, including but not limited to: a) driveway access locations to Prairie Center Drive, b) detailed grading plan depicting grades with slopes lcmo than 3:1, and c) detailed utility plans. :.-re c PF 5. Owner shall ,prior to issuance of any permit for building upon the property, submit to the City and obtain the City's approval thereof a detailed landscaping plan. 6. Owner agrees to develop cross easement agreement permitting the land to the north and the property to jointly utilize the northern access to Prairie Center Drive as depicted on Exhibit B. • // Agreement-Banco page 3 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 by Wolfgang H. Perzel, Mayor by Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1982 by Wolfgang H. Fenzel, the Mayor and Carl J. Ju11ie, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public BANCO PROPERTIES, INC. Walter W. Klus, Vice President STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 3982 by Walter W. Klus, Vice President of Banco Properties, Inc., a Minnesota corporation on behalf of the corporation. • ALL THAT PART OF TIFF FAST HALF OF THE SOULE:FAST QUARTER OF SECT 10'; 10, 10';;;;SELI1' :16, 12n1r'GF 2?, f;c!;EFPIN COLN!iY, 111L;N SOTA DI SLR 1bED AS E'01 I DOS: C01,.>,ENCING Al THE SOU ST C0Rh:EEL Of 'HE SAID F.AS-. HALF; 1HiN(.E NORTLFERLY OS AN ASSU'•,LD 9,EAF.iNC OF NORTH 00 DE'CRE[S 27 M10U11 S 0f? Si(.O'IOS ST „LONG IlLEI LINT OF SAID . EASI HAIF A D1SIANCE: OF $65.13 Ii1I 10 111E 1'0!i:0 Of PEGI'CN!FIG; THENCE B!APING 0121H 89 Of GRE;_S 3? MINUTES 32 •SL.COELDS EAST A _ DI STANCE: Of 290.00 1EET; OFFENCE BE0;ii,G SOUTL', 0O DIGR. ES . 27 MIN;11i S 28 Si60i:1)5 EASI A DiSIANCT 0( 156.10 LIE?, THENCE BEARING SOUTH `5 DEGREES 16 iIINL:I S 4S SECONDS WEST A DISiA:.CE OF 199.18 II.E.1 ; THENCE BEARING SOUTH 10 OTC:REES 11 MINUTES 17 SFCU'+US WI SI A DISiANCE OF 102.60 IEEI TO LIFE NOR iN.ERLY RIGHT OF 4'A'f LILIE OE TRUNK IIICEI.:;AY 20. 169 AS D`S(.Ri0ED IN DEED UJ(.U".LN1 DO. 3^O3S37 ON FI! F i;6D OE RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE III!t%,,.PIN C0i09IV R(COi'.0i.I2 1N BOOK 271S6 OF ITT LDS, PAGE 41; U'ENCI. BE 3F'.Ii;G SOUTH 77 01091 I S 14 MINl11ES 03 SECONDS WI ST A10NG THE ."0;;111FRIY RIGHT OF t!A`.' LILE OF SAID TRUNK HIGI".:AY NO. 5 i.,.'., 169 A DISTANCE Of 255.a? Ftt? :0 EKE WE ST I.INE Ol SAID EAST HALF; THENCE B!AIL1iG 'DEIHL 00 DEGREES 27 tllI.111ES ?R SEC.ONDS W1Si ALONG TE;? WEST LICE OF SAID EAST HALF A DISTANCE OF 516.16 FEET TO 1FL POINT OF 31000NING AND 1HERE TERM'NATINS. EXCEPT THE FOLLO'LIING: ALL THAT PART OF THE FAST HALF OF THE SOU AST QUAD, I R OF SECT ION 10, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 22, HE5;N1PIlL COU;ITY, MI ;NL5QTA (IL SCRII1I.0 P.S FOLLOWS: COIOIL 001,'�G AT 111E SOIITH'n'1 ST CO1110E R OF SAID FAST HALF; THE OCE NORTH'REY ON AN ASSUEIi0 FLARING NORTH 00 DEGREES 27 I11NU1ES ?8 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST HALF A DISTANCE OF 451.3?. FEET 10 THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE BEARING NO21H 77 DI511FFS 14 MIN'UIE.S 03 SiC.DNOS FAST A DISTANCE OF 276.45 FEET; THE NCE BE ARP? S001H 10 DE GRI L S 11 MiNIIF ITS 17 SE COWLS WEST A DISTANCE OF 103.60 f EI i 10 111E NITER I Hi RE Y RIGHT (1F WAY 1.1N! OF TRUNK HIGHWAY N0. 169 AS DI SCRIBED IN D1 L 0 Dl' U SI NO. 34 Ub.;/ DEL 111 E AND OF RECORD IN THE OFF ICE OF THE HE Witt IN COON]1 REBENUE1;. IN TOOK 23P.fi PAGE 47; THENCE BEARING SOUTH 77 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 03 SECUNItS '„1ST Al FT!'; LIFE NOEL 11FF'2L_Y,Rifill OF WAY LINE OF SAID 1Ril0K HIGHWAY N0. 1`'; A DIE:I ,NCE. DT ?SS.92 f[EF 10 THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST HALF; THENCE. BEARING NORTH 00 DE(,i2LE S 27 MINUTES 7R SECONDS WLST ALONG THE 'Wi ST LINE OF SAIL) EAST HALF A !LISTANrt OE 102.35 FEET 10 TILL POINT OF BEGINNING AND THERE TLRMINM(1NG, EXHIBIT A • OWNERS SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BLTWLEN BANCO PROPERTIES AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of __, 1982 by and between Walter S. Carpenter and Elsa M. Carpenter, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", For and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance 5-82 and to change the zoning of property owned by Owners from Rural to C-Reg-Ser, described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, hereinafter referred to as "the property", as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of _ - , 1982 by and between Banco Properties, Inc., and City, Owners agrees with the City as follows: 1. If Banco Properties, Inc., fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's agreement within months of the date thereof, Owners for themselves, successors , heirs, and assigns will not oppose the rezoning of the property to Rural. 2. Owner agrees that it will not develop the property in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the above described Developer's Agreement. In the event that Owner transfers the property, Walter S. Carpenter and Elsa M. Carpenter, agree to obtain an an rccment fromthe transferee stating that the property shall not be developed in a manner inconsistent with the above described Developer's Agreement. 3. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owners, successors, heirs, and their assigns of the property. OWNER: Walter S. Carpenter, husband Elsa M. Carpenter, wife — Owner's Supplement to Banco page 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1982 by Walter S. Carpenter and Elsa M. Carpenter, husband arid wife. Notary Public CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE • by Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor by Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1982 by Wolfgang Il. Penzel, the Mayor and Carl J. Jullie, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation , on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public CITY OF EDEN PRA IRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO.5-82 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Appendix A of City Code is amended as follows: the property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota , as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof shall be and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the C-Reg-Ser District. Section 2. The above described property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of 1982 between Banco Properties, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie, which agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall further be subject to all of the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City of Eden Prairie relating to the C-Reg-Ser District. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 21 day of September, 1982 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the __ day of 1982. • Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor ATTEST: • John D. F rane,City Clerk PUBLICHLD in the Eden Prairie News on the day of _ , 1982 . • October 5, 1982 tt CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-242 • RESOLUTION RECEIVING 1007; PETITION, AU1HOR17_ING THE. PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPEC1FICAIIONS FOR SINGLETREE LANE I.C. 52-038 BE IT RESOLVED of the Eden Prairie City Council: 1. The owners of 100% of the real property abutting upon and to be benefitted from the proposed street and utility improvement have petitioned the City Council to construct said improvements and to assess the entire cost against their property. 2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3 and upon recommendation of the City Engineer, said improvements are hereby ordered. 3. The City Engineer is herby designated the Engineer for the project and is directed to prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvements with the assistance of Rieke, Carroll Muller Assoc. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on Wolfgang H. Fenzel, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk 1 t