HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 06/21/1983EDEN PRAIRIE
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1983
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
7:30 PM, CITY HALL
Mayor Wolfgang Penzel, Richard Anderson, Geori
Bentley, Paul Redpath and George Tangen
City Manager Carl J. Jullie; City Attorney
Roger Pauly; Finance Director John Frane;
Planning Director Chris Enger; Director of
CoMmunity Services Robert Lambert; Director
of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recordini
Secretary Karen Michael
INVOCATION: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL '
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER'ITEMS'OF BUSINESS
II. PRESENTATION;OF'DONATION FROM JAYCEE MEN AND'JAYCEE'WOMEN ORGANIZATIONS
NI. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL'CITY COUNCIL MEETING'HELD'SATURDAY,'JUNE 4,1983
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Award contract for Brookview Circle'ImproVementS,A.C.'52440 (Resolution
No. 83-142)
B. Authorization to transfer excess property from liennepin;County to'City
West
C. Receive feasibility'reportfor Anderson Lakes'Parkway Utility and Street
. Improvements and set Public Hearing for Jul -19, 1983, 1.C. 52-035
(Resolution No. 83-143)
11 . 2nd Reading of Ordinance No 13-83, Zoning Amendment to 1-2','Approval
of Developer's Aoreement Amendment for Westwood Industrial Park, and
Adoption of Resolution No. 83-138, Approving Summary_ of Ordinance No.
13-83, and Ordering the Publication of said Summary.for Westwood
Industrial Park by Bury Carlson. 37 acres for Industrial Park
development South of County Road 67, West of St. John's Woods Townhouses.
E. Clerk's License List
F. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 25-83, amending Cable TV Ordinance No.
80-33 setting forth a description of the facilities to be provided
by grantee; modifying the initial service area; amending the line
extension policy of grantee, _prescribing installations charges
as set forth herein; and amending the exhibits
G. 1st Readingiof Ordinance .No,_28 1 83,;amending_Cily_Code Sections
6.02 apd_6.03 which relate to the application and scope of Chapters
87 7 and 8; awnding City Code Section 8.08 which relates to truck
pal'Cirin in residential districts; and adyting by reference City
Code Chapter 1 and Sections 6.99, 7.99 and 8.99 which, among other
kiLings, contain penalty...provisions.
Page 1163
Page 1164
Page 1165 '
Page 1167 ;
Page 1169
Page 1170 ]
Page 1180
Page 1181 ;
Page 1193 ;
Page 1242;
Page 124.0
Page 1253
1
Page 125E1
Page 12671
Page 1271!
City Council Agenda . - 2 - Tues.,June 21, 1983
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER by Ryan Construction.. Request for Planned Page 1197
Unit Development District Review, Planned Unit Development Amendment Approval;
Zoning from Rural to 1-2; and Preliminary Plat approval of 14.05 acres
• into two lots for office/service/storage uses. Location: Northwest of
• Shady Oak Road, west of 169/212. .(Resolution .83-135 - PUD; Ordinance No.
26-83 - Zoning; Resolution No. 83-136 - Preliminary Plat)
. •
B. WELSH CONSTRUCTION, INC. Request for Zoning from Rural and R1-22 . Page 1222
to Office; and Preliminary Plat approval of 1.5 acres for office land
use. Location: North of W. 78th Street and East of Prairie Center
Drive. (Ordinance No. 27-83 - Zoning; Resolution No. 83-137 - Preliminary
Plat)
C. GUSTAFSON & ASSOCIATES. Request for Zoning from RM-6.5 and R1-13.5 Page 1237
for two single family detached homes on two lots. Location: Adjacent
to Cardinal Creek Road and West of Stonewood Court. (Ordinance No.
29-83 - Zoning)
D. ORDINANCE NO.30-83, ALLOWING FOR INTERIM USES IN THE MAJOR CENTER AREA
PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 7997 - 8247
REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
A. Historical & Cultural Commission - Cummins/Grill House (Resolution
No. 83-144)
REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
1. *Discussion on Commercial Stables Ordinance
2. Discussion on Sign Ordinance
"
3.—Discussion'on'Department'Head'CoMpentation
4. Discussion*onlocal 49'COntract
C. Repott'of City Attorney
.1)• Report Of DirectOre'Communitv'ServiCes
1. Requett'from'Riley Purgatory .Cteek'Waterthed'Ditttitt'tegarding
•'Staring'Lake Study
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
I X•
X.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
LIONS CLUB
Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Bob Lambert, Director of Community ServicerA L-
June 14, 1983
Donations from Community Organizations
In 1981, the Lions Club felt there was a need for a second Lions Club that
would serve those people wishing to be Lions Club members but already committed
too many evening meetings. This Lions Club operated for approximately one
year priortodetermining that there was insufficient interest for a second
Lions Club in Eden Prairie. During the course of that year that Lions Club
donated funds to the Community Center to purchase the handicapped sling for the
Community Center swimming pool, and has now donated $439.35 to the Eden Prairie
Community Services Department for purchase of a canoe for Round Lake Park and
to assist in the purchase of other equipment such as life jackets, paddles and
other equipment necessary for securing and storing canoes and sailboats at
Round Lake Park.
EDEN PRAIRIE JAYCEE WOMEN
The Eden Prairie Jaycee Women have donated $800 for the purchase of a sailboat
at Round Lake Park. This boat, in conjunction with the two others that will be
donated by the Eden Prairie Jaycees, will allow the City to offer sailing lessons
at the park in the summer programs, as well as offering these sailboats for rent
during times when they are used for sailing lessons. Betty Van Alstine, the new
president of the Jaycee Women, will attend the June 21 Council meeting to present
the City their $800 donation.
EDEN PRAIRIE JAYCEES
The Eden Prairie Jaycees have donated $3200 to the Community Services Department
for 1983 for the purchase of two sailboats for use at Round Lake Park, as well
as for picnic tables and benches at Round Lake Park and Staring Lake Park. Wayne
Shimer, the new president of the Jaycees, will attend the June 21 Council meeting
to present the City their $3200 donation. The donations from these organizations
are greatly appreciated by the Department of Community Services and allow the City
to expand the recreational services offered to the community.
BL:md
/10
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
SATURDAY, JUNE 4, 1983
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
10:00 AM, CITY HALL
Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, Richard Anderson, George
Bentley, Paul Redpath and George Tangen
City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Finance Director John
D. Frane
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Mayer Wolfgang H. Penzel.
All Council members were present.
II. DISCUSSION OF BOND SALE SET FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1983 (Resolution No. 83-134)
Finance Director Frane briefed the Council on the reasons for the recommendation
of Bill Fahey of Ehlers & Associates that the City withdraw the refunding issues
from the market. The bond market had eroded to the point which makes refunding
marginal at best.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 83-134,
rescinding Resolutions Nos. 83-111 and 83-112 and calling off the sale scheduled
for Tuesday, June 7, 1983. Motion carried unanimously.
III. OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
City Manager Jullie informed the Council of the latest developments in the City's
negotiations with the North Stars proposed use of the Community Center.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 a.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 83-142
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improve
m
e
n
t
s
:
.
I.C. 52-040: Storm Sewer and Street Improvements to Creekridge
Estates Addition
Bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids rece
i
v
e
d
are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of Contract to
Midwest Paving Inc.
as the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follow
s
:
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter in
t
o
a contract with Midwest Paving Inc.
in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of $49,668.22
in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the
Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 21, 1983
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
Seal
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
MEMO
To: Mayor Penzel and Members of the City Council
From: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
Date: June 17, 1983
Subject: Summary of bids for Improvement Contract 52-040
(Storm Sewer and Street Improvements to Creekridge
Estates Addition)
Sealed bids were received at 10:00 A.M. on Thursday, June 16,
1983 for the above referenced improvement. 4 bids were received
and tabulated as follows:
BID
BIDDER SECURITY TOTAL BID AMOUNT
Midwest Paving, Inc. 5%
$ 49,668.22
S.M.Hentges & Sons, Inc. 5%
$ 50,920.90
G.L. Contracting, Inc. 5%
$ 51,183.95
Lund Asphalt Construction Co. 5%
$ 52,920.00
The Midwest bid contained an obvious error for the price of a
sump catch basin. The unit price in their proposal was $22.50
and the extension was shown as $2250 (the correct amount) which
was an error in the unit price. Technically we could reduce
the contract by $2227.50, but since it does not affect the
outcome of the bidders and the higher price is competitive with
the other bids for the item, I recommend that the error be
corrected.
Engineer estimate
$ 49,500.00
The low bid is approximately 1% above our estimate.
Recommend award of contract 52-040 to Midwest Paving Inc. in
amount of $49,668.22
EAD:sg
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
DATE:
June 16, 1983
RE:
Disposition of Excess Property/City West
Attached is a sketch showing excess property that was deeded to the City from
the County. This property was requested by Eden Prairie so that it could be
included in the City West plat. In exchange for this property being deeded
to the City West plat, the developer has agreed to dedicate additional right-
of-way along Shady Oak Road to accomodate future roadway improvements. Foi.
instance, the right-of-way needs are 40 feet from center line except at
locations requiring left turn lanes, etc. In those areas, approximately 70
feet of right-of-way will be dedicated by the City West plat.
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute
a Quit Claim Deed which would transfer this parcel to the owners of the City
West property. Since there has been a negotiated trade of property and the
City has not paid the County for the parcel, we recommend that no compensation
be asked for the parcel.
zsly.sge.es •••-
..04011 S,D, No.214
S.D. No. 27L
tr.
qA,
- ./. c- 4.- •.z;i ,
1 ••• • • • :': 4., .....
-
,
I ‘,....u/ .... -.. ...
•...
••••. • • .'•
(7460)
(3) .
114
. s D ao. 274 / \oZ..*. •
10•81 WA 1.1•81-1 1•8/1 't 'WW1 Ildr-T VGI -T WS 1 00 14111-00 aus 4-j $ en I a an" 8 an 11aCtIS ga-
S.D. rJe. Z7L
;30
(7) /16 7
June 21, 1983
• CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 83-143
RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND CALLING FOR A HEARING I.C. 52-035
WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer to the City '
Council on —June 21, 1983, recommending the following improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-035, Anderson Lakes Parkway Utility and
Street Improvements '
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements in
accordance with the report and the assessment of property
abutting or within said boundaries for all or a portion
of the cost of the improvement pursuant to M.S.A. Sect.
420-011 to 429.111, at an estimated total cost of the
improvements as shown.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement
on the 19 day of July, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. at the
Eden Prairie City Hall. The City Clerk shall give published
and mailed notice of such hearing on the improvements as
required by law.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on _June 21, 1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 13-83
. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 81-20 AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
read as follows:
That Section 2. of Ordinance No. 81-20 is hereby amended to
• 'Section 2. The above described property shall be subject to the terms
and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of June 21,
1983, between BURY & CARLSON, INC. and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, which
Agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall be subject to all of the
ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City of Eden Prairie relating the
1-2 Park District."
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code, Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor," are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 19th day of April, 1983, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day
of , 1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description:
The North Half of the East 75 rods of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township
116, Range 22, all subject to that part taken for highway purposes.
111
Westwood Industrial Park
6/83
AMENDMENT TO WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1983 by
and between BURY & CARLSON, 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, City previously approved a Planned Unit Development for Westwood
Industrial Park by adoption of Resolution 81-187, based on plans dated May 20, 1981,
revised August 18, 1981; and,
WHEREAS, City previously approved zoning for Westwood Industrial Park by
Ordinance No. 81-20, from Rural to 1-2 Park based on plans dated May 20, 1981,
revised August 18, 1981; and,
WHEREAS, Owner has applied for Planned Unit Development District Amendment
and Zoning Amendment for Westwood Industrial Park, located south of County Road 67
and west of St. John's Woods Townhomes, situated in Hennepin County, State of
Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof
and hereinafter referred to as "the property;" and,
WHEREAS, Owner has applied to City to develop 37 acres of land for
construction of office/warehouse buildings upon the property;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance 13-83, 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 October 25, 1982, February 23, 1983, and written
materials dated February, 1983, reviewed and approved by the City
Council on April 19, 1983, and attached hereto as Exhibit B and made
ir).2
a. A phasing of the planting schedule,
indicating that screening along the public
roads will take place with the construction
fi'8
a part hereof, 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.
3. Owner shall develop the property in accordance with that certain
developer's agreement dated December 15, 1981, and that certain
Owner's Supplement dated January 14, 1982, except to the extent that
said agreement and supplement are inconsistent with this Agreement.
Such agreement and supplement are incorporated herein by this
reference.
The Westwood Industrial Park Planned Unit Development approved by
Resolution #81-187 is hereby amended to the extent that it is
inconsistent with this Agreement, to conform to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
4. Prior to issuance of any building permit for construction upon the
property, owner shall submit to the City for review and obtain the
City's approval of the following:
A. To the Director of Planning:
1. A revised landscape plan indicating, but not limited
to, at least the following:
a. Erosion and slope stablization methods for
the east slope.
b. With regard to proposed plantings along Bury
Drive and County Road #67, all deciduous
overstory trees shall be a minimum of 2-1/2°
in diameter and all evergreen trees shall be
a minimum of six (6) feet in height.
c. All parking and loading areas shall be
screened from adjacent public roads,
residential areas, the Nine Mile Creek
floodplain, and differing land uses.
d. Loading areas shall not be oriented,
directed, or contiguous to the Nine Mile
Creek floodplain area.
e. Cottonwoods omitted from the planting
schedule.
upon each lot adjacent to a public road at
the time said lot is developed.
2. A signage plan, consistent with City Code
requirements.
B. To the City Engineer:
1. A rough grading plan indicating that restoration of
the entire site will take place at the time of
completion of the initial rough grading for the
entire property and prior to building permit
issuance for construction upon any portion of the
property.
5. Outlots A and B, or any part thereof, as depicted on Exhibit B,
attached hereto, shall be considered as part of any lot in Westwood
Industrial Park for purposes of determining allowable site coverage
and Floor Area Ratios (F.A.R.) of such lot.
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
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
>SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1983 by Wolfgang H. Penzel, the Mayor, and Carl J. Jullie, the
City Manager, of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on
behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
BURY & CARLSON, INC.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1983, by , the , Bury
& Carlson, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 83-138
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 13-83 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY.
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 13-83 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of
, 1983;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 13-83, which is
attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said
text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said
ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brivier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 13-83 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with .proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on , 1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
( John D. Frane, City Clerk
016
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk,
The following is the full text of the City of Eden Prairie Ordinance No. 13-83,
which was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of
( the City of Eden Prairie on , 1983. Following the text of the
Ordinance, the Developer's Agreement, which is incorporated therein by Section 5 of
the Ordinance, is summarized.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 13-83
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 81.20 AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 2. of Ordinance No. 81-20 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Section 2. The above described property shall be subject to the terms
and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of June 21,
1983, between BURY & CARLSON, INC. and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, which
Agreement is hereby made a part hereof and shall be subject to all of the
ordinances, rules, and regulations of the City of Eden Prairie relating the
1-2 Park District."
Section 2. City Code Chapter .1, entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code, Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor," are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
• FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 19th day of April, 1983, and finally read and. adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day
of , 1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
Summary of Developer's Agreement: Westwood Industrial Park
Developer will develop the land as described in Exhibit A which is attached
to and incorporated in the Developer's Agreement. In addition, the Developer's
Agreement provides for:
1. Submission of a revised landscape plan including, but not limited to,
erosion control and slope stablization plans for the east slope; proposed
plantings along Bury Drive and County Road #67 to be 2-1/2 inches in
diameter for deciduous overstory trees and six feet in height for evergreen
trees; all parking and loading areas to be screened from adjacent public
roads, residential areas, the Nine Mile Creek floodplain, and differing land
uses; loading areas not oriented, directed, nor contiguous to the Nine Mile
Creek floodplain; cottonwoods omitted from the planting schedule; and
phasing.of the screening along the public roads. Said revised plan shall be
submitted to the Director of Planning.
2. Submission of signage plan in conformance with City Code to the Director of
Planning.
3. Submission of a rough grading plan, indicating that restoration of the
entire site will take place at the time of completion of the initial rough
grading for the entire property and prior to building permit issuance for
construction upon any portion of the property.
4. Outlots A and B, as depicted on Exhibit B, or any part thereof, shall be
considered part of any lot in Westwood Industrial Park for purposes of
determining allowable site coverage and Floor Area Ratios (F.A.R.) of such
lot.
5. Submission to the City Engineer of a development Plan for the land.
6. Submission to Watershed District of storm sewer construction plans.
Developer to follow the rules and regulations of said Watershed District.
7. Developer's warranty of title to the land.
8. Construction and maintenance of public improvements which are to be conveyed
to the City as well as preservation and restoration of areas surrounding
said improvements. Submission of a bond or letter of credit to ensure the
quality of said construction, maintenance, preservation, and restoration.
9. Rough grading to be performed by the Developer for improvements which the
City will construct pursuant to 100% petition of all owners of the land.
Submission of a bond or letter of credit for the rough grading.
10. Payment of first three (3) years' street lighting, engineering review, and
street signs costs.
11. Developer's commitment not to oppose rezoning if Developer fails to proceed
In accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months.
( 12. Application of the Developer's Agreement to transferees of the land.
( 13. City's remedies in the event that Developer violates the provisions of th
e
Developer's Agreement.
14. Notice to the City's cable franchise.
• NOTICE: A printed copy of this ordinance is available for inspection by any person
during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on , 1983.
John D. frane, City Clerk Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
810
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
June 21, 1983
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.)
K. L. Cooper, Inc.
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 Family)
Amagineers, Inc.
Bolyn Construction
Willard Eggan & Sons
Eiden Construction,Inc.
Madsen Construction
Terrance D. Murphy Construction
R & K Homes, Inc.
Straus Construction
Woodcliff Development Corporation
PLUMBING
K & K Heating & Plumbing, Inc.
Nova Frost, Inc.
Shore & Shore, Inc.
Solar Mechanical
UTILITY INSTALLER
Nova Frost, Inc.
HEATING & VENTILATING
Central Air Conditioning & Heating Co.
K & K Heating & Plumbing, Inc.
GAS FITTER
K & K Heating & Plumbing, Inc.
These licenses have been approved by the departmnet heads responsible
for the lAcensed activity.
at -Selie, Licensing
ORDINANCE NO. 25-83
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 80-33
SETTING FORTH A DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES
TO BE PROVIDED BY GRANTEE; MODIFYING THE
INITIAL SERVICE AREA; AMENDING THE LINE
EXTENSION POLICY OF GRANTEE; PRESCRIBING
INSTALLATIONS CHARGES AS SET FORTH HEREIN; AND
AMENDING THE EXHIBITS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. That Article I, Section 2, of Ordinance No.
be amended to read as follows:
V. "Public Building" is any building owned or operated
by the United States government or dny subdivision thereof,
or the state of Minnesota or any subdivision thereof, or the
City or any other governmental subdivision, or school
district or educational institutions.
SECTION 2. That Article III, Section 4, of said Ordinance
be amended to read as follows:
SECTION 4. FACILITIES.
The Grantee shall construct, maintain and continue to provide
all facilities and equipment set forth in the Offering or as
otherwise provided in Article V. Section 2 and Exhibits A and B
hereto, including, but not limited, to, the headend, hubs,
distribution system, studios, equipment and other facilities.
Grantee's plan, as set forth in the Offering, for implementing
the construction, utilization and maintenance of these facili-
-1-
ties, including its plans for accommodating future growth and
changing needs and desires, shall be fully and timely performed.
SECTION 3. That Article III, Section 7 of said Ordinance be
amended to read as follows:
SECTION 7. SERVICE TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EDUCATIONAL
-1-NSTITUTIONS
+City Hall, police depar
librarica, etc-0, a
boildinga now or hereafter wholly or partially owned or leaped
1-governmznt in
City, or owned or leaaed by ochool diotricto or educational
Offering ohall be determined in thc pole diocretion of City.
Grantee shall initially provide subscriber and institutional
network service, upon request, to public buildings which may
reasonably utilize such service in the Initial Service Area or
within an extended area pursuant to Part II. A. of Exhibit B to
said Ordinance, as hereby amended. Service to public buildings
outside the Initial Service Area or an extended area shall be
provided pursuant to Article V. Section 2, paragraph D of said
Ordinance.
SECTION 4. That Article V, Section 2, of said Ordinance be
-2-
amended to read as follows:
Ccctien-2. Line Extenoion Policy
in the initial ocrvicc arca ohall be done purauant to
t
h
e
following requirement-e:
t-tte--resi-deneer
D. Any nonresidential uacr requcoting uLrvice
Grantee. The quote ohall not exceed thc coot to
ar-arttee7—ea-1-eu-l-a#e€1-en--a-t-i-flie-altd-ma#e
oervicc said upee,-
SECTION 2. MODIFICATION OF INITIAL SERVICE AREA; E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
O
F
SERVICE AREA; AND LINE EXTENSION POLICY.
A. Service will be provided to dwelling and nonresi-
dential units of the City in areas with an average
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
less than forty (40) dwelling units per street mile
o
r
c
a
b
l
e
mile whichever, as determined by City, provides th
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
benefit to the subscribers, (the "extended area"),
a
n
d
n
o
t
within the Initial Service Area, upon payment of a
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
e
-
-3-
tion charge based upon the cost contribution formula defined
below.
Dwelling and nonresidential units in areas with an
average density of at least forty (40) dwelling units per
street mile or cable mile whichever, as determined by City,
provides the greater benefit to the subscribers, and those
within the Initial Service Area, will not be required to
make a cost contribution pursuant to the cost contribution
formula below in order to receive service; but the installa-
tion charges set out in Part I. A. of Exhibit B to said
Ordinance, as hereby amended, shall apply to such dwellina
and nonresidential units. The monthly (-barge for cable
service in the extended area shall be the same as elsewhere
in the system.
B. The cost contribution for construction charges to
be allocated to each dwelling and nonresidential unit in the
extended area whose occupants petition pursuant to Section 2.
C.1 hereof will be determined as follows:
1. Grantee shall estimate the total cost of
constructing and maintaining for three (3) years from
the date service is available, the line extension to be
constructed in the extended areas. Total construction
cost is defined as including plant make ready and all
labor and material costs necessary to construct and
activate that part of the system commencing at the
-4-
nearest point of existing plant and running to and
within the extended area.
2. The standard cost per dwelling and nonresi-
dential unit in the extended area shall be determined
by dividing the total from (1) above by 40, being the
standard minimum dwelling unit density.
3. Grantee's contribution to the cost of the
line extension shall be determined by dividing the total
number of dwelling units in the extended area, as
designated by the City Council pursuant to Section
2.C.2 below, by the number of cable miles or street
miles in the extended area whichever, as determined by
City, produces the greater benefit to the subscribers,
and multiplying the resulting number by the standard
Cost per dwelling unit.
4. The difference between the total costs at (1)
above and the Grantee's contribution at (3) above is
the total contribution of the dwelling and nonresiden-
tial units in the extended area.
5. The construction charge to be paid by each
subscriber shall be determined by dividing the total
contribution of the dwelling and nonresidential units
from (4) above by the number of dwelling and nonresi-
dential units whose occupants joined in the petition
pursuant to Section 2.C.1 hereof.
-5-
C. Extended areas shall be established and service
under the line extension policy shall be provided in accord-
ance with the following procedure.
1. Occupants of dwelling and nonresidential units
in an area with an average density of less than forty
(40) dwelling units per street mile or cable mile as
determined above, who desire service shall petition
the Council for designation as an extended area. The
petition shall include a map showing the dwelling and
nonresidential units proposed to be included in the
designated extended area.
2. The Council shall by resolution designate the
dwelling and nonresidentiAl units to be included in
the extended area.
3. Upon designation of an extended area, Grantee
shall prepare a map indicating the trunk cable line
that will be constructed to serve the extended area and
shall estimate the combined total construction cost and
three (3) year maintenance cost for service to the
extended area (Section 2.B.1), the Grantee's contribu-
tion (Section 2..B.3), and the total contribution of the
dwelling and nonresidential units (Section 2.B.4).
4. Grantee will estimate the construction charge
to each dwelling and nonresidential unit according to
the formula in Section 2.5.5, above. Grantee will
-6-
notify Council and occupants in the extended area of
the construction charge estimate by U.S. mail.
5. Occupants within the extended area who wish
to become subscribers will have thirty (30) days after
mailing of such notice to commit to service, by execu-
ting and submitting a commitment form to Grantee. The
commitment form shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the City prior to its use by Grantee.
6. Occupants within the same thirty (30) day
period shall deposit the amount of the construction
charge estimate into an escrow account to be main-
tained by the City. If the number of occupants who
deposit the construction charge estimate within such
thirty (30) day period is less than the number who join
in the petition (and the aggregate deposit made by such
occupants is less than the total contribution of
dwelling and nonresidential units required by Section
2.C.7.), Grantee shall, within ten (10) days after the
end of the thirty (30) day period, notify in writing by
U. S. mail such depositing occupants of the deficiency
in the escrow account, and such occupants may make addi-
tional deposits within ten (10) days of mailing of such
notice.
7. If the total contribution of dwelling and
nonresidential units as determined by Section 2.8.4. is
nig
deposited within the time periods specified in C.6
above, Grantee shall construct the line extension.
Construction shall be completed and service made
available to the extended area within twelve (12)
months from the end of the subscriber deposit period
subject to extension of said twelve (12) month period
pursuant to Article V, Section 3, paragraph C of said
ordinance as amended.
8. Upon completion of the line extension
construction and activation of service to the extended
area, Grantee shall submit to the City a detailed state-
ment setting forth all actual construction expenses,
including labor, and an estimate of maintenance expense,
with such supporting documentation and information as
the City may request. Said statement shall be cer-
tified by an officer of Grantee. Upon receipt, review
and approval by the City, the City shall pay to
Grantee the actual cost of construction and projected
maintenance expense, as approved by City, from the
escrow account. Any excess funds in the escrow account
shall be divided among and returned to the subscribers
in proportion to the amounts contributed by them. In
no event shall the money paid to Grantee exceed the
escrow amount.
9. Any occupant in an extended area who did not
-8-
participate by initial subscriber contribution under
paragraphs (5) and (6) above and who wishes to hook up
to the line extension within the first three (3) years
after service is commenced in the extended area must
deposit into an escrow account to be maintained by the
City the amount of the construction charge estimate
under paragraph 6 above and adjusted in accordance with
paragraph 8 above. All such new contributions shall be
held in escrow until the end of the third year after
service is commenced in the extended area, at which
time all funds in escrow shall be divided equally and
returned to the then current subscribers.
At the end of the three (3) years following the
commencement of service to the extended area, all sub-
sequent subscribers in the extended area shall be
charged the same installation charge as other
subscribers who are in areas with an average density of
at least forty (40) dwelling units per street mile or
cable mile.
D. Nonresidential units and public buildings in
an area not within the Initial Service Area or an extended
area shall be provided service upon acceptance of a quote
from Grantee. The quote shall not exceed the cost to
Grantee, calculated on a time and material basis, of extend-
ing the cable and necessary cable equipment to service said
-9-
user.
E. Grantee shall indemnify and hold the City and its
respective elected officials, officers, agents, employees
and representatives, harmless from and indemnified against any
and all loss, costs, damage and expense, including, without
limitation, attorneys' fees, now or hereafter incurred by
it, and arising out of or due to, or claimed to arise out of
or be due to, this Ordinance, the adoption thereof or the
process followed by City in adopting this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. That Paragraph C(1), Article VI, Section 4 of
said Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
(1) Rates and charges charged by Grantee for monthly
service and inotallation-asd other charges hereunder shall be
uniform, fair and reasonable and designed to meet all
necessary costs of service, including a fair rate of return
on the original cost, less depreciation, of the properties
devoted to such service (without regard to any subsequent
sale or transfer price or cost of such properties).
Construction cost contributions shall be made pursuant to
A rticle V. Section 2 and installation charges shall be made pursuant
to Exhibit B hereto.
SECTION 6. That Article XIV, Section 2, paragraph H, of said
Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
H. Each exhibit is a part of this Franchise and each
is specifically incorporated herein by reference. The exhi-
bits are as follows:
—10—
Amended Exhibit A - Map of Construction by Area,
Including Time Schedule and Initial
Service Area.
Amended Exhibit B - Rate Schedule (see Section (7) of
this amending Ordinance for the amendment to Exhibit B)
SECTION 7. That Exhibit B of said Ordinance be amended by
deleting Article I, Section A, paragraph 5.
SECTION 8. That notwithstanding any other provision of this
Ordinance, if less than all of the other of the Cities of Eden
Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield offer a similar
franchise Ordinance amendment to Grantee, which is accepted by
Grantee, Grantee or City may cancel thin franchise Ordinance
amendment and all of their obligations hereunder by written
notice given to the other not later than thirty (30) days after
all the other of said Cities shall have formally acted upon their
respective similar franchise Ordinance amendments; provided, that
if Grantee elects to cancel this franchise Ordinance amendment
pursuant hereto, it must also cancel all other franchise
Ordinance amendments granted to it by the other of said Cities
effective simultaneously herewith.
SECTION 9. Grantee shall have thirty (30) days from the last
date of adoption of a similar franchise Ordinance amendment by
all of the Cities listed in Section 8 of this Ordinance, to
accept this franchise Ordinance amendment in form and substance
acceptable to City. However, in no e ent will acceptance occur
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
-12- 11 ().
, 1983.
later than ninety (90) days after the adoption of this franchise
Ordinance amendment unless the time for acceptance is extended by
City. Such acceptance by Grantee shall: be deemed the grant of
this franchise Ordinance amendment for all purposes.
SECTION 10. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall deliver
to City an opinion from its legal counsel, acceptable to City,,
stating that this franchise Ordinance amendment has been duly
accepted by Grantee, that this franchise Ordinance amendment is
enforceable against Grantee and the guarantors of the franchise
granted by the said Ordinance, in accordance with its terms, and
which opinion shall otherwise be in form and substance acceptable
to City.
SECTION 11. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect upon adoption and publication and acceptance in writing by
Grantee.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the 7th day of June , 1983, and finally
read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City
Council of said City on the day of , 1983.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor of Eden Prairie
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eden Prairie City Council
FROM: Roger Pauly, City Attorney
DATE: June 13, 1983
RE: Proposed Amendments to City Code Sections 6.02, 6.03 and
8.08 Subd. 2.
Attached is an Ordinance adopting proposed revisions to City
Code Sections 6.02, 6.03 and 8.08 Subd. 2. These amendments appear
necessary for effective enforcement of many provisions of City Code
Chapters 7 and 8.
Scction 6.03 currently states that "the provisions of Chapters
6, 7 and 8 relate exclusively to the streets and alleys in the City,
and the operation and parking of vehicles refer exclusively to the
operation and parking of vehicles upon such streets, alleys and
private roads." An amendment to this language is necessary since
many provisions in Chapters 6, 7 and 8 purport to regulate conduct
on more than just "streets, alleys and private roads". See, e.g.,
Section 7.03 Subd. 2 (Exhibition Driving on a "Parking Lot, or
Other Public Property"); Section 7.06 Subds. 3 and 4 (Operation
of Snowmobile on "Public Sidewalk," "On Private Property of Another
Without Lawful Authority or Consent of the Owner or Occupant," "On
Publicly Owned Lands and Frozen Waters," "Within 100 Feet of any
Lake Shore"); Section 7.20 Subd. 4 ("Operation of a Motor Vehicle
on "The Improved Surface of a Bicycle Way . . ."); Section 8.09
Page -2-
(Parking Rules in Parking Lots and Ramps); Section 8.16 (Parking
in a Fire Lane); Section 8.17 (Parking on Private Property Without
Consent).
Accordingly, the proposed revisions qualify Sections 6.02
and 6.03 by stating that Chapters 6, 7, and 8 apply to streets and
alleys "except as otherwise stated therein." By this amendment,
all of the Sections cited above which apply to particular areas
other than "streets and alleys" can be fully enforceable.
The proposed amendment of City Code Section 8.08 Subd. 2
clarifies a prior ambiguity regarding truck parking in a residential
area. The proposed amendment states explicitly that semi-trailers,
truck tractors, etc., cannot be parked "upon any street, alley,
private road, parking lot, driveway, or upon any other public or
private property which is within an area zoned as a residential
district, . . ."
ORDINANCE NO. 213-83
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY
CODE SECTIONS 6.02 and 6.03 WHICH RELATE TO THE APPLICATION AND
SCOPE OF CHAPTERS 6, 7 AND 8; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 8.08 WHICH
RELATES TO TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; AND ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTIONS 6.99, 7.99 and 8.99 WHICH,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Section 6.02 shall be and is amended to
read as follows:
SEC. 6.02. APPLICATION. Except as otherwise stated therein,
the provisions of City Code, Chapters 6, 7 and 8, are applicable to
the drivers of all vehicles and animals upon streets, including, but
not limited to, those owned or operated by the United States, the
State of Minnesota, or any county, town, city, district, or other
political subdivision.
Section 2. City Code Section 6.03 shall be and is amended to
read as follows:
SECTION 6.03. SCOPE. Except as otherwise stated therein, the
provisions of Chapter 6, 7 and 8 relate to the streets and alleys
in the City.
Section 3. City Code Section 8.08 Subd. 2 shall be and is
amended to read as follows:
SEC. 8.08. TRUCK PARKING.
Subd. 2. It is unlawful to park a semi-trailer, truck-
tractor, or a combination thereof, or any vehicle licensed with a
commercial license and of more than 9,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight, or any vehicle designed, used or maintained for towing
other motor vehicles or equipment, upon any street, alley, private
road, parking lot, driveway or upon any public or private property
which is within an area zoned as a residential district, except for
the purpose of loading or unloading the same.
Section 4. City Code Chapter I entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty
for Violation" and Sections 6.99, 7.99 and 8.99 are hereby adopted
in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
1163S.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1983, and
finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting
of theCity Council of said City on the day of
1983.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
lig
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #83-136
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER
FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of City West Business Center for Ryan Construction, dated
March 25, and written materials dated March 30, 1983 for development of 14.05 acres
into two lots for office/service/storage uses, a copy of which is on file at the
City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie
Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the day of
, 1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
abbn D. Frane, City Clerk .
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #83-135
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
OF CITY WEST PUD FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City West Business Center, by Ryan Construction, is considered
a proper amendment to the City West PUD and the Comprehensive Guide Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the
City West Business Center PUD Development and considered their request for approval
for development (and variances); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on 198 ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
as follows:
1. The City West Business Center PUD by Ryan Construction amendment to
the City West Planned Unit Development being in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUO Amendment approval as outlined
In the application material dated March 25, and March 30, 1183.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this
of , 1983.
day.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John O. Frane, City Clerk
( Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 1983
Members Present: Chairman Bearman, Gartner, Hallett, Johannes, Marhula, Torjesen
A. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER, by Ryan Construction. Planned
Unit Development Amendment, Zoning from Rural to 1-2, and
Preliminary Plat of 14.05 acres into two lots for
office/service/storage uses. Location: Northeast of Shady
Oak Road, west of 1-494. A continued public hearing.
The Commission had continued this item from the meeting of May 9,
1983 in order to have additional research prepared regarding the
legislative history of the project, the intent of the developer's
agreement for the property, and the exact approvals granted to the
project previously. In addition, Staff had been asked to prepare a
proposed list of allowable uses for this area of the City West
Planned Unit Development for this project.
Planner Enger reviewed the history of the project in detail, based
on Council and Planning Commission actions and recommendations. He
stated that, in discussions with the City Attorney, it was suggested
that covenants be placed on the land which would run between the
land owner and the City.
Gartner stated that she felt it was important that when a
developer's agreement was entered into that significantly changes a
project, the minutes of that meeting should note the change(s) in
order to avoid misunderstandings about exactly what has been
approved.
Torjesen stated that he felt the proponent had been acting in good
faith in proceeding with the project. He said he felt the
developer's agreement was not followed, however, by the proponents.
Gartner stated that she felt the the intent of the "no fewer than
eight (8) buildings" clause of the developer's agreement was to
provide for a less dense appearance for the area.
Steve Swanson, Ryan Construction, gave a brief review of the
proposal and uses suggested for the site. He pointed out where and
how the proposal would fit into the approved plan for the City West
PUD per Exhibit B of the developer's agreement for the site.
Hallett questioned in which areas the project did not comply with
the approved developer's agreement. Staff responded that there were
two areas: 1) It was not a 100% office use; and, 2) It was not
148,000 sq. ft., but more. Staff pointed out that the eight (8) or
more buildings were to be included within sites A-C as depicted on
Exhibit B of the developer's agreement. Four buildings were being
proposed for lots B and C at this time. Site A was still available
for location of additional buildings.
Hallett stated that he felt it was necessary for the Commission to
consider only the approved PUD as acted upon by the City Council.
He added that he considered it a substantial change from the version
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
The Commission discussed the developer's agreement in greater detail
with the Planning Staff.
Marhula pointed out that the request before the Planning Commission
was for amendment to the previously approved POD. He stated that he
felt the Commission should be dealing with the changes proposed.
Johannes stated that he felt the Commission should judge this plan
on its own merits with the base of the developer's agreement which
was approved.
Gartner asked if the buildings would be owner-occupied or leased.
Al Schackman, Ryan Construction, responded that they would be
leased.
Mr. Schackman asked if the percentages of uses proposed by Staff for
warehousing, assembling, and office, were to be based on a per unit
basis or on a project basis. Staff responded that it would be based
on an overall project basis. Johannes stated that he felt
administration and enforcement of such percentages would be quite
difficult. He suggested that the developer be allowed to monitor
this privately as, if it did become a problem, the developer would
be the one facing the dissatisfied tenants. It would, therefore, be
In the developer's best interest to make sure the percentages worked
now.
Johannes stated that he felt it was more important to deal with how
the project looked externally and how fit into the existing
surroundings.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt problems might develop with the
covenants proposed by the City Attorney in that he was not certain
that the covenants would provide sufficient control over uses
allowed within the district by right according the the City Code.
Planner Enger stated that this was a proposed POD District and
zoning request. It would be taking the 1-2 zone and supplement it
with the POD District to accommodate the proposed uses. Enforcement
would be based on the overlying and underlying zones.
Torjesen stated that he felt the proposal was an attractive one in
terms of design and concept. However, the problem was trying to
make this proposal fit on this site, given the decisions that had
been reached with respect to this site previously. He stated that,
based on this, he did not feel this project, as good as it was,
would be appropriate for this site.
Johannes stated that, whether the property was zoned 1-2 or Office
would not have a bearing on what the surrounding residents would
view in terms of roofing on the structures. A pitch and gravel roof
for either type of construction would look the same. Johannes added
Ilo 0
that many of the homes indicating concern for this project were
higher in elevation and would be looking down on roofs regardless of
the type of zoning requested by proponent.
Chairman Bearman asked if sight lines had been prepared from the
existing structures to the proposed structures. Mr. Swanson
presented several sight lines which had been prepared, indicating
the view from each to the proposed structures. Basically, the top
six feet of the structures proposed would be visible from the
existing residential structures.
Chairman Bearman stated that he would prefer to vary the Office
zoning district to allow for the industrial types of uses, rather
than varying the Industrial zoning district to allow the office
types of uses, since the majority use of the structures would be for
office purposes. He added that he felt it would be more appropriate
to use the strictest district possible for enforcement purposes.
Marhula stated that he agreed.
Mr. Schackman stated that, at the time of application, it was
determined to apply for variance to the 1-2 District, rather than
the Office District, because the 1-2 District allowed for office,
assembly, and warehouse uses--the Office District did not allow for
assembly or warehouse uses. He added that the type of clientele he
would attract to these structures would not be looking for any other
mix of uses. They would not be interested in the high percentage of
warehouse space or assembly space allowed under 1-2 zoning. Mr.
Schackman stated that the list of non-permitted uses suggested by
the Staff Report represented uses which would not be interested in
the ratios of office/assembly/warehouse space which would be
constructed in this building. A building which is office-looking in
appearance attracts the clientele for this project, whereas it would
not attract those non-permitted uses.
Chairman Bearman asked for questions and comments from members of
the audience.
Warren Gerreke, 6622 Golden Ridge, stated that the owners were
planning only multiple residential use for the land. He stated that
the property had changed from low density residential to industrial
park type of development as proposed. He suggested that if this
project were allowed to be industrial, it would encourage the
remainder of the City West project to be developed as industrial.
Mr. Gerreke stated that he did not feel it would be possible to
screen this site from the residents on Golden Ridge in any way.
Jerry Steelman, 6601 Golden Ridge Road, stated that he, too, was
concerned that the type of use had increased in intensity from low
density residential to industrial.
Scott Anderson, owner of the City West property, reviewed the other
uses in process for various parcels within the City West PUD,
including a hotel, banking, office facility, and two remaining
vacant parcels still being marketed. He pointed out that the
Improvements for the entire project were underway at this time.
Dick Feerick, 6518 Leesborough, stated that he felt the people
located on Golden Ridge Drive had been living there many years and
Invested in their property based on what they knew to be the
development plan for the area. He stated that he felt this PUD
would have a signficant impact on their neighborhood, which should
be taken into consideration by the City in their decision-making
about any development in the area.
Mr. Schackman stated that Ryan Construction had every intention of
producing a quality project, not only for themselves, but for the
community. He stated that they were willing to work with the City
and the neighborhood in any manner possible to mitigate the problems
people felt existed regarding their proposal. Mr. Schackman stated
that he felt there was no conflict between the list of non-permitted
uses suggested by Staff and the types of tenants they had proposed
for their structures.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend
denial of the Planned Unit Development District Review and Planned
Unit Development Amendment, based on plans dated March 25, 1983, and
written materials dated March 30, 1983, for office/service/storage
uses for City West Business Center by Ryan Construction, due to land
use considerations involving the proposed uses by proponent versus
those which were approved by previous action of the City.
During discussion of the motion, Torjesen stated that he felt,
although the project was clearly a quality, well designed project,
the uses proposed were not appropriate in this location,
particularly based on the fact that the approved Planned Unit
Development for the City West project was to be office, not
Industrial.
Gartner stated that she had three major objections to the proposal:
1) The proposal had greater square footage than was approved under
the City West PUD, which approved 148,000 sq. ft., whereas the
proposal was for 174,000 sq. ft.; 2) The proposed development did
not follow the intent of the of the approved developer's agreement,
especially with respect to visual impact; and 3) The proposal would
be more appropriate as an Office use with variances for warehousing
and assembly, rather than Industrial use with variances for the
amount of office.
Motion failed--3-3-0 (Chairman Bearman, Gartner, and Torjesen in
favor; Hallett, Johannes, and Marhula
against)
Marhula stated that he felt it was important to make it clear to the
developer what the objections of the Commission were. He stated
that he felt the site plan had validity and was well designed.
Marhula expressed concern for the use of the 1-2 zone, as opposed to
the Office zone for this project. He stated that he felt it would
not be possible to keep the uses from turning into completely 1-2
uses in the future as the 1-2 uses were allowed by right in the
zone. Marhula suggested that the City may wish to consider an
additional zoning district for such hybrid uses for the future.
Torjesen stated that he was concerned that the legislative intent of
the original Planned Unit Development for City West had not been
followed. He stated that he felt the developer's agreement did not,
as written, allow for such uses as proposed by Ryan Construction;
however, he agreed that the plan was well designed and attractive.
Torjesen questioned whether the communication process between the
City and the citizens was adequate in that he agreed with Gartner
that there should be some manner of notifying the residents when
changes were made to a development after the public hearing process.
Torjesen added that, regarding land use for this area, he was
concerned that the property had been changed from low density
residential, to high density residential to office, and, if
approved, to industrial over a period of several years. He stated
that he felt the impact on the neighborhood of such changes had been
tremendous.
Johannes noted that he voted against the denial of the project as he
felt the positive features of the design and the uses proposed
outweighed the negatives. He stated that he felt the City needed to
remain flexible enough to allow for the dynamics of the business
world and its changing needs, and felt the use was an appropriate
choice for this project.
Johannes reiterated concern for setting definite percentages of
office/assembly/warehouse uses for the use. He stated that he felt
this should be left to the control of the developer. He added that
he felt the concerns for visual impact and image within the existing
neighborhood, as well as use impact upon the existing neighborhood,
were more important. Johannes stated that, as far as these
concerns, he felt the Ryan Construction project was a good use for
the area.
Hallett stated that he felt the buildings did appear to be "office-
like" in appearance, and that, from that point of view, he felt the
project fit the location. He added that he felt the lesser traffic,
the maximum 30 ft. height, and the berming and landscaping of the
site were all positive features of the development as proposed.
Hallett also stated that the buildings were well designed with
consideration given to minimizing visual impact upon the adjacent
neighborhood by locating the truck areas at the interior, out of
sight.
I a n
Hallett questioned the advisability of exceeding the 148,000 maximum
square footage requirement of the approved developer's agreement for
the site. He agreed with Marhula that the City needed to remain
flexible to allow for the changes taking place in businesses and
asked if guidelines could be developed for both the developers and
the Commission to deal with "high tech" uses.
Gartner said that she was aware that the citizens in the surrounding
neighborhood had participated in the two Comprehensive Guide Plan
hearings dealing with this area, and that she was convinced that
they were trying to take an active part in the processes of the
City. At these times, the City had told the neighborhood what the
uses would be. She stated that she felt the City had a
responsibility to follow through on what had been approved and that
she did not feel this project fit the approval of record.
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt the request should be for
variance to the Office District, not the 1-2 Park District. He
stated that he agreed with other Commissioners that the project was
well designed. He restated concern that covenants would not be
sufficient to deter eventual 1-2 uses within the structures, as
opposed to the special mix with office as proposed by Ryan
Construction, if the buildings were sold in the future.
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend
denial of zoning from Rural to 1-2 based on plans dated March 25,
1983 and written materials dated March 30, 1983 for
office/service/storage uses for City West Business Center by Ryan
Construction, based on a finding of non-compliance with the original
Intent of the approved developer's agreement in terms of land use
for the City West Planned Unit Development.
Motion carried--4-2-0 (Chairman Bearman, Gartner, Marhula, and
Torjesen in favor; Hallett and Johannes
against)
MOTION 4:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend
denial of the preliminary plat of 14.05 acres into two lots based on
plans dated March 25, 1983 and written materials dated March 30,
1983 for office/service/storage uses for City West Business Center
by Ryan Construction, based on the land use, only.
Torjesen stated that he wanted it to be clear that the motion was
proposed for denial based on the fact that if the land use and
zoning for the proposal are not approved, then it is moot to
recommend approval of a proposed preliminary plat based on proposed
land use and zoning for the project. The preliminary plat was not
being voted upon, nor reviewed against the Code and compliance OW
City requirements.
10S
Motion failed--3-3-0 (Chairman Bearman, Gartner, and Torjesen in
favor; Hallett, Johannes, and Marhula,
against)
? c. 1.4.1, 1113
B. CITY WEST BUSINESS CENTER, by Ryan Construction. Planned
Wit Development District Review, Zoning from Rural t
o
1
4
,
and Preliminary Plat of 14.05 acres into two bat
s
f
o
r
Planning Commission Minutes 8 May 9, 1983
office/service/storage uses. Location: Northeast of Shady
Oak Road, west of 1-494. A public hearing.'
Steve Swanson, Ryan Construction, presented the proposed development
to the Commission pointing out significant features, such as the
Interior truck docking area, the screening of the mechanical
equipment, and the landscaping proposed for the site. Al Schackman,
Ryan Construction, explained the type of tenarts proposed for the
building as basically office type uses for "high tech" businesses,
such as computer design companies, which required an amount of
warehousing less than was provided for in Industrial districts, but
more than was provided in Office districts by the City Code.
Scott Anderson, AD!, representing the owners of the City West
project, stated that it was their intention to complete a 2,800 ft.
pedestrian trail system around Outlot B. Two pedestrian bridges
were proposed for crossing the waterways.
Planner Enger stated that the original City West Planned Unit
Development was approved in concept for 100% office use. He
reviewed the recommendations of the Staff Report with the
Commission.
Torjesen stated that he felt the proposal represented a substantial
change from the original Planned Unit Development in that the
requested change was from Office to Industrial zoning.
Marhula questioned the ponding on the site. Mr. Anderson responded
that a system of pumps was proposed, which would be used to maintain
ponding elevations. Marhula asked if this system would affect the
aquifer. Mr. Anderson stated that it would not.
Marhula questioned why the proponent had not requested Office zoning
with variances, instead of 1-2 Park. Mr. Schackman stated that they
had debated the idea at length. It was pointed out that office use
was allowed within the 1-2 Park district, but warehouse usage was
not allowed within the Office district.
Torjesen stated that he felt it would be difficult for the City to
control the uses after the property was zoned and built. He
questioned whether this was the highest and best use of the land.
Acting Chairman Gartner stated that she agreed with Torjesen.
Planner Enger explained that, during discussion of the original City
West Planned Unit Development, it was proposed that the proportion
of office allowed within this development be limited so as not to
compete with the office districts of the Major Center Area, thereby
actually disallowing competition with the Major Center Area.
Marhula questioned how many acres of the Major Center Area had been
designated for industrial usage. Planner Enger responded that
approximately 60 acres were so designated.
201
Planning Commission Minutes 9 May 9, 1983
• Acting Chairman Gartner asked for questions and comments from
members of the audience.
Janet Gerricky, 6622 Golden Ridge Drive, explained that she had a
different understanding of the approved plan from 1981. She stated
that she had understood that the plan called for office usage that,
on the exterior, had the appearance of multiple residential
buildings, along with a portion of the site being designated for
multiple residential use. She questioned how the plan had been
changed to allow for industrial use without the public being
notified.
Jerry Steelman, 6601 Golden Ridge Drive, stated that he, too,
understood that the buildings were to have the appearance of
condominiums, with buffering to be done along Shady Oak Road.
Staff responded that the change had taken place between the first
and second readings of the zoning for this site at the Council
level.
Mrs. Gerricky questioned how the City could recommend development
which was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Mr. Anderson stated that his firm had gone to great lengths to
create an attractive area for development, as well as for the
surrounding neighborhood. He explained, in detail, the improvements
which had been made and which would be made in this development.
Mr. Steelman stated that Mr. Anderson had guaranteed him that
screening would be provided on his lot from the City West
development; however, to date, he had not seen Mr. Anderson, nor had
Mr. Anderson contacted him regarding the screening to be done on his
property. Mr. Anderson stated that he would rectify the matter
immediately. He stated that he would gladly provide any landscaping
material the Steelmans desired prior to issuance of any building
permit within the City West project.
Mr. Schackman suggested that perhaps there was misunderstanding
between parties taking place. He restated the types of uses and
tenants that would be proposed for the Ryan buildings, which would
be mainly office users. Mr. Schackman suggested that perhaps the
parties concerned could meet to review the uses allowed in the 1-2
Park district and eliminate those uses which were considered to be
objectionable to the residents.
Hallett stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to
eliminate uses in other portions of the City so as to eliminate
competition with the Major Center Area. He stated that he felt each
area should be reviewed on its own merits.
Marhula stated that perhaps limits, or maximums could be placed on
the percentage of uses in these buildings such as a maximum
percentage of office, warehousing, and assembling uses. He also
suggested that the City may wish to consider an alternate zoning
Planning Commission Minutes
10 May 9, 1983
district for this type of use to be incorporated into the City Code.
Torjesen stated that he agreed with Marhula regarding a possible new
zoning district for the Code.
Mr. Steelman stated that he was not opposed to the development on
the the interior of the Planned Unit Development; however, the
residents had been told the development would appear to be
residential.
Marhula stated that he felt the basis for the problem was that the
use changed without the public being aware of the change. He stated
that he felt the Commission should review the previous records,
including the approved . Developer's Agreement for the project, before
taking action on this proposal. •
MOTION:
•
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Torjesen, to continue the
public hearing on this item pending the following:
1) Planning Staff is requested to furnish the Commission with
copies of the Developer's Agreement for the project with an
Interpretation of the agreement as it related to the issues
of use.
2) The permitted uses in the 1-2 Park district should be
reviewed and those found to be objectionable for this area
should be eliminated from those allowed by the district as a
whole at the time of zoning of this site. This shall be
incorporated into a revised Developer's Agreement for the
site.
3) A ratio shall be established for a maximum percentage of
types of uses to be allowed, such as the percentage of
office, warehousing, and assembling within this portion of .
the Planned Unit Development.
Motion carried--3-2-1 (Acting Chairman Gartner, Marhula, and
Torjesen in favor; Johannes and Hallett
against; Schuck abstained)
Cy 1 ,1, 1 n AlroN
O . Ill/ I rl IN ill.
Ill 1 ,/l Arr
hIIIt 'I cotminm
HillIIu (II ITS
.1S^lis l' ,r
I.1/, I :IN
1/11.11/11.1 lit TAN
(.111011N I II II '11.111
ocnr • Al/DICKS ill.
.10sAIIIAN rist.Niscito
€ 11(11I1 III DORN
Kosr.mAll1 11.SNSIIM
PEPIN, DAYTON, HERMAN, GRAHAM & GETTS
Ail 01MYS Al I.AW
9:10
II `MLR 1::“ II V,Csl:
TUI 501:01 rirrit SIRLET MINN:ANUS MINN:501'A 55•102
June 14, 1983
01121339.71133
Mr. Wolfgang Penzel,
Mayor
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: City West (Ryan Construction)
Rezoning and Planned Unit
Development Amendments
Dear Mayor Penzel:
We represent Gerald Steelman who is vigorously opposed to
the rezoning and amendment to the planned unit development
amendment for Ryan Construction Company's City West.
As you know, Mr. Steelman was concerned in the past when
this area was changed from Medium Density Residential to
Office, Regional and Commercial and Multiple Residential uses
in 1981. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet was ordered
at that time.
Now, substantial changes have been made in the proposed
project which result in potential significant environmental
effects of the project.
Our client will be submitting a Petition for a new EAW on
this proposed project. A copy of the draft Petition is
enclosed.
Our client is not just concerned with environmental
issues. He is also concerned that, should this project be
permitted, the entire character of City West will be changed
as new projects are proposed which differ from what was
originally contained in the planned unit development.
The original planned unit development received careful
attention by your City. When it was originally proposed
several modifications were made to satisfy the residents of
Eden Prairie. Now, it is proposed that an entire, major part
of that plan be scrapped and an entirely different use be
permitted. Your planning commission seems reluctant to
support the change.
PEPIN, DAYTON, HERMAN, GRAHAM &GETTS
Mayor Wolfgang Penzel - 2 - June 14, 1983
We would hope that you and the City Council would follow
their lead and not modify the original planned un
i
t
development. We would certainly not expect the City Coun
c
i
l
to take any action, until a new EAW is prepared and t
h
e
environmental concerns are addressed, the traffic proble
m
s
created by this project be understood through a thoro
u
g
h
traffic study, and the future ramifications of this change
b
e
explored with the developer and interested residents.
We will appear with our client at the June 21st City
Council meeting to present his concerns about this propo
s
e
d
project.
Sincerely yours,
PEPIN, DAYTON, HERMAN, GRAHAM
& GETT
Mentor C. "Duke" Addicks, Jr
Enclosure
cc: Carl Jullie, City Manager
Dick Anderson, City Council Member
George Bently, City Council Member
Paul Redpath, City Council Member
Ge9cge Tangen, City Council Member
ris Enger, City Planner
Stephen L. Swanson, Ryan Construction Co.
Richard W. Anderson, ADI
MCA/lme
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
May 20, 1983
History of City West Planned Unit Development Approvals, Comparison
of the Ryan Development Proposal to the Original Concerns Regarding
Development of the City West Area, and Suggested Limitations to
Industrial Use Within the Ryan Construction "High-Tech" Office
Proposal
History
On August 10, 1981, the Planning Commission first reviewed the request by Richard W.
Anderson for a Planned Unit Development Concept approval of 87 acres of office and
commercial land use for the project called City West. The Commission moved at that
time to recommend to the Council upholding of the Comprehensive Guide Plan and
denial of the request. The item proceeded to the Council and appeared at their
September 1, 1981 meeting. After much discussion, the Council continued the item to
September 15, 1981. At that meeting, the Council moved to refer the matter back to
the Commission for their recommendation on the Planned Unit Development Concept and
for a public hearing on amending the Guide Plan, if necessary. The Council then
directed the item back to the Commission, for a specific review of the merits of the
Planned Unit Development.
The item then appeared on the October 13, 1981 agenda of the Commission, and after
much discussion, the Commission felt that the plan should be revised to include
residential within the proposal and to reduce the office square footage within the
project. The developer returned to the October 26, 1981 meeting with a Staff
recommendation for high density residential along the northern half of the Shady Oak
Road frontage. The developer's plan showed eight small office buildings with high
density residential clustered in the center of the project. The Commission
recommended to the Council at their October 26, 1981 meeting a plan which was worked
out at that meeting, which called for high density residential in the center of the
project, with low density office on the Shady Oak Road frontage. The Staff had
recommended at this meeting that the low density office conform with a requirement
of 10,000 sq. ft. maximum sized buildings, two stories and under.
When the developer appeared at the November 17, 1981 Council meeting, the Council
discussed the various alternatives offered by the Staff, the developer and the
Commission ultimately approved the plan which illustrated small office buildings
along Shady Oak Road presented by the developer. This plan represented 268,000 sq.
ft. of office space along the Shady Oak Road frontage, represented in no less than
eight buildings.
Staff has checked this item with the Mayor, Councilman Bentley, and the City
Manager, as to their recollection of the events of that November 17, 1981 meeting.
They confirm that the eight building plan was the plan approved and subsequently
drafted in a developer's agreement, which is also included in this information, and
1911
City West Staff Report 2 May 20, 1983
which the Council ultimately read and passed specifically as written.
The approval that the Staff, developer, residents, Planning Commission, and Council
is dealing with from the original City West PUD is, then, the approval which allowed
smaller office buildings along the Shady Oak Road frontage, not to exceed 30 ft. in
height and of no less than eight buildings for 266,000 sq. ft. of office. It is
this criteria that the Staff balanced the current request from Ryan Construction
against in order to make its recommendations.
Comparison of Current Request to Original City West PUD'Criteria
There were several key items of concern from both the Commission and Council in
review of the original City West PUD.
1. The City was concerned with the change of land use from medium density
residential to office district because of the loss of residential units in
close proximity to working place environment. This concern was addressed by
offering higher density residential on a smaller amount of property to be
clustered in the center of the City West project.
2. The second concern regarding land use was the extraordinary amount of office
space proposed outside of the Major Center Area. The City generally felt
that office space could be approved outside of the Major Center Area;
however, the developer had proposed approximately 1,000,000 sq. ft. of
office space, and ultimately this was reduced to 628,000 sq. ft. of office
space and a regional hotel.
3. The amount of traffic to be generated from this proposal was a very serious
concern as it would require the upgrading of Shady Oak Road. Since the
approval of the PhD, the City has been involved in a feasibility study for
the upgrading of Shady Oak Road, which involves a capacity analysis. That
detailed analysis highlights the original concern of traffic from this area
and a reduction of traffic from this area would be helpful.
4. The transition of land use from the existing and planned residential area on
the west side of Shady Oak Road to the higher density office occuring in the
center of City West.
The Ryan Construction proposal, in the Planning Staff's opinion, meets some of these
original concerns in the following ways:
1. Because of the office/research/development projected use of these buildings,
the total amount of office expected in this area would be less than the
original proposal. This helps meet the concern the City originally had for
locating too much office outside the Major Center Area.
2. This use would also generate considerably less traffic than the pure office
use.
3. The building is small in mass and short in height and contains variation in
both the vertical profile and the horizontal facing of the building. This
use would provide, in the Planning Staff's opinion, a good transition
between the residential area occuring to the west and the higher density
office area occuring to the east.
City West Staff Report 3 May 20, 1983
Land Use Control
The proposed use as outlined by the developer does not fit totally within the Office
district. The use would fit within our broader 1-2 Industrial category; however,
the Commission is concerned about the latitude of other permitted uses within the
industrial zone. The Planning Commission has directed Staff to develop limitations
for allowed uses within the Industrial district for specific application in this PUD
District in order to assure that the proposed "high tech" building, in effect, is
retained as a "high tech" building. Planning Staff outlines the following
restrictions and suggestions to the Commission. We would suggest that the following
uses specifically not be permitted within this project, and also be representative
of other like uses that would not be permitted:
1. Retail Sales
2. Contractor's Businesses such as sheet metal, electrical, HVAC,
window, roofing, plastering, painting, siding, etc.
3. No commercial printing, bakery, motorcycle, or small engine repair,
repair shops, service centers, body shops, electroplating, cabinet
shops, auto or machine supply, mortuaries, food processing, food or
other brokerages requiring truck stops, paint shops, veterinary or
animal boarding.
4. Light assembly should be differentiated from manufacturing and
processing. No manufacturing or processing of products from raw
materials, light assembly only from finished parts.
5. No use is permitted which produces any odor, dust, smoke, gas,
vibration, noise, toxic or noxious waste.
6. No storage of toxic materials.
7. Only light assembly allowed in space which is similarly finished to
an office building--finished ceilings, walls, air conditioned, floor
covering.
8. No assembly requiring special electrical transformers above and
beyond the capacity necessary for normal office use. No special
venting required for any process.
Permitted Uses
The buildings should be no less than 50% office, no more than 30% assembly, and no
more than 50% storage.
Planning Staff would recommend that these conditions be written into the developer's
agreement and be required as part of a private covenant to run with the property
that would be between the property owner and the City of Eden Prairie.
iq
STAFF REPORT
TO:
• FROM:
DATE:
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
FEE OWNER:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
Planning Commission
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
May 6, 1983
City West Business Center
Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc.
Richard W. Anderson, Inc.
Within the City West Planned Unit Development, north of City We
s
t
Parkway and east of Shady Oak Road in the Northeast portion of E
d
e
n
Prairie
Planned Unit Development Amendment and District Review for 15
.
0
5
acres, Rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Industrial Park, and Prelimin
a
r
y
Platting to allow the construction of approximately 174,000 sq. ft.
of office/research/development use
Land Use
The site under consideration by Ryan Construction was approved in
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
,
1
9
8
1
a
s
a
part of the overall City West Planned Unit Development. The land
u
s
e
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
a
t
that time was 133,000 sq. ft. of office and a 15,000 sq. ft. b
a
n
k
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
total of 148,000 sq. ft. of office. This site along Shady Oa
k
R
o
a
d
w
a
s
t
o
b
e
developed at lower intensity office, with buildings not to exceed
3
0
f
t
.
i
n
h
e
i
g
h
t
.
The purpose of this requirement was to provide a lower scale tran
s
i
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
residential area lying west of Shady Oak Road to the higher densi
t
y
m
i
d
-
r
i
s
e
o
f
f
i
c
e
buildings anticipated in the center of City West. The proposal u
n
d
e
r
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
is largely a one-story, low-ceiling building with several elem
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
w
o
-
s
t
o
r
y
office construction, well within the 30 ft. height limitation.
The use proposed would be a modification from the original 100% o
f
f
i
c
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
n
d
would allow some industrial use. However, the buildings are des
i
g
n
e
d
v
e
r
y
m
u
c
h
i
n
an office character and are well within keeping with the origi
n
a
l
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
o
f
t
h
e
Planned Unit Development.
The zoning required to allow flexibility within the buildin
g
s
f
o
r
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
a
n
d
limited light manufacturing with the office would be 1-2 Park.
The site is not within a shoreland or floodplain area, and a
n
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Assessment Worksheet has previously been done on the overall City W
e
s
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Existing Site Character
The site is an open field, devoid of any major vegetation, and has
a
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
i
t
e
elevation of about 895 with a high point in the northern half of the site at 902,
sloping to a low point at the center of the site of 892. The north end of
t
h
e
( Ryan Construction Staff Report 2 May 6, 1983
project is as low as 884. The project will be graded so that finished building
floor elevations are at about 896.
There is an existing berm, which has been partially constructed, parallel to Shady
Oak Road along this property, and which will be reshaped to conform to the plan
submitted by the proponent. Basically, the berm will be 5-6 ft. high in
relationship to Shady Oak Road and the adjacent parking.
Some soil problems may be encountered in the center of the site, and the developer
may have to take steps to correct that situation.
Ordinance Requirements
Within the 1-2 Industrial Park district, the minimum lot size would be two acres and
the maximum floor area ratio would be 30%. Front yard setback would be 50 ft. On a
corner lot, the parking could be within one-half of one of the front yards, or 25
ft. The project is in conformance with all provisions of the 1-2 district, with the
exception of the front yard setback. Instead of proposing a 50 ft. setback on one
front yard and a 25 ft. setback to the parking on the other front yard, the
proponent is responding to a suggestion by the Planning Staff to provide a 35 ft.
front yard setback on each road frontage. This front yard setback would be
consistent with the office district setback required on the parcel to the east and
the parcel to the north. This will tend to help emphasize the office character of
the project. The floor area ratio proposed by the developer is less than the
maximum of 30% allowed. Phase I site coverage for building would be 27.3%, and 26%
for Phase II.
All of the loading areas and a portion of the parking spaces required would be
completely screened from the public roads and different land uses by the design of
the project. These loading and parking areas would occur in an interior court
created by the two-building configuration on each of the two lots.
Mechanical equipment on top of the roofs of the buildings is consolidated behind
two-story elements and behind extended parapet wall features of the elevations of
the buildings. This design feature provides screening of mechanical equipment,
which is architecturally integral to the design of the building. Since there will
be some long views from the area to the west of this project, which are from a
higher elevation, Staff would also suggest that the mechanical equipment be painted
to match the color of the roof. •
All parking spaces not provided in the center court of the buildings would be
screened through the use of berming and landscaping from the public roads.
Although the development brochure refers to five parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
being provided for the warehouse function of the building, actually the Code
requires 1/2 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of warehouse and this what is provided by the
proponent.
The City Code would require one-third of this type of building to provide 5 parking
spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., one-third to provided 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., and one-
third to provide 1/2 space per 1,000 sq. ft. The proponent has provided parking in
excess of the Code requirement. This will allow high utilization of the project for
office use. The amount of parking provided and the design of the building is also
consistent with the heavy landscaping treatment and overhead door delivery bays,
111(n
Ryan Construction Staff Report 3 May 6, 1983
rather than semi-truck loading docks.
The exterior material proposed by the developer is a single-scored, burnished
concrete block on the exterior of the building and a single-scored, plain concrete
block on the interior loading court of the building. The burnished block is a
material which has been used on the Gelco Office building and the Cabriole Center
office building. The burnished concrete block would be an acceptable exterior
material under the Code, but the single-scored plain concrete block would not be in
conformance with the Code. It should be brought into conformance with the Code.
Site Plan
The proposed storm sewer will collect the on-site drainage in catch basins and flow
toward a pond lying northeast of the project. The pond has a planned outfall
directly west and across Shady Oak Road.
The overall City West plan provides for a pedestrian trail system, which should be
initiated with the construction of the first phase of this project. This project
should be tied into that pedestrian system.
Transportation
The City is currently completing a feasibility study of Shady Oak Road improvements
necessary for the City West project, and will be going over that study with Hennepin
County over the next several weeks. Initial findings indicate that by downgrading
the intensity of the land use on this parcel, a full access at Rowland Road has
become a possibility. The developer has not shown the correct location of existing
Rowland Road, and should plan his entrance so that it comes to a full intersection
with Rowland Road and Shady Oak Road. The developer will be responsible for future
area-wide and front footage assessments necessary for improvements to Shady Oak
Road. Adequate right-of-way would be proposed in this plat to accommodate 100 ft.
of right-of-way for Shady Oak Road, which is consistent with requirements.
The City will be considering sidewalks along Shady Oak Road within the feasibility
study of the improvements.
This project modifies slightly the concept of the City West Planned Unit Development
and the more specific Plaza I, II, and III office development zoned by the City last
year. The access that this project takes from City West Parkway would be access
that was contemplated for the western parking ramp for Plaza III. We have spoken to
the developer and this revision of the access does not seem to cause any problems,
because there is access provided for all three phases of Plaza I, II, and III from
an internal looped system.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the request for Planned Unit Development amendment, Planned Unit Development
District review to allow variance of front yard setback, rezoning from Rural to 1-2
Park, and preliminary platting of 15 acres, subject to the following:
1. A variance is granted to allow more than 50% office in the 1-2 District, if
parking is available according to City Code.
Ryan Construction Staff Report 4 May 6, 1983
(2. The developer would be obligated to area-wide and front footage assessments
for necessary improvements on Shady Oak Road. The developer must also
provide the access to the two parcels on Shady Oak Road, directly across
from existing Rowland Road, to make a full intersection and in detail
consistent with requirements by the City and Hennepin County.
3. Although the landscaping plan is generally acceptable, additional
landscaping will be necessary along City West Parkway near the project's
entrance in order to adequately screen the parking areas.
4. Mechanical equipment should he painted to match the roof color.
5. The developer should plan an internal pedestrian system, which connects with
the proposed sidewalks and the pedestrian trail planned by City West. This
pedestrian trail in the overall City West project should be implemented with
the first phase of this project.
6. The developer should develop and submit a signage plan, which deals with an
overall concept for allowing individual tenant signs to be architecturally
controlled on the buildings.
7. The single-scored plain concrete block should be modified to he in
accordance with City Code.
;. A cross easement between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 must be drafted to allow
access.
9. The proponent must submit a plan to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
prior to construction.
10. The Cash Park Fee would be applicable to this project.
11. Prior to final plat, the final utility plans must be reviewed by the City
Engineering Department.
12. All fire hydrant locations must be approved by the City Fire Marshall.
a•-".
-7Y
HENNEPIN
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
320 Washington Av. South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
935-3381 May 11. 1983
Mr. Chris Enger
Director of Planning
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 .
Dear Mk. Roger:
RE Proposed Plat - "City West Business Center - Ryan Construction"
CSAH 61 Opposite Rowland Road
Section 1. Township 116. Range 22
Hennepin County Plat No. 1093
Review and Recommendations
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County
review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat
and found it acceptable with consideration of these conditions:
-Hennepin County supports the lower traffic generating type development
shown on this site.
-As agreed upon at a meeting of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, and ADI
representatives on July 29, 1982. the developer will dedicate additional
right of way to make the right of way width 60 feet from City West
Parkway to 100 feet northwest and 50 feet, as shown, for the remainder of
this plat. The 100 feet from City West Parkway for the 60 foot right of
way dedication should be measured from the west City West Parkway right
of way line extended.
-It appears the location of Rowland Road shown on the plat is based on old
information and does not accurately show the location of the near 90
degree intersection of Rowland Road and CSAH 61.
-10 assure full access to the secondary access when median is constructed
on CSAH 61 this access must be located directly opposite existing Rowland
Road.
-To allow 2 lanes of egress the access opposite Rowland Road must be
widened to 40 feet minimum.
-All construction inside the new right of way line for the proposed
access opposite Rowland Road must be of bituminous.
-Any new access to a county road requires an approved Hennepin County
entrance permit before beginning any construction. See our Traffic
Division for entrance permit forms.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
on equal opportunity employer
Mr. Chris Eger - 2
May 11, 1983
-All proposed construction within County right of way requires an
approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes
but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail
development, and landscaping. See our Maintenance Division for utility
permit forms.
-The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction
within County right of way.
Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt.
Sincerely,
(Y James M. Wad, P.E.
Chief, Planning and Programming
JIM/LOW:p1
cc; Ryan Construction Coppany
Israelson & Associates, Inc.
'no
NW •13•3
Minnesota
Department of Transportation
District Five
5801 Duluth Street
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
(612) 545.3761
May 5, 1983
Mr. Chris Eager
Director of Planning
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
S.P. 2763 T.H. 169
Plat review of City West located
in the northwest quadrant of
TB 169 and CSAH 61
Ryan Construction City West Business Center
Plat review
Dear Mr. Enger:
The above referenced plat was previously reviewed by us as a part
of the original City West plat. This portion of the plat, being
removed from the trunk highway, should not present us with any
problems. We assume that,Hennepin County has had an opportunity
to review the plat.
If you have any questions in regard to this review, please feel
free to contact me. • Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Evan R. Green
Project Manager
ERG:bn
An Equal °ppmlustily Employer
.0.4*
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #83-137 .
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WELSH OFFICES
FOR WELSH CONSTRUCTION
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Welsh Office for Welsh Construction, dated April 22,
and written materials dated April 27, 1983 for development of 1.5 acres into one lot
for office use, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in
conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances,
and amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the
, 1983.
day of
Uolfgang H. -Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
JITAin D. Frane, City Clerk
Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 1983
Members Present: Chairman Bearman, Gartner, Hallett, Johannes, Marhula, Torjesen
E. WELSH CONSTRUCTION, INC. Request for Rezoning of 1.5 acres
from Rural and R1-22 to Office, and Preliminary Plat of 1.5
acres for office land use. Location: North of W. 78th
Street and east of Schooner Boulevard. A public hearing.
Dennis Doyle, Welsh Construction, introduced the request and
reviewed the features of the site as proposed for development. He
stated that Welsh Construction would be moving their corporate
headquarters into this building, occupying half of the structure,
and would lease out the remaining space until such time as growth of
their firm allowed them to occupy the entire building.
Darryl Anderson, architect for the proponent, reviewed the structure
features with the Commission.
Planner Enger pointed out the Staff concerns regarding this project,
Including storm drainage, access to W. 78th Street, and slopes.
Chairman Bearman asked why the proponent had not presented signage
or landscaping Plans for the project. Mr. Doyle stated that they
were not completed, but that their intentions were to comply with
City Code requirements regarding these two matters.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments and questions from members of
the audience. There were none.
MOTION 1:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Hallett, to close the public
hearing.
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 2:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Marhula, to recommend
approval of the request for zoning from R1-22 and Rural to Office
for Welsh Construction, Inc. for office use, per plans dated April
22, 1983 and written materials dated April 27, 1983, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 20, 1983, with the
addition of condition #9 to read: "Developer shall conform to City
Code requirements and submit to City Staff and receive Staff
approval of landscaping and signage plans for the site."
Motion carried--6-0-0
MOTION 3:
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recommend
approval of the preliminary plat of 1.5 acres for a 21,000 sq. ft.
/223
office building for Welsh Construction, Inc., per plans dated April
22, 1983 and written materials dated April 27, 1983, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 20, 1983, with
condition #9 to read: "Developer shall conform to City Code
requirements and submit to City Staff and receive Staff approval of
landscaping and signage plans for the site," and condition #10 to
read: "Proponent shall provide satisfactory easement arrangements
be established with the adjoining property."
Motion carried--6-0-0
o 24
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
FEE OWNERS:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
Planning Commission
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
May 20, 1983
Welsh Construction, Inc. Office
Welsh Construction
James Fee and Brad Hepp and City of Eden Prairie
Northeast Corner of Prairie Center Drive and W. 78th Street, south
of 1 -494
1. Zoning District Change from R1-22 and Rural to Office
District
2. Preliminary Platting of 1.5 acres of land for a 21,000 sq.
ft. Office structure
3. Variance for maximum allowable height (Board of Appeals)
Background/Land Use
This site is very small and was not represented graphically on the 1982
Comprehensive Guide Plan. However, the surrounding designations on the Guide Plan
are Regional Commercial and Office. A site directly southwest across the street
from this property has been approved for two office buildings, one of which is the
existing Suburban National Bank building. The office use proposed is consistent
with the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Existing zoning on the northern portion of the property is a remnant of the property
when it was single family lots and is zoned R1-22. The southern portion of the
property is zoned Rural.
This site is not within a floodplain and does not require an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet. The site is within the Shoreland Area of Anderson Lakes.
Existing Site Character
The site is a wooded hill, which is surrounded on three sides by roads. The major
vegetative tree type of the site is Elm, with some large Oak trees occurring on the
south portion of the property.
The site currently is high in relationship to the surrounding roads, (with Prairie
Center Drive now under construction, but at the grade which it will be on the west
side of the property.)
Welsh Construction Staff Report 2 May 20, 1983
Site Plan
The grading plan depicts 30 ft. of cut in the center of the site
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
b
r
i
n
g
the site down below Prairie Center Drive for most of the length,
a
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
e
v
e
n
w
i
t
h
W. 78th Street, which occurs to the south of the parcel.
T
h
e
s
i
t
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
approximately at-grade with 1-494 and about five or six fee
t
h
i
g
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
entrance ramp to 1-494. The property to the east would remain a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
3
0
f
t
.
higher than this site. The grading onto the east property is de
p
i
c
t
e
d
a
t
a
l
m
o
s
t
a
1:1 slope. Other areas depicted as 1:1 slopes occur on the nort
h
a
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
sides of the property. These slopes should be reduced to no grea
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
3
:
1
.
The proposed grading the site to the east would require that
t
h
a
t
s
i
t
e
a
l
s
o
b
e
graded significantly in order for the sites to utilize the common e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
d
r
i
v
e
.
The drainage for the site is planned to flow to the south and
e
a
s
t
w
i
t
h
s
m
a
l
l
portions of the very southern parking lot and the very northern par
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
to flow to the west. These parking lot areas should be curbed and
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
so that all flow is to catch basins, not directly off of hard su
r
f
a
c
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
o
n
t
o
grassy areas. The drainage of the site has not been completly fi
g
u
r
e
d
o
u
t
a
t
t
h
i
s
point.
W. 78th Street is proposed for reconstruction in the next year
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
T
h
i
s
reconstruction would require grading the southern portion
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
Therefore, the grades shown in the grading plan submitted by the
p
r
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
a
r
e
n
o
t
accurate. The proposed construction of W. 78th Street would el
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
r
u
r
a
l
ditch on the north side of the road. The office site has been pl
a
n
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
n
o
n
-
site storm sewer system, which would take surface water from
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
parking lot areas through a catch basin and piping system down
t
o
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
corner of the property, where it would be outletted into th
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
i
t
c
h
.
However, this ditch will be filled as part of the new constru
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
W
.
7
8
t
h
Street. The proponent must work closely with the City Engineer
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
o
that the proper storm sewer for this project can be included
a
s
a
c
h
a
n
g
e
o
r
d
e
r
within the W. 78th Street improvement project. The on-site catc
h
b
a
s
i
n
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
designed as sump catch basins which trap parking lot sediment, r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
l
e
t
t
i
n
g
it flow directly into the system and ultimately outletting int
o
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
marsh area at Anderson Lakes.
The building as proposed is a three-story building with a basement garage with a
total building height of over 33 ft. The City Code allows a maxim
u
m
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
n
t
h
e
Office District of 30 ft. Therefore, the proponent must appl
y
t
o
t
h
e
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
Appeals for a height variance.
The building is oriented toward the south and takes good adva
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
o
l
a
r
exposure while burying itself in the hill on the north side for
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
northern wind.
Transportation
As mentioned earlier in this report, W. 78th Street will be reco
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
area. The joint driveway access proposed to occur on the lot lin
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
parcel to the east is in an acceptable location for an entrance.
I
n
s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
the City's engineering consultant in charge of the construction
p
l
a
n
s
f
o
r
W
.
7
8
t
h
Street, we find that it may be necessary to relocate the looped
d
e
t
e
c
t
o
r
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
signals at Prairie Center Drive and W. 78th Street so that the
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
f
r
o
m
t
h
i
s
146
Welsh Construction Staff Report 3 May 20, 1983
driveway entrance does not give a false signal to the intersection lights. Site
lines for this driveway are adequate to W. 78th Street.
Traffic from this office building would range between 220 and 450 Average Daily
Trips. W. 78th Street, in front of this site, will be a four-lane section,
undivided. Because of this project's proximity to existing and future restaurant
and shopping areas, the on-site pedestrian system should be tied to the City walkway
system. This can be done by including a sidewalk connection along the entrance road
down to a sidewalk which should be constructed by this proponent along W. 78th
Street westerly from the entrance drive to the intersection of Prairie Center Drive
and W. 78th Street.
Ordinance Requirements
This proposal meets the setback, parking, floor area ratio, and materials provisions
of the City Code. No landscaping plan has been submitted, however, and special
attention will need to be paid to screening along the southern and western portions
of this property. The two large existing Oak trees on the southern portion of the
property should be saved.
The building materials proposed are glass and brick. The mechanical equipment is
represented as being ground based and cri.PnPd by brick enclosure. No parking lot
lighting is represented in the plans; however, any parking lot lighting expected
should be less than 20 ft. in height. If the parking lot is to be lighted from the
building, glare from any lighting on the site shall not be apparent off the site.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the request for rezoning from R1-22
and Rural to Office district for a 21,000 sq. ft. office building, and approval of
preliminary platting of approximately 1.5 acres subject to information dated April
22, 1983, and to the following conditions;
1. The proponent must apply to the Board of Appeals for a variance to allow a
building over 30 ft. in height.
2. Prior to building permit issuance, a landscape plan shall be submitted,
which illustrates screening from all public road areas and which illustrates
the construction method for saving of the two major Oak trees on the
southern portion of the property.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer must determine, with the
City Engineering Department, the final method of drainage of the site. All
parking lot areas shall be bordered with curb and gutter.
4. A concrete sidewalk should be added along the west side of the entrance road
which would connect to sidewalk running on the north side of W. 78th Street
on the entrance road westerly to the intersection of Prairie Center Drive
and W. 78th Street. This sidewalk shall be built within the City road
right-of-way according to City specifications at the developer's expense.
5. All slopes on the property, whether permanent or temporary, shall be graded
at no more than a 3:1 slope. The site area which is not hard surfaced shall
be sodded to the property's boundaries.
/AZ)
Welsh Construction Staff Report 4
May 20, 1983
6. All lighting on the site shall be down lighting and no glare from the site
shall apparent beyond the site's boundaries.
' 7. The Cash Park Fee would be applicable to this project.
8. The developer must receive approval from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District prior to building permit issuance.
SincerAely
Barrus
evelopment & Construction Coordinator
Welsh Construction Corp.
WEJ511
CONSTRUCTION
k-JORE v
LI A. A
June 2, 1983
City of Eden Prairie
Board of Appeals & Adjustments
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Welsh Construction Office Building
Gentlemen:
Item # 1 - We are proposing a 18,000 square foot building on this 1.5 acre
site. Due to the contour of this site we are unable to design a two story
building to maintain code requirements.
We have, however, provided on the northside a two story exterior. The
first floor will be bermed and the building recessed into the hill, at only
34 feet in height. We feel this building conforms to the existing neigh-
borhood buildings.
Item #2 - This site along with the adjoining property are enclosed in a
I7liFiTe shaped area, with access from West 78th Street only. Thus we have
made a binding agreement with the Preserve (Larry Peterson) to share an
access off of West 78th Street. Since there is no other access to the site
but West 78th Street, this would help maintain and limit traffic off of
West 78th Street to this location.
LB/kkc
7200 Ohms Lane, Minneapolis, MN 55435 / (612) 831-8088 / Development, Construction
I 2 91
;Aro
11 ;rr
Lai I -tV:1
14SStb 0
118 — Ss,
1 I outrerr Lbing no
tv
41.•
e
Ajo
WA.
-
51..
1=3
..
4
_ --,-_,-, , r ell y(14folifid"(1 5n4 1.-
. . 'i.
''
//
..N..;', •-• *",,,,A4,7"( ' .........e.‘--(jir. •
\\N.:C..... S 1,.... ' '"'' ',,•:".., s • ' '
cc.
e,- - -at: •-•.";1 - .._/•,- '-'!__--746*''''-.".. ...-.
i()
OD
WLB/cmf
7200 Ohms Lane. Mmneapolts, MN 55435 / (612) 831.8088 / Devskprnent, Constructor,
123 2-
vvEgik coo RUCTION
...JOREk 17
bui
May 13, 1983
City of Eden Prairie
Planning Office
Att: Kris Enger
Re: Welsh Companies Offices
West 78th Street and Schooner Boulevard
PROPOSED SITE DRAINAGE
Upon initial investigation of the site'utilities with the city's enginee
r
s
the following program was prescribed:
At present, no storm sewer exists on or near the present site. All pre
s
e
n
t
drainage is within the existing ditch bordering along West, 78th Street.
It was suggested that this site be surfaced drained to a culvert which run
s
under West 78th Street and dumps into Anderson Lake water shed. This site
has been designed for this drainage system.
1 68.20'
rofE PAl'A
*N. f51144m•k• - ZI
40frofir 4rmii - 31:
15dit•Ing4. tfloolgnki -
MU*, Kohligey es/
rAgictile• 44044- MA
r Pogt 4ilt AIWA - 41,104.
19.171.0 fa./ 70'
CoPtEK/44•'" 11 2
Rs.
IhPiN4
Wrigeetwitvl
4111610 fge 1.4
••••
4.78 '
‘,411 WI SAVOR
6)1'6 rI,AKI
ck I •• 50.0 ` 22 , n 151
Plvit•grlit •
ilk yawl 6,14,141tit, tit
644,,e.etroir:
ri g • t15
op• ca • bto+
!sof NA 615
4illo/Let 4117Cr ORW6
16 8.20' LIS•
ts,
e.)
Lb421.40 OAK:
1-0 Me MAI 4.
)1. X
;f itv ogo..:
4tort“,
<e
gra 12.151,4A1 p.4
1r2G.1111 0 $..6
ItYPP+if
(eviA,..., rd
%POP ritotpat
4,78' 41+gifAtf4tyttit
fat .78th Street
-5X1611,67 -r-12
1.• 9 .,
0.3s
REMOVE _CONC. WALL 24+85 LT. CC' FOR MORE INFORMATION SEEi INTERSECTION DETAIL SHEET 69 BIT. CURB CONSTRUCTION LIMITS LT. a RT. cc La '8 ca6 01 — z Lil col +' c— F &I Li BIT I -- FLUME B624 C a G - Q PL. METAL SHOULD.L::,i3.,....c< — * C -,C51 4,— - PL. CL. A RiPRA RELOCATE HYDRAN".- PL. CONC. SURGE BASIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 1983
Members Present: Chairman Bearman, Gartner, Hallett, Johannes, Marhula, Torjesen
C. GUSTAFSON & ASSOCIATES, Request for Rezoning from RM-6.5 to
R1-13.5 for two single family detached homes on two lots.
Location: Adjacent to Cardinal Creek Road & west of
Stonewood Court. A public meeting.
Mr. Greg Gustafson, Gustafson & Associates, was present to explain
the request for rezoning. He stated that the lots were originally
platted for duplex usage. After the platting process was nearly
completed, it was discovered that the requirements of the Shoreland
Ordinance included a 150 ft. structure setback from the creek. This
made it quite difficult to use these two lots for purposes of duplex
construction, therefore. Based on these requirements, proponent was
requesting zoning from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 for two lots.
Staff reviewed the findings of the Staff Report of May 20, 1983,
recommending approval subject to the conditions listed in the
report.
Gartner stated that she was concerned by the letter received from
Mr. Kevin Kuester regarding the oak tree on the site, which was to
be preserved. Mr. Kuester stated in his letter that the tree had
been removed and questioned why it had been done when the public had
been told it would be saved. Mr. Gustafson responded that, while
attempts had been made to salvage the tree, they were unsuccessful.
He reminded the Commission that the tree was located within a
platted right-of-way for a public street. The road was to split and
go around the tree at that point. Mr. Gustafson also stated that
they, proponents, had agreed to do everything possible to save the
tree, but had not guaranteed that it would be saved. Prior to the
removal of the tree, Mr. Gustafson had hired a tree surgeon to
examine the tree. It was the tree surgeon's conclusion that the
tree would be dead shortly, anyway, as the center of it was hollow.
Therefore, the tree was removed.
There was also a complaint in Mr. Kuester's letter regarding the
vehicle crossings of the creek bed. Staff responded that this would
be checked. There was one area where vehicles had always been
allowed to cross the creek, where a culvert had been installed to
handle the water. Other than the one location, there should be no
crossings of the creek by vehicles.
Chairman Bearman asked for comments from members of the audience.
There were none.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Marhula, seconded by Gartner, to recommend
approval of the request of Gustafson & Associates for rezoning of
Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 17, Block 2, Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition
from RM-6.5 to 111-13.5, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report of May 20, 1983.
Motion carried--4.0-0
Bernstein Kuoster
13:24 CarOinal Creek Road
Edan criairro, Minnesota 55344 USA
612 a37;1560
Mir a pse3
May 17, 1983
City of Eden Prairie
City Hall
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Notice of Meeting
Gustafson & Associates for rezoning from
R14-6.5 to RI-13.5 for 2 single family lots
in Cardinal Creek third addition
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
At the last hearing regarding this matter I was present,
and requested of the council and the developer to do what-
ever was possible to save the majestic oak tree near the
path of the proposcd road. I was assured the tree would
be protected. To date the tree has been removed, the
land severely disrupted and vehicles have been crossing
through the creek driving out the remaining wildlife and
disrupting the water flow.
I feel the city should look closer at what these devel-
opers do, once they leave the council chambers.
Respectfully,
Kevin B. Kuester
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
PROJECT: Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition
DATE: May 20, 1983
APPLICANT: Gustafson & Associates
FEE OWNERS: Russell C. and Helen E. Marsh
LOCATION: North and South sides of Cardinal Creek Road
REQUEST: Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 for two single family
lots approximately one-half acre each in Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition
Background
In Spring of 1982, Gustafson and Associates applied for platting and zoning of 17
duplex lots and one triplex lot, known as Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition. Two of the
lots in this subdivision were unbuildable for duplex or triplex lots because of
their proximity to Nine Mile Creek and the requirement for a 150 ft. setback from
the Normal Ordinary High Water Mark of the Creek. The Shoreland Management portion
of the City Code differentiates between attached housing setbacks to the Normal
Ordinary High Water Mark and detached housing setbacks to the Normal Ordinary High
Water Mark.
The developer, in this case, is choosing to rezone the two lots to single family
residential in order to make them buildable. The setback for single family detached
homes from Nine Mile Creek would be 100 ft. and would allow construction of
structures on the two lots. In addition, these lots are somewhat separate from the
interior portion of Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition, in that they are out on the main
road frontage, which comes through the Cardinal Creek 1st and 2nd Additions. This
would make the single family land use consistent with the uses occurring to the
west.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the request for rezoning from RM-6.5 to
R1-13.5 for two single family lots in Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition subject to the
following:
1. Construction of homes on the lots shall be consistent with all portions of
the City Code.
2. Prior to grading permit issuance the property must have been reviewed and
approved by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Board.
la3 9
( Cardinal Creek 3rd Addition Staff Report 2
3. Cash Park Fee would be applicable to these lots.
4. No filling in the floodplain area will be allowed.
5. Construction of the concrete sidewalk originally required in Cardinal Creek
3rd Addition should proceed along the south side of Cardinal Creek Road
prior to construction on these lots.
May 20, 1983
%. "7 4.1iK ROW KRUEGER & ASSOCIATES. MC 4.•••n t 4111.7:. •nn••n• irr oweit ...0.00.7.••••n LARD SURVEYORS CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITION
ORDINANCE NO. 30-83
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 11.41 RELATING TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND AMENDING SECTION 11.02 RELATING TO
DEFINITIONS AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER I AND
SECTION 11.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section!. City Code Chapter 11 shall be and is amended by adding thereto
Section 11.41 which reads as follows:
"SEC. 11.41. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.
SUBD. I. Declaration of Policy and Purpose. It is hereby
found and declared that certain lands within the City have been
included within and desid as the "Major Center Area" ("MCA")
and are the subject of the "Eden Prairie Major Center Area Planned
Unit Development" ("MCA-PUD"), adopted by the Council on July 10,
1973, as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. The
MCA-PUD as well as the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan
contemplate multiple uses, including office uses, of the lands within
the MCA-PUD. Some of the lands intended for office use are
situated in the R1-22 (Residential) or the Rural District and have
dwellings situated thereon. Development of some of the lands within
the MCA for the uses intended has occurred. Development of some
of such land has not and may not occur in the immediate future
because of time, economic and other constraints. Thus, use of lands
In the MCA have been and are in a state of transition. The
development and use of some of the lands for the purposes intended
may adversely affect the use of certain dwellings for residential
purposes situated on some of the lands within the MCA. It is,
therefore, advisable to enable the owners of lands on which are
situated such dwellings to temporarily use or permit use of the same
for other purposes under proper and specific conditions to ameliorate
the impact of the transition of uses within the MCA. In order to
accomplish such purposes the following provisions relating to the
issuance of conditional use permits are adopted.
SUBD. 2. Areas Where Conditional Use Permits May Be
Granted. That part of the following described lands situated within
either the 022 or Rural District may be used for those permitted
uses described in Section 11.20 (Office District) hereof upon issuance
of a conditional use permit in accordance with and subject to the
provisions and conditions contained in this section.
(here insert description of areas to be
subject to conditional use permits within
Major Center Area)
SUBD. 3. Required Conditions. A conditional use permit
may be granted only subject to the following conditions:
A. There shall be no business or advertising sign in
excess of square feet.
B. The conditional use permit shall be for a period
not in excess of three years, provided, however, the Council may
grant a conditional use permit or permits effective subsequent to the
expiration of a previously granted conditional use permit.
C. No permit shall be granted unless the minimum
standards set forth in this chapter relating to lands within the Office
District are met, unless a variance has been granted therefor by the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
D. The Council finds the following:
1. The land subject to the conditional use
permit shall abut on a public street.
2. The conditional use will have available to
it an adequate and safe supply of water and shall have available and
use sanitary sewer which shall adequately and safely, without harm to
other lands or persons in the area, dispose of all sanitary sewage
generated on the land subject to the conditional use permit.
3. The conditional use will not require
construction on the land of, a new, or enlargement of an existing
building by more than five percent of the total cubic feet of the
existing building.
4. The conditional use will not be in conflict
with the MCA-PUD or the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan.
5. The conditional use will not create an
excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities
and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area.
The conditional use will be sufficiently
separated by distance or screening from adjacent lands so that
existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no
deterence to development of vacant land.
7. The structure and site for the conditional
use shall have an apRearance that will not have an adverse effect
upon adjacent residential-properties.
8. The conditional use is reasonably related
to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use in the
MCA.
9. The conditionpl use will not.cause traffic
hazard or congestion.
P2,414a4u1-1
10. iand and dwellings will not be
adversely affected because of traffic generation, noise, glare, or
other nuisance characteristics.
SUBD. 4. Additional Conditions. In granting a conditional
use permit the Council may impose additional conditions, including
the furnishing of a bond containing such terms and provisions and in
such amount as may be provided by the Council, to ensure the
prevention of or the compliance with those matters specified in
Subdivision 3 hereof or otherwise as the Council may determine to be
advisable or appropriate to achieve the policies and purposes of this
section.
SUBD. 5. Procedure. An application for a conditional use
permit shall be in writing signed by the owner of the land for which
the conditional use permit is sought. The procedures applicable to an
amendment of Chapter 11 of the Code, including notice and public
hearing, shall be required prior to the issuance of a conditional use
permit.
SU BD. 6. Revisions and/or Changes.
A. Minor revisions and/or changes in site or
remodeling plans on which the granting of a conditional use permit
has been conditioned may be approved by the Director of Planning if
they are required by engineering or other circumstances which were
not foreseen at the time the conditional use permit was approved.
B. Major revisions and/or changes in site or
remodeling plans on which the granting of a conditional use permit
has been conditioned may be approved by the Council only pursuant to
the procedures applicable to an application for a conditional use
permit.
SUBD. 7. Cancellation of Conditional Use Permits. Unless
otherwise specified by the Council at the time it is authorized, a
conditional use permit shall expire if the applicant fails to utilize
such conditional use permit by obtaining a building permit or
otherwise within one year from the date of its authorization.
a go
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1983.
•no so• le,•.1•4 1 el 10.111•11:HT
SUBD. 8. Conditional Use Permit Required. It shall be
unlawful to engage in a conditional use withoug havin
g
f
i
r
s
t
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
a conditional use permit therefor."
Section 2. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.02 shall be and is ame
n
d
e
d
b
y
adding thereto item 7a as follows:
"7a. "Conditional Use." A use which is not permissi
b
l
e
i
n
a
z
o
n
i
n
g
District but which may under certain circumstances
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
application of certain conditions be suitable."
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provision
s
a
n
d
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Includin
g
P
e
n
a
l
t
y
f
o
r
V
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
"
a
n
d
Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" a
r
e
h
e
r
e
b
y
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim her
e
i
n
.
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective from and
a
f
t
e
r
I
t
s
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
e
n
Prairie on the day of 1983, and finall
y
r
e
a
d
a
n
d
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
f
s
a
i
d
C
i
t
y
o
n
t
h
e
day of ,l983.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4 - January 24, 1983
IV. PLANNER'S REPORT
A. Interim Uses in Major Center Area
Staff reviewed the ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. It was pointed
out that two goals were kept in mind as the ordinance was prepared for
review: 1) To allow Major Center Area (MCA) residents in single family
homes existing in designated commercial areas to sell their homes; 2) To
allow for a smooth transition to take place from residential to commercial
usage for the MCA.
Planner Enger stated that he felt two key elements of the proposed
ordinance were that it limited the time frame of the Interim Use to three
years, and that reference was made to allowing for only minimal
improvements to the residence in which the use was proposed.
Gartner stated that she felt the City should look at other areas where the
tool of an interim use would apply. She stated that she felt it would be
appropriate in any situation where a residential structure existing in an
area guided for eventual office, commercial, or industrial use. The other
Commission members concurred.
g1 L,c (A)
Planning Commission Minutes
-5- January 24, 1983
Chairman Bearman stated that he felt that the word "may" in S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
4
,
Additional Conditions, should be changed to "shall." He
s
t
a
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
h
e
felt it was important that every proposal be treated e
q
u
a
l
l
y
.
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
Enger stated that what may apply in one proposal, may not ap
p
l
y
i
n
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
proposal, therefore the use of the word "may." .
Staff was directed to prepare a survey of the City to deter
m
i
n
e
f
l
o
w
m
a
n
y
areas of this type existed and , report back to the Planning Commission.
MOTION
Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Torjesen, to recomme
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Council adoption of the proposed amendment to the City Co
d
e
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
Uses within the Major Center Area.
Motion carried--7-0-0
Innngsci ial4
JUNE 21,1983
VOID OUT CHECK
MR PA
LESLIE W KOPESKY & S KOPESKY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
MENARDS
ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO
OLD PEORIA COMPANY INC
JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE
GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC
EAGLE WINE CO
INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO
ST OF MINNESOTA/TREASURER
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTERPRISES
GARY ANDERSON
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF P/S
STATE OF MINNESOTA
KAY COWAN
NORTHCO LTD
ROSEDALE CHEVROLET
DAN DONOVAN
DONNITA LEWIS
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF P/S
CHICAGO & N W TRANSPORTATION
CINDY HORGEN
RALPH KRATOCHVIL
TONY BERNATZ
CYNTHIA YBAARRA
GRETCHEN VICKERMAN
ASI CONSTRUCTION
STATE TREASURER
PREMIER RENT-A-CAR
INSTY PRINTS
OLD PEORIA COMPANY INC
CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING
TWIN CITY WINE CO
MARK VII SALES
LIGHTNING TRUCKING
JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE
EAGLE WINE CO
GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC
INTERCONTINENTAL PACKAGING CO
ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
JIM WALTER PAPERS
INSTY PRINTS
VERNA 0 BRIEN
PETTY CASH-PUBLIC SAFETY
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO
MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO
UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
PLAYGROUND LEADERS WORKSHOP
LAND-ANDERSON LAKES REGIONAL PARK
LICENSE FEE-LIQUOR STORES
LUMBER-PARK MAINTENANCE
LIQUOR
LIQUOR
LIQUOR
LIQUOR
WINE
WINE
RENEW NOTARY FEE-FINANCE DEPT
BIKE REGISTRATION FEES
JUNE RENT-LIQUOR STORE
REFUND-RECREATION DEPT
MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION
3 MINNESOTA CODE BOOKS-PLANNING DEPT
REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES
JUNE RENT-LIQUOR STORE
1983 PICKUP TRUCK-PARK MAINTENANCE
REFUND-GOLF LESSONS
REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES
MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION
ANNUAL LICENSE FEE-EDENVALE BLVD
REFUND-GOLF LESSONS
INSTRUCTOR-FITNESS CLASSES/FEES PAID
REFUND-MOVEMENT EXPLORATION CLASSES
REFUND-EXERCISE CLASSES
REFUND-PUPPETRY CLASSES
BLADES-STREET DEPT
LICENSE FEE-CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADD
TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM CAR RENTAL
SUMMER BAND CONCERT POSTERS & FLYERS
LIQUOR
WINE
WINE
WINE
FREIGHT CHARGES-LIQUOR STORES
LIQUOR
WINE
LIQUOR
WINE
LIQUOR
PAYROLL 6/10/83
PAYROLL 6/10/83
MANUAL-ENGINEERING DEPT
PAPER-CITY HALL
CERTIFICATES FOR DOG OBEDIENCE PRINTED
REFUND-FITNESS CLASS
CHANGE FUND-BIKE REGISTRATIONS
PAYROLL 6/10/83
PAYROLL 6/10/83
PAYROLL 6/1003
PAYROLL 6/10/83
DUES
2.50-
84.00
38000.00
108.00
7.42
2363.57
373.01
85.22
764.37
266.64
178.16
10.00
276.00
3260.49
4.00
10.75
10.50
18.00
2637.69
10861.00
18.00
20.00
8.75
60.00
36.00
163.13
6.03
35.00
14.00
46.67
100.00
465.34
21.25
1498.98
109.80
804.53
146.00
48.00
2585.32
598.66
4252.76
1668.04
5449.48
16572.57
11.65
616.17
7.45
7.50
40.00
106.00
65.00
2762.00
71.50
532.00
J
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
(
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8n44
h146
8047
8048
8049
8050
(
051 PERA
(2 BEER WHOLESALERS INC
CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO
bY...4 CITY CLUB DISTRIBUTING CO
6055 COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
6056 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO
8057 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY
8058 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO
8059 A J OGLE CO INC
8060 PEPSI COLA/7 UP BOTTLING CO
8061 ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CO
8062 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
8063 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC
8064 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO
8065 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK
8066 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES INC
8067 ANDERSON GARDEN SHOPPE
8068 ASPLUND COFFEE CO
8069 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC
8070 ASSOC OF METRO MUNICIPALITIES
8071 ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT CO INC
8072 BATHER RINGROSE WOLSFELD JARVIS G
8073 DENIS BILLMEYER
8074 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
8075 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH COMPANY
8076 BORCHERT-INGERSOLL INC
BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING INC
8078 BRAUN NURSERY LIMITED
8079 BROWN PHOTO
8080 BRUNSON INSTRUMENT CO
8081 GARY LEE BUDA
8082 BURTON EQUIPMENT INC
8083 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY
8084 CARPET CITY
8085 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER
8086 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS
8087 CLERK OF COURTS
8088 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE INC •
8089 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
8090 R E CONLEY
8091 COPY EQUIPMENT INC
8092 COUNTRY CLUB MARKET INC
8093 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY
8094 WARD DAHLBERG
8095 DALCO
96 DONS SOD SERVICE
97 DORHOLT PRINTING/STARIONERY INC
8098 STEVE DURHAM
PAYROLL 6/10/83
BEER
BEER
BEER
MIXES
BEER
BEER •
BEER
BEER
MIXES
BEER
BEER
OFFICE SUPPLIES
DUSTMOPS-LIQUOR STORE
BOND PAYMENTS
SIGNS-STREET DEPT
FLOWERS-P/S BUILDING
CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER
BLACKTOP
DUES
PIPE/FLANGE/PLUGS-STREET DEPT
SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT
APRIL IMPOUND SERVICE
KEYS-POLICE DEPT
THERMOSTAT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
-SERVICE-WESTWOOD IND PARK/CITY WEST
-PARKWAY/CARDINAL CREED 3RD ADDN/PRAIRIE
CENTER DRIVE/P/S & P/W BUILDING
TREES-FORESTRY DEPT
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SLIDE SHOW
WHEEL MEASURE-WATER DEPT
REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT
STORAGE BINS/CABINETS/SHELVING-P/S BLDG
SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES
TILE/BASEBOARDS/CEMENT-WATER DEPT
-BRAKE SHOES/WHEEL CYLINDER/DISC PADS/
-BRAKE DRUM/MUFFLER/SPARK PLUGS/WIPER
-BLADES/SWITCH/EXHAUST/FUEL PUMP/U-JOINT/
OIL FILTER/WATER PUMP/AIR FILTERS
THROTTEL ASSY/FUEL CAP/GREASE-PARK MAINT
PAYROLL WITHHOLDING UNDER COURT ORDER
DRIVE SHAFT/REPAIR TRUCK REAR END
MANUALS-ENGINEERING DEPT
REPAIR MAIN VALVE IN WATERLINE
BLUELINE-ENGINEERING DEPT
SUPPLIES-CITY HALL
QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT
JUNE EXPENSES
-DUMPSTER/SCAFFOLDING/CLEANING SUPPLIES-
WATER & FIRE DEPT
SOD-STARING LAKE PARK
OFFICE SUPPLIES
MILEAGE
16645.62
7138.71
15.90
5876.20
561.25
3373.87
7354.15
216.50
1184.70
562.55
140.10
10505.75
134.04
8.85
65757.73
577.70
60.00
52.00
238.98
2341.00
70.71
7720.33
8.90
555.00
16.00
29.36
6757.15
656.80
215.05
69.95
18.30
6373.36
48.20
220.20
1357.26
35.24
27.12
587.23 ,
50.00
175.00
171.90
50.71
1843.86
80.00
2596.51
120G.00
262.3q
15.50
7 ,
15396558
au
8099 DUSTCOATING INC OIL-STREET DEPT
00 DYNA SYSTEMS GREASE FITTINGS ASSORTMENT-STREET DEPT
EPA AUDIO VISUAL INC PROJECTOR CART-WATER DEPT 7" EDEN PRAIRIE CLEANERS SERVICE-FIRE DEPT
8103 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT #272 MAY CUSTODIAL SERVICES
8104 EDEN PRAIRIE TRASHTRONICS MAY TRASH PICKUP
8105 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE
8106 JON B ELVY HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
8107 JEFFREY ELWELL MILEAGE
8108 EMERGENCY SERVICE SYSTEMS INC WIRE 3 CARS-POLICE DEPT
8109 EMPIRE-CROWN AUTO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS-POLICE DEPT
8110 RON ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
8111 CHARLES FAUST TAPES & CASSETTES FOR ICE SHOW
8112 FEED-RITE CONTROLS INC SULFATE-WATER DEPT
8113 FIRESTONE STORES 16 TIRES-STREET DEPT
8114 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPANY SEWER CLEANING HOSE-SEWER DEPT
8115 JAN FLYNN EXPENSES
8116 JOHN FRANE APRIL EXPENSES
8117 G & K SERVICES TOWELS/JACKETS-WATER DEPT/PARK MAINT/
8118 GLW DISTRIBUTING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES
8119 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR & PARTS
8120 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY OFFICE EQUIPMENT-FINANCE DEPT
8121 GLEN LAKE BAKERY INC _EXPENSES
8122 GLIDDEN PAINT ("PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE
8123 DALE GREEN CO SOD-STREET DEPT
8124 GREENKEEPER INC LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEM-P/S BUILDING
( '5 ED GREGORY SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
3 FRED HAFFNER REPAIR SOCCER GOALS-PARK MAINTENANCE
8127 HASTINGS BUILDERS SERVICE-STARING LAKE PARK
8128 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLLECT PAYROLL WITHHOLDING UNDER COURT ORDER
8129 HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF PRISONERS
8130 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OXYGEN/ACETYLENE-PARK & STREET DEPT
8131 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS PAINT CAR-FIRE DEPT
8132 S M HENTGES & SON EXCAVATING REMOVE HYDRANT-WATER DEPT
8133 D C HEY COMPANY INC OFFICE SUPPLIES
8134 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC BELTS-COMMUNITY CENTER'
8135 HONEYWELL INC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-WATER DEPT
8136 HORIZON FABRICATORS INC GUARD POSTS-WATER DEPT
8137 INGRAM EXCAVATING SERVICE-STEWART PARK
8138 INTERDESIGN MAY SERVICE-P/S & P/W BUILDING
8139 J & R RADIATOR CORP REPAIR GAS TANK-STREET DEPT
8140 JEAN JOHNSON EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT
8141 CARL JULLIE EXPENSES
8142 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY LUMBER-PARK MAINTENANCE
8143 KARULF HARDWARE INC -GLOVES/PIPE/PAINT/KEYS/TAPE/LIGHT BULBS
-BROOM/HAMMER HANDLE/PLIERS/SCREWDRIVERS
-SANDPAPER/PLASTIC BAGS/WATER HOSE/
-ELECTRIC CORD/SPRINKLERS/INSECT SPRAY
-LEVEL/BATTERIES/FLASHLIGHT/RAZOR BLADES
-ROPE/CHAIN/RAKES/ROUTER BIT/LATCHES
-OIL STAIN/VARNISH/BOLTS/CAULK/HOOKS
CONCRETE/RULER/GLASS
_14 KELLY SERVICES INC PARTTIME EMPLOYMENT-POLICE DEPT
8145 KLEVE HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING REPAIR AIR CONDITIONER-CITY HALL
4098109
1.2 a
7427.10
150.48
84.25
4.00
1207.09
276.00
66.60
120.00
18.75
1913.30
96.92
216.00
160.00
7004.00
819.58
900.00
17.03
161.80
78.60
56.50
172.39
101.83
3.50
211.68
181.40
7582.00
72.00
30.00
525.00
80.00
157.50
60.39
212.07
2250.00
41.24
36.87
2374.00
724.00
594.00
3343.20
30.00
69.46
20.52
115.00
772.73
284.81
157.50 1
33459910
8146 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER
6147 BOB LAMBERT
LAMP CO
LEEF BROTHERS INC
V.63 LIEBERMAN ENTERPRISES INC
8151 LINHOFF COLOR PHOTO LABORATORY
8152 LOGIS
8153 TERRY LOVAASEN
8154 LYMAN LUMBER COMPANY
8155 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC
8156 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIPMENT CO
8157 MERIT/JULIAN GRAPHICS
8158 METRO ALARM INC
8159 METRO PRINTING INC
8160 MIDLAND PRODUCTS COMPANY
8161 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION
8162 MINNESOTA GAS COMPANY
8163 MINNESOTA TORO INC
8164 MINNESOTA TREE INC
8165 MIX TRANSFER
8166 MODERN TIRE COMPANY
8167 SUSAN MYKLEBUST
8168 NOREN PRODUCTS INC
8169 N A P COMMERCIAL ELECTRONICS CORP
8170 NORTHERN STATES POWER
8171 NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS N A
8172 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE
( 3 CHARLES PAPPAS
1q)11 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO
8175 PERBIX HARVEY & THORFINNSON
8176 WILLIE PEREZ
8177 PETTY CASH-PUBLIC SAFETY
8178 HARRY E PICHA
8179 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC
8180 PRAIRIE OFFICE PRODUCTS INC
8181 PUMP & METER SERVICE INC
8182 R & R SPECIALTIES INC
8183 DAVID RAQUET
8184 RAPIT PRINTING
8185 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS
8186 CITY OF RICHFIELD
8187 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOCIATES I
8188 ROAD RESCUE INC
8189
FRED ROSSBACH
8190 MATHEW RUDBERG
m91 RUSSELL & MILLER INC
)2 ROBERTS DRUG
B193
ST REGIS PAPER COMPANY
PAINT/DRILL BIT/HYDRAULIC JACK
APRIL & MAY EXPENSES
SECURITY LIGHT SHIELDS-STARING LAKE PARK
RUGS/DUSTMOPS/COVERALLS
ALBUMS-COMMUNITY CENTER
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SLIDE SHOW
MAY SERVICE
SCUBA INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID
LUMBER-PARK MAINTENANCE
TOWING SERVICE
OXYGEN CYLINDER-FIRE DEPT
ENVELOPES-CITY HALL
ALARM SYSTEM-P/S BUILDING
FORMS-FORESTRY DEPT
CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER
BLACKTOP
SERVICE
AXLE/BEARINGS-PARK MAINTENANCE
TREES-P/S BUILDING
FREIGHT CHARGES-P/S BUILDING
HUBCAP-POLICE DEPT/REPAIR TIRES-STREET DPT
TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT-BUILDING DEPT
2 RED LIGHTS FOR SQUAD CAR
INTERCOM-P/S BUILDING '
SERVICE
BOND PAYMENT
SERVICE
MILEAGE
POP-CONCESSION STAND-COMMUNITY CENTER
LEGAL SERVICE-KOPESKY & METRO CONTRACTING
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
EXPENSES
PLANTS-PARK MAINTENANCE
-REPLACE METER-STARING LAKE PARK/
-FLOODLIGHTS/REPAIR CHLORINE PUMP/
COMMUNITY CENTER
OFFICE SUPPLIES
HOSE-P/W BUILDING
SHARPEN ZAMBONI BLADES
HACKSAW BLADES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
PRINTING APPLICATION FOR PERMIT-ENG DEPT
CASH REGISTER TAPE-LIQUOR STORE
COMPUTER RENTAL-POLICE DEPT
-SERVICE-WESTWOOD IND PARK/HOMEWARD HILLS
-ROAD/ARGON GLEN/CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDN/
-LAVONNE INDUSTRIAL PARK/FEASIBILITY
-REPORT FOR MITCHELL ROAD/PRAIRIE CENTER
DRIVE
FIRST AID SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT
REFUND-WATER & SEWER BILLS
REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES
SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE
SUPPLIES-CANINE UNIT
STEEL CULVERTS-DRAINAGE
87.14
8.25
88.99
492.36
120.20
5.00
2660.57
535.50
144.35
85.00
40.30
421.82
825.00
159.00
237.25
116.44
232.64
29.16
139.99
75.38
127.77
16.80
137.71
8823.34
6704.72
9A/161 2n
4718.45
83.50
232.50
608.00
120.00
17.15
30.00
414.75
43.38
26.10
134.53
13.75
101.00
95.20
420.00
38629.85
2653.60
18.61
11.00
43.09 '
15.00 1
693.76
PORTABLE RESTROOMS
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
REPLACE REAR DOOR/BODY SHOP REPAIR-POLICE
2 SHOE SHINE KITS-POLICE DEPT
-FUEL PUMP/SPARK PLUGS/ELECTRONIC IGNITION
-TRANSMISSION FLUID/HYDRAULIC FLUID/AIR
FILTER/BATTERY/STARTER/GAUGE
SERVICE-SENIOR CENTER
EMPLOYMENT AD-COMMUNITY SERVICES
ADS-LIQUOR STORES
CLEAN PUMP-P/W BUILDING
LICENSE FESS-ASSESSING DEPT
APPRAISAL-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
BLANK AMMUNITION-POLICE DEPT
ADAPTER/LIGHT BULBS-LIQUOR STORE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR CALCULATOR
REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES
SUMMER CONCERT POSTER DESIGN
FUEL
WELDER-STREET DEPT
SULFATE-WATER DEPT
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
REFUND FOR ROUND LAKE PARK RESERVATION
REPLACE PUMP-STREET DEPT
-WRENCH/LOCATOR/HEADSET/FREON/FIRE HYDRANT
PARTS-WATER DEPT
LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT
SERVICE
MILEAGE
HOSE-STREET DEPT
PLASTIC DRAIN TILE-FORESTRY DEPT
TREE REMOVAL-EDENVALE BLVD
PROJECTOR/SCREEN/TAPE RECORDER /
ROCK
DUES-FIRE DEPT
PUBLIC OFFICIAL LIABILITY
DUES-COMMUNITY CENTER
SUBSCRIPTION-CITY MANAGER
BOND PAYMENT
SERVICE-P/S & P/W BUILDING
SERVICE-CITY WEST PARKWAY
SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
SERVICE-ARBON GLEN UTILITY IMPROVEMENT
SERVICE-CARDINAL CREED 3RD ADDITION
SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
SERVICE-WESTWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK
SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
SERVICE-KILMER AVE & ATHERTON WAY
SERVICE-MITCHELL LAKE ESTATES 2ND ADDN
SERVICE-TECHNOLOGY DRIVE & MITCHELL ROAD
SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
INSURANCE
INSURANCE
INSURANCE
2382.12
216.00
377.70
39.90
1236.31
50.00
30.00
373.59
57.15
12.00
800.00
60.00
9.25
106.00
23.25
38.50
3738.37
947.00
258.40
72.00
25.00
390.00
2549.22
24.00
90.51
13.50
16.94
52.49
1600.00
398.00
2690.60
35.00
3375.00
50.00
50.00
27616.01
123494.60
26942.50
19415.20
94496.11
21921.25
152233.49
42317.93
16996.55
7316.32
1736.54
85675.25
127031.81
1763.00
3162.60
584.15
6194 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC
'1n5 LARRY SCHOCH
SHAKOPEE FORD INC
6197 SHOE CARE & REPAIR
8198 W GORDON SMITH CO
8199 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC
8200 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING INC
8201 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING INC
8202 SPRAYCO INC
8203 STATE TREASURER
8204 STREETER ANDRUS
8205 DON STREICHER GUNS INC
8206 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC
8207 TRW CUSTOMER SERVICE DIVISION
8208 S MURTHY TADAVARTHY
8209 JOEY TERRIQUEZ
8210 TRACY OIL COMPANY INC
8211 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO
8212 VAN WATERS & ROGERS
8213 PAUL WEIGENANT
8214 TAMMY WEIST
8215 GARTH WILLIAMS
8216 WATER PRODUCTS CONPANY
1r 7
WHOLESALE LIGHTING INC
XEROX CORPORATION
8219 D ZADLO
8220
ZIEGLER INC
8221
MENARDS
6222 STEVE BAILEY
8223 BLOOMBERG PHOTO & SOUND
8224 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC
8225
FIRE INST ASSN OF MINNESOTA
8226 M E LANE INC
8227 MINNESOTA ICE ARENA MANAGERS
8228 MINNESOTA PROJECT
8229 NATIONAL CITY BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS
8230 ARKAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
8231
BARBAROSSA & SONS
8232 RICHARD KNUTSON INC
8233 RICHARD KNUTSON INC
8234 MINNKOTA EXCAVATING INC
8235 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO
8236 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO
8237 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO
8238 0 & P CONTRACTING INC
8239 0 & P CONTRACTING INC
8240
PROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS INC
8241
SHAFER CONTRACTING COMPANY INC
'2 GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC
MEDCENTER HEALTH PLAN
8244 NICOLLET/EITEL HEALTH PLAN
77489111
1256
PHYSICINAS HEALTH PLAN INSURANCE
3_ BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF MINN INSURANCE
8247 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY INSURANCE
1012139
8896.57
817.91
406.91
$1421456.78
as I
June 21, 1983
Cash Disbursements by fund number
Fund # Description
Amount
10 General
11 Certificate of Indebt
15 Liquor Store-Prairie Village Mall
17 Liquor Store-Preserve
30 Cash Park Fees
31 Park Acquistion & Development
36 P/S & P/W BUILDING BOND
42 68 G.O. Debt Fund
44 Utility Debt Fund
51 Improvement Construction Fund
52 Improvement Debt Fund
56 Road Improvement Debt Fund
57 Road Improvement Construction Fund
73 Water Fund
77 Sewer Fund
81 Trust & Escrow Fund
90 Tax Increment Fund
33 Utility Bond Fund
121,637.94
11,909.83
• 41,329.49
23,946.62
38,000.00
2,327.00
152,099.81
961.20
227,007.73
210,469.10
100,950.00
27,616.01
85,675.25
19,484.68
1,442.60
190.49
350,360.46
6,048.57
TOTAL $1,421,456.78
Mayor and City Council
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Servi es
Sandy Werts, Recreation Supervisor
June 15, 1983
Official Name for Former Residence of J. R. Cummins and Martin
SW: mud
MEMORANDUM
TO:
IHRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
and MilcIredGrill
It is common practice to call a parcel of property or building purchased by the
City by the name of its former owner. Thus, when the City purchased the former
Grill residence it was known as the "Grill house" in conversation and correspondence.
When Mrs. Grill moved from the residence the Historical and Cultural Commission
became interested in the house. As more was learned about the history of the
property, including information on its builder and first owner J. R. Cummins,
the building was then referred to as the Cummins-Grill House.
Upon application to place the house on the National Register of Historic Places,
the State titled the house the J.R. Cummins Homestead. This name was used because
all supporting documentation for National Register status is based on the role
of J.R. Cummins in the community and statewide as a horticulturalist. Thus, offi-
cially on the National Register, the building is known as the J.R. CuMmins Homestead.
Upon Mrs. Grill's death, $10,000 was willed to the City for the preservation of
the house, which the City Council acknowledged in Resolution No. 82-98.
Earlier this year, a painting of the house titled the "J.R. Cummins Homestead" was
completed. After its release, the Commission and Restoration Committee was informally
notified by Vernon Lang, executor of the Mildred Grill estate, that he would not
release the preservation funds unless the Grill name was included in the official
title.
After much discussion, the Restoration Committee voted to change the official
designation to Cwmnins-Grill Homestead. Members Mona Finholt and Jeffrey Holte
voted no to the recommendation and asked to go on record as opposing the motion.
At its June 2 meeting, the Historical and Cultural Commission passed the following
recommendation:
"It was moved by Brill and seconded by More to recommend that the City
Council officially recognize the former Grill residence by resolution
as the Cummins-Grill Homestead. The motion passed with 6 ayes and 1
nay, being opposed by Finholt".
Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 83-144 for Council action.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 83-144
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL NAME OF THE FORMER RESIDENCE OF J. R. CUMMINS
AND MARTIN AND MILDRED GRILL
WHEREAS, in 1976 the City of Eden Prairie purchased the home of Martin and
Mildred Grill, which was built in 1879 by J. R. Cummins, an early settler of Eden
Prairie and a renowned horticulturalist in Minnesota, and
WHEREAS, the wishes of Martin and Mildred Grill were to have their home pre-
served as a historic site, and
WHEREAS, in October 1982 the house was placed on the National Register of
Historic Places based in part on the merit of its architecture and the role of
its builder in both the early history of Eden Prairie and agriculture in Minnesota,
and
WHEREAS, an official name has not been given to the house and grounds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie does officially designate the name of the former Martin Grill residence
to be the Cummins-Grill Homestead.
ADOPTED, by the Eden Prairie City Council this 21st day of June, 1983.
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. France, City Clerk SEAL
0,9-t
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sandra F. Werts, Recreation 1 isor
Since receiving notification that the restoration work on the Cummins/
G
r
i
l
l
H
o
m
e
-
stead would be funded by Community Development Block Grants, staff h
a
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
a quote from architect Robert Mack from MacDonald and Mack Partnersh
i
p
o
n
t
h
e
costs of upgrading the wiring, plumbing and heating systems.
The Historical and Cultural Commission, at their June 2, 1983 meeting,
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
that the $19,500 grant be spent in the following priority:
1. Measured drawings by architect.
2. Electrical Work.
3. Installation of a permanent heating system.
4. Upgrade plumbing systems.
5. Insulation of walls.
MOTION: It was moved by Brill and seconded by Finholt to request
permission from the City Council to proceed with the priority
of work and to seek quotes for the completion of the work.
The motion passed unanimously.
The architect estimated the cost of the work to range as follows:
Professional Services
measured drawings of existing building
load calculations and work descriptions
inspection of construction
Construction Costs
heat (hot water or forced air)
electrical (200 AMP residential service)
plumbing (one sink and one bath)
insulation
$1500 to $2000
$900 to $1300
$600 to $1200
$7000 to $9000
$4000 to $6000
$2500 to $3500
$3000 to $4000
The attached letter from the architect more fully explains the criteri
a
u
s
e
d
t
o
set up the calculations.
SW:md
DATE: June 9, 1983
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant for Restoration of Cummins/Grill
Homestead
i ASS
MacDonald and Mack Partnership
215 Crain Exchange Building Telephone Stuart E. MacDonald
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 612 341 4051
Robert C. Mack, AIA
May 16, 1983
Mr. Robert A. Lambert
Director of Community Services
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-2499
Reference: Restoration of the J.R. Cummins Homestead
Dear Bob:
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and Sandy Wertz to discuss the
proposed work at the Cummins Homestead. Our entire staff looks forward to
working on this project.
As I understand it, ale next phase of work will include replacement of the
utility systems and the associated professional services. This work can be
funded using Community Development Block Grant funds due to the extensive
deterioration of the existing systems. Unfortunately, this will result in por-
tions of the work being undertaken prior to completion of long term plans for
the site.
As you requested, I have prepared some preliminary cost estimates for the pro-
posed work. These estimates are based on the following assumptions:
1. The building will continue in residential use for the immediate future.
The utility work, therefore, will need to conform to residential,
rather than commercial, code requirements.
2. Basic utilities are available at the building. Placing electrical lines
underground and extending a gas line from the main, for example, are not
included in these costs..
3. Full plans and specifications are not required for the proposed work.
Professional services, therefore, will be limited to preparation of
measured drawings (which will be used in all subsequent phases of work),
calculations of electrical and heating load requirements, comparisons
of operational costs of various heating systems, and written descriptions
of work for the various utility items. Services also will include in-
spection of work in progress, approval of contractor payment requests,
and so forth.
4. No volunteer time or donated materials are included in either the
design or construction. Use of volunteers and/or other donations can
significantly reduce the costs of the work.
Mr. Robert A. Lambert
May 16, 1983
Page -2-
5. Little, if any, of the existing systems can be re-used.
6. Cosmetic repairs to areas affected by the work are not necessary in
unoccupied areas.
The following costs are based on "square foot" estimates and our past experiences
with similar projects rather than on detailed figures. They have been adjusted
for inflation to autumn of this year.
Professional sercices
Measured drawings of existing building
Load calculations and work descriptions
Inspection of construction
Construction Costs
Heat (hot water or forced air)
Electrical (200 amp residential service)
Plumbing (one sink and one full bath)
Insulation
$1,500 to $2,000
900 to 1,300
600 to 1,200
$7,000 to $9,000
4,000 to 6,000
2,500 to 3,500
3,000 to 4,000
Total project costs, then, range from $19,000 to $27,000. Costs can be more
clearly defined as soon as some of the basic decisions concerning long term
use of the building have been Made:.
One area of possible savings is in the heating system. The system indicated
would be a permanent, efficient beating system. Until final decisions have been
made concerning interpretation, and so forth, it may be desirable to use a less
permanent system, such as electric baseboard heaters. These systems are sub-
stantially less expensive to install. While they are more expensive to operate,
the use of individual temperature controls and the increased insulation can mini-
mize this premium.
I hope this covers the items necessary for the City Council to consider providing
assistance to this project. If you need any further information, please do not .
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
MACDONALD AND MACK PARTNERSHIP
4.(cade
Robert C. Mack, AIA
Partner
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator
DATE:
June 16, 1983
RE:
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL STABLE CODE
The ordinance draft dated 6/6/83 is a r
e
v
i
s
e
d
c
o
p
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
at the Planning Commission's June 6th me
e
t
i
n
g
.
W
o
r
d
s
o
r
p
h
r
a
s
e
s
eliminated have been 'xxxxxx out'on the c
o
p
y
a
n
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
h
a
v
e
been inserted.
Stable owners and other interested indivi
d
u
a
l
s
h
a
v
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
the revised copy dated 6/6/83 and have be
e
n
n
o
t
i
f
i
e
d
o
f
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Commission meetings and of the Council's
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
f
o
r
June 21st.
The Planning Commission is aware of the
P
a
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
'
s
action recommending manure be stored ins
i
d
e
.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
presented to the Planning Commission by
s
t
a
f
f
t
h
a
t
o
t
h
e
r
c
i
t
i
e
s
which have stable codes do not require i
n
s
i
d
e
m
a
n
u
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
.
In addition to this, the University of
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
O
f
f
i
c
e
on Stable Management recommends stacking
o
f
m
a
n
u
r
e
i
n
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
where it is exposed to sunlight and air
f
o
r
d
r
y
i
n
g
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
.
T
h
i
s
facilitates the manure heating-up to a te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
o
f
1
6
0
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
or more which kills worm eggs. The Planning Commission did not
support the recommendation of requiring m
a
n
u
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
i
n
s
i
d
e
unless required at a particular site bec
a
u
s
e
o
f
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
w
a
t
e
r
.
The Council's public hearing on this pro
p
o
s
e
d
c
o
d
e
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
has not been published for July 5 and s
t
a
f
f
w
i
l
l
w
i
t
h
h
o
l
d
s
u
c
h
publication until further directed.
Todate I have had inquiries from Sally B
r
o
w
n
,
D
a
l
e
F
r
o
y
u
m
o
f
the
Hennepin Tech Stable, and Mrs. Sable. A
l
e
t
t
e
r
f
r
o
m
S
a
l
l
y
B
r
o
w
n
is included for your information.
JJ:jj
Planning Commission recommendations
6/6/83 meeting
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
C
I
T
Y
C
O
D
E
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
1
1
,
SECTION 11.10 SUBDIVISION 2 BY ADDING THERETO SUBPARAGRAPH E WH
I
C
H
A
D
D
S
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
STABLES AS PERMITTED USES IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE RURAL DIS
T
R
I
C
T
,
A
N
D
A
M
E
N
D
I
N
G
CITY CODE CHAPTER 5 BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 5.70 RELATING T
O
T
H
E
L
I
C
E
N
S
I
N
G
A
N
D
REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL STABLES, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
C
I
T
Y
C
O
D
E
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
1
,
SECTION 5.01 THROUGH 5.11 AND SECTIONS 5.99 AND 11.99 WHICH, A
M
O
N
G
O
T
H
E
R
T
H
I
N
G
S
,
CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.10 Subdivision 2 shall be
and is amended by adding thereto subparagraph E which reads as
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
(E) Commercial stables as defined and regulated by Chapter 5, Sect
i
o
n
5.70. Such commercial stables shall be a permitted use only u
p
o
n
Abe(propertyjamaibmixasafailawsxxxiAnsertxkogebodeecniptdoo0(
—yin the Rural District.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 5 shall be and is amended by adding
thereto Section 5.70 which reads as follows:
SECTION 5.70 COMMERCIAL STABLES
Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used in this section, the follo
w
i
n
g
w
o
r
d
s
shall have the meanings stated:
(A) "Agricultural Building" means a structure designed and constru
c
t
e
d
to house equines, farm implements, hay, grain, or other
horticultural products.
(B) "City" means the City of Eden Prairie.
(C) "City Inspector" means any individual appointed by the City Ma
n
a
g
e
r
to inspect commercial stables.
(D) "Commercial Stable" means a place where five or more equine
s
a
r
e
.
kept for remuneration, hire, or sale.
(E) "Commercial Stable Property" means all of the contiguous prope
r
t
y
upon which the commercial stable is operated.
(F) "Cruelty" means every act, omission, or neglect which cat e
s
o
r
permits unnecessary or unjustifiable pain, suffering, injury
,
o
r
death to an equine.
(G) "Equine" means hor s es, ponies, mules, or donkeys.
(H) "Neglect" means failing to provide the minimum care required for
t
h
e
health and well-being of an equine.
(I) "Person" means natural persons, proprietorships, corporations, j
o
i
n
t
ventures, and all other forms of legal entities.
IQS9
(a)
"Residential Subdivision" means a subdivision as defined by Ed
e
n
Prairie City Code Chapter 12, Section 12.03, subparagraph 17, whi
c
h
Is residential in character.
with at least 3 sides and .<
(K) "Shelter" means an enclosure with a roof suitable for protecti
n
g
equines from extremes in weather.
Subdivision 2. License Required. It is unlawful for any person to
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
or maintain a commercial stable within the City without a license
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
from the City. A license shall be obtained in the manner spec
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Section 5.02 through 5.10. Commercial stables in existence at the
t
i
m
e
O
f
adoption of Section 5.7 shall be required to apply for and
o
b
t
a
i
n
a
commercial stable license within two (2) years of the date of said
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
.
Subdivision 3. Regulations and Requirements for All Commercial St
a
b
l
e
s
(A) _
A commercial stable shall be located and, operated only wher
e
permitted by Chapter 11, Section 11.10, Subdivision 2(E) or wher
e
such commercial stable amstitotesxxaxxxel*T4xxionooehOotnimxxim
4Kitxmxmidx*WwisocalpSeeticiax%ia5x existed at the time of adoption
of this ordinance.
(B) No commercial stable 'shall be operated upon a lot of less than 1
0
acres.
(C) Manure and other waste materials shall be removed and distributed
s
o
as to eliminate unsightly odors, insect, and rodent problems or a
n
y
condition which otherwise operates as a public or private nuisanc
e
.
The storage of manure and other waste materials must be located
a
minimum of 100 feet from any residential structure, or any lake,
pond, river, stream, or other body of waterxx well, or property l
i
n
e
.
(0) All areas designated for usexhy equinesxxxizetheno6omshelterin
g
,
eoencosdrxxxxxmaimpcxmaxgmxziag shall be located at least 50 feet
from the property line, but such areas shall be located a minimum of
100 feet from an existing residential subdivision. Any agricultural
building or shelter which was being used in a commercial stable
prior to the effective date of this Section is not required to
comply with the requirements of this subparagraph, provided however,
that such agricultural building or shelter does not constitute a
public nuisance.
(E) Fences shall be constructed and maintained so as to adequately an
d
safely contain equines at all times.
(F) One An agricultural building atVgag the commercial stable property s
h
a
l
l
b
e
permitted to contain no more than one caretaker's unit.
'I within such building
(G) The ratio of equines to acres of land use for running, exercising
,
or grazing equines shall be no more than four (4) to one (1).
(H) All ' equines shall be provided shelter sufficient to protect against
potentially injurious weather. All such shelters shall be
structurally sound, provide sufficient ventilation, and be
maintained in good repair.
/260
27
(I) Equine stalls shall provide sufficient space for the equine to.folllie or
with a minimum danger of injury to itself. Stalls shall be cleaned
and kept dry to the extent that the animal is not required to lie or
stand in fluids. Bedding shall be provided in all stalls, kept
reasonably clean, and periodically changed. The nature of the
bedding shall not pose a health hazard to the animal. . •
(J) Equines shall be provided an adequate opportunity for at least one
hour of exercise daily, unless exercise is restricted by a licensed
veterinarian.
(K) No person shall neglect or cause cruelty to an equine.
(L) All equines shall be provided with adequate health care, including
but not limited to, parasite and pest control.
(M) All equines shall be provided with a sufficient quantity and quality
of food to allow for normal growth and the maintenance of body
weight.
•
(N) All equines small be provided or given access to clean, potable
water in sufficient quantity to satisfy the animal's health needs.
Snow or ice shall not be considered a water source.
Subdivision 4. Inspections. The City Inspector may inspect every
commercial stable as frequently as the City may deem necessary to ensure
compliance with the terms of Subdivision 3 and any conditions of the license
for such commercial stable. Any person who operates a commercial stable
shall, upon request of the City Inspector, permit access to all parts of the
commercial stable for the purpose of inspection. The City Inspector shall
prepare a report of every inspection of a commercial stable, and a copy of
such report shall be mailed to the person operating the commercial stable.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
sections 5.01 through 5.11 and section 5.99 and section 11.99 entitled "Violation a
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated
verbatim herein.
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the day of , 1983, and finally read and
adopted and ordgirpublished at a regular meeting of the Citj , Council of said City
on the day of , 1983. •
-TEST:
061
John D. Franc, City Clerk
Wolfgang H. Penzel, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
Juniper Hollow Farm
Quarter Horses
10080 Bennett Place
Eden Prairie,Kinn 55344
June 6 1983
Eden Prairie Commission of Planning and Zoning
,.City Hall
Eden Prairie, Minn. 55344
To the Commission members of planning and zoning,
I have reviewed the ordinance for commercial stables with great
concern.
My first objection is with the definition of a commercial stable.
A commercial stable is.m.facility fur boarding horses or for hire by
others. A facility such as myself is a breeding facility that
raises and sells its livestock. It is referred to either as a ranch
or a farm,never,as a stable. I feel my classification is one which
is agricultural and should come under farming. If I'm to be taxed
i for the raising and selling of livestock, why aren't.the.remaining •
farmers in the area taxed as well for their livestock?
I have concern also with anyone forming rules and regulations
on a subject or area they are not knowledgeable in. Without expertise
in the raising and keeping of horses unreasonable regulations can
be passed. An example of this is subd 3 D. By time set backs of 50
and 100 feet are exercised for pasturing there would be.no useful
pasture size loft. What is to be done with the no man's land left
in those set backs? This land still must be maintained and as it is
no longer usable land it is therefore valuless to the owmer.. •
question, seriously the need for this ordinance. The land in
Eden Prairie is topexpensive for anyone to come in and purchase it
for horse related businesses. To set up a stable in Eden Prairie
today is unrealistic. There are no green acre benefits for horses
and the economics are such that it becomes impossible to overcome
the costs ofecquitsition and expenses involved to maintain an income
from such a venture.
I resent also, a government agency tolling me how to do my job.
ThA pAre and maintenance of my horses is done with years of knowledge 110:
and common sense. To be told how to feed, house,and raise my horses
I find infuriating as well as discriminating as you have singled out
one species of animal. Why not also an ordinance for pigs,cattle,
doge, cats, Poultry. etc. I would welcome any further discussion
on this matter from commission members and should there be any questions
raised would answer any that I can.
Siticerely,
i!g6;—
Sally V. Bram
4 Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 14, 1983
City Engineer Eugene Dietz presented the revised grading plans for
SW Schooner Boulevard, explaining the revisions in greater detail to
the Commission. He also explained the necessity of the project to
the overall City plans for thoroughfares in the area.
DISCUSSION
Sutliff questioned how the crossing of Purgatory Creek would be
accomplished. Engineer Dietz explained that it would be
accomplished with culverts. He added that the Parks, Recreation,
and Natural Resources Commission had suggested a bridge be
constructed, similar to the City West Parkway and had asked for a
cost comparison of such a plan.
Acting Chairman Torjesen questioned why this was a City project, as
opposed to the developer of the land taking on the full cost of
construction of the roadway. Engineer Dietz stated that this was
due to excessive costs of involved with this particular road
construction.
Acting Chairman Torjesen stated that he felt it would be appropriate
to await the time when the developer would install the road with his
own funds, instead of the City building the project. He added that
he felt the City had done enough "spec" road building in this area
and preferred the land owners to initiate the construction.
MOTION:
Motion was made by Sutliff, seconded by Gartner,to recommend to the
City Council approval of the revised grading plan for Southwest
Schooner Boulevard per the plans presented and dated February 14,
1983, based on the Staff Report from the Director of Public Works
dated February 3, 1983.
Motion carried--3-1-0 (Acting Chairman Torjesen voted against)
B. Agricultural Land Uses--Commercial Stables
Staff presented the proposed Ordinance amendments to allow and
regulate commercial stables within the City and asked for Commission
comments at this time. A public hearing would be scheduled at a
later date after further refinement of the proposed documents.
DISCUSSION
Upon review of the proposed ordinance, it was suggested that a
variance procedure be built into the proposal. Commissioners also
asked for clarification of various items including the definition of
"M.U.S.A. Line" as to allowance of such uses within the outside of
said line, and distance necessary from existing residential
subdivisions. There was consensus of the Commission that there may
0-U-1 be appropriate locations within the M.U.S.A. Line for commercial
stables and a variance procedures should be added to the proposed
Respectfully submitted,
LI
Kate Karnas
Planning Secretary
(
Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 14, 1983
1
ordinance to deal with such amenities.
Planner Enger stated that Staff would bring back the additional
Information at a meeting in the near future. .
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn was made by Gartner, seconded by Sutliff.
Acting Chairman Torjesen adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
flinutes - Parks, Recreation &
approved
'Mural Resources Coomission
-4- March 7, 1983
2. Council Report of March 1,
1
9
8
3
Lambert reported the following:
•
- Council approved Eden Prairie M
a
r
c
h
i
n
g
B
a
n
d
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
o
f
a
f
l
a
g
and
help with promotion but no funds
.
- Approved Adult Open Skate from
7
-
1
0
p
.
m
.
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
r
e
-
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
i
n
J
u
n
e
.
Lambert updated the Commission
o
n
L
o
u
N
a
n
n
e
'
s
(
N
o
r
t
h
s
t
a
r
s
)
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
to the City for an ice facility
a
n
d
i
c
e
t
i
m
e
.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. Staring Lake Park Trail Easemen
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
Lambert presented the Draft Eas
e
m
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
J
o
i
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
District 287 and the City of Ed
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
t
a
r
i
n
g
L
a
k
e
P
a
r
k
Trail.
MOTION: Kingrey moved to recomm
e
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
a
r
i
n
g
L
a
k
e
P
a
r
k
T
r
a
i
l
Easement as drawn with the eque
s
t
r
i
a
n
t
r
a
i
l
o
n
t
h
e
l
a
k
e
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
trail. He suggests staff investi
g
a
t
e
p
u
t
t
i
n
g
a
s
e
c
o
n
d
1
0
-
y
e
a
r
r
e
n
e
w
a
l
c
l
a
u
s
e
Into the agreement. Breitenstein
s
e
c
o
n
d
e
d
t
h
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
t
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
u
n
a
n
i
m
o
u
s
l
y
.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
------>A. Review of Proposed
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
o
n
C
o
m
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
S
t
a
b
l
e
s
Lambert presented this as an in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
t
e
m
.
Jessen .comuented that on page 2, Item
0
,
t
h
e
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
o
f
w
a
s
t
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
did not seem environmentally sou
n
d
.
Lambert said the idea was that
t
h
e
r
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
s
o
m
e
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
i
n
t
h
e
ordinance so manure isn't put
n
e
a
r
d
i
r
e
c
t
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
r
u
n
o
f
f
.
H
e
n
o
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
at the other City stable, it wa
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
a
r
o
o
f
.
MOTION: friederichs moved to r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
i3-1T -15Irmercial Stables per Staff re
p
o
r
t
e
x
c
e
p
t
I
t
e
m
D
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
and require manure be stored in enc
l
o
s
e
d
a
r
e
a
.
B
o
n
y
e
a
s
e
c
o
n
d
e
d
t
h
e
motion and it carried unanimousl
y
.
B. Removal of Barn on Tax forf
e
i
t
e
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
MOTION: Kingrey moved to recomm
e
n
d
t
h
e
b
a
r
n
b
e
s
o
l
d
f
o
r
s
a
l
v
a
g
e
or
raized. Baker seconded the moti
o
n
a
n
d
i
t
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
u
n
a
n
i
m
o
u
s
l
y
.
VIII. WOORUMINT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:
2
0
p
.
m
.
RESPECTFULLY SWITTED,
a tlb
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator
DATE:
June 16, 1983
RE:
PROPOSED PUBLIC DISTRICT SIGN REGULATIONS
Attached is the proposed regulations for signs for churches,
schools, and publicly owned buildings or land. Presently the
Sign Code does not provide for such signs.
Existing and proposed churches, schools, and city staff have
reviewed the draft regulations.
Comments received via telephone have been:
-Pastor Bonner, Eden Prairie Community Church-suggests up to
4 off site directional signs be allowed. 5/25/83
-Ray Mitchell, Eden Prairie Schools- standard school directional
signs are 3 square feet. 5/27/83
-Steve Quist, representing Eden Prairie Lutheran-acknowledged
receiving information and will discuss it at next church meeting.
6/6/83
-John Uban, representing Wooddale Baptist-desire a larger sign,
ie., 804-square feet and 16+feet high. 5/6/83
-Fred Hoisington, representing St. Andrew's-desires more than
1 free-standing if church has 2 or more frontages. ( see letter)
The Commission at their June 6th meeting increased the size of directional
off site signs from 2 to 3 sq.ft. and included a parpagraph(underlined)
which allows additional free standing sign if a use had more than two(3or 4)
street frontages. It was noted that unique situations like Wooddale
Baptist(distance from 169 and sight lines being blocked by ramps) and
St. Andrews could apply for variances if hardships existed.
The tentative public hearing of July 5th has not been scheduled and
will be held until staff is directed to publish.
JJ:jj
lAV1
5-25-83
6-6-83
EXISTING CODE READS:
"Section 11.170, Subd. 3.,
T. Church directional signs shall be incorporated in sector signs
only."
PROPOSED CODE WOULD READ:
Section 11,70, Subd. 3.,
T. Church, School, and Publicly owned land or buildings directional
signs shall be allowed as permitted by Subdivision 4.
6., Subd.2.,Definitions
6. Directional signs for churches, schools or publicly owned
land or buildings-A sign which bears the address and/or name
of a church, school, or publicly owned land or building and
directional arrow pointing to said location.
Subd. 4
I. Public District.
1. Wall signs: One sign per building not to exceed 24 square feet
in area. Where a building is located on a corner lot, one sign may be located
on each wall facing a street provided one does not exceed 24 square feet and
the other does not exceed 18 square feet. All wall signs shall be uniform
in design.
2. Free-standing signs:
a. One free-standing sign for each building, lot, parcel or
tract of land may be erected on the lot, parcel, or tract of land it applies
or on which any such building is situated. The maximum height of a
free-standing sign shall be 8 feet and its total area shall not exceed 80
square feet.
Where a building has more than two street frontages, only one
free standing sign of the above size shall be permitted and one additional
TT-IT-standing sign shall be_permitted not to exceed 35 square feet in size, or
shall he permitted not to exceed 18 square feet in
-1"he signage program shall not exceed either 2 wall signs and one
Tree-standThg sign, or 2 free-standing signs and one wall sign.
b. Off-site directional signs: Two additional church, school, or
publicly owned land or buildings directional signs shall be permitted in
locations other than the lot, parcel or tract of land which it applies. Said
signs shall be erected on non-public land, or if the sign is one owned by a
public body such directional sign may be erected upon public owned property
provided:
1. The maximum size of the sign shall not exceed
3 square feet.
2. The owner's permission must be obtained.
3. The sign shall be a minimum height of 4 feet,maximum
height of 6 feet.
4. Signs shall be uniform in design
3. The signage program will be reviewed by the Director of Planning.
i."7
• district 272
• business services
Als 8553
June 1, 1983 8100 school road • eden prairie, minn. 55344 • telephone (612) 937-1650 Ms. Jean Johnson
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
REFERENCE: PROPOSED SIGNAGE REGULATIONS FOR CHURCHES
Dear Jean:
Would it be possible for you to reconsider the maximum size of off-site direc-
tional signs to permit such signs to be 3 square feet instead of 2 square feet?
We already have a number of such signs and we find that the smaller dimensions
are not large enough for most people to see. Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOLS
Merle 0. Gamin
Director of Business Services
MOG:bg
cc: Ray Mitchell
1 g 6@
Sincerely,
June 6, 1983
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Re: Proposed Signage Regulations For Churches
Ladies and Gentlemen:
On behalf of St. Andrew Lutheran Church, I would like to sugge
s
t
an alternative to the proposed sign ordinance amendment to be
considered by the Planning Commission this evening. Our propo
s
a
l
,
I believe, provides for greater flexibility and self determina
t
i
o
n
while allowing no additional signage.
Our St. Andrew situation is a very difficult one and the prop
o
s
e
d
amendment would make it untenable. We currently have three fr
e
e
-
standing signs and no wall signs because topography, vegetati
o
n
and excessive distance make wall signs impractical. Two af ou
r
existing signs are identification signs. One is located at t
h
e
corner of Valley View and Baker Roads. The second is at our
o
n
l
y
entrance which is on St. Andrew Drive. The third is a messag
e
sign located on Valley View Road and is the most important of
a
l
l
because it communicates a living message to all who pass, whe
t
h
e
r
or not they are members of our congregation.
Regarding the proposed amendment if passed, it would, require u
s
to remove two of our three freestanding signs within 30 days of
ordinance adoption. We feel this would preclude us from proper
l
y
identifying our building and directing traffic and are therefor
e
opposed to the amendment as written. While we would like to ha
v
e
you consider message signs for churches in general, we recogni
z
e
that it may be difficult to write these into the ordinance. If
this cannot be done, we fully intend to request a variance to
allow for it's continuance.
Regarding other signage we suggest no change in the ordinance
amendment as it relates to churches on a single street (it all
o
w
s
one wall and one fregptanging sign). Where a church occupies
a
corner lot or has two,Sece,a 4 fdIpntageswe suggest that one
additional sign be permitted,eitreV'Ir'711t wall or freestandin
g
(the amendment allows only one additional sign on the wall).
What this means is that each church located on a corner lot wi
l
l
have a little more discretion in how it's signage can be allo
c
a
t
e
d
We could support an amendment such as this one.
We respectfully request that you consider a change in the pro
p
o
s
e
d
amendment along the lines suggested and thank you for the opp
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
to present our position this evening.
OW)
MEMORANDUM
TO:
• THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBEJCT:
Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
June 2, 1983
Request from Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed District
Attached to this memo is a letter from Robert Obermeyer representing the
Riley/Purgatory Watershed District. He indicates the concern the Watershed
District has regarding the water quality of Staring Lake and has indicated
that the Watershed District will be monitoring Staring Lake from May thru
October of 1983. This assessment study will cost approximately $4,000.
The District is requesting the City of Eden Prairie to consider participation
in the study.
Staring Lake is one of the major natural resources within the City of Eden
Prairie. The City has already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in
acquiring and developing Staring Lake Park that surrounds this lake. The
Community Services Staff strongly recommend that the City participate in
SO% of the cost of this lake assessment, and commit to working with the Water-
shed District on any feasible program that can help to improve the water
quality of Staring Lake.
BL:md
/211
Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District
8950 COUNTY ROAD
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55343
May 16, 1983
Mr. Bob Lambert
Director of Community Services
City of Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Mr. Lambert:
The Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District will be monitoring Staring Lake,
Its inlet, and outlet during May through October, 1983. The purpose of this water
quality assessment is to determine the trophic status of Staring Lake, which is
necessary in determining the management strategies that may be necessary to
stabilize or improve the lake's water quality. The District's concern for the Jake's
water quality is based on data collected in 1981, indicating that the quality tyf Staring
• Lake may be deteriorating. Excessive algal blooms and high phosphorus levels were
observed in October, 1981 and because of potential park development and recreational
facilities riparian to Staring Lake, the District has placed a high priority on the lake
assessment of the trophic status of the lake and subsequent development of manage-
ment strategies. The 1983 assessment will determine existing nutrient levels, algal
biomass (chlorophyll "a"), algal and zooplankton species, and water transparency
(secchi disc measurements) throughout the biologically active period (May through
September) and during the fall overturn period (October). Nutrient levels at the lake's
inlet and outlet will be assessed on a monthly basis during the months of May through
October. The cost of the proposed lake assessment is estimated to be $4,000.
The District would welcome the City of Eden Prairie's participation in the study.
The water quality of Staring Lake is an important asset to both the City and District
and must be maintained. If you have any questions, please contact me at 920-0655.
ober/ C. Obeieyer 7
BARR ENGINEERING O.
Engineers for the District
RCO/amd
c: All Managers
Mr. Fred Richards