Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 04/16/1996CITY COUNCIUSTAFF WORKSHOP TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1996 6:30 PM, TRAINING ROOM CITY CENTER COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald Case, Ross Thorflnnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. CAMPAIGN ISSUES III. OTHER BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA HOIISING & REDEVEJllPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1996 COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLLCALL I. CAl.!. MEETING TO ORDER 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road Chair Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald Case, Ross Thonmnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Admjnjstrator Chris Enger, BRA Attorney Roger Pauly, and BRA Recorder Jan Nelson ll. APPROVE THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR COI.JIMBINE ROAD TOWNHOIISE DEVEIllPMENT AND AIITHORIZE THE BRA CHAIR AND ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECIITE THE AGREEMENT m. OTHER BIISINFSS IV. ADlffiIRNMENT HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BRA) DATE: April 16, 1996 SECTION: Regular Meeting DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO: Community Development Project Management IIR-AJI Chris Enger Agreement for Columbine David Lindahl Townhouse Project. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Authorize HRA Chairperson and A.dministrator to 'Sign project Management Agreement for Columbine Townhouse development. BACKGROUND:· The Project Management Agreement for the Columbine Townhouse development which outlines the terms of the deal between the Cornerstone Group (developer) and the City HRA is complete and ready for signatures from the lIRA Chairperson and Administrator. Some of the more noteworthy terms of the agreement include the following: Developer will provide rents affordable to persons with income below 60% of the median income for the metro area for 30 years. The Developer will provide annual compliance reports to the HRA for its review and approval. The HRA will provide a$142,125 CDBG loan at an interest rate of 5%. The loan will be secured through a promissory note and mortgage and repaid between 2011 and 2021. The lIRA will provide $323,700 (present value) in Tax Increment Financing. The developer will repay this amount to the BRA in twenty-five years. . I ----------------------------- AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COIINCUJ TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1996 COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: ROLLCALL Immediately following lIRA Meeting CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra- Lukens City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson I. APPROVAIJ OF AGENDA AND OrnER ITEMS OF BIISINFSS II. OPEN ponnIM m. MINUTES A. CITY CffiINCU. MEETING HE!,D TIIESDAV, APRU. 2, 1996 IV. CONSENT CAIJENOAR A. CI.ERK'S I.ICENSE I.IST B. RESffi.lmON GRANTING FINAl. APPROVAl. FOR THE TANAGER CREEK PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,045,985 C. REQIIFST TO SCHEDIII.E PIml.IC HEARING FOR NATURAl .. AND SCENIC GRANT PROPOSAl. D. APPROVE BIDS FOR RIIBBERIZED FlDORING FOR RINK #1 AT EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER E. DATA METAI£RAFf EXPANSION by Gene O'Brien. Request for Withdrawal of Data Metalcraft Proposal F. ROGER'S HOMESTEAD by Paul Thorp. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Rl-13.5 on 10.9 acres; and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Roger's Homestead by Paul Thorp. Location: Duck Lake Road and Duck Lake Trail. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change) City Council Agenda Tue~y,ApriI16, 1996 Page Two G. SmITHWEc\T CROSSING HOTEL by BTO Development Corporation. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional to Commercial Regional Service on 7.25 acres and Planned Unit Development District Review on 7.25 acres; Adoption of a Site Plan Review on 7.25 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Southwest Crossing Hotel by BTO Development Corporation. Location: Viking Drive and Prairie Center Drive. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change and Planned Unit Development District Review and Resolution for Site Plan Review) H. SHOREI.AND ORDINANCES 2nd Reading of an Ordinance amendment to City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.02 entitled Definitions and 11.50 entitled Shoreland Management; and 2nd Reading of an Ordinance amendment to City Code Chapter 9, Section 9.60 entitled Regulation of Lake Waters Generally I. RESOI.ImON ESTABI.JSHING A NEW MUNICIPAl. STATE AID STREET J. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAl. PI.AT OF VIKING DRIVE WEST 2ND ADDITION (located at the smJthwM comer of Viking Drive and Prairie Center Drive) K. RESOI.UTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF ROGERS HOMESTEAD (located at the southeast comer of Duck lAke Road and Duck l..ake Trail) L. RESOI.IITION APPROVING FINAl. PI.AT OF CHASE POINT 3RD ADDIDON (located at the northwest comer of City West Parkway and Shady Oak Road) M. RESOI.lmON APPROVING CONSTRUCTION PI.ANS FOR eSAH 62/TH 101IDEIJ. ROAD INTERSECTION, I.C. 52.103 N. RESOI.IITION APPROVING CONSTRUCTION PI.ANS FOR FIDODPLAINIWETLAND MITIGATION SITE; TH 212 RAMP EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT, I.C 93.5301 V. PIIBI . .IC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. BEST IDlY PARKING by Best Buy Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 on 0.7 acres and PUD District Review on 28.5 acres, Preliminary Plat of 28.5 acres into one lot, and Site Plan Review on 0.7 acres. Location: 10555 Northgate Parkway. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change and PUD District Review and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) City Council Agenda Tuesday, Apri116, 1996 Page Three B. IMPACT MARKETING DEVEIDPMENT by Keith Waters. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 6.02 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Hennepin County to Office on 6.02 acres, Preliminary Plat of 6.02 acres into 2 lots and Site Plan Review on 6.02 acres. Location: Baker Road and HWY 62. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office, Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) C. PROPOSED SIIRFACE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE FOR DUCK I.AKE D. 1.AKEYmW OFFICE by Dana Larson, Roubal and Associates. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.79 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.74 acres into 2 lots and Site Plan Review on 2.79 acres. Location: West 78th Street. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) E. FLYING CIDIID IDISINFSS CENTER by Opus Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the 1-5 Zoning District on 15.6 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.6 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 15.6 acres; and Site Plan Review on 15.6 acres. Location: 6509 Flying Cloud Drive. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review and Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review) F. BEARPAm 1996 PUD AMENDMENT by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for PUD Concept Amendment Review on 15 acres, PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres. Location: Bearpath Trail and Dell Road. (Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment and Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment) G. WATER TREATMENT PI,ANT EXPANSION by City of Eden Prairie. Request for PUD Concept Review and PUD District Review on 18.9 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the 1-5 District on 18.9 acres and Site Plan Review on 18.9 acres. Location: Southeast corner of Highway 5 and Mitchell Road. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment) VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VU. ORDINANCES AND RESOI.IITIONS A. 1ST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.05 OF THE CITY CODE TO AI,IDW THE ISSIIANCE OF MORE mAN ONE liQUOR I,ICENSE TO AN INDIVIDUAl, City Council Agenda Tuesday, April 16, 1996 Page Four Vill. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS IX. REpQRTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS X. APpOINTMENTS A. WIMAN RIGHTS & DIVERSITY COMMISSION -Appointment of one member to rill an unexpired term to 3/3V97 XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COIINCU,MEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACn,ITIES 1. Policy on Donations D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVEIllPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PIJBI.IC WORKS 1. Approve Award of Contract for Professional Services for parks/public Works Facility F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER IDTSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT ----------------------------~~----- TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1996 COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: ROLLCALL UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAffiIE CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald Case, Ross Thonmnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra- Lukens City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson Councilmembers Pidcock and Thorfinnson were absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. ll. OPEN PODIUM Roger Sandvick, 14280 Stratford Road, expressed concern that an agreement has not yet been reached between the City and Midwest Asphalt. Jullie said an agreement was drafted that has all the essential elements but it has not yet been signed. He said we are disappointed that we do not have the signed agreement; however, they have been advised that if they violate the essential terms of the agreement, the City will immediately notify them to cease operations on the unzoned parcel. There are some minor details that need to be resolved. Harris said we will take this under advisement and see what the remaining issues are. Mr. Sandvick requested that he receive a letter regarding the situation. Paul Olson, 8899 Flyway Circle, expressed concern about the proposal before the Planning Commission for the 788 unit townhouse project at Hwy. 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway. He was concerned about the size and density of the project and its potential impact on Staring lake Park. He was also concerned about the safety of the nearby school students with 2000 residents added to that comer, that there were no recreation facilities included in the proposal, and the strain on local roads and highways caused by the high traffic in the area. Harris suggested he put his concerns in writing to make sure they are addressed. I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 2, 1996 Page 2 ID. MINUTFS A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TIlESDAY, MARCH 12, 1996 MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, March 12, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TIlESDAY, MARCH 19, 1996 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, March 19, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ClERK'S LICENSE LIST B. ARBOR DAY PROCLAMATION C. RESOLUTION 96-57 AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1996 STREET NAME SIGNS, I.C. 96-5407 D. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES REGARDING THE PIPER ,!AFFRAY GOYERNMENT INVESTMENT FUND MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve items A-D of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Case, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting "aye." Vll. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4.22, RELATING TO THE DAYS AND HOURS OF BEER SALES Jullie said this Ordinance change has been requested by Mr. Bert Notermann, the operator of Lion's Tap. Mr. Notermann pointed out an apparent oversight in the present City Code provisions which allow liquor and strong beer sales on Sundays beginning at 10:00 AM, but the sale of 3.2 beer cannot begin until 12 Noon on CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 2, 1996 Page 3 Sundays. The proposed Ordinance change will allow all beer and liquor sales to begin at 10:00 AM on Sundays. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve lst Reading of the Ordinance amending City Code Chapter 4 by amending Section 4.22 relating to the days and hours of beer sales. Motion carried unanimously. VID. PEmIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. REQUEST FOR KENNEL LICENSE FROM WWELL LUNDSTROM Jullie said Mr. Lundstrom has requested a private kennel license pursuant to Section 5.6 of the City Code. All neighbors within 200 feet of the site were notified of this request and advised of the Council's consideration on Tuesday evening. He reviewed the Staff Report of March 29, 1996, from Lieutenant John Conley. Harris asked if the license would be for four dogs. Jullie said that is correct. Deb Hoeve, 7775 Carnelian Lane, presented a drawing of the houses in the neighborhood showing that the Lundstrom's backyard is not concealed from the neighbors. She asked that the license be denied because of the issue of safety for pedestrians who must walk in the street in order to avoid walking on the sidewalk next to the dogs and because the backyard is not concealed from the neighbors. Harris asked if the dog house is close to the fence. Ms Hoeve said the dog house is quite close. Roger Bennett, 7735 Carnelian Lane, objected to the license for the same reasons. He has two young children who refuse to use the sidewalk because they are intimidated by the dogs. He said they will experience a reduction in property values because of this situation. Jim Butler, 7765 Carnelian Lane, said he disagreed that this is an allowable use. The fence was put up three years ago when the property was used as a day care. He said the owner moved the fence out to the sidewalk last summer. Mark Hoeve, 7775 Carnelian, was concerned that this is a residential family neighborhood and there is a line between family pets and a neighborhood nuisance. Tyra-Lukens asked if the ordinance for non-commercial kennels specifies a certain amount of square footage. Lieutenant Conley said the ordinance used to require one acre of land but that was changed. He said they have examined the property and feel it would be appropriate to issue the license. Case asked what conditions would cause a homeowner to be turned down for the 3 CITY COUNCn., MINUTES April 2, 1996 Page 4 kennel license. Conley said that would occur if the owner was not responsive to City requests. He said Mr. Lundstrom has been very responsive to our requests and noted that the license could be revoked if violations occur. Case asked whether someone who wanted 3-5 dogs and met the conditions for issuing a license would be granted a license. Conley said they would Harris questioned the location of the kennel area. Conley described the location of the kennel in the Lundstrom' s backyard. Tyra-Lukens suggested that the issue of the dogs jumping up on the dog house might be resolved if the structure were moved to the opposite side. Case was concerned with the intimidation part of the situation, and he thought it could be remedied by moving the kennel. Harris noted the license would only be good for one year and would expire on December 31, 1996. Lowell Lundstrom, 7762 Carnelian, said no one called or wrote to him about the matter until March 15th. He has put no-bark collars on two of the dogs and would be willing to relocate the kennel. He offered to work with his neighbors. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve the private kennel license allowing the keeping of four dogs at the Lowell Lundstrom property at 7762 Carnelian Lane with the condition that the kennel be moved to the opposite side so that it is away from the sidewalk. Deb Hoeve said she was not sure that it will comply with subdivision 19 on dog enclosures. Jullie said they looked at the situation as the whole backyard being the kennel; but if a kennel enclosure is created, then the ten foot requirements would come into play. Deb Hoeve said she was still concerned about the noise nuisance factor. Tyra- Lukens suggested that Ms Hoeve report any incidents to the Police so that there is some documentation on this. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. PARKS. RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION -Park Dedication Law Lambert reviewed the Staff Report of April 2, 1996, and said the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission recommends that the City Council request the City Attorney's office to draft a revision to State Law that would eliminate a "loop CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 2, 1996 Page 5 hole" which precludes the City from charging cash park fees to commercial properties which are subdivided into parcels larger than five acres. Such properties are also exempt from local subdivision regulations. This situation results in a substantial loss to the City's park development fund, which provides financing for much needed park development and redevelopment throughout the City. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to refer this to Staff with direction to pursue a revision of State Statutes which would remove the exemption of parcels of land of five acres or larger for commercial and industrial development from local subdivision regulations and park fees. Motion carried unanimously. X. APPOINTMENTS XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF CQUNCU,MEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACILITIES D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEYEWPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 1. STS (Sentence to Servel CONTRACT (Resolution 96-58) Dietz reviewed the Staff report of April 2, 1996, that requested the Council approve a contract with the State of Minnesota for the Sentence to Service (STS) program in Eden Prairie, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. We have had the opportunity to test this program on a limited basis here in Eden Prairie, and the results have been very satisfactory. The program successfully operates in other cities and also Hennepin Parks and the State Parks system. Both management and labor staff endorse this project and urge Council approval. Case asked how much experience we have had with the program. Bob Hunter, STS Supervisor, said they did a retaining wall at Eden Lake Elementary last summer, and have done a few other projects since that time. They have been bringing out 6-7 people per day. Harris asked how long they have been in Bloomington. Hunter said they started in 1992 or 1993. They have six STS crews in Hennepin County. Case asked if there is a minimum and maximum amount for the contract. s CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 2, 1996 Page 6 Dietz said we have guaranteed two days per week; however, we have had crews almost full time. Case asked if we will owe more for the work. Hunter said the amount is guaranteed through June 30, 1997. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to adopt Resolution 96-58, authorizing approval of the Sentence to Serve program. Motion carried unanimously. F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OmER BUSINFSS XID. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. DATE: CITY COl.JNCIL AGEJ.'IDA 4-16-96 SECTION:. CONSENT CALENDAR DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: lTEMNO. Finance -Pat Solie CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST IV.A THESE LICENSES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DEPARTr·1ENT HEADS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LICENSED ACTIViTY. i CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) i I Du-All Service, Inc. Space Construction, Inc. PLUMBING I Alpha Mechanical, Inc. j Commercial Plumbing & Heating I Gertman Mechanical 1 Martin Plumbing & Heating I M'i dway Mechan i ca 1 Neu Pl umbing Paragon Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Plumb Right I Simonson Plumbing & Heating, Inc. I Thoen Mechanical, Inc. Walsh Plumbing ON SALE & SUNDAY LIqUOR Purple Star, Inc. DBA Green Mill of Eden Prairie CIGARETTE Purple Star, Inc. DBA Green Mill of Eden Prairie ActiODiDirection: 4-16-96 page 1 GAS FITTER Commercial Plumbing & Heating Martin Plumbing & Heating Jim Murr Plumbing, Inc. Neu Plumbing Paragon Plumbing & Heating Preferred Mechanical Services Simonson Plumbing & Heating HEATING & VENTILATING Commmercial Plumbing & Heating Martin Plumbing & Heating PRIVATE KENNEL Jeffrey Foster (16444 Thatcher Road) MECHANICAL RIDE Carousel of Des Moines, Inc. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar 04/16/96 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance Clerk's License Application IVA BACKGROUND Application was made for on-sale intoxicating liquor, Sunday sales, and tobacco licenses on March 14, 1996, by MICHAEL GERARD ANDERSON on behalf of PURPLE STAR INC., a prospective new owner of GREEN MILL of Eden Prairie, 8266 Commonwealth Drive. The corporate officers and principal owners are: • MICHAEL GERARD ANDERSON and • WILLIAM ANDREW ANDERSON. The principals have requested quick action due to their closing set for April 19, 1996. RECOMMENDATION The majority owner and manager of GREEN MILL will be MICHAEL GERARD ANDERSON with his father, WILLIAM ANDERSON, owning 19 percent. No other corporate officers or owners are listed. As of this date, approximately one-third of the investigation has been completed. To this point, there has been nothing discovered which would indicate a reason to recommend a denial. MICHAEL ANDERSON is currently listed in a valid liquor license in Bloomington, Minnesota, for BENNIGAN'S as the General Manager. It is recommended that the license be approved contingent upon the satisfactory completion of the remaining background investigation. INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY: Lieutenant Michael T. Bosacker Division Commander, Investigative Operations Police Department. (April 9, 1996) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: April 16, 1996 SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance Resolution for Tanager Creek Project IV.B. Requested Action: Adopt the Resolution granting final approval for the Tanager Creek Project in the amount of $15,045,985. Background: The Council gave preliminary approval to this project at its December 19, 1995 meeting. The owner has consented to accept tenants with Section 8 vouchers in 10% of the units·., FODII C\lulcolDlcillagn-fODll.wpd Rev 1214195 f CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 96-_ AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF MUL TIF AMIL Y HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (GNMA COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE LOAN -TANAGER CREEK PROJECT) SERIES 1996A; TAXABLE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (TANAGER CREEK PROJECn SERIES 1996B AND SUBORDINATE MUL TIF AMIL Y HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (TANAGER CREEK PROJECT) SERIES 1996C IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,045,085 (THE "BONDS"); AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN INDENTURE OF TRUST, A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT, A LOAN AGREEMENT, A SUBORDINATE LOAN AGREEMENT, AN ' ESCROW AGREEMENT, AN AMENDMENT TO REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND PRELIMINARY AND FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENTS; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE HOLDERS OF SAID BONDS WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "Issuer") is authorized by the laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 462A and 462C, as amended (the "Act"), to carry out the public purposes described therein and contemplated thereby by issuing its revenue bonds to defray, in whole or in part, the development costs of a multifamily rental housing development, or to refund any such revenue bonds, and by entering into any agreements made in connection therewith and pledging them as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on any such revenue bonds; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a Trust Indenture dated as of May 1, 1991, between the Issuer and National City Bank of Minneapolis, the Issuer issued its Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Tanager Creek Project) Series 1991 in'the aggregate principal amount of $10,030,000 (the "Prior Bonds',) and used the proceeds of the prior Bonds to provide for the financing of a 185-unit multifamily rental housing development located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Issuer (the "Project'') for the benefit of Tanager Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Owner"); and WHEREAS, it has been represented to the Issuer by the Owner and Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. (the "Underwriter") that adequate arrangements have been or will be made with all holders of the Prior Bonds to permit redemption and prepayment of the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Issuer, by passage of Resolution No. 95-_ on December 19, 1995, adopted an amended and restated housing program with respect to the Project (the "Program") pursuant to and in conformity with the Act after public hearing thereon and after publication of notice in a newspaper circulating generally within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Issuer, at least fifteen (15) day before the date of the hearing, as required by the Act; and WHEREAS, on or prior to the date of publication of such notice, the Program was submitted to the Metropolitan Council, and the Metropolitan Council presented its favorable comments to the Issuer, by letter dated November 17, 1995; and no material changes or changes inconsistent with the Metropolitan Council's comments were made to the Program; and WHEREAS, the Issuer proposes to refinance the Project by the issuance of (i) Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (GNMA Collateralized Mortgage Loan - Tanager Creek Project) Series 1996A (the "Series A Bonds"); (ii) Taxable Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (GNMA Collateralized Mortgage Loan -Tanager Creek Project) Series 1996B (the "Series B Bonds"); and (iii) Subordinate Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Tanager Creek Project) Series 1996C (the "Series C Bonds") (together the Series A, B and C Bonds are hereinafter referred to as the "Bonds") under the Act pursuant to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued under an Indenture of Trust, as hereinafter defined, and the Series A Bonds and Series B Bonds will be secured by a fully modified mortgage-backed security (the "GNMA Security") issued by the lender referenced in the Loan Agreement, as hereinafter defined (the "Lender"), and guaranteed as to timely payment of principal and interest by the Government National Mortgage Association ("GNMA") and payment of the Series C Bonds will be secured by the issuance of a note (the "Series C Borrower Note") by the Owner pursuant to the Subordinate Loan Agreement, as hereinafter defined, and a second mortgage on the Project pursuant to a Subordinate Mortgage, as hereinafter defined; and WHEREAS, it is intended that interest on the Series A Bonds and the Series C Bonds (the "Tax-Exempt Bonds") be excluded from gross income of the holders thereof for federal income tax purposes; and WHEREAS, the Bonds and the interest on said Bonds shall ,be payable solely from the revenue pledged therefor and the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation, nor shall the Bonds constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the Issuer or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers and shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable; upon any property of the Issuer other than the Issuer's interest in said Project; and WHEREAS, the GNMA Security will be backed by a mortgage loan insured by the Federal Housing Administration (the "Mortgage Loan") made by the Lender to the Owner; and WHEREAS, the owners of the Series C Bonds shall have no right, title or interest in the security provided by the GNMA Security; and -2- WHEREAS, in order to comply with the requirements of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, on December 19, 1995, the City Council held a public hearing, after publication of notice thereof in a newspaper of general circulation in the Issuer at least fourteen (14) days before the hearing and adopted a resolution providing preliminary approval to the issuance of the Bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. F or the purpose of refunding the Prior Bonds and for paying certain costs of issuance in connection with the issuance of the Bonds and thereby refinancing the Project, and in order to provide funds to finance the payment of interest on the obligations of the Issuer with respect to the Project, the establishment of reserves to secure such obligations, and the payment of all other expenditures incident to and necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of the Project, there is hereby authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of: the Series A Bonds, the Series B Bonds, and the Series C Bonds, the proceeds of which, together with funds provided by the Owner and held under the indenture for the Prior Bonds, shall be applied to redemption of the outstanding Prior Bonds and payment of costs of issuance in connection therewith. The Bonds shall be in such principal amounts, shall bear interest at rates, shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall mature, shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity, and shall be in such form and have such other details and provisions as may be prescribed in the Indenture of Trust, to be dated as of April 1, 1996 (the "Indenture"), between the Issuer and First Trust National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer; provided that (i) the aggregate principal amount of the Tax-Exempt Bonds (together with any proceeds from a sales premium on any series of Tax-Exempt Bonds) shall not exceed the lesser of$ or the outstanding principal amount of the Prior Bonds and the aggregate principal amount of all Series of Bonds shall not exceed $15,045,085; (ii) the maximum interest rate on the Series A Bonds shall not exceed 8.50% per annum, the maximum interest rate on the Series B Bonds shall not exceed 10.00% per annum, and the maximum interest rate on the Series C Bonds shall not exceed 9.00% per annum; (iii) the final maturity of the Tax-Exempt Bonds shall not be later than 35 years from the date of issuance and in no event shall the average maturity of the Tax-Exempt Bonds exceed 120% of the remaining average reasonably expected economic life of the Project; and (v) there shall be maturities or mandatory sinking fund redemptions of the Bonds so as to result in approximate level debt service throughout the term of the Bonds. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to confirm the principal amount of the Bonds, the final interest rates and maturities thereof and the preniium or discount on the Bonds in connection with the issuance thereof. The Bonds shall be special'-obligations of the Issuer payable solely from the revenues provided by the GNMA Security and other funds pledged pursuant to the Indenture. The Bonds are not to be payable from nor charged upon any funds of the Issuer other than the revenues pledged to their payment, nor is the Issuer subject to any liability thereon; no holders of the Bonds shall ever have the right to compel. any exercise of the taxing power of the Issuer to pay any of the principal of premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds; the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the Issuer, and each Bond shall recite that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are -3- L/ payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof and that no Bond shall constitute a debt of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. The Bonds shall contain a recital that they are issued pursuant to the Act and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity and regularity of the issuance thereof. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to prepare and execute by manual or facsimile signature the Bonds as prescribed in the Indenture, to affix the seal of the Issuer manually or by facsimile and to deliver them to the Trustee, together with a certified copy of this resolution and other documents required by the Indenture, for authentication and delivery to the Underwriter. 2. The City Council of the Issuer hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Manager of the Issuer (the "Mayor" and "Manager" respectively) to execute and deliver the Indenture, affix the seal of the Issuer thereto, and to deliver the Indenture to the Trustee. All of the provisions of the Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Indenture shall be substantially in the form on file with the Issuer, which is hereby approved, with such necessary or desirable and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 3. The Mayor and the Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement") to be dated as of April 1, 1996 by and among the Issuer, the Trustee, the Lender and the Owner providing for the loan of the proceeds of the Series A Bonds and the Series B Bonds. All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Loan Agreement shall be substantially in the form on ftle with the Issuer which is hereby approved, with such variations, omissions and insertions as to not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 4. The Mayor and the Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Subordinate Loan Agreement (the "Subordinate Loan Agreement") to be dated as of April 1, 1996 by and among the Issuer, the Trustee and the Owner, providing for the loan of proceeds of the Series C Bonds. All of the provisions of the Subordinate Loan Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Subordinate Loan Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the Issuer, which is hereby approved, with such necessary or desirable.and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are not materially inconsistent with the form on file with the Issuer or as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall determine and execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. The form of the Series C Borrower Note (as defined in the Indenture) and the Subordinate Multifamily Mortgage, Assignment of Rents and Security Agreement (the "Subordinate Mortgage"), each executed by the Owner in favor the Issuer are hereby approved and shall be in the fonn on file with the Issuer, with such variations as shall be -4- permissible in connection with any modifications to the Subordinate Loan Agreement as approved in accordance with the preceding sentence. 5. The Mayor and the Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Escrow Agreement (the "Escrow Agreement"), by and among the Issuer, the Owner and the Escrow Agent (as defined therein), to be dated as of April 1, 1996 relating to the application of the proceeds of the Tax-Exempt Bonds to the redemption and prepayment of the Prior Bonds. All of the provisions of the Escrow Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Escrow Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the Issuer, which is hereby approved, with such necessary or desirable and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are not materially inconsistent with the form on file with the Issuer or as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall determine and execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 6. The Mayor and the Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Amendment Number One to Regulatory Agreement (the "Regulatory Agreement") to be dated as of April 1, 1996 by and between the Issuer and the Owner. All of the provisions of the Regulatory Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Regulatory Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the Issuer which is hereby approved, with such variations, omissions and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 7. The Mayor and the Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bond Purchase Agreement among the Issuer, the Owner, and the Underwriter relating to the Bonds (the "Bond Purchase Agreement"). All of the provisions of the Bond Purchase Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Bond Purchase Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the Issuer, which is hereby approved, with such necessary or desirable and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are not materially inconsistent with the form on file with the Issuer or as the Mayor, in his discretion, shall determine and execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 8. The Trustee is hereby appointed as Paying Agent attd Bond Registrar for the Bonds. 9. The Mayor and the Manager of the Issuer or either of them are hereby authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the Issuer, such other documents and certificates as are necessary or appropriate in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds, including without limitation, assignment of the Borrower Notes, Subordinate Loan Agreement and Subordinate Mortgage to the Trustee and/or the Lender, request and authorization to the -5- Trustee to authenticate and deliver the Bonds, a Tax Certificate and a Letter of Representations to The Depository Trust Company ("DTC") for appointment of DTC as securities depository for all Bonds or any separate series of Bonds as provided in the Indenture; and such other certificates, instruments, and other documents as are necessary, customary, appropriate or necessary to establish the validity or enforceability of the Bonds, or are required by Bond Counsel to establish the validity or enforceability of the Bonds or the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Tax-Exempt Bonds for purposes of Federal and State of Minnesota income taxation. 10. The Mayor and the Manager of the Issuer are hereby authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the Issuer, such instruments as may be necessary and appropriate to effect the funding of the Mortgage Loan and the purchase of the GNMA Security by the Trustee. 11. The Issuer hereby consents to the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds, substantially in the form on file with the Issuer. The Issuer hereby consents to the use by the Underwriter in connection with the sale of the Bonds of a final Official Statement, substantially in the form of the Preliminary Official Statement described above. The Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement are the sole materials consented to by the Issuer for use in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The Issuer has not participated in the preparation thereof, has not made any independent investigation of the information contained therein and shall have no liability in connection with the contents of or use of such offering materials. 12. All covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements of the Issuer contained in this resolution and the aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements of the Issuer to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and all such covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements shall be binding upon the Issuer. Except as otherwise provided in this resolution, all rights, powers and privileges conferred and duties and liabilities imposed upon the Issuer or the City Council, or such officers, board, body or agency thereof as may be required or authorized by law to exercise such powers and to perform such duties. No covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement herein contained or contained in the aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be a covenant,. stipulation, obligation or agreement of any member of the City Council of the Issuer, or any officer, agent or employee of the Issuer in that person's individual capacity, and neither the City Council of the Issuer nor any officer or employee executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the Bonds or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof. No provision, covenant or agreement contained in the aforementioned documents, the Bonds or in' any other document related to the Bonds, and no obligation therein or herein imposed upon the Issuer or the breach thereof, shall constitute or give rise to any pecuniary liability of the Issuer or any charge upon its general credit or taxing powers. In making the agreements, provisions, covenants and representations set forth in such documents, the Issuer has not obligated itself to payor remit any funds or revenues, other than funds and revenues derived -6- 1 from the Loan Agreement and Subordinate Loan Agreement and related security instruments which are to be applied to the payment of the Bonds, as provided therein and in the Indenture. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution or in the aforementioned documents expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person or firm or corporation, other than the Issuer or any holder of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution, any right, remedy or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this resolution or any provision hereof, this resolution, the aforementioned documents and all of their provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Issuer and any holder from time to time of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution. 13. In case anyone or more of the prOViSlOns of this resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason be held to be legal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds, but this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds shall be construed and endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein. 14. The Bonds, when ~xecuted and delivered, shall contain a recital and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity of the Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof, that all acts, conditions and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds and to the execution of the aforementioned documents to happen, exist and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this resolution, and precedent to issuance of the Bonds and precedent to the execution of the aforementioned documents have happened, exist and have been performed as so required by law: 15. The officers of the Issuer and its attorneys, agents and employees are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds for the full, punctual and complete performance of all the terms, covenants and agreements contained in the Bonds, the aforementioned documents and this resolution. In the event that for any reason the Mayor of the Issuer is unable to carry out the execution of any of the documents or other acts provided herein, any other member of the City Council of the Issuer shall be authorized to act in his capacity and undertake such execution or acts on behalf of the Issuer with full force and effect, which execution shall be valid and binding on the Issuer. If for any reason the Manager of the Issuer is unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this resolution, such documents may be executed by the Assistant Manager of the Issuer with the same force and effect as if such documents were executed and delivered by the Manager of the Issuer. 16. On February 20, 1996, the Issuer adopted its resolution providing for the issuance of bonds, the proceeds of which were intended to refund the Prior Bonds. To the extent provisions or actions provided in such prior resolution conflict with provisions contained in this resolution, the provisions under this resolution supersede those provisions contained in the prior resolution. -7- 'Z 17. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Adopted this __ day of April, 1996. Mayor Attest: City Clerk GP:275142 v3 -8- 9 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4/16/96 SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO. -OC, DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request to Schedule Public Hearing for Natural and Recreation and Facilitie~ Scenic Grant Proposal Robert A. Lambert As part ofthe requirements for applying for a Natural and Scenic Grant for the acquisition of Option Parcel #1 of the Peterson/Klein property, the City Council must hold a public hearing to hear if there are any objections to the acquisition of this parcel by residents of the community. The public hearing must be conducted prior to the submission deadline, which is May I, 1996. City staff request the Council to hold the public hearing at the City Council Workshop scheduled for April 30, at 7:00 p.m. BL:mdd SetDate.memo/Bob96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4/16/96 0 SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO. V/ ' DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Center Flooring Bid Proposal Recreation and Facilities ~ Robert A. Lambert REQUEST: City staff request the City Council approve the bid of Arena System as the low bid for replacing the rubber flooring in rink number one for a total bid of $1 0,752.89. This project will be funded from money budgeted in the Community Center 1996 capital outlay budget. A copy of the bids and summary memo from Elyce Kastigar, Community Center Manager, is attached to this memorandum. BL:mdd Attachments: Memo from Elyce Kastigar Bid Proposals MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities FROM: Elyce Kastigar, Community Center Manager DATE: April 9, 1996 SUB.JECT: Community Center Rubber Flooring Bid Proposal Flooring Project: The Community Center will complete two flooring projects during 1996. The lower lobby carpet will be replaced with rubber flooring and the Rink # 1 flooring will be replaced with rubber flooring. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the bid from Arena Systems for Rink #1 plus the add alternate bid for the Rink #1 restrooms and team rooms, for a total of$10,752.89. Refer to the attached bid request proposals. Bids for Rink #1 and the alternate that included restrooms and team rooms are as follows: Company 1. Arena Systems 2. Acoustics Associates 3. Becker Arena Rink #1 $8,243.89 $8,680.00 $11,892.00 Alternate $2,509.00 $2,900.00 $3,964.00 Total $10,752.89 $11,580.00 $15,856.00 Staff requests to reject all bids for the Lower Lobby Flooring -project as City staffhave detennined we should rebid the project with a ten year warranty. The City received two bids with a ten year warranty, however the specifications only required a five year minimum warranty as written. Funding: The above projects will be funded from money budgeted under Community Center 1996 Capital Outlay. Attachment: bid proposal, Arena Systems bid proposal, Acoustics Associates bid proposal, Becker Arena April 2, 1996 Community Center Manager Eden Prairie Community Center 16700 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Subject: Bid Request for Flooring I am pleased to offer you the following pricing as per your request: Lower Lobby bid as per specifications Price: ................................................................ $ 25,294.50 Add Alternate One Price: ................................................................ $ 1,848.00 Add Alternate Two Price: ................................................................ $ 577.50 Add Alternate Three Price: ................................................................. $ 6,930.00 Rink One bid as per specifications Price: .................................................................. $ 8,243.89 Add Alternate Price: .................................................................. $ 2,509.00 If you have any further questions please advise. Sincerely, ~ ~~t~ Gene Krieger Arena Systems 420 E. County Road D, St. Paul, MN 55117 • 612-490-3044 • 800-328-6808 • 800-944-7930 • Fax: 612-490-5357 3 April 3, 1996 Ms. Elyce Kastigar, Community Center Manager Eden Prairie Community Center 16700 Valley View Road Eden Pr.airie, MN 55346 Fax #949-13492 Subject: Protective Flooring Bid Addendum Dear Ms. Kastigar, As per our phone conversation of today 1 am supplying you with the following information per your request. Your bid specifications for the lower lobby state you are requesting rubber flooring with a warranty minimum of five years. The material I quoted is Nora Ecoment #9928 which has a five year warranty. This product meets all of your specifications as listed. The material quoted for Rink #1 is Tuflex Rubber Ftooring. Again, this meets all the specifications you have requested. You did not specify any request for pricing on freight, taxes, etc. All the prices I quoted do include freight and installation. They do not include any applicable taxes, permits, or bonds. You were not present at the bid opening, ·and I was not aware of any problems with the bid until J received a phone call1ate yesterday -afternoon. This bid was completed and done according to specifications provided by you. If you have decided to change the specifications and pllrchase another type of flooring, I will be happy to provide you with pricing, upon receipt of a new specification list. However, I feal the pricing I gave you in the bid opened yesterday meets everything you requested. U you want mat~riaf that is diff-erent from 1he publ1shed 13pecs, the lower lobby flooring should be re-bid. St:eIY~~..tIJI. Gene Kri~ge7~ Arena Systems ~20 E. County Ro:.d D. St. Paul, MN 55117 .. 612-~90-30-14 .. BOO.3is-6BOB • BOO-944-79JD • f.ax: .6J2-490-SJS7 L/ Acoustical Ceilings Access flooring Flooring PROPOSAL Demountable Partitions Acoustical Sound Panels ChalkboardslTackboards TO: ACOUSTICS ASSOCIATES INC Eden Prarie Community Center 16700 Valley View Road Eden Prarie, MN 55436 D~~ April 2, 1996 1250 7d1ne Ave. North Minneapolis. MN 55422 1612) 544-8901 FAX: 1612) 544·2928 Job Name: Eden Prarie Community Center Job Location: Rubber Flooring Revisions at Main Lobby and Ice Rink #1 Plans and Specifications by: Architect: Addenda: We propose to furnish the following materials for the above lob in accordance with terms and conditions below and on the reverse side of this proposal. Labor and equipment for installation is included unless specifically stated to the contrary: Base Bid $ 39,980.00 Add alternate $ 2,900.00 Add alternate #1 $ 2,700.00 Add alternate #2 $ 680.00 Add alternate #3 $ 8,900.00 for the sum of ________________________________ S _______ _ FOB __________________________________ __ Delivery ____________________ _ On.all flooring work. purchaser certifies the subsurface(sl to be properly cured. hardened. moisture protected. and prepaf'ed per specified or generally accepted manufacturers standards for the performance set out in this proposal. Acoustics Associates Inc wlll not be held responsible or liable for any defects of finished product due to Improper or Incorrect substrate preparedness. This proposal is subject to acceptance within 30 days. TERMS: Net cash payment lor 90% 01 value 01 materials delivered on job. and labor lor installing materials in job. during previous 30 day period: Shall be due 10th 01 lollowing month. Balance net cash 30 days alter completion. All taxes now or hereafter levied by any Federal. State or local authority. upon sale 01 loregoing materials. are not included in the price and shall be paid by purchaser unless specifICally stated otherwise in this proposal. ACCEPTED:BY _________________________________ _ ACOUSTICS ASSOOAiES INC By _____________ Title _________ _ By ~JM.~;/\" --Date ___________ _ Customer Order No. -----tJ John J. Baker Aco\nQQI Ccilinst A.a.."" Flooring 1250 Zane A~c Nortll Minn(!.:Ipoli!;. MN ';0;"') " != c_. ~iaI Sound f'lntls Chl.\ltboud.!/T~d<_oo.rd\ IN21 S«'SIlO FA-X: (61 () 544-2Qj. Eden Prarie Community Center 16700 Valley View Road Eden~rarie, MN 55346 Attn: Elyce Kastigar Re: Eden Prarie Rubber Flooring Bid DeaT Elyce: April 3, 1996 Regarding tIle above projeet, we off~r the following summary of our.proposal submitted OIl 4/2/96 at Eden Prarie Community Center:: BAse Bid: $ 39,980.00 Lower Lobby: Nora 111S I 10 year warrenty. .::. Rink Hll TuflcK Staudard Colore. $ 31,300.00 $ S,6S0.00 We include removal of existing flooring and floor pTep as r~quir:ed. Add Alternate * 2,900.00 ~ /11 15'80,00 IX' Furnish Tufle}~ as above in Rink 1, Team Rooms 1 & 2 and Restrooms. prep included. Demo and Add Alternate #1 $ 2,700.00 Furnish Nora as above in Womens Locker 'Room and the Rallway at Lot·,er Lobby. Demo of existing £loorin~ and prep included. Add Alternate #2 $ 680.00 Furnish N6ra as above in Mens Locker Room entryway. Demo of existing flooring and p~ep 1ncluded. Add Alte.rnate 13 $ 8,900.00 Furnish Nora as ~bove in Pool lo1alkway to Rink H2. demo of e~istin~ flooring and prep included. Please call to discuss at your convenience. Sincerely. John J. Baker ,,. .. ,'.' } .... -"'-. April 1,1996 Ms. Elyce Kastigar City of Eden Prairie Community Center 16700 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Dear Ms. Kastigar, Per your request for proposals for the replacement of the protective flooring at the Eden Prairie Community Center below please find our bids. 1.) Rubber flooring for lower lobby area per sp~cifications to include: All removal and disposal of existing floor covering and cove base Complete floor preparation Complete installation of new floor covering Complete installation of new cove base NORAMENT 992S (Ten year warranty) ECOMENT992S (Five year warranty) Add Alternate #1 -Womens locker room hallway ,NORAMENT 992S (Ten year warranty) ECOMENT 9928 (Five year warranty) Add Alternate #2 -Mens locker room hallway NORAMENT 992S (Ten year warranty) ECOMENT 992S (Five year warranty) Add Alternate #3 -Pool walkway to Rink #2 NORAMENT 992S (Ten year warranty) ECOMENT 992S (Five year warranty) $ 31,505.00 $ 25,400.00 $ 1,918.00 $ 1.,544.20 $547.00 $ 441.20 $ 8,208.00 $ 6,618.00 Note: Above pricing does not include color #1499 Cranberry in Norament 9928., if this.is ihe rotor choice, please add 20% 10 above prices. Ecoment 9928 is available in three rolOT choices only -#1342 Amazona, #1253 Granite and #1254 Agate Grey. 5448 Cottonwood Ln. S.E. Prior lake, MN 55372 612/440-8655 800/234-5522 , FAX: 612/440-8656 2.) Rubber flooring for Rink #1 per specifications to include: .. All removal and disposal of existing floor covering and cove base Complete floor preparation . . . Complete installation of new floor covering Complete installation of new cove base ,TUFLEX RUBBER FLOORING $ 11,892.00 Add Alternate #1 -Rink #1 team rooms #1 & #2 and rest rooms TUFLEX RUBBER FLOORING $ 3,964.00 *' ,~ .. ""/ 1f.lJfh.{){) . I All prices include Minnesota state sales tax, freight to the job site, unloading of materials at the jobsite and complete disposal of removed floor coverings, etc. Prices do not include performance bond or permit fees if required. Meeting installation time line based on manufacturers availability of products. If you have any questions regarding the above proposal please call. Regards, Becker Arena Products, Inc. ~ker I I EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-16-96 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. IV. E DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger DATAMETALCRAFT Scott Kipp Recommended Council Action: Accept letter of Withdrawal of Data Metalcraft proposal. Supporting Reports: 1. Letter MAR 22 '96 16:36 TO-9498390 Scott A. Kipp City of Eden Prairie City Center 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 FROM-DATA METALCRAFT Subject: Data Metalcraft addition, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Dear Mr. Kipp: T-296 P.01/01 F-954 March 22. 1996 I have decided we will not construct the addition to the building at 781~ Fuller Road. The building expenses are ju~t to high to justifY the small addition of space gained. This is our final position on this project- We regret the project is being canceled, but the economics of the addition just do not make sense. Thank you for efforts on our behalf. Sincerely; 2 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-16-96 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. 1JJ·P. DEP ARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger ROGER'S HOMESTEAD Michael D. Franzen Recommended Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Approve 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to RI-13.5 on 10.9 acres, • Approval of a Developer's Agreement Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for Zoning District Change 2. Developer's Agreement J CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ROGER'S HOMESTEAD AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Rl-13.5 District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the RI-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of April 16, 1996, entered into between Paul Thorp and the City of Eden Prairie, and which Agreement are hereby made a part hereof. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 12th day of March, 1996, finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 16th day of April, 1996. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on ______________ ' CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ROGER'S HOMESTEAD AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located at Duck Lake Road and Duck Lake Trail from Rural to RI-13.5 on 10.9 acres; subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: ATTEST: lsI John D. Frane City Clerk This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. IslJean 1. Harris Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the ______ _ (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) Roger's Homestead Legal Description Exhibit A LEG~L DESCRIPTION That pa~t of Gove~nment Lot 4, and acc~etions the~eto, Section 5, Township 116, Range 22, desc~ibed as beginning at the inte~section of a line he~einafte~ ~efe~red to as line "A", which line is d~awn from a point on the West line of said Governme~t Lot 4 located midway between the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 4 and the Southwest corner of Government Lot 1 of said Section 5 to a point on the extension South of the East line of said Government Lot 4 located midway between the Northeast corner of said Government Lot 4 and the South quarter corner of said Section 5, with a line hereinafter referred to as line "B", which line is drawn from a point on the No~th line of said Government Lot 4 located midway between the Northwest and Northeast corners of said Government Lot 4 to a point on the South line of Government Lot 1 of said Section 5 located midway between the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 1 and the South quarter co~ner of said Section 5; thence East along said line "A" to the shore of Duck Lake; thence Southwesterly along the shore of Duck Lake to its intersection with the extension South of the West line of said Government Lot 4: thence North along said extension and along said West line to the center line of the Town Road running Easterly across said Government Lot 4; thence Easterly 'along the center line of the Town Road to said line "B": thence South along said line "B" 20.82 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, except that part of said Government Lot 4 described as commencing at the Southwest corner of Government Lot 1 of said Section 5: thence North along the West lines of said Government Lots land 4 and their extensions, 1029.16 feet; thence East, deflecting to the right 89 deg~ees 59 minutes 20 seconds, along a line hereinafter referred to as line "crt, a distance of 162.77 feet to the actual point of beginning: thence continuing East along said line "C q 155.02 feet: thence North at a right angle 198.48 feet, more or less, to the center 1 ine of the Town Road: thence Westerly along said center 1 ine 155.95 feet to an intersection with a line drawn North at right angles to said line "C" from the a~tual point of beginning; thence South 181.5 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof. ROGERS HOMESTEAD DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of ,19-, by Meridian Development,Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Rezoning from Rural to RI-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 11.04 acres into 16 single family lots for the construction of 16 single family homes, all on 11.04 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. for Zoning and Resolution No. , Preliminary Plat, and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review. Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated , reviewed and approved by the City Council on , and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. STREET AND UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the construction of streets and utilities for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems and storm sewer. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to implement the approved street and utility plans prior to building permit issuance. 4. FINAL GRADING, DRAINAGE,AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a final grading plan for the Property. The final grading and drainage plan shall include all water quality ponds, stonn water detention areas and stonn sewers. All . design calculations for stonn water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Developer shall implement the approved final grading and drainage plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Pennit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's approval of an Erosion Control Plan for the Property. The Erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features, temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures. All site grading operations shall confonn to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. 5. FINAL ORDER NO. # 96-06 Developer has obtained approval from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for variances from City Code requirements within the RI-13.5 zoning district for lot size in a shoreland area on the Property as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said approval has been granted through Final Order #96-06, attached hereto, and made a part hereof. Developer agrees to comply with all requirements of said Final Order No.96-06. Developer agrees to file Final Order # 96.06 of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on the Property at the Hennepin County RecorderlRegistrar prior to any building pennit issuance. Prior to the release of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to provide proof of filing to the City. 6. GRADING IN THE WOODED AREAS ON SITE: Prior to grading within any of the wooded areas on the property, Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the City Forester's approval of a plan depicting the construction grading limits on the property. Prior to the issuance of the land alteration pennit, Developer shall place a construction fence at the limits of the proposed grading as shown on Exhibit B. Developer shall notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading so that the construction limit fence may be field inspected and approved by the City Engineer and City Forester. 7. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building pennit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity, type, and size of plant materials as shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. Developer shall furnish to the City Planner and receive the City Planner'S approval of a landscape bond equal to 150% of the cost of said improvements as required by City code. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. SIDEWALK AND TRAIL CONSTRUCTION: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources, and obtain the Director's approval of detailed plans for sidewalks and trails to be constructed on the Property. Developer shall provide access easements, as determined by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Director. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk to be located on Duck Lake Road from Duck Lake Trail south to Padon Drive and on Duck Lake Trail from Duck Lake Road to the east property line as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Upon approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, said sidewalks and trails, concurrent with street construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. Bonding in accordance with City code shall be required for sidewalk construction. 9. TREE LOSS -TREE REPLACEMENT: There are 1211 inches of significant trees on the property. Tree loss is calculated at 314 inches. Tree replacement required is 133 inches. Prior to the release of the final plat, Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the City Forester's approval of a tree replacement plan for 133 inches. Said plan shall include replacement trees of a 3 inch diameter minimum size for a shade tree and a seven foot minimum height for conifer trees. Upon approval by the City Forester, Developer agrees to implement the tree replacement plan for 133 caliper inches prior to building permit issuance. 10. CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF EXISTING TREES ON THE PROPERTY: Prior to the release of the final plat, Developer shall submit a Conservation Easement for review and approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources, as shown on Exhibit B. Said easement is intended to protect land and vegetation in the Shore Impact Zone which is applys to all land within 100 feet of the normal ordinary high water elevation of Duck Lake. Selected cutting of vegetation for a view of the lake may be pennitted in accordance with the provissions of the Shoreland Ordinance subject written approval by the Director of Parks Recreation and Natural Resources. Upon approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources, Developer shall deliver and record the Conservation Easement in the Hennepin County Recorder'slRegistrars Office and shall provide evidence of the recording of Conservation Easement prior to the release of the first building permit. 11. STORMW ATER TREATMENT POND: Developer acknowledges that construction of a second stormwater treatment pond to treat stormwater runoff from the drainage area of the southerly cuI de sac is not feasible. Therefore developer agrees to pay an amount equal to 2% of the land acquisition costs equivalent to the drainage area plus $1,000.00 per acre for each acre of impervious surface area within the drainage area. The money will be paid to the City's Stormwater Utility Fund. 1 12. ASSESSMENTS: Developer agrees to the following assessments: a. Trunk sanitary sewer and water charges of $2881.00. b. Three connection charges for sewer and water lateral services at $11,000.00 each for a total of $33,000.00. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-16-96 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. r::V G-- DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger SOUTHWEST CROSSING HOTEL Michael Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change and Planned Unit Development District Review on 7.25 acres; • Adopt the Resolution approving Site Plan Review on 7.25 acres; • Approval of a Developer's Agreement Supporting Reports: 1. Zoning Ordinance and PUD District Review 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement I SOUTHWEST CROSSING HOTEL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 14-96-PUD-4-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Commercial Regional District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development C-Reg-Ser Zoning District 14-96-PUD-4-96 (hereinafter "PUD-4-96-C-Reg-Ser"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions ofthat certain Developer's Agreement dated as of Apri116, 1996, entered into between Southwest Crossing Hotel, and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-4-96-C-Reg-Ser, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-4-96-C-Reg-Ser is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-4-96-C-Reg-Ser designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD-4-96-C-Reg-Ser are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-4-96-C-Reg-Ser is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Commercial Regional District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-4-96-C-Reg- Ser and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. 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 7. 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 March, 1996, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting ofthe City Council of said City on the 16th day of April, 1996. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on _______________ _ SOUTHWEST CROSSING HOTEL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 14-96-PUD-4-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Sununa.ty: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located at Viking Drive and Prairie Center Drive from Connnercial Regional to Commercial Regional Service on 7.25 acres; subject to the terms and conditions ofa developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: ATTEST: lsi John D. Frane City Clerk This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. IslJean L. Harris Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the ______ _ (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) Exhibit A Legal Description SW Crossing Hotel Lot 3, Block 1, Viking Drive West s r SOUTHWEST CROSSING HOTEL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR SOUTHWEST CROSSING HOTEL BY BTO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WHEREAS, BTO Development Corporation has applied for Site Plan approval of Southwest Crossing Hotel on 7.25 acres for construction of three lots located at Viking Drive and Prairie Center Drive, to be zoned Commercial Regional Service by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on March 19, 1996; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its February 26, 1996, Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its March 19, 1996, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Southwest Crossing Hotel for the construction of hotel sites, based on plans dated March 12, 1996, between BTO Development Corporation and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on April 16, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk , DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BTO RESTAURANT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of April 16, 1996 by Smetana Holdings LLC, A Minnesota Limited Liabilities Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer", and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for construction of Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 109 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 7.25 acres, Rezoning from C-Regional to C-Regional Service on 7.25 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.25 acres and Preliminary Plat of 7.25 acres into 3 lots, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. for Planned Unit Development and Zoning and Resolution No. , Preliminary Plat, and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review. Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated , reviewed and approved by the City Council on , and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. STREET AND UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the construction of streets and utilities for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems and stonn sewer. 4. CROSS PARKING, ACCESS, AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Prior to the release of the final plat, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and receive the City Engineer's approval of access, use andcross-parking and maintenance agreement for the Property. The agreement shall address access, use, and maintenance of parking facilities and storm water 7 facilities. Developer shall record said cross access, use, parking, and maintenance agreement in the Hennepin County Recorders-Registrar Office and submit evidence of recording to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and colors to be used on the buildings on the Property. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved exterior materials and colors plan concurrent with building construction on the Property and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. FINAL GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a final, grading and drainage plan for the Property. The final grading and drainagel plan shall include all water quality ponds, storm water detention areas and storm sewers. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading plan. Developer shall implement the approved grading and drainage plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's approval of an Erosion Control Plan for the Property. The Erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features, temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures. All site grading operations shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. 7. IRRIGATION PLAN: Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved irrigation plan concurrent with construction and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity, type, and size of plant materials as shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. Developer shall furnish to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape bond equal to 150% of the cost of said improvements as required by City code. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 9. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer shall submit to City Planner, and receive City Planner'S approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the Property. Said mechanical equipment includes the gas meters, electrical conduit, and water meters in addition to standard heating, ventilating, and air conditioning units. Security to guarantee construction of said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property, per City Code requirements. Developer shall implement the approved plan concurrent with building construction. If, after completion of construction of said mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by the City Planner, in its sole discretion, that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent land uses, then City Planner shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to reconstruct the mechanical equipment screening in order to meet Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the security provided until all such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed by Developer. 10. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: City hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within the C-Regional Service District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD A Impervious surface from 39% to 60%. B. Parking setback from 10 ft. To 0 ft. 11. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and obtain the Chief Building Official's approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls indicated on the grading plan in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for said retaining walls. Upon approval by the Chief Building Official, Developer agrees to implement the approved retaining wall plan, concurrent with the grading, street, and utility construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 12. SIGNS: Developer agrees that for each and every sign to be located on the property, Developer, shall file an application with the City Planner for a sign permit. Said application shall include complete description of the sign and a sketch showing the size, location, manner of construction, and other such information as necessary to inform the City of the kind, size, material construction, and location of any such sign, consistent with the sign plan shown on Exhibit B and in accordance with the requirements of City code, Section 11.70, Subdivision 5a. 13. SITE PLAN REVIEW: Prior to building permit issuance the Developer shall receive approval of detailed plans including site, grading, architecture, utility, landscaping, and storm drainage by the Planning Commission and City Council. 14. STORMWATERQUALITYFACILITIES: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, Developer shall prepare and submit for review and approval by the City Engineer a certified geotechnical analysis of the dyke forming the eastern edge of the water quality pond on Outlot C, Golden Strip, using industry standards for small earth dams. The analysis shall evaluate the existing dyke and subgrade soils for the proposed hydraulic loads. If the existing dyke is inadequate, the Developer shall retrotite the dyke or provide alernative treatment of stormwater.The Developer shall prepare a certified analysis of the 100 year flood elevation of the stormwater quality pond based on the revised normal water level and proposed outlet to Smetana Lake. The 100 year surface elevation shall be a minimum of one foot below the lowest elevation of the dyke forming the ponds eastern side. 10 DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT AMERISUITES HOTEL THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of April 16, 1996, by Prime Hospitality Corporation a New Jersey Corporation hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for of Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 109 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 7.25 acres, Rezoning from C-Regional to C-Regional Service on 7.25 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.25 acres and Preliminary Plat of 7.25 acres into 3 lots, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. for Planned Unit Development and Zoning and Resolution No. , Preliminary Plat, and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review. Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated , reviewed and approved by the City Council on , and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. STREET AND UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the construction of streets and utilities for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems and storm sewer. 4. CROSS PARKING, ACCESS, AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Prior to the release of the final plat, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and receive the City Engineer's approval of an , access, use and cross parking and maintenance agreement for the Property. The agreement shall address access, and maintenance of parking facilities and storm water facilities. II Developer shall record said cross parking, access, and maintenance agreement in the Hennepin County Recorders-Registrar Office and submit evidence of recording to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and colors to be used on the buildings on the Property. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved exterior materials and colors plan concurrent with building construction on the Property and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. FINAL GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: A. FINAL GRADING PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the Property. The final grading and drainage plan shall include all water quality ponds, storm water detention areas and storm sewers. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading plan. Developer shall implement the approved final grading and drainage plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Pennit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's approval of an Erosion Control Plan for the Property. The Erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features, temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures. All site grading operations shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. 7. IRRIGATION PLAN: Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved irrigation plan concurrent with construction and in accordance with the tenns and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 12 8. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner'S approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity, type, and size of plant materials as shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. Developer shall furnish to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape bond equal to 150% of the cost of said improvements as required by City code. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 9. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer shall submit to City Planner, and receive City Planner's approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the Property. Said mechanical equipment includes the gas meters, electrical conduit, and water meters in addition to standard heating, ventilating, and air conditioning units. Security to guarantee construction of said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property, per City Code requirements. Developer shall implement the approved plan concurrent with building construction. If, after completion of construction of said mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by the City Planner, in its sole discretion, that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent land uses, then City Planner shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to reconstruct the mechanical equipment screening in order to meet Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the security provided until all such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed by Developer. 10. STORMWATER QUALITY FACILITIES: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, Developer shall prepare and submit for review and approval by the City Engineer a certified geotechnical analusis of the dyke forming the eastern edge of the water quality pond on Outlot C Golden Strip, using industry standards for small earth dams. The analysis shall evaluate the existing dyke and sub grade soils for the proposed hydraulic loads. If the existing dyke is inadequate, the Developer shall retrotite the dyke or provide alemative treatment of stonnwater.The Developer shall prepare a certified analysis of the 100 year flood elevation of the stonnwater quality pond based on the revised nonnal water level and proposed outlet to Smetana Lake. The 100 year surface elevation shall be a minimum of one foot below the lowest elevation of the dyke forming the ponds eastern side. 11. PUD W AIYERS GRANTED: City hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within the C-Regional Service District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD A. Waiver from the maximum height of30 ft. To 68.5 ft. B. Impervious surface from 30% to 60%. C. Floor Area Ratio from .40 to .57. D. Parking setback from 10 ft. To 0 ft.as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 12. RET AINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and obtain the Chief Building Official's approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls indicated on the grading plan in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for said retaining walls. Upon approval by the Chief Building Official, Developer agrees to implement the approved retaining wall plan, concurrent with the grading, street, and utility construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 13. SIGNS: Developer agrees that for each and every sign to be located on the property, Developer, shall file an application with the City Planner for a sign permit. Said application shall include complete description of the sign and a sketch showing the size, location, manner of construction, and other such information as necessary to inform the City of the kind, size, material construction, and location of any such sign, consistent with the sign plan shown on Exhibit B and in accordance with the requirements of City code, Section 11.70, Subdivision 5a. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT FAIRFIELD INN HOTEL THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of April 16, 1996 by Tharaldson Development Co., A North Dakota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for construction of Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 109 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 7.25 acres, Rezoning from C-Regional to C-Regional Service on 7.25 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.25 acres and Preliminary Plat of7.25 acres into 3 lots, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. for Planned Unit Development and Zoning and Resolution No. , Preliminary Plat, and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review. Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated 2-23-96, reviewed and approved by the City Council on 3-19-96, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. STREET AND UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the construction of streets and utilities for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems and storm sewer. 4. CROSS ACCESS, PARKING, AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Prior to the release of the final plat, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and receive the City Engineer's approval of access, use, cross-parking and maintenance agreement for the Property. The agreement shall address use, access, and maintenance of parking facilities and storm water facilities. Developer shall record said cross access parking and maintenance agreement in the Hennepin County Recorders-Registrar Office and submit evidence of recording to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. II) 5. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and colors to be used on the buildings on the Property. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved exterior materials and colors plan concurrent with building construction on the Property and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. FINAL GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: A. FINAL GRADING PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the Property. The final grading and drainage plan shall include all water quality ponds, storm water detention areas and storm sewers. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Developer shall implement the approved final grading and drainage plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's approval of an Erosion Control Plan for the Property. The Erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features, temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures. All site grading operations shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. 7. IRRIGATION PLAN: Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan for irrigation ofthe landscaped areas on the Property. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved irrigation plan concurrent with construction and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity, type, and size of plant materials as shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. Developer shall furnish to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape bond equal to 150% of the cost of said improvements as required by City code. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. IlJ 9. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer shall submit to City Planner, and receive City Planner's approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the Property. Said mechanical equipment includes the gas meters, electrical conduit, and water meters in addition to standard heating, ventilating, and air conditioning units. Security to guarantee construction of said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property, per City Code requirements. Developer shall implement the approved plan concurrent with building construction. If, after completion of construction of said mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by the City Planner, in its sole discretion, that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent land uses, then City Planner shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to reconstruct the mechanical equipment screening in order to meet Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the security provided until all such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed by Developer. 10. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: City hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within the C-Regional Service District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD A Impervious surface from 30% to 62%. B. Parking setback from 10 ft. To 0 ft C. An offsite pylon sign on the restaurant site as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer shall receive written permission and an easement from the owner of Lot 3, Block 1 for said pylon sign as shown in Exhibit B. D. Floor Area Ratio from .40 to .42. 11. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and obtain the Chief Building Official's approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls indicated on the grading plan in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for said retaining walls. Upon approval by the Chief Building Official, Developer agrees to implement the approved retaining wall plan, concurrent with the grading, street, and utility construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 12. STORMWATERQUALITYFACILITIES: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, Developer shall prepare and submit for review and approval by the City Engineer a certified geotechnical analysis of the dyke forming 11 the eastern edge of the water quality pond on Outlot C Golden Strip, using industry standards for small earth dams. The analysis shall evaluate the existing dyke and subgrade soils for the proposed hydraulic loads. If the existing dyke is inadequate, the Developer shall retrotite the dyke or provide alternative treatment of stormwater. The Developer shall prepare a certified analysis of the 100 year flood elevation of the stormwater quality pond based on the revised normal water level and proposed outlet to Smetana Lake. The 100 year surface elevation shall be a minimum of one foot below the lowest elevation of the dyke forming the ponds eastern side. 13. SIGNS: Developer agrees that for each and every sign to be located on the property, Developer, shall file an application with the City Planner for a sign permit. Said application shall include complete description of the sign and a sketch showing the size, location, manner of construction, and other such information as necessary to inform the City of the kind, size, material construction, and location of any such sign, consistent with the sign plan shown on Exhibit B and in accordance with the requirements of City code, Section 11.70, Subdivision Sa. I~ EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-16-96 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. JJJ. H . DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger SHORELAND ORDINANCES Scott Kipp Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Approve 2nd Reading of an Ordinance amendment to City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.02 entitled Definitions and 11.50 entitled Shoreland Management; • Approve 2nd Reading of Ordinance amendment to City Code Chapter 9, section 9.60 entitled Regulation of Lake Waters Generally. Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance amendment Chapter 11.02 and 11.50. 2. Ordinance amendment Chapter 9.60. I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE # AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 ENTITLED "PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES" SECTION 9.60 ENTITLED "REGULATION OF LAKE WATERS GENERALLY", AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAINS PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code, Chapter 9, Section 9.60 is amended to read as follows in its entirety: SECTION 9.60. REGULATION OF USE OF LAKE WATERS GENERALLY. Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings state: A. "Dock" -Any wharf, pier, or other structure constructed or maintained in the lake or located above the surface of public water, whether floating or not, including all "L's" or "T's", or post which may be a part thereof, whether affixed or adjacent to the principle structure. B. "Water Oriented Accessory Structure" - A structure used solely for watercraft storage including storage of related boating and water-oriented sporting equipment. The term does not include slip structure or moorings. C. "Watercraft Cover" - A temporary cover solely for the protection of watercraft. D. "Mooring" -Any buoy, post, structure or other devise at which a water craft may be moored and which is surrounded by navigable water. E. "Slip Structure -A structure designed solely to secure a watercraft for the purpose of protecting it from damage from sun, wind, storm, or rain. F. "Structure" -See definition in Chapter 11, Section 11.02 entitled definitions. Subd. 2. Nuisances Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to commit or maintain a public nuisance in or upon the waters of any lake or other body of water; and no person shall let, permit, Regulation of Lake Waters Generally Section 9.60 or enable any other person to use any boat, dock, craft or structure, or portion thereof, knowing that it is intended to be used for committing or maintaining a public nuisance. It is also unlawful for any person to willfully prevent, hinder, or oppose or obstruct a public official in the performance of his duty in carrying out the provisions of this Section or in removing or abating a public nuisance. Subd.3. Nuisances Defined. A public nuisance consists in doing or omitting to perform one or more of the following: A. Injure or endanger the safety, health, or comfort of the public; or, B. Offend public decency; or, C. Unlawfully interfere with, obstruct, or tend to obstruct or render dangerous for use or passage a lake or other body of water; or, D. Cause the depositing or littering of refuse or waste or other deleterious, poisonous or injurious substance upon water or ice of any lake or other body of water; or, E. Cause the depositing of sewage into lake waters; or, F. Cause the erection or maintenance of any dock or structure which interferes with, obstructs, or tends to obstruct or render dangerous for use the waters of any lake. Subd.4. It is unlawful for any person to fail to equip and to operate a boat, vessel or watercraft in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 361 of Minnesota Statutes, 1990, which Statutes are hereby adopted and incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference, as fully as if set forth herein provided that these additional requirements shall be met by all owners and operators of watercraft within the harbor limits established herein, namely: A. All watercraft in use or underway between sunset and sunrise shall be equipped with and have in operation red and green running lights in the forward section ofthe boat and a white light at the stem or on the superstructure, which white light shall be visible on a dark night with clear atmosphere for a distance oftwo (2) miles from any direction provided, however, that motor powered watercraft under sixteen (16) feet in overall length may use portable lights, which must be clamped on the watercraft when in use, and non-powered watercraft may use a portable single white light which is visible from any direction for a distance of two (2) miles on a dark night with clear atmosphere. 2 Regulation of Lake Waters Generally Section 9.60 B. All watercraft when at anchor or drifting must show a white light visible from any direction for a distance of one (1) mile, and such light shall be lit from sunset to sunrise except that a watercraft anchored in a cove within one hundred (100) feet of shore and two hundred (200) feet away from normal navigation and any watercraft anchored at a dock or pier need not have the white light lit. C. All watercraft shall have on board and readily accessible Coast Guard Approved life preservers, vests or buoyant cushions capable of keeping every person on board afloat. D. No watercraft other than an authorized Water Patrol Boat or other police watercraft shall use or display a red light except a red running light. E. No watercraft other than an authorized Water Patrol Boat or other police watercraft shall use or display a police, sheriff or law enforcement officer's flag or any device designed to simulate such a flag. F. No person shall board, use, damage or tamper with a watercraft except when done by the owner or with the owner's consent. G. No person under fifteen (15) years of age shall operate a watercraft powered by a motor often (10) horsepower or more unless accompanied by a competent person fifteen (15) years of age or older. H. No person shall tow or operate a watercraft towing one (1) or more persons behind a watercraft on water skis, aquaplane, surfboard, saucer, or similar device except in compliance with these regulations: 1. Every person being towed shall wear a life vest, belt or other buoyant device except with written permission of the County Sheriff. 2. Not more than two (2) persons may be towed at one time except with written permission of the County Sheriff. 3. No person shall be towed from one-half hour after official sunset to sunrise. 4. No person shall be towed by a rope, cable or other towing device longer than eighty-five (85) feet except with a written permit of the County Sheriff. 5. No person shall operate a watercraft when towing a person, and no person being towed shall come within one hundred fifty (150) feet of any bathing area, skin diver's warning flag, swimmer, or raft, watercraft, dock or pier except that raft, 3 L/ Regulation of Lake Waters Generally Section 9.60 dock or pier from which he is operating. 6. No person shall tow or be towed during a holiday, or Saturday or Sunday, or in a congested area at any time unless two competent persons are on the boat or watercraft. The driver of such watercraft shall be at least fifteen (15) years of age and must watch where the watercraft is being driven at all times. The second person on board the watercraft shall be an observer, and shall be at least twelve (12) years of age, and shall watch the person or persons being towed at all times. 7. No person shall drag an unoccupied tow line behind a watercraft for an unreasonable length of time. 8. No person shall tow or be towed into or through a marked channel connecting two (2) bodies of water. Subd. 5. The operator of any motor boat, speed boat, or of any vessel under power shall not overtake or pass any watercraft in a channel or narrow passage; and all watercraft shall proceed through all channels and narrow passages of water with closed throttle. Subd. 6. No person shall obstruct or interfere with passage of a boat or vessel through a channel or narrow water passageway. Subd.7. No person shall operate a boat or vessel in a careless or reckless manner in or about a public swimming beach. Subd. 8. No person shall swim in a channel, or jump or dive from a channel bridge or dam. Subd. 9. No person shall operate any watercraft, automobile, vehicle or powered propelled device on the open water or upon an ice covered body of water in such a manner as to endanger life, limb or property. Subd. 10. No person shall anchor or operate a boat within one hundred (100) feet of a structure holding a lawful pennit to be used for the purpose of a ski jump or within one hundred (100) feet of the buoys used as markers for the water ski course during such times as the said water ski course and jump are in use by water skiers. Subd. 11. Regulation of Structures A. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to use any area of any public waters outside of 4 Regulation of Lake Waters Generally Section 9.60 an authorized dock use area, for docks, mooring, boat storage, swimming floats, ski jump storage or diving towers, unless such use is specifically permitted under the provisions of this Section. B. Authorized Dock Use Area. An authorized dock use area is described as follows: 1. Length -The authorized dock use area for lots bordering on the lake extends into the lake a distance equal to the lot's lake frontage to be measured at right angles to the side lot lines and, except as provided herein, shall not extend into the lake a distance of greater than 100 feet in the case of commercial docks and 75 feet in the case of other docks to be measured on a line parallel to the side lot lines as extended into the lakes. 2. Width -The authorized dock use area for lots bordering on the lake is limited in width by the setback limitations prescribed herein. The setback from side lot lines as extended into the lake shall be 15 feet for private docks and 20 feet for commercial docks. Where boat slips open toward a side lot line, the setback provided shall be at least equal to the slip depth, but shall not be less than 20 feet. 3. Multiple Docks -Only one dock is allowed per abutting lot. C. Structures Not to Obstruct. No dock, or other structure shall be so located as to obstruct a navigable channel, or so as to obstruct reasonable access to any other dock, mooring area or similar structure authorized under this Chapter. No dock, mooring area or similar structure shall be located or designed so that it unnecessarily requires or encourages boats using it to encroach into any other authorized dock use area. D. Unusual Configuration. Where the provisions of this Section would cause the authorized dock use area of two or more lots to overlap, or where there is any other unusual configuration of shoreline or extended lot lines, which causes a conflict between the owners of two or more adjacent or nearby lots in that they may tend to use the same area of any public waters for docks, mooring areas or other structures or for reasonable access thereto, the owner of any of the affected lots may apply to the Council for a variance pursuant to this Section. A variance may be (1) to permit the applicant to locate a dock, mooring area or other structure in a location different from that permitted by this Section, or (2) to permit the owner of any adjacent or nearby site lot to do so. E. Docks: Dimension Limits. A dock as defmed in Subdivision 1 of this Section, shall not exceed, in the case of a commercial dock, 600 square feet, and in the case of a residential dock, 450 square feet. 5 Regulation of Lake Waters Generally Section 9.60 F. Prohibited Structure. The following may not be erected on a public water: (1) water- oriented accessory structure; or (2) any structure above the horizontal plane of a dock except watercraft covers and slip structures as regulated by this Subdivision. A non- conforming dock or roof lawfully in existence upon enactment of this ordinance may not be structurally altered or expanded in any way. G. Surface Water-oriented Commercial Use. Uses that depend on patrons arriving by watercraft may use signs and lighting to convey needed information to the public, subject to the following general standards: 1. Any signs must comply with Chapter II, Section 11.70. 2. No advertising signs or supporting facilities for signs may be placed in or upon public waters. Signs conveying information or safety messages may be placed in or on public waters by a public authority or under a permit issued by the county sheriff. 3. Outside lighting may be located within the shore impact zone or over public waters if it is used primarily to illuminate potential safety hazards and is shielded or otherwise directed to prevent direct illumination out across public waters. This does not preclude use of navigational lights. H. Storage. Unless otherwise specifically permitted by this Section, no structure on a public water may be used for the storage of any materials or items other than watercraft. I. Multiple Docks. Only one dock is allowed per abutting lot. J. Temporary Structures. No swimming floats, ski jumps, diving towers, buoys, markers, or other structures surrounded by navigable water shall be located in a public water more than 100 feet from the shoreline without being authorized by a permit from the City. The Council may grant any such permit, provided that the proposed structure is not more than 200 feet from the shoreline, if it determined that the granting of such permit will not create hazards or obstructions to navigation. Permits shall not be issued for free floating structures. Permits are not required for diving floats or navigation buoys. K. Permits. Any change in the length, width, height, or location of a structure requiring a permit under this Section requires the issuance of a new permit. If a permit is denied, or if any activity or structure does not otherwise conform with the requirement of this Section, a variance may be sought consistent with the requirements of this Section. In applying for any permit under this Section, the following information shall be supplied by the applicant: 6 1 Regulation of Lake Waters Generally Section 9.60 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant. 2. The type, number, and proposed location of structures for which the permit is sought. 3. The period oftime for which the permit is sought. (No more than 3 years.) 4. A statement as to whether the structure will be reflectorized. 5. If an organization is seeking the permit, a statement as to the nature of the organization. 6. If the permit is sought for a particular event, the nature ofthe event. 7. Such other information as the Director of Community Services may require to assist him, or the Council, in considering the application for the permit. 8. A statement by the applicant that he assumes responsibility for the presence and removal of all structures in the protected water. L. Factors Considered Prior to Granting Permit. In exercising its discretion to grant or deny permits, the Council may consider, among other things, the following: 1. Whether the structure will be structurally safe for use by the intended users. 2. Whether the facility will comply with the regulations contained in this Section. 3. Whether the proposed structure will create a volume of traffic on the public water in the vicinity of the facility which will tend to be unsafe or which will cause an undue burden on traffic upon the public water in the vicinity of the facility. 4. Whether the proposed facility will be compatible with adjacent development. 5. Whether the proposed facility will be compatible with the maintenance of the natural beauty ofthe public water. 6. Whether the proposed facility will affect the quality of the water ofthe public water and the ecology ofthe public water. 7. Whether the proposed facility, by reason of noise, fumes or other nuisance 7 Regulation of Lake Waters Generally Section 9.60 characteristics, will tend to be a source of nuisance or annoyance to persons in the vicinity of the facility. 8. Whether adequate sanitary and parking facilities will be provided in connection with the proposed facility. M. Permit Conditions. The Council may impose written conditions on the issuance of a permit. A violation of the terms and conditions of the permit is a violation of this Section and grounds for revocation of the permit. N. Permit Revocation. A pennit may be revoked by the Council. 1. The Council may revoke a permit for any of the following causes: a. A permitted structure is found to be a hazard. b. The permitted structure is an obstruction to safe use of the lake. c. The pennit is not in compliance with the requirements ofthis Section. 2. Notice of the hearing for revocation of a permit shall be given by the city Clerk in writing, setting forth specifically the grounds of the complaint and the time and place of hearing. 3. Such notice shall be mailed, postage prepaid, to the permittee to hislher last known address at least five (5) days prior to the date set for hearing,or shall be delivered in the same manner as a summons at least three (3) days prior to the date set for hearing. O. Permit Fees. When filing the application, the applicant shall pay non-refundable fees for temporary structure and all other permit fees in amounts which have been determined by the Council and fixed by resolution. A copy of such resolution shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk-Treasurer and uniformly enforced. Section 2. Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code. Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. 8 Regulation of Lake Waters Generally Section 9.60 FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the ------' day of , 1996, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the __ day of , 1996. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on __________ ' G:\BARB\STEVE\960.COU 9 10 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9, SECTION 9.60 ENTITLED REGULATIONS OF USE OF LAKE WATERS GENERALLY, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER TmNGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance amends City Code Chapter 9, Section 9.60 relocating contents previously located in City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Shoreland Management known as regulations of structures within a lake to Chapter 9. The purpose is for continuity in enforcement. Effective Date: ATTEST: lsI John D. Frane City Clerk This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. IslJean L. Harris Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _______ _ (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) Barb\steve\summ.960 II CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE # AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)" SECTION 11.02 ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS"; SECTION 11.50 ENTITLED "SHORELAND MANAGEMENT" AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAINS PENAL TY PROVISIONS THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.02 is amended as follows: SECTION 11.02. DEFINITIONS. 1. "Accessory Structure" - A detached structure, building or facility which is located on the same lot as the main building and the use of which is clearly incidental to the use of the main building. Such accessory structures shall include but not be limited to pools, tennis courts, water oriented accessory structures, etc. Section 2. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50 is amended to read as follows in its entirety: 11.50. SHORE LAND MANAGEMENT Subd.1. Authorization and Jurisdiction. A. Statutory Authorization. These Shoreland regulations are adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minn. Stat. Section 103F.201-103F.221 and Minn. Stat. Section 462. B. Jurisdiction. The provisions of this Section shall apply to the shorelands ofthe public waters as classified in Subd.7 of this Section. Pursuant to Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500-6120.3900. no lake, pond, or flowage less than 10 acres in size in municipalities need be regulated in a local government's shore1and regulations. A body of water created by a private user where there was no previous shoreland may, at the discretion of the governing body, be exempt from this section. Subd.2. Declaration of Policy and Procedures. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby found and fJ Shoreland Code 11.50 declared that shorelands of public waters are, or may be, subject to uncontrolled use resulting in: Health and safety hazards, pollution of public waters, loss of property, destruction offish and wildlife, impairment of natural beauty, and impairment oflocal tax base all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. It is, therefore, the purpose ofthis Section to provide standards and criteria for the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of public waters in order to preserve and enhance the quality of public waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shore lands, and provide for wise utilization of water and related land resources, and thereby promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare. SUbd.3. Interpretation and Severability. Interpretation. In interpreting and applying the provisions of this Section, such provisions shall be held to be minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety, prosperity and general welfare. It is not the intention of this Section to interfere with any other provision of the City Code, however, where this Section imposes a greater restriction upon the use or improvement of any premises than those imposed or required by other City Code provisions, rules, regulations or permits of the City, State, or appropriate Watershed District, the provisions of this Section shall govern. Subd.4 Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: 1. "Bluff' - a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having all the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluft): a. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; b. The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody; c. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and d. The slope must drain toward the waterbody. 2. "Bluff impact zone" - a bluff and land located within 20 feet beyond the top ofa bluff. 3. "Building line" - a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. 2 13 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 4. "Clear cutting" -removal of all existing significant natural vegetation on a lot. 5. "Commissioner" -the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. 6. "Lot Abutting" -any lot directly abutting the Ordinary High Water Level or within 150 feet thereof shall be considered an abutting lot. 7. "Ordinary high water level" -the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall be at an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowage, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool. 8. "Public waters" -any waters as defined in Minnesota Statues, 103.0.005 Sub. 15 and Sub. 18. 9. "Setback" -the minimum horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment system, or other facility and an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system, top of a bluff, road, highway, property line, or other facility. 10. "Sewage treatment system" - a septic tank and soil absorption system or other individual or cluster type sewage treatment system as described and regulated in Subdivision 17 of this ordinance. 11. "Sewer system" -pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and force main, and all other construction, devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point of ultimate disposal. 12. "Shore impact zone" -land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the required structure setback. 13. "Shoreland" -land located within the following distances from public 3 It./-- Shoreland Code Section 11.50 waters: 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond, or flowage; and 300 feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a floodplain designated by code on a river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the commissioner. 14. "Shoreline" -The shoreline for public waters is defmed as the normal ordinary high water level. 15. "Toe of the bluff' -the lower point ofa 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. 16. "Top of the bluff' -the higher point ofa 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. 17. "Water-oriented accessory structure" - A structure used solely for watercraft storage including storage of related boating and water-oriented sporting equipment. 18. "100-Y ear Frequency Flood Level" -The elevation that a creek, pond, or lake can be expected to reach once in 100 years. Subd.5. Administration, Application and Issuance of Certain Permits. A. Permit Required. A permit issued by the City shall be applied for and obtained prior to construction, installation of sewer and water facilities, and grading and filling within any part of shoreland area. B. Applications for Permit. Application for a permit shall be made by the owner or owners of the lot on forms provided by the City. A copy ofthe application shall be filed with the City Manager, or designee. Any change in the length, width, height, or location of a structure requiring a permit under this Section requires the issuance of a new permit. If a permit is denied, or if an activity or structure does not otherwise conform with the requirement of this Section, a variance may be sought consistent with the requirements of this Section. In applying for any permit under this Section, the following information shall be supplied by the applicant: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant. 4 II)" Shoreland Code Section 11.50 2. The type, number, and proposed location of structures for which the permit is sought. Plans drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions & elevations of the lot. and existing as proposed structures. 3. The period of time for which the permit is sought. 4. A statement as to whether the structure will be reflectorized. 5. If an organization is seeking the pennit, a statement as to the nature of the organization. 6. If the permit is sought for a particular event, the nature of the event. 7. Such other information as determined by the City Manager, or designee may require to assist him/her, or the Council, in considering the application for the permit. 8. A statement by the applicant that he assumes responsibility for the presence and removal of all structures in the public water. C. Application Fee. When filing the application, the applicant shall submit non-refundable fees for a permit in amounts which have been determined by the Council and fixed by resolution. A copy of such resolution shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk - Treasurer and unifonnly enforced. D. The City Manager or designee shall submit a copy of the application to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission for an evaluation of the environmental impact of the proposed construction, and the Planning Commission and City Planner for their report and recommendations. E. The City Manager or designee shall submit a copy ofthe application to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and appropriate Watershed District postmarked at least 10 days prior to approval of a pennit. F. The application for permit, together with staff reports, and comments and recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the Council for action. The permit application should be acted upon only after receipt of the comments and recommendations from the appropriate Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources, except that if comments and recommendations are not received within 60 days after submission to them 5 /(0 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 pursuant to Subparagraph E above, the Council may act upon such application without those recommendations. G. Factors Considered Prior to Granting Permit. In exercising its discretion to grant or deny permits, the Council may consider, among other things, the following: H. 1. Adequacy of lot size and building setbacks. 2. Adequacy of sewer and water facilities. 3. Adequacy of grading, filling and restoration. 4. Whether the structures will be structurally safe for use by the intended users. 5. Whether the facility will comply with the regulations and shoreland protection measures contained in this Section. 6. Whether the proposed structure will create a volume of traffic on the public water in the vicinity of the facility which will tend to be unsafe. 7. Whether the proposed facility will be compatible with adjacent development. 8. Whether the proposed facility will be compatible with the maintenance of the natural beauty of the public water. 9. Whether the proposed facility will affect the quality, or ecology of the public water. 10. Whether the proposed facility, by reason of noise, fumes or other nuisance characteristics, will tend to be a source of nuisance or annoyance to persons in the vicinity of the facility. 11. Whether adequate sanitary and parking facilities will be provided in connection with the proposed facility. Permit Conditions. The Council may impose written conditions on the issuance of a permit. A violation of the terms and conditions of a permit is a violation of this Section and grounds for revocation of the permit. 6 11 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 Subd.6. Variance Standards A. Procedures for Considering Variance Application. A variance from strict conformity with the terms of this section may be granted in conformance with the provisions for granting variances set forth in Section 11.76 of this Chapter. Upon receiving an application for a variance, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, prior to rendering a decision thereon, may require the applicant to furnish the following information, as deemed necessary by the Board, for determining the suitability of a particular site for the proposed use: 1 . Plans showing elevation of the ground water supply, sanitation facilities, photographs showing existing land uses, vegetation upstream and downstream and soil types. 2. Specification for building constriction (including lot size and setbacks), filling, and grading, water supply, and sanitary facilities. 3. Such other information as may bear on the suitability of the proposed structure or development. B. Provisions of the variance regulations contained in this section shall apply. For existing developments, the application for variance must clearly demonstrate whether a conforming sewage treatment system is present for the intended use of the property. The variance, if issued, must require reconstruction of a nonconforming sewage treatment system. C. Administration of Variance. Refer to Subdivision 5 entitled Administration, Application and Issuance of Certain Permits. Subd.7. Shoreland Classification System & Profile. A. The public waters ofthe City are as set forth below: 1. Natural Enyironment Waters Protected Water InyentOlY I.D.# Grass Lake McCoy Lake Mitchell Lake Neill Lake Rice Marsh Lake Rice Lake 7 11 27-70P 27-80P 27-77W 27-79P 10-IP 27-132P Shoreland Code Section 11.50 Round Lake School Pond Smetana Lake Super Valu Pond (unnamed pond) 27-71W 27-75W 27-73W 27-72P 2. Recreational Deyelopment Waters Protected Waters Inyentmy I.D.# Anderson Lake Birch Island Lake Bryant Lake Duck Lake Idlewild Lake Riley Lake Red Rock Lake Staring Lake 3. General DevelQPment Waters 27-74P 27-62P 27-81P 27-67P 27-69P 1O-2P 27-76P 27-78P General Leial Description Minnesota River Bluff Creek Nine Mile Creek Purgatory Creek Riley Creek From: Sec/T IR 3111 1 6122 (City Limit) 32/ll6/22(27-132P) 02/116/22(City Limit) 0311 1 6/22 (City Limit) 061116122(City Limit) 0511 1 6122 (City Limit) 18/116122(1O-IP) To: Sec/TIR 36I1l6/22(City Limit) 32I1l6/22(MN River) 12I1l6/22(City Limit) 02/ll6/22(27-67-P) 061116/22(City Limit) 36I1l6/22(MN River) 321116/22(MN River) Subd.8. Zoning Restrictions. No building permit shall be issued for any lots zoned as rural, residential, commercial, office, industrial, public or any sub-zoning district thereof which are within the Shore land unless the use is in conformance with this Chapter and conforms to the following lot size dimensions and setbacks. A. Natural Environment Waters. 1. Single Family Housing Detached Dwellings. a. Lots abutting without public sewer: 8 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 (1) Minimum lot size - 5 acres. (2) Minimum width at building line -300 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -200 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Level-200 feet. b. Lots abutting with public sewer and water: (1) Minimum lot size -40,000 square feet. (2) Minimum width at building line -150 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -150 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level -150 feet. 2. Multiple Housing Attached Dwellings. a. Lots must have public sewer and water. b. Lots abutting: (1) Minimum lot size -30,000 sq. ft.lunit. (2) Minimum width at building line -150 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -150 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level-150 feet. (5) Structures shall not comprise more than 50% ofthe length of the shoreland within the lot. 3. Office and Institutional. a. Lots must have public sewer and water. b. Lots abutting: (1) Minimum lot size -10 acres. (2) Minimum width at building line -200 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -200 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level -200 feet. 4. Commercial and Industrial (no outside storage allowed). a. Lots must have public sewer and water. b. Lots abutting: 9 20 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 (1) Minimum lot size -10 acres. (2) Minimum width at building line -200 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -200 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level -200 feet. B. Recreational Development Waters. 1. Single Family Housing Detached Dwellings. a. Lots abutting without public sewer: (1) Minimum lot size - 5 acres. (2) Minimum width at building line -300 feet (Rural -300 feet). (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -150 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level -100 feet. b. Lots abutting with public sewer and water: (1) Minimum lot size -20,000 square feet. (2) Minimum width at building line -120 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -120 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level -100 feet. 2. Multiple Housing Attached Dwellings. a. Lots must have public sewer and water. b. Lots abutting: (1) Minimum lot size -15,000 sq. ft'!unit. (2) Minimum width at building line -120 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level-120 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level-150 feet. (5) Structures shall not comprise more than 50% of the length of the shoreland within the lot. 3. Office and Institutional. a. Lots must have public sewer and water. b. Lots abutting: (1) Minimum lot size - 5 acres. 10 JI Shoreland Code Section 11.50 (2) Minimum width at building line -200 feet. (3) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level-200 feet. (4) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level-200 feet. 4. Commercial and Industrial (no outside storage allowed). a. Lots must have public sewer and water. b. Lots abutting: (1) Minimum lot size -10 acres. (2) Minimum width at building line -200 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -200 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level -200 feet. C. General Development Waters. 1. Single Family Housing Detached Dwellings. a. Lots abutting without public sewer: (1) Minimum lot size - 5 acres. (2) Minimum width at building line -120 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -120 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level -100 feet. b. Lots abutting with public sewer and water: (1) Minimum lot size -13,500 square feet. (2) Minimum width at building line -120 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -120 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level-100 feet. 2. Multiple Housing Attached Dwellings. a. Lots must have public sewer and water. b. Lots abutting: (1) Minimum lot size -10,000 square feet/unit (2) Minimum width at building line -100 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -120 feet. 11 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level -150 feet. (5) Structures shall not comprise more than 50% of the length ofthe shoreland within the lot. 3. Office and Institutional. a. Lots must have public water and sewer. b. Lots abutting: (1) Minimum lot size - 2 acres. (2) Minimum width at building line -150 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -150 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level-150 feet. 4. Commercial. a. Lots must have public water and sewer. b. Lots abutting: (1 ) Minimum lot size - 2 acres. (2) Minimum width at building line -150 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -150 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level-150 feet. 5 . Industrial. a. Lots must have public water and sewer. b. Lots abutting: (1 ) Minimum lot size - 5 acres. (2) Minimum width at building line -150 feet. (3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -150 feet. (4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level-150 feet. D. Additional Special Provisions. 1. Where development exists on both sides of a proposed building site within the same lot as the proposed building site, structural setbacks may be altered to take 12 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 setbacks of existing structures into account if approved by the City Mananger or designee, provided the proposed building site is not within a shore or bluff impact zone. 2. Commercial, industrial, or permitted open space uses requiring location on or near public waters may be allowed as a variance closer to such waters than the setbacks specified in this Section. 3. Septic tanks and soil absorption systems shall be setback from the ordinary high water level in accordance with the class of public water: a. Natural Environment Waters, at least 150 feet. b. Recreational Development Waters, at least 100 feet. c. General Development Waters, at least 100 feet. E. Additional Structure Setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the waterbody: Setback From: 1. 2. 3. top of bluff; unplatted cemetery; right-of-way line of public street, or other roads or streets not classified; Setback (in feet); 30 for principle structure 50 20 F. Bluff Impact Zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. G. Steep Slopes. The City Manager or designee shall required soil erosion protection and must evaluate possible soil erosion impacts, soil protection and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions must be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. 13 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 H. Uses Without Water-oriented Needs. Commercial, industrial, public and semi-public uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, iflocated on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view as determined by the City Manager or designee from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions as determined by the City Manager or designee. Subd.9. Design Criteria For Structures. A. High Water Elevation. Structures shall be placed such that the lowest floor elevation is at least two feet above the 100-Y ear Frequency Flood Level. B. Water-oriented Accessory Structures. Each lot may have one water-oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in Subdivision 8 of this section if this water-oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions: 1. The structure or facility must not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet; 2. The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level must be at least ten feet; 3. The structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions; 4. The roof of any water-oriented structure may not be used as a storage area; 5. The structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not contain water supply, or sewage treatment facilities. C. Stairways, Lifts, and Landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts must meet the following design requirements: 1. Stairways and lifts must not exceed 4 feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open-space recreational properties. 2. Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots must not exceed 32 square feet 14 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 in area. Landings greater than 32 square feet but less than 64 square feet may be used for commercial properties, and public open-space recreational properties. 3. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. D. Controlled Access. Lots intended as controlled accesses to public waters or as recreation areas for use by owners of nonriparian lots within subdivisions are permissible and must meet or exceed the following standards: 1. The lot must meet the width and size requirements for residential lots as required by subd. 8 of this section. 2. If docking, mooring, or over-water storage of more than six (6) watercraft is to be allowed at a controlled access lot, then the width of the lot (keeping the same lot depth) must be increased by 25 percent of the requirements for riparian residential lots for each watercraft beyond six. 3. The lot must be jointly owned by all purchasers of lots in the subdivision or by all purchasers of nonriparian lots in the subdivision who are provided riparian access rights on the access lot. 4. Covenants must be developed that specify which lot owners have authority to use the access lot and what activities are allowed. The activities may include watercraft launching, loading, storage, beaching, mooring, or docking. The covenants must also include other outdoor recreational activities that do not significantly conflict with general public use of the public water or the enjoyment of normal property rights by adjacent property owners. Examples of the nonsignificant conflict activities include but are not limited to,swimming, sunbathing, or picnicking. The covenants must limit the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked and the total number of watercraft allowed to be continuously moored, docked, or stored over water, and must require centralization of all common facilities and activities in the most suitable locations on the lot to minimize topographic and vegetation alterations. The covenants must also require all parking areas, storage buildings, and other facilities to be screened by vegetation or topography as much as practical from view from the public water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. The covenants must be filed with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County. SUbd. 10. Placement and Height of Structures. A. Placement of Structures on Lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures 15 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high water level, provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a bluff impact zone. Structures shall be located as follows: 1. Stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. 2. Stairways, lifts, and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions oflots, so as to minimize the view from the surface ofthe public water assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical. 3. Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of Subd. 9B and 9C are complied with in addition to the requirements as contained in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1340 a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. B. Height of Structures. All structures in residential districts, must not exceed 35 feet in height. Subd.l1. Shoreland Alterations. Alterations of vegetation and topography is regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. A. Vegetation Alterations. 1. Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems and the construction of roads, utilities, and parking areas shall be regulated by this Section and this Chapter. 2. Removal or alteration of vegetation, except for agricultural uses as regulated in Subd. 14 is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to 16 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, livestock watering areas, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: (I) The minimal amount of vegetation is altered; (2) The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; (3) Along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; (4) The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards; and (5) All disturbed areas are restored to prevent erosion potential. B. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. 1. A grading and filling permit will be required for the movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of material within steep slopes and shore and bluff impact zones. 2. The issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, variances and subdivision approvals are subject to evaluation based on the following criteria: a. Grading or filling in any type 2,3,4,5,6,7, or 8 wetland must be evaluated to determine how extensively the proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland; (1) sediment and pollutant trapping and retention; (2) storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage; (3) fish and wildlife habitat; (4) recreational use; (5) shoreline or bank stabilization; and (6) noteworthiness, including special qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or others. b. Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible; c. Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary 17 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 bare soil coverage, and a pennanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible; d. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used; e. Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service; f. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope; g. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by registered Engineer for continued slope stability and must not create fmished slopes of 30 percent or greater; h. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones; 1. Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters must first be authorized by the Commissioner of Department of Natural Resources under Minnesota Statutes, section 1030.245; J. Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties; and k. Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. 3. Alteration of Beds of Public Waters. a. Any work which will change or diminish the course, current or cross section of a public water shall be approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources before the work is begun. This includes construction of channels, ditches, lagooning, dredging of lakes or stream bottoms or removal of muck, silt, or weeds and filling in the lake or stream 18 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 bed. Approval shall be construed to mean the issuance, by the Commissioner, or a pennit under the procedures of Minnesota Statute, Sec 1030.245 and other related statutes. b. Pennission for excavation on shorelands where the intended purpose is connection to protected water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, may be given only after the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources has approved the proposed connection. Approval shall only be given if the proposed work is consistent with applicable State regulations for work in beds of public waters. Subd.12. Placement and Design of Roads, Driveways, and Parking Areas. A. Public and private roads and parking areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. Documentation must be provided by a registered architect, registered landscape architect, or registered professional that all roads and parking areas are designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district, or other applicable technical materials. B. All roads and parking areas shall meet the setback requirements established for structures in Subdivision 8 of this Section. C. Roads, driveways, parking areas and any other impervious surfaces must not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, but shall not be placed closer than 50 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts. Exceptions to this requirement include recreation trials and boat launch ramps. D. Public and private watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access-related parking areas may be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this subpart are met. Grading and filling provisions of City Code must be met for these facilities. E. Natural vegetation shall be used in order to screen parking areas when viewed from a public water. Subd.13. Stormwater Management. A. Existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces should be used to 19 30 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 convey, store, filter, and retain stonnwater runoff before discharge to public waters, unless an improved drainage system meets all necessary regulations. B. Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. C. When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not sufficient to adequately handle stormwater runoff using natural features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be used. D. The installation of any erosion control measures are subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Urban Best Management Practices, a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. E. Impervious Surfaces. The total area of all impervious surfaces on a lot shall not exceed 30% of the total lot area. F. When proposed facilities are used for stonnwater management, documentation must be provided by a registered Engineer that they will be designed and installed consistent with the field office technical guide of the local soil and water conservation districts of Hennepin County, and United States Soil Conservation Service. G. Newly constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge. Subd.14. Agriculture Use Standards. General cultivation farming, grazing, nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting may be conducted if steep slopes and shore and bluff impact zones are maintained in accordance with this chapter and such use otherwise conforms to the requirements of this chapter. Subd.15. Water and Waste Systems. Nonconfonning sewage treatment systems shall be regulated and upgraded in accordance with Subd.16 of this section. A. Sanitary Restrictions. I. A public or private supply of water for domestic purposes shall confonn to Minnesota Rules Chapter 4720 and 4725 and 7048-7100. 20 81 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 2. Private wells shall be placed in areas not subject to flooding and upslope from any source of contamination. Wells already existing in areas subject to flooding shall be flood proofed in accordance with accepted engineering standards. B. Water Supply and Sewage Treatment. 1. Water Supply. Any public or private supply of water for domestic purposes must meet or exceed standards for water quality of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2. Sewage treatment. Any premises used for human occupancy must be provided with an adequate method of sewage treatment, as follows: a. Publicly-owned sewer systems must be used where available. b. All private sewage treatment systems must meet or exceed the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's standards for individual sewage treatment systems contained in the document titled. "Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Standards, Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080" a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. c. On-site sewage treatment systems must be set back from the ordinary high water level in accordance with the setbacks contained in Subd. 8 of this Section. d. Public sewage disposal and commercial, agricultural, solid waste, and industrial waste disposal, shall be subject to the standards of the Minnesota Rules Chapters 7020 Animal Feedlots, 7035 Solid Waste, 7040 Sewage Sludge Management, 7048 Waste Disposal-Operators, Inspections, 7060 Underground Waters, 7065 Effluent standards for Disposal Systems, 7077 Wastewater Treatment Assistance, a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. C. Septic Tank and Soil Absorption System. 1. Location and installation of septic tanks and/or soil absorption systems shall be such that, with reasonable maintenance, it will function in a sanitary manner and will not create a nuisance, endanger the domestic water supply, nor pollute or contaminate any waters in the State. In determining a suitable location for the tank or system, consideration shall be given to the size and shape of the lot, slope of natural grade, soil permeability, high ground water elevation, geology, proximity 21 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 to existing and future water supplies, accessibility for maintenance and possible expansion of system. 2. Soil absorption systems shall not be allowed in the following areas for disposal of domestic sewage: low swampy areas or areas subject to recurrent flooding; areas where the highest known ground water table, bedrock, or impervious soil conditions are within 4 feet of the bottom of the systems; and area of ground slope which create a danger of seepage of the effiuent onto the surface of the ground. D. Permits shall stipulate that any identified nonconforming sewage treatment system, as defined by Minnesota Rules 7080, Individual Sewage Treatment Systems, shall be reconstructed or replaced in accordance to the standards found in Minnesota Rules 7080. E. Inspection. The Building Inspector shall make such inspection or inspections as are necessary to determine compliance with this Section. No part of any soil absorption system or septic tank shall be covered until it has been inspected and accepted by the Building Inspector and a permit has been obtained from the City pursuant to Subdivision 5 of this Section. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant for the permit to notify the Inspector that the job is ready for inspection or reinspection, and it shall be the duty of the Inspector to make the indicated inspection within a reasonable time after such notice has been given. It shall be the duty of the owner or occupant of the property to give the Inspector free access to the property at reasonable times for the purpose of making such inspections. If upon inspection the Inspector discovers that any part of the system is not constructed in accordance with the minimum standards in this Section, he shall give the applicant written notification describing defects. The applicant shall be responsible for correction or elimination of all defects, and no system shall be placed or replaced in service until all defects have been corrected or eliminated. Upon fmal inspection approval, the Inspector shall so notify the applicant in writing. Subd.16. Non-Conforming Structures, Lots, or Sewage Treatment Systems. An existing structure or use which was lawful before adoption of this Section, but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this Section, may be continued subject to the following conditions: A. No structure or use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in any way without complying in all respects with this Section. B. If any non-conforming structure is destroyed or damaged by any means, to the extent that the cost of repairing or restoring such destroyed or damaged non-conforming structure would be 50% or more of the Assessor's Market Value for tax purposes at the time of damage, then it shall not be reconstructed except in full compliance in all respects with the provisions of this Section, including, but not limited to, the obtaining of all required 22 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 pennits. C. Substandard Lots. The City may issue a building permit for a lot of record in the office of the County Recorder prior to the date of enactment of this Section which does not meet the lot size requirements ofthis Subdivision, provided the lot complies with setback provisions and sanitary restrictions of this Section, and is in separate ownership from abutting lands, except those lots not in separate ownership that have received City platting/subdivision approved. D. Nonconforming sewage treatment systems. 1. A sewage treatment system not meeting the requirement of Minnesota Rules 7080, entitled Individual Sewage Treatment Systems, must be upgraded, at a minimum, at any time a pennit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property. For the purposes of this provision, a sewage treatment system shall not be considered nonconforming if the only deficiency is the sewage treatment system's improper setback from the ordinary high water level. 2. The City will require upgrading or replacement of any nonconforming system within a reasonable period of time which will not exceed 2-years. Sewage systems installed according to all applicable local shoreland management standards adopted under Minnesota Statutes, section 103F.201, in effect at the time of installation may be considered as confonning unless they are detennined to be failing, except that systems using cesspools, leaching pits, seepage pits, or other deep disposal methods, or systems with less soil treatment area separation above groundwater than required by the Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 for design of on-site sewage treatment systems, shall be considered nonconfonning. Subd.17. Subdivision Restrictions. A. Land Suitability. No pennit shall be granted for land to be subdivided which the City finds to be unsuitable for the proposed use because of wetlands, near-shore aquatic conditions unsuitable for water-based recreation, important fish and wildlife habitat, presence of significant historic sites, flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock fonnation, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of future residents. B. Inconsistent Plats. All plats which are inconsistent with this Section shall be received and reviewed by the Commissioner 10 days before a hearing is called by the City for consideration of approval of a preliminary plat. 23 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 C. Copies of Plats. The Commissioner shall receive all plats within shoreland areas within lO days of final approval by the City. Subd.18. Information requirements. Sufficient information must be submitted by the applicant for the city to make a determination ofland development suitability. The information shall include at least the following: A. topographic contours at two-foot intervals showing limiting site characteristics; B. the surface water features required in Minnesota Statutes, section 505.02, subdivision 1, to be shown on plats, obtained from United States Geological Survey quadrangle topographic maps or more accurate sources; C. adequate soils information to determine suitability for building and on-site sewage treatment capabilities for every lot from the most current existing sources or from field investigations such as soil boring, percolation tests, or other methods; D. information regarding adequacy of domestic water supply; extent of anticipated vegetation and topographic alterations; near-shore aquatic conditions, including depths, types of bottom sediments, and aquatic vegetation; and proposed methods for controlling stormwater runoff and erosion, both during and after construction activities; E. location of shoreland areas, 100-year flood plain areas from existing adopted maps or data; and F. a line or contour representing the ordinary high water level, the "toe" and the "top" of bluffs, and the minimum building setback distances from the top ofthe bluff and the lake or stream. G. When a land or easement dedication is a condition of subdivision approval, the approval must provide easements over natural drainage or ponding areas for management of stormwater and significant wetlands. H. Controlled Access or Recreational Lots. Lots Intended as controlled accesses to public waters or for recreational use areas for use by nonriparian lots within a subdivision must meet or exceed the sizing criteria in Subd. 8 of this Section. Subd.19. Planned Unit Development (PUD). For PUD developments within a shoreland area as defmed, the provisions of Section 11.40 shall apply. Section 3. City Code Chapter I entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the 24 Shoreland Code Section 11.50 Entire City Code. Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 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 , 1996, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the __ day of , 1996. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on _________ _ G:\BARB\STEVE\1150.COU 25 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.02 ENTITLED DEFINITIONS AND SECTION 11.50 ENTITLED SHORELAND MANAGEMENT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER TIDNGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance amends City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.02 entitled Definitions and Section 11.50 entitled Shoreland Management to include new statewide standards for management of shoreland area and reorganization of the shoreland management code. Effective Date: ATTEST: lsi John D. Frane City Clerk This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. IslJean L. Harris Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _______ _ (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) DATE: 04116196 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO: 1SJ-I DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Designation of Part of West 78th Street as a Municipal State Aid Street David Olson Recommended Action: Approve the resolution designating West 78th Street from Flying Cloud Drive to Prairie Center Drive. Overview: The Department of Transportation regulations allow the designation of 20% of a City's street mileage as Municipal State Aid Streets. Designation of this segment will complete the designation of West 78th Street from Flying Cloud Drive to the easterly city limit line (the segment from Prairie Center Drive to the city limit was previously designated). J CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET WHEREAS, it appears to the City of Eden Prairie City Council that the street hereinafter described should be designated as a Municipal State Aid Street under the provisions of Minnesota Laws; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the street described as follows: West 78th Street -From U.S. Highway 212 (Flying Cloud Drive) to Prairie Center Drive is hereby established, located and designated a Municipal State Aid Street of Eden Prairie subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of this Resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for his consideration and that upon his approval of the designation of said street, that same be constructed, imprOVed and maintained as a Municipal State Aid Street of the City of Eden Prairie to be numbered and known as: MSAS #127, Technology Drive and West 78th Street (Trunk Highway Turnback) ADOPTED by the City Council on April 16, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk DATE: 04/16/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: 1J/T SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Final Plat Approval of Viking Drive West 2nd Addition Jeffrey Johnson Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Viking Drive West 2nd Addition subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $725.00 • The requirements as set forth in the Developer's Agreement Background: This project, located at the southwest corner of Prairie Center Drive and Viking Drive West, consists of 7.25 acres divided into three parcels for the development of two hotels and a resta.unmt site. City Council approved the preliminary plat March 19, 1996. Second Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and execution of the Developer's Agreement is scheduled for the April 16, 1996 City Council meeting. JJ:ssa CC: Miles Lindberg, BRW, Inc. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF VIKING DRIVE WEST 2ND ADDmON WHEREAS, the plat of Viking Drive West 2nd Addition has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for Viking Drive West 2nd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated April 8, 1996. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on April 16, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk il i I I d z U o q a; J I :~. I :~: I :~: / / / ..•. / .ff / / •• , .... I ........... " ~ "" 'r , , ... , ........ I ....... ~,'., •• .............. -.. ....... ~! !': '..: ... } .:= :;. II, .... ... ........ , ... .. ....., .... 4 ..... ~# ..-, ... , ... , .. " .. :'~:=t1 :':...::,,' --~-----------. -- ---/' /' ./ :::\iHG ! .6l:.61.£I-V " '96L-~ tn.BI -"7::;'-- - - - --:-1... _ -!.t!!.!, / / ------., ---- / .,J I DATE: 04/16/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: 1Y K. SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Final Plat Approval of Rogers Homestead Jeffrey Johnson Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Rogers Homestead subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $640.00 • Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $2,781.00 • Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $690.00 • Satisfaction of bonding requirements • The requirements as set forth in the Developer's Agreement Background: This project, located at the southeast corner of Duck Lake Trail and Duck Lake Road, consists of 10.9 acres to be divided into 16 single family lots. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council March 1, 1996. Second Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and approval of the Developer's Agreement is scheduled for the City Council meeting April 16, 1996. J];ssa cc: Paul Thorp, HTPO CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF ROGERS HOMESTEAD WHEREAS, the plat of Rogers Homestead has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for Rogers Homestead is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated April 9, 1996. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on April 16, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor AlT.EST.= SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk 2 \ \ \ .. i-A II'OIN1 ON 1IC EXttNSlON SOUtH M ". lAST UNI M GOY. LOT 4 ~ LOCAtm WIDW"'" HTWEEH 'ftC NOfliTHloUT CCWlNI£III OF QOV. LOT 4 Nft) ... i THE SCU1H auMTU CORN'" OF SECtION I. ROGERS HOMESTEAD ~NEB: A UNC ORA ... ""OW A POINT ON THE NOfIItH UNE Of' COV. LOT 4 LOCAtm W!OWA'f' eElWtEN 'THE NW AND HI: COI'NtRS ~ GOV • ..oT 4 TO A POeNT ON 111£ SOUlH UN&: (# COV. LOT t, SECTION S LOCATtD 1oMDW .... HTVICDI THE SW CORNER OF OOV. LOT, NIiO lt4E SOUtH au ..... TDt or "eTlON $. ---------N 0'00'02" E ••• ':' ..... b_ ........ ---11: "".~ WEST UNE OF COV. LOT .. R. T. DOC. NO. . --' I I j __ ~L __ L IONQ S rUT .. MOtH AND ADoIOINlNO LOT UNa. UNL£SS OTHEIIIIfIIS[ IHDlCAltD, AND '0 FUT .. 'M01l1 UNL£SS OTHDt...,5[ INOICATED A.HO A.O-'OININO RIQiT_Of'_WA ... UNES. AS SHO ... ON TWE PlAT Z---zczIr- $cal. I ... 100 , .. lt4E I .... S or IEA.ItIHCS IS ASSUwm o OOtOTES IRON wON\ltl4DlT SOU~ST CORNER or GOV. LOT 1, SEC. S, T. "I. R. U "11'~ Han_ Thorp "tit\ Pen.,.., Olton Inc. • \. "-,-"-e"-_ DATE: 04/16/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Consent Calendar ITEM NO: IiI. L SECTION: DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Final Plat Approval of Chase Point 3rd Addition Jeffrey Johnson Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Chase Point 3rd Addition subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $483.00 • Revision of plat to include standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of each lot • The requirements as set forth in the Developer's Agreement Background: This proposal is a two-1ot division of Outlot A~ Chase Point 2nd Addition located at the northwest corner of Shady Oak Road and City West Parkway. Lot 2 is the proposed site of the Kindercare Day Care Center. The preliminary plat was approved at the City Council meeting February 6, 1996 and the Developer's Agreement was executed March 12, 1996. JJ:ssa cc: 'Eric Johnson, RLX Associates CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF CHASE POINT 3RD ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Chase Point 3rd Addition has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for Chase Point 3rd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated April 8, 1996. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on April 16, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk ,----- I I I I I I \ ..,..,., ..,.-r: \ s \ ,-,\ '- 0"'- V \ \ .,.-N8g000'OOO( 141U5 o f!. i! GRAPHIC SCALE ~. -w-; --SCAt! IN Fm DR.A1H"'cr II unuTY E.\SDl£HT PER DOC. __ NO •• r,4J531 , .... -, ,,- 0 ~: CJ CJ « 0"'- V () " LJ. CHASE • Denotes iron monument .el o Denol.1 iron monument found The West line of CHASE POINT 2ND ADOInON has on OlSumld bearing of N3°0"46°W -----, POINT 3RD ADDITION R. T. DOC. NO. KNOW All UEN BY mEs( PRESENTS: Thot CROSSTOwfoi INVESTORS. Q "inn.soto Portnershlp, consisting of Tandem COI"oroUon ond Ryan/Crosstown limited Partnership, 0 Minnesota partnership, owner and proptitor of the following described property, and CENTtRy BANK NAnONAL ASSOCIATION. 0 Notionol Bonking Association, mortgagee of the following describ"d property situated In the County of Hennepin, Stole of Minnesoto, to wit: Outlot A, CHASE POINT 2ND "DOmON, according to the recorded plot thereof on rile or 01 record In the office of the Registrar of Titles In and lor Hennepin County. !.linnesolo. Hove caused the some to be suf'\le~d and plolted as CHASE POINT JRD ADOITION ond do hereby donate and dedicate to the public. tor public use forever the drainage and utility easements o. ahown on said pial. In witnen whereof said CROSSTOWN INVESTORS. a "'innlsoto Portnetship, cosiisting 01 T ondem CorpOl'"otion ond Ryan/Crosstown Limited Portnership, a ~innesoto pOftnership. has coused Ihese presents to be ligned b)' its proper officer. Ihi. __ do)' of ___ • 199_ CROSSTOWN INVESTORS SIGNEO: ________ ils ________ ood ________ ., _______ _ STATE Of '""===== C~TY Of_ The IOI'"e90i09 instrument was aCMowledged befOl'"e me this __ do)' of • 199 by its C"",-'-"""Iio-o.-,-,,-,-,,'''".-. -'f"'T'""''''''nd:~afllOl'"alion ond Ryan/Crosstown Li~~ted Portnership. a ~innesoto portn::;f~~ ~~~~~~, ~o~S:~;':t!~nesoto Nolory Public. ___ County. __ _ 1.1)1 Commission Urpires _____ _ In witness whereol soid CEN~Y 9ANK NAnONAL ASSOCIATION. 0 l.Iinnesoto corporation, haS caused Ihese presents to be eigned b)' ilt proper officffl It". __ day of ___ , 199_ CENMY BANK NA nONAl. ASSOCIA nON SIGNED: ________ itl ________ ood ________ ii, _______ _ STATE or .-===== CO\.J'IITY or_ The foregoing instrument wo. ock.nowledged befor. me this __ do, oo~f ===:..:.. ":19~9=~"~ -;;-;;;;;CE<im'BANi(;NAi"iON ill o""":;:'o::o.:::~:::to:-'::O="'-::M:::O''''~O:-.-:':-o -::-"::h;~dof soid corporation. its -of said C£NTLRY BANK NATIONAl ASSOOAnON. Notary Public. ___ County. __ _ My Commission Urpires' _____ _ I hereby certify that I have surveyed and plottld the property described on this plot aS CHASE POINT JRD ADDmON. thot this ptol is a COfTect represen- tation of said survey, lhot 011 distances are correctl)' shown on said plot In leet and hundredths of 0 loot. that all monuments hOVI been correcUy placed in Ihe ground as snOWfl on soid plot or wil be placed as required by the local governmental unit as designated on said plot. that the outlJide boundar)' lines are correctly designated, and that there ore no wetlands as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 505.02. Subdiyjsion I to be designated. ST ATE OF MINNESOTA COlNTY or HENNEPIN Edwerd H. Sunde, land $urve)'Cl' ~inne!ioto License No. 8612 The foregoing Surveyor·s Certificate was ockflowledqed before me this __ day 01 ___ . 199_ by Edward H. Sunde, Land Sul"Yeyot. Noter)' Public, Hennepin Count)'. Minnesoto My Commission Urpiles _____ _ EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA This plot of OiASE POINT JRO AOOtnQN waS oppro .... d end accepted b)' thl City CouncH of the City of Eden PrairIe, Minnesota. at a rec;Jular meeting thereol. held this __ day of ___ , 199_ If applicable. the writt., comments ond recommendollons of the Commissionef' of Transporlotion and Ihe Counly Highwa)' Engineer hove been received by the City 01'" the prescribed 30 do)' period has elapsed .. ilhout receipt of such comments and recommendations, os provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03. Subdiyjsion 2. CITY COUNCIL or EDEN PRAIRIE. t.lINNESOTA 9Y: ________ "0"" BY: _________ Manager TAXPAYER SERVICES OtVlSiDN. Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby cfftify thot the lo.es payable In 199_ Gnd ~riar yeG's ho .... been paid for the land described on this plot. Doted Ihis __ day of ___ • 199_ Patrick H. O'Connor, Hennepin Sounty Auditor SlRVEY SEcnON. Hennepin County. Minnesota 9'1': _________ Deputy PursuOl'lI to ~INNESOTA STATUn:S. Sec. Ja3B.56~ (Ital). tht. plot hot be." oppro ... d thl. __ day ot ___ , U19_, Cory F. Coswell. Hennepin Count)' Surwyor e.' ________ _ REClS~AR or nrus. Hennepift County, MlMnolo I her.,y ce,tify that the wilhin plol of CHASE POINT lAO AOOtnQN wot f~ed '01'" record In th;' otfic:. this __ day of ____ , 199_ at _ o·clod!. _ .... R. Don Corlsan, Registrar of Titlel BY: _________ Deput)' _____ -1 I I I I I DATE: 04/16/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO: -;s; (V1 . DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C.52-103 Engineering Division Approve Plans for the CSAH 62/TH 101lDell Road Intersection Rodney W. Rue Recommended Action~ Motion to approve resolution approving construction plans for the CSAH 621TH 101/Dell Road intersection. Overview: This plan includes the portion of the CSAH 62 project (between CSAH 4 and TH 101) which was removed from that project due to lack of State funds to reconstruct TH 101. With the State's funding now in place, this intersection project needs to be bid as a separate project. Primary Issues: Basically, this construction plan has not changed from the original CSAH 62 plan, which was approved by the Eden Prairie City Council on December 21, 1993. Fmancial Issues: There will be a cooperative construction agreement forthcoming that will identify the City of Eden Prairie's [manciaI obligations for this project. At this time, it appears that Eden Prairie's share of the construction costs for the project will be approximately $180,000 (assuming 18% design and construction administration costs). In addition, there will likely be some right-of-way costs that are not identified at this time. I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. I.C. 52-103 FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR CSAH 62/TH lOl/DELL ROAD INTERSECTION WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Public Works has prepared plans for the construction of the CSAH 62/TH 10l/Dell Road intersection along the corporate boundaries of the City of Eden Prairie, the City of Minnetonka, and the City of Chanhassen; WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie approved the layout plans for said improvement of CSAH 62 and the final plans are consistent with the layout plans; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that said final plans for County Project No. 9423 (State Project No. 27-662-57 and 2736-41) are hereby approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on April 16, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATIEST: SEAL John D. Fnme, City Clerk DATE: 04/16/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO: 15/, N ' DEPARTMENT: Engineering Division Rodney W. Rue ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 93-5301 Approve Plans for Floodplain/Wetland Mitigation . Site, Box Culvert, TH212 Ramp A/Loop A Excavation and Embankment, and SW Metro Transit Hub Soil Correction Project Recommended Action: Motion to approve resolution approving construction plans for a floodplain/wetland mitigation site along Purgatory Creek, a box culvert under a new TH 212 ramp, TH 212 Ramp A and Loop A excavation and embankment, and a Southwest Metro Transit Hub site soil correction project. Overview: These construction plans include a variety of preliminary grading or related projects in anticipation of both the future TH 212/Prairie Center Drive interchange and Southwest Metro's Transit Hub project. Primary Issues: This project will begin after Technology Drive is relocated and open to traffic, since this project will require the detouring of southbound Prairie Center Drive onto Mitchell Road and Technology Drive. This project will also include the abandonment of the existing traffic signals at Prairie Center Drive and Technology Drive. A new signal will be installed at Prairie Center Drive and relocated Technology Drive. Financial Issues: This project does not require any financial involvement from the City of Eden Prairie. I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. I.C. 93-5301 APPROVE PLANS FOR FLOODPLAIN/WETLAND SITE, BOX CULVERT, TH 212 RAMP A/LOOP A EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT, AND SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT HUB SOIL CORRECTION PROJECT WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of Minnesota has prepared plans, special provisions and specifications for the construction of a floodplain/wetland mitigation site along Purgatory Creek, a box culvert under a new TH 212 ramp, TH 212 Ramp A and Loop A excavation and embankment, and a Southwest Metro Transit Hub site soil correction project, within the corporate limits of the City of Eden Prairie, near the future TH 212/Prairie Center Drive interchange area, and seeks approval thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that said plans and special provisions for State Project No. 2762-18 (T.H.212=121), Federal Project No. NH212-2(001) and S.P. No. 181-010-09 are hereby approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on April 16, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-16-96 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. VIi. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger Scott Kipp BEST BUY PARKING Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1st Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 on 0.7 acres and PUD District Review on 28.5 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 28.5 acres into 1 lot; Background: The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this project at its March 25, 1996 meeting. A landscaping plan has been submitted for the replacement of the tree loss associated with the parking lot expansion. The plan is in conformance with City code. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 2. Minutes dated March 25,1996 3. Staff Report dated March 22, 1996 I BEST BUY PARKING CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BEST BUY PARKING FOR BEST BUY COMPANY BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Best Buy Parking for Best Buy Company dated April 9, 1996, consisting of 28.5 acres into 1 lot, 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 16th day of April, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 8 B. BEST BUY PARKING by Best Buy Company. Request for PUD District Review on 28.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 and Site Plan Review on 0.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 28.5 acres into one lot. Location: 10555 Northgate Parkway. Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the parking lot expansion for Best Buy Company. MOTION: Sandstad moved, Foote seconded, to recommend approval of the PUD District Review on 28.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 and Site Plan Review on 0.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 28.5 acres into one lot for Best Buy Company based on plans dated March 22, 1996 and the stipulations contained in the March 22, 1996 staff report. Motion carried 7-0. ------------------------------------~ ----- STAFF REPORT TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: FEE OWNER: LOCATION: REQUEST: Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, City Planner Scott A. Kipp, Planner March 22, 1996 Best Buy Parking Expansion Best Buy Company, Inc. Apertus Technologies Inc. 10555 Northgate Parkway 1. Planned Unit Development District Review on 28.5 acres. 2. Zoning District Change from Rural to !-2 on 0.7 acres. 3. Site Plan Review on 0.7 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of28.5 acres into one lot. ;~:t~: PK. !t·m. ';fro .. : ;~nd 0 , > ~ ¥t 70 TH ST. '''''; l.·' .... "-'li'. IND . ..... __ .... PA/1 ~ • • • -.I -"'H ; I. Anp enl AuDITION Staff Report Best Buy Parking Expansion March 22, 1996 BACKGROUND A Planned Unit Development Concept and 1-2 zoning was approved for this property in 1982 for the construction of the Lee Data Corporation headquarters. In 1994, the interior of the building was expanded with additional office space for Best Buy Company, the new tennents of the building. A waiver was granted through the PUD to allow more than the code maximum of 50% office space in the 1-2 zoning district. SITE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT The current proposal is to expand the parking lot area over property recently vacated by the City. In February of 1995, the City vacated the right-of-way held for the future expansion of West 70th Street out to Flying Cloud Drive due to poor soils, wetland impacts, and limited benefit. The right-of-way was turned over to the adjacent property owners, which includes Best Buy. The property is currently zoned Rural, and remains separate from the Best Buy site. The proposal is to rezoned this 0.7 acre portion of property to 1-2 and to combine it with the existing lot. Construction of 143 new parking stalls and a drive ailse are proposed with this request, for a total of 1,076 provided on site. Based on the current building use, a total of 957 spaces are required. The preliminary plat will combine the vacated right-of-way and the existing Best Buy property into one lot. GRADING AND DRAINAGE Grading will involve construction of a retaining wall, relocation of existing landscaping, and 78 caliper inches of significant tree loss. This tree loss will need to be incorporated into a tree replacement plan together with the landscaping relocation. The parking will be built adjacent to an existing wetland. No encroachment is proposed into the wetland, and all hard surface run-off will be directed away from the wetland, into an existing NURP pond. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the PUD District Review on 28.5 acres, Rezoning from Rural to 1-2 and Site Plan Review on 0.7 acres, Preliminary Plat of28.5 acres into one lot, based on plans dated March 22, 1996, this Staff Report, and the following: 1. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall submit a tree replacement plan for 78 caliper inches, together with a landscaping relocation plan. Staff Report Best Buy Parking Expansion March 22,1996 2. Prior to grading permit issuance, proponent shall submit detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control plans to the City Engineer and Watershed District for their review and approval. 3. 1 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-16-96 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. V,B DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger Michael D. Franzen IMPACT MARKETING Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1 st Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 6.02 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 6.02 acres into 2 lots, and road right-of-way; • Adopt a Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Hennepin County to Office on 6.02 acres. Background: The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request at their March 11,1996 meeting according to the Staff Report dated March 8,1996. The staff supports the project for the following reasons: 1. The project saves the wetlands and tree loss is low. 2. The project is for 2 office buildings totaling 16,000 square feet. The code would allow up 78,000 square feet. 3. No traffic flows through the residential area Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change 2. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 3. Minutes dated March 11, 1996 4. Staff Report dated March 8, 1996 5. Correspondence I ~PACT~T1NGDEVELOPMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive Municipal Plan ("Plan"); and, WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the proposal of Impact Marketing Development by Keith Waters for construction of a 13,600 square foot two-story and a 6,700 square foot two-story office building requires the amendment of the Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: 6.02 acres from Hennepin County to Office all located at Baker Road and HWY 62. ADOPTED by the City Council ofthe City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of April, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 1. IMPACT MARKETING DEVELOPMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF IMPACT MARKETING DEVELOPMENT FOR KEITH WATERS BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Impact Marketing Development for Keith Waters dated April 9, 1996, consisting of 6.02 acres into 2 lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 16th day of April, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 8 B. IMPACT MARKETING DEVELOPMENT by Keith Waters. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Hennepin County to Office on 6.02 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 6.02 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.02 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.02 acres into 2 lots. Location: Baker Road and HWY 62. Kipp introduced Keith Waters representing John Stedman, owner. Keith Waters reviewed the project with the Planning Commission using a model. This piece of property was owned by Hennepin County. It was property they acquired when they were extending the Crosstown Highway to Baker Road. The site is characterized by steep slopes, ravines, wetlands and heavy tree 3 cover. Tree loss is approximately 14 percent, about 300 caliper inches. The proposal is to plant evergreens and deciduous shrubs as a buffer to the residential development to the south. This is a very sensitive use to a very difficult piece of property. Ismail expressed concern about the traffic in the area, referring to the Northwest health club. Waters replied their traffic would be during business hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and would generate minimal traffic based on the building square footage. Ismail asked if there was any chance of building more offices at this site. Waters replied no. They are not developers by background, so they have no interest in that. Schlampp was concerned about where the runoff runs from the parking area. Waters noted the water is 100 percent directed into the holding pond. Wissner was concerned about the condition of the pond. Waters commented that it is considered a holding pond, not a wetland. The pond has' been receiving County Road runoff for many years. Sandstad expressed concern about the transition between the low and medium density residential to the office use. Waters said the transition will be a combination of a couple of things. One is keeping the existing vegetation wherever possible, the other is using evergreen plantings. They are proposing a naturalistic retaining wall consisting of very large bolders with a planting area. Kipp reviewed the Staff Report with the Planning Commission. The proposal takes advantage of the natural topography of the site minimizing the tree loss to 14 percent. Office areas typically have up to 40 percent significant tree loss. The daily trips are considerably lower than if the site was developed at 10 units per acre, similar to the neighboring residential. This proposal is a low intensity use of the property. There is no wetland fill. There is no road connection to the townhomes to the south. Buildings are setback at a considerable distance to the existing townhomes. Staff recommends approval of this project. The Public Hearing was opened. Ann Yanderot. 6263 St. Johns Driye, commented she would like to see the site remain as woods. She enjoys the natural area and the deer that roam in there. She doesn't want to see anymore office buildings in the area. 4 Terry Candeaux. 6261 St. Johns Driye. expressed concern about the increased traffic on Baker Road as a result ofthis project. She was concerned about the safety ofthe children playing in the streets and riding their bicycles due to the increase in traffic. There was also concern about children playing on the retaining wall and falling into the parking lot. She very much enjoys the nature in the woods and wants it to remain that way. Allen Bode, 6272 St Johns Drive, noted they live in the house closest to Baker Road. He was concerned about loosing the vegetation and the trees that are already at the property line. Waters commented they would get more buffer out of the plan that is proposed than what's already there. Bode noted they lost a significant amount of trees due to a snowstorm, and was concerned about it happening again at the property line. The entrance to the office parking is right next to their townhome. He was concerned about the value of his home decreasing as a result of the office parking. Wissner commented about a development called Hartford Place. That project· includes townhomes built right between two office buildings. These townhomes have sold very quickly so there probably isn't a need for Mr. Bode to worry about his home value decreasing. An office complex would probably be better on this site than if more townhomes were constructed. If townhomes went in, there would be more tree loss, higher density, and a great increase in traffic. This office building will have a specialized and unique look. Kipp noted the Director of Assessment can help Mr. Bode about determining the value of his home. Ismail commented he supports the project. Sandstad commented the plan looks very nice, but was concerned about the illumination after hours and evening hours. Since there is no plan for lighting, a condition should be put in the motion concerning the lighting. Wissner expressed concern about the signage. Waters noted there is one sign in the landscaping area. Both of the business are more professional so there will not be any advertising signs. They will share one sign but have not designed anything yet. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner to close the Public 5 Hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 2: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Keith Waters for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Hennepin County to Office on 6.02 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 6.02 acres, Site Plan Review on 6.02 acres and Preliminary Plat of 6.02 acres into 2 lots based on plans dated March 8, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff report dated March 8, 1996 with the addition of item 3E to provide site lighting contours to Staff demonstrating illumination not to exceed one half of a foot-candle at the south lot line. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: FEE OWNER: LOCATION: REQUEST: Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, City Planner March 8, 1996 Impact Marketing Keith Waters Hemiepin County Baker Road and Hwy 62 1. Comprehensive Plan Change From Hennepin County to Office on 6.02 acres. 2. Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 6.02 acres. 3. Site Plan Review on 6.02 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat 6.02 acres into 2 lots. p ------- ; :-rr;::.:J ttJA'" ...... ,: l Eden Prairie Planning Commission Impact Marketing March 8, 1996 BACKGROUND The property owned by Hennepin County is designated as Hennepin County on the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. The site is characterized by steep slopes, ravines, wetlands and heavy tree cover. The site is bordered by Crosstown Highway on the north, Baker Road on the east, St. John's Woods Townhouses on the south, and Industrial on the west. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE The proponent is requesting a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation to Office in order to build two office buildings. Any development ofthis site will have an impact on the residential area to the south. The site could be developed as townhouses at a similar density to St John's Woods but would result in grading and tree loss that would change the character of the site and eliminate the buffer to Crosstown Highway. An office use of the property would be a different use of the site but could be considered an acceptable land use alternative for the following reasons. 1. Developing the site at the office requirements for a one story building would permit up to 78,669 square feet. For two story buildings the code would allow up to 131,115 square feet. The current proposal is 21,300 square feet. 2. Significant tree loss is 14 %. Office areas typically have 40% significant tree loss. A significant tree as defined by city code is 12 inches in diameter for shade trees and 8 inches in diameter for conifer trees. 3. Ifthe site was developed at 10 units per acre, (similar to St. John's Woods) a total of 600 Daily trips and 60 peak hour trips would be generated. If the site is developed according to city code for Office, (78,000 sq. ft.), a total of 1092 daily trips and 134 peak hour trips would be generated. The current proposal generates 294 daily trips and 36 peak hour trips. No road improvements are recommended. 4. There are no road connections between adjoining properties. 5. There are site lines into this project. The townhouses sit at a lower elevation and existing slopes and vegetation blocks some of the views. The proposed plantings will help screen views better. 2 10 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Impact Marketing March 8, 1996 6. Office is normally a quite evening and weekend use. The City Council recommendation for a two story office use on the Dell and Cascade site suggests that Office is an acceptable land use next to townhouses. 7. The closest building is 120 feet away from the south property line as compared to the City code minimum of 20 feet. The buildings are 150 feet away from the closest townhouse. SITE PLAN The site plan shows the construction of a 13,600 square foot two-story and a 6,700 square foot two-story office building. Total site base area ratio is .04. Total floor area ratio is .08. The City code allows a .30 base area ratio and a .50 floor area ratio. Both buildings meet all setback requirements to property lines. Parking required is a ratio of 5 spaces per 1000 square feet of building. The site plan meets City code for parking. GRADING AND TREE LOSS The tree inventory shows 2,058 caliper inches of significant trees. Tree loss is calculated at 14% or 300 caliper inches. The average tree loss for office projects is 40%. Tree replacement is 55 caliper inches. Replacement trees should be similar to existing trees. ARCHITECTURE The buildings meet city code requirements for 75% face brick and glass. Mechanical equipment is either inside of the buildings or is screened by parapet. LANDSCAPING The amount oflandscaping required is based on caliper inches according to building square footage, screening of parking areas, transition to residential areas to the south, and tree replacement. The plan meets these requirements. UTILITIES Sewer and water is available in Baker Road. Currently there are three storm sewer pipes discharging water from Baker Road and Crosstown HWY directly into the wetland. Since the amount of impervious surface is small and constructing a pond would disturb more trees, a cash contribution to the storm water utility fund is recommended. 3 1/ Eden Prairie Planning Commission Impact Marketing March 8, 1996 CONCLUSION The Planning Commission should first decide if office can be an acceptable use of the property. If the answer is yes, then you should identify the conditions under which the project should be built. The staff believes the project as proposed can be a good neighbor since it is a low intensity use of the site which retains the sites character of slopes, trees and wetlands. ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Hennepin County to Office, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office, Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan Review, based on plans dated March 8, 1996 and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated March 8, 1996, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed stonn water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed stonn water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to grading, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer, Watershed District, and City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal. 3. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 4 I~ ~~T~T~©Lr£ ~DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS -1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. (612) 772-7910 FILE NO. February 22, 1996 Mr. Mike Franzen, City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: Impact Marketing Development Site, City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Franzen: We have reviewed the plans for Impact Marketing Development (received February 2, 1996) for the above-referenced project (Section 3, TII6N, R22W) at the comer of Baker Road and Highway 62 and have the following comments to offer. 1. The Impact Marketing Development pond is not a DNR Protected Water, therefore, the project is not under DNR jurisdiction and a DNR permit is not required for the project. 2. The Impact Marketing Development pond may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on the project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 3. The Impact Marketing Development site does not appear to be within a shoreland or FEMA designated floodplain district. However, the structures of this development should not be built lower than the 100-year flood elevation of the pond on the site. 4. The plan for the Impact Marketing Development site does not indicate how the stormwater will be managed. You are advised that the DNR would object to having the stormwater routed directly to the pond. Stormwater sedimentation basins should be included in the storm water management plan. Routing untreated stormwater to wetlands and lakes can cause sedimentation, poor water quality and water level bounces that are detrimental to wildlife, recreation, aesthetic values and property values. 5. We would like to commend the applicant for a plan that preserves the pond, woods and natural topography of the site. The value of these features would be greatly enhanced by allowing native vegetation to grow naturally upon them. A conservation easement could be used to preserve the natural portions of the site. 18 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Mike Franzen February 22, 1996 Page 2 6. We commend the applicant for screening Impact Marketing from view from the neighboring development. We also recommend that the structures be screened from view from the pond using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. 7. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: A. Steep slopes occur on the Impact Marketing site. Stringent erosion control measures will be needed to protect the natural features on the site from erosion and sedimentation. The guidelines in "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas -Best Management Practices for Minnesota" MPCA, October 1989, or their equivalent should be followed. B. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit will be needed for the project. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. C. The comments in this letter address DNR -Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereoffor a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, . ~cl~ Joseph G. Richter Hydrologist JGRIkl c: Robert Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD Joe Vanta, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ILl TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council Stuart A. FO~ager of Parks and Natural Resources March 13, 1996 Supplemental Staff Report to the March 8, 1996 Planning Staff Report for Impact Marketing The proposed subdivision is located on the comer of Baker Road and County Road 62. This site is currently owned by Hennepin County Land Division and has been for sale for several years. The proponent is requesting a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation to office in order to construct two office buildings on this site. The topography of the site is quite varied and the site is covered by scattered trees and also contains a large existing pond. ISSUES: Natural Resources/Tree Preservation The entire site contains over 130 trees for a total of2,245 diameter inches of trees. The predominant tree cover type on the site is bur oak. The total number of trces lost due to construction would be 31 trees with a total of 509 diameter inches. This results in a 23% loss of significant trees on the site. The tree replacement as required by ordinance would be 155 diameter inches of replacement trees. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan indicates that a total of nearly 300 diameter inches of trees is scheduled for planting on this site. They include a number of ornamental species as well as utilization of pin oak, swamp white oak, and Black Hills spruce as the larger trees. The staff feels that the landscape plan does well to screen the site from the residential subdivision to the south, as well as complimenting the remaining oaks and hardwood trees on the site. NURP Pond Currently, the existing pond on the site is receiving discharge water from both Baker Road and County Road 62. This staff has reviewed the amount of impervious surface as a result of this project and feels that by enlarging or creating a new NURP pond on the site would be far more detrimental to the site than what is currently existing. Therefore, a cash contribution to the storm water utility fund is the recommended way of handling the storm water issue. Ii) "' Trails/Sidewalks Currently, there is an eight-foot bituminous trail along the northerly side of this property on County Road 62. A six-foot wide sidewalk exists on the easterly side fronting on Baker Road. Therefore, any additional trails or sidewalks are not necessary with this development. The only thing that needs to be done is curb cuts in conjunction with the driveway access onto Baker Road, so that pedestrian and bike traffic can safely cross the driveway entrance. RECOMMENDATION: This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its March 11, 1996 meeting and was approved on a 5-0 vote. The issue of parking lot light spilling onto the property to the south was debated. However, the recommendation was that the architect for the site bring in a more detailed light reading footprints of the parking lot lighting to be reviewed by the City Council. The staff would recommend approval of this project as per the staff recommendations of the Planning Staff Report dated March 8, 1996 and the contents of this supplemental staff report. SAF:mdd ImpactJStuart96 1(, Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Unapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 B. encroachment on the wetland, and does not want to see a precedent set. She wants to see the building moved up closer to the parking lot and keep the" setback in tact. Koening was concerned about the number of parking spaces being too many. Fox noted the ordinance is based on the square footage of the building, and it's met for maximum use. MOTION: Brown moved, seconded by Koening to deny the application and approval on Lakeview Office complex for the reason of the required variance from the lake. Motion carried 4-0. Impact Marketing Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated March 13, 1996, from Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources~ and a Staff Report dated March 8, 1996, from Michael D. Franzen, City Planner. Keith Waters, developer, reviewed his development proposal with the Commission. The proposal is for two buildings with 21,000 square feet instead of 78,000 which the office permit would allow. They are trying to save as many trees as possible., and are staying completely away from the ravine and the wooded hill. They are staying at least 50 feet away from the pond because of significant trees. The pond has no outlet. It has nothing up stream other than the freeway. Fox stated there are over 130 trees listed on the tree inventory with a total of 2,245 diameter inches. The number of trees lost due to construction would be 31 for a total of 599 diameter inches. This results in a 23 percent loss of significant trees. The tree replacement required by ordinance would be 155 diameter inches of replacement trees. The -proposed landscaping plan indicates a total of nearly 300 diameter inches of trees for planting on this site. The screening is along the southerly border which is along the townhomes. They are proposing to nse .a lot of ronifers to provide year round scruning from the -parking lot and the buildings themselves. The existing pond on the site is receiving discharge water from both Baker Road and County Road 62. Staffbe1ieves by enlarging the NURP pond on the site would be far more detrimental to the site than what is currently 5 V7 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Unapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 existing. Therefore, a cash contribution to the storm water utility fund is recommended, and this pond would also take care of some of the on-site ". drainage. There is an eight foot bituminous trail along the northerly side of the property that was installed along the Crosstown, and a sidewalk along the westerly side of Baker Road. They are asking the developer that at the time the sidewalk goes in they put a curb, a gutter, and curb cuts in. This way the sidewalk traffic is not impeded. This project was reviewed at the Planning Commission on the March 11 meeting, and approved on a 5-0 vote. One issue came up concerning how much light spillage would occur from the parking lot. The developer was asked to have a footprint to show the lighting pattern of the parking lots prior to being reviewed by the City Council. People to the south were concerned about the lights coming into their bedroom windows from that parking lot. Koening asked how tall the conifers will be for screening. Waters replied 10 feet high. Koening was concerned about how soon the adjacent residents would benefit from the screening. Waters reviewed the screening concept on the map. Bowman expressed concern about any restrictions as far as building on such a steep ravine. Fox replied there are no restrictions. Hilgeman commented it's refreshing to see a plan that doesn't develop every square inch with 21,000 out ofa possible 79,000 square feet. Bowman asked if the numbers are buildable square footage of land or is it based on six acres. Fox replied it's based on the entire site assuming it's a flat six.acres. Bowman oommented that it's deceiving when you look at what's buildable. Fox noted it's based on the square footage of the site. They can build a building tall enough to accommodate 79,000 square feet. MOTION: Koening moved, seconded by Bowman to approve the plan as per the Staff recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 8, 1996 of Impact Marketing. Motion carried 4-0. C. Flying Cloud Business Center Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated March 13, 1996, from Stuart 6 l<t EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Public HearinglMeetings DATE: 4/16/9 ITEM NO. . C. DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Surface Management Ordinance for Duck Lake Recreation and FacilitiesA?. . Robert A. Lambert I&/J'f- Attached to this memorandum is a copy of a letter sent to Duck Lake area residents notifying them of a public hearing to be held at the City Council meeting on April 16, 1996. The public hearing is required by the Department of Natural Resources prior to their review of a draft ordinance. City staff notified Duck Lake area residents of a public meeting for the purpose of discussing a possible Surface Management Ordinance for Duck Lake at the March 18 meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. At that meeting, five residents spoke in favor of the ordinance and one resident spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Also, attached to this memorandum is a copy the State statutes governing the adoption of Water Surface Use Management Ordinances and a copy of a draft ordinance that would make it unlawful to operate any motorized watercraft, vessel, boat, snowmobile or vehicle on or across Duck Lake with the exception of emergency enforcement or resource management personnel. City staff are recommending this ordinance in order to request the DNR to officially recognize the "carry-on" access for cartop boats as a "public access." Assuming that the majority of the residents that have been notified are in support of the "no motor" ordinance at the public hearing. and if the Council supports the proposed ordinance, the Council would approve the first reading of the ordinance at the April 16 meeting and then forward a copy ofthe ordinance to the Commissioner ofthe Department of Natural Resources along with the additional information required by State statute. Once the Commissioner has approved the ordinance the City Council is free to approve the second reading and adopt the ordinance. If an ordinance is approved City staff would then request authorization to proceed with construction of the access, which would include a two to three-car parking lot and a pedestrian ramp from the parking lot down the slope to the lakeshore. Staff would also immediately submit an application for an aeration system from the Department of Natural Resources and extend electrical services to the site to accommodate the aeration system. Staffs anticipate the construction of the access, and extension of electrical services would all be completed for under $10,000. RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommend approval of the draft ordinance amending City Code Chapter 9 by adding a new section, 9.67 prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles and watercraft on Duck Lake, and approving the expenditure offunds necessary to develop the public access and electrical facilities necessary to accommodate the aeration system. BL:mdd DuckLake.memo ( ( CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. -96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 9.67, PROHIBITING THE USE OF MOTORIZED VEHICLES AND WATERCRAFT ON DUCK LAKE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99 WIDCH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PR.t\.IRI~ MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. The City Code is amended by adding thereto Section 9.67 which reads as follows: "SECTION 9.67. USE OF MOTORIZED VEHICLES AND WATERCRAFT ON DUCK LAKE. It is unlawful to operate any motorized watercraft, vessel, boat, snowmobile or vehicle on or across Duck Lake. Authorized resource management, emergency and enforcement personnel are exempt from this provision when acting in the perfonnance of their assigned duties." Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provision and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 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 _ day of , 1996, and fmally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the _ day of , 1996. City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the __ day of ____ -', 1996. rfr\ep\ordinanc\##-96 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Unapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 VI. MOTION 2: Brown moved, seconded by Bowman to ask the City Council to contact the City Attorney and see what we can do as a city to initiate a change in the state law that prohibits us from collecting park feesbr projects over five acres.. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS A. Duck Lake Surface Management Ordinance Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated March 11, 1986, and a letter dated March 7, 1996, from Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities. Lambert noted this Surface Management Ordinance was initiated when several residents came to the City asking the City to help manage Duck Lake for the fish population. Staff indicated as a City Staff, they do not recommend the City get involved in managing any lake without DNR assistance. For the DNR to agree to manage any lake, they have to have a public access on the lake. Stafflooked at what land was available and what funds were available to the City of Eden Prairie. The City does own a strip of land along the lake shore, (about 300 feet), on the south side of Duck Lake Trail. It is too narrow and too steep to accommodate the trailer access, but it could accommodate access to allow people to carry-on cartop boats or canoes. The DNR indicated they would support this as a public access if the use of Duck Lake was restricted to "no motors", and if they had access that would allow the general public to "carry-on". The DNR would then try to schedule this lake for stocking fish this year, and would support the City in getting an aeration system next year. The City would also apply for a fishing pier to be installed on the City property in order to provide a safe place to fish for individuals without access to a boat. This would hopefully discourage people from fishing along Duck Lake Road. Tom Lindquist, 16750 Baywood Terrace, commented he supports the Surface Management Ordinance. 9 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Unapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 Gary Ackennan, 6535 Bay Drive, commented there are many dead fish along his shore, and supports the Surface Management Ordinance. A resident residing at 6503 Bay View Drive, commented they have always been under the impression the lake was a "no motor" lake already. If it does not impact the residents and it helps to preserve the lake, it's well worth the effort. Doug Marcy, 16650 Bay View Terrace, commented he spoke to a friend who told him the lake is probably 10,000 years old, and it's been pretty good up until this point. This ordinance is going to change the natural state of something by adding technology to try and solve the problems. He objects to the aeration system that will be used on the lake because it will cause noise pollution, visual pollution, and will not be pleasing to look at. He was concerned about the problem of thin ice eliminating cross country skiing. The aerator will be close to his house and he was concerned about the noise from it. He lives on the east end of the lake and has been there for almost 10 years. He doesn't want to give up control of the lake to the DNR, and wants to keep the natural resources in its original state as much as possible. Loretta ( ),) 692 South Shore Lane, commented she has lived there for 33 years and applauds the Parks Department for coming up with this plan. She expressed concern about the dangerous conditions where the children fish along Duck Lake Road. Bernie Coleman, 1704 South Shore Lane, commented he has lived there for 30 years. He asked if the City will take care of the treatment of the weeds and the algae if this will be a public access, or do the residents still have to do it. Lambert noted the City will not pay for removal of weeds. The only place they do pay for removal of weeds is along the public swimming beaches. Brown asked if the DNR allows weed spraying on any lake. Lambert replied the DNR does not allow anybody to do it without a permit, and they have restrictions on the type of chemicals they use. MOTION: Bowman moved, seconded by Hilgeman to approve the Surface Management Ordinance for Duck Lake per Staff recommendations. Motion carried 4-0. 10 4 ----------~~~--~~-~~~----~- ----------------------------------------------- EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-16-96 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. \/. O. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger LAKEVIEW OFFICE Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1 st Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.79 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 5.74 acres into 2 lots; Background: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request at their March 11, 1996 meeting according to the Staff Report dated March 8,1996. The proposal was reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 18,1996. The Commission recommended denial, felt the building should be located farther from the lake and recommended moving the building to the north even though it would remove a considerable number of oak trees. Residents of Ensign Circle in Bloomington are opposed to the project. This property is zoned office according to a 1978 approved plan for two office buildings totalling 130,000 square feet. Phase one is the existing Cabriole Center. In 1989, the property was approved for subdivision into 2 lots. A site plan ammendment was requested, but was withdrawn at the Planning Commission because architectural drawings were not available. The Planning Commission and the City Council approved a site plan with stipulations to step the building height lower adjacent to homes in Bloomington and to not grade into the Blacklock Line. The current site plan is a one story walkout, 16,066 square foot office building. The approved 1978 plan was 3 stories and 65,000 square feet. The building is in the same location as the approved plan. It saves the oak trees in front of the building. The project requires a shoreland setback variance from 200 to 130 feet. Although the building is 395 feet from the main body of water, there is a finger of high water along the east side of the property from which the setback is also required. The existing homes in Bloomington are as close as 75 feet from the main water body with lawn maintained to the lakes edge. The existing homes are as close as 130 from the finger of high water level. The staff supports the project for the following reasons: 1. The building is 395 feet from the main water body. 2. The site plan preserves the oak trees. 3. The plan is shorter and smaller than the approved plan. 4. There is no grading in the Blacklok area. This was an area determined by Les Blacklok to be preserved. 5. The site is zoned office and the project meets office zoning requirements. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 2. Minutes dated March 11, 1996 3. StatTReport dated March 8, 1996 4. Correspondence LAKEVIEW OFFICE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAKEVIEW OFFICE FOR DANA LARSON, ROUBAL AND ASSOCIATES BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Lakeview Office for Dana Larson, Roubal and Associates dated April 9, 1996, consisting of 5.74 acres into 2 lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in confonnance 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 16th day of April, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk !-I I .. .... 1.: t,? 1"/7 r.1 ') /": '.,.", 1-> 1'0 ,"-- /vhf:: i-, ! I, !::; '7 b c. LAKEVIEW OFFICE by Dana Larson, Roubal and Associates. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.79 acres. Site Plan Review on 2.79 acres. and Preliminary plat of 5.74 acres into 2 lots. Location: West 78th Street. Kipp introduced Griff Davenport representing Dana Larson, Roubal and Associates. John Crump. an associate of Griff Davenport and the lead designer of the project. reviewed his proposal with the Planning Commission. The building is being constructed for a small group of architect and engineering consultants. The building is 16.000 square feet with underground parking. The underground parking is required to meet the parking zoning ordinances. The site plan shows the construction of a one story walkout office building. The site is part of the Cabriole Center project which was approved for two, three story office buildings. Four variances are needed which include: 1. A minimum lot size from 5 acres to 2.79 acres. 2. A shoreland setback from 200 to 130 feet. 3. Zero lot line setback to parking. 4. Exterior materials from 75 percent face brick and glass, 61 percent burnished block, 19 percent dryvit, and 2 percent concrete. Davenport commented notices were sent out and a neighborhood meeting was held. There was no opposition at the meeting. A letter from the DNR was received supporting the variance request for the required setback from the bigh water level of Anderson Lake. This proposal is going to create much less traffic problems, and much less impact to the adjacant neighborhood. 6 4 Kipp reviewed the Staff Report and the variances required with the Planning Commission. He noted the building could be relocated to meet the 200 foot setback to the high water level This would result in the loss of large oak and maple trees and non-significant vegetation. The building is 395 feet back from the main water body. Staff recommends approval of the plan as submitted. The Public Hearing was opened. Connie Wetmore, 8040 Ensign Road, expressed concern about the building encroaching on the wildlife in the wetland. She wants the building to stay 200 feet away from the wetland. She noted nobody has come to look at the wetland. There is no public access. You can only get to it through her property and she invited everyone to come and view it now that the snow is melting. Sandstad commented this building is smaller and no closer to the shoreland than what was previously approved in 1989. Schlampp commented it is not a ditch, but defmitely a portion of the lake. Jay Wetmore, 8040 Ensign Road, commented he shares the same concerns as his wife. He was also concerned about the neighbors in the back viewing a three story building because of the underground parking. Mary Carr. 8100 Ensign Road. commented she has lived there for 24 years. She expressed concern about why the 1985 drought level was used to determine the high water level. She was concerned about the different variances needed and about the wildlife in the wetland. Kipp noted the setback referred to of the two water levels shown on the plan is from the higher of the two. It is being taken from the higher contour showing 132 feet versus 150 feet. Regarding the variances, the residents will have another opportunity at the Board of Appeals to give their objections. Marilyn Sampson. 8048 Ensilm Road, noted she has lived here for 28 years. She expressed concern about the protected line around the lake and the wildlife in the area. She was concerned about this building being gray because the view from her living room of the Cabriole building looks like a penal institution. Jan Hubred, 8056 Ensign Road, expressed concern about the natural lake and the wildlife. They have taken good care in preserving this area and does not want to see the developers encroaching on it. She was also concerned 7 i' about the drainage. Sandstad asked if the developers considered sliding the building northwest, raise the elevation so there's a berm there, and parking would not be too far away. Crump commented they considered it but it was not feasible. He also noted they made an offer to the neighboring residents of locating some substantial trees on to their property or the property line. This would help for barriers between their homes and the proposed building. Schlampp commented he does not like to see infringement on shore1and ordinances which are very precious and few. He suggested some redesigning be done to bring the building back to the 200 foot setback requirement. Sandstad wanted the record to be clear that the plan received clearly shows a portion of Anderson Lakes extending closer to the building. He was supportive of the project because it has fewer impacts than the one the City approved in 1989. Clinton supported the proposal. Wissner felt confident supporting the project because the DNR previously approved it. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 2: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Dana Larson, Roubal and Associates for Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.79 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.79 acres, and Preliminary plat of 5.74 acres into 2 lots based on plans dated March 8, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 8, 1996 with the understanding that this design has fewer and less impact on the site and adjacant Anderson Lake than the earlier project approved by this same commission and council in 1989. Motion carried 4-1 with opposition by Schlampp. STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: LOCATION: REQUEST: Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, City Planner March 8, 1996 Lakeview Office Dana Larson Roubal and Associates West 78th Street 1. Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.79 acres. 2. Site Plan Review on 2.79 acres. 3. Preliminary Plat of 5.74 acres into 2 lots. 7 STRiP o o Staff Report Lakeview Office March 8,1996 BACKGROUND This site is part of the Cabriole Center project which was approved for two, three-story office buildings totaling 125,000 square feet. Phase I was built in 1978. In 1989 the City Council approved a modified site plan and building design for Phase II. The building size (65,000 square feet) and building height (3 stories) was similar to the 1978 plan. The site is currently zoned Office. SITE PLAN The site plan shows the construction of a one story walkout office building with underground parking. The building is 16,066 square feet. The building meets Office setback requirements. Parking meets City code at 5 spaces per 1000 square feet of building. Due to the property division, a zero lot line setback variance to parking is required. This is typical in Office zoning districts and has been approved by the City Council with other projects. SHORELAND ORDINANCE The Shoreland Ordinance defines Anderson Lakes as a Recreational Water. This site is considered an abutting lot since the lot is within 150 feet of the normal ordinary high water level of the lake. Although the building is located beyond the required 200 foot setback from the main body of water, there is a ditch along the east property line that the DNR considers high water level. The setback to the ditch is l30 feet. The shoreland variances to be reviewed and approved by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments are: 1. Minimum lot size of 5 acres to 2.29 acres. The total site for both buildings is 5.74 acres. On 5.74 acres at a .50 base area ratio allowed by City code, a total of 125,000 square feet of building is possible. This was the amount of building approved by the City in 1978. This project (16,066 sq. ft.) modifies the site plan to 82,066 sq. ft. The intent of the five acre minimum is to have enough room to meet setbacks and preserve features. This building is located at an average setback of 395 feet from the lake. This setback preserves the slopes and vegetation adjacent to the lake. 2. Minimum setback to high water level from 200 ft. to l30 ft. If viewed only from the main water body, this plan would meet City code. If the setback is averaged along the entire normal ordinary high water level, the setback is 395 ft. The building 2 q Staff Report Lakeview Office March 8, 1996 could be moved 70 feet to the north, but would result in the loss of large maple and oak trees and other non-significant vegetation the developer proposes to save. These trees were required to be saved as part of the original approval. Moving the building will place it higher on the slope and make it more visible from the lake. This is why the proposed building is in the same location as the approved plan. GRADING AND TREE LOSS There are no significant trees on site that will be lost due to construction. ARCHITECTURE The building is proposed to be constructed of 18% glass, 61 % burnished block, 19% dryvit, and 2% concrete. The Office zoning district requires 75% face brick and glass. The proponent must apply for and receive a variance from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. The reason for the variance is to be architecturally capatible with the existing Cabriole Center building. Architectural compatibility is a City code requirement. The City granted a similar exterior materials variance for a building addition to Norwest Bank, which was built of exposed aggregate before the City's brick and glass requirement. Staff believes that architectural compatibility is more important than materials. Cabriole Center was built before the brick and glass requirement. Mechanical equipment will be screened by parapet wall. UTILITIES Sewer and water is available in West 78th Street. Since only a small amount of hard surface area is being added and since water drains towards West 78th Street no treatment pond will be built. A cash contribution to the stonn water utility fund will be required. LANDSCAPING The amount of landscaping required is based on a caliper inch requirement according to building, screening of parking areas from roads and the shoreland area, and transition to the single family areas to the east. The plan meets City code requirements. TRAFFIC The approved plan for a 65,000 sq. ft. building would generate 910 daily trips and 112 peak hour trips. The current proposal for a 16,066 sq. ft. building would generate 224 daily trips and 28 peak 3 10 Staff Report Lakeview Office March 8, 1996 hour trips. Since the proposed traffic is less than the approved plan no road improvements are recommended. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff would recommend approval of the Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District, Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan Review based on plans dated March 8, 1996 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 8,1996, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over Fire Code requirements. B. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. C. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 3. The proponent shall apply for and receive approval of the following variances from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments: A. Minimum lot size from 5 acres to 2.79 acres. B. Shoreland setback from 200 to 130 feet. C. Zero lot line setback to parking. D. Exterior materials from 75% face brick and glass to 18% glass, 61% burnished block, 19% dryvit, and 2% concrete. 4 /I ~~T~T~©IJ~ ~~DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATERS -1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106-6793 PHONE NO. (612) 772-7910 FILE NO. March 4, 1996 Mr. Mike Franzen, City Planner City of Eden Prairie Community Development Department 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Lakeview Office Facility, Anderson Lake (27-62P), City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Franzen: Representatives of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the City of Eden Prairie, and Dana Larson Roubal and Associates have met and discussed issues related to the city's shoreland regulations and the proposed Lakeview Office Facility. This letter will reiterate the points made at that meeting, as well as comment on other aspects of the project. l. While the Lakeview Office Facility is close to Anderson Lake (27-62P), the lot lines do not eXtend below the ordinary high water (OHW) level of Anderson Lake. Therefore, the project site is not under DNR jurisdiction and a DNR permit is not needed for the project. However, there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. The project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on the project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 2. The plans indicate that the stormwater will be routed to a rock swale on the property, which is good. A rock swale will provide wildlife and water quality benefits that a culvert would not provide. But the plans do not indicate what will happen to the stormwater once it leaves the Lakeview Office Facility site. We recommend that the stormwater be treated in a sedimentation pond to avoid the sedimentation, pollution and water level bounces that can destroy a lake or stream's wildlife, aesthetic, and recreational values. 3. The 100-year flood elevation of Anderson Lake is 941' (NGVD, 1929). We commend Dana Larson Roubal & Associates for depicting the 100-year flood elevation on the plans. It appears that the structure is built above the 100-year flcxxl elevation and complies with the flood management regulations of the City of Eden Prairie. 4. Anderson Lake has a shoreland classification of recreational development. The shoreland district extends 1000 feet from the OHW. The development must be consistent with Eden Prairies management regulations. In particular, you should note: I;). AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Mike Franzen Lakeview Office Facility Project March 4, 1996 Page 2 A. The location of the original shoreline of Anderson Lake was difficult to detennine. Dana Larson Rouble and Associates believed that the original shoreline of Anderson Lake was 200' from the site of the proposed structure. Subsequent information has shown the original shoreline to be 157' from the proposed structure, which exceeds the minimum state standard of 150' for a commercial building on a recreational development lake. A variance will be needed for the Lakeview Office Facility because the Eden Prairie Shoreland Ordinance requires a 200' setback, however, we do not object to a variance being granted given the circumstances at this site. B. Steep slopes exist on the site. Topographic alterations should be minimized in areas of steep slopes. A filling and grading permit should be issued for this work once the criteria listed in Subd.11.B of the Eden Prairie Shoreland Ordinance are met. C. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore impact zone as required by Subd.11.A of the Eden Prairie Shoreland ordinance. The minimum shore impact zone is an area within 100' of the OHW. D. The Lakeview Office Facility should be screened from view from Anderson Lake using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city as required by Subd.ll.A of the Eden Prairie Shoreland Ordinance. 5. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: A. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. B. The comments in this letter address DNR -Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, ti12-~ Joseph G. Richter Hydrologist JGRIkl c: Robert Obermeyer, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Joe Vanta, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Thomas D. Sindelar, Dana Larson Roubal and Associates City of Eden Prairie Shoreland File J~ TO: Planning Commission,City Planners Office,Variance Committee, and other involved offices FROM: Jay and Connie Wetmore 8040 Ensign Rd. 943-9052 SUBJECT: Lakeview Office Variance Request from Dana Larson Roubal And Associates (DLR) Dear City of Eden Prairie Officials, March 13,1996 Thank-you for allowing us to voice our opinion regarding the setback request variance presented by DLR at the March 11 th Planning Commission meeting. I am writing again today to voice my strong opposition to granting DLR a variance to build their new office 130 ft. from the water's edge versus the 200 ft. currently required. My husband and I are parents of3 small children, ages 2,3,and 4 years. Our interest in this matter is not because we have nothing better to do with our time. I only wish we had more time available to us to better express to each of you why this matter is so important to us. Our best solution is for you to come and view the land from the lakeshore and see why 70 ft. is a precious commodity in this location. We have expressed our concerns to people who make decisions about land use, yet they have only seen the land in question from arial photos, architectural drarwings or at best from the parking lot of the Cabriole Center. I urge you to come view this wetland area from the perspective of the wildlife that rely on this area for their survival here. The impact on our property will be the same whether the proposed building is 130 ft. from the water's edge or 200 ft. from the water's edge. We will still have the view of a building in our backyard, something we knew would happen before we bought our home. What will change is the wildlife that uses this area. Without the 70 ft. of land, many of the current species that use this area will have to find a new habitat, but where? Because I am an at home mom, I am able to keep a close watch on this area. In the time J4 that we have lived here, the only people I've seen in this area were 2 surveyors from DLR this past winter and 2 student interns the city sent out to do a DNRlwildlife survey. They were content to stand in my backyard and have me list the wildlife I'd seen. I had to encourage them and lead them through this wetland so they could see what existed. Please do not decide to break into this 200 feet of protected area before you have seen it from water level. While it is true the proposed building on the drawings is asthetically pleasing built "into a hillside", please remember the only people that will see this architectural wonder are 2 or 3 of us on Ensign Rd. and of course the surrounding wildlife. All of us would prefer it be as far away from the wetland as required. Why was a code set up to protect the lakeshore if it can be waived whenever a project or a builder doesn't want the "sterile look of backing up to a parking lot?" Hardly a good reason to build into protected land. As a neighborhood we had the oppurtunity to meet with Mr. Sindelar (Principal of the firm,DLR) and his associates. At the one meeting we had with them in Jan. of '96 we discussed their proposed plans for the site. At that meeting, we brought to their attention that their building was too close to the existing lakeshore. Why should the wetland and our neighborhood have to suffer the consequence of their original oversite? When we bought our home we spoke with the realtors selling this plot of land and knew it was for sale as office space. We also researched and found that there was a 200ft. buffer zone from the wetland making living next to a new office building worth the compromise of the unknown. Had we known this was a variable setback requirement, we would not have been willing to take the risk of the unknown in our backyard .DLR came up against an unknown when it had to deal with a 200 ft. setback requirement. They can redesign their building with the new information. What are we as homeowners to do if they change the original rules on us? The redesign of this building should be considered a necessary expense of doing business for DLR. To their advantage, they are able to do the redesign in house, an oppurtunity most office complexes would not have. I can't state strongly enough that it is unfair that this protected wetland be sacrificed due to DLR's oversite as they began plans for their new office. At the Planning Commissions' March 11th meeting, it was my sense that 4 commissioners voted for this variance because something similar had been agreed to in 1989. Does anyone know why the building was never built? Is it a sound business decision to agree to J!) something because someone else voted for it 7 years ago? What are the new circumstances? How has the area changed? Is there anything else that has occured in the past 7 years that might be adversely affecting Anderson Lake? Has the wetland been reconfigured through natural processes in the past 7 years? Has this 70 feet become more precious or fragile since the 1989 decision? I understand that it makes good business sense to encourage new businesses in Eden Prairie. Will the taxes DLR pays be any different if they are 130 feet from the shoreline versus 200 feet as required? Will DLR's business be hurt by having their building 200 feet instead of 130 feet from a protected wetland? My guess the answer to above 2 questions is 'no'. But will the deer, herons, egrets, fox, pheasant and trumpeter swans be affected by having their area decreased by 70 feet? Probably. My husband is a structural engineer and was project manager for the design of the reconstruction of the Mendota Bridge. He was able to keep the wildlife areas at the base of the bridge balanced with the construction requirements. This was accomplished thru seeing the affected areas firsthand, meeting with those who maintained the wilderness environment and multiple redeSigns. His efforts in this task were rewarded with a national award of engineering excellence. If they were able to accomplish this with a 4110 ft. structure, doesn't it also seem possible to do this with a 2 story building?? I realize this letter has a fair amount of questions. When I left the March 11 th meeting, I left with questions unvoiced. I appreciate being able to share these questions with you and hope you will consider them carefully before a final vote on allowing a variance of your lakeshore setback requirements. But most importantly I hope you will each come with hiking boots and walk through this area. Call me anytime and I will arrange a personal guided tour for you as the access to this wetland area is through our backyard.Thank-you for your time. Hope to hear from each of you soon. Sincerely, r'\ ~ ~O~ Connie Wetmore 943-9052 To: Mr. Michael Franzen, project planner Community Development Department From: Jay and Connie Wetmore 8040 Ensign Rd. Re: Lakeview Office Building Proposal,West 78th St. Dear Mr Franzen, March 2, 1996 Thank-you for the recent notification regarding the planning commission meeting for the Lakeview Office building, proposed by Dana Larson,Roubal and Associates. Our property adjoins their site and we are interested in all that goes on with any proposed construction. We do have several concerns with their building as currently proposed, much closer to the wetlands than current city and DNR ordinances allow, and appreciate the oppurtunity to voice these concerns. Our primary concern is with the new building's proximity to Anderson Lakes. The new building is planned to be much closer than the current setback requires. We feel this buffer zone is critical for the wildlife the lake currently supports. As homeowners, we've had the fortune of seeing this wilderness preserve area in both drought and high water and are happy to report that in both states, this wetland is thriving with wildlife. It supports not only the ordinary, mallards, wood ducks, geese, and megansers, but also the rare loons and a nesting pair of Trumpeter Swans. We've also had the oppurtunity to watch a bald eagle make this area an extended stop over on his migration path. Besides the deer,raccoons,woddchucks, muskrat,red fox and beaver, we've also been fortunate enough to watch mink and oppossum 11 feed in this wilderness area. Our list of wildlife goes on to include~ 3 pairs of pheasant,pileatd woodpeckers,kingfishers,great blue herons, green herons,black crowned night herons, great egrets,great homed owl and scores of blackbirds, cardinals, finches and many other birds too numerous to mention. Many of the above wildlife rely on fish to survive and we are happy to report this part of the lake along with our retention pond is teeming with fish for their sustenance. We have had an oppurtunity to see the propsed building plans and feel they can easily comply with current city zoning ordinances regarding proximity to lakeshore/wetlands. The bigger the contiguous area for this wildlife to survive in the better. Another concern we have, although secondary to the above, is the traffic impact of a new office building on West 78th Street. At this point, access to 78th street at rush hour is nearly impossible for anyone in our neighborhood. Adding more traffic, along with the start up ofHwy. 18 construction this Spring,will make our neighborhood access at rush hour nearly impossible. We are wondering if this impact to our neighborhood has been assessed? As a point of interest, we would also like to add that on any given business day, the parking lot at the current Cabriole Center is at best, half full. We question DLR's need for additional parking on their site. As it is, a large area of asphalt sits empty and obviously is of no use to the surrounding wildlife. Thank-you for allowing us this input. We look forward to further discussions at the March 11th meeting. If we can answer any questions for you or if anyone would like to see the proposed building site from our home please feel free to contact us. Connie is at home during the day. Again, thank-you for your time. IZ Sincerely, . /) ,r'\-L- h"'~~ Jay and Connie Wetmore 943-9052 TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: MEMORANDUM Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Stuart A. FO~ager of Parks and Natural Resources March 13, 1996 Supplemental Staff Report to the March 8, 1996 Planning Staff Report for Lakeview Office This development is part of the 1978 subdivision known as Cabrio1e Center. The original project received approval for two, three-story office buildings totaling 125,000 square feet. The first building was built in 1978 and a subsequent plan was approved in 1989 for the design of building for Phase II. At the time of construction of Cabriole Center cash park fees were paid for the entire site. The proponent of this development would construct a one-story walkout office building with underground parking. This building contains 16,066 square feet. ISSUES: Natural Resources/Tree Preservation The site currently is a mixture oflarge elms, box elders, along with the maples that were planted in the parking lot islands. The construction of the building will result in the loss of two 14 inch pines and the total percentage of tree loss is less than 5%. When this project was reviewed in 1978 there was a great concern over the treed area and the slopes adjacent to Anderson Lakes. It is because of the original review and site layout that this development proposal has such a small impact on the trees remaining on the site. Landscaping The proposed landscaping plan meets the City Code requirements. The plan uses evergreens to screen the building from adjacent buildings and single family homes. I~ NURP Pond Currently, the site drains towards West 78th Street and the runoff is handled through existing storm drainage pipes. Therefore, it will not be necessary to build a storm retention pond in conjunction with this building. A cash contribution to the storm water utility fund will be required. Sidewalks/Trails The long range park plan indicates that a trail or sidewalk is desired on the south side of West 78th Street to handle pedestrian and bike traffic. However, because this project has a limited amount of frontage onto West 78th Street it would be impractical to require a sidewalk or trail to be built at this time. However, the developer should be aware that any driveway entrance onto West 78th Street should be done in such a manner as to not impede future construction of a trail or sidewalk within the right-of-way of West 78th Street. RECOMMENDATION: This proj ect was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its March I I, 1996 meeting and was approved on a 4-1 vote. The singular no vote was because of the infringement on Anderson Lakes, as well as the number of variances required. The staff would recommend approval of this project subject to approval of the variances as listed in the staff report dated March 8, 1996, as well as the staff recommendations included in the Planning Staff Report of March 8, 1996 and the content of this supplemental staff report. SAF:mdd Lakeview/Stuart96 2 ,,0 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Unapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 IV. V. PETITIONS. REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. None DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. Lakeview Office Staffreferred the Commission to a memo dated March 13, 1996, from Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources~ a Staff Report dated March 8, 1996, from Michael D. Franzen, City Planner; and two letters dated March 3, 1996, and March 13, 1996, from Jay and Connie Wetmore. Tom Sindelar, representing Dana Larson Roubal and Associates, reviewed his development proposal with the Commission. This development is part of the 1978 subdivision known as Cabriole Center. The proposal is for a one-story walkout office building with underground parking. This building contains 16,066 square feet. The building is being positioned at this location to save a lot of large oak trees. DLR will be the prime tenants of the building. Fox stated the original project received approval buildings totaling 125,000 square feet. The first and a subsequent plan was approved in 1989 fOI for Phase II. This particular building has on" 65,000 square feet that was originally proposed The site is a mixture of oaks, elms, box elders, _ were planted in the parking lot islands. The tree loss is at less than oJ P"'" ... --- The site will only loose two 14 inch pines that separate in the center of the building, and the building can not be shifted to save them. The landscaping that is proposed shows a number of evergreen. The primary landscape plan is coniferous in contents, and that is primarily to screen the homes to the southeast of this site. When the parking lot originally went in, they sized the storm sewer along Highway 494 to handle the water from that particular project. Therefore, the recommendation is a cash distribution to the storm water utilities fund instead of having a NURP pond constructed. 2 ~I Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Unapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 The long range plan shows some time in the future to have a sidewalk or trail on the south side of West 78 Street. However, this particular project only has frontage about 150 feet on West 78 Street. Therefore, Staff is not recommending building that 150 foot piece of trail. This project was reviewcd at the Planning Commission at the March 11 meeting. It was approved on a 4-1 vote. The no vote was because of the variance for a 130 foot setback instead of a 200 foot setback from the shoreline that DLR is requesting. Connie Wetmore, 8040 Ensign Road, objected to the variance for a 130 foot setback, but was comfortable with the project taking place. If the variance were granted, the natural habitat for the wildlife would be infringed upon. Seventy feet is a precious commodity at that location. Anderson Lake is very unique, and they want to keep it that way. They would rather the building be shifted and loose the oak trees than encroach on Anderson Lake. The ordinance prohibits any vessels or watercrafts into the lake which means not even a canoe. Therefore, why should a builder be granted a variance when they can just shift the building over. She also expressed concern about the trees surviving the construction of this building, and if they do not survive or get oak wilt from being stressed, it spreading to their trees on the hillside. She noted a lot of the parking lots in the area are usually half full, and was concerned about DLR not needing so many parking spaces. Mary Jean Carr, 8100 Ensign Road, concurred with Connie Wetmore. She showed the Commission the scenic easement she received from Hennepin Parks, and it depicts their area as being part of Anderson Lake. Her request to the Commission is to deny this variance. Jay Wetmore, 8040 Ensign Road, stressed the uniqueness of this area. This lake has had loons nesting on it in the past. It's such a unique resource and the loons are very sensitive to encroachment. He would much rather see the continuous area left in tact than to loose a couple of oak trees. Jan Hubert, 8046 Ensign Road, noted she was told this was a special lake with no swimming or boating. They have respected the lake for many years and hopes the builder will follow the rules and go within the boundaries that were set. 3 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Unapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 Myrna Sampson. 8048 Ensign Road. expressed concern about the root system of the oak trees as a result of asphalt near it. She was concerned that if the trees do not remain healthy it could wipe out the entire growth of oaks. She was also concerned about DLR needing so many parking spaces because so many parking lots in the area are half full all the time. She would like Anderson Lake to remain in its natural haven . . Brown asked why the building has to be 70 feet closer to the lake. Sindelar replied they believe it's the most buildable area on the site. He reviewed the history of why the City of Bloomington extended the lake up to the City limits. That changed the setback from 157 feet to 132 feet. They are pleading hardship because the lake had been modified and that's why the DNR supports this variance. They are within the 150 foot setback of the DNR. but Eden Prairie has a greater setback of 200 feet. Brown asked what the benefit is to Eden Prairie if they grant the 70 foot variance. Sindelar replied they truly believe they are a good neighbor and a good development for Eden Prairie. The alternative to this site would be a three to four story building with greater magnitude. which it will support in terms of the parking structure. DLR is a much more sympathetic and natural neighbor for the residents, and a good citizen for Eden Prairie. They are trying to fit their building in this site with the least impact to the site~ and feel this location has the least impact. Bowman noted a couple of years ago there were plans to put a trail and a nature center around Anderson Lake. After review by the DNR, they would not support a plain wood chipped trail or a very needed nature center because Anderson Lake was a very sensitive area. He noted he did not see any evidence to indicate the reference to the ditch. The 200' huffer is a significant part.of the lake and to certain species ()f wildlife it may be more important than the main body of the lake. There was also concern about setting a precedent. He would not support this project. Sindelar commented if the building were move~ it would be higher and this would effect the Tesidents. Hilgeman noted the residents have accepted Cabriole Center being so tall. therefore, they would rather see this building tall than to see the setback compromised. She would rather see some of the trees go than any more 4 ,. Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Unapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 B. encroachment on the wetland, and does not want to see a precedent set. She wants to see the building moved up closer to the parking lot and keep the setback in tact. Koening was concerned about the number of parking spaces being too many. Fox noted the ordinance is based on the square footage of the building, and it's met for maximum use. MOTION: Brown moved, seconded by Koening to deny the application and approval on Lakeview Office complex for the reason of the required variance from the lake. Motion carried 4-0. Impact Marketing Staffreferred the Commission to a memo dated March 13, 1996, from Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; and a Staff Report dated March 8, 1996, from Michael D. Franzen. City Planner. Keith Waters, developer, reviewed his development proposal with the Commission. The proposal is for two buildings with 21,000 square feet instead of 78,000 which the office permit would allow. They are trying to save as many trees as possible.. and are staying completely away from the ravine and the wooded hill. They are staying at least 50 feet away from the pond because of significant trees. The pond has no outlet. It has nothing up stream other than the freeway. Fox stated there are over 130 trees listed on the tree inventory with a total of 2,245 diameter inches. The number of trees lost due to construction would be 31 for a total of 599 diameter inches. This results in a 23 percent loss of significant trees. The tree replacement required by ordinance would be 155 diameter inches {)f Teplacement trees. The proposed landscaping plan indicates a total of nearly 300 diameter inches of trees for planting on this site. The screening is along the southerly border which is along the townhomes. They MC proposing to use.a lDt Df .oonifers to pro~ide year r.ound screening from 1he1>arking lot and the buildings themselves. The existing pond on the site is receiving discharge water from both Baker Road and County Road 62. Staff believes by enlarging the NURP pond on the site would be far more detrimental to the site than what is currently 5 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-16-96 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. ~E. DEP ARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER Scott Kipp Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1st Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the 1-5 Zoning District on 15.6 acres and PUD District Review on 15.6 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 15.6 acres; Background: The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project at its March 11, 1996 meeting. The Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission unanimously recommended approval at its March 18, 1996 meeting. The developer has submitted an optional grading plan for the project in response to issues raised by a neighboring land owner. Discussions with this land owner are still underway; however, Staff is comfortable with either grading plan option. Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment and PUD District Review 2. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 11, 1996 4. Park, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission Minutes dated March 18, 1996 5. Staff Report dated March 8, 1996 6. Memo from Parks and Rec. Dept. dated March 13, 1996 I ------------------------------------- FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER FOR OPUS CORPORATION WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Flying Cloud Business Center PUD Concept by Opus Corporation and considered their request for approval for development (and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on April 16, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Flying Cloud Business Center, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated April9, 1996. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the PI~lnning Commission dated March 11, 1996. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of April, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk PROPOSED' PROPERY DESCRIPTION That port of the following described property That parf' Of the North Hdf of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter lying southeasterly of the' centerline of Flying Cloud Drive. AND That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter lying Southeasterly of the centerline of Flying Cloud Drive. AII,.inSectio~ I. Township I.! 6 Nortr. Range 22 West. Hennepin County; Minnesota. ,,", ':',. " , , lying southerly and westerly of a line described as commencing at the southeast corner of said North Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence northerly along the east line of said North Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 5 I 4.2 I feet to the' point of beginning of the line to be, described;: thence southwesterly. deflecting to thE! left 128 degrees 26 minutes 44 seconds a distance of 212.' 5 feet; thence westerly deflecting to the right 40 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds a dist<lnce of 737.42 feet; thence northerly. deflecting to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 362.59' feet; thence northwesterly. ,'deflecting to the left 31 degrees 05 minutes 29 seconds a distance of 208.73 feet to the centerline of, Flying Cloud Drive and said line there terminating. ," . ~"': -,.': . : ~~. ,#'. ~ " ., . Alpr 0 VE'lJ )/}/., (Alc;, e I P rlC."'''7 Co/1M/f)1 ~'\... Ibr cA !~ /97'b D. FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS CENTER by Opus Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the 1-5 Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 15.6 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.6 acres. Location: 6509 Flying Cloud Drive. Kipp introduced Jim Never representing Opus Corporation. Jim Never reviewed his proposal with the Planning Commission. This is a one story 204,000 square foot building. It is a speculative warehouse project. There are one to ten tenants expected to be in the building. The building consists on the average of 25 percent office, and 75 percent warehouse and manufacturing use. The project has been designed to meet all of the current zoning codes with one exception. They are requesting a waiver to allow a 160 sq. ft. monument sign, versus the 80 square feet allowed by city code. This additional square footage would be reduced in the permitted amount of wall sign area. They have worked sensitively with Staff over the last several months and took Staff recommendations for modification. They have met with the other businesses and they are in favor of this. Never commented that Mr. Dvorak, land owner to the south of the proposal, has concerns about the retaining wall, seeing the building from his property, and having a pond that may attract geese and attack his field. The developer needs the NURP pond and can not remove it. Never said they are also evaluating a roadway easement located along the extreme west end of the site. The building will be constructed of glass and pre-cast concrete panel. There is an integrated signage plan so all the tenants for the building will have a similar type style and size. Because of the size of the building, a larger pylon size is asked to be approved. This will help identify some of the businesses at the end of the building. Sandstad asked if there was a retaining wall between the north property and this property. Never replied no. Ismail asked what kind of businesses would occupy the building. Never noted it would be a light manufacturing use. Ismail questioned whether there was any playground or recreation area where the workers could go. Never noted there are no basketball courts or park area proposed. Clinton expressed concern about there being a market for this type of use since there is a vacant 150,000 sq. ft. building available on Prairie Center Drive. Never replied they are not building it to sit empty. He expects the market to be good and hopes to be in there by the summer. Sandstad commented that the Parks Commission is well advised to see what they can do for a recreation area. 9 L/ V. VI. Wissner supported the proj ect. MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Schlampp to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Schlampp to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Opus Corporation for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 15.6 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.6 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the 1-5 Zoning District on 15.6 acres, and Site Plan Review on 15.6 acres based on plans dated March 8, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 8, 1996. Motion carried 5-0. MEMBERS' REPORTS None. CONTINUING BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS None. VIII. PLANNERS'REPORTS IX. Kipp reviewed new projects tentatively schedule for the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Sandstad to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 10 --------------------------------------------------------------... " ~~ '~ ~7~ Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission _approved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 ~~ .~ ~ ~ ~ existing. Therefore, a cash contribution to the stonn water utility fund is recommended, and this pond would also take care of some of the on-site drainage. There is an eight foot bituminous trail along the northerly side of the property that was installed along the Crosstown, and a sidewalk along the westerly side of Baker Road. They are asking the developer that at the time the sidewalk goes in they put a curb, a gutter, and curb cuts in. This way the sidewalk traffic is not impeded. This project was reviewed at the Planning Commission on the March 11 meeting, and approved on a 5-0 vote. One issue came up concerning how much light spillage would occur from the parking lot. The developer was asked to have a footprint to show the lighting pattern of the parking lots prior to being reviewed by the City Council. People to the south were concerned about the lights coming into their bedroom windows from that parking lot. " Koening asked how tall the conifers will be for screening. Waters replied 10 feet high. Koening was concerned about how soon the adjacent residents would benefit from the screening. Waters reviewed the screening concept on the map. • Bowman expressed concern about any restrictions as far as building on such a steep ravine. Fox replied there are no restrictions. Hilgeman commented it's refreshing to see a plan that doesn't develop every square inch with 21,000 out of a possible 79,000 square feet. Bowman asked if the numbers are buildable square footage ofland or is it based on six acres. Fox replied it's based on the entire site assuming it's a flat six acres. Bowman commented that it's deceiving when you look at what's buildable. Fox noted it's based on the square footage of the site. They can build a building tall enough to accommodate 79,000 square feet. 2:::~g MOTION: . moved, seconded by Bowman to approve the plan as per the Staff reconUnendations of the Staff Report dated March 8, 1996 of Impact Marketing. Motion carried 4-0. C. Flying Cloud Business Center Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated March 13, 1996, from Stuart 6 • Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission aapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources~ and a Staff Report dated March 8, 1996, from Michael D. Franzen. Jim Meyer, representing Opus Corporation, reviewed his development proposal with the Commission. The project being proposed is a multi-tenant office warehouse. They are basically at the end of Flying Cloud Drive and Shady Oak Road along Highway 212 in the Golden Triangle area. The total parcel is approximately 30 acres of which they are buying 15.6 acres from Physical Electronics. The proposal is for a 200,400 square foot single story building. They have oriented the building so the office function has more of a presence to the street traffic which provides for screening of the dock areas. There are two NURP ponds to pick up the on-site drainage. Colored palates are used that are complimentary with Physical Electronics as well as the other sites. The family that owns the farm prefers a retaining wall for transition rather than give up any land for their farming purposes. ,Fox noted the plan calls for the removal of three significant trees which represents a total of 72 caliper inches or a 17 percent tree loss. The tree replacement required under the ordinance is a total of 16 caliper inches of trees. The site is also visible from the two adjacent properties to the north and south, so it requires a very large amount of screening. The landscaping plan represents 1,140 caliper inches which includes 1,084 caliper inches for landscape screening. A rather substantial retaining wall of nearly nine feet in height is proposed for the southerly property line, and this will need design approval by the Building Inspections Department prior to construction. , ~~~ This particular site runs into a ~t~ law which exempts commercial and industrial subdivisions from QeHll'i1in~with local park dedication regulations as a result of a property being di~ided into a parcel of five acres in size or over 300 feet of road frontage. The result of this subdivision will be two parcels over 15 acres in size. As a result, technically they don't have to pay cash park fees. There will be over 600 employees, and to help ease the pressure on the park system, it would be reasonable to ask for some open space and recreational facilities on this property. 7 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission "approved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 There are no sidewalks or trails planned at this particular area, therefore, the recommendation is for one along Flying Cloud Drive. This was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 11 and received a 5-0 vote for approval. Hilgeman asked where the developer stands regarding the park dedication issue. Meyer replied they are committed to doing something. They do not have an definite answer of what's right or acceptable to the site. They want to be a good citizen and do something, even though they are not required to by the ordinances. They are considering providing tennis courts and volleyball courts, but are not sure yet. Brown asked what Opus Corporation believes would be a fair contribution in terms of park fees. Meyer replied the reason he suggested tennis courts is in the Staff report they mentioned other businesses in the City that have provided these type of amenities so there is less of a burden and a benefit to their employees. Lambert commented that as a Staff person responsible for developing the parks system and reviewing all the different types of developments that come to the City, in his opinion it's a "quirk" in the law. He would like to see the Parks Commission make a recommendation to the City Council for the City , of Eden Prairie to initiate some legislation into eliminating that "quirk" in the law. It is not fair to the other commercial, office or industrial developers that are required to pay park fees to help pay for facilities their employees will demand. Brown expressed concern about the waiver granted changing the size of the sign from 80 square feet to 160 square feet. Fox noted it's a planning issue and they passed that waiver. Brown ask~9.. if it will be mostly warehouse office. Meyer replied they are projecting~percent will be a combination of warehouse and light manufacturing. Bowman expressed concern about the parking spaces being right on the property line. Fox noted they meet the setback for parking which is 10 feet. MOTION 1: Koen~g moved. seconded by Hilgeman to approve the Flying Cloud Business Center with the stipulations on the March 13, 1996 Supplemental Staff Report or the Staff Report. Motion carried 4-0. 8 , Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission lIlapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 VI. MOTION 2: Brown moved, seconded by Bowman to ask the City Council to contact the City Attorney and see what we can do as a city to initiate a change in the state law that prohibits us from collecting park fees er projects over five acres.. Motion carried 4-0. .f.',. OLD BUSINESS A. Duck Lake Surface Management Ordinance Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated March 11, 1986, and a letter dated March 7, 1996, from Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities. Lambert noted this Surface Management Ordinance was initiated when several residents came to the City asking the City to help manage Duck Lake for the fish population. Staff indicated as a City Staff, they do not recommend the City get involved in managing any lake without DNR assistance. For the DNR to agree to manage any lake, they have to have a public access on the lake. Stafflooked at what land was available and what funds were available to the City of Eden Prairie. The City does own a strip of land along the lake shore, (about 300 feet), on the south side of Duck Lake Trail. It is too narrow and too steep to accommodate the trailer access, but it could accommodate access to allow people to carry-on cartop boats or canoes. The DNR indicated they would support this as a public access if the use of Duck Lake was restricted to "no motors", and if they had access that would allow the general public to "carry-on". The DNR would then try to schedule this lake for stocking fish this year, and would support the City in getting an aeration system next year. The City would also apply for a fishing pier to be installed on the City property in order to provide a safe place to fish for individuals without access to a boat. This would hopefully discourage people from fishing along Duck Lake Road. Tom Lindquist, 16750 Baywood Terrace, commented he supports the Surface Management Ordinance. 9 q STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: LOCATION: REQUEST: Planning Commission Scott A. Kipp, Planner Michael D. Franzen, City Planner March 8, 1996 Flying Cloud Business Center Opus Corporation 6509 Flying Cloud Drive 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.6 acres. 2. Zoning District Amendment in the 1-5 Zoning District on 15.6 acres. 3. Site Plan Review on 15.6 acres. 10 " Staff Report Flying Cloud Business Center March 8, 1996 SITE PLAN The site plan shows a single story, 204,000 sq. ft. speculative industrial building on approximately 15.6 acres at a base area ratio of .30. The 1-5 Zoning District will pennit up to a .30 base area ratio. The building meets the required front, rear and sideyard setbacks. Parking is provided at a ratio of 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area which meets City code. Some of this parking will be placed in proof of parking at this time. A revision to the Physical Electronics parking lot to the north will be necessary for this project, but will not effect the number of parking spaces they need or that are required to meet code. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site is relatively level except for a wooded hill adjacent to Flying Cloud Drive, and a slope along the south property line. A total of 424 caliper inches of significant trees have been inventoried on the overall Physical Electronics site, which includes the subject property. A total of72 caliper inches, or 17% tree loss has been detenmned by the City Forester. Tree replacement is 16 caliper inches. A 9 foot retaining wall is proposed along the south property line. This wall may be reduced in height, or eliminated if an agreement can be reached for off site grading with the property owners to the south. The proponent is continuing to evaluate this option. Two storm water treatment ponds are shown on the grading and drainage plan. These ponds will be designed to meet NURP standards. UTILITIES Sewer and water is available along Flying Cloud Drive. ARCHITECTURE The building will be constructed out of glass and pre-cast concrete panel. Both materials are approved building materials in the 1-5 Zoning District. Mechanical equipment on the roof will be screened by a metal panel. Site lighting will be accomplished with 30 foot dowI).cast luminars and wall mount fixtures. LANDSCAPING The total caliper inches required, including tree replacement, is 1,084 caliper inches. The landscaping plan meets this caliper inch requirement. Staff Report Flying Cloud Business Center March 8,1996 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVER The developer is requesting a waiver to allow a monument sign greater than the 80 sq. ft. allowed by city code. The size of the proposed sign is 160 sq. ft. The developer is willing to reduce the building wall sign area by this excess square footage. The Staff believes, based on the size of the building and the limited frontage to the property, this request has merit and should be supported. P ARK DEDICATION The proponent will be dividing the property from the Physical Electronics site through a meets and bounds legal description. There is a provision of State Law that exempts commercial and industrial subdivisions from having to comply with local subdivision regulations where the resultant parcels are 5 acres and 300 feet of frontage or greater in size. This project will result in two parcels of 15 acres or more. Physical Electronics paid a cash park fee in 1979 for approximately half of the overall 30 acre property at the time of that approval. An industrial use ofthis size could have approximately 600 employees which will have a demand on the local park system for league play, and other outdoor court games. To help ease the pressure on the park system, this project could provide open space and private recreation uses. MTS, Rosemount and Best Buy are industrial businesses that provide ball fields and or tennis courts. It would be reasonable to ask for open space and recreation facilities on this property and could be required by the Site Plan Review Ordinance under the provision for open space. The Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission will be discussing this issue at their next meeting prior to City Council review. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review and Planned Unit Development District Review on 15.6 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the 1-5 Zoning District and Site Plan Review on 15.6 acres, based on plans dated March 8, 1996 and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated March 8, 1996, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. I~ Staff Report Flying Cloud Business Center March 8, 1996 B. Install construction fencing at the grading limits near the wooded area of the property for protection of existing trees. This fencing shall be inspected by the City Forester prior to any grading or tree removal. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Supply legal descnbed standard drainage and utility easements for the property, since the property will not be platted. B. Provide a shared use and maintenance agreement with Physical Electronics for the private utilities that traverse the property. C. Submit samples of exterior building materials and colors for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening surety as required by code. 3. A waiver from city code is granted as part of the Planned Unit Development District Review in the 1-5 Zoning District to permit an increase in the monument sign size permitted by city code from 80 sq. ft. to 160 sq. ft. g:lflyingcl.bus I LJ TO: MEMORANDUM Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities DATE: FROM: SUBJECT: March 13, 1996 Stuart A. FOX~ger of Parks and Natural Resources Supplemental Staff Report to the Planning Staff Report for Flying Cloud Business Center Dated March 8, 1996 BACKGROUND: The proposed development known as Flying Cloud Business Center is a subdivision of the property that currently houses Physical Electronics. The proposed subdivision would be to build an approximately 200,400 square foot industrial building on 15.6 acres of property. The proposed building would meet the setbacks as required under City Code; however, the parking lot for Physical Electronics would have to undergo some modifications, so as not to interfere with this property subdivision. ISSUES: Natural Resources/Tree Preservation This site currently is a mixture of small trees that have been planted in conjunction with the Physical Electronics building and some native wilding trees along the Flying Cloud Drive portion of the property. The plan calls for the removal of three significant trees, which represents a total of 72 caliper inches or a 17% loss of significant trees on the site. The tree replacement required under ordinance is a total of 16 caliper inches of trees. The developer has submitted a landscaping plan that represents the planting of 1,140 caliper inches of replacement and required landscape screening trees. Because the site is visible not only from Flying Cloud, but also from the two adjacent properties to the north and south, a very large amount of screening is required. The total amount of landscape screening is 1,084 caliper inches. The plan as submitted does meet the requirements for landscape screening and does a fine job of mixing deciduous and coniferous material throughout the site. A rather substantial retaining wall of nearly nine feet in height is proposed for the southerly property line and this will need design approval by the Building Inspections Department prior to construction. NURP Pond Two storm water retention ponds are shown on the grading plan; one being located in the southwesterly comer, the other in the southeasterly comer. These two NURP ponds will have to be approved by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. Park Dedication The proposed development is taking place on a division of Physical Electronics property. A provision of the Minnesota State Law exempts commercial and industrial subdivisions from complying with local subdivision regulations where the result of a property being divided nets in a parcel of 5 acres in size or over 300 feet of road frontage. The result of this subdivision will be two parcels over 15 acres in size. Physical Electronics did pay cash park fees in 1979 for approximately one-half of the overall 30 acres of property. This particular industrial use building could result in having over 600 employees. While there may be many companies involved, the net result will be many adults who will be eligible to play in adult leagues ranging from softball to basketball to volleyball and they would use Eden Prairie park facilities for some of those activities. To help ease the pressure on the park system, it is reasonable to ask for some open space and recreational facilities to be constructed on this property. This would be similar to some of the other industrial users such as MTS, Rosemount, and Best Buy. These industrial businesses have various outdoor recreational amenities such as ball fields, tennis courts, and basketball courts. This is an issue that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission should discuss options with the developer. Sidewalks and Trails The current sidewalk and trail plans does not indicate the need for trails in this vicinity; therefore, the staff does have a recommendation for sidewalk or trail along the Flying Cloud Drive frontage, RECOMMENDATIONS: This project was reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting of March 11, 1996 and was approved on a 5-0 vote. The staff would recommend approval of the project as outlined in this memorandum and the Planning Staff Report, if the issue related to park dedication cash park fees can be worked out in a manner agreeable with the developer and the Commission. SAF:mdd FlyCloud.memo /& TO: MEMORANDUM Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities DATE: FROM: SUBJECT: March 13, 1996 Stuart A. FOX~gCr of Parks and Natural Resources Supplemental Staff Report to the Planning Staff Report for Flying Cloud Business Center Dated March 8, 1996 BACKGROUND: The proposed development known as Flying Cloud Business Center is a subdivision of the property that currently houses Physical Electronics. The proposed subdivision would be to build an approximately 200,400 square foot industrial building on 15.6 acres of property. The proposed building would meet the setbacks as required under City Code; however, the parking lot for Physical Electronics would have to undergo some modifications, so as not to interfere with this property subdivision. ISSUES: Natural Resources/Tree Preservation This site currently is a mixture of small trees that have been planted in conjunction with the Physical Electronics building and some native wilding trees along the Flying Cloud Drive portion of the property. The plan calls for the removal of three significant trees, which represents a total of 72 caliper inches or a 17% loss of significant trees on the site. The tree replacement required under ordinance is a total of 16 caliper inches of trees. The developer has submitted a landscaping plan that represents the planting of 1,140 caliper inches of replacement and required landscape screening trees. Because the site is visible not only from Flying Cloud, but also from the two adjacent properties to the north and south, a very large amount of screening is required. The total amount of landscape screening is 1,084 caliper inches. The plan as submitted does meet the requirements for landscape screening and does a tine job of mixing deciduous and coniferous material throughout the site. A rather substantial retaining wall of nearly nine feet in height is proposed for the southerly property line and this will need design approval by the Building Inspections Department prior to construction. 11 NURP Pond Two storm water retention ponds are shown on the grading plan~ one being located in the southwesterly comer, the other in the southeasterly comer. These two NURP ponds will have to be approved by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. Park Dedication The proposed development is taking place on a division of Physical Electronics property. A provision of the Minnesota State Law exempts commercial and industrial subdivisions from complying with local subdivision regulations where the result of a property being divided nets in a parcel of 5 acres in size or over 300 feet of road frontage. The result of this subdivision will be two parcels over 15 acres in size. Physical Electronics did pay cash park fees in 1979 for approximately one-half of the overall 30 acres of property. This particular industrial use building could result in having over 600 employees. While there may be many companies involved, the net result will be many adults who will be eligible to play in adult leagues ranging from softball to basketball to volleyball and they would use Eden Prairie park facilities for some of those activities. To help ease the pressure on the park system, it is reasonable to ask for some open space and recreational facilities to be constructed on this property. This would be similar to some of the other industrial users such as MTS, Rosemount, and Best Buy. These industrial businesses have various outdoor recreational amenities such as ball fields, tennis courts, and basketball courts. This is an issue that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission should discuss options with the developer. Sidewalks and Trails The current sidewalk and trail plans does not indicate the need for trails in this vicinity~ therefore, the staff does have a recommendation for sidewalk or trail along the Flying Cloud Drive frontage, RECOMMENDATIONS: This proj ect was reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting of March II, 1996 and was approved on a 5-0 vote. The staff would recommend approval of the project as outlined in this memorandum and the Planning Staff Report, if the issue related to park dedication cash park fees can be worked out in a manner agreeable with the developer and the Commission. SAF:mdd FlyCloud.memo J~ Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Unapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 existing. Therefore, a cash contribution to the storm water utility fund is recommended, and this pond would also take care of some of the on-site drainage. There is an eight foot bituminous trail along the northerly side of the property that was installed along the Crosstown, and a sidewalk along the westerly side of Baker Road. They are asking the developer that at the time the sidewalk goes in they put a curb, a gutter, and curb cuts in. This way the sidewalk traffic is not impeded. This project was reviewed at the Planning Commission on the March 11 meeting, and approved on a 5-0 vote. One issue came up concerning how much light spillage would occur from the parking lot. The developer was asked to have a footprint to show the lighting pattern of the parking lots prior to being reviewed by the City Council. People to the south were concerned about the lights coming into their bedroom windows from that parking lot. Koening asked how tall the conifers will be for screening. Waters replied 10 feet high. Koening was concerned about how soon the adjacent residents would benefit from the screening. Waters reviewed the screening concept on the map. Bowman expressed concern about any restrictions as far as building on such a steep ravine. Fox replied there are no restrictions. Hilgeman commented it's refreshing to see a plan that doesn't develop every square inch with 21,000 out ofa possible 79,000 square feet. Bowman asked if the numbers are buildable square footage of land or is it based on six acres. Fox replied it's based on the entire site assuming it's a flat six acres. Bowman commented that it's deceiving when you look at what's buildable. Fox noted it's based on the square footage of the site. They can build a building tall enough to accommodate 79,000 square feet. MOTION: Koening moved, seconded by Bowman to approve the plan as per the Staff recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 8, 1996 of Impact Marketing. Mooen -earned 4-0. C. Flying Cloud Business Center Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated March 13, 1996. from Stuart 6 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Unapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources~ and a Staff Report dated March 8, 1996, from Michael D. Franzen. Jim Meyer, representing Opus Corporation, reviewed his development proposal with the Commission. The project being proposed is a multi-tenant office warehouse. They are basically at the end of Flying Cloud Drive and Shady Oak Road along Highway 212 in the Golden Triangle area. The total parcel is approximately 30 acres of which they are buyin~ 15.6 acres from Physical Electronics. The proposal is for a 200,400 square foot single story building. They have oriented the building so the office function has more of a presence to the street traffic which provides for screening of the dock areas. There are two NURP ponds to pick up the on-site drainage. Colored palates are used that are complimentary with Physical Electronics as well as the other sites. The family that owns the farm prefers a retaining wall for transition rather than give up any land for their farming purposes. Fox noted the plan calls for the removal of three significant trees which represents a total of 72 caliper inches or a 17 percent tree loss. The tree replacement required under the ordinance is a total of 16 caliper inches of trees. The site is also visible from the two adjacent properties to the north and south, so it requires a very large amount of screening. The landscaping plan represents 1,140 caliper inches which includes 1,084 caliper inches for landscape screening. A rather substantial retaining wall of nearly nine feet in height is proposed for the southerly property line, and this will need design approval by the Building Inspections Department prior to construction. This particular site runs into a state law which exempts commercial and industrial subdivisions from compiling with local park dedication regulations as a result of a property being divided into a parcel of five acres in size or over 300 feet of road frontage. The result of this subdivision will be two parcels over 15 acres in size. As a result, technically they don't have to pay cash paTk fees. TheTe will be over 600 employees. and to help ease the pressure on the park system, it would be reasonable to ask for some open space and recreational facilities on this property. 7 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Unapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 There are no sidewalks or trails planned at this particular are~ therefore, the recommendation is for one along Flying Cloud Drive. This was reviewed by ". the Planning Commission on March 11 and received a 5-0 vote for approval. Hilgeman asked where the developer stands regarding the park dedication issue. Meyer replied they are committed to doing something. They do not have an defmite answer of what's right or acceptable to the site. They want to be a good citizen and do something, even though they are not required to by the ordinances. They are considering providing tennis courts and volleyball courts, but are not sure yet. Brown asked what Opus Corporation believes would be a fair contribution in terms of park fees. Meyer replied the reason he suggested tennis courts is in the Staff report they mentioned other businesses in the City that have provided these type of amenities so there is less of a burden and a benefit to their employees. Lambert commented that as a Staff person responsible for developing the parks system and reviewing all the different types of developments that come to the City, in his opinion it's a "quirk" in the law. He would like to see the Parks Commission make a recommendation to the City Council for the City of Eden Prairie to initiate some legislation into eliminating that "quirk" in the law. It is not fair to the other commercial, office or industrial developers that are required to pay park fees to help pay for facilities their employees will demand. Brown expressed concern about the waiver granted changing the size of the sign from 80 square feet to 160 square feet. Fox noted it's a planning issue and they passed that waiver. Brown.asked if it will be mostly w.archoose .offIre. Meyec ceplied they .are projecting 20 percent will be a combination of warehouse and light manufacturing. Bowman expressed concern about the parking spaces being right on the property line. Fox noted they meet the setback for parking which is 10 feet. MOTION 1: Koening moved, seconded by Hilgeman to approve the Flying Cloud Business Center with the stipulations on the March 13, 1996 Supplemental Staff Report or the Staff Report. Motion carried 4-0. 8 "f Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Unapproved Minutes -Monday, March 18, 1996 VI. MOTION 2: Brown moved, seconded by Bowman to ask the City Council to contact the City Attorney and see what we can do as a city to initiate a change in the state law that prohibits us from collecting park fees or projects over five acres.. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS A. Duck Lake Surface Maoa&emeBt Or4inao(e Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated March 11, I986~ and a letter dated March 7, 1996, from Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities. Lambert noted this Surface Management Ordinance was initiated when several residents came to the City asking the City to help manage Duck Lake for the fish population. Staff indicated as a City Staff, they do not recommend the City get involved in managing any lake without DNR assistance. For the DNR to agree to manage any lake, they have to have a public access on the lake. Staff looked at what land was available and what funds were available to the City of Eden Prairie. The Ci1y does own a strip of land along the lak£ shore., (about 300 feet), on the south side of Duck Lake Trail. It is too narrow and too steep to accommodate the trailer access, but it could accommodate access to allow people to carry-on cartop boats or canoes. The DNR indicated they would support this as a public access if the use of Duck Lake was restricted to "no motors", and if they had access that would allow the general public to "carry-on". The DNR would then try to schedule this lake for stocking fish this year, and would support the City in getting an aeration system next year. The City would also apply for a fishing pier to be installed on the City property in order to provide a safe place to fish for individuals without access to a boat This would hopefully discourage people from fishing .along Duck Lake Road. Tom Lindquist, 16750 Baywood Terrace, commented he supports the Surface Management Ordinance. 9 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-16-96 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS VF ITEM NO. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger BEARP ATH 1996 PUD AMENDMENT Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1 st Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres and PUD District Review • Adopt/or Deny a Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment Review on 15 acres. Background: Bearpath requested a front yard setback waiver from 30 to 20 feet for side loaded garages for lots on Breckenridge Lane and Bearpath Trail. In response to residents on Breckenridge Lane the Planning Commission recommended a continuance until February in order for the developer to work with residents on plan changes. In Februrary the developer requested a continuance until the March 11, 1996 meeting. At this meeting the developer presented a revised plan for waivers on Bearpath Trail only. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request because they felt the waiver was to accommodate larger houses and it was a disservice to those existing resdients that have built within current city setbacks. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment 2. Minutes dated March 11, 1996, February 12, 1996, January 22, 1996, January 8, 1996 3. Staff Report dated March 8,1996 4. Correspondence I ----------------------~ .. --~---~~~~~~~--~~~~~- BEARPATH 1996 PUD AMENDMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF BEARPATH 1996 PUD AMENDMENT FOR BEARP ATH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Bearpath 1996 PUD Amendment by Bearpath Limited Partnership and considered their request for approval for development (and waivers) and recommended denial of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on April 16, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the Planned Unit Development. 2. The proposal does not meet City Code for front yard setbacks. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of April, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk BEARPATH 1996 PUD AMENDMENT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF BEARPATH 1996 PUD AMENDMENT FOR BEARP ATH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Bearpath 1996 PUD Amendment by Bearpath Limited Partnership and considered their request for approval for development (and waivers) and recommended denial of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on April 16, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Bearpath 1996 PUD Amendment, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated April 9, 1996. 3. That the PUD Concept did not meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated March 11, 1996. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of April, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Exhibit A Bearpatb. 1996 PUD Amendment Le~al Description: Lots 1 -13, Block one, Bearpath 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block five, Bearpatb. 2nd Addition Lots 1 -6, Block 6, Bearpath 2nd Addition Lot 1, Block 7, Bearpath 2nd Addition Lots 1-6, Block 2, Bearpath Trail 4 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 1996 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BEARPATH 1996 PUP AMENDMENT by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for PUD Amendment and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres. Location: Bearpath Trail and Dell Road. Kipp noted this item was continued from the February 12 meeting, and he introduced John Vogelbacher, representing Bearpath. 1 5 John Vogelbacher noted the modification made to the application has been as a result of neighborhood meetings. They have addressed some of the concerns of the residents on Breckenridge Lane by removing those lots from the proponent's request. The main objective was to provide more safety for the golf course. Their particular guidelines have been modified to require a 40 foot rear setback for those lots on the south side of Bearpath Trail. Schlampp questioned whether the residents of the Homeowner's Association conducted the neighborhood meetings. Vogelbacher replied currently the Homeowner's Association does not have any resident members because the number oflots currently owned by the developer exceeds 50 percent. When the homeowners exceed 50 percent they are offered two seats on the board. At some point, the Association is turned over to the residents. Schlampp asked if the property owners were against this project. Vogelbacher noted the modifications that revised the application were as a result of the conversations had with the residents. Schlampp expressed concern about residents of Bearpath opposing this project, but they had no say in it because 50 percent of the lots are not sold. Vogelbacher stated they notified the residents of the issues in a couple of different ways. They were also notified of this particular meeting and were requested to give any comments or letter of inquiries. Ismail was concerned about the public access to the development. He asked if it was still an issue or not. Volgelbacher noted over the last 60 days they have gone through certain proposals at a staff level. There were a couple of different meetings about how the access by pedestrians and bicycle traffic would be allowed and regulated within the community. Approval has been received relative to how the public access would be administered. The Public Hearing was opened. Reed Johnson. 9166 Breckenridge Lane. noted he and he wife are appreciative to Bearpath for clarifying this setback to return to the understanding they had when they purchased their property. He made reference to two letters he received from the City. There is a reference from the July 14, 1994 letter to the fact that the living area behind the garage could be five feet from the side setback. He requested the first letter dated March 1, 1996, replace the letter dated July 14, 1994. He showed photographs of his home making reference to the pink area. The house to the left of his was constructed by Charles Cudd Company and it started three weeks after they moved into their home. The area in pink is 2 construction that is not in accordance with the letter of March 1, 1996. It was built without consulting them, and it was also done over their obj ection as the construction progressed. They expressed concern about the effects to their privacy and the investment they made. Sandstad asked whether the pink area is a matter of covenants or is it an ordinance setback problem. Kipp replied it would be the latter. City code does permit five foot setbacks for either garage or livable space. The covenants for the 20 foot rear setback has more restrictive setback requirements and interpretations. Wissner stated she's not comfortable to grant this waiver. It disturbs her when people originally thought one thing and then it changes. Schlampp concurred with Wissner and does not support this waiver request. Clinton commented he is not supportive of the waiver to the PUD. The PUD was given a lot of consideration while they went further through the planning process. The proposal to move the setback 10 feet forward is to accommodate the larger homes, and it's a disservice to those who have built within the constraints. MOTION 1: Wissner moved, seconded by Schlampp to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION 2: Wissner moved, seconded by Schlampp to deny the request for PUD Amendment and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres based on plans dated March 8, 1996. Motion carried 5-0. 7 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSION MEMBERS: ST AFF MEMBERS: February 12, 1996 Katherine Kardell, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Ismail Ismail, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner Michael D. Franzen, City Planner, Scott Kipp, Planner, and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ROLL CALL Chair Kardell called the meeting t6 order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Ismail was excused. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION:Foote moved, Wissner seconded, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Wissner moved, Foote seconded, to approve the Minutes of the December 11, 1995 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Motion carried 6-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BEARP A TH 1996 PUD AMENDMENT by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for PUD Amendment and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres. Location: Bearpath Trail and Dell Road. John Voge1bacher submitted a letter requesting the Planning Commission to continue this item until the March 11, 1996 Planning Commission meeting to allow the residents concerned with their petition to attend that meeting. MOTION: Sandstad moved, Foote seconded, to continue the Bearpath 1996 PUD Amendment until the March 11, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting, and to note that Sandstad brought in an article published in the November 6, 1992 Star Tribune written by Josephine Marcotty discussing the "Gated Community of Bearp ath" . Motion carried 6-0. APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COlVIMISSION COMlVIISSION lVIEMBERS: ST AFF MElVIBERS: January 22, 1996 Katherine Kardell, Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Ismail Ismail, Douglas Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner Scott Kipp, Planner~ David Lindahl, HRA :Manager, and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ROLL CALL Chair Kardell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Clinton moved, Foote seconded, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF lVIINUTES Wissner noted an error on Page 2 regarding a "stop sign at the intersection of City West Parkway and Chase Point", and requested that it be corrected. MOTION: Sch1ampp moved, Wissner seconded, to approve the Minutes of the January 8, 1996 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Motion carried 7-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BEARPATH 1996 PUD AMENDMENT by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for PUD Amendment and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres. Location: Bearpath Trail and Dell Road. Kipp stated that because the proponents had not had an opportunity to meet with all the affected property owners in Bearpath, they were requesting this item be continued until the February 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. :MOTION: Wissner moved, Clinton seconded, to continue action on the Bearpath 1996 PUD Amendment until February 12, 1996. Motion carried 7-0. q PLANNING COMMI~SION MINUTES January 8, 1996 Page J &1 C. BEARPATH 1996 PUP Al'\1ENDMENT by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for PUD Amendment and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres. Location: Bearpath Trail and Dell Road. John Vogelbacher and Ron Hardy were present representing Bearpath Limited Partnership. Vogelbacher stated that the golf course had been designed to quality standard$ when the PUD was approved and they have no-maintenance properties they call villas and some townhomes which are on smaller lots adjacent to the golf course. They are requesting the waiver to the front yard setback requirement to accommodate the smaller units. He explained that the design of the villa units incorporates a courtyard design with the garage located on the front part of the house, pushing the living portion of the house farther back on the lots. This brings it into closer proximity to the golf course, unless they are allowed to decrease the front yard setback to 20', which will allow them to maintain the size of the living space of the house and still keep the 30' rear yard setback from the golf course. Clinton inquired if this problem of golf balls coming into the yards had not been anticipated when the project was developed and Vogelbacher responded that the style of house and driveway had not been designed when the initial PUD approval was 10 PLANNING COMM1~"ION MINUTES January 8, 1996 Page 5 requested. Sandstad connnented he supported the PUD concept and felt that the project would not suffer if the Planning COImnission were to approve the reduction in the front yard setback requirements. However, he stated he was surprised to find gates had been erected across the Hennepin County right-of-way along the LRT Corridor trail. Vogelbacher responded that the gates operate to control traffic onto Bearpath Trail but do not restrict pedestrian access to the trail. Wissner inquired if the homes were custom designed with different builders, and Vogelbacher responded affinnatively, except for the townhomes which are all constructed by the same contractor. Foote inquired if the lot sizes were the same as originally approved, and· Vogel bacher responded affmnati vely. Kardell commented that from a visual perspective it made sense to have the garages sideways on the lots, and she supported that concept. Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended of the request based on the conditions set forth in Alternative #2. Regarding the issue of access into the community, it had been understood that the pedestrian access would not be restricted. At the time of approval it was uncertain if it would be used for LRT or as a pedestrian trail. If pedestrians using the LR T trail want to enter into Bearpath they can signal the clubhouse and the gates would be opened and people can enter the development. Vogelbacher stated that pedestrian access is still available because the gates will be opened to pedestrians who wish to enter the Bearpath development. Kardell stated she understood that the LRT trail was not going to be cordoned off and she was very surprised when she saw that gates had been erected. Clinton recalled that it was originally proposed that a fence would be constructed along the trail but it would not be closed off. Sandstad stated he was uncomfortable with having the gates up and perhaps they should be removed. Wissner inquired if the City Council had granted original approval of the project with the idea that the trail would be open to the residents. Schlampp recalled this was correct, but it did not have anything to do with the present request before the Commission. Foote inquired when these gates would be shut and Vogelbacher responded that at present the security gates are not operational. He commented that they may have misunderstood, but the Development Agreement states that pedestrian access to the site will be allowed to the public. They are allowing access to the public but they believe they have the right to request that access be gained through the gatehouse or through access through other gates which can be opened by the guard at the gate house. Their intention is to have all traffic enter the development through the gatehouse, as they want to know who is coming into their community. The Public Hearing was opened. 1/ PLANNING COMM1 ..... ..,ION MINUTES January 8, 1996 Page 6 Reed Johnson, 9166 Breckenridge Lane, described the location of his house, and noted this is an area which would be impacted by the amendment to the PUD. He stated that the Planning Board ofBearpath had been relatively consistent in enforcing the setbacks. He was unsure he supported having garages 20' from the front property lines as he believed this could create a tunnel effect on the streets. He questioned if this would apply to all lots within the development or only those indicated in yellow in the plans submitted by the developers. Franzen stated that the City Code has all setback requirements for all residential districts established and to change those requirements requires a variance, which can be granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The Planned Unit Development designation is used for projects in which the development is constructed in phases. As part of the PUD process the City has the authority to grant waivers from standard setback requirements if it will improve the quality of the development. Vogelbacher stated that the setback waiver would be applied to construction of courtyard-driveway type homes. They have a 30' rear yard setback for homes adjacent to the golf course, and this will not be used for all the homes in the development. It is to provide flexibility for those homes that wish to use this type of architecture. Bob Engelke, 9214 Breckenridge Lane, stated they live on the west side of Breckenridge Lane. His home is constructed with this style of architecture and is located 30' from the road. He stated he was opposed to granting the waiver as he felt the setbacks should be uniformly enforced for all the residents of the development. He understood that the gates across the trail should be up and operating by now, and he supported having all traffic, vehicular and pedestrian, entering the community through the gatehouse. Bill and Dolores Reimer, 9190 Breckenridge Lane, stated they supported the comments made by the two previous homeowners. They purchased their lot with the understanding that the front yard setback requirements were 30 feet and they did not support this change. They believed there would be an adverse impact on the streets in the neighborhood if the waiver were to be granted. They wanted to have the setbacks consistent on both sides of the street. Mark Heffelfinger, 9196 Breckenridge Lane, stated they have gotten a few golf balls in their back yard, but none through the plate glass windows yet. He has seen other developments of homes surrounding golf courses and he did not feel that safety was a major factor in the setback issue. He thought that if they got much more snow that they would need more snow storage space. He liked the idea of a variety of design throughout the development but he felt that the setback should be kept at the 30 foot distance. If there was a specific need for a variance it should be considered on an individual basis. Rodney Hardy, Principal and an owner of Bearpath Development, 5300 Oaklawn 1;1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1996 Page 7 Avenue, stated that every plan goes before a 5-member committee and they have followed the guidelines as set forth in the PUD Agreement. Most lots are sold and having seen where the golf balls have been found they are concerned that if they use the setbacks in the PUD standards they should have an alternative for those homes on lots which would be impacted by the fairways. If they have to come before the Planning Commission on a lot by lot basis, it will take up a lot of time for everyone concerned. They felt that this would be the best means of achieving this because the Architectural Committee has the ability to make decisions on a lot by lot basis. Regarding the issue of the gates on the trail, it was the represented that the corridor was going to be fenced off which provided the need for the gates. The pedestrian gates will be manually controlled by the gatehouse and can be opened by the operator. Sandstad comrD.ented he appreciated the work that the Architectural Committee had done on the project but he did not recall the gates being approved. He believed that the Bearpath development should hold a neighborhood meeting with all homeowners present to discuss this request, as it was evident that all homeowners did not agree with the variance request. He believed the item should be continued to resolve the gate issue, allow the proponents to hold a homeowners meeting, including those who owned property but had not yet built homes, and to determine exactly which lots would be affected by the reduced front yard setback variance. Discussion ensued regarding the gates across the right-of-way and how other gated communities are operated. Vogelbacher stated that pedestrian and bicycle traffic is allowed through the gatehouse, but the development was private property and the owners had the right to know who was coming into the development. He emphasized that this was not public property, no uses of public funds had been made in its construction, and they have the right to provide security for those people who live within this development. Sandstad stated that these were matters which impacted the present request as far as he was concerned, and the idea of being grilled by a gatehouse attendant in order to gain access to a neighborhood was offensive. He wished to table the request until the next Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to research the original approval request, provide copies of minutes, etc. to Commissioners and determine whether gates had been approved at the present locations. Foote inquired who provided police and fire protection for the community and Vogelbacher responded those were provided by the City of Eden Prairie. All streets, street lighting, utilities, trails, etc. had been paid for and were maintained by the developers. The issue of security for the residents of the community was an important one, and residents needed to feel that their community was safe and secure. MOTION: Sandstadt moved, Clinton seconded, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Sandstad moved, Clinton seconded, to recommend Continuance of the PUD Amendment and Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres for Bearpath Limited Partnership for two weeks to allow staff to research the history of the development and provide the Commissioners with Minutes, Plans, etc. which were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, and to allow the proponents time to hold a neighborhood meeting. Motion carried 7-0. 13 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, City Planner March 8, 1996 Bearpath 1996 PUD Amendment Bearpath Limited Partnership Bearpath Trail and Dell Road 1. Planned Unit Development Amendment on 15 acres. 2. Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres. 1 /y ,/ ____ 0 . " o II: I' 20 j ______________ -+ ______ -L ________ ~l-~~~------~~ ~ Staff Report Bearpath 1996 PUD Amendment March 8,1996 BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the February 12, 1996 meeting. Since that meeting, Bearpath has modified the request to eliminate front yard setback waivers for the single family lots on Breckrenridge Lane. The front yard setback waiver is only for the twinhome lots on Bearpath trail. PUD WAIVER REQUEST Bearpath is requesting a front yard setback waiver from 30 to 20 feet for the construction of "courtyard" type garages. (See attached site plan.) As a result of the courtyard garage design, the typical living portion or front door of the building is pushed back a minimum of 55 feet off the right- of-way line. Although this is preferred for aesthetic purposes, it also pushes the units up to and beyond the 30 foot rear building setback line. Although this is not a City requirement, since the minimum City rear yard setback is 20 feet, Bearpath desires a 30 foot rear setback for the golf fairway easement. The other reason is the courtyard driveway and the resulting depth of home construction, are in many cases, restricting the size requirements of future homeowners. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: The Commission could recommend that no PUD waivers be granted and that the homes be built at the required 30 foot setback. Alternative 2: Consider the front yard setback waiver based upon the following conditions: • The front yard setback waiver to 20 feet only applies to the courtyard driveway site plan. • The main portion of the house is setback beyond the City requirement of 30 feet. • The side loaded garage adds variety to the streetscape where street frontages are narrow and homes are close together. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the waiver is created by the proponent. The existing subdivision of narrow frontage lots limits the type of homes which can be built. For aesthetic reasons, curb appeal and architectural variety in a higher density area, staff believes that the waiver has merit for the reasons listed under Alternative 2. JL February 28, 1996 Mr. Mike Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ~-~:i~~··--~ ~r=:~-- RfARPAIU golf anJ country club RE: Revised application for request for amendment to Bearpath PUD Dear Mike, As a result of our neighborhood meeting regarding our request to amend the front yard setback of various portions of the Bearpath Villa and twin lot area, we would like to modify our request in the following manner. 1. All lots (Villas) on Breckenridge Lane have been removed from the request. 2. Those Villa lots included in the request for a minimum 20' garage setback are located on the south side of Bearpath Trail. The Bearpath Architectural Review Committee (ARC) will impose a 40' rear setback on these lots. The original conditions stated in our letter of November 27, 1995 remain unchanged as follows: 1. That the 20' setback shall be allowed only for construction of a courtyard type garage. 2. The living area of any home shall not be constructed closer than 30' from the right of way. 3. Comer lots shall remain at the 30' front yard setback fro all building structures. 4. No garage shall be constructed closer than 30' from the street right of way line if approval from the Bearpath ARC has not been provided in writing. Enclosed is a revised map indicating the areas that are included in this revised request. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thank you for your assistance regarding this request. Sincerely, Bearpath A7 -Committee /2~hY~ / enc. C cc: Bearpath resident mailing list I 7 600 P i 0 nee r P r air i e. ~I N j j 3 4 7 I 6 1 :1 -9 7 j -0 0 0 0 Cor p 0 r it leO f fie e I 4 9 4 0 V i kill!J D r i vel ~I i II II e a pol is. ~I N 5 5 4 3 j I 6 1 :1 -8 3 j -:1 80S Proposed T. H. 2 1 2 -., U l- I , • III' Z III • ..1 -III III 1 ...i ; I J 1-' h 'di~1 -J :: ~ "--, is " 0 j I. ilhH ci 2 VI £ £ " ' w ... \\ III u ~ III U « :r:: 0 0 III 0 0 .., I-' a: a: <.J C> ;; .. w ! = ~ 0 .. w ~ w ~ ~ .J € • :! I J / z 0 "i l--" e e < ~; • :I: :: I I ~ I:. a. a: « w ID (' ~ 1 ~ . :H 3 .,t:. : :: ; ~ i .~~~~ .. .... : hI '- %~e :~l .:~;. :r ~.~ !;i L ~J .11 -gi :~ 1111 !!; ih if , I! ~ s ~ _..J " ' :~ I !Ii iii I 'ii!~ CI ~ ..; il n:; ~ l • ;/ __ L __ l ~3~ i ( --! ----I '\ \J h i ~ .. 1\ ,.) r .• i 01 I :j! ~ '=' illi h z ~ ... II o~ ~! I! ~! ~ ~ , I ~.u ~ N ,H 10 z o r- a o <t :I: !-<t a. cr: <t w [D z--· -=:::::J0 " I: ~o i+lll ! .J til. ; 1 I ,t'l-d _ __ _//1 _, -r -1 !ljrl , J -I !;."( _! .-1 ill~l! I • ;tI: • -I f I I • I ; --.......... --_._--_._--_.-._ .. ~ ~ ~ -- I I ! I ! I /i' ::zt7p; ~. ... --.. ~~ ...,... .'- '/ 1 {(7 -" TYI'~.AC--;;t,&7 ,zst¥L y,t>(ZO ~T'Ji!l.~. I n I -I I I 'I i -t- Ht?tA~. I I ! I 1 V"-I l' I ~.~ j1~w~"" II ~ ~FtTY~ -t~ 11 r7-( ~. ~t::fZM', ~ -7P'1'/- J \ -. --.. ''::''~ .'--~. -~riJi':~--";i (1: ~ ./'"'X1----/ ~ ~ \. III r A.. - · .. -l· .. 'I~.~ v.~ ~I ~'I ~ 1" ~ I I I" ~ ~ &ioCtI ~ ,1/ -. -------. -- STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, City Planner January 5, 1996 Bearpath 1996 PUD Amendment Bearpath Limited Partnership Bearpath Trail and Dell Road 1. Planned Unit Development Amendment on 15 acres. 2. Zoning District Amendment on 15 acres. 1 ;/ ) \ ) ci II: Staff Report Bearpath 1996 PUD Amendment January 5, 1996 BACKGROUND This 15 acre area is part of the 1992 Bearpath Planned Unit Development. Part of this 15 acre area is zoned Rl-13 .5 (villa lots which were granted a waiver for lot size less than 13,500 sq. ft.) and the remainder is zoned RM-6.5 (twinhomes). PUD WAIVER REQUEST Bearpath is requesting a front yard setback waiver from 30 to 20 feet for the construction of "courtyard" type garages. (See attached site plan.) As a result of the courtyard garage design, the typical living portion or front door of the building is pushed back a minimum of 55 feet off the right-of-way line. Although this is preferred for aesthetic purposes, it also pushes the units up to and beyond the 30 foot rear building setback line. Although this is not a City requirement, since the minimum City rear yard setback is 20 feet, Bearpath desires a 30 foot rear setback for the golf fairway easement. The other reason is the courtyard driveway and the resulting depth of home construction, are in many cases, restricting the size requirements of future homeowners. DEVELOPMENT AL TERNATIYES Alternative 1: The Commission could recommend that no PUD waivers be granted and that the homes be built at the required 30 foot setback. Alternative 2: Consider the front yard setback waiver based upon the following conditions: • The front yard setback waiver to 20 feet only applies to the courtyard driveway site plan. • The main portion of the house is setback beyond the City requirement of 30 feet. • The side loaded garage adds variety to the streets cape where street frontages are narrow and homes are close together. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the waiver is created by the proponent. The existing subdivision of narrow frontage lots limits the type of homes which can be built. For aesthetic reasons, curb appeal and architectural variety in a higher density area, staff believes that the waiver has merit for the reasons listed under Alternative 2. 24 Reid .Johnson January 29" 1996 City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission Attn.: Michael Franzen 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-2230 Dear Mr. Franzen for the Planning Commission: As you know Bearpath is seeking an amendment to its PUD affecting the Golf Villa portion of the project. A number of current property owners in the Golf Villa area are quite concerned that inconsistent and ever-changing set back and architectural guidelines are causing damage to the harmony and beauty of the property. Our area is very tight and rigid standards and control are needed. • ,. ~".' . r." • • Bearpath has considerable work to do to. satisfy existing property owners that it has and will properly administer a" set" of building guidelines that protect the pioneers who bought here first ... The Planning Committee continued its review of the PUD Amendment until its February 12th meeting. I'm writing to request that the matter be further continued until no sooner than March 11 for the following reasons: • 6earpath needs to establish a set of building guidelines that protect its' current property owners. Bearpath has considerable work to do to accomplish this task. • Bearpath should not be permitted to amend guidelines that are contradictory and ever-changing; current property owners expect a "stake in the ground" before considering an amendment. • At least three (3) of the already and potentially damaged property owners will be out of the city on February 12 and can't be available until March 11. 2S " January 29, 199b Mr. Michael Franzen Page Two Thank you for your consideration. Please advise me about the re- scheduling of the Commissions review of this amendment. Best regards, Reid Johnson :ces c: Rodney Hardy, Bearpath Architectural Review Committee Larry Bistodeau 2[, Stephen J. SChewe 11' 61 2-946-1931 Eden Prairie Planning Commission 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 By fax: 949-8392 Ladies and Gentlemen: IIlJ 1/21/96 11054 Bluestem Lane Eden Prairie, }YiN 55347 January 22, 1996 c;J11 :44 PM I have been concerned by a recent report in the EP News that Bearpath Development Corporation will aggressively interpret their agreement with Eden Prairie and restrict access to the LRT trail and the public easement for the streets inside their gated conununity. A small group of Eden Prairie residents and I made a visit yesterday to Bearpath and met briefly with John Vogelbacher. In response to our questions, he made the following comments: • The LRT trail that bisects Bearpath will never be obstructed in any way. Gates and fences will only be built parallel to the trail. • Pedestrians and bikers seeking access to Bearpath streets will have tmlimited access during daylight hours (comparable to Eden Prairie public parks). Pedestrians and bikers on Bearpath streets will be asked to stay off the cart paths, golf course and the lawns of residents. • Once the perimeter wall and gates are completed, Bearpath guards will be asking for the names of pedestrians and bikers seeking access to their streets. Procedures will be the same as for guests of residents seeking. access, except that the public will not have to give any reason for entry other than a desire to walk or bike. In response to our question, John said access would not be denied to any-one . He could only imagine denying public access on special occasions (e.g., on the day of a tournament at their golf course). • Bearpath seeks to nurture strong links with the rest of the Eden Prairie community. They plan to allow the EPHS golf team to play on their golf course without charge and will sponsor some community social events. While my reading of the EP News led me to wonder whether Bearpath was living up to their agreements, after my visit with tvIr. Vogelbacher I believe 21 D 1/2 Stephen J. Schewe 11' 612-946-1931 mtl1/21/96 @11:45PM that Bearpath's proposed procedures will appropriate if they are applied equally to the incoming guests of residents. I suggest that the gates off the LRT trail should be left open during the hours of public access. I further suggest that the city ask to be notified prior to those infrequent occasions when the public will be barred and that signs (e.g., "Special Event Today -No Public Access") be displayed at all Bearpath entrances on those days so that no individuals believe that they were singled out to be turned away. As our representatives, I hope those of you on the Planning Commission will carefully describe and doctunent public access procedures and future Bearpath zoning waivers to limit misunderstandings between Bearpath and the rest of the conununity. Sincerely, Steve Schewe cc: John Vogelbacher 21 D2I2 Mr. Mike Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Request for Amendment to the Bearpath PUD April 10, 1996 The establishment of a the front yard setback for various Bearpath Twin Units (RM-6.5 Zoning) and Villas (R1-13.5 Zoning) Dear Mr. Franzen, Attached is a copy of the master plan of the Bearpath community with the specific lots that are included in this request. As you know we held a neighborhood meeting to review this request with our current lot owners. As a result of this meeting we modified the lots included in this request. To the best of our knowledge, no residents are objecting to this amended proposal. FRONT YARD SETBACK Over the last year the Bearpath Architectural Review Committee (BARC) has approved over 20 house plans in the above zoning for the no maintenance Twin Home and single family Villas lots. The BARC began with its design review of these type of homes with an objective to establish a degree of architectural continuity by requiring the design of "courtyard" driveways. This design concept sets the living portion of the house farther from the street and tums the garage doors to the inside of the lot and away from the street. This provides for a more attractive looking home and allows for more off street parking than a standard front loaded garage design. This design requirement has been very well received by our reSidents and builders. As you know, Bearpath has been very successful in attracting buyers who desire a very high quality homesite. Evidence of this, is an average home value for the Villas and Twin Homes of approximately $600,000. Due to the number of units currently completed, the BARC has a very good understanding of the "typical" unit to be constructed on the Villa and Twin lots. As a result of the courtyard garage design, the typical living portion or front door of the building is pushed back a minimum of 55 feet off the right of way line. Although this is preferred for aesthetic purposes, it also pushes the units up to and beyond the rear 30' building setback line. 30 feet is required because of the golf fairway easement. It is our desire to maintain this design concept but we have a two fold concern. One, on those lots that back up to the Bearpath golf course homes are often built up to the minimum setback off the golf course and as a result are at greater risk of being struck by an errant golf shot. Secondly, the courtyard driveway and the resulting depth of the home construction, are in many instances, restricting the size requirements of the homeowners. We would like to solve this problem. On behalf of Bearpath Limited Partnership, the Bearpath Architectural Review Committee respectfully requests that the Bearpath PUD be amended to allow for the front yard setback for the R1-13.5 and RM-6.5 zoning to be conditionally set at a minimum of 20' from the Bearpath private street right of way. The conditions for this requested amendment are proposed as follows: I I Ii 0 (I II. () n .: .' r r rd. I I 1:.1" II P r II i r i ". ~ I ~ :) j 3 ,~7 1 Ii I '1 . " 7 j -0 0 0 0 ( 0 r I> ..... , I f' () I I i '" 1 " .) 4 tl \' i L • n <J Dr; \' c 1 ~I • nil" a " .. I IS. ~I ~ :) j ,I 3 j 1 f) I 2 - 8 3 5 -2 S () ~ Page 2. April 10, 1996 Mr. Mike Franzen 1) That the 20' setback shall be allowed only for the construction of a "courtyardft type garage. (see attached schematic site plan) 2) The living area of any home shall not be constructed closer than 40' from the right of way line. 3) Comer lots shall remain at the current 30' front yard setback for all building structures .. 4) For those Villa units located on hole #3, the rear setback shall be modified from the existing Bearpath setback of 30 feet to a requirement of 40 feet. 5) No garage shall be constructed closer than 30' from the street right of way line if approval from the Bearpath Architectural Committee has not provided written approval for such construction. Given the conditions of 20' setback, the Architectural Review Committee feels quite strongly that the architectural quality of the home sites will not be compromised. Furthermore, having such an option available to our homeowners and the Review Committee will provide for greater design flexibility as well as enhancing the safety of your residents. We would appreciate your support in the presentation of this proposed amendment to the Eden Prairie City Council. Sincerely, by The Archit~i,:!;1 Review Committee to Searpath VoV(d Partnership JOhnv::c?~ cc; Bruce Nimmer Rod Hardy John Hankinson David Chapman ~ H 212 Prooos ed ' . CMcI A.Knc:ftr A....-. he. ---,----,--- 1 10 I I V'--!J i , ; , a,-46iC < ,~~Y'I 6N'~66 , , I ~f&TY~ --if I J. lro-0,. r?( ~ ~P ~-~ ~~, "irIfi.Jf1D"'ll fO'f"-. ~ ..... ~ , -7P'1-/- r ------- ------------~~~~~~s~wr~------------------- EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-16-96 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. .v.G-. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION Scott Kipp Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1 st Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the 1-5 District on 18.9 acres and PUD District Review on 18.9 acres; • Adopt a Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 18.9 acres. Background: The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Water Treatment Plant expansion at the March 25, 1996 meeting. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for pun Concept Review 2. Minutes dated March 25, 1996 3. Staff Report dated March 22, 1996 I WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION FOR CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Water Treatment Plant Expansion by City of Eden Prairie and considered their request for approval for development (and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on April 16, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Water Treatment Plant Expansion, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated April 9, 1996. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated March 25, 1996. ADOPTED by the City Council ofthe City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of April, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 2 Exhibit A Water Treatment Plant Expansion Legal Description: The West 637.5 feet of the Northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 22 lying north of Technology Drive and south of Trunk Highway 5. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1996 Page 9 Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the parking lot expansion for Best Buy Company. MOTION: Sandstad moved, Foote seconded, to recommend approval of the PUD District Review on 28.5 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 and Site Plan Review on 0.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 28.5 acres into one lot for Best Buy Company based on plans dated March 22, 1996 and the stipulations contained in the March 22, 1996 staff report. Motion carried 7-0. C. WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION by City of Eden Prairie. Request for PUD Concept Review and PUD District Review on 18.9 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the 1-5 District and Site Plan Review on 18.9 acres. Location: Southeast comer of Highway 5 and Mitchell Road. Director of Engineering Gene Dietz and Gary Tushie, Tushie-Montgomery Architects were present representing the City of Eden Prairie. Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the expansion of the Water Treatment Plant. Ismail inquired what the location would be for Highway 212 and Dietz responded that the portion from the highway which was funded would be from the interchange to Wallace Road, and had been scheduled for construction in the year 2000. He noted that the toll road issue will have to be resolved before any construction occurs. Tushie reviewed the plans for the expansion. Wissner commented that it would be a significant improvement and the area where the sludge ponds were located would appear to be almost park-like when completed. Dietz stated that when the facility becomes fully operational in 1998 they will need to have a place to put the residuals, which will be trucked out on a daily basis. The City is considering purchasing enough land to be able to store this without having to pay someone to handle it for them. He noted that the expansion was not coming from tax revenues, but rather from residual funds from water bills, from SAC charges, and new construction fees. Sandstad requested that the Planning Commissioners be given a tour of the facility when it is completed. MOTION: Sandstad moved, Wissner seconded, to recommend approval ofthe PUD Concept, PUD District Review, Zoning District Amendment in the 1-5 Zoning District, and Site Plan Review, all on 19.8 acres, based on plans dated March 22, 1996 and stipulations contained in the staff report dated March 22, 1996. Motion carried 7-0. V. MEMBERS'REPORTS None. 4 ---~-----~--------------------------- STAFF REPORT TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT! FEE OWNER: LOCATION: REQUEST: Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, City Planner Scott A. Kipp, Planner March 22, 1996 Eden Prairie Water Treatment Plant Expansion City of Eden Prairie Southeast comer of Highway 5 and Mitchell Road 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 19.8 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment in the 1-5 Zoning District on 19.8 acres. 3. Site Plan Review on 19.8 acres. 11.-• • .-.. • • ~. • • •• I • • • . ' ~~­ ~\ .. • • • • • • • • · .. -. .. " . • • T. ./ . , , , , , "", .:::>, ". It ,-~' I~ .. _ ~J ICC) vI I I I ~~ __ ~ ___ / /~l ________________ ___ I' I / / / , I! .. l Staff Report Eden Prairie Water Treatment Plant Expansion March 22, 1996 BACKGROUND The existing water plant is located on a 19.8 acre site, shared also by the City's Public Works facility and a fITe station. The property is zoned 1-5. Public facilities and services are pennitted in this zoning district. The existing water plant is 98,500 sq. ft., with the public works building and fITe station totaling 38,375 sq. ft. The water plant also contains a number of sludge lagoons for the storage of the water filtering byproduct. As part of the future T .H. 212 project, the majority of the public works building and the fire station will be acquired by the State and removed for highway right of way. An important element to the expansion plans is an Interactive Environmental Education Center to promote water conservation, and to educate the public on the impacts we have on water use and the environment. A partnership has been established with the Eden Prairie School District for creation of an educational curriculum for all third, fifth, and seventh grade students to begin in 1998. This will include on site study, experiments, and tours for the students. PUD CONCEPT AND SITE PLAN The proposal is to expand the water treatment plant by 123,810 sq. ft. for a total of 222,31 0 sq. ft. for a base area ratio of 0.11 and a floor area ratio of 0.26. Including the public works building and fire station, the base area ratio and floor area ratio increase to 0.15 and 0.30 respectively, still meeting code requirements. All structures and parking areas meet setback requirements. The expansion will include additional water treatment facilities to meet the projected demand through build out ofthe City (2010). In addition, the sludge lagoons will be removed and replaced with a large natural wetland area and a grass lined dry lagoon basin for emergency purposes. An administrative area will be constructed to locate the control room and laboratory, reception area, conference rooms, employee areas, and a public education area. The handling of the water filtering byproduct (typically lime) is proposed to be trucked off site, rather than stored in any sludge ponding. The new wetland area will be the focus of a public education effort to promote water protection and conservation. Parking required is based on the needs of the facility for staff, visitors, and city vehicle parking. This analysis identifies the need of 30 to 50 parking stalls. The plan proposes 58 stalls. GRADING AND UTILITIES The majority of the grading will be the removal of the sludge ponds, and the construction of the 1 Staff Report Eden Prairie Water Treatment Plant Expansion March 22, 1996 wetland area. Existing utility services will remain in place. ACCESS The Technology Drive access will be reconstructed, making it the primary access to the site. This access will also serve as one of two access points for MTS, located to the east of the treatment plant, and will require a cross access easement agreement. Two access points currently exist along Mitchell Road. These access points will be maintained. However, when the State acquires the new right of way for highway 212, it will also involve the elimination of the more southerly access. LANDSCAPING Based on the total square footage of all buildings on site, a total of 815 caliper inches of landscaping is required. The plan provides a total of 897 caliper inches, including existing landscaping and new plantings, meeting code requirements. Some of the existing evergreen trees will be relocated to other City sites. The removal of the sludge ponds, and the construction of a natural wetland area will elliminate the need for the existing wood screening fence. Landscaping around the wetland area will consist of indiginous plantings, and will provide views into the area. ARCHITECTURE The existing water treatment plant consists of rake finish concrete panels. The new addition will consist mainly of face brick that will match the City Center, dark brown rock face block and glass. Some additional precast concrete will be used to match the existing facility. All these materials meet the code requirements in the 1-5 zoning district. All proposed rooftop mechanical equipment are low profile units,and are screened by parapet wall. The majority of the building height will vary between 18 feet and 40 feet, meeting City code. The main entry, however, will include a second story element, and cap-peaked roof for a height of 55 feet. A waiver for building height will be necessary for this addition. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the PUD Concept, PUD District Review, Zoning District Amendment in the 1-5 Zoning District, and Site Plan Review, all on 19.8 acres, based on plans Staff Report Eden Prairie Water Treatment Plant Expansion March 22, 1996 dated March 22, 1996, this Staff Report, and the following: 1. Prior to grading pennit issuance, submit detailed stonn water, utility, and erosion control plans to the Watershed District for their review and approval. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, obtain a cross access easement with MTS for the shared access off of Technology Drive. 3. As part of the Planned Unit Development review, a waiver for building height has been granted from 40 feet to 55 feet in the 1-5 zoning district. MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities ~ DATE: March 27, 1996 SUBJECT: Water Treatment Plant Expansion BACKGROUND: The City of Eden Prairie is expanding the water treatment facilities to meet projected water demand through the remaining development anticipated in the City. The new facilities will be located on the existing water treatment plant site. The estimated cost for this project is thirty million dollars and it is the largest public work's project ever initiated in the City of Eden Prairie. Staff are requesting the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission to review this project as there will be a significant change to the existing water treatment ponding area and this facility will provide a facility that will offer citizens the opportunity to learn about the importance of treating and conserving water in the 21 st century. Gene Dietz, Director of Public Works, and Gary Tuschie, architect for the project, will be in attendance at the April I meeting to review this project with the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. RECOM:MENDATION: Staff recommend the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission approve the site plan, architectutal plan and landscape plan for the treatment plant expansion and support the concept of providing the educational component with this project. BL:mdd water.memolBob96 10 ----------------- ------------------------------PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION April 1, 1996 Page 2 V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. Water Plant Expansion Director of Public Works Gene Dietz reviewed the proposal for the expansion of the Water Treatment Plant facility and described the site plan and the process by which water is presently treated in Eden Prairie and the changes which will occur as the new process becomes operational. He noted that the existing lagoon will remain but will be landscaped and used only as an emergency reserve should the need arise. It will be planted with wetland grasses and other vegetation and will contain a NURP pond, which will make it an attractive amenity to the facility. Brown inquired about the residue which will be trucked out and Dietz responded that it was a process by which waste was treated and chemicals added, primarily lime, which then coagulated and settled out in the lagoons. The lagoons were then dredged and the residuals were hauled away once a year. When the new facility is completed the management will utilize a plate frame press where liquids are removed and solids drop down into a semi-trailer and will be taken away daily in the winter and perhaps as many as three times during the summer months. He noted they have discussed purchasing a farm where the residuals could be dumped, but the actual location where they will be dumped has yet to be determined. Perhaps it would be possible to contract with local area farmers to have them dumped, but it becomes difficult when crops are planted. Discussion ensued regarding the possible solutions to finding a site to dump the residuals from the plant. Dietz showed the sight lines and noted that the facility met the criteria which is required for development in the private sector. While the rotunda on the expansion may appear lavish, the actual cost of construction is about. 6% of the entire expansion. The rotunda will contain a public education facility which will be utilized by the school district as well, and the rotunda breaks up the long straight lines of the remainder of the facility and gives it a more pleasing appearance. The School District is developing a water conservation curriculum which will be taught to 3rd, 5th and 7th graders and they will be given a tour of the facility to learn about waste management, recycling and conservation issues. There will also be a class available to high school students on an elective basis. Staff believed this was the best solution which met the requirements of the DNR and the City's need for expansion of the facility. Kracum inquired how the City responded to inquiries from citizens concerning the appearance of excessive spending on the water treatment plant. Dietz stated that the addition of the rotunda and the screening and landscaping was less than 3.7% of the total project cost. All of the funds were obtained from the $12.50 surcharge which has been in place on all water bills, from SAC and WAC charges when new construction is implemented, and from special assessments from sewer and water installation in developments. The City is required to meet the same construction II ------------------ PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION April 1, 1996 Page 3 standards as developers in the private sector, and this is an excellent use of the City's resources for the good of the community. Lambert stated he believed the location of the plant had not dictated any increase in the standards as they would apply no matter where the facility was located. Staff requested the Commission to review the plan because it will impact the natural area on the site and to consider the educational part of the plan being included in a public facility. Staff recommended approval of the plans as submitted. Kracum stated he was not opposed to the plan and believed it was an excellent design. Hilgeman inquired if a site is purchased for storage of the residual material if it would be counted as wetland mitigation. Lambert responded negatively, noting that it would not be compatible. Dietz stated that they will receive wetland credit for restoring the two to three acres of wetland which have been used as lagoons. Fox stated that the City is attempting to be a good neighbor with MTS by creating the dual entrance which will serve both MTS and the water treatment facility. MOTION: Brown moved, Koenig seconded, to recommend approval of the site plan, architectural plan and landscape plan for the treatment plant expansion and support the concept of providing the educational component with this project. Motion carried 6-0. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. 1996 Commission Work Plan and Five-Year CIP Update (Continued from March 18) Lambert reviewed the Work Plan projects. Discussion ensued regarding the cash park fees for park development and Lambert noted that it was unlikely that there would be adequate revenue generated for park land purchases from cash park fees but it might be possible to obtain park dedication land from property which is being developed for neighborhood park purposes. Hilgeman inquired about the revenues available to the Commission and Lambert reviewed the estimated revenue for Park Capital Improvement Projects and explained how the figures were projected out through the year 2000. He noted that each expenditure must be approved by the Commission and the City Council, and this was developed strictly as a guide to help the Commission decide what to do to continue building the park system. Hilgeman inquired about the Birch Island Park and how many people it would serve if improvements were to be made there. Lambert responded that the City was not ready to install any improvements in this park because it was determined I~ ~ DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA APRIL 16, 1996 SECTION: DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. FINANCE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VI CHECKS NO 39981 THRU NO 40288 . I .. Action/Direction: I APRI L I 6, 1 996 VI BRUNSWICK EDEN PRAIRIE LANES YOUTH SPECIAL TRIP-FEES PAID. CIRCUS PIZZA YOUTH SPECIAL TRIP-FEES PAID. CIRCUS PIZZA YOUTH SPECIAL TRIP-FEES PAID. CHASKA COMMUNITY CENTER YOUTH SPECIAL TRIP-FEES PAID. DISCOVERY ZONE YOUTH SPECIAL TRIP-FEES PAID. EDIE ANDERSON REFUND-BALLROOM DANCING. 39981 39982 39983 39984 39985 39986 39987 39988 39989 39990 39991 39992 39993 39994 39995 39996 39997 39998 39999 40000 40001 40002 40003 40004 40005 40006 40007 40008 40009 40010 40011 40012 40013 40014 40015 40016 40017 40018 40019 LOUIS DOBBELMAN REFUND-55 ALIVE DEFENSIVE DRIVING CLASS. 40020 40021 40022 40023 40024 40025 40026 40027 40028 PEGGY DUDA REFUND-SNOW WHITE TRIP. BRENDA GILLITZER REFUND-YOUTH ROLLER HOCKEY. SUE KUBLER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. VIOLET LAPPIN REFUND-BALLROOM DANCING. JULIE MIELKE REFUND-DANCE LESSONS. P SCHIRMERS REFUND-TAE KWAN DO CLASSES. WAYNE TYRA REFUND-FLY FISHING. JENNY WANG REFUND-CROSS COUNTRY SKI TRIP. JAY WANG REFUND-CROSS COUNTRY SKI TRIP. GORDY AND ELAINE WILLIAMS REFUND-BALLROOM DANCING. CARD SERVICES CONFERENCE/MEETING EXPENSE-CITY HALL. JEFFERY JOHNSON TUITION REIMBURSEMENT-ENGINEERING DEPT. LAW ENFORCEMENT LEGAL DEFENSE MAN SUBCRIPTIONS-POLICE DEPT. PARAGON CABLE CABLE SERVICE. SISINNI FOOD SERVICE MEETING EXPENSE-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT. BAND D TRANSFER DELIVERY EXPENSE-FACILITIES. RAMONA BEARD REFUND-SNOW WHITE TRIP. MELISSA KENNEY REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. SUZANNE MARSHALL REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. CAROL PIERCE REFUND-SPRING ADVENTURE. GORDY AND ELAINE WILLIAMS REFUND-BALLROOM DANCING. SUE ZALESKAS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. AMERICAN BANK NA PAYING AGENT FEES-WATER REVENUE BONDS. MARK ARNOLD TRAINING-POLICE DEPT. ROBERT BOLLING REFUND-WATER AND SEWER BILL. JOHN DELANEY REFUND-WATER AND SEWER BILL. FIRST TRUST NATIONAL ASSOC PAYING AGENT FEES-E P GO IMP BONDS. JENNIFER HARLOW INTERNSHIP STIPEND-YOUTH RECREATION. HENNEPIN COUNTY PYMT OF RECOVERED REHAB LOAN FUNDS. JEFF JOHNSON TUITION REIMBURSEMENT-ENGINEERING. LANG PAULY AND GREGERSON LTD OCTOBER 95 SERVICE CENTRUM TEMAN LAND. LIQUOR CONTROL DIVISION ST LIQUOR CONTROL STAMP-GR MILL RESTAURANTS. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTEWATER S FEBRUARY 96 SAC CHARGES/FEBRUARY 96 SAC NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ROTTLUND HOMES STEPPING STONE THEATRE JEFFERY JOHNSON MN ORCHESTRAL ASSOC ORDWAY MUSIC THEATER TARGET CENTER TARGET CENTER CHARGES. SERVICE. REFUND-DUPLICATE BLDG PERMITS. THEATER TICKETS-ADAPTIVE REC. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT-ENGINEERING DEPT. CONCERT TICKETS-SR CENTER-FEES PAID. TRIP-SR CENTER-FEES PAID. YOUTH RECREATION TRIP-FEES PAID. SR TRIP-FEES PAID. 5924180 175.73 263.59 239.63 207.68 212.47 10.00 8.00 15.00 5.00 61.00 10.00 22.00 36.00 5.00 8.00 8.00 10.00 512.27 162. 10 108.00 22.25 1101.78 90.00 30.00 28.00 28.00 38.00 10.00 22.00 334.60 20.00 182.62 76.06 781.50 200.00 4052.54 162.10 2965.85 20.00 26928.00 17513.78 120.50 50.00 179.15 525.60 1110.00 330.00 240.00 APRIL 16,1996 VI 40029 TARGET CENTER SR TRIP-FEES PAID. 507.50 40030 JULIE SWAN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 10.00 40031 PAT SALMI REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 10.00 40032 AMERICAN BANK N A PAYING AGENT FEES. 636.30 40033 AT AND T WIRELESS SERVICES SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 10.65 40034 GREG BONGAARTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR CLASS A WATER OPERATOR 32.00 EXAM FEE. 40035 CLIFF CRACAUER MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-FLEET SERVICES. 76.72 40036 KATHERINE CRUGNOLA ICE SHOW COSTUMES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 1209.19 40037 JEFF ELWELL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-COMMUNITY CENTER. 30.80 40038 IAN ESSAN REIMBURSEMENT FOR CLASS A WATER OPERATOR 32.00 EXAM FEE. 40039 SUE KOTCHEVAR REIMBURSEMENT-MEETING EXPENSE FINANCE 12.00 DEPT. 40040 JASON NORTHCO L P APRIL RENT LIQUOR STORE I. 5184.00 40041 CYNTHIA LANENBERG MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-FIRE DEPT. 48.16 40042 TRIA MANN MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-ADAPTIVE REC. 50.68 40043 MINNEGASCO SERVICE. 27123.32 40044 MN STATE TREASURER JAN 96 BLDG PERMIT SURCHARGES. 2548.78 40045 MN STATE TREASURER DECEMBER 95 BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGES. 6673.21 40046 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE SERVICE. 510.48 40047 NORTHERN STATES POWER SERVICE. 45629.38 40048 POWERTEX SPORTWEAR INC UNIFORM EXPENSE-POLICE DEPT. 216.61 40049 JERRY PRODEHL REIMBURSEMENT MEETING EXPENSE-STREET DEPT. 13.46 40050 SCHERSTAD SYSTEMS SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT. 219.00 40051 TIE SYSTEMS REPAIR AMD MAINTENANCE-COMMUNICATIONS. 401.00 40052 UNITED PROPERTIES APRIL RENT LIQUOR STORE III. 6581.25 40053 US WEST SERVICE. 6064.73 40054 US WEST SERVICE. 314.95 40055 SANDRA WERTS MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-SR CENTER. 26.40 40056 ORDWAY MUSIC THEATRE THEATRE TICKETS SR CENTER-FEES PAID. 115.50 40057 MN ORCHESTRAL ASSOC CONCERT TICKETS-SR CENTER-FEES PAID. 15.80 40058 G AND K SERVICES UNIFORN EXPENSE-UTILITIES/FACILITES/PARK 11990.27 MAINTENANCE/FLEET SERVICES/COMMUNITY CENTER. 40059 MN ORCHESTRAL ASSOC ORCHESTRA TICKETS SR CENTER-FEES PAID. 79.00 40060 ASSOC OF TRAINING OFFICERS MENBERSHIP DUES-POLICE DEPT. 20.00 40061 DTCA TRAINING EXPENSE-POLICE DEPT. 79.00 40062 RICHARD ERICKSON ENTERTAINMENT-COMMUNITY CENTER EGG EHUNT. 360.00 40063 FRITZ CANDY FOR HOLIDAY EGG HUNT. 147.45 40064 CITY OF HOPKINS SPEAKER FEE-POLICE DEPT. 62.50 40065 KENS FRESH MEATS SAFETY INCENTIVE PROGRAM GIFT CERTIFICATE. 25.00 40066 MN DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MGMT SEMINAR EXPENSE-POLICE DEPT. 30.00 40067 PRISM HOLIDAYS TRIP DEPOSIT-SR CENTER-FEES PAID. 1400.00 40068 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH -CITY HALL. 49.53 40069 US POSTMASTER NEWSLETTER POSTAGE. 2947.64 40070 SARAH ALLEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 24.50 40071 LORNA BUTLER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 24.50 40072 MARIA ANDERSON REFUND-HOCKEY TICKETS. 25.00 40073 DEB CARLSON REFUND-HOCKEY TICKETS. 25.00 12159326 3 APRIL 16, 1996 VI 40074 NANCY CASSIN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 84.00 40075 LINDA CARLSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 18.00 40076 BECKY KNICKERBOCKER REFUND-LIFEGUARD TRAINING. 160.00 40077 SALLY KOENECKE REFUND-HOCKEY TICKETS. 30.00 40078 DIANE REED REFUND-LIFEGUARD TRAINING. 160.00 40079 LORIE SENSKE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 24.50 40080 SHEI LA VEIRE REFUND-ICE SHOW. 50.00 40081 SUSAN WIRONEN REFUND-HOCKEY TICKETS. 25.00 40082 NORWEST BANKS MN N A FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE 92641.22 WITHHOLDING PYMT PAYROLL 3-19-96. 40083 WEST SUBURBAN COLUMBUS CR UNION PAYROLL 3-19-96. 950.00 40084 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO INS PREMIUM FOR MARCH PAYROLL 3-15-96. 2276.25 40085 CARVER CO CHILD SUPPORT PAYROLL 3-15-96. 49.37 40086 CARVER CTY COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVI PAYROLL 3-15-96. 276.93 40087 CARVER CO CHILD SUPPORT UNIT PAYROLL 3-15-96. 90.00 40088 GREAT WEST LIFE AND ANNUITY PAYROLL 3-15-96. 8255.50 40089 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 3-15-96. 350.00 40090 HEALTHPARTNERS HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR APRIL 26628.51 PAYROLL 3-15-96. 40091 HENN CTY SUPPORT AND COLLECTION PAYROLL 3-15-96. 240.46 40092 HENN CTY SUPPORT AND COLLECTION PAYROLL 3-15-96. 275.08 40093 HENN CTY SUPPORT AND COLLECTION PAYROLL 3-15-96. 10.00 40094 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST PAYROLL 3-15-96. 4184.22 40095 MEDICA CHOICE HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR APRIL 54361.60 PAYROLL 3-15-96. 40096 MN DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 3-15-96. 227.42 40097 MN MUTUAL LIFE PAYROLL 3-15-96. 1772.50 40098 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 3-15-96. 262.00 40099 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 3-15-96. 35.00 40100 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOC PAYROLL 3-15-96. 42528.35 40101 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR MARCH PAYROLL 2451.63 3-15-96. 40102 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 3-15-96. 189.00 40103 CITY OF BURNSVILLE MEETING EXPENSE-CITY HALL. 51.00 40104 GOVT TRAINING SERVICE CONFERENCE EXPENSE-CITY HALL. 160.00 40105 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS-689.22 STREET DEPT. 40106 TRIA MANN REIMBURSEMENT FOE MEETING EXPENSES-11 .99 ADAPTIVE REC. 40107 BRENT MUCKENHIRN INTERNSHIP STIPEND-YOUTH RECREATION. 200.00 40108 MlrMEST ASPHALT GRAVEL-STREET DEPT. 603.25 40109 SHERI MOONEN REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUTH ACTIVITIES-YOUTH 154.21 RECREATION. 40110 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT. 111.91 40111 JACK SCHEPERS MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-LIQUOR STORE III. 91.00 40112 JIM TORNOE REIMBURSE FOR JR GOLF ADV DAYS-YOUTH REC. 89.88 40113 THE U S CONFERENCE OF MAYORS CONFERENCE EXPENSE-CITY HALL. 350.00 40114 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER. 10307.95 40115 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE BEER/BOTTLES. 13169.30 40116 LINCOLN DISTRIBUTING BEER. 80.00 26467625 4 APRIL 16, 7996 VI 40717 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING BEER/BOTTLES. 10454.81 40118 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS BEER. 38.00 40119 THE WINE COMPANY BEER. 19.60 40120 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX. 741.20 40721 PEPSI COLA CO MIX. 270.45 40122 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO BEER/BOTTLES. 17245.60 40723 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE. 7210.50 40124 GRIGGS COOPER AND CO LIQUOR. 49699.39 40725 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS LIQUOR. 31088.89 40726 QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS LIQUOR/WINE. 18321.56 40727 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO LIQUOR/WINE. 49738.64 40128 HARDRIVES INC CITY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT-ANDERSON LAKES 14675.77 PKWY AND PRESERVE BLVD. 40729 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER LOG SPLITTER RNTL-PARK DEPT. 281.67 40130 THE ACHIEVEMENT CENTER LATH-ENGINEERING/STREETS/PARKS. 883.62 40137 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO SERVICE-LIQUOR STORES. 267.28 40732 AMERICAN RED CROSS SUPPLIES-AQUATICS COMMUNITY CENTER POOL. 25.56 40733 AMERI-DATA COMPUTER SUPPLIES-ADMINSTRATION/HUMAN 723.14 RESOURCES. 40134 ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY LETTERHEAD-CITY HALL/SWIM PUNCH CARDS-302.60 COMMUNITY CENTER. 40135 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 332.76 40136 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKING WILDLIFE DISPOSAL FOR MARCH-ANIMAL 94.23 CONTROL DEPT. 40737 AQUA CITY PLBG AND HEATING REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE WELL II-UTILITIES 835.00 DIVISION. 40138 ASSOC OF PUBLIC SAFETY MEMBERSHIP DUES-POLICE DEPT. 62.00 40139 A U S COMMUNICATIONS INC SERVICE-POLICE DEPT. 2935.18 40740 LOIS BARTZ SERVICE-SCOREKEEPER-FEES PAID. 110.50 40147 BEACON BALLFIELDS BALLFIELD MATERIALS-ADULT RECREATION. 908.00 40142 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC HOSE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 46.97 40743 BELLBOY CORPORATION SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 643.39 40744 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE-TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 8023.21 ASSISTANCE PULTE HOMES. 40145 PATRICIA BESSER SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 594.00 40146 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION SERVICE-PHEASANT WOODS PARK/PAVEMENT MGMT 1752.46 PROGRAM/MILLER PARK SKATING FACILITY. 40147 TOM BUCHNER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT CONSULTING-CITY HALL. 2000.00 40748 NATE BUCK SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 342.00 40149 BETH AND MORLEY BURNETT SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 251.25 40150 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS MAINTENANCE CONTRACT/REPAIRS AND PARTS-5233.44 POLICE DEPT. 40757 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO/PARTS REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE-932.34 POLICE DEPT/FLEET SERVICES. 40752 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SVC INC STOCK-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 329.79 40753 CENTRAIRE INC REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE-PUBLIC WORKS. 152.50 40754 CITY OF CHANHASSEN WAFTA MEMBERSHIP DUES. 2482.00 40155 JAKE CHRISTIANSON SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 59.50 40156 C02 SERVICES C02-COMMUNITY CENTER. 22.80 40757 COLOR OPTIC DISPLAY RACK-ADULT ATHLETICS. 163.44 22363504 S APRIL 16, 1996 VI 40158 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC SAFETY SUPPLIES-SAFETY DEPT. 324.23 40159 COpy EQUIPMENT INC SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING. 240.61 40160 CREATIVE CONCEPTS IN EMPLOYEE RECONGNITION-HUMAN RESOURCES. 171.33 40161 CUB FOODS SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT CITIZENS ACADEMY. 67.32 40162 CUMMINS DIESEL SALES INC ENGINE REPAIR-FLEET SERVICES. 129.25 40163 DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SVCS INC PARTS-FLEET SERVICES. 13.00 40164 DELEGARD TOOL CO BATTERYS/MISC SUPPLIES-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 251.51 40165 DELEGARD TOOL CO SUPPLIES-FLEET SERVICES. 79.20 40166 DATA METALCRAFT INC REFUND OF UNUSED ESCROW FUND 81. 627.96 40167 DRISKILLS NEWMARKET MEETING EXPENSES-YOUTH RECREATION/ 530.07 COMMUNITY CENTER/FIRE DEPT/POLICE DEPT. 40168 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING EXPENSE-CITY HALL. 82.00 40169 EDEN PRAIRIE FORD STOCK-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 126.74 40170 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DIST 272 TRANSPORATION-YOUTH RECREATION-FEES PAID. 669.42 40171 FAUVER LOCKS-UTILITIES. 128. 10 40172 FERRELLGAS PROPANE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 119.77 40173 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN TRAINING MATERIALS-FIRE DEPT. 109.64 40174 FLOYD SECURITY MONITORING-LIQUOR STORE I AND III. 170.88 40175 FULFILL PLUS SUPPLIES-ASSESSING DEPT. 37.22 40176 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-UTI LITES. 747.42 40177 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP REPAIRS AND PARTS FIRE DEPT. 6015.00 40178 GOLD COUNTRY INC CITIZENS ACADEMY SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 13.75 40179 W W GRAINGER INC PUMP-FLEET SERVICES. 131.12 40180 HARMON GLASS COMPANY WINDSHIELD REPLACEMENT-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 357.01 40181 HeMC EMS EDUCATION MAIL CODE 825 FEE-POLICE DEPT. 100.00 40182 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE CHARGE FOR PROCESSING SPECIAL 1120.95 ASSESSMENTS-ENGINEERING/ASSESSING. 40183 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FILE TAXES PAYABLE 201.00 1996. 40184 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER PROPERTY OWNERS LIST-COMMUNITY 177 . 50 DEVELOPMENT. 40185 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER ROOM AND BOARD FOR FEBRUARY-POLICE DEPT. 4727.50 40186 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF BOOKING FEES FOR FEBRUARY-POLICE DEPT. 1406.01 40187 D C HEY COMPANY INC TONER-WATER PLANT/MAINTENANCE-STREET DEPT. 336.00 40188 LARRY HI LLARD SERVICE-OPEN GYM-FEES PAID. 250.00 40189 PETE HITCHCOCK SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 34.00 40190 HOFFERS INC PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE. 41.50 40191 TOM HOLMES SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 507.50 40192 HONEYWELL INC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-UTILITIES. 1998.00 40193 IAAO MEMBERSHIP DUES-ASSESSING DEPT. 125.00 40194 ICMA MGMT ASSOC SUBCRIPTION-CITY HALL. 469.00 40195 INACOM CORPORATION SUPPLIES-COMMUNICATIONS. 364.38 40196 INTOXIMETERS INC ALCOHOL-SENSORS/POLICE DEPT. 711.42 40197 JANEX INC VACUUM-COMMUNITY CENTER. 525.05 40198 JANEX INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 371.42 40199 BRENDA JERDE SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/ATTENDANT/ 463.00 HOST-FEES PAID. 40200 CHRIS JESSEN SERVICE-HOCKEY OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 300.00 40201 JUSTUS LUMBER CO SUPPLIES-UTILITIES/PARK MAINTENANCE. 129.23 40202 KINKOS SUPPLIES-ADULT RECREATION. 219.45 2572046 APRIL 16, 1996 VI 40203 KNOX LUMBER LUMBER-PARK MAINTENANCE. 385.34 40204 JOEL KORKKI SERVICE-SCOREKEEPER BASKETBALL-FEES PAID. 85.00 40205 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR SECURITY GATE-SR CENTER. 996.00 40206 LAKELAND INC CITY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT-EP MARKET 49057.21 CENTER. 40207 LAKE REGION VENDING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 289.34 40208 LAMETTRYS COLLISION VEHICLE REPAIRS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 6783.45 40209 LASER GRAPHICS INC WATERBOTTLES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 1213.99 40210 LEHMANN FARMS SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE II. 43.15 40211 LISA LETO SERVICE-YOUTH CHAPERONE-FEES PAID. 105.00 40212 ELLEN LILL SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 85.00 40213 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC PLOW BLADE-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 121.41 40214 MARSHALL AND SWIFT SUBCRIPTION-ASSESSING DEPT. 549.00 40215 MASYS CORPORATION MAINTENANCE AGREEMANT-POLICE DEPT. 1429.70 40216 MAUSEN COMPANY BATTERY/BATTERY CHARGER-UTILITIES. 364.85 40217 MAXI-PRINT INC PRINTED SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 394.05 40218 MN DEPT OF REVENUE SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 256.32 40219 MED COMPASS INC MEDICAL EXAMS-FIRE DEPT. 50.49 40220 JEFFERY MONAHAN SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 945.00 40221 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO PARTS-FLEET SERVICES. 79.94 40222 MUNICILITE CO REPAIR POWER SUPPLY-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 53.50 40223 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION 12 ANNUAL MCL LEGISLATIVE DINNER. 251.87 40224 MENARDS MISC SUPPLIES-STREET DEPT/PARK 716.85 MAINTENANCE/UTILITIES/COMMUNITY CENTER/ FACILITIES/POLICE DEPT. 40225 METRO SALES INC COPIER SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT/ 188.20 COMMUNICATIONS. 40226 METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL CASSETTE TAPES-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 5.33 40227 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO STEEL-FLEET SERVICES. 318.76 40228 MFAPC KEVIN MCGINTY MAMBERSHIP DUES-FIRE DEPT. 35.00 40229 MID-AMERICA POWER DRIVES HYDRAULIC VALVE-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 645.76 40230 MINNESOTA BLUEPRINT REPAIRS-ENGINEERING DEPT. 45.00 40231 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 103.75 40232 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 61.05 40233 MINNESOTA GFOA DUES-FINANCE DEPT. 15.00 40234 MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL PUBLICATIONS-SAFETY DEPT. 144.00 40235 STATE OF MINNESOTA INSPECTION CERTIFICATES-FLEET SERVICES/ 40.00 FACILITIES. 40236 MINNESOTA TROPHIES AND GIFTS SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 62.46 40237 MINNESOTA POLICE AND PEACE OFFICE MEMBERSHIP DUES-POLICE DEPT. 630.00 40238 MITCHELL INTL ANNUAL RENEWAL-FLEET SERVICES. 1463.87 40239 NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES. 103.35 40240 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE POLAROID FILM-POLICE DEPT. 255.07 40241 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-POLICE DEPT. 1172.67 40242 NORTH STAR ICE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 513.06 40243 OFFICEMAX CREDIT PLAN OFFICE SUPPLIES-STREET MAINTENANCE. 22.33 40244 OHLIN SALES INC PHONES-POLICE DEPT. 229.72 40245 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC CHAIN-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 406.83 40246 PC WORLD SUBCRIPTION-ASSESSING. 19.97 40247 PARAGON CABLE CABLE SERVICE. 5.49 7074313 1 APRIL 16, 1996 VI 40248 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL SCREENINGS-SAFETY DEPT. 1315.20 40249 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INC POSITION PROFILES-HUMAN RESOURCES. 95.00 40250 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 361.75 40251 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING NEWSLETTER PRINTING-COMMUNICATIONS. 161.56 40252 PREVENTION PLUS INC WORK STATION WALK THRU-SAFETY DEPT. 600.00 40253 LEE RAY SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 717.50 40254 RESOLVE JOHN A OTT FACILITATION-POLICE DEPT. 150.00 40255 THE RETAIL MARKETING GROUP ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES. 50.00 40256 RICOH CORPORATION MAINTENANCE CONTRACT COPIER-CITY HALL. 626.86 40257 ROGERS SERVICE FUEL-FLEET SERVICES. 12.73 40258 ROLLINS OIL CO FUEL-FLEET SERVICES. 7118.70 40259 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO STOCK-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 51.53 40260 SANCO INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-FACILITIES. 241.25 40261 WILBUR SCHULTZ SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/BASKETBALL 705.00 OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 40262 ELIN SHORES SUPPLIES-SR CENTER. 34.89 40263 ERIC SIT SERVICE-TAE KWON DO INSTRUCTOR-FEES PAID. 882.00 40264 THE SKETCH PAD INVITATIONS FOR AWARDS BANQUET-CITY HALL. 297.13 40265 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPORATION SHOP TOOLS-FLEET SERVICES. 402.81 40266 SNELL MECHANICAL INC POOL HEATER REPAIRS-COMMUNITY CENTER. 785.05 40267 PETER SMITH SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 144.00 40268 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC SECOND QRT CONTRIBUTION 1996 OPERATING 6661.97 BUDGET SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION. 40269 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES. 351.45 40270 KELLY SPANN SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 35.00 40271 STANDARD SPRING COMPANY 0.00 40272 STAR TRIBUNE SUNDAY PAPERS FOR RESALE-LIQUOR STORE III. 18.98 40273 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC MAINTENANCE CONTRACT-COMMUNITCATIONS. 121.95 40274 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET PARTS-FLEET SERVICES. 234.73 40275 TENNANT SUPPLIES-FLEET SERVICES. 21.99 40276 TOWN AND COUNTRY DODGE VEHICLE PARTS-FLEET SERVICES. 89.84 40277 TRAVELERS DIRECTORY SERVICE ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES. 293.00 40278 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 24.34 40279 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC NUTS AND BOLTS-PARK MAINTENANCE. 12.94 40280 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORN EXPENSE-POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT. 151.45 40281 ALICIA VOMHOF SERVICE-OPEN GYM-FEES PAID. 120.00 40282 VOSS LIGHTING LIGHTING SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER/STREET 543.34 DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE. 40283 WEATHER WATCH INC WEATHER SERVICE FOR APRIL-STREET DEPT. 150.00 40284 JASON WENDOLER SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 1085.00 40285 WILD BIRDS UNLIMITED BIRD SEED-OUTDOOR CENTER. 10.60 40286 WINZER CORPORATION STOCK-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 358.47 40287 JOSEPH WITTERSCHEIN SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 87.50 40288 ZIEGLER INC SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 104.60 39774 VOID OUT CHECK 45.24- 39786 VOID OUT CHECK 2416.48- 39821 VOID OUT CHECK 23.23- 39831 VOID OUT CHECK 390.75- 39892 VOID OUT CHECK 2078.11- 2027630 9;~ APRI L 1 6 , 1 996 39942 39962 40077 40057 -72236 VOID OUT CHECK VOID OUT CHECK VOID OUT CHECK VOID OUT CHECK q VI 427.42- 117.04- 162.10- 15.80- $785163.88 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Ordinances and Resolutions 4/16/96 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance-John Frane Ordinance amending City Code 4.05 VU. Background: The concept of issuing only one license to an individual originated after prohibition when the "criminal" .element controlled a large part of the beer and liquor business. The one individual concept was widely circumvented by having each member of a "family" obtain a license. I do not believe that the circumstances of the 30's exist to any great extent today. The council has wide latitude in the matter of issuing liquor licenses. Also we do not allow the transfer of licenses; we treat an ownership change as a new license. See the attached letter from the City Attorney's office. ActionlDirection: Adopt the ordinance changing Section 4.05 Subd. 6 as shown in the City Attorney's letter. Page 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. -96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 4.05 ENTITLED "STANDARDS" BY: ELIMINATING SUBD. 2A WHICH PROHIBITS THE ISSUANCE OF LIQUOR LICENSES TO PERSONS WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS OR RESIDENT ALIENS OF THE UNITED STATES; RELETTERING SUBDIVISIONS 2.B, 2.C, 2.D, AND 2.E, AS 2.A, 2.B, 2.C, AND 2.D RESPECTIVELY; AND DELETING SUBD. 6, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER I AND SECTION 4.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 4.05, Subd. 2. is amended as follows: Subd. 2. No license may be issued under this section to: A. A person under twenty-one (21) years of age. B. A person who within five (5) years of the license application has been convicted of a felony or a willful violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution of intoxicating liquor or non-intoxicating malt liquors. C. A person who has had an intoxicating or non-intoxicating liquor license revoked within five (5) years of the license application; or to any person who at the time of the violation owns any interest, whether as a holder of more than five percent (5%) of the capital stock of a corporation licensee, as a partner or otherwise, in the premises or in the business conducted thereon; or to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which any such person is in any manner interested. D. A person not of good moral character of repute. Section 2. City Code Section 4.05, Subd. 6. is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 3. City Code Chapter I entitled "General Provisions and Definitions INZJENIEPIFINANCEIORD.AME Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 4.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. publication. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1996, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1996. City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the ___ day of ______ , 1996. INZJENIEPIFINANCEIORD.AME TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council ~ Carl J. Jullie, City Manager f/(J April 12, 1996 SUBJECT: Change to the City Code regarding Liquor Sales On the agenda for Tuesday evening, April 16, the Council is scheduled under Item VII.A., to adopt 1st Reading of an Ordinance to change the City Code to allow issuance of more than one liquor license to an individual. The City Attorney has now suggested an additional change which would allow the holder of an on-sale wine license to also sell strong beer without needing to get an additional license. We have incorporated this change in a new draft Ordinance attached hereto, and we will present this revision on Tuesday evening to replace the draft Ordinance included with your Council packet. CJJ:jdp Attachment --------~ ------~ ~--~----~--~---~-----~------------------- CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. -96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 4.05 ENTITLED "STANDARDS" BY: ELIMINATING SUBD. 2A WHICH PROHIBITS THE ISSUANCE OF LIQUOR LICENSES TO PERSONS WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS OR RESIDENT ALIENS OF THE UNITED STATES; RE-LETTERING SUBDIVISIONS 2.B., 2.C., 2.D., AND 2.E. AS 2.A., 2.B., 2.C., ~ 2.D. RESPECTIVELY; DELETING SUBD. 6, AND RENUMBERING SUBD. 7 AND SUBD. B AS SUBD. 6 AND SUBD. 7 RESPECTIVELY; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 4.30 BY DESIGNATING THE PRESENT TEXT AS SUBD. 1 AND ADDING SUBD. 2 TO PROVIDE FOR THE SALE BY CERTAIN HOLDERS OF BOTH WINE AND BEER LICENSES TO SELL BEER CONTAINING ~ORE THAN 3.2% ALCOHOL BY VOLUME WITHOUT A LIQUOR LICENSE, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 4. 99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS I CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THB CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, KINNESOTA, ORDAINS; Section 1. City Code Section 4.05, Subd. 2 is amended as follows: "Subd. 2. No license may be issued under this section to: A. A person under twenty-one (21) years of age. B. A person who, within five (5) years of the license application, haS been convicted of a felony or a willful violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution of intoxicating liquor or non- intoxicating malt liquors. C. A person who has had an intoxicating or non- intoxicating liquor license revoked within five (5) years of the license applicationi or to any person who at the time of the violation owns any interest, whether as a holder of more than five percent (5%) of the capital stock of a corporation licensee, as a partner or otherwise, in the premises or in the business conducted thereon; or to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which any such person is in any manner interested. D. A person not of good moral character or repute." Section 2. City Code Section 4.05 is amended by deleting Subd. 6 in its entirety and renumbering Subd. 7 and SUbd. 8 as Subd. 6 and Subd. 7 respectively. Section 3. City Code Section 4.30 is amended by designating the present text of Section 4.30 as Subd. I, and by adding Subd. 2 as follows: "Subd. 2. Notwithstanding the prohibition contained in Subd. 1 hereof, the holder of an on-sale wine license who is also licensed to sell beer at on-sale and whose gross receipts are at least 60% attributable to the sale of food, may sell malt beverages containing in excess of 3.2% of alcohol by weight at on-sale without an additional license." Section 4. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 4.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" 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. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1996, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of _____________ , 1996. City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHRD 1n the Eden Prairie News on the ________________________ , 1996. C,\wp51\rap\ap\ord\malt.li~ day of ROBERT I. LANG ROGER A. PAULY DAVID H. GREGERSON" RICHARD F. ROSOW MARK J. JOHNSON JOSEPH A. NILAN" TODD A. SATTLER JENNIFER M. INZ GERAINT D. POWELL MICHELLE L. ROGNIJEN "'Also Admitted in Wisconsin Mr. John Frane City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road LANG, PAULY, GREGERSON & ROSOW, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIRST BANK PLACE 1600 IBM PARK BUILDING 650 THIRD A VENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402-4337 TELEPHONE: (612) 338-0755 FAX: (612) 349-6718 April 2, 1996 Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re: Amendments to City Code Section 4.05 Dear John: EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE SUITE 370 250 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 TELEPHONE: (612) 829-7355 FAX: (612) 829-0713 REPLY TO MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE A request has been made that the City amend Section 4.05 of the City Code as follows: Change: Section 4.05, Subd.6 .... No person shall be granted liquor or wine licenses at more than one location. For the purpose of this Section, any person owning an interest of five percent (5%) or more of the entity to which the license is issued or such ownership by a member of his immediate family shall be deemed to be a licensee. To: Section 4.05, Subd.6 .... No person shall be granted liquor or wine licenses at more than one location, except a publicly traded entity registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. For the purpose of this Section, a person owning an interest of five percent (5%) or more of the entity to which the license is issued or such ownership by a member of the person's immediate family shall be deemed a licensee. LANG, PAULY, GREGERSON & ROSOW, LTD. Mr. John Frane April 2, 1996 Page 2 The suggested rationale for this change is that entities such as those referenced above are subject to strict reporting and record keeping requirements under the Act, and all such information is public. The potential problem with this change is that constitutional principles require that when the City makes a distinction such as the one contemplated above, it must be able to show a reasonable, "rational basis" for making that distinction. While it may be possible for the City to show such a basis, it may be better to avoid the issue and simply remove the one person-one license restriction. If the City were simply to eliminate this restriction, the Council would still retain the power to limit licenses when appropriate through the City's statutory power to review all license requests based on its determination of what is in the "public interest." This framework of analysis would allow the City to decide on a case by case basis whether any particular entity should be granted a license at more than one location. Also, in the course of reviewing this amendment request, it has come to our attention that the City Code retains a prohibition on any license being issued to a person who is not a citizen or resident alien of the United States. This restriction was at one time present in State law as well, but has been repealed. A challenge had been raised to the law, and a ruling issued that the law was unconstitutional. It is therefore necessary for the City to remove this restriction as well. A suggested ordinance amendment is attached. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call. JMIlhr Enclosure cc: Ric Rosow, Esq. INZJEN\EP\FINANCE\LIQORDLT Very truly yours, LANG, PAULY, GREGERSON, & ROSOW, LTD. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Appointments April 16, 1996 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Human Resources, Community Information Human Rights and Diversity Commission X. A. & Services Requested Action: The Human Rights and Diversity Commission is requesting the City Council to appoint a commission member to fill the unexpired term of Dianna Nelson. (Term expiration March 31, 1997.) Dianna has given notice that she is moving from Eden Prairie at the end of this month. Backa=round: Four candidates remain from the February 1996 candidate pool. Their applications are attached. Vladimar Kozyrev Mark Schiffman Kathryn Wallace Nancy Westby Form clhrlcouncilla-hrdc.wpd Rev 4/10/96 I . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE City Hall and Offices 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Phone: 949·8300 TOO: 949·8399 APPLICATION FOR BOARDS and COMMISSIONS OFFICE USE ONLY Received: _____ _ Response: _____ _ We welcome your application to serve on a City Board or Commission. Please fumlsh complete Information to assist us in giving you full consideration. Additional information which further qualifies you may be attached to this application. The City of Eden Prairie does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin. gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation, status with regard to public assistance or disability In the admissiolJ or access to programs, services, activities, or employment. . . , DATA PRIVACY NOTICE: Our application requests that you fumish both public and private information about yourself. Your name, address, current employment position, previous work history, education and training is . public data under the Minnesota Data Act (Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2 & 3). It Is available to anyone who requests the information. The data you give us about yourself is needed to identify you and assist in determining your suitability for the advisory board or commission for which you are applying. This data Is not legally required, but refusal to supply the Information requested may affect the City Council's ability to evaluate your application. LAST NAME- PRESENT ADDRESS street -70S- RESIDENT OF EDEN PRAIRIE Since Ps~\za month FIRST NAME . \9'2Q year I would be available for regular meeUngs as required? Form c:c-app/clwpd / Rev " III zip DAYTIME PHONE EVENING PHONE ( ) no PERSONAL INFORMATION Degree/Credits· • If you are currently a high school student, please Indicate last academic year completed. Si'e"W\\~"'-'S~~., ~~~V\+ c:.,.., • Present Employer Position Title Major Responsibilities Form c:c-applct.wpd Rev 1/98 \ . Work Phone Number c 1. What Is your primary Interest In serving on a City Board or Commission? 2. As a Board or Commission member, are there any Issues which might casue conflict between civic responsibility and personaVprofesslonallnterests? 3. List any property owned In Eden Prairie (other than your residence). Have you ever been convicted of a felony? ()( no yes If yes, please complete the following. What? Where? Supplement to the City of Eden Prairie Application for Boards and Commissions As an.applicant for appointment to the Human Rights and Diversity Commission your response to the questions listed below is 1~4uired. \1. What knowledge', background or experience do you have with dealing with diverse culture, religion, ethnic heritage, gender, age, sexual orientation, physical or mental ability or economic status? \-\ ~ \ ~ c.o ~ ~ ~.~. t '.Q~ R", 5 ~ ;'~ ~ J\ ~ e:vu; VlJ' " ... ; a \vcJl....A OJS \",,~er~\~~~~ . for ""-a ('~ ~"'''''1 \0 /(l,,~C-' \'\n~ -,c..AV'\<A CZIl<~<?~v~ tVf'~\~a... \y\ k~\\'r\" ~\+\., y~o~\~ -0, dv\"~~?1{ 0\.f\~~7. \ S\tt~ '" D '" '" \" '"'/ "'1!'''' f """ '" co 'N{''''''''' "" \:; ..... " ,,,-~ Q , > ... .,.; ., I >.u" v ~ 0<.... ~~~\~,';/ \~f"'/~ \AJ ~c:\, ·of\-e..'r1. \.v,~I"'~C; ~ ~..,\ --;t~ V~\o'"\$ \-\ """'" #') V\ ~; 7 \., ~$_ ~ J. ~ v <. (" ~ ~ -\-"':1 _t? {"" <'-'0 \ .e.. '-\ ~ r . ' . 2. Are you willing to support the principles of the Eden Prairie Manifesto and work on projects and activities to further community awareness and acceptance? 3. How does your experience, training, or interests relate to the work and activities of the Human Rights and Diversity Commision's responsibilities? ~ ?{",Qt-<'''~·r.oVl''1.\· \-'f'MY\i~ (M\\,,,, \-'''"',9''';J<$ r+f"'''~-? \~+{o..,) ~v\ ~ \\f~ \"l.lr""'" ?c.tv';t:..\-Vv.),O"1 \<. \",\-~~.co ~~S<Z.. '~-;',",<"<7 \ vt 'q ~ -:,~ q(;. ('~ c..+--..v:J/. 4. Please provide any additional information you wish to share. \ ~ w;\\'7 \-~ ~\~ ~~o~\ce.. v:5i,/, "? ~~.;ev,~ ~O( \~~?~ $"\\)7 F_c:~wpd II ... 11M Supplement to the City of Eden Prairie Application for Boards and Commissions Fonn a: c-applct.wpcI Rev 1 I 96 As an applicant for appointment to the Human Rights and Diversity Commission your response to the questions listed below is required. - 1. What knowledge, background or experience do you have with dealing with diverse culture, religion, ethnic heritage, gender, age, sexual orientation, physical or mental ability or economic status? . 2. Are you willing to Sl,lpport the principles of the Eden Prairie Manifesto and work on projects and activities to further community awareness and acceptance? 3. How does your experience, training, or interests relate to the work and activities of the Human Rights and Diversity Commision's responsibilities? -:t:' ,....J.t. ct.<; ~ ~w\~/IA~ -h~ S teM c; '" (~'1. +-~ tl ~ -elC~c?~v-e -e.-((.~~c-e \.k ~\(?:4.S') rz;ri> +s ~"""~: ~~ ~ ~ 1S _-etC; ~Ll ~S (~1,(\"c... Ot~5 CtAtAfc" It-Vt..,\ 4. Please provide any additional information you wish to share. Form c:lhrIcounciIIsupl-bnLwpd Roy 1196 :: •. '! CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE City Hall and Offices 8080 Mitchell Road OFFICE USE ONLY R~wed: __________ ~ " . :~ ... ~ ...... ~ , .................. . Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 i ,. ! ... , Response: _____ ~ Phone: 949-8300 TOO: 949-8399 ; . ;" , ' '. I APPLICATION FOR '.' .' .:~ ,', " . ... BOARDS and COMMISSIONS , ~. . We welcome your application to serve on a City Board or Commission. Please fumlsh complete information to assist us in giving you full consideration. Additional information which further qualifies you may be attached to this application. .., .,._ .. , ._ .. o· • The City of Eden Prairie does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation, status with regard to public assistance or disability in the admission or access' .' to programs, services, activities, or employment. . . • ..... , ., .... ~ ....... " .••• -'7. .. r .. · ... ~;: DATA PRIVACY NOTICE: Our application requests that you fumish both public and private information about yourself. Your name, address, current employment position, previous work history, education and training Is . public data under the Minnesota Data Act (Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2 & 3). It is available to anyone who requests the information. The data you gwe us about yourself Is needed to identify you and assist in determining , your suitability for the advisory board or commission for which you are applying. This data Is not legally required,' but refusal to supply the information requested may affect the City Council's ability to evaluate your application. LAST NAME . FIRST NAME WAl-L-..... G.~ Ko+t" ~(z""t N PRESENT ADDRESS street city \O7~O JAG.t<.So~ D~. EJ>e:tJ RESIDENT OF EDEN PRAIRIE SInce Oc..T month ",.3 year I would be available for regular meetings as requlr8d? .' :.' ..... j: Fonn c:tHppIct.wpd I Rev 1 1111 , . , .. . ' . . .. . ~, ... ,', .,.... \" 1 ' , state , . zip .. YVJt\It.\c: HAl S'53"i7 . DAYTIME PHdNE EVENING PHONE 71-7-7fo7!> ~'iZ-~'iOz. (...( yes . " ( ) no ".::\. ,'. '. . ' .~ ~'. :".' r."·~ . .;,~' ••. ., . , .:'. ' ... ' . .,. .' : i ~ ... ' .• • ••.. .... • -.1 '. . "':.. . ~ PERSONAL INFORMATION Institution Degree/Credits· Area of emphasis \} ... \ .. ~,z.~\"r-f oF' ~L-\FDtZ.N '~, f,e jUi:.et..ey <:tO~z.A.<=t~ \,)N,,,e~~I-r'1 ~ PO" ~tJ iii I W"~ \-\ I NGt ToJJ • If you are currently a high school student, please Indicate last academic year completed. c~·:~ ~ • • e •• ~ • 1 " • Dates of Oroanlzatlon Name· ." .... Location Participation Positions held/accomplishments .. ~ . ~ .... ':", .. . ..,-.'," « ••••• '" " . .... " ., .' , ...... .." . -" .. \' : .~-... '. ' ~ 'I ..... '. \ ~ Present Employer·· ------, " .. ' Work Phone Number NO~T'" we~r 727-7'-7.3 Position Title " Major Responsibnitl~s': As 'o,",e oj' ~ z/ ~~ be..r """4U1~e.W!o..:f' ~ Mt PM ... .., o"Jec#1~ I~ +0 provllic ,v4.J,-Iy ClJstoWlV $e,r.,IC,~ +0 +l1C. +rCNe.lrIlJ pvb/u:.. b"l ":''''''oc.f/''f II:> °PUcn'j ,aocJS ,,,, 4 32.b dl&l'''1 flt:Jk+ OperUIDilt C.OMprtSCt/ o.f SOD ."pU"lSfJ(j 4¥1~ z.,~DD U1",+ru.r ! e,Wlf"0'fe.e~. I ,"'-, '--- ( --_. ' ... _. '.' IIM'ltfl.:l,J \AtJ ttu...AV;£ Supplement to the City of Eden Prairie Application for Boards and Commissions Form a: c-applc1.wpd Rev 1 I 96 ~s an applicant for appointment to the Human Rights and Diversity Commission your response to the ~uestions listed below is required. 1. What knowledge, background or experience do you have with dealing with diverse culture, religion, ethnic heritage. gender. age, sexual orientation. physical or mental ability or economic status? tUl 0+ W"'~ k«...lC'. ~'''et'sc .:-j-hde.s, ge .. nt:lt!t", ~('.-, se~va.J or:<::.....,-I-4...+I Q' .... , rhy~tc;e.l ~t;{ l'VIe-*etJ a.hll.-I't!~_ II I~!c ?cXT-U;>V1 u+ lNfy (~SfOV7S' b. II~ mva/.,e& """""'.!J I e-rp/ore-e WY14VC.-+/ &"""c~f"",e Is~"es. Trt::u"" ""5 4Kld '~-bQr rG/t:,+,O "~.. As S4X·.J.1 / ",,<IJUI<:: WUf"~ ""'~.., cv,-1/"".,,-k.,;;",I'~'3 rlefC"+Wf(!...;7+--/0 dewe/oJ> +raJ".,''''''' r~r ... ,-I-~d,.d~ +0(' e.,."r'uyrt1't~",,-I1 'i7"e-:'+IJ~ eeD ~p'tU;'7+S .. 2. Are you willing to $&,Ipport the principles of the Eden Prairie Manifesto and work on projects and activities to further community awareness and acceptance? i' I~ ,..,.,)' ~'H~;..f ..J.hd ~ a... Go.-YlItv~'lI-1y e·"e.~10 J'1 e w.." Ie a..c,1t:: r?O(.VJc-.-dj' J 1"''':/,.." dv~ s:Jprvt'..... -H-t~ E. r. Ht.f..N'Il-fc.~+o. lAJ ~ WI';'!.-;-..f;:,~~> C' • ..., ,,,,c.ludl~.J "'f!'-~ .. dS. I ~ co...,;:.devt+ I c-.-, 3. How does your experience. training. or interests relate to the work and activities of the Human Rights and Diversity Commision's responsibilities? .. I ".eNe:. a.. HtU.:rfe;s j)~J-f~e fI7. Orj~}~/;;,""~1 LG4.d~5vnj>, .c... 6~~Jne/or.5 d~j r~ II") ?-StGJ;rol0'j y. '1t eeivc.ce:;hc;wp "4Vl4 pre4e-;. > ;CI"Se:.-i ex j> ~-rl(=""c.e" f'JI7 't ~sQ'~~ ".::.1, cf-s .z....."ci rt;ty d~s).e +0 CC'"1-''''' bv+r: -fo My GO..,.. _"'V7I-/-y f:-uvud.:;. ~ ~,-I-~ a. f'c::~sp~f!'"...c: -t-Ive 0'" I?v,'ll'fa.,....., rIJJ,,~ I"s:;; ... e~ ";-l-7.vt iA:);1I (!.OI"I-r"'~-k:" -fa ('.A't!<<<-+tv~ prob/~"""" ~uIYI""J -f}-f:'fI"lA a.-Hv....",~/~+rG-<.~rr-o~J.,. .. 4. Please provide any additional infonnation you wish tc share. ~r.$O~1c.1 per~p<:.G+rvc -fa.+YJe e.o,..,...,,,,,,,,s'OVJ a-.d ,.~/tbfc ~ ~so,..,~ ~~/e...c~ of lIMy .f~, ''1' Hy pnJ"e,-, f''!:I r~:;,d~ i"'" -f-he (..I. 1(', I ""ttAI~ <L d,~ led :Sl-.$+o; Ny /4ANI'/y hve:d '''' 5'Ou-M-r A.,..,.,C;H:.q., -Ihr zS' yf!:4/$ I ".,~t:' a, CJ",Iea..", ::a:;~...,.s S/~-+C'" -,,,,, -I~. I ha...vc /tv-ect' In ¥ s~..s '£II":/-1.-1 ,-/c,t' eI,Hcl'~ c.vl-/"vre-<. . TOTAL P. 03 q . 1. What Is your primary Interest In serving on a City Board or Commission? . . ~.~ .. -hf 2. As a Board or Commission member, are there any Issues which might casue conflict between civic responslblllty and personaVprofesslonal interests? 3. Ust any property owned in Eden Prairie (other than your residence). -._-"----' ...... ', ... " ' .. . -. NON&' Have you ever been co.nvicted of a felony? (wi) no yes If yes, please complete the following. What? Where? 10 Supplement to the City of Eden Prairie Application for Boards and Commissions As an applicant for appointment to the Human Rights and Diversity Commission your response to the questions listed below is required. 1. What knowledge, background or experience do you have with dealing with diverse culture, religion, ethnic heritage, gender, age, sexual orientation, physical or mental ability or economic status? 2. Are you willing to support the principles of the Eden Prairie Manifesto and work on projects and activities to further community awareness and acceptance? 3. How does your experience, training, or interests relate to the work and activities of the Human Rights and Diversity Commision's responsibilities? 4. Please provide any additional information you wish to share. Form C:Ihr\c:ousIC:iJ\-hrd.wpd Rev 1/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities DEPARTMENT: Parks, Recreation and Faciliti Robert A. Lambert BACKGROUND: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Policy on Donations DATE: 4/16/96 ITEM NO. ge, In 1994, the City Council approved the "Excellence Through Giving" gift book that was developed by the Parks, Recreation and Facilities Department. This gift book is provided to any nonprofit public service group, business, or individual who is seeking opportunities to make a donation to the City. The gift book lists dozens of possible donations in the area of facilities, programs and parks with cost estimates for each donation. The book also lists how the City recognizes donations of various financial levels. For example, a thank-you letter is provided for monetary contributions of less than $1,000. A mounted certificate of appreciation is presented for financial contributions of$I,OOO to $4,999. A plaque with suitable engraving is given to honor financial contributions of more than $5,000, or for outstanding one time contributions. For those deserving special recognition a key to the City may be presented. In order to avoid conflicts of interest, the City reserves the right to review all donation requests. The City has always worked cooperatively with various civic groups and the business community who are interested in initiating community projects. These projects encourage a feeling of ownership and commitment to the community. Civic groups often request ideas from City staff on how they can assist through volunteering or with financial assistance in the development of various community projects. It is important that all donations and sponsorships be in keeping with the philosophy and policies of the City of Eden Prairie, as well as City ordinances and state law. EXAMPLES OF DONATIONS AND GIFTS: Examples of the City of Eden Prairie's programs tha1.currently receive funding in the fonn of sponsorships or donations include: 1. Fourth of July Celebration 2. Staring Lake Amphitheatre Concert Series 3. Oktoberfest 4. Sunbonnet Day 5. DiverseCity on the Prairie Examples of City facilities, equipment, etc. that were completely or partially funded through donations include the following: 1. 2. 3. Round Lake Park Shelter Staring Lake Amphitheatre Fishing Pier at Staring Lake Park 4. 5. 6. Canoes and Sailboats Park Benches, Grills & Picnic Tables Trees, Shrubs, Etc. The City has received a significant amount of land, especially conservation areas, as donations. Many developers will donate land as a gift that actually benefits their tax situation. The majority of the gifts or donations do not have any "strings" attached; however, due to the laws regarding accepting gifts, and due to the fact that there are some expectations attached to some gifts, City staff believe there should be a policy relating to gifts to the City of Eden Prairie. City staff requested the City Attorney draft a proposed policy that would address gifts or donations to the City. Staff are recommending the City Council review and adopt this policy. Once the policy is approved, it would be added to the "Excellence Through Giving" gift book as part of the policy and procedures for donating gifts to the City of Eden Prairie. Staff is further recommending that any gifts with a value of $1,000 or more or any gifts that require future expenditures to maintain, must be reviewed and accepted by the appropriate Commission and City Council. The majority of these gifts would be reviewed either by the Heritage Preservation Commission or the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. The Heritage Preservation Commission already has a procedure for reviewing artifacts, etc. prior to accepting them for permanent storage. This policy does not change their procedure, but would require additional review by the Council for any gift that would require future expenditures to maintain. RECOMMENDATION: Procedures relating to gifts offered to the City of Eden Prairie should be observed as follows: I. A writing evidencing the gift, including the donor's intention to make the gift, as well as restrictions and/or conditions accompanying the gift, c.g., uses of property, signed by the donor, shall be obtained. 2. Gifts of real property (land and improvements) or any interest therein must also be documented by an appropriate recordable instrument, e.g., deed, lease, trust or instrument, etc. 3. Writings and documents relating to gifts of real property shall include representations, if possible, that the real property contains no hazardous materials, and has not been used for purposes prohibited by environmental laws. 4. Acceptance of gifts shall be preceded by staff review to determine the following: A. Whether the property is or will be of any value to the City, e.g., economic, historic, social or other. 2 B. What, if any, obligations will be assumed by the City upon acceptance of a gift. This includes the cost to the City of accepting, maintaining, and disposal of property. C. In the case of real property, an environmental survey to determine whether the property contains any hazardous material or has been used in a manner prohibited by environmental laws. 5. Upon completion of review, staff shall make a recommendation whether th~ City should accept or decline the gift. 6. In the event staff review indicates that acceptance of a gift will cause the City to assume certain costs or other obligations, review and recommendation by an appropriate commission may be advisable. 7. The offer of a gift, and staff and commission (if any) recommendations, shall be presented to the Council for action. 8. Gifts shall be accepted by resolution of the Council, adopted by two-thirds vote of the members of the Council. BL:mdd gifts/8ob96 3 I l ---------------------------------------------------------- COOPERATIVE POWER J 46 J 5 Lone Oak Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-2287 (6 J 2) 937-8599 FAX (6 J 2) 949-J 5 J J Mr. Scott Kipp Community Development Department City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 April 15, 1996 Re: Proposed Water Treatment Plant Expansion Dear Mr. Kipp: Cooperative Power has reviewed the plans for the proposed Water Treatment Plant expansion. We recognize that the expansion is necessary and will be quite an improvement to the neighborhood. The architectural details and landscaping can produce a quality development. We are surprised that the inclusion for informal neighborhood input in the planning and design process was not initiated before the public hearing process. If it was, we would have suggested an adequate study of future traffic and urban design standards. The result of Which, mayor may not have resulted in a design of an alternative site plan. Cooperative Power is concerned about the safety and traffic flows at and near the intersection of Lone Oak Road and Mitchell Road. Staff has been appraised of our concerns. This site plan virtually eliminates the possibility of removing very close driveways and incorporating a driveway intersection with Lone Oak Road. While we were not involved in any preliminary planning process for this site, we have been assured from Carl Julie that the City will address our safety concerns at Lone Oak Road and cooperate with us in any possible future developments of Cooperative Power property. kgm Sincerely, COOPERATIVE POWER Kevin G. Maas Land Use Manager An association of electric cooperatives CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY I MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. -96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA. AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 4.05 ENTITLED • STANDARDS" BY: ELIMINATING SUBD~ 2A WHICH PROHIBITS THE ISSUANCE OF LIQUOR LICENSES TO PERSONS WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS OR RESIDENT ALIENS OF THE UNITED STATES; RE-LETTERING SUBDIVISIONS 2.B .• 2.C., 2.D., AND 2.E. AS 2.A., 2.B., 2.C •• AND 2.D. RESPECTIVELY; DELETING SUBD. 6. AND RENUMBERING SUBD. 7 AND SUBD. 8 AS SUBD. 6 AND SUBD. 7 RESPECTIVELY; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 4.30 BY DESIGNATING THE PRESENT TEXT AS SUBD. 1 AND ADDING SUED. 2 TO PROVIDE FOR THE SALE BY CERTAIN HOLDERS OF BOTH WINE AND BEER LICENSES TO SELL BEER CONTAINING ~ORE THAN 3.2% ALCOHOL BY VOLUME WITHOUT A LIQUOR LICENSE, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 4. 99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE:, IIINNESOTA, ORDAJ:HS: Section 1. City Code Section 4.05, Subd. 2 is amended as follows: "SUbd. 2. No license may be issued under this section to: A. A person under twenty-one (2~) years of age. B. A person Who, within five (5) years of the license application. has been convicted of a felony or a willful violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance governing the manufacture. sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution of intoxicating liquor or non- intoxicating malt liquors. C. A person who has had an intoxicating or non- intoxicating liquor license revoked within five (5) years of the license application; or to any person who at the time of the violation owns any interest. whether as a holder of more than five percent (5%) of the capital stock of a corporation licensee, as a partner or otherwise, in the premises or in the business conducted thereon; or to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which any such person is in any manner interested. D. A person not of good moral character or repute.- Section 2. City Code Section 4.05 is amended by deleting SUbd. 6 in its entirety and renumbering Subd. 7 and Subd. 8 as Subd. 6 and Subd. 7 respectively. -----------------~ ------- CITY COUNCIUSTAFF WORKSHOP TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 1996 7:00 PM HERITAGE ROOMS II & IV CITY CENTER COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, Director of Human Resources & Community Services Natalie Swaggert, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson STAFF LIAISONS: Laurie Helling, Scott Kipp, Jean Johnson, John Gertz, Dave Lindahl, and Mike Franzen I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. PUBLIC HEARING III. IV. V. A. APPLICATION FOR NATURAL AND SCENIC GRANT FOR ACQUISITION OF 15.8 ACRES OF LAND ON THE MINNESOTA RIVER BLUFFS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS -COMMUNICATIONS A. Commission Work Plans B. Joint Council/Commission Meeting Format C. Monthly Communication Update D. Commission Member Attendance E. Commission Expenses/Budget OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4/30/96 SECTION: Public Hearing ITEM NO. DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Application for Natural and Scenic Grant for Recreation and Facilit~ Acquisition of 15.8 Acres of Land on the Minnesota River Bluffs Robert A. Lambert A public hearing is required as part of the application process for a Natural and Scenic Grant for the acquisition of 15.8 acres ofland on the Minnesota River bluffs presently owned by Darril Peterson and the Klein family. This parcel is referred to as Option Parcel No. I and is located on the southeast comer ofthe KleinlPeterson parce~ immediately west of the Steven Brown property. The adjacent property owners have been notified of this public hearing and invited to this meeting for comments they may wish to make regarding this proposed acquisition. The appraised value ofthe property is $290,000. The grant application is requesting 50% ofthat appraised value to assist the City in acquiring this property. The balance of the funds would be provided from the cash park fee fund. The application deadline is May 1, 1996. The finalist for the grant should be notified by the end of 1996. The City would have two years (1997 and 1998) to complete the acquisition of this parcel. BL:mdd Published April 18, 1996 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to affected property owners. 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR DNR GRANT FOR MINNESOTA RlVER BLUFF PRESERVATION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie act as legal sponsor the project contained in the Outdoor Recreation Grant Program Application to be submitted on May I, 1996 and that Barbara Cross is hereby authorized to apply to the Department of Natural Resources for funding for this project on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie has the legal authority to apply for financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure adequate construction, operation, maintenance and replaceme!lt of the proposed project for its design life. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CitY of Eden Prairie has not incurred any cost, has not entered into any written agreements to purchase the property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie has not violated any Federal, State, or Local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application by the State for the above-referenced project, that the City of Eden Prairie certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreement and described in the Compliances section of the Outdoor Recreation Grant Program Application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Barbara Cross is hereby authorized to execute a such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. ADOPTED BY the Eden Prairie City Council this __ Day of _____ 1996 Jean Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL ~ OPUS. April 10, 1996 Honorable Jean Harris Members of City Council City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Opus Northwest. L.L.C. 700 Opus Center 9900 Bren Road East Minnetonka. Minnesota 55343·9600 612·936·4600 RE: Flying Cloud Business Centre Dear Mayor and Council Members: Mailing Address P.O. Box 59110 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55459·0110 In conjunction with the request for Site Plan Approval of our Proposed Flying Cloud Business Centre project, we respectfully request permission for a grading permit prior to the second reading by the Council. We have a high caliber tenant for the building that needs occupancy September 1, 1996. Because of this schedule, it is necessary to get on the site as soon as possible to ensure occupancy. We understand that we are taking on the risk of possible changes in the plans that may be required by further review by the City and other governmental review agencies. We appreciate your favorable consideration of this matter. Sincerely, OPUS NORTHWEST L.L.C. /'" ~7?'" /~ . ./"r~ James T. Neyer Director -Real Estate Development xc: Jeff Johnson -City of Eden Prairie Tom Wacholz -Opus Corp. Opus Northwest. L.L.C. is an affiliate of the Opus group of companies-Architects. Contractors. Developers Chicago. Columbus. Dallas. Denver. Ft. Lauderdale. Milwaukee. Minneapolis. Orlando. Pensacola. Phoenix. Sacramento. San Francisco. Seattle. Tampa. Washington D.C. We, the undersigned residents of Eden Prairie, are opposed to the Surface Management Ordinance which will develop Duck Lake into a public access lake and lead to the installation of an aeration system. ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- • " • • \ ,