Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 06/05/2001
AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,DUNE 5,2001 7:00 PM,CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ron Case, Jan Mosman, and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Peggy Rasmussen I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS V. MINUTES A. SPECIAL SECTOR MEETING HELD TUESDAY,APRIL 24, 2001 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,MAY 15,2001 C. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT HELD TUESDAY,MAY 22,2001 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AUDITORIUM by International School. 2nd Reading for,Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.4 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 38.4 acres and Site Plan Review on 38.4 acres.Location: Beach Road. (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Amendment,Resolution for Site Plan Review) C. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BLUFF COUNTRY TOWNHOMES THIRD ADDITION D. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPRROVING FINAL PLAT OF BLUFF COUNTRY TOWNHOMES 4TH ADDITION E. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BRAXTON WOODS 2ND ADDITION CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 5,2001 Page 2 F. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FROM WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE-EMPTION(EVP) EQUIPMENT ON 14 INTERSECTIONS,I.C. 01-5541 G. ADOPT RESOLUTION REVISING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE ROLLING HILLS SENIOR PROJECT H. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR ROLLING HILLS SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT I. ADOPT RESOLUTION RELATING TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND HEALTHCARE FACILITY REVENUE BONDS; SERIES 2001A AND TAXABLE SERIES 2001B; AND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND HEALTHCARE FACILITY REVENUE BONDS (ROLLING HILLS PROJECT), SUBORDINATE SERIES 2001C, SERIES 2001D AND SERIES 2001E; AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS AND ESTABLISHING THE SECURITY J. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF KBL CABLESYSTEMS TO AOL TIME WARNER K. APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH MNDOT FOR TRAFFIC,TRAIL AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF TH212/VALLEY VIEW ROAD/BRYANT LAKE DRIVE L. APPROVE FUNDS OF$713 FOR SOUTHWEST METRO SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE FROM MILLER PARK TO ROUND LAKE PARK FOR THE 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION M. DECLARE COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO DISPOSE OF PROPERTY THROUGH PUBLIC SALE VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS /MEETINGS A. PROPOSED REFUNDING OF PARK AT CITY WEST APARTMENTS HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (Resolution) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 5,2001 Page 3 B. VALLEY VIEW CORPORATE CENTER by CSM Equities,L.L.C. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Office on 2.39 acres and from Regional Commercial to Office on 4.79 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.18 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.18 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 7.18 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.18 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 7.18 acres into 1 lot and road right of way. Location: Northwest Quadrant of Valley View Road and Topview Road. (Resolution for Guide Plan Change, Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Change,and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) C. HARTFORD COMMONS by David Bernard Builders and Developers. Request for Guide Plan Change from Regional Commercial to High Density Residential on 17.88 acres,Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17.88 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 17.88 acres,Zoning District Change from C-Reg-Ser to RM-6.5 Zoning District on 17.88 acres, Site Plan Review on 17.88 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.88 acres into 40 lots and 4 outlots. Location: Southeast corner of Prairie Center Drive and Prairie Lakes Drive extending to Rolling Hills Road. (Resolution for Guide Plan Change, Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Change, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) D. THE HERITAGE by Carlston,Inc. Request for Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 23.05 acres,Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.16 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 42.16 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to R1- 13.5 Zoning District on 19.11 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 Zoning District on 23.05 acres, Site Plan Review on 23.05 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 42.16 acres into 138 lots, 4 outlots, and right-of-way. Location: Dell Road and Pioneer Trail. (Resolution for Guide Plan Change,Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Change, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) E. GRACE CHURCH—CODE AMENDMENT by Grace Church. Request for Amending.City Code to allow for mining as a conditional use within the Public Zoning District. Location: Pioneer Trail and Eden Prairie Road. (Ordinance to Amend the City Code) VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS IX. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. ADOPT RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF AZTEC TOWN OFFICE PARK FOR 22 LOTS,APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 6, 2001 B. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REVISED FINAL PLAT OF AZTEC TOWN OFFICE FOR 14 LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 5,2001 Page 4 C. STATUS OF FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION X. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT EXPANSION: SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL AND REGULATION OF LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT PROPERTY B. MORRAINE WAY POND C. PURCHASE OFFERS FOR THE CITY-OWNED SINGLETREE LAND PROPERTY XI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS XII. APPOINTMENTS XIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XIV. OTHER BUSINESS A. CLOSED SESSION ON LITIGATION XV. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/FORUM TUESDAY,JUNE 5,2001 5:00-6:55 PM,CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM II CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ron Case, Jan Mosman, and Nancy Tyra- Lukens CITY STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger,Public Safety Director Jim Clark,Public Works Services Director. Eugene Dietz, City Engineer Al Gray, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram,Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder Lorene McWaters I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER—MAYOR JEAN HARRIS II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. BUDGET DISCUSSION IV. OTHER TOPICS V COUNCIL FORUM A. JOHN MALLO—SCHOOL BUS ARM RULES VIOLATIONS VI. ADJOURNMENT UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,MAY 22,2001 3:00 PM,CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ron Case, Jan Mosman, and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger SPECIAL COUNSEL: Peter Kirsch,Daniel Reimer(Akin, Gump, Strauss,Hauer&Feld, LLP) I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. II. INTRODUCTION , Mayor Harris said the purpose of the meeting was to receive a presentation from the City's Special Counsel(Peter Kirsch of Akin, Gump, Strauss,Hauer&Feld,LLP)on the City's options for opposing expansion of Flying Cloud Airport. The meeting was not a public hearing,but for information and presentation purposes only.There would be no questions taken, and at the end of the public presentation the Council would retire to closed session. The meeting was not broadcast live,but it was taped for rebroadcast on cable channel 16. II. PRESENTATION—PETER KIRSCH Kirsch introduced himself as the principal special legal counsel for the City Council on the Flying Cloud Airport expansion issue. He said his presentation,titled"Managing Growth at Flying Cloud,"would lay the groundwork for the Council to discuss a legal framework for fighting airport expansion. Kirsch reviewed general principles of airport law. Sources of authority governing airports include the U.S. Constitution; federal, state and local law(in that order); contracts between airport proprietors and the FAA; and past court rulings. Kirsch said that while the Metropolitan Airports Commission has broad rights,they do not have complete control of what can be done at Flying Cloud. • Kirsch said physical limitations,types and condition of facilities and market forces can help control growth and impacts of an airport. Non-operations tools to control airport impacts include land use policies(Part 150 planning process,use of noise buffers, collateral development, and land ownership) and mitigation(sound insulation and impact payments). Operational tools to control airport impacts include flight tracks,runway usage, and operations limits. 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 5,2001 Page 2 The airport owner(Metropolitan Airports Commission for Flying Cloud Airport) can impose limits to address safety,noise, congestion, and other problems;however,these restrictions must be reasonable,nonarbitrary, and not unjustly discriminatory. Any restrictions imposed after October 1990 are subject to extensive federal oversight, and restrictions imposed before October 1990 are subject to limited federal oversight. Pre- 1990 restrictions cannot be discriminatory, and amendments can be made to the restrictions as long as they are less restrictive than the pre-1990 rule. Kirsch noted that Ordinance 51 was imposed before 1990 and is therefore subject only to the limited federal oversight. Kirsch also described the federal review process,FAR Part 161,which controls.the adoption of noise and access restrictions. A Part 161 study typically includes identification of alternatives,measures noise effects, and contains a cost-benefit analysis. Kirsch identified existing limitations on growth at Flying Cloud Airport, including: • Runways—State law limits extension of runway to a length of more than 5,000 feet • Facilities—Hangars and tower hours • Certifications—Flying Cloud is currently not certified to receive commercial passenger traffic • Market forces • Ordinance 51 Kirsch offered the following conclusions: • Airport operations and expansion is a cooperative effort involving the federal government,FAA,the City, and Metropolitan Airports Commission • The City's on-airport authority is limited • The legal system favors airport development City Attorney Ric Rosow said the Council would retire to a closed session to discuss potential litigation. He said it was not anticipated that the Council would be taking action that would require reconvening in open session, and recommended that the Council adjourn from closed session. Nancy Tyra-Lukens moved that the Council adjourn from closed session; Butcher seconded. Motion carried 5-0. III. CLOSED SESSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL SECTOR MEETING TUESDAY,APRIL 24, 2001 7:00 PM, CEDAR HILLS GOLF CLUB Eden Prairie Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ronald Case, Jan Mosman and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, City Engineer Alan Gray, City Planner Michael Franzen, City Attorney Rick Rosow and Council Recorder Peggy Rasmussen INTRODUCTION-MAYOR HARRIS Mayor Harris opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. with a welcome to everyone in attendance. Invitations were mailed on April 6 to residents of the area to discuss the potential for the neighborhood to change due to development issues and infrastructure improvements on Eden Prairie Road. The idea for this type of meeting grew from a discussion the Council had in the past few months about seeking input on localized issues from area residents. Although this was an official meeting, the Council would not be taking any formal action that evening. Their intention was to listen to information, presentations by the residents and hear their concerns. The Council will have the ultimate responsibility to make decisions, and residents' input is a valuable part of that process. II. SUMMARY OF CRITICAL ISSUES—DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS Gene Dietz said 36 notices of the meeting were sent out to residents of what is likely to be the service area for installation of a sanitary sewer and water main. He explained factors affecting land use would be the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, density transfer, environmental impacts and open space. Deitz said the service area needs to be defined. The MUSA Line is the line to which the City can serve the area with sanitary sewer and water. It was established along the bluff, and there is the question of whether development along the bluff is desirable. The service area would also be affected by both cost effective and practical issues. The City also needs to determine what the expectations of the residents are. No study has been done yet to find out if it is feasible to get sanitary sewer and water services to the Turnbull Road. Another issue is storm sewer and drainage. Sanitary sewer and water will come along Eden Prairie Road as far as Riley Creek or it may go to the edge of the bluff, depending on the perceived needs and expectations. It may only be possible to do that sequentially,however. Considering the current condition of Eden Prairie Road versus the needs, relatively few people use it now; however, as development occurs, that puts pressure on the use of the road, and decisions will need to be made about what kind of road it should be. That partially depends on the type of development. The intersection with T.H. 212 needs to be CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING April 24,2001 Page 2 considered also. In the winter, the steep grades at the south end are particularly hazardous. There are several possible solutions. First would be maintaining it as a full intersection, but that will mean buying some homes and regrading to get a better slope, which is not cost effective. Another choice would be putting in a median divider with a right-in, right-out onto the highway. The third choice is to close the intersection at T.H. 212 with a cul de sac and connect Eden Prairie Road to Spring Road. Another consideration is whether or not to have trails and sidewalks along the road. Often people do not want them because they require a wider roadway, loss of frees, etc. The City could get by for a while without doing anything to the road, but any development south of Riley Creek will require roadway improvements. This would result in grading and tree loss; however these type of projects can be done sensitively. Infrastructure improvements are either included in development costs or paid through special assessments by property owners. There are four primary catalysts that will impact the timing of road improvements and installation of utilities in Eden Prairie Road. (1) Development of Charlson area; (2) Woodbear Highlands development; (3) Cedar Hills redevelopment; and (4) property- owner expectations. III. DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING ISSUES—CITY PLANNER Mike Franzen said there are 840 acres left for development in the southwest growth area that are currently either farm land, open prairie land or have large lot single-family homes. Seventy-five percent of that is zoned low-density residential (up to 2-1/2 units per acre). Some of these areas are east of Riley Creek and owned by Lynn Charlson, some could be used for both housing and office, and some is zoned for medium-density housing. The City Council has voted 93 percent of the time to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. On occasion the Council has changed the Plan in order to preserve open space and sometimes to transfer density. Land along the bluff is another possible area where the Council may choose to change the Comprehensive Plan in order to preserve the character of the bluff. IV. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS—CITY ENGINEER Al Gray said it is most likely the City would consider a road improvement project in conjunction with installation of sanitary sewer and water main. The existing road would be the corridor in which to put sanitary sewer and water and so would have to be dug up to do this. The City would initiate the project and then assess the cost to all the properties that would benefit. The special assessment process begins with a feasibility study. After it is determined what properties are served and how to assess costs, there is a meeting with the property owners for input to the feasibility study. When the feasibility study is completed, it is presented to the City Council at a public hearing. All property owners to be included in the assessment would receive an official copy of the feasibility study and notice of the a CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING April 24,2001 Page 3 public hearing. The Council would make a decision to either set aside the project or order it to proceed. The next phase is preparation of the detailed plans and specifications. Those plans come back to the Council, after which meetings are normally held with property owners to discuss grading limits and easements needed. The final plans are submitted to Council for approval and the City advertises for bid and enters into a contract for construction of the project. The preliminary assessment role shows the amounts determined as appropriate based on estimated costs. The final assessment stage usually happens toward the end of the project when the City has final construction costs. Property owners receive notices of the final assessment hearing and the amounts to be levied. Normally the assessments are levied for a period of 20 years, with annual payments of one-twentieth of the principal amount, plus simple interest on the unpaid balance. Dietz said a possible next step after that night's meeting would be to develop an action plan based on input from residents, and present the plan to the City Council at a regular Council meeting for action. V. QUESTIONS OF STAFF—CITY COUNCIL Mayor Harris said this Council has been very sensitive to development along the bluffs. She asked how far down the bluff they are talking about. Franzen replied that when the MUSA Line was drawn, the City tried to include existing homes along the edge of the bluff. The City will have to determine the degree of the slope; however grading plans and contours are needed to do that. Mosman asked if storm sewer and sanitary sewer will be planned for the greatest possible development? Gray replied that would be an option, but they have to consider that when more property is served, it requires a larger sewer pipe that is placed deeper, and if it serves a greater area it would cost more. He presumed it would be put in for the largest service area,but cost participation by property owners would need to be determined. Case asked if there are any larger areas across the City within the MUSA Line that the City has chosen to exclude in the past. Gray said he wasn't aware of any. Case asked if the City decides to bring sewer and water down Eden Prairie Road but not to Beverly Drive, which is within the MUSA Line, the City would be dictating their future. Gray replied that if the City allows Beverly Drive to redevelop, that could result in a five-acre parcel becoming five units. That would have an impact on capacity and how the City would charge for sanitary sewer to those property owners. Dietz said when that subdivision was developed, a "ghost plan" was developed to show how it could be developed into five one-acre lots. The timing could vary on when utilities go up Beverly Drive,but an end plan has to be decided first. 3 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING April 24,2001 Page 4 VI. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ISSUES—PROPERTYOWNERS/RESIDENTS Keiran O'Brien, 17135 Beverly Drive, asked how much assessments would be per acre, or however it is measured. He asked what was meant by saying 80 to 90-percent is already done. He also wanted to know if the City was bringing in utilities for a developer. Dietz said 80 percent to 90-percent of the entire City has been developed. No decision has been made on the plat for Woodbear Highlands. As far as the cost of assessments, that is one thing that a feasibility study does. The City'Council has a special assessment policy and there is a cap on homestead units of $20,000, but that doesn't take into account the potential for improvements. If those lots on Beverly Drive were to redevelop, possibly consistent with the "ghost plan", there could be five units of assessment for each homeowner on Beverly Drive. A project done recently cost an average of about $25,000 per lot unit. The reality is, some would say their home with five acres is all they want. Some may say there is the potential for five one-acre lots. The value of potentially four more lots for each of those parcels is fairly significant. O'Brien asked how it would be divided? Dietz replied that will be the challenge of a feasibility study. In the past, if utilities were brought into a neighborhood, the feasibility study looked at the potential for each parcel. If a house is in the middle of a five-acre lot, they may only get two more lots out of it. O'Brien asked what was mean by the "ghost plan." Dietz replied the plan was for the Beverly Drive and Sky Lane neighborhood of 12 lots, about five acres each. The "ghost plan" showed how it could possibly be replotted in the future to create five lots for each 5-acre parcel. This potential redevelopment plan was reviewed with the original approval process of the subdivision. O'Brien asked how the special assessments are figured. If sewer and water are put in, does the special assessment cover the entire cost of that project? Dietz replied that would be determined as part of the feasibility study. However, it could be done in phases. The City could put in sewer and water all the way to the bluff land. That would serve 400+ acres. Then if pipes are sized right, the cost could be spread across 250 development acres. Or the City could figure out how many lot units are going to be served through the improvement and each lot assessed a prorated share of the cost. Whether or not it is done in phases depends on the desires of the property owners. O'Brien asked if MAC is not responsible for paying any of these assessments. Dietz replied that is an arguable point. MAC is a government agency that is a step above city government. It is not a foregone conclusion that the City can assess MAC. Case asked if the City is anticipating that the entire rebuild of Eden Prairie Road would be assessed to the adjacent lots. Is there State Aid money? Dietz said Eden Prairie Road is a Municipal State Aid route. It is likely that the City's share of the total cost would be considerable. The City doesn't have money set aside in the general fund to pay for those costs,but Municipal State Aid is a funding source for the City's share. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING April 24,2001 Page 5 Greg Peterson said he owns 13 acres on Turnbull Road. He plans to build a house there in the future and would like to keep this area the way it is for as long as possible. Is it the City that drives bringing the MUSA Line through an area? If the MUSA Line is expected to come through Turnbull Road, is it automatic that development happens? Once development happens more homes are built. Can a property owner on Turnbull Road have access to City sewer and water without Turnbull Road being developed? Is Turnbull Road going to be developed? Dietz responded he believed that all the existing homes on Turnbull Road are within the MUSA Line. The Metropolitan Council determines where the line will go. It changed about four years ago and included land up to the edge of the bluff, so that line allows sanitary sewer and water to be extended into that area. If property is not within the MUSA Line,the City is not allowed to bring utilities in. Whether sewer and water can be put in without street improvements is a policy decision the Council will have to make. At some point one of the choices might be to maintain 10-acre parcels on the Bluff without sewer&water. Peterson asked if that changes the rules so that now it can be divided up and can be sold. Franzen answered if the property is in sight of the MUSA Line and zoned rural, the City can extend sewer and water to the neighborhood if requested by a developer. Within the MUSA Line the City can rezone. Peterson said he understands he can preserve his acreage, and that is what he wanted to know. He asked if there is a plan for Turnbull Road to be connected to Beverly Drive. Dietz said Beverly Drive has been platted short of Turnbull Road. The City has not looked at the feasibility of connecting the two. Peterson commented on all the trees that are cut down whenever there are road improvements and wondered why more can't be preserved. Dietz replied the whole issue of balancing property rights and the environment is negotiated, and Eden Prairie has been a leader in tree preservation. On average,the City preserves up to 35 percent of tree mass on projects. O'Brien asked if a developer precipitated this meeting, or if it was being done for the City. Mayor Harris answered there is no question this area will be developed at some time and it is important that the City do it carefully, looking to the future. The City is trying to be pro-active in developing a concept depending on what the residents want. Dietz said utilities up to the creek would probably be available next year. The Woodbear Highlands project has been approved and will need utilities. What size the storm sewer and sanitary sewer will be has yet to be decided. There is also interest in the Cedar Hill property. The City wants to get in front of this and obtain input from the residents. There is a pent-up demand now that utilities are getting close. This area will probably be developed. The City needs determine an ultimate plan before commencing any improvements. Hibbert Hill, 10131 Eden Prairie Road, said he thought that the church being built between Spring Road and Eden Prairie Road should pay a large share of the costs of 5 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING April 24, 2001 Page 6 utilities for the area. Dietz said the work to be done in the Charlson area includes Eden Prairie Road south to Riley Creek. All of the costs associated with the realignment of Eden Prairie Road and Spring Road south to the creek are being spread north of the creek. None of those costs will be assessed south of the creek. The portion Mr. Hill and other property owners would pay will be from south of the creek. A benefit will be derived from the necessity of constructing a lift station at the creek for the church and Charlson properties, which will be sized to serve the area south of the creek as well. The church will pay its fair share. • Hill asked what impact the Metropolitan Council would have on the City's road improvement and utility project. Dietz said the MUSA Line has been approved by the Metropolitan Council, and to the extent the City follows its Guide Plan, the Met Council would not be involved. Hill asked what developments are proposed along Eden Prairie Road, specifically south of Riley Creek. Dietz replied that right now the City knows about Woodbear Highlands and interest in the Cedar Hill Golf Course property. He was not aware of any other developments beyond that. Colleen Fitzgerald Bunn, 9850 Eden Prairie Road, said she lives at the corner of Eden Prairie Road and Beverly Drive. She said the utilities would not be for her benefit. She asked if the City ever assesses the developers more than it would existing properties or ever considered that perhaps the developers should pay more. Dietz replied there are certain responsibilities the City has when it puts the feasibility study together. Special assessments can be done on a front-footage basis. The City has to show that the amount assessed is equal to or less than the benefit to the property. About $20,000 per lot unit is sustainable in that process. More recently, the City has included all of the potential lots. The emphasis will be on the potential for newly created lots. Bunn said she has an acre lot and asked if the City believed she could have another house on her property. Dietz replied it is possible. Bunn asked for an explanation. Dietz said the Guide Plan for this area is for 2-1/2 units per acre. It is not likely that there will be any zoning changes to office or to include 16-unit multi-family homes. It is more likely that the Guide Plan for 2-1/2 units per acre will not change. He didn't believe Beverly Drive lots would get five units on their five acres in all cases. Bunn asked how the City would view her lot. Dietz said the City would look at potential, based on zoning, where her house is located on the lot, and if there is enough width and setback to meet current zoning standards for the ultimate development of the property. If her house is in the middle of the lot and she has a steep slope on one side, that would be a different matter. Jan Hron, 17170 Beverly Drive, said she lived at the end of Beverly Drive. She asked if the City was going to go out and look at every lot and show how each lot can potentially be divided up. If a house in the middle of a lot, would it be charged $25,000 because there is no room for another house, and another person would be charged more because the City decides there is room for more? Dietz replied City staff will have to look at every lot to make some kind of reccomendation to bring to the City Council and would C CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING April 24,2001 Page 7 have to support their reasons. It would be a negotiated process through holding neighborhood meetings. Hron said she had a copy of the "ghost plans." There are two different ways of dividing each of those lots. She asked if staff would be looking at them. Dietz said that would be the first thing he would do, to see how it matches up. Liz Carlson, 9800 Eden Prairie Road, said she has lived in that house almost all her life. She said the amount of traffic caused by people who use it as a cut-through to T.H. 212 is dangerous. They don't drive within the speed limit. She asked the City to keep that in mind when considering a connection to T.H. 212. She would be in favor of blocking that off. She asked if that is being considered, and also if the money coming to the municipality would be cut off if they do. Dietz replied the project to realign Spring and Eden Prairie roads is in the design stage. The City is creating a high type road facility that will connect those two roads. They are expecting to redirect most of that traffic coming down Eden Prairie Road. Three options are being discussed about how to deal with Eden Prairie Road at T.H. 212: (1) full access to the highway; (2) creating a right- in, right-out; or (3) having no connection to the highway. The City could obtain State Aid funds if the City reconnects Eden Prairie Road to Spring Road, but if the decision is to cut it off at T.H. 212, they probably could not. The City does expect to divert the majority of that traffic by reconnection to Spring Road. Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, said he has lived there for 28 years. He only wanted minimal development and improvement to Eden Prairie Road and no sewer and water. He suggested developing a questionnaire to send to people living in the area. Ask if they want sewer and water. With respect to Eden Prairie Road, he felt strongly. With the realignment of Eden Prairie Road and Spring Road, he was concerned about timing. He asked if staff could tell them whether the Spring Road realignment project is going to be done before opening of T.H. 212 to County Road 4. Gray replied staff expects that completion of T.H. 212 and opening all the way to County Road 4 will not occur until 2002. The realignment of Spring Road will be under construction by that time, so if they don't precede it, they will follow it very closely. The City expects to be presenting plans to the Council soon for the first contract of that realignment. The City may not be able to keep neighborhood access to the north all of that time. It is likely they would have to close Eden Prairie Road to through traffic north and south and allow local traffic only. Edstrom said right-in,right-out at T.H. 212 is worth looking at. The City should consider putting in a speed bump or a stop sign at Beverly Drive to reduce traffic speed—anything that would discourage extra traffic on Eden Prairie Road. Ric Viviano, 16200 Valley Road, asked how soon Eden Prairie Road realignment was going to be started and what environmental impact will it have. Gray responded they should be proceeding as early as this July. The realignment and redoing the connection of Eden Prairie Road with Valley Road would be done by November. As far as environmental impact, basically a new roadway is being put in. To protect the water quality of Riley Creek, they will be handling soil erosion so it doesn't get into the creek. I CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING April 24,2001 Page 8 The revised part of Eden Prairie Road will still be a local street with a speed limit of 30 mph. The part of the road wrapping around Grace Church property will wrap around to County Road 4. Eden Prairie Road will have curb and gutter, and a pedestrian trail. Viviano asked if his neighborhood is going to be assessed for sewer and water. Gray said there will be sanitary sewer and water on Eden Prairie Road, but there are no plans to expand into Valley Road and Hilltop Road, so there will be no assessments to his property. He would likely be assessed in the future when utilities are extended into his neighborhood. Grace Church is paying a large assessment for Eden Prairie Road along its west and south boundary. Bill Small, 16525 Beverly Drive, said he owns 220 feet on Eden Prairie Road. He asked how the development of Cedar Hill gets assessed to his property. Gray replied that as the City looks at how to assess the benefit to properties, it is likely they would look at his property on either a potential land-unit basis or per-acre basis. Small said he has just under six acres of land. He asked if the City would be taking land west or east of where the road is now. Gray replied generally the City has to work out those details in the feasibility study. When the road improvements are made, they would tend to follow the centerline of the roadway. The right-of-way is probably designated at 66 feet. The City may need additional right-of-way if there are tight curves. If there are steep slopes on one side and gentle slopes on the other, they might choose to move the roadway to the gentle slopes so they wouldn't need to buy as much right-of-way. Small said if the City is going to put sewer and water in based on how many potential units he has, he thought it would make sense for him to subdivide his property, because he is on the corner. Gray replied if he has potential for five or six units, that is the way he would be assessed. He would have the opportunity to request a deferment if he doesn't want to develop his property immediately. Small asked, if he sells his property does the new owner take over the assessment? Gray replied if somebody buys it for development purposes that may be possible. If somebody bought as a single-family home, the lending firm might want that paid off before it is sold. Robin Smith, 9765 Sky Lane, thanked City staff for setting up this meeting. He wondered how many knew about the potential for sewer and water coming into the area before the meeting. They have five acres but don't have a house on it and haven't decided whether to build one. With zoning at 2-1/2 units per acre, his assessment could be substantial. With that they would get a sub-trunk line that serves a major development, but does not provide utilities along Beverly Drive or Sky Lane. He believed that would be a separate assessment in the future, so it appeared the assessment could be more than the property is worth now. He said that having a sub-trunk doesn't necessarily mean they will ever see utilities in Beverly Drive. Gray responded it is unlikely that the sub-trunk assessment would go as high as $25,000 per unit, but the feasibility study is needed to determine that. In the Charlson area the assessment went as high as $25,000 per acre. The value of land that has access to utilities CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING April 24,2001 Page 9 would likely be over$100,000 per acre. Charlson's highest level was considerably below the market value of the land. There is no guarantee, if the City puts utilities down Eden Prairie Road, that Smith would have access to it, but what they want to find out in this process is whether there is a good probability that they would. Smith said there are many decision-makers saying it depends on the timing of all those other people. Some people are retiring and some are new to the neighborhood. This all adds into the equation and it is a concern. It almost seems to need a group decision. The sewer system needs to be large enough. If Beverly Drive residents unanimously decide they do not want to develop,will it be done anyway? Dietz responded the way City government works, the Council is the ultimate decision- making authority. The City will make the utilities available at some point. With special assessments there are some who are ready, some who are not and some in between. It is the responsibility of government to determine the process that makes sense. That is the purpose of the feasibility study—how to make this available and how assessments would be made. It will take unique solutions to make this work. Smith said they have property that could get utilities when they are put in Eden Prairie Road for the Cedar Hill development. If Charlson can be serviced from another street, then there is not a problem for this particular area. Dietz said if MAC wants to develop, it could probably get utilities to serve Woodbear Highlands area. The City could also figure a way to get utilities across the creek to service Cedar Hill property and not do anything else. However, if the City takes them out of the equation, then there would be 280 units that will not help to pay for this area. So it is important to make a master plan so they have everybody participating who is likely to want to do so. Smith asked, suppose Charlson is the only one taking part, will the City's investigation look at both scenarios? Dietz replied the best the City can do is to come up with alternatives. There is more than one way the City could do this project. Most likely it will be done in stages, and City staff will develop scenarios to do it in an orderly fashion. They hope it will meet most people's needs. It will be the taxpayers' money, so the City needs to find a cost-effective way to do that. VII. DISCUSSION OF NEXT STEPS IN PROCESS—CITY COUNCIL Mayor Harris said staff has proposed that they develop an action plan. She asked Council if there is any special guidance to give staff as they go forward. Dietz said he thought the idea of some type of questionnaire being sent to the property owners makes sense. The City has done that on other projects. Staff will develop this in the next couple of weeks and put the responses into a summary. An action plan will take 30—to 60 days to develop. Tyra-Lukens said it is very obvious that this is one of those classic situations of trying to grab Jello. There are so many"what ifs." Sometimes you don't know what the results of those decisions are going to be. The City will try to get something more concrete that the neighborhood can react to. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING April 24,2001 Page 10 Case said back in the early 1980s people in the Preserve were asked what they wanted. In terms of T.H. 169, they wanted on-grade intersections. Later they decided that wasn't what they wanted after all. It is important for the Council to go to the residents and find out what they want, but the Council has to think 30 years ahead. They have to try to determine if this area would have different needs in the future, so they will be looking at a number of things. The Councilmembers like this meeting format and he thanked the people who came. Mayor Harris thanked everyone for coming, and said it was rewarding for both the City and residents. She also thanked Brett and Tracy Hope, the owners of the golf club, for allowing the use of their building and for the refreshments. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Jo I. c - UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,MAY 15,2001 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ron Case, Jan Mosman, and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Parks &Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City Planner Michael Franzen, Parks Manager Stuart Fox, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Peggy Rasmussen I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION Mayor Harris said Council Forum is held the first and third Tuesdays of the month from 6:30 — 6:55 p.m. in Heritage Room II. This will be scheduled time following City Council Workshops and immediately preceding regular City Council Meetings. It is important if you wish to visit with the City Council and Service Area Directors at this time that you notify the City Manager's office by noon of the meeting date with your request. IV. PRESENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD AND YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS Mayor Harris asked Harry Moran, Chair of the Human Rights and Diversity Citizen Advisory Commission, to present awards to the recipients of the 2000 Human Rights Award and Youth Scholarship Awards. 2000 Human Rights Award—Individual Category—Rita Krocak 2000-2001 Human Rights Youth Scholarship Awards — Kimlang Chan and Erika Langefels IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Tyra-Lukens added an item under XIII.A. Reports of Councilmembers. Dietz added a third item under XIII.E. Report of Public Works Service Director. Rosow added an item under XIII.H. Report of City Attorney. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the agenda as published and amended. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES UTES May 15,2001 Page 2 V. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,APRIL 17,2001 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Mosman, to approve the minutes of the Council Workshop held on Tuesday, April 17, 2001, as published. Motion carried 5-0. B. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,MAY 1, 2001 MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the minutes of the Council Workshop held on Tuesday, May 1, 2001, as published. Motion carried 5-0. C. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,MAY 1,2001 Case made a correction on page 4, at the end of the second paragraph, which should read" . . flexibility to convert it back to residential." Mayor Harris made a correction on page 11, in the fourth paragraph, the fifth sentence, which should read "She proposed to appoint City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Finance Don Uram and Director of Management Services Natalie Swaggert to meet with members of Habitat for Technology. . ." MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held on Tuesday, May 1, 2001, as published and amended. Motion carried 5-0. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. ADC THE BROAD BAND COMPANY SIGN PACKAGE by ADC The Broad Band Company. 2nd Reading for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 91.03 acres, and Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 Zoning District on 91.03 acres. Location: Technology Drive. (Ordinance No. 15-2001-PUD-10-2001 for PUD District Review and Zoning Amendment) C. REDSTONE GRILLE by Redstone, Inc. 2nd Reading for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.97 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 1.76 acres and from Office to C-Reg- Ser Zoning District on 1.21 acres, and Site Plan Review on 2.97 acres. Location: Eden Road. (Ordinance No. 16-2001-PUD-11-2001 for PUD District Review and Zoning Change and Resolution No.2001-80 for Site Plan Review) D. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.2001-81 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF LIND ADDITION CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 3 E. ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW by United Health Group for ordering the preparation of an alternative Urban Area Wide Review. Location: south of Crosstown 62, east of Shady Oak Road, and north of City West Parkway. (Resolution No. 2001-82 for Preparation of an Alternative Urban Area Wide Review) F. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2001 SEALCOAT TO PEARSON BROTHERS,INC.,I.C. 01-5536 G. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2001 BITUMINOUS MILL AND OVERLAY TO BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS,I.C. 01-5538 H. AWARD CONTRACT TO RECONDITION LIFT STATION NO. 9 TO PARROT CONTRACTING,I.C. 01-5530 I. APPROVE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP J. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HTPO, INC., FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR DRAINAGE AND STORM SEWER DESIGN FOR MITCHEL ROAD ADJACENT TO ATHERTON TOWNHOMES,I.C. 01-5540 K. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HTPO, INC., FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR STORM SEWER DESIGN FOR RIVERVIEW ROAD BETWEEN PARKER DRIVE AND PURGATORY CREEK,I.C. 52-157 • L. APPROVE RELEASE OF, LAND FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BELL OAKS FIRST ADDITION, S.S.A. 89-06 M. APROVE RELEASE OF LAND FROM ASSESSMENT REGARDING UTILITY ADDITIONAL CONNECTION CHARGES FOR PID 14-116-22- 34-0004 N. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR ICWC PROGRAM MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve Items A-N on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. VACATION OF PART OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN WOODLAND PONDS OF EDEN PRAIRIE (Resolution No. 2001-83) 3 • CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 4 Enger said official notice of this public hearing was published in the May 3, 2001, Eden Prairie News and was sent to 7 property owners. He said the owner of property located at 9989 Applewood Circle has requested this vacation to allow construction of a pool. The vacation will not result in a loss of storm water storage area and is not part of the designated wetland. Mayor Harris asked if anyone wished to address the Council. Linda Starks, 10008 Shadow Pond Drive, said there are two overflow drains along the side of the property, and she wanted to be assured those are not obstructed so there will be adequate drainage after the easement is vacated. Dietz responded the storm sewer pipes will still be contained within the easements, and the pool will be elevated at the level of the 100-year flood plain. • Case asked why it is not important to keep that easement. Dietz replied developers propose the design of easements as part of a project, and if adequate, the City agrees. The developer followed the lot lines and squared off the corners. All the back yard was put into drainage and utility easements, but now it is apparent that much is not needed. Now there is a different use for it, and in this situation staff recommended it be vacated. MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Butcher, to close the public hearing; and adopt Resolution No. 2001-83 vacating part of the Drainage and Utility Easement in Woodland Ponds of Eden Prairie. Motion carried 5-0. B. EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER SIGN PLAN by General Growth Properties. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 80 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 80 acres, and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg Zoning District on 80 acres. Location: Prairie Center Drive. (Resolution No. 2001-84 for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Amendment) Enger said official notice of this public hearing was published in the May 3, 2001, Eden Prairie News and was sent to 46 property owners. Bill Mosten, Vice President of Development for General Growth Properties, said they are requesting approval of a sign plan that requires sign waivers from the City code. It is critical to their efforts to convey the new and rejuvenated amenities at the Eden Prairie Center. This plan is consistent with what General Growth is doing at other centers throughout the country. Mosten showed the exterior directional signs, which will be located throughout the Center. At all the entrance roads there will be signs identifying the Center with the new logo. At each entry road there will be six-foot directional signs, identifying the major anchor tenants in that area. The entry towers would be located at the four main mall entrances with stone bases and logo and there are overhead signs for the parking deck. 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 5 Mosman asked if there would be landscaping around the large, green directional signs. Mosten said there all of them will have a landscaped stone base, using low shrubs and seasonal plantings. Enger asked Mosten to go into more detail on the purpose and function of the G-6 sign and explain why it was pulled out of the plans. Mosten said G-6 is a reader-board sign. It is something new General Growth is doing throughout their centers to promote major events in the center and community events. The sign was proposed at the Planning Board meeting, but they were opposed to the sign being used, so General Growth withdrew it. Case asked if General Growth would be open to the idea of reinstating a reader- board at a later time. Mosten said they are open to reinstating it at a later time, but are on a very tight schedule for fabricating the signs. Enger said the Council and some of the staff have worked on this project for a long time and conveyed to General Growth the Council's desire that Eden Prairie Center be a community center. General Growth agreed they wanted to do this. The idea would be to share a public-private partnership, so a reader-board sign at Eden Prairie Center could have community messages displayed on it as well. Mosten agreed this partnership is desirable. Enger asked if Council feels this is of value, staff would try to work out a partnership arrangement. Butcher said she noticed there is a lot of signage proposed, but liked the appearance of the time-honored design. However, she was concerned about the design of a reader-board and wondered how it would look. This kind of sign could carry community messages and could serve a very useful function by bringing them to people's attention. Mosten said they could do it in several ways, • to simply show words or can show images, photos, etc. Butcher asked about the background and said she would prefer it not be too glaring or bright. Mosten said they can make it quite subtle if that is what the Council chooses. Tyra-Lukens said she thinks reader-board signs are jarring, but because of the perceived function of the sign, she can see it is necessary. She asked how the height of that sign, 40-feet high relates to the current theater sign on the west side of the mall. Mosten said that is about 26-feet high. Tyra-Lukens asked how tall the City Center's reader-board sign is. Dietz said about 25-feet to the peak. Case said he wants the mall to be successful, as does everyone. It appears there were two particular statements at the Planning Board meeting regarding the reader-board sign and he recognized they were doing their job. Council's job is to look out for the community as a whole. He believed a partnership was important. Mayor Harris said the mall is central to the heart of the City. It is important that the City have an opportunity to provide information to the public through a reader-board. She recommended leaving the design up to General Growth, with the understanding that the Council wants something tasteful. S CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 6 Mosman said the idea of moving things on a reader-board is distracting, but having a picture with writing would be less distracting. Franzen said at the April 23, 2001 meeting, the Community Planning Board voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the sign plan with the waivers listed to the City Council. The Board looked at the design of the signs and their sizes. They believed the package was compatible with others in the area. Mayor Harris asked if anyone wished to speak to the Council. No one did. MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing; and adopt Resolution No. 2001-84 for Planned Unit Development Concept amendment on 80.00 acres; and approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg Zoning District on 80.00 acres; and direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Staff and Board recommendations and Council conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Mosten was asked when the Grand Opening would be. He said they were originally going to do a phased opening, with Van Maur department store scheduled for the first week of August and the theaters in September. However, with the strike of construction workers, they have been put behind schedule. When that is over they will reevaluate the opening date. Mosten introduced Al Young,the new mall manager. C. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AUDITORIUM by International School. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 38.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.4 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 38.4 acres and Site Plan Review on 38.4 acres. Location: Beach Road. (Resolution No. 2001-85 for PUD . Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Amendment) Enger said official notice of this public hearing was published in the May,3, 2001, Eden Prairie News and was sent to 12 property owners. Paul Hatlack, one of the designers for the project, said it is an 11,372-square-foot building addition for classrooms and an auditorium, located on Beach Road. It would be at the southern edge of the site. The main floor will be the auditorium, and underneath are music instruction classrooms. Franzen said the Community Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project at their April 23, 2001 meeting. Mayor Harris asked if anyone wished to address the Council. No one did. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 7 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close the Public Hearing; and adopt Resolution No. 2001-85 for PUD Concept Amendment on 38.4 acres; and approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 38.4 acres; and direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Staff and Board recommendations; and direct Staff to issue a land alteration permit to the International School to proceed with construction at their own risk. Motion carried 5-0. D. VALLEY VIEW CORPORATE CENTER by CSM Equities, L.L.C. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Office on 2.39 acres and from Regional Commercial to Office on 4.79 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.18 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.18 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 7.18 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.18 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 7.18 acres into 1 lot and road right of way. Location: Northwest Quadrant of Valley View Road and Topview Road. (Resolution for Guide Plan Change, Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Change, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Enger said official notice of this public hearing was published in the May 3, 2001, Eden Prairie News and was sent to 25 property owners. Steve Kohley, corporate counsel for Menards, requested that this public hearing be tabled to the next Council meeting. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to continue the review of Valley View Corporate Center to the next City Council meeting. Rosow asked who made the application. Kohley said it was CSM. Rosow asked if they joined in the request for continuance. Kohley said yes. Davis Newcomb, Director of Architecture from CSM, said the reasons for this request are that they are continuing with discussion of the Topview ramp and access issues for the site. They need more time to work out solutions to fully understand the consequences of the initial cost of the ramp and how it will affect the development in terms of not having full access at Topview Road. Also economic conditions have surfaced regarding the unstable economy and how it would affect the cost of putting in the ramp, which they estimate will be quite substantial. Motion carried 5-0. A property owner in the area of the project asked if residents would be notified that the public hearing has been continued until the next Council meeting. She asked when that meeting would be. Enger said the next Council meeting is on June 5. The City normally doesn't send out notifications when items are continued. Mayor Harris asked that it be done in this case. 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 8 VDT. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve Payment of Claims. Motion was approved on a roll call vote,with Butcher, Case,Mosman, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting"aye." IX. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-86 RESCINDING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF ENTREVAUX FOR 41 LOTS Enger said this proposal is located in the northwest quadrant of Pioneer Trail and Bennett Place adjacent to Purgatory Creek. The original final plat was previously approved February 6, 2001, consisting of 33.09 acres to be divided into 41 single- family lots and three outlots and right-of-way dedication for street purposes. The developer has revised the plat by removing two lots, therefore creating some larger lots. The revised proposal falls under the guidelines for a "minor subdivision" as defined with City Code. Separate actions are needed. Staff recommends approval of both actions. MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Case, to adopt Resolution No. 2001-86 rescinding the final plat approval of Entrevaux for 41 lots, approved by the City Council on February 6, 2001. Motion carried 5-0. B. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-87 APPROVING REVISED FINAL PLAT OF ENTREVAUX FOR 39 LOTS AND THREE OUTLOTS MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Case, to adopt Resolution No. 2001-87 approving the revised fmal plat of Entrevaux for 39 lots and three outlots. Motion carried 5-0. X. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HOUSING (Resolution No. 2001-88) Cecile Bedor gave a presentation about the Metropolitan Council's Family Affordable Housing Program. The Metropolitan Council plans to acquire single- family homes, duplexes and condominiums on the open market. The Metropolitan Council will be retaining a professional property management association. Ms.Bedor asked for Council's approval to acquire up to 15 properties. Mayor Harris asked what is the period of time they propose to acquire the properties. Ms.Bedor said they have until April 2002 to acquire the properties. Butcher said she serves on the Community Council for FamiT.ink as the Human Resources person and affordable housing is at the top of the list. The annual CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 9 report came out and affordable housing is the thing that is most requested. She asked if there will be a partnership between the City and the Metropolitan Council with regard to selecting the housing. Ms. Bedor said no; they will meet with the City to find out where development areas and will take suggestions from the City. Case said on paper, in reality this seems like a good way to provide affordable housing and he supported this program. He asked if the Metro Council had established a track record yet. Ms. Bedor said this is the first public housing the Metro Council has developed so far. However, the Metro Council has built the largest number of Section 8 housing in the state. Their commitment is very strong • because it is a huge issue in the region. Tyra-Lukens said she is a member of the Family Housing Plan. With regard to Section 8, units are taken away when the house sells at the market value, so this program is exciting because the Metro Council has control over this. The only question is the title of the program, which is Special Projects. That name might indicate the Metro Council is not committed for the long term. Is this a program that will be evaluated in five years or is there a long-term commitment to ownership by Metro Council. Ms. Bedor said they have an executed 40-year contract with HUD. The Metro Council will be eligible for ongoing capital grants. The Council can assume this is a long-term program. MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Butcher, to provide general support for allowing the Metropolitan Council to acquire and operate up to 20 residential properties in conjunction with their Family Affordable Housing Program(FAHP); and adopt Resolution No. 2001-88 approving the Cooperation Agreement. Motion carried 5-0. B. REQUEST FOR 42" GRAVE MARKER AT PLEASANT HILL CEMETERY BY DELORES HODGE Enger said this matter was considered on April 17 by the City Council. However, at the request of Delores Hodge made at the Council Forum on May 1, the Council indicated they would be willing to have further discussion on this. Delores Hodge, 16463 Ellerdale Lane, said she was asked to come and address the problems that were brought up at the April 17 meeting. One objection made by the Council was that the City would be responsible for replacing a marker if it were damaged. However, in looking at the Rules and Regulations governing Pleasant Hill Cemetery, they clearly state the City is not responsible. Section 9.2 states "General care of the cemetery assumed by the City shall not include the maintenance,repair, or replacement of any grave marker. . ." With regard to damage being done in the event another grave has to be dug next to the marker, the lot to the right of hers already has a marker on it, and all of the graves beyond those markers are already in place, so there wouldn't be a question q CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 10 of damaging any markers. She asked for a 42-inch marker because she wants the three names on one marker. Putting a 42-inch marker over the double grave leaves more space on either side of each grave than would be left if she put in a 30-inch marker and a 24-inch marker separately. The rules state that, in case of hardship, exceptions to the rules can be made without in any way changing the rules. Mayor Harris asked if this 42-inch marker would span two graves. Mrs. Hodge said it would, with three names on it. She wanted her twin daughters to be buried next to each other, with the marker above their graves. She planned to be cremated and place the urn in the same grave with one of the twins. Stuart Fox said there were several issues raised at the Council Forum. The first issue is that maintenance and operation of the cemetery is overseen by the Council. Once the rules are changed, they must be changed by resolution. The second issue is in terms of how the markers are set on the graves. If there is a marker covering two graves, it must be removed at the time of digging. Staff's concern is that the marker could be damaged, especially during the winter period, and the City would feel it should be replaced by the City if the City damages it. Mosman noted at the Council Forum, the size of the marker for a double grave is 12x30 inches, not 36 inches as mentioned at the April 17 Council meeting, so requesting a 42-inch marker is a 12-inch exception to the rule. If this marker is placed in the middle of two sites at this time, then when the next grave is dug, the marker will have to be removed no matter what time of year it is. The option staff had considered was to have a small marker at this time and then the 42-inch marker when the second burial plot is used. Fox replied staff gave three options: (1) The 42-inch marker to be placed across two graves and limit burial in the second grave to cremation burials so marker would not have to be moved. (2) Allow second full burial to occur and place the 42-inch marker after the second full burial, so chances of marker being damaged would be minimized. (3) Approve special unique circumstances in this case, and a waiver be signed stating that the City would not be responsible for repair if the marker is damaged. Mrs. Hodge said she would sign a waiver or set up a contingency fund in her Will in order to get permission to place the marker. Tyra-Lukens said she would prefer to handle this as an exception with the signed waiver, and for the record, have the unique circumstances of the situation spelled out rather than passing a resolution to change the rules. Mrs. Hodge said even though the rules state that the City is not responsible, staff says if the City damages a marker the City would have to fix it, but that is not in the rules. When she signs the waiver, the City is freed from the responsibility. She found only one marker in the old part of the cemetery where the edge of a marker was chipped, so the possibility of her marker being damaged is low. 10 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 11 Mayor Harris asked what is on the grave now. Mrs. Hodge said nothing is there except an alloy marker in the ground, which was placed there one year ago tomorrow and it was upsetting to her that the grave does not have a marker. Mayor Harris said she agreed with Tyra-Lukens that this should be made an exception to the policy. Case said he would make this an exception to the rules at this time and base it upon whatever contingencies staff wants to have; however, if the City continues to get requests,the Council needs to get more involved. Butcher said she concurred with that. This is a unique situation and Council should choose the exception option. Mrs. Hodge said mention was made at the Forum about a perpetual fund. She understood the perpetual care fund is just for the maintenance of the cemetery grounds, so there was no reason to have any other provision for replacing the markers. However, if the waiver is necessary, she would give the City a handwritten one. Mayor Harris asked staff what provision would cover this because they are making an exception, and also how best to frame the language permitting a 42- inch marker. Enger suggested that the unique circumstances in this case would be to allow use of a 42-inch grave marker for three or four interments. The purpose of the larger marker is to depict three names. Rosow said if the Council wanted an additional reason to grant an exception, Mrs. Hodge wanted a joint marker because of the twin daughters. Regarding the waiver, it would be prepared after the meeting for her signature. Fox said the record of this meeting would go into the file after the motion is made. If the motion were made contingent on three or four burials, there would not be any questions in the future as to what the direction was. • MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens,to rescind the action to deny Mrs. Hodge's request made at the April 17, 2001 Council; and approve the request as an exception for this specific instance based on the information submitted to the City Council by Dolores Hodge which they have discussed this evening, including a waiver releasing the City from responsibility. Motion carried 5-0. XI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS &COMMISSIONS XII. APPOINTMENTS XIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS ii CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 12 A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. Chemical Spraying by Lawn Services—Councilmember Tyra-Lukens Tyra-Lukens said she has received a call from a resident who was concerned about the lack of notification that chemical sprayers give when they come out to fertilize property. The caller said she has tried to find out when spraying is going to occur and then the lawn service doesn't come at that time. She has had plants die because of spraying in the area. Tyra-Lukens received another call that day from a resident concerned about chemical spraying of lawns and whether it should even be allowed. She has talked to Chris Enger and Gene Dietz, and was told the City does license companies that spray chemical fertilizers but the City does not license them for herbicides, which is done at the state level. Tyra-Lukens said she would like to get a report from Leslie Stowing on what the City is allowed to do, so the Council would have that information. Mayor Harris said a woman called her that day because her son is affected by chemical spraying. Asthma in children and other lung problems are of increasing concern and likely caused by the environment. She asked that staff provide information on chemical spraying to the Council. That would raise the subject to a level of visibility where residents could then take individual action even if the City cannot. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Reschedule Budget Workshop to June 5,2001 Enger said the Workshop on the Budget process, originally scheduled for that evening,would be held on June 5. C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. Singletree Lane Economic Development Site Uram reported he has received three Letters of Intent for the Singletree Lane economic development site. He asked for Council's approval to have the developers come in and give a presentation regarding what they are proposing. They are all proposing a mixed-use development that would include both housing and retail development. Council agreed to have Uram ask them to come to the next Council meeting on June 5. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 13 E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTOR 1. Status Report on Pioneer Trail Project Dietz said because of the County's Pioneer Trail road project, it will be closed as far as Purgatory Creek beginning on June 11. The closure will last three-four months. The County will have a signed detour on T.H. 212 and I-494. However, City staff believes Anderson Lakes Parkway could get some of the traffic. There are several suggestions about handling the increased traffic. One possibility is to create a bypass lane at Franlo Road for westbound traffic on Anderson Lakes Parkway and for people turning left on Franlo Road. That should be done by June 11. If the City does a very inexpensive fix, it would cost about $10,000. To have a contractor put in a permanent bypass lane would cost about$30,000. Another option to explore with the County is to ask them to pay for the materials to install a temporary signal at Franlo and Anderson Lakes. However, that intersection does not meet warrants today for a signal. Also, local residents might think the temporary signal is a good thing to keep and make it difficult to get rid of it. A temporary signal would cost $30,000- $50,000. Another complication is they would expect a certain amount of additional traffic on Riverview Road. The City settled a lawsuit with a property owner on that road and, as a result, the City has to install a storm sewer this construction season. If the City waited until Pioneer Trail is open, which could be as late as October 11, there is the possibility of problems over the winter to get that patched back in. The City would plan to construct the storm sewer after mid-September, and Pioneer Trail could be open by then if all goes well. Dietz said he would appreciate the Council's opinion about a bypass lane, using road-improvement funds in the CIP. That would be a benefit to traffic. If possible, a permanent installation would be the best thing to do, and would cost $30,000. Another impact is that people might choose to use Homeward Hills Road or Franlo Road all the way. The closing will have some impacts on the community, because the City doesn't have many parallel roads. Mayor Harris said she believed the detoured traffic will use Anderson Lakes Parkway. A left-turn lane at Franlo Road makes a lot of sense. Dietz said eventually the City would do some of these things like bypass lanes and left-turn lanes anyway. Some intersection improvements are likely to be necessary in the future. Case said if Dietz believes a left-turn lane is a needed improvement at some point, he recommended it be done right and would favor that being done now. He understood the City would wait to put in a temporary signal 13 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 14 if it is proved to be necessary. With regard to the Riverview Road problem, he asked if it would be totally closed for that project. Dietz replied once they start going down the hill,it would be totally closed. Case said he would like to have a sign put up for neighbors who might not know about the closing. Dietz said the City could sign it near Pioneer ' Trail. Mayor Harris said perhaps the local newspaper would also alert people about the closing. Dietz said he would try to get in the permanent installation of a left-turn lane at Franlo Road before June 11, if possible. Butcher said residents in the southeast section have suffered with the improvements to Pioneer Trail. Safety has been an issue, so she would like to make sure that the City does everything it can to make it safe, even if it costs more to do that. She recommended having the left-turn lane improvement at Franlo Road and said the signal was a great idea. She asked about the bypass lane. Dietz said that is the left-turn lane he referenced. It would be a bypass for traffic going westbound on Anderson Lakes Parkway. There would be a lane that widens out, so cars can pass those waiting to turn left at Franlo Road. Mosman favored the permanent solution at Franlo Road. 2. Amendment to Developers Agreement with ADC Telecommunications,Inc. Dietz explained the City attorney and staff have negotiated an amendment to the Developer's Agreement with ADC to resolve financial issues regarding the proposed improvements to Technology Drive. It more clearly defines the responsibilities for design costs, location of the roadway and City responsibilities for upgraded intersection improvements at Mitchell Road and Technology Drive. The improvement starts with the intersection and follows Technology Drive. There will be an intersection improvement that would provide for a five-lane approach northbound and the same configuration southbound. The west approach would be five lanes. The trail on the south side would be ADC's responsibility. The project ties in at the east end of the bridge. The bridge itself is wide enough for a four-lane facility, so there will be a separate pedestrian lane. The wetland south of St. Andrew Church will be filled. ADC will be responsible to absorb all costs associated with wetland mitigation and provide wetland mitigation on their site. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 15 The terms of the first amendment to the agreement are that the tax abatement with ADC is still intact, the City and ADC will each absorb their own "soft costs", which are staff time, attorney time, design costs and project management costs. To the extent that the project might exceed $2 million, ADC has agreed to pay the additional costs that would be associated with keeping Technology Drive centered within the right-of- way(staff preferred a shift in the alignment to the south to avoid wetland issues and additional construction costs). ADC is asking for two right-turn lanes into their property. The City will do this probably at a cost of less than $30,000. The original agreement stated if the project exceeds $2 million, the City has the responsibility to scale it back. However, if they are going to have a four-lane project, there is nothing to scale back to. They could scale back the intersection,but that makes the whole traffic pattern work. After ADC has paid their share for maintaining the centerline, the City has the responsibility to reduce the project to $2 million, or ask the City to pay the additional funds through taxes, etc. The City is responsible for acquiring the right-of-way from MTS. They have asked that the City share in a right-turn lane into the joint driveway between the water tower and MTS. He has explained that. it is not needed, but if they really want it, the cost would be $6,500, to be shared between the City and MTS. Tyra-Lukens asked, if they do end up centering the road within the right- of-way, and have to re-do the sidewalks on Technology Drive, will that involve replacement of the park benches? Dietz replied it will, and ADC would be responsible for the costs of replacement. Tyra-Lukens asked what the time frame is. Dietz said ADC's consultant is preparing the final plans and is hoping to put it out for bids in June. Tyra-Lukens asked when Staff anticipates starting this; would it be after the ramps from Mitchell and T.H. 5 are open? Dietz said no, this will be built under traffic. The existing pavement will be there, but it will be restricted. The ramps to and from eastbound T.H. 212 to Mitchell are not expected to be open until the end of the construction season. MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case, to approve the first amendment to Developer's Agreement with ADC Telecommunications, Inc. regarding improvements to Technology Drive. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Bluffs Country Village Access to Walgreens Dietz said the City received a request from the developer that the idea of changing what has already been approved for the Walgreens project be withdrawn. Their own consultant believes a full access there would be a bad idea. Staff had not fully studied this, but Dietz supported their request. Staff identified in the original approval process there might have '5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 16 to be geometric changes on Pioneer Trail if the City did anything but a left turn into Walgreens. The project needs to go ahead. The developer doesn't want to wait until the City reviews this and, in fact, it is the approved plan, and they would like to implement it. Dietz suggested allowing them to withdraw their request. There is probably less need to provide access to that site because the uses will be more destination-oriented. He asked Council for a motion to approve the withdrawal request. Rosow said the proposal would be coming back for the 2"a Reading, so the approval could be part of that. Dietz responded it probably won't come back for the 2"d Reading for two-four weeks and the developer would like to know before then. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to accept the withdrawal of the developer's original design. Motion carried 5-0. F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY 1. Meeting with Special Counsel for Flying Cloud Airport Expansion The Council will be meeting with the Special Counsel on May 22 at 3 p.m. Rosow has had a discussion with the Special Counsel over the past week regarding structure of the meeting and how to handle it. He has asked them to prepare a report in such a way that a portion could be stated in public. That means the Council would come into an open session. Mr. Kirsch and Mr. Reimer would make a presentation appropriate for the public and then adjourn to a closed session for the rest of the discussion. If Council wanted to take any action, it would come back to open session to take that action. Notices would be provided about this meeting, with notification that a portion of it would be open. Case asked if the public portion would be on television. Mayor Harris said it certainly could be recorded and then the time it would be broadcast could be given at the meeting. 2. Cancellation of Flying Cloud Advisory Commission Meetings in May Rosow said the Mayor, Mr. Enger and he met with the Chair of the Metropolitan Airports Commission regarding cancellation of the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission meeting in May. They explained the Council would be meeting with the Special Counsel on May 22 and the Council would be requested to ratify that action at their May 15 meeting. /' CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 15,2001 Page 17 • MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Butcher,Direct the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission(FCAC)to reschedule its regularly scheduled meeting that was to be held in May to a date to be determined by the Council at a future date and direct the FCAC to schedule no further special meetings until further direction from the Council. Motion carried 5-0. XIV. OTHER BUSINESS XV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to adjourn the meeting. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 5,2001 SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Clerk's License Application List •&Financial Services/ Gretchen Laven 2E.A. These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. Cigarette&Tobacco Products Walgreen Co. D.B.A. Walgreens#05080 Commercial Lawn Fertilizer Applicators Chapman Custom Lawn Henning Rohde&Assoc Lawn Ranger Raffle Organization: H.E.A.R.T.,Inc. Place: Olympic Hills Country Club Date: July 23, 2001 - 1 - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - - - DATE: 06/05/01 SECTION: Consent Agenda SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Donald R.Uram International School Auditorium Addition Krista R.Flemming Requested Action Move to: • Approve 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.4 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 38.4 acres; and • • Adopt the Resolution for Site Plan Review on 38.4 acres; and • Approve the Developer's Agreement for International School Auditorium Addition. Synopsis • This project is an 11,372 sq. ft. building addition for classrooms and an auditorium located on Beach Road. Attachments 1. Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers and Zoning District Amendment 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AUDITORIUM ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. -2001-PUD- -2001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CERTAIN LAND WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT, 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 amended within the Public Zoning District=2001-PUD 2001 (hereinafter"PUD-_-2001-Public"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of June 5, 2001, entered into between the International School and the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's • Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-_-2001-Public, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-_-2001-Public is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD- -2001-Public is 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-_-2001-Public are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-_-2001-Public 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 amended within the Public District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development _-2001-Public, 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 15th day of May, 2001, 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 5th day of June, 2001. • ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Jean L.Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on 3 EXBEIBIT A Project Name: International School Auditorium Addition Legal Description: Lot 1,Block 1,International School Addition INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AUDITORIUM CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2001- • A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AUDITORIUM ADDITION BY THE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF MINNESOTA WHEREAS,the International School of Minnesota,has applied for Site Plan approval of the International School Auditorium Addition on 38.4 acres for construction of an auditorium and classroom addition totaling 11,372 sq. ft., to be zoned in the Public Zoning District on 38.4 acres by an Ordinance approved by the City Council on June 5,2001; and • WHEREAS, the Community Planning Board reviewed said application at a public hearing at its April 23,2001 meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its May 15,2001,meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to the International . School,for the construction of an auditorium and classroom addition totaling 11,372 sq. ft.based on plans dated May 3,2001,between the International School, and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on June 5,2001. Jean L.Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk 5 INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AUDITORIUM ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. -2001-PUD- -2001 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN LAND WITHIN ONE 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 amendment of the zoning of land located at Beach Road within the Public Zoning District. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Jean 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 Project Name: International School Auditorium Addition Legal Description: Lot 1,Block 1,International School Addition FOURTH SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AUDITORIUM ADDITION THIS SUPPLEMENT TO AGREEMENT is entered into as of June 5, 2001, by International School of Minnesota, 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 and City made and entered into a Developer's Agreement, dated April 30, 1987, for The International School of Minnesota, (hereinafter the "Developer's Agreement"), and, WHEREAS, Developer and City made and entered into a Supplement to Developer's Agreement, dated August 15, 1990, for The International School of Minnesota, (hereinafter the Supplement to Developer's Agreement"Phase II"), and, WHEREAS, Developer and City made and entered into a Supplement to Developer's Agreement, dated August 2, 1994, for The International School of Minnesota, (hereinafter the Supplement to Developer's Agreement"Parking Lot and Running Track"), and, WHEREAS, Developer and City made and entered into a Supplement to Developer's Agreement, dated July 20, 1999, for The International School of Minnesota, (hereinafter the Supplement to Developer's Agreement"Phase III"), and, WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 38.04 acres; a Planned Unit Development District Review on 38.04 acres; a Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 38.04 acres; and Site Plan Review on 38.04 acres, legally described on Exhibit A(the"Property"); WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Developer's Agreement, Supplement to Developer's Agreement Phase II, Supplement to Developer's Agreement, Parking Lot and Running Track, and Supplement to the Developer's Agreement Phase III between International School of Minnesota and the City of Eden Prairie for International School of Minnesota., dated June 5, 2001, (hereinafter the "Amended Developer's Agreement") for that portion of the Property legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, with respect to the auditorium and classroom addition depicted in the materials revised and stamp dated May 3, 2001.,reviewed and approved by the City Council on May 15,2001 and identified on Exhibit B; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment, Ordinance No. for Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District, and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of the Amended Area as follows: 0 1. Developer agrees to and reaffirms all of the terms and conditions and accepts the obligations of"Developer" under the Amended Developer's Agreement except as modified in or amended by this Supplement. A. The following paragraph shall be amended by adding the following to the end of the paragraph: 1. With respect to the auditorium, Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with materials dated May 3,2001,reviewed and approved by the City Council on June 5, 2001, and identified on Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: June 5,2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Public Works Final Plat Approval of Bluff Country Townhomes Engineering Services 3rd Addition V I •C. Randy Slick/ Eugene A.Dietz Requested Action • Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Bluff Country Townhomes • 3rd Addition and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document. • Synopsis This proposal is a replat of Outlot F of Bluff Country Village. The plat consists of.23 acres to be divided into four townhome lots. • Background Information The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council August 17, 1999. Second Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer's Agreement was completed on December 7, 1999. Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$288.00 • Variance granted from City Code 12.20 Subd.2A. waiving the six-month maximum time lapse between preliminary plat and final plat. Attachments Drawing of final plat • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BLUFF COUNTRY TOWNHOMES 3rd ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Bluff Country Townhomes 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 Bluff Country Townhomes 3rd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated June 5,2001. B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six-month maximum time lapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said engineer's report. C. 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. D. 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 June 5,2001. Jean L. Harris,Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk Ma!Y..,29. 2001 9:35AM HEDLUt1D ENGINEERING No.7816 P. 2 • . • • . _ _ _ . • . . w ,. ''c: • • IS . p i HORN 64.60 € 41.00 ...pp J7.60 44..e0 . • Dr ;,.. { • . ill rt ,. q J . • P. $ ZOC�fg • • 8# ,:ti $ i • ta) • i4 �„ 44.ae M, ar OO � a7.ee _ •44.ee • ' a 600n1 70400 • . 0.. . lift Lc ' E wa a Wq 3 : 1 i. : g4 1•1111 9 fi & ffi iil 1 RI g§ glg i ss IT., x Rf n d 31 &¢ � s I pay.g411 lil " 61. ' a19 xE' . r r.: I.. .a. i '2, 1 1.11 ,gi • li• Pil • Si • '58' ' .1 ' Hifi el r } O y C Q.. R .. u 1 ' '1' • lit • ,s8 . q ' •el kr- 9 a, i-ti! • � d PXaa - , II • 1a. i f . s I. 1 m :1 8 3 N CI a z fl P yyL •. • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: June 5,2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:. Public Works Final Plat Approval of Bluff Country Townhomes Engineering Services 4th Addition Z.[I) Randy Slick/ Eugene A.Dietz Requested Action Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Bluff Country Townhomes 4th Addition and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document. Synopsis This proposal is a replat of Outlot G of Bluff Country Village. The plat consists of.23 acres to be divided into four townhome lots. Background Information The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council August 17, 1999. Second Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer's Agreement was completed on December 7, 1999. Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions: • • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$288.00 • Variance granted from City Code 12.20 Subd.2A. waiving the six-month maximum time lapse between preliminary plat and final plat. Attachments Drawing of final plat CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BLUFF COUNTRY TOWNHOMES 4TH ADDITION • WHEREAS,the plat of Bluff Country Townhomes 4th Addition has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter.462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and • requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: A. Plat approval request for Bluff Country Townhomes 4th Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated June 5,2001. B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six-month maximum time lapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said engineer's report. C. 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. D. 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 June 5,2001. Jean L. Harris,Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk raa t r- 111-_ U:4DhM HtULUU1W LNGINEERING P;o.7815 P. 3 v qq • rmeriI6&oo y `u • ♦sac a:.w AO •. AM • rill ��-h• n CI) o . Cl 4.4m LAD . AO as.0 ° BOU7H ietiao • • 0 • • i L t_____ 09 . • Pm. . . • a Ut: ! 1 ! r lSafE 4 NT In '� � �[ _iv; ) Izi ff L L", ' I g oPT it on Ig8 3 y Xa 1 1 ri i 1 ! il I • ° pt i 1. A x 7 1 If Ilk it f M O bill = r 1 ". y RAT E tg p I g1 • A.11 . 1 3a i , .1 9 F o 11 A c -E 0, • ii • 44 €g+ S .a A 9 4 +� a e F I& r# I �`Ty • Ii ; rI1' U • a 2m' 1 if Hg a if nk " xi A Q g & r o Y A taqa r 1f, ' a ii k lit ; I i Q 3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: June 5,2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Public Works Final Plat Approval of Braxton Woods 2nd Engineering Services Addition 31,2. Randy Slick/ Eugene A.Dietz • Requested Action Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Braxton Woods 2nd Addition. Synopsis This proposal, located north of Riley Creek between Cedar Forest First Addition and Riley Creek Ridge. The plat consists of 7.1 acres to be divided into eight single family lots, right-of-way. . dedication for street purposes and two outlots. A portion of this plat is a replat of Outlot A, • Braxton Woods. Background Information The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council March 21, 2000. Second Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer's Agreement was completed on April 18,2000. Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$368.00 • Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of$534.20 • Satisfaction of bonding requirements for the installation of public improvements • Execution of Special Assessment Agreement for trunk utility improvements • The requirements as set forth in the Developer's Agreement • Provide a list of areas(to the nearest square foot) of all lots, outlots and road right-of- ways certified by surveyor • Variance granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2A. waiving the six-month maximum time lapse between preliminary plat and final plat Attachments Drawing of final plat CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BRAXTON WOODS 2"ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Braxton Woods 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 Braxton Woods 2nd Addition is approved upon compliance ' with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated June 5, 2001. B., Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six-month maximum time lapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said engineer's report. C. 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. D. 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 June 5, 2001. • • Jean L.Harris,Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk O E _ as 0 i a t 1 i ge E. a ^ to 1 0 0 8 E Jf-1 — W ; w Z Z i t.g i '.s s E V V H i c c Si € --+�---� a o° O O i € I -- N att. Q 0 s ii jt---i <o I �'cc. cs �ci c 3 mg a ot—i — £ba_ I e g I y°_ „ a 1 stri < �s meo e• ...."...4 \ • ..4 3...i t• • Q \ \ t1' 1 w t K S.S�/r err our re l` r/f 3,w1fenrfre.. .,/I/ —• r ;� f:Ir: ? NOG/ .•� 1 _ swag' • ••••• ISI13 I .ow Oa �o� I 2 41 _ e" <r , -I •"i S::s $i .^i�,, 3.R37.°h---1,, ' / /--/ /\":' '„ 4. * tit, E, � _1.i :14 ( / '4•.- I. a L-----!S., I it' ° ' ZL'8tZ Al.LZ.ffZo00 N ''`t.' '.e�f,----%aea:.ok- -7 111 \\ 44 ro dl cq Lt ply c •o I 1 I /7: I;(-2- I- 3 i I- a il:q: ra ? /�/ L f.iee I ^I>t ^ I "r trC�i t `'se 14. 00 If- e.ra7>.o7a 1 e b I +Ia I„83211 \ '- I :I o 'p I1 I I''e tvI i✓ 1 2 i F ,r 1 e Jit I a N jr ^t I _ 9�T r // (7/ ,‘ Cfl „5'�5 R R N�r76011M7�g9i y ` 37S I t i I /�\ �� �`��9'c �, 1. € aJ_ 0 2 ti has of^^ •�,\, \\ / •9`osrN,. 1 0.4 .y " 4 Q W\.c N a`.. I. .o \. �/9 r. 6 •. /.' \ +IJr 171 v. tt \ .Ol_-� • e�'i4n \ ts7 �r'i7 ' \ t, I m•(C/: •:10 � 9 ',t Jae ....1391.'•'°1 o.1vj/:•`t r I. 11 H ;ter- .027•AS - -t •^ kaa ,u''°58to iPtt° aro�S�7 N6 2a a s =S, z 1s 1st 'IZt 1s '0 26 el'. ii 0 1 `ice- 4 /010.' : .. r. .tei:-• ' .14'0 Z '; 00 A to.. µ1.201 ..tits ffro1% •''..e�'a Pr- 2( '\.�-' 20a P cFN ;S\ boa` , 1 . - ;v.v. • tot .t. �025 o.7T' Ston'0'a. \'y:, \ ' 1";d11If't pN \ck -a, er 3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: June 5,2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 01-5541 ITEM NO.: Engineering Services Approve Professional Services Agreement from • Rodney W.Rue Westwood Professional Services for Design and r Eugene A.Dietz Installation of Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption • (EVP)Equipment on Fourteen Intersections • Requested Action Move to: Approve Professional Services Agreement from Westwood Professional Services for design and installation of emergency vehicle pre-emption (EVP) equipment on fourteen intersections. Synopsis This agreement/proposal provides the engineering services for the design and installation of EVP equipment on the remainder of the existing traffic signals within Eden Prairie. With the completion of this project, we will have installed EVP equipment on almost every traffic signal in Eden Prairie(with the exception of a couple upcoming intersection/signal improvements). Background Information This proposal estimates the engineering services at $28,800. In 1998, a commitment was made to install EVP equipment on all new traffic signals and to retrofit all existing traffic signals within Eden Prairie by 2001. The Capital Improvement Budget contains $243,000 to cover the costs for this project,which is approximately the estimate($230,000) for this project. Attachments Professional Services Agreement We= t'ccd Professional Services.Inc. 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie.MN 55344 May 22, 2001 Phone:952-937-5150 - Fax:952-937-5822 • Toll Free:1.888.937.5150 Mr. Rodney W. Rue, P.E. Email:wps@westwoodps.com Assistant City Engineer City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 RE: Emergency Vehicle Preemption Signal Design Project • Dear Rod: • Westwood is pleased to present this proposal for engineering services for the design and installation of emergency vehicle preemption (EVP) equipment at 14 intersections within the City of Eden Prairie. (The attached list summarizes the 14 intersections.) Westwood's role will be to produce the plans, specifications and estimate and then to assist in the bidding and construction implementation. Included in this work will be coordination with Hennepin County and Mn/DOT for the intersections that those agencies operate. We propose to conduct the work on an hourly basis, with the fee for each major task to not exceed the budget on the attached spreadsheet. We have based our fee for this group of intersections on our experience with the previous group of EVP installations done recently. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL Westwood is prepared to begin work on this project as soon as we receive our notice to proceed. To initiate work,we request that you sign and return one copy of this proposal, approving its terms. We shall then begin work immediately. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Sincerely, ACCEPTED BY: WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE OLQ cc� 5. 1 4A/t((4 ✓1,7"\ Allan S. Klugman, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer Signed Title Date Signed Title Date Attachments: Current Fee Schedule Intersection List Designing the Future Today...since 1972 Eden Prairie 2001 EVP Project Preliminary Intersection List 1 Anderson Lakes Parkway and Preserve Boulevard 2 C.S.A.H. 1 (Pioneer Trail) and Mitchell Road/Spring Road 3 C.S.A.H. 1 (Pioneer Trail) and C.S.A.H. 4 (Eden Prairie Road) 4 C.S.A.H. 4 (Eden Prairie Road) and Wagner Way 5 C.S.A.H. 4 (Eden Prairie Road) and Valley View Road 6 C.S.A.H. 62(West 62nd Street) and Glen Lake Boulevard 7 C.S.A.H. 62(West 62nd Street) and W. 62nd St. (South Frig. Road) 8 C.S.A.H. 62 (West 62nd Street) and 1-494 West Ramp 9 C.S.A.H. 62(West 62nd Street) and 1-494 East Ramp 10 C.S.A.H. 61 (Shady Oak Road) and C.S.A.H. 62 Off Ramp/W. 62nd St. 11 C.S.A.H. 61 (Shady Oak Road) and City West Pkwy/Old Shady Oak Rd. 12 C.S.A.H. 61 (Shady Oak Road) and City West Pkwy/Bryant Lake Drive 13 Anderson Lakes Parkway and Hennepin Town Road 14 C.S.A.H. 1 (Pioneer Trail) and Hennepin Town Road 05/01/2001 3 Cl) N '�' 0 0 N Ci0 r 0 0 0 0 3 CO N CO 0 o N CO O = O co R co" O N N N CO 0 V• CO N 0 0 N 1- - r- LC) O 0)U .- (0 N CO N CIS U E9 d• • C) 69 'c1• N 0 CO O 0 N C N No) 0 0 L CV CV O O U 69. p) = CLei 0 C CO U) 0 Eft al I-- J M 0 0 oU CD• ~ LLI 69. V CO 0 CO CO CO CO 0 0 CO 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c0 5 (0 (0 v cc; cc; 0 f2 N e- CO 0 cl• "zt 0 C r CO al O N CO C 5N� t0 ce 1- O '-• C 64 r bT Et} N 0_ W 69 69 e- 0 A e- C en ix) C C o 0 U — U C o 0 L I— () 0 5 a d' T 2 O a) enco0C C C Q, 5 C C CD N N o > 2`0) O o s= 0) U W C C L p_) CO ,C U Q) m CO 0 0) C Cl. C Cl). N ` W 70 as U f0 u o v) O 0 .5 5 -C .0 E Q) o U /Ts yl�"i •(� o p o O U) W 0 .O o, U Q d 2 O ci L.. C Q) c Q. U C Q Q. C O- y, N c. U //) 7 Cl) o) :a o C .o O O �, C o co o O {/) .@ b 0 p o > >., > > > in C C U > n- a) C U t0 o a) co o o N U) o o O Q) a. > Q o C U p J p p Q •. M p a W CO O (!) e- N M e- N CO o e- N M - Y CO (0 C 'CD N- r• e- •U N N CV N c7 C. M a) 0 Cl) • C •N Cll O > fl. O E e- o W p W U) 0 .N -0 0 N h C U W N o C C L U 0- 2 0 ' . ° a) � o Cl) U U o ai ai = CO O W -o U o .) o oCD a) 00 o 2 0 0 0 al as co ca L o 0 0 2 'cLo CV I— (.. •.• N Cr; J >, J E r N C7 a 0- CA C]. d C 1' Y Y co cn enf0 ' ..0.. Y •=:TB .. (0 C a) 85 -O 00 0O O O C 0 0 (0 O o 5 cr) W W F- I- I- F- = F- U) I- I- I- F- "0 w 9 Westwood Professional Services,Inc. 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie.MN 55344 Phone:952-937-5150 Fax:952-937-5822 Toil Free:1-888-937-5150 Email:wps@westwoodps.com FEE SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES • 2001 The following is the fee schedule for all work performed under an hourly agreement. Charges for Other Direct Costs, Outside Services,and facilities furnished by Westwood are computed on the basis of actual cost plus 15 percent. Classification Hourly Rate Sr.Principal 135.00 Principal, Sr.Associate 116.00 Sr. Project Engineer,Sr.Traffic Engineer 104.00 Project Coordinator 102.00 Sr. Environmental Scientist, Sr. Planner 92.00 Registered Surveyor,Registered Engineer 88.00 Sr. Graphic Designer 85.00 Sr.Construction Coordinator, Survey Coordinator 82.00 Environmental Scientist 79.00 Planner/Landscape Architect II 76.00 Computer Draftsperson 72.00 • Graduate Engineer,Crew Chief 70.00 Construction Observer, 67.00 Associate Environmental Scientist 65.00 Engineering Technician, Survey Technician,Traffic Specialist, Planner/Landscape Architect I 62.00 Instrument Person 53.00 Word Processing,Traffic/Tree Counter 48.00 Rod Person 38.00 Expert Witness-Court Appearance/Deposition 2 x rate GPS Receiver • 50.00 • No charge for mileage within the Twin City Metro area • No charge for in-house computer or plotter time(excluding color graphic plotting) • There is a finance charge of 125%per month(15%annual percentage rate)applied to all charges which have become more than 30 days past due based on billing date shown on original invoice. 6 Designing the Future Today..smce 1972 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE GENERAL CONDITIONS Consultant Agreement SECTION 1: PROJECT INFORMATION by Consultant's negligence. 1.1 City will provide to Consultant all known information 2.5 City agrees to render reasonable assistance requested by regarding existing and proposed conditions of the site or which Consultant to enable performance of work without delay or affects the work to be performed by Consultant. Such interference,and upon request of Consultant,to provide a suitable information shall include, but not be limited to site plans, workplace. surveys, known hazardous waste or conditions, previous laboratory analysis results,written reports,soil boring logs and 2.6 City will be responsible for locating and identifying all applicable regulatory site response(Project Information). subterranean structures and utilities. Consultant will take reasonable precautions to avoid damage or injury to subterranean 1.2 City will transmit to Consultant any additions,updates,or structures and utilities identified and located by City and/or revisions to the Project Information as it becomes available to representatives of Utility Companies. City,its subcontractors or consultants. • SECTION 3: SAMPLES 1.3 City will provide an on-site representative to Consultant within 24 hours upon request, to aid, define, supervise, or 3.1 Consultant may retain at its facility selected soil, water, or coordinate work or Project Information as requested by material samples for a maximum of 30 days after completion of Consultant. the work and submission of Consultant's report,which samples shall remain the property of City. Unless otherwise directed by 1.4 Consultant will not be liable for any decision,conclusion, the City,Consultant may dispose of any samples after 30 days. recommendations, judgement or advice based on any inaccurate information furnished by City, or other 3.2 Disposal of contaminated or hazardous waste samples is the subcontractors or consultants engaged by City. responsibility of City. After said 30 days,City will be responsible to select and arrange for lawful disposal procedures that include SECTION 2: SITE LOCATION,ACCESS,PERMITS, removal of samples from Consultant's custody and transporting APPROVALS AND UTILITIES them to a disposal site. City may request, or if City does not arrange for disposal, Consultant may deliver samples to City, 2.1 City will indicate to Consultant the property lines of the freight collect,or arrange for lawful disposal and bill City at cost site and assume responsibility for accuracy of markers. plus 15%. 2.2 City will provide for right-of-way for Consultant personnel SECTION 4: FEE PAYMENT/CLAIMS and equipment necessary to perform the work. 4.1 Consultant will submit invoices to City monthly,and a fmal 2.3 City will be solely responsible for applying for and invoice upon completion of work. Invoices will show charges obtaining permits and approvals necessary for Consultant to based on the current Consultant Fee Schedule or other documents perform the work. Consultant will assist City in applying for as attached. and obtaining such permits and approvals as needed. It is . understood that City authorizes Consultant to act as agent for 4.2 To receive any payment on this Contract,the invoice or bill City for City's responsibilities under this section including must include the following signed and dated statement: "I declare signing certain forms on City's behalf such as Right-of-Way under penalty of perjury that this account, claim, or demand is forms. just and correct and that no part of it has been paid." 2.4 While Consultant will take reasonable precautions to 4.3 The balance stated on the invoice shall be deemed correct minimize any damage to property,it is understood by City that unless City notifies Consultant,in writing,of the particular item in the normal course of the work some damage may occur. that is alleged to be incorrect within ten (10) days from the The correction of any damage is the responsibility of City or, invoice date. Consultant will review the alleged incorrect item at City's direction,the damage may be corrected by Consultant within ten(10)days and either submits a corrected invoice or a and billed to City at cost plus 15%. Notwithstanding the statement indicating the original amount is correct. above,Consultant agrees to be responsible for damage caused City of Eden Prairie General Conditions Consultant Agreement December 2000 Page/of 4 4.4 Payment is due upon receipt of invoice (or corrected to mislead others by omitting certain aspects contained in the invoice)and is past due sixty(60)days from invoice date. On report. past due accounts,City will pay a finance charge of 1.5%per month on the unpaid balance,or the maximum allowed by law, 5.5 Consultant will consider Project Information as confidential whichever is less,until invoice is fully paid. and will not disclose to third parties information that it acquires, uncovers, or generates in the course of performing the work, 4.5 If City fails to pay Consultant within sixty (60) days except as and to the extent Consultant may,in its sole discretion, following invoice date, Consultant may deem the default a deem itself required by law to disclose. breach of its agreement, terminate the agreement, and be relieved of any and all duties under the agreement. City SECTION 6: DISPUTES/LIMITATIONS OF REMEDIES however,will not be relieved of Fee Payment responsibilities by the default or termination of the agreement. 6.1 In the event of a breach of Contract by City,the Consultant shall not be entitled to recover punitive,special or consequential 4.6 City will be solely responsible for applying for and damages or damages for loss of business. obtaining any applicable compensation fund reimbursements from various state and federal programs. Consultant may 6.2 City will pay all reasonable litigation or collection expenses assist City in applying for or meeting notification including attorney fees that Consultant incurs in collecting any requirements,however. Consultant makes no representations delinquent amount City owes under this agreement. or guarantees as to what fund reimbursement City may receive. Consultant shall not be liable for any reductions from 6.3 If City institutes a suit against Consultant,which is dismissed, reimbursement programs made for any reason by state or dropped,or for which judgement is rendered for Consultant,City federal agencies, except as may be caused by Consultant's will pay Consultant for all costs of defense, including attorney negligence. fees,expert witness fees and court costs. 4.7 City may withhold from any fmal payment due the 6.4 If Consultant institutes a suit against City,which is dismissed, Consultant such amounts as are incurred or expended by the dropped,or for which judgement is rendered for City,Consultant City on account of the termination of the Contract. will pay City for all costs of defense, including attorney fees, expert witness fees and court costs. SECTION 5: OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 6.5 Dispute Resolution 5.1 Consultant will deliver to City certain reports as instruments of the professional work or services performed 6.5.1 Mediation pursuant to this Agreement. All reports are intended solely for City,and Consultant will not be liable for any interpretations All claims, disputes and other matters in question (hereinafter made by others. "claim")between the parties to this Agreement,arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof,shall be subject 5.2 City agrees that all reports and other work furnished to to mediation. If the parties have not resolved the dispute within City,or City's agents or representatives,which are not paid for, thirty(30)days of receipt of a written complaint,each party may will be returned to Consultant upon demand and will not be require the dispute be submitted for mediation. If the parties are used by City for any purpose. unable to agree on a mediator within ten(10) days following a request for mediation,either party may request that a mediator be 5.3 Unless otherwise agreed, Consultant will retain all appointed by the Fourth Judicial District Court. The parties agree pertinent records or reports concerning work and services to share equally all fees incurred in the mediation. performed for a period of at least two(2)years after report is submitted. During that time the records will be made available The parties shall submit to mediation for a minimum of eight(8) to City during Consultant's normal business hours. City may hours. The parties agree that the mediation proceedings are obtain reproducible copies of all software, manuals, maps, private and confidential. If, at the end of eight hours of drawings, logs and reports at cost, plus 15%, for data and mediation, the parties have not resolved the dispute,the parties materials not being provided as part of the scope of work for may agree to extend hours•of mediation. the project. 6.5.2 Arbitration 5.4 City may use the Consultant report in its entirety and may make copies of the entire report available to others. However, At the option of the party asserting the same,a claim between the City shall not make disclosure to others of any portions or parties to this Agreement, arising out of or relating to this excerpts of a report constituting less than the entire report,or Agreement or the breach thereof, whereby the party or parties City of Eden Prairie General Conditions Consultant Agreement December 2000 Page 2 of 4 asserting the same claims entitlement to damages or payment 7.3 Although data obtained from discrete sample locations will be of less than $25,000.00 in aggregate may be decided by used to infer conditions between sample locations no guarantee arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry may be given that the inferred conditions exist because soil, Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then surface and groundwater quality conditions between sample existing unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. In the locations may vary significantly, and because conditions at the event any person shall commence an action in any court for time of sample collection may also vary significantly with respect any claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the to soil,surface water and groundwater quality at any other given breach thereof or the Project or construction thereof or any time and for other reasons beyond Consultant's control. contract for such construction, the party making a claim in arbitration may dismiss such proceedings(unless the hearing 7.4 Consultant will not be responsible or liable for the on the claim has commenced) and elect to assert its claim in interpretation of its data or report by others. such action if such party could have done so but for the provisions of this Paragraph. SECTION 8: GENERAL INDEMNIFICATION The parties agree to bear equal responsibility for the fees of 8.1 Consultant will indemnify and hold City harmless from and AAA,including the arbitrator(s). Judgement upon the award against demands, damages,and expenses caused by Consultant's rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court negligent acts and omissions, and breach of contract and those having jurisdiction thereof. negligent acts, omissions, and breaches of persons for whom Consultant is legally-responsible. City will indemnify and hold In the event that arbitration services are not available from Consultant harmless from and against demands, damages, and AAA,either party may request that an arbitrator be appointed expenses caused by City's negligent acts and omissions, and 'by the Fourth Judicial District Court. breach of contract and those acts, omissions, and breaches of persons for whom City is legally responsible. 6.5.3 Compliance SECTION 9: INSURANCE/WORKER'S The parties deem the dispute resolution procedure as set forth COMPENSATION herein to be an integral and essential part of this Agreement. A party's failure to comply in all respects with this procedure 9.1 Consultant represents and warrants that it has and will shall be a substantial breach of this Agreement. The maintain during the performance of this agreement Worker's arbitrator(s)shall be authorized to assess costs and attomey's Compensation Insurance coverage required pursuant to Minn. fees against a party that has failed to comply with the Stat. 176.181,subd.2 and that the Certificate of Insurance or the procedure in all respects,and,may as a condition precedent to written order of the Commissioner of Commerce permitting self arbitration,require the parties to mediate in accordance with insurance of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage Section 6.5.1 hereof. provided to the City prior to execution of this agreement is current and in force and effect. SECTION 7: STANDARD OF CARE 9.2 Consultant shall procure and maintain professional liability 7.1 Because no sampling program can prove the non-existence insurance for protection from claims arising out of professional or non-presence of contaminated conditions or materials services caused by any negligent act,error or omission for which throughout the "entire" site or facility, Consultant cannot Consultant is legally liable. • warrant,represent,guarantee, or certify the non-existence or non-presence, or the extent of existence or presence, of 9.3 Certificate of insurance will be provided to City upon request. contaminated conditions or materials, and City's obligation under this agreement will not be contingent upon Consultant's SECTION 10: TERMINATION delivery of any warranties, representations, guarantees, or certifications. 10.1 The agreement between Consultant.and City may be terminated by either party upon thirty-(30)days written notice. 7.2 Consultant's opinions,conclusions,recommendations,and report will be prepared in accordance with the proposal,scope 10.2 If the agreement is terminated prior to completion of the of work,and Limitations of Environmental Assessments and project, Consultant will receive an equitable adjustment of no warranties,representations,guarantees,or certifications will compensation. be made. Except that Consultant warrants that hardware and software will perform as represented in proposal and other parts of this agreement. City of Eden Prairie General Conditions Consultant Agreement December 2000 Page 3 of 4 SECTION 11: ASSIGNMENT SECTION 17: DATA PRACTICES ACT COMPLIANCE 11.1 Neither party may assign duties,rights or interests in the 17.1 The Consultant shall at all times abide by Minn.Stat 13.01 performance of the work without obtaining the prior written et seq., the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, to the consent of the other party, which consent will not be extent the Act is applicable to data and documents in the unreasonably withheld. possession of the Consultant. SECTION 12: DELAYS SECTION 18: DISCRIMINATION • 12.1 If Consultant is delayed in performance due to any cause In performance of this contract, the Consultant shall not beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to discriminate on the grounds of or because of race, color, creed, strikes,riots,fires,acts of God,governmental actions,actions religion,national origin,sex,marital status,status with regards to of a third party, or actions or inactions of City, the time for public assistance,disability,sexual orientation,or age against any performance shall be extended by a period of time lost by employee of the Consultant,any subcontractor of the Consultant, reason of the delay. Consultant will be entitled to payment for or any applicant for employment. The Consultant shall include a its reasonable additional charges,if any,due to the delay. similar provision in all contracts with subcontractors to this Contract. The Consultant further agrees to comply will all aspects SECTION 13: EXTRA WORK of the.Minnesota Human Rights Act,Minn.Stat.363.01,et seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,and the Americans with 13.1 Extra work, additional compensation for same, and Disabilities Act of 1990. extension of time for completion shall be covered by written amendment to this agreement prior to proceeding with any SECTION 19: CONFLICTS extra work or related expenditures. No salaried officer or employee of the City and no member of the SECTION 14: WITHHOLDING TAXES Board of the City shall have a financial interest,direct or indirect, .in this contract. The violation of this provision renders the 14.1 No fmal payment shall be made to the Consultant until Contract void. Any federal regulations and applicable state the Consultant has provided satisfactory evidence to the City statutes shall not be violated. that the Consultant and each of its subcontracts has complied with the provisions of Minn. Stat. 290.92 relating to SECTION 20: ENTIRE AGREEMENT withholding of income taxes upon wages. A certificate by the Commissioner of Revenue shall satisfy this requirement. 18.1 This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the City and Consultant and supersedes any prior written or oral SECTION 15: AUDITS agreements between them respecting the written subject matter. • There are no representations, agreements, arrangements or 15.1 The books, records, documents and accounting understandings, oral or written between City and Consultant procedures and practices of the Consultant or other parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are not relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the fully expressed herein. City and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six (6) years after the effective date of this 18.2 The agreement between Consultant and City may be Contract. modified only by a written amendment executed by both City and Consultant. SECTION 16: PAYMENT TO SUBCONTRACTORS 18.3 This agreement is governed by the laws of the State of 16.1 The Consultant shall pay to any Subcontractor within ten Minnesota. (10)days of the Consultant's receipt of payment from the City for undisputed services provided by the Subcontractor. The Consultant shall pay interest of one and a half percent (1-1/2%)per month or any part of a month to a Subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the Subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of$100.00 or more is$10.00. For an unpaid balance of less than$100.00, the Consultant shall pay the actual amount due to the Subcontractor. City of Eden Prairie General Conditions Consultant Agreement December 2000 Page 4 of 4 9 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent June 5,2001 SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development Revision to Rolling Hills TIE Plan—Change in &Financial Services: Legal Description. Don Uram David Lindahl Requested Action Move to: • Adopt Resolution revising the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Rolling Hills Senior project. Synopsis The legal description in the Rolling Hills TIE Plan was amended. Background The 142-unit Rolling Hills project received first reading approval by the Council on October 19, 1999, and second reading approval October 3, 2000. The unit breakdown is as follows: • 53 Assisted Living • 14 Alzheimer Care Units • 75 Independent Living Units Attachments 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE H I NNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 17. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the • "City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. On March 20, 2001, the City, pursuant to the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.174 to 469.179 as amended (the "Act") created Tax Increment Financing District No. 17 and approved the Tax Increment Financing Plan related thereto following a public hearing conducted in accordance with the Act. 1.02. Section G of the Tax Increment Financing Plan defines the boundaries of the Tax Increment Financing District as Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Prairie Lakes Business Park, including all street or utility rights-of-way located upon or adjacent to the property described above. 1.03. Subsequent to the adoption of Tax Increment Finance District No. 17 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan, it has been determined that the property to be included within the Tax Increment Financing District is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Rolling Hills Subdivision, Hennepin County, Minnesota containing approximately 7.95 acres. Section 2 Approval of Amendment to Financing Plan. 2.01. Section G of the Tax Increment Financing Plan is amended in its entirety as follows: Section G Property to be Included in the TIF District The TIF District is a 7.95 acre area of land located within the Project Area. A map showing the location of the TIF District is shown in Exhibit 1. The boundaries and area encompassed by the TIF District are described below: Legal Description Lot 1, Block 1, Rolling Hills Subdivision, Hennepin County, Minnesota The area encompassed by the TIE District shall also include all street or utility rights-of-way located upon or adjacent to the property described above. 2.02. Except as modified or amended herein, the Tax Increment Financing Plan and the Tax Increment Financing District remain in full force and effect as adopted by the City pursuant to Resolution No. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 5th day of June, 2001. Jean L. Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent June 5,2001 SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development &Financial Services: Rolling Hills Project Management Agreement Don Uram David Lindahl Requested Action Move to: • ■ Adopt Resolution approving Project Management Agreement for Rolling Hills Senior housing development. Synopsis The Project Management Agreement outlines the obligations of the developer relating to rent restrictions and various other terms. Background The 142-unit Rolling Hills project received first reading approval by the Council on October 19, 1999, and second reading approval October 3, 2000. The unit breakdown is as follows: • 53 Assisted Living • 14 Alzheimer Care Units • 75 Independent Living Units Attachments Resolution CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND SE ROLLING HILLS,LLC RELATING TO THE ROLLING HILLS SENIOR HOUSING CAMPUS. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City") as follows: WHEREAS, SE Rolling Hills, LLC (the "Developer") is the owner of certain real property located in the City described as Lot 1, Block 1, Rolling Hills Subdivision, Hennepin County, Minnesota, on which the Developer proposes to construct a 142 units/beds facility for the care of the elderly consisting of independent living units, assisted care units and Alzheimer's/dementia care beds building(the"Project"); and WHEREAS, the City has agreed to provide tax increment financing to reimburse the Developer for certain qualified costs pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174 to 469.179 as amended(the"Tax Increment Act"); and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2001, the City approved the Tax Increment Financing Plan and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 17 for the Project, commonly referred to as the Rolling Hills Senior Housing Campus; and WHEREAS, the City and the Developer desire to enter into a written agreement with regard to the development and operation of the Project and have presented to this Council a proposed Project Management Agreement by and between the City of Eden Prairie ("City") and SE Rolling Hills, LLC ("Developer") hereinafter referred to as the Project Management Agreement; NOW THEREFORE, the City Council hereby approves the Project Management Agreement and authorizes its execution. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 5th day of June,2001. Jean L.Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A.Porta,City Clerk EP MesoluhiResolufion-PMA approva1.050701 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE (CITY)AND SE ROLLING HILLS,LLC (DEVELOPER) THIS PROJECT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT is made as of June 5, 2001 between THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation and political subdivision organized under the constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota (the "City"), and SE Rolling Hills, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company(the"Developer"). The Agreement consists of: The body of the agreement,pages 1 through 15; Exhibit A,the legal description of the project property; • Exhibit B,the prospective initial rent roll; Exhibit C,the list of required Insurance Coverage; • RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner of that certain real property located in the.City and legally described as set forth on Exhibit A, on which the Developer is to construct, within the TIF District, as defined hereafter, a 142 unit/bed facility for the care of the elderly consisting of independent living units, assisted care units and Alzheimer's/dementia care beds building (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the City also has agreed to provide tax-increment financing to reimburse the Developer for certain qualified costs pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended(the"Tax Increment Act"); and WHEREAS,the City and the Developer desire to provide a written agreement with regard to the development and operation of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants, conditions, and promises set forth in this Agreement,the parties agree as follows: 1. Defined Terms. When used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth in this subsection 1. 3 1.1 Rent Reductions:The amount by which the market rate rent for comparable units exceeds the rent amount actually received by the Developer for occupied Very Low Income Units. 1.2 TIF Payment: An amount equal to 90 percent of the Tax Increment received by the City from the TIF District. 1.3 Bonds: The City's Multifamily Housing and Healthcare Facility Revenue Bonds (Rolling Hills Project)[Series A through E] to be issued to provide financing for the Project. 1.4 Code: Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 1.5 Market Rate Units: Dwelling units which are not Very Low Income Units. 1.6 Median Income: The area median gross income for the Minii'eapolis-St. Paul Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as adjusted for family size and other factors, and as determined annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development(hereinafter referred to as HUD). 1.7 Moderate Income Units: Dwelling units (independent living and memory care units) which will be rented to individuals or families whose incomes do not exceed one hundred ten percent(110%)of the area median gross income. 1.8 Tax Increment: The tax increments derived from the TIF District which have been received and retained by the City in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177 or otherwise pursuant to the Tax Increment Act. y 1.9 Term: A period of ten(10) years beginning with the first year of full tax increment. 1.10 TIF District: Housing Tax Increment Financing District No. 17, created by the City in conformance with the Tax Increment Act. 1.11 Total TIF Payments: The total of all TIF Payments received by the Developer from the City not to exceed$2,561,150. 1.12 Very Low Income Units: Dwelling units (independent living, assisted living and memory care units) which will qualify for the low-income housing tax credit pursuant to Section 42 of the Code and will be rented to individuals or families whose incomes do not exceed fifty percent(50%) of the Median Income. 2. Project Construction and Management. a. The Project shall be constructed and used in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174 Subd. 11, entitled "Housing Districts." The fair market value of the improvements which are to be constructed in the TIF District for commercial use or for uses other than low and moderate income housing shall not exceed twenty percent(20%) of the total fair market value of the improvement to be constructed in the TIF District. The Developer shall construct the Project on or before December 31, 2002. If the Project is not completed and operational on or before December 31, 2002, other than for reasons outside of the Developer's control, or as agreed to by the City, the City may provide a notice of intent to terminate this Agreement. In the event the Developer has not substantially completed the Project within sixty (60) days following the delivery of the City's notice of intent to terminate this Agreement, will terminate and s Developer shall within 10 days thereafter repay to City total TIF Payments made by the City together with interest thereon at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum. b. The City and the Developer agree that the Developer's management of the Project following completion of construction shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, including the remedies for noncompliance set forth herein or otherwise available by law. 3. City Obligations. 3.1 Subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City agrees to provide, or to make available to, the Developer with regard to the Project the benefits described in this Section 3. 3.2 The City has established the Qualified Housing District in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047. 3.3 The City has created the TIF District. 3.4 If all other terms and conditions of this Agreement have been complied with and performed, the City shall pay to the Developer (or to its Lender, as designated in writing by the Developer) the TIF Payments during the Term in the maximum amount of$2,561,150. The Tax Increment may be used only for eligible costs which are identified in the TIF Plan, Section K, Estimated Public Costs, as site improvements, land acquisition and administration (and to pay debt service on funds which finance such costs). TIE Payments shall be made within ten (10) business days of receipt by the City of Tax Increment from Hennepin County. The City's obligation to make a TIF Payment is expressly contingent upon receipt by City of Tax Increment. In no event will the City be required to make any payment to Developer from any funds whatsoever other than from Tax Increments. The TIF Payments shall be the City's contribution to the Project. The City shall have no liability to the Developer (or its Lender) for any shortfall if a TIF Payment or the Total TIF Payments are less than estimated. In no event shall the Total TIF Payments obligation of the City exceed$2,561,150.00. 4. Developer's Obligations. 4.1 Tenants. a. Developer shall provide Very Low Income Units as set forth in this subsection and subsection 4.2. Twenty percent (20%) of the dwelling units in the Project (29 Units) shall be Very Low Income Units. The Developer must reexamine the income of each Very Low Income Unit tenant on an annual basis. If the income of a Very Low Income Unit tenant does not exceed the applicable income limit upon commencement of such tenant's occupancy of a unit, the income of such tenant shall be deemed not to exceed the applicable income limit until such tenant's • income for a year shall exceed one hundred and forty percent (140%) of the Median Income for the year. In the event that a tenant's income exceeds such income limit,the unit occupied by such tenant will become a Market Rate Unit and Developer shall provide the next available comparably sized Market Rate Unit as a Very Low Income Unit. Further, in such event Developer may require such tenant to pay the market rate rent for the tenant's Market Rate Unit. b. Developer shall provide Moderate Income Units as set forth within this subsection and subsection 4.2.c. Sixty percent(60%) of the dwelling units in the Project(86 units) shall be Moderate Income Units. 4.2 Rents. a. Prospective initial rents are shown on Exhibit B. Maximum rent for Very Low Income Units shall be based on 1.5 persons per bedroom. b. The gross annual housing rent charged by the Developer for each Very Low Income Unit shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the imputed income limitation applicable to such unit, as determined under Code Section 42, less any utility allowance for utilities paid by tenants,required by Code Section 42. The Developer will provide tenants of Very Low Income Units with written notice at least sixty (60) calendar days before implementing any rent increase. c. Maximum rents for Moderate Income Units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of one hundred ten percent (110%) of the Median Income as adjusted for family size. 4.3 Rent Roll. The Developer must submit for the City's review the Developer's initial and subsequent annual rent roll for Very Low Income Units. The Developer will submit the rent roll annually, on or before January 1 of each year, and the City will,within 30 days of such submission, review and approve the rent for the Very Low Income Units if the income of the tenants does not exceed the limits provided for in subsection 4.1 and the rents charged for the Very Low Income Units are not in excess of the rent limits applicable for Code Section 42 as set forth in subsection 4.2. Any rent roll submitted by the Developer will be considered approved unless disapproved by the City within thirty (30) business days after submission. The City shall provide written reasons if any rent roll is g disapproved. The Developer shall have sixty (60) days following receipt of any notice of disapproval to cure any objections the City has made in its notice of disapproval and to submit a revised rent roll to the City for review and approval • as provided for in this Section. The Developer's failure to obtain the City's approval of revised rent rolls during such sixty (60) day cure period, unless such approval is unreasonably withheld by the City, shall constitute a default by the Developer. 4.4 Refusal to Lease. The Developer may not refuse to lease any unit in the Project to a prospective tenant on the basis of the prospective tenant's receipt of, or eligibility for, housing assistance, social security, or other types of public or private assistance. 4.5 Maintenance and Repairs. The Developer shall cause the buildings, appurtenances, equipment, and grounds of the Project to be maintained and repaired according to local codes. 4.6 Utilities and Services. The Developer shall make arrangements for water, electricity, gas, sewage and trash disposal, vermin extermination, decorating, laundry facilities, telephone services, and other utilities and services, as required by law,including the City Code. 4.7 Insurance. The Developer shall obtain and cause to be placed in force all Insurance Required Coverage as set forth in Exhibit C. 4.8 Governmental Orders. Unless under judicial or administrative appeal,protested in good faith by the Developer in accordance with applicable law or regulation, the Developer shall take such actions as may be necessary to comply promptly with any and all orders or requirements affecting the Project which are placed upon the Project by any federal, state, county, or municipal authority having jurisdiction over the Project. 4.9 Records and Reports. The Developer shall establish and maintain a comprehensive system of records, books, and accounts in a manner reasonably satisfactory to the City. The City may inspect the same during regular business hours upon reasonable notice thereof. 4.10 Rent Reduction. The Developer will provide rents for Very Low Income Units as described in subsection 4.2 for thirty years from the date of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project by the City of Eden Prairie. 4.11 Additional Debt. The Developer will not incur debt, except for the Bonds and related mortgage loan, non-Project related debt and debts which in the aggregate equal at any time less than 5 percent of the value of the Project and are incurred in the Developer's ordinary course of business, without the City's written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 4.12 Section 8 Vouchers. The Developer will accept vouchers issued to tenants pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended,to be applied to the rent of up to but not more than ten percent(10%) of the units within the Project. Persons who hold Section 8 vouchers, and who are accepted as tenants in the Project, shall also, if qualified, be deemed to be tenants of Very Low Income Units; provided, however, the Developer need not accept tenants holding Section 8 vouchers unless those tenants also: (i) perform all lease terms imposed by the Developer for tenants of the Project including the payment of rent and security deposits; (ii) meet all application and screening criteria imposed by the Developer for the tenants of the Project, provided that the income /0 qualification requirement for persons holding Section 8 vouchers shall be gross income equal to two times the rent to be paid by the tenant after application of the Section 8 voucher; and(iii)pay the Developer the difference between the required rental for the unit and the amount of the Section 8 voucher. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to impose any restrictions on the right of the Developer to impose lawful income qualification requirements or any other screening criteria on tenants of the Project who do not hold Section 8 vouchers. 5. Termination of Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless and until terminated as provided below. 5.1 Termination by Mutual Consent. To the extent allowed by law, this Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of the City and the Developer. 5.2 Termination by Right. The Developer shall have the unilateral right to. terminate this Agreement at any time following the end of the Term provided, however, as a condition precedent to such termination prior to the 30-year anniversary of the Agreement, the Developer shall tender to the City the Total TIP Payments, less an amount equal to the total Rent Reductions to the date of termination. 5.3 Termination by City for Cause. a. If during the Term, the Developer shall fail to comply with the terms of this Agreement, the City may give notice of such default or failure and, if the Developer fails to cure within ninety (90) calendar days of receipt of notice or such greater time as allowed by City, this Agreement will terminate. 2064377v1 II b. Termination of this Agreement for cause shall subject the Developer to the remedies set forth in this Agreement or as otherwise provided by law. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, and in addition to any other remedy, unless the termination is under judicial or administrative appeal, taken in good faith by the Developer in accordance with applicable law or regulation, the Developer, in the event that this Agreement is terminated by the City for cause, and upon the receipt of a written demand by the City therefor, shall tender immediately to the City an amount equal to the amount of the total TIF Payments less rent reductions. 5.4 Termination by Developer for Cause. If developer has performed its obligations pursuant to this Agreement, in the event that during the term, the City • fails to provide a TIF Payment within ten(10)business days of receipt by the City of Tax Increment from Hennepin County and is not prohibited by law from doing so, then City shall be in default of this Agreement. The Developer shall give written notice of such default to City, and, if the City fails to cure within thirty (30) calendar days or such greater time as allowed by the Developer, the Developer may either: a. Commence an action in Hennepin County District Court for specific performance to compel the City to provide to the Developer the TIF Payment, or b. Terminate this Agreement for cause upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the City. If this Agreement is terminated by the Developer due to City's failure to make a TIF Payment,the Developer shall not be obligated to repay to the City any portion of the Total TIF Payments provided through the date of termination,provided however, Total TIP Payments in la excess of Rent Reductions at the time of the termination of the Agreement shall be applied by the Developer to future rent reductions thus alleviating the hardship which would be caused to tenants of Very Low Income Units if the Project were immediately converted to market-rate rents. The City shall have the right to examine the Developer's records to ensure that the excess TIF Payments are applied to provide the future Rent Reductions. 6. Reimbursement. Should the Developer cease to continue providing Very Low Income Units and Moderate Income Units, or charge rents for them in excess of the amounts, as provided in this Agreement, the Developer shall be required to repay to the City the amount of the Total TIF Payments less the Rent Reductions. In addition to the provisions of Section 14 hereof that apply when mortgage financing for the Project is insured by the HUD, the City agrees that the obligation to reimburse Total Annual TIF Payments shall be subject,junior and subordinate in all respects to all mortgage financing for the Project provided by HUD or a lender or lenders whose loans are not insured by HUD and whose loans in the aggregate do not exceed the fair market value of the Project (determined at the time such loan or loans are initially funded and assuming completion of initial construction of the Project). The priorities provided for in this section shall be applicable irrespective of the timing or order of filing or perfection of this Agreement and such other mortgage or mortgages. The City agrees to execute such other and further documents as may be reasonably requested by such lender or lenders to confirm and reflect the subordination provided for herein. 7. Assignments. 7.1 This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and constitute a binding obligation upon the City, the Developer, and their respective successors and assigns. Any / ►3 assignee, successor,buyer, lessee, or transferee of the Developer or the City shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 7.2 The Developer may sell, transfer, or assign its interest in the Project and this Agreement to any buyer, transferee, or assignee, which expressly assumes all of the Developer's obligations under this Agreement. Prohibition on Conversion to Occupant-Owned Condominiums. During the Term, the Developer or any assignee, successor, or transferee of the Developer shall be prohibited from converting the Project to condominium occupant-ownership, wherein single units constitute condominiums, and condominiums are owned by occupants. The Developer and the Developer's assigns, successors or transferees may convert the Project to condominium ownership wherein a group of units constitutes a condominium, which condominiums are not owned by occupants, and each unit within the condominium is rented, rather than owned, by its occupants. If the Project is converted to non-occupant condominium form,the Project shall continue to provide, and charge rents for,Very Low Income Units and Moderate Income Units as required by this Agreement, and the condominium owners shall be liable for compliance with the terms of this Agreement and for that purpose all of the condominium unit owners,jointly and severally, shall be deemed to have assumed, and shall be obligated to perform, the duties and obligations of the Developer hereunder. Prior to or simultaneously with any conveyance of condominiums allowed under this subsection, the buyer of such condominium shall agree to assume the obligations of this Agreement, and shall execute and deliver to the City a document acceptable to the City assuming such obligations. Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the City and Developer, and no amendment or modification shall be valid and enforceable unless in writing, executed, and approved by both parties in the same manner as this Agreement. 10. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given by any party upon the other is given in accordance with this Agreement if it is in writing and directed to Developer by delivering it personally to an officer of Developer; or if it is directed to City of Eden Prairie, by delivering it personally to the Manager or Clerk of City of Eden Prairie; or if mailed in a sealed wrapper by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested,postage prepaid; or transmitted by facsimile, a copy followed by mailed notice as above required; or if deposited cost paid with a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier,properly addressed, as follows: To City: The City of Eden Prairie c/o City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344-2230 Yf15 With a copy to: Richard F.Rosow Lang,Pauly, Gregerson&Rosow,Ltd. 1600 Park Building 650 Third Avenue South Minneapolis,MN 55402-4337 Telephone: 612-338-0755 Facsimile: 612-349-6718 Email:rrosow@lpgr.com To Developer: SE Rolling Hills,LLC do Shelter Care Foundation 900 Second Avenue South, Suite 890 Minneapolis,MN 55402 Attention: Susan Landwehr . Telephone: Facsimile: Email: Notices shall be deemed effective one (1) day after deposit with overnight carrier, on the day of receipt if by messenger or by telecopy (with proof of transmission) and three (3) business days following deposit in U.S. mail. Notice may be given by the attorney for a party. 11. Change of Notice. Any party may change its address for the service of notice by giving written notice of such change to the other party, in any manner above specified, 10 days prior to the effective date of such change. 12. Indemnification. The Developer hereby indemnifies, and agrees to defend and hold harmless, the City from and against all liabilities, losses, damages, costs, expenses (including attorneys= fees and expenses), causes of action, suits, allegations, claims, demands and judgments of any nature arising from the consequences of a legal or administrative proceeding or action brought against them, or any of them, on account of the Project, any failure by the Developer to comply with the terms of this Agreement, or on account of any representation or warranty contained herein being untrue. V/6 13. Covenants Binding. The covenants, restrictions and conditions contained herein shall run with the Land and the Project, including the real property upon which the Project is located, and shall pass to and be binding upon the Developer=s successors in title to the Project. 14. HUD Provisions. All of the provisions of this Agreement are subject to the following restrictions that will be imposed and be in effect in the event the mortgage loan on the Project is insured by HUD. 14.1 Any financial obligation of the Developer hereunder will terminate and will be deemed satisfied if HUD acquires title to the Project by a deed in lieu of foreclosure. 14.2 Nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter or to conflict with the terms, conditions, and provisions of the HUD regulations, handbooks, administrative requirements, and lender notices in effect at the time of execution of the Regulatory Agreement between the Developer and HUD, and, to the extent that they do so, the aforesaid regulations, handbooks, administrative requirements, lender notices, and documents shall control, and this Agreement shall be amended so as not to alter or to conflict with the aforesaid regulations, handbooks, administrative requirements, lender notices and documents. This provision shall terminate and be void upon termination of the HUD insurance of a mortgage owned or insured by HUD. 14.3 So long as there is a mortgage federally insured by HUD on the Project or there is a mortgage held directly by HUD on the Project, (i) this Agreement may not be amended without the prior written consent of HUD and any successor holder I7 of the first mortgage on the Project, and (ii) it may not be sold, transferred, assigned, or pledged without the prior written approval of HUD. 15. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be an original agreement,but all of which together will be one agreement. 16. Interpretation. Any terms not defined in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as terms defined in the Act or in Section 142(d) of the Code and Treasury Regulations applicable thereto. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with Section 42 of the Code, including any rulings, decisions, or proposed temporary or final regulations issued pursuant thereto. 17. Severability. The invalidity of any clause,part or provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof 18. Governing Act. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota and,where applicable,the laws of the United States of America. • 19. Attorneys' Fees. In case any action at law or in equity, including• an action for declaratory relief, is brought against the Developer to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the Developer agrees to pay reasonable attorneys= fees and other reasonable expenses incurred by the City in connection with such action. 20. Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of Hennepin County Recorder and/or Registrar of Titles, as applicable. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. DEVELOPER: CITY: By: By: Its: Chief Manager Its:Mayor By: By: Its: Its: City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , by Jean Harris and Chris Enger, the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, ' of The City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public • � t STATE OF M NNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , by , and , the Chief Manager and , respectively, of, SE Rolling Hills, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Notary Public EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT PROPERTY Lot 1 ,Block 1,Rolling Hills Subdivision,Hennepin County,Minnesota ' r f 21 EXHIBIT B (PROSPECTIVE INITIAL RENT ROLL] • EXHIBIT C (REQUIRED INSURANCE COVERAGE) Ep\rollinghills\pma.052501 �-L4 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 06/5/01 SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM DESCRIPTION: • SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: Community Development and Resolution authorizing the Sale and Issuance of ITEM NO.: Financial Services Multifamily Housing and Healthcare Facility �; Donald R.Uram Revenue Bonds—Rolling Hills Project y Requested Action Move to: • • Adopt Resolution Relating To Multifamily Housing And Healthcare Facility Revenue Bonds (GNMA Collateralized Mortgage Loan—Rolling Hills Project), Series 2001A And Taxable Series 2001B;And Multifamily Housing And Healthcare Facility Revenue Bonds (Rolling Hills Project), Subordinate Series 2001C, Series 2001D And Series 2001E; Authorizing The Sale And Issuance Of • The Bonds And Establishing The Security Therefor And Authorizing The Execution Of Documents Synopsis On November 7, 2000, the City Council held a public hearing for the purpose of receiving comments on the proposed issuance of multifamily housing and healthcare facility revenue bonds for the development of a 53-unit assisted living facility and 14 Alzheimer unit housing project. No comments were received at the public hearing. The request before the Council is to adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Rolling Hills Project. Attachment Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND HEALTHCARE FACILITY REVENUE BONDS (GNMA COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE LOAN—ROLLING HILLS PROJECT),SERIES 2001A AND TAXABLE SERIES 2001B;AND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND HEALTHCARE FACILITY REVENUE BONDS (ROLLING HILLS PROJECT), SUBORDINATE SERIES 2001C, SERIES 2001D AND SERIES 2001E;AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS AND ESTABLISHING THE SECURITY THEREFOR AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota (the"City"), as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals and Findings 1.01 The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 462A and 462C, as amended(the"Housing Programs Act"),to issue its revenue bonds to finance a development consisting of a combination of a multifamily housing development, as defined by the Housing Programs Act, and a new or existing health care facility,as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.153,which revenue bonds shall be payable solely from the revenues of the development or other security pledged therefor. 1.02 SE Rolling Hills,LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company(the"Borrower"), whose members are Shelter Care Foundation, a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation ("Shelter Care"), and the Ebenezer Society, a Minnesota nonprofit organization and 501(c)(3) corporation("Ebenezer")has proposed that the City, acting pursuant to the Housing Programs Act,issue its Multifamily Housing and Healthcare Facility Revenue Bonds(GNMA Collateralized Mortgage Loan—Rolling Hills Project),Series 2001A,in the aggregate principal amount of$19,350,000(the"Series A Bonds"),its Multifamily Housing and Healthcare Facility Revenue Bonds (GNMA Collateralized Mortgage Loan—Rolling Hills Project), Taxable Series 2001B,in the aggregate principal amount of$1,850,000; (the"Series B Bonds"), its Multifamily Housing and Healthcare Facility Revenue Bonds (Rolling Hills Project), Subordinate Series 2001C, in the aggregate principal amount of$1,200,000(the"Series C Bonds), its Multifamily Housing and Healthcare Facility Revenue Bonds (Rolling Hills Project), Subordinate Series 2001D,in the aggregate principal amount of$150,000(the"Series D Bonds") and its Multifamily Housing and Healthcare Facility Revenue Bonds(Rolling Hills Project), Subordinate Series 2001E,in the aggregate principal amount of$750,000(the"Series E Bonds", together with the Series A Bonds,the Series B Bonds,the Series C Bonds and the Series D Bonds,the`Bonds"),the proceeds of which would be loaned by the City to the Borrower for the purpose of: 7' (a) financing a project consisting of the acquisition, construction and equipping of a 53-unit assisted living facility and 14 Alzheimer units (collectively,the"Assisted Living Facility"), and the acquisition of land and the construction and equipping thereon of a 75-unit multifamily housing facility(the"Housing Facility"), designed and intended for occupancy by elderly persons (the Housing Facility, together with the Assisted Living Facility is referred to herein as the"Project"),to be owned and operated by the Borrower. (b) funding interest on the Series A Bonds and the Series B Bonds (the"Senior Bonds") and the Series C Bonds during construction and a portion of the initial lease-up period; (c) paying a portion of the issuance costs incurred by the Borrower in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds; and (d) paying certain development,marketing and administrative costs. 1.03 The City has heretofore developed and adopted a housing plan(the "Housing Plan"). The Borrower has submitted to the City Council a description of an Elderly Housing Program(the"Housing Program")under the Housing Plan, including a description of the proposed Housing Project. 1.04 At a public hearing, duly noticed and held on November 7,2000, in accordance with the Housing Programs Acts and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended(the"Code"), on the proposal to approve the Housing Program and to undertake and finance the Project, all parties who appeared at the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal and interested persons were given the opportunity to submit written comments to the City Clerk before the time of the hearing. The Council hereby approves the Housing Program,the Project and the issuance of the Bonds;provided that the approvals given herein are expressly conditioned on the Project receiving all required planning and zoning approvals prior to delivery of the Bonds. SECTION 2. Authorization of Bonds; Approval of Documents 2.01 Findings and Authorization. (a) This Council hereby finds that the issuance and sale of not to exceed $23,200,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds to finance all or a portion of the cost of the Project and certain costs incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and certain development,marketing and administrative costs is in the best interest of the City and the City hereby determines to issue and sell such Bonds. (b) The proceeds of the Senior Bonds (the"Senior Loan") and the proceeds of the Series C Bonds,the Series D Bonds and the Series E Bonds (collectively, the "Subordinate Loan")will be lent by the City to the Borrower, in order to finance all or a portion of the cost of the Project and to pay certain costs of issuance of the Bonds. 3 (c) Pursuant to a Financing Agreement(the"Financing Agreement"),with respect to the Senior Bonds,proposed to be made and entered into between the City,the Borrower,Reilly Mortgage Group,Inc., as lender, and U.S.Bank Trust National Association, as trustee(the"Senior Trustee") and joined in by Shelter Care and Ebenezer, a copy of which has been presented to the Council at this meeting and which has been reviewed to the extent deemed necessary,the Borrower will unconditionally agree to repay the Senior Loan made by the City under the Financing Agreement in the amounts and at the times sufficient to make the necessary payments of principal of,premium,if any, and interest on the Senior Bonds,when due. In addition,the Financing Agreement contains provisions relating to the payment by the Borrower of administrative costs of the Senior Trustee,indemnification,insurance and other agreements and covenants which are required by the Act or which are permitted by the Act and which the City and the Borrower deem necessary or desirable for the sale of the Senior Bonds. (d) Pursuant to an Indenture of Trust(the"Indenture"),proposed to be made and entered into between the City and the Senior Trustee, a copy of which has been presented to the Council at this meeting and which has been reviewed to the extent deemed necessary,the City assigns and pledges all of its right, title and interest in the Financing Agreement (other than the right of the City for indemnification and administrative expenses and fees), to the Senior Trustee. In addition, the Indenture, among other things, sets the interest rates,maturity dates and redemption provisions for the Senior Bonds, establishes the various funds and accounts for the deposit and transfer of money and contains other provisions which are required by the Act or which are permitted by the Act and which the City and the Borrower deem necessary or desirable in connection with the sale of the Senior Bonds. (e) Pursuant to a Subordinate Loan Agreement(the"Subordinate Loan Agreement"),with respect to the Subordinate Bonds,proposed to be made and entered into between the City and the Borrower, a copy of which has been presented to the Council at this meeting and which has been reviewed to the extent deemed necessary,the Borrower will unconditionally agree to repay the Subordinate Loan made by the City under the Subordinate Loan Agreement in the amounts and at the times sufficient to make the necessary payments of principal of,premium,if any, and interest on the Subordinate Bonds,when due. In addition,the Subordinate Loan Agreement contains provisions relating to the payment by the Borrower of administrative costs of the Subordinate Trustee(as hereinafter defined), indemnification, insurance and other agreements and covenants which are required by the Act or which are permitted by the Act and which the City and the Borrower deem necessary or desirable for the sale of the Subordinate Bonds. (f) Pursuant to a Subordinate Indenture of Trust(the "Subordinate Indenture"), proposed to be made and entered into between the City and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee(the"Subordinate Trustee"), a copy of which has been presented to the Council at this meeting and which has been reviewed to the extent deemed necessary,the City assigns and pledges all of its right, title and interest in the Subordinate y Loan Agreement(other than the right of the City for indemnification and administrative expenses and fees),to the Subordinate Trustee. In addition,the Subordinate Indenture, among other things, sets the interest rates,maturity dates and redemption provisions for the Subordinate Bonds, establishes the various funds and accounts for the deposit and transfer of money and contains other provisions which are required by the Act or which are permitted by the Act and which the City and the Borrower deem necessary or desirable in connection with the sale of the Subordinate Bonds. (g) Pursuant to a Subordinate Combination Second Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement(the"Second Mortgage"),proposed to be executed by the Borrower in favor of the City,the Borrower will grant to the City a mortgage lien on and security interest in the Project to secure the Series C Bonds; (h) Pursuant to an Assignment of Mortgage Agreement(the"Assignment of Second Mortgage"),proposed to be executed by the City in favor of the Trustee, the City will assign its interest in the Second Mortgage to the Subordinate Trustee. (i) Pursuant to a Subordinate Combination Third Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement(the"Third Mortgage"),proposed to be executed by the Borrower in favor of the City,the Borrower will grant to the City a mortgage lien on and security interest in the Project to secure the Series D Bonds; (j) Pursuant to an Assignment of Mortgage Agreement(the"Assignment of Third Mortgage"),proposed to be executed by the City in favor of the Trustee,the City will assign its interest in the Third Mortgage to the Subordinate Trustee. (k) Pursuant to a Tax Compliance Agreement(the"Tax Agreement"),proposed to be executed by the City,the Borrower and the Trustee(in its capacity as both Senior Trustee and Subordinate Trustee),the City will make certain representations and covenants with respect to the Bonds. (1) The Bonds will be special limited obligations of the City payable solely from amounts payable by the Borrower under the Financing Agreement and the Subordinate Loan Agreement, other than to the extent payable from the proceeds of the Bonds. The Bonds shall not be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof,nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. No holder or holders of any Bond shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay any such Bond or the interest thereon,nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the Financing Agreement,the Subordinate Loan Agreement, the Assignment of Second Mortgage and the Assignment of Third Mortgage. The Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. (m) The Bonds will be purchased from the City by Dain Rauscher Incorporated (the"Underwriters")pursuant to two Bond Purchase Agreements (the"Bond Purchase 5 Agreements")between the City,the Borrower and the Underwriters, copies of which have been presented to the Council at this meeting and which have been reviewed to the extent deemed necessary. (n) A draft of a Preliminary Official Statement,related to the Bonds,has been presented to the Council at this meeting and has been reviewed to the extent deemed necessary. The Preliminary Official Statement will be distributed by the Underwriters to potential purchasers of the Bonds. 2.02 In order to provide for the financing of all or a portion of the costs of the Project, the City hereby authorizes the issuance of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding$23,300,000. The final aggregate principal amount,the purchase price,the maturity schedule, the provisions for prepayment and redemption of the Bonds prior to their stated maturity, and the interest rates of the Bonds, shall be approved by the Mayor and the City Manager, and shall be set forth in the Indenture,the Subordinate Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreements. Such approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution of the Bond Purchase Agreements as provided herein. 2.03 Each Bond shall be executed on behalf of the City by the manual or facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager. The Trustee is hereby designated as authenticating agent pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55. If any of the officers who shall have signed or sealed any of the Bonds shall cease to be such officers of the City before the Bonds so signed and sealed shall have been actually authenticated by the Trustee or delivered by the City, such Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated, issued and delivered with the same force and effect as though the person or persons who signed or sealed such Bonds had not ceased to be such officer or officers of the City. 2.04 The Indenture,the Subordinate Indenture, the Financing Agreement, the Subordinate Loan Agreement,the Assignment of Second Mortgage and the Assignment of Third Mortgage (collectively,the"Documents") are hereby made a part of this Resolution as fully as though set forth in full herein and are hereby approved in the form submitted to this meeting, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute, acknowledge and deliver the Documents on behalf of the City with such changes,insertions and omissions therein as do not change the substance of the Documents and as maybe approved by the Mayor and City Manager, such approval to be evidenced conclusively by their execution of the Documents. 2.05 The City hereby consents to the distribution by the Underwriters to potential purchasers of the Bonds of the Preliminary Official Statement, and the distribution by the Underwriters of an official statement to purchasers of the Bonds in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement. The City has not and will not participate in the preparation of the Preliminary Official Statement and has made no independent investigation with respect to the information contained therein or in the appendices thereto, and the City assumes no responsibility for the sufficiency, accuracy or completeness of such information. To satisfy the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities Exchange Commission("Rule 15c2-12"), the 7' City hereby deems the Preliminary Official Statement to be final as of its date, except for the omission of no more than the information specified in Rule 15c2-12. The City also consents to the preparation and distribution to financial institutions and accredited investors of a Private Placement Memorandum relating to the Series C Bonds. 2.06 The Bond Purchase Agreements are hereby made a part of this Resolution as fully as though set forth in full herein and are hereby approved in the form submitted to this meeting and,upon the execution of the Bond Purchase Agreements by the Borrower and the Underwriters,the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bond Purchase Agreements on behalf of the City,with such further changes, insertions or omissions therein as do not change the substance of the Bond Purchase Agreements and as may be approved by the Mayor and City Manager, such approval to be evidenced conclusively by their execution of the Bond Purchase Agreements. 2.07 The Mayor and City Manager and all other officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver all other documents which may be required under the terms of the Documents or the Bond Purchase Agreements, and to take such other action as may be required or appropriate for the performance of the duties imposed thereby or to carry out the purposes thereof. In the absence or disability of the Mayor,the City Manager or any other officer of the City named in any instrument to be executed on behalf of the City in connection with the issuance of the Bonds, the acting Mayor, Assistant City Manager or other officer may execute such instrument. The execution of any instrument by an officer of the City shall be conclusive evidence of its approval. The City Manager is hereby designated for all purposes of the Documents and the Bond Purchase Agreements as the City official authorized to execute on behalf of the City certificates, requests or consents as provided in the Documents and the Bond Purchase Agreements. SECTION 3. Tax Matters The City recognizes its obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 148(f) of the Code relating to the rebate of certain amounts to the United States, and covenants that it will take or refrain from any actions,the result of which would be to cause the interest on the Series A Bonds, the Series C Bonds,the Series D Bonds and the Series E Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation as a result of the failure to comply with Section 148(f) of the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations. The City,by the Financing Agreement and the Subordinate Loan Agreement, has obligated the Borrower to take all actions necessary to comply with the rebate requirement, including making or causing to be made the computations of rebate or penalty amounts and paying the costs of computing any such rebate or penalty amounts. Passed and adopted this day of June, 2001. Mayor Attest: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member and,upon vote being taken thereon,the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor, whose signature was attested by the City Clerk. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: June 5,2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: City Manager Resolution Approving The Acceptance of the Chris Enger Resolution Approving Transfer of Control of ,S. KBL Cablesystems to AOL Time Warner Requested Action Move to: Adopt the Resolution approving the acceptance of the Resolution approving transfer of control of KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest,Inc.,to AOL Time Warner. Synopsis The City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota("City")passed and adopted Resolution No. 2000-70, approving the transfer of control of KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest,Inc.to AOL Time Warner("Franchisee") subject to certain specified criteria including,but not limited to,the receipt of a signed Acceptance upon thirty(30)days of the date of the transfer closing. AOL Time Warner inadvertently failed to execute and forward a signed Acceptance upon thirty(30) days of the date of the transfer closing as required. Background Attachment Resolution CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF KBL CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST,INC.,THE CABLE TELEVISON FRANCHISEE,TO AOL TIME WARNER WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota("City")passed and adopted Resolution No. 2000-70, approving the transfer of control of KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. to AOL Time Warner("Franchisee") subject to certain specified criteria including,but not limited to,the receipt of a signed Acceptance upon thirty(30) days of the date of the transfer closing. WHEREAS,AOL Time Warner inadvertently failed to execute and forward a signed Acceptance upon thirty(30) days of the date of the transfer closing as required. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council for the City resolves as follows: 1. The City hereby extends the thirty(30) day requirement required in Resolution No. 2000- 70 Section 3(c)until July 31,2001. 2. This Resolution shall take effect and continue and remain in effect from and after the date of its passage, approval, and adoption. A motion to approve the foregoing Resolution No. was made by Council Member_ and duly seconded by Council Member The following Council Members voted in the affirmative: The following Council Members voted in the negative: Passed and adopted by the City Council for the City this 5th day of June, 2001. Jean L. Harris,Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 2 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest,Inc.hereby agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of Resolution No. 2000-70 and the Franchise referenced therein. KBL CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST,INC. By: Its: Subscribed and sworn to me this to me this day of , 2001 Notary Public 3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: June 5, 2001 SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Public Works Servic . Approve Memorandum of Understanding with Eugene A. Dietz MnDOT for Traffic,Trail and Watermain Improvements at the Intersection of TH212/Valley View Road/Bryant Lake Drive Requested Action Move to: Approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for traffic, trail and watermain improvements at the intersection of TH 212/Valley View Road/Bryant Lake Drive. Synopsis MnDOT has conceptually approved a plan to allow the City of Eden Prairie to take the lead design responsibility for improvements in the general area of the ramp from TH 212 to Valley View Road. The improvements include double left turn lanes, incorporation of a trail that will connect Valley View Road to Bryant Lake Park andreplacement of the watermain that has been a continuing maintenance problem in the vicinity of the ramp. The memorandum would allow design work to proceed and would ultimately be followed by a Cooperative Construction Agreement that would more fully address responsibility and cost allocations for the work. Background Information ' Parks and Recreation Director Bob Lambert successfully received a grant from the DNR.toward the construction of a trail between Valley. View Road and Bryant Lake Park along the west side of Bryant Lake Drive. This past winter, the City repaired two watermain breaks along the west side of the ramp from TH 212 to Valley View Road, which results in a need for permanent roadway repairs. Finally, a long standing need by MnDOT, Hennepin County and the City has been identified to improve traffic flow for southbound TH 212 — the route is the ramp, a short segment of Valley View Road and its connection to Flying Cloud Drive south. Due to the integral nature of these three issues, MnDOT has agreed to accelerate the traffic improvements for this corridor and allow the City projects of the bike trail and watermain to be incorporated into one contract if the City will take the lead in the design of the work. Briefly, the Memorandum of Understanding anticipates the following: 1. The City will pay for all design work 2. MnDOT will pay for all traffic improvements 3. City will pay for trail and watermain improvements 4. MnDOT will provide construction administration(inspection) 5. The design will conform to State Aid Standards 6. City will acquire any right-of-way necessary for the trail construction 7. MnDOT would be responsible for providing any mitigation site for wetland impacts 8. The City will own and maintain the trail and watermain and be responsible for typical maintenance to the signal system(painting,power and relamping) 9. MnDOT would own and maintain the roadway improvements 10. The goal will be to complete the work by the end of the construction season The time line for this project is ambitious, but if all goes well it appears possible that the work could be substantially completed at the end of the construction season. If Council approves the Memorandum of Understanding, staff will proceed to select a consultant and submit a Professional Services Agreement as soon as possible for Council approval and will also begin the process of developing a Cooperative Construction Agreement with MnDOT. Financial Implications Funding for the City's share of this work would be as follows: • Trail — this project is jointly funded through a $50,000 DNR grant and through the trail improvement section of the CIP as currently approved. • Watermain — the replacement of the watermain would be an operation and maintenance expense from the Utility Enterprise Fund budget. • Design Cost—the design for the work associated with the trail and watermain would be attributable to the respective funding source and the design for traffic improvements and any City share of roadway costs (if any)would be funded from our Municipal State Aid Account. The Memorandum of Understanding has not been fully approved by MnDOT at the time of this transmittal. If there are substantive changes, staff will resubmit. However, to proceed as rapidly as possible, staff recommends approval of the Memorandum of Understanding to facilitate these coordinated activities. Attachments Memorandum of Understanding with MnDOT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE NIINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("Mn/DOT") and the City of Eden Prairie("City")wish to proceed with a cooperative construction project to upgrade the intersection at Trunk Highway 212 and County Road 39 including signal interconnects; and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT and the City also wish to proceed with a cooperative construction project to construct a recreational / transportation trail in the city of Eden Prairie along Bryant Lake Drive and Shady Oak Road from Valley View Road (CR 39) to Rowland Road; and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT and the City also wish to proceed with a cooperative construction project to replace a watermain along the southerly segment of Bryant Lake Drive; and WHEREAS, the work to be performed is as generally shown on the attached Exhibit A, and WHEREAS, construction is planned to begin in the year 2001 and is planned to be substantially completed by the end of 2001; and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT has pledged funding limited to the cost of the traffic improvements for the intersection of TH 212 with CR 39 and Bryant Lake Road with CR 39, and to the cost of contract administration and construction engineering for the entire project; and WHEREAS, the project financing will come jointly from State and City funds,as well as a$50,000 cooperative trail linkage grant from the Department of Natural Resources; and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT and City believe that by combining resources and working together we will be able to provide a better project and provide more efficient use of resources. NOW THEREFORE,Mn/DOT and the City agree to the following: 1. This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is not a binding agreement and that any binding obligations of the parties to this MOU will be made pursuant to written, and properly executed and Mn/DOT and City of Eden Prairie MOU TH 212 at CR 39 May 31,2001 3 2. Mn/DOT has certain project objectives and goals that must be accomplished by this project including the following: • Improve the intersection at CR 39 and TH 212 for safety and capacity by reconstructing the existing channelization island to provide left turn,through, and free right turn lane at east of existing bridge onto southbound TH 212 from CR 39,construct single right turn and dual left turning lanes onto CR 39 from Bryant Lake Drive,and construct right turn lane on westbound Prairie Center Drive to northbound TH 212 on ramp. • Interconnection of Hennepin County signals on CR 39 from SB I494 off ramp to CR 39 to Mn/DOT signal at SB TH 212 off ramp to CR 39,Mn/DOT signals at TH 212/CR 39, and City signals on Prairie Center Drive from CR 39 to WB I494 off ramp to Prairie Center Drive. 3. The City has certain project objectives and goals that must be accomplished by this project including the following: • The repair and/or replacement of watermain along Bryant Lake Drive. • The construction of a trail along Bryant Lake Drive and Shady Oak Road. 4. The City will be the lead agency for preliminary design, final design engineering and construction. The City will perform(or select a consultant to perform)the final design and will select a contractor to perform the construction. The City will supervise the construction of the watermain. 5. Mn/DOT agrees to provide contract administration and construction engineering for the project at no cost to the city. 6. The City agrees to prepare the construction plans and specifications in conformance with Mn/DOT State Aid standards and assume the cost of development of the plans. 7. Mn/DOT will review the construction plans and insure that State Aid standards are adhered to.Approval of the plans will be by Mn/DOT. Mn/DOT and City of Eden Prairie MOU TH212atCR39 May 31,2001 U 8. The City will be responsible for acquiring the right-of-way to construct the new trail along Bryant Lake Drive, as well as the easement for the replacement of watermain. 9. The City will be responsible for acquiring all permits for the construction of the trail and replacement of watermain. 10. Mn/DOT will provide wetland mitigation for only the Mn/DOT portion of the project,but will make their wetland banking program available to the City, on a reimbursable basis, for the City portion of the project. 11. The City will provide funding for the trail and the watermain replacement. 12. The Mn/DOT and City costs will be the basis for cooperative construction agreement(s)between Mn/DOT and the City. The cooperative construction agreements will be executed prior to the project letting. 13. The repair of the watermain on Bryant Lake Drive,the construction of the trail along Bryant Lake Drive, and the traffic improvements for the CR 39 /Bryant Lake Drive(TH 212 West Ramp) and the CR 39/TH 212 East Ramp intersections will all be considered one project. 14. Mn/DOT and the City agree that upon completion of construction, the Mn/DOT will assume ownership and major maintenance responsibilities for the TH 212 / CR 39 intersections, while the City will assume minor maintenance responsibilities of the intersections, including,but not limited to,signal painting,power,and relamping. The existing signal agreement for the intersection, by Mn/DOT and the City, will be modified to reflect the traffic improvements of the intersection. 15. Mn/DOT and the City agree that upon completion of construction, the City will assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the watermain and trail. Mn/DOT and City of Eden Prairie MOU TH 212 at CR 39 May 31,2001 I concur with this Memorandum of Understanding. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE TRANSPORTATION Richard A. Stehr Jean L.Harris Metro Division Engineer Mayor Christopher M.Enger City Manager Mn/DOT and City of Eden Prairie MOU TH212atCR39 May 31,2001 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: June 5,2001 SECTION: Consent Service Area: ITEM DESCRIPTION:Request funds for the ITEM NO. Tria Mann,Arts & Special 4th of July Celebration shuttle bus service Events Coordinator/ Bob Lambert,Director of L Parks &Recreation Services Requested Action Move to: Approve funds of$713 for Southwest Metro shuttle bus service from Miller Park to Round Lake Park for the 4th of July Celebration. Synopsis The move of the 4th of July Celebration back to Round Lake creates a concern for parking and traffic flow. Staff recommends providing shuttle service from Miller Park(900 parking stalls) to Round Lake Park. One bus would run from 5:00 p.m. to midnight, another one would come on from 6:00 p.m. to midnight and two more from 8:00 p.m. to midnight. This would provide 4 busses to return people following the fireworks. Each bus will hold 43 passengers. The cost for services from Southwest Metro would be $713. This cost includes 25 hours of service minus the 11 donated hours for a total of 14 hours of service to be paid. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT PHONE 952.049180SWall 13500 Technology Drive FAX:952.974.7997 Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 EMAIL:NstserY@swtransllorq WEBSITE:www swtransit orq May 29,2001 Chris Enger City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Chris, I have received your letter dated May 18th requesting group ride bus service from Southwest Metro Transit for the 4th of July celebration. I have passed the request onto John Kragness who handles all ride requests. John is working with Tria Mann on this project and it appears that this request can be fulfilled. As you know, each year member cities receive 20 hours of service from Southwest Metro Transit. Ideally we like to build these hours around off peak hours on the days we are operate (Monday—Friday). The reason for this is Southwest has to pay a premium for drivers on weekends and holidays, as well as pay for an on-call mechanic, driver, and street supervisor. Therefore, in the future, Southwest will not be able to offer any of the 20 hours of service on weekends or holidays. We would,however,be able to offer services at our marginal costs. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 952-974-3101. Sincerely, • SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION en Simich Executive Director Cc: John Kragness Bonnie Carlson From: "John To: "Tda Mann"<Tnlann@ci'mden'pnyihe.mn.uo> Date: 5/29/01 9:428N1 Subject: 4thmfJuh.xls |na, | have attached the costs. It looks a little different than what vveoriQlna||vdiscussed. | anm using the same formula that|o being used for m similar Chaska event. The only difference |m that with the City mf Eden Prairie Vve are charging doub|a-tinmo-and-a-ka|f for driver rate. That io because itimmholiday. Weekends would be charged atmtinno-and-m-ha|frate. Just so you know. Anyway wm wind upotm cost mf$713. We still need to talk about where to have the buses pick-up at the Community Center. Sorry for the delay. Ginoome|y. John ` Tria Mann-4th ofJuly.xls Pagel City of Eden Prairie 4th of July Hours 5:00 p.m. - 12:00 p.m. 1 hour 8 6:00 p.m. - 12:00 p.m. 1 hour 7 8:00 p.m. - 12:00 p.m. 1 hour 5 8:00 p.m. - 12:00 p.m. 1 hour 5 Sub-total Hours 25 Subtract Donated Service 11 Total Hours 14 Labor per Hour Double Time 1/2 32.5 Total Cost Drivers $455 2 hours Cost for Standby Driver $65 2 hours Cost for Standby Mechanic $65 Gas $ 128 Total Costs $ 713 Li CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 5,2001 SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development& Declaration of Surplus Computer and Electronic yI n) Financial Services Equipment and Authorization for Disposal Don Uram,Director _ Requested Action Move to: Declare computer and electronic equipment as surplus and authorize the City Manager to dispose of property through a public sale. Synopsis The City has a surplus of old computers and electronic equipment, which is no longer in use. The value has been estimated at over$500. • Background Information The procedure to dispose of surplus property is in City Code Section 2.86, Subd. 3. Subd. 3. Disposal of Excess Property. A. Declaration of Surplus and Authorizing Sale of Property. The City Manager may,from time to time, recommend to the Council that certain personal property (chattels) owned by the City is no longer needed for a municipal purpose and should be sold. By action of the Council, said property shall be declared surplus,the value estimated and the City Manager authorized to dispose of said property in the manner stated herein. B. Surplus Property With a Total Estimated Value of Less than $100.00. The City Manager may sell surplus property with a total value of less than$100.00 through negotiated sale. C. Surplus Property With a Total Estimated Value Between $100.00 and $500.00. The City Manager shall offer for public sale,to the highest bidder,surplus property with a total estimated value of from $100.00 to $500.00. Notice of such public sale shall be given stating time and place of sale and generally describing the property to be sold at least ten (10) days prior to the date of sale either by publication once in the official newspaper or by posting in a conspicuous place in the City Hall at the City Manager's option. Such sale shall be by auction. D. Surplus Property With a Total Estimated Value Over $500.00. The City Manager shall offer for public sale,to the highest bidder, surplus property with a total estimated value over$500.00. Notice of such public sale shall be given stating time and place of sale and generally describing property to be sold at least ten(10)days prior to the date of sale by publication once in the official newspaper. Such sale shall be to the person submitting the highest bid. Attachments Exhibit A—List of surplus equipment Exhibit A Item Brand Model Quantity Location 4-port switch Solectek LA415 1 storage binding machine GBC 3000 1 storage box of cable/wire Beldin .20 mm 1 storage box of misc. cables 3 storage cable Belkin 25'computer cable 2 storage cable Cisco 10'computer cable 1 storage cd-rom drive Samsung SCR-630 1 storage cd-rom drive Toshiba XM-5401B 1 storage copier Ricoh FT5540 1 storage copy machine Ricoh Priport55830 1 storage data entry tray Fellows 1 storage data trasfer switch Interex 2 storage disc holders 3 storage disk drive HP T4000 1 storage disk drive Toshiba HD-D2116 1 storage disk drive Trakker 250MB 1 storage disk drive unmarked 1 storage disk file Eichner 1 storage electric copy holder Oxford Touch-o-matic 850 1 storage electronic calculator Royal 242PD 1 storage electronic calculator Sears 150 2 storage electronic calculator Sears 200 1 storage electronic calculator Sharp C71165 1 storage electronic calculator Texas Instruments TI-5035 1 storage electronic calculator Victor 1460 1 storage Ethernet Adaptor 3 storage fax machine Toshiba TF451 1 storage fax machine Toshiba TF551 1 storage fax modem Amquest V.34 1 storage file rack Globe-Weis black metal 1 storage Floppy Disks 3M 5 1/4" 1 box storage floppy drive IBM 86-0472813 1 storage keyboard AST ASTKB101 1 storage keyboard Chicony 135053FT 6 storage keyboard Chicony 2 storage keyboard Focus Electric Company 2001 1 storage keyboard Fujitsu FKB4700 2 storage keyboard Fujitsu FKB4850 1 storage keyboard Honeywell 101 WN 1 storage keyboard HP 1405A 2 storage keyboard HP 46010A 2 storage keyboard HP C1400A 1 storage keyboard HP C1405A 1 storage keyboard HP C1405B 1 storage keyboard HP C14505B 2 storage keyboard HP C3346A 4 storage keyboard HP C3753-6020 1 storage keyboard HP C3757B 5 storage D. Item Brand Model Quantity Location keyboard HP C3758 1 storage keyboard HP C3758B 2 storage keyboard HP C4732 1 storage keyboard IBM 1391401 3 storage keyboard IBM 52G9700 1 storage keyboard Kensington 64340 1 storage keyboard Keytronic E03601 QL-C 4 storage keyboard Keytronic E06101 D-C 1 storage keyboard Mitsumi KPQE99ZC-13 1 storage keyboard NMB Tech • RT101 2 storage keyboard Packard Bell 5139 1 storage keyboard Unitek K-151L 2 storage keyboard Zeos KB-6251 EA 3 storage keyboard FT15 1 storage keyboard RT6255T 1 storage label stamper Pitney Bowes 6200 2 storage laptop Toshiba 410CDT 1 storage lithium ion battery NEC 1 storage mail box Fulton 3100W 1 storage microfilm machine Eyecom 1200 2 storage • microfilm machine Northwest Microfilm 514 2 storage modem Adtran 1200.060L1 2 storage modem Cisco CPA2514 1 storage modem Codex 3500DSU 1 storage modem Global DLF6631200SG 1 storage modem Hayes 231AA 1 storage modem Intel EC100DL 1 storage modem Motorolla 3500DSU/CSU 1 storage modem MultiTech 696E 1 storage modem MultiTech MT2834ZPX 2 storage modem Practical Peripherals 14400FXMT 1 storage monitor Acer 7831 1 storage monitor Acer 761E 2 storage monitor Arche OM-123N 1 storage monitor Compaq 151 FS 1 storage monitor Compaq 443-P 1 storage monitor Compaq 471P 1 storage monitor CTX 1562CLR 1 storage monitor Dell Ultra Scan 15FS 1 storage monitor EXP-VGA 7013A 1 storage monitor Goldstar 1220W 1 storage monitor HP 150 1 storage monitor HP C1001A 1 storage monitor HP D1182A 1 storage monitor HP D1196A 1 storage monitor HP D1198A 2 storage monitor IBM 8513001 1 storage monitor JVC TM-13U 1 storage monitor Memorex 1471A 1 storage monitor Memorex 900424-001 1 storage monitor MicroScan LM-1564 1 storage 3 Item Brand Model Quantity Location monitor MicroScan SM5515G 3 storage monitor NEC JC-1531VMFI3 1 storage monitor NEC JC-1571-VMA 1 storage monitor Packard Bell PB8549-SVGL 2 storage monitor ProVista PV-448 4 storage monitor Relisys RM9501 2 storage monitor Samsung MA2565 3 storage monitor Samsung SM-12SFA7 7 storage monitor Zeos CVP5468NI 2 storage monitor filter 3M PF500L 1 storage network LAN adaptors intel 18 storage paper cutter Boston 2612 1 storage pc AGI 1800A 1 storage pc CPC 286-turbo 1 storage pc CPC E5V5K4 turbo 10 5 storage pc CPC PC-401-turbo 2 storage pc Dell 486/66 1 storage pc DTK PEER-2533 2 storage pc DTK tech-1230C 1 storage pc Everex 1600D 1 storage pc HP 9133 1 storage pc HP D3025A 1 storage pc HP vectra 286112 1 storage pc HP vectra 486/33VL 1 storage pc HP vectra 486/664 1 storage pc HP vectra 486/66XM 1 storage pc HP vectra XM 1 storage pc IBM 8512 1 storage pc IBM 433DX-SI 1 storage pc IBM 1 storage pc Mitac mpc-160TS-D1 1 storage pc Packard Bell PB420A 2 storage pc unmarked 1 storage pc Zeos 486 3 storage pc Zeos 486DX2-66DT 2 storage PC Card Cardbus 1 storage phone tape recorder Marantz PMD221 1 storage plastic binders 9 storage plastic folder gray 1 storage postal scale Pitney Bowes 5820 1 storage print security cradle Texas Instruments PC-100C 1 storage printer Epson ' FX1050 2 storage printer Epson LQ1170 1 storage printer Epson LQ870 2 storage printer Epson LX810 1 storage printer Epson P7ORA 2 storage printer Fujitsu DEX720 1 storage printer HP 227A Laser Jet 1 storage printer HP HP33471A Laser Jet 1 storage printer HP Laser Jet 4 1 storage printer HP PCL5 laserjet 3 storage Item Brand Model Quantity Location printer HP series 2 laserjet 1 storage printer IBM wheel writer 5 1 storage printer Lexmark 2050 color inkjet 1 storage printer Star NX-1000 2 storage Printer Controller Baytech 708C 6 storage printer port unmarked 1 storage printer stand Global plastic 1 storage RAM Golden RAM 1 box storage remote bridge HP 28674A 1 storage remote bridge HP 28674A 1 storage slide tray Kodak transvue 80 3 storage software APC Powerchute Plus 2 storage software Axis Print Server 1 storage software Conversions Plus 1 storage software Lotus 123 version 4 3 storage software McAffe Virus Scan 4 storage software Microsoft Access'97 2 storage. software Misc. 5 1/4"floppy programs 1 box storage software Norton PC Anywhere 1 storage software Norton Desktop version 2.2 2 storage software Novell Groupwise 3 storage software Novell Intranet ware 1 storage software Novell Netware version 4.0 2 storage software Novell Dos no.7 1 storage software Prober Chief program 1 storage • software Reach Out version 7 2 storage software Reflection 2 1 storage software Windows 95 2 storage software Word Perfect 6.0 2 storage tape recorder Superscope C-202LP 1 storage tilting footrest Eldon 1 storage typewriter Brother GX6750 1 storage typewriter IBM ET 1 storage typewriter IBM Selectrik 3 2 storage typewriter IBM 1 storage box of misc. cables 1 Police Rm concentrator Positron 60015 2 Police Rm dehumidifier Kenmore 758.141062 1 Police Rm ENFORS Computer Texas Instruments 1 Police Rm keyboard Gateway 2189014 1 Police Rm keyboard HP C3346-60201 1 Police Rm keyboard HP C3757-60401 1 Police Rm keyboard HP C3757B 1 Police Rm keyboard HP C3758-6021 1 Police Rm - keyboard Keytronic E03601 QDS2 1 Police Rm keyboard Keytronic E03601 QL-C 8 Police Rm keyboard Keytronic E03601-QUS201-C 2 Police Rm keyboard Keytronic E06101 D-C 2 Police Rm keyboard TI 2228995-001 1 Police Rm keyboard RT6255T 1 Police Rm monitor Aamazing MM-1288X 1 Police Rm 5 Item Brand Model Quantity Location monitor Acer 7033 1 Police Rm monitor Acer 7256 1 Police Rm monitor Acer 7256 1 Police Rm monitor Acer 7133D 1 Police Rm monitor Acer 7134T 4 Police Rm monitor Acer 7184T 1 Police Rm monitor Compaq 443-P 1 Police Rm monitor CTX CDG-5432 1 Police Rm monitor HP D1194A 1 Police Rm monitor NEC JC-1576VMN 1 Police Rm monitor Noble 1770A 1 Police Rm monitor Noble A1554NEL 1 Police Rm monitor Packard Bell PBA38SVGA 1 'Police Rm monitor ProVista PV-448 3 Police Rm monitor Texas Instruments 2228990-0025 1 Police Rm monitor Wyse WY670ES 2 Police Rm . monitor Multisync XV15 1 Police Rm monitor filter Global 2 Police Rm pc CPC 465-286 Turbo 1 Police Rm pc unmarked 3 Police Rm pc(disassembled) A-open 1 Police Rm pc(disassembled) HP Vectra XM 2 Police Rm pc(disassembled) unmarked 16 Police Rm pc case unmarked 3 Police Rm printer Okidata microline 320 1 Police Rm printer Star NX-10001I 2 Police Rm television Quasar Company. UP2133WW 1 Police Rm Kroy Kroytype 80 1 Police Rm Memorex Telex 1374-41 R 1 Police Rm Texas Instruments F880340-96-1525 1 Police Rm CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 06/05/00 SECTION: Public Hearings SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Donald R.Uram Proposed Refunding of Park at City West , Apartments Housing Revenue Bonds Requested Action Move to: • Close the public hearing; and • Adopt Resolution under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, authorizing the issuance of up to $14,905,000 in aggregate principal amount of its Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Park at City West Apartments Project), Series 2001, approving the forms thereof, and authorizing the execution of various documents relating thereto. Background Information: Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, requires that the Council hold a public hearing for the purpose of receiving comments on the proposed issuance of up to $14,905,000 principal amount of the housing revenue bonds to refund the housing revenue bonds issued by the City,in 1990 on behalf of Park at City West Limited Partnership for the development known as Park at City West Apartments. The proposed refunding would reduce debt service costs for the development. Representatives of the developer will be available at the Council meeting to answer questions about the development and the refunding. The Council is also being asked to adopt a resolution authorizing the refunding and the issuance of refunding bonds. • Attachments Resolution CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2001- RESOLUTION APPROVING REFINANCING OF PARK AT CITY WEST APARTMENTS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING ALL DOCUMENTS, INSTRUMENTS, ACTIONS AND MATTERS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR OR PERTAINING TO THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY BY THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA OF ITS MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (PARK AT CITY WEST APARTMENTS PROJECT) SERIES 2001 IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $14,905,000 AND THE CURRENT REFUNDING AND REDEMPTION OF ITS MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (PARK AT CITY WEST APARTMENTS PROJECT) SERIES 1990 ISSUED IN THE ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF$14,905,000. WHEREAS, The City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "Issuer") is a municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, authorized by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act") to, among other things, issue its revenue bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Act for the purpose of carrying out any of its powers, and, as security for the payment of the principal of, and interest on, any such bonds so issued, to pledge the revenues and receipts therefrom; WHEREAS, at the request of Park at City West Limited Partnership (the "Borrower"), a Minnesota limited partnership, the Issuer has heretofore issued $14,905,000 in aggregate principal amount of its Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Park at City West Apartments Project) Series 1990 (the "1990 Bonds"), the proceeds of which were applied to refinance certain prior bonds which were issued to finance the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping a 288-unit multifamily housing facility(the "Project"), a portion of such facilities to be used by persons of low and/or moderate income and to be located in the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota; WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested and the Issuer desires now to authorize and approve (i)the issuance, execution, sale and delivery of its Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Park at City West Apartments Project) Series 2001 (the "Bonds") in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $14,905,000 for the purpose of refunding the 1990 Bonds and(ii)the redemption of the 1990 Bonds; WHEREAS, the Issuer has held a public hearing with respect to the Project more than 14 days after published notice thereof; WHEREAS, the Bonds are to be issued under and secured by a Trust Indenture (the "Indenture"), to be dated as of June 1, 2001 from the Issuer to a trustee named therein, as such trustee shall be approved by the officers of the Issuer executing the Indenture(the"Trustee"); WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Bonds are to be loaned to the Borrower pursuant to a Financing Agreement (the "Financing Agreement"), to be dated of even date with the Indenture, between the Issuer and the Borrower, for the purpose of and in order to assist the Borrower in paying the costs of the redemption of the 1990 Bonds; WHEREAS, contemporaneously with the execution of the Indenture, the Issuer, the Trustee and the Borrower will enter into a Second Amended and Restated Land Use Restriction Agreement (the "Land Use Restriction Agreement"), dated as of the date of the Indenture, in which the Borrower will covenant to comply-with the provisions of Section 103(b)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended; WHEREAS, the principal, redemption price and purchase price of and interest on the Bonds will be payable solely and exclusively from(i) loan payments to be made by the Borrower under the provisions of the Financing Agreement and Note with respect thereto and (ii) funds held by the Trustee pursuant to the Indenture and available for such purpose, including funds drawn under credit enhancement to be issued by Fannie Mae, in respect of the Bonds; WHEREAS,Dougherty& Company LLC (the "Underwriter") has agreed to purchase the Bonds in accordance with the provisions of a bond purchase agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement") among the Issuer,the Borrower and the Underwriter; WHEREAS, the following documents have been presented to the Issuer for approval in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds; • (1) The proposed form of the Indenture,including the proposed form of the Bonds; (2) The proposed form of Financing Agreement (3) The proposed form of the Land Use Restriction Agreement; (4) The proposed form of the Bond Purchase Agreement; and (5) The proposed form of the preliminary official statement (the "Preliminary Official Statement")relating to the Bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings of the Issuer. (a) The Issuer hereby finds with respect to the Project that the refinancing thereof by means of the issuance of the Bonds would be in the best interests of the Issuer and its inhabitants, and would further the housing policies and goals set forth in the Housing Plan of the Issuer and the Multifamily Housing Program of the Issuer adopted thereunder. (b) The execution and delivery of the Bonds and the Indenture, the Financing Agreement, and the Land Use Restriction Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby and the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions or provisions of the Bonds and the Indenture, the Financing Agreement and the Land Use Restriction Agreement do not conflict with or result in the breach of any of the terms, conditions or provisions of any agreement or instrument or judgment, order or decree to which the Issuer is now a party or by which it is bound,nor do they constitute a default under any of the 3 foregoing or result in the creation or imposition of any prohibited lien, charge or encumbrance of any nature upon any property or assets or the Issuer under the terms of any instrument or agreement. (c) No authorization or approval or other action by, and no notice to or filing with, any governmental authority or regulatory body is required for the due execution and delivery by the Issuer of, and performance by the Issuer of its obligations under, any of the Indenture, the Financing Agreement and the Land Use Restriction Agreement. (d) The Issuer hereby finds that it is required to comply with Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and as such that: (i) it shall neither make nor direct the Trustee to make any investment or other use of the proceeds of the Bonds that would cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" as that term is defined in Section 148(a) of the Code and that it shall comply with the requirements of the Code throughout the term of the Bonds; (ii) it (a) shall take, or use its best efforts to require to be taken, all actions that may be required of the Issuer for the interest on the Bonds to be and remain not included in gross income for federal income tax purposes and (b) shall not take or authorize to be taken any actions within its control that would adversely affect that status under the provisions of the Code; (iii) it shall enforce or cause to be enforced all obligations of the Borrower under the Land Use Restriction Agreement in accordance with its terms and seek to cause the Borrower to correct any violation of the Land Use Restriction Agreement within a reasonable period after any such violation is first discovered; and (iv) in furtherance of these findings, the Issuer shall execute, deliver and comply with the provisions of the Tax Certificate (as defined in the Indenture). Section 2. Authorization of the Project and Issuance of the Bonds. The undersigned, as the applicable elected representative of the Issuer, hereby approves of the Project for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code. Under and pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the Issuer hereby authorizes the execution, issuance, sale and delivery to the Underwriter in consideration of payment therefor, of the Bonds, the proceeds of the sale thereof to be used for the purpose of refunding the 1990 Bonds. Section 3. Approval of the Forms of Documents. The form, content and provisions of the Indenture, the Financing Agreement, the Land Use Restriction Agreement and the Bond Purchase Agreement presented to this meeting of the City Council of the Issuer, are approved; and the Mayor and the City Manager of the Issuer are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute, acknowledge and deliver said documents in the name, and on behalf, of the Issuer. Said documents are to be in substantially the form now before this meeting of the City Council of the Issuer, or with such changes therein as shall be approved by the officers of the • Issuer executing the same, their execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any and all such changes or revisions. The officers of the Issuer are hereby authorized, empowered and directed, from and after the execution and delivery of said documents, to do all acts and things, and execute all documents, as may be necessary or convenient to carry out, and comply with, the provision of said documents, as executed and delivered. y Section 4. Approval of the Bonds. The form, content and provisions of the Bonds, as set forth in the Indenture and as presented to this meeting of the City Council of the Issuer, subject to appropriate insertions and revisions, are hereby approved, and the appropriate officers of the Issuer are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute,by manual or facsimile signature, attest and deliver to the Trustee for authentication, and thereafter,to deliver or cause to be delivered to the Underwriter, the Bonds in consideration of payment therefor in the name and on behalf of the Issuer. The Bonds are to be substantially the form now before this meeting of the City Council of the Issuer, or with such changes therein as shall be approved by the officers of the Issuer executing the same (provided that the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than August 31, 2031 and the initial interest rate on the Bonds shall be the rate determined as set forth in the form of the Indenture and approved by the officers of the Issuer executing the Bond Purchase Agreement), their execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any and all such changes or revisions. When the Bonds shall be executed, attested, authenticated and delivered in the manner contemplated herein, in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed Fourteen Million Nine Hundred Five Thousand ($14,905,000), they shall conclusively be the approved form of the Bonds. Section 5. Approval of Underwriting and the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement. The selection of Dougherty & Company LLC as Underwriter by the Borrower is acknowledged, approved and accepted and the form, content and provisions of the proposed form of Preliminary Official Statement, as presented to this meeting of the Issuer, relating the Bonds and the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and a final Official Statement in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement (the "Official Statement") by the Underwriter are hereby approved, provided, however, that the Issuer makes no representations as to statements and information contained therein not furnished by the Issuer. The Mayor and the City Manager of the Issuer is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute the Official Statement in the name, and on behalf, of the Issuer, and the Issuer hereby consent to the lawful use of the Official Statement by the Underwriter. Said Preliminary Official Statement and said Official Statement are to be in substantially the form now before this meeting of the Issuer, or with such changes therein as shall be approved by the officers of the Issuer, their execution of the Official Statement and the Bond Purchase Agreement to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any and all such changes or revisions. Section 6. Redemption of 1990 Bonds. The redemption of the 1990 Bonds is hereby approved and the delivery by the trustee for the holders of the 1990 Bonds of a conditional notice of redemption in accordance with the terms of the indenture under which the 1990 Bonds were issued is hereby ratified. Upon payment or provision for payment of the 1990 Bonds with the proceeds of the Bonds, the officers of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to request and direct the trustee for the holders of the 1990 Bonds to release, cancel and discharge the lien of the indenture under which the 1990 Bonds were issued and to do and cause to be done on behalf of and in the name of the Issuer all things requisite and necessary under such indenture to effect such release, cancellation and discharge of the lien of such indenture. The officers of the Issuer are authorized and directed to execute and deliver such other documents and to take such other action as may be necessary or proper to effect the refunding of the 1990 Bonds and the refinancing of the Project. 5' 5 Section 7. Incidental Action. The officers of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute in the name and behalf of the Issuer any other documents and certificates necessary to the transaction described above and copies of all of the documents necessary to the transaction herein described shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided in the Financing Agreement, the Land Use Restriction Agreement and the Indenture. The Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk and other officers of the Issuer are further authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Underwriter and Bond Counsel certified copies of all proceedings and records of the Issuer relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality of-the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them. Section 8. Limitation of the Issuer's Obligation. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bonds or the documents referred to herein, the Bonds, interest thereon, and any penalty, charge, or premium or any amounts payable thereunder, or however designated are special limited obligations of the Issuer payable solely from the revenues and proceeds pledged thereto. The Bonds and the interest thereon do not constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability, general or moral obligation or a pledge of the full faith and credit or taxing power of the Issuer, the State of Minnesota, or any political subdivision of the State of Minnesota within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitations and are not payable from or a charge upon any funds of the Issuer other than the revenues and proceeds pledged by the Issuer to the payment thereof and do not give rise to a pecuniary liability of the Issuer nor of any of its officers, agents or employees and no holder of a Bond shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the Issuer or the State or any of its political subdivisions to pay the Bonds or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the Issuer. The Bonds do not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable upon any property of the Issuer and the agreement of the Issuer to perform or cause the performance of the covenants and other provisions herein referred to shall be subject at all times to the availability of revenues or other funds furnished for such purpose in accordance with the Financing Agreement, sufficient to pay all costs of such performance or the enforcement thereof. Neither the State of Minnesota nor any political subdivision of the State of Minnesota nor the Issuer shall be obligated to pay the principal of the Bonds, the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from revenues pledged therefor under the Indenture, as more fully set forth in the Indenture. Neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power, if any, of the Issuer, the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto. The Bonds are not a debt of the United States of America, HUD, FHA, GNMA or any other agency thereof and are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The Bonds are neither a moral nor an annual appropriation obligation of the Issuer, the State or any political subdivision thereof. The agreement of the Issuer to perform the covenants and other provisions contained in this resolution or the Bonds or the documents shall be subject at all times to the availability of the revenues furnished by the Developer sufficient to pay all costs of such performance or the enforcement thereof, and the Issuer shall not be subject to any personal or pecuniary liability thereon. Section 9. Captions. The captions or headings in this Resolution are for convenience only and shall in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provision hereof. Approved and adopted this 5th day of June,2001. Jean L.Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 06/05/01 SECTION: Public Hearings SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Donald R.Uram Valley View Corporate Center j j_ j , Michael D. Franzen Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing and return the development plans to the applicant without prejudice Synopsis This is a continued item from the May 15, 2001 City Council meeting. The applicant and property owner have submitted letters requesting a withdrawal of the Valley View Corporate Center project. Attachments 1. Letter from Menards 2. Letter from CSM Corporation 1 MAY 30 2001 09:09 FR MENARDS—GEN OFFICE 715 876 2868 TO 19529498392 P.01/01 2:�e `'I F: B'11 1G' May 30,2001 Via: Facsimile °'i City of Eden Prairie fl C/0 Michael Franzen 8080 Mitchell Road IJ I Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230 s ;;'r ,�! RE: Valley View Corporate Center 6 m it Dear Mr. Franzen: ,.F ' I Please take the above referenced issue off the agenda for the City Council Meeting on rt June 5, 2001. Menard,Inc. is the rightful owner,and at this time the property is not e1 under contract. Since there is no planned development,any discussion on the issue cx would be moot. • Finally, any approval the city may grant would certainly hinder the marketability of the ri r,. lot for a potential user. Therefor we must insist that discussion on the property seize_ ' 'f 1i If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (715) 876-2776. Thank you. 4 Sincerely, ;a Steve Kahle Corporate Counsel Menard,Inc. 4' Cc: Pat Flynn c' David Carland • f4 . F4 ll yf aS i 96U iDA. O 2001 — {/ 4 4777 MENARD DRIVE EAU CLAIRE,WI 54703-9625 TELEPHONE(715)876-5911 FAX:715-8765901 ** TOTAL PAGE.01 ** 05/30/01 13:58 FAX 6516037675 CSM CORP al002 --•ram CSM Corporation 2575 University Ave.W.,#150-St Paul,MN 55114-1024 • (651)646-1717 • Fax(651)646-2404 May 30, 2001 Via Fax& Man F 952-949-8392 Mr. Michael Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road. Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re: Valley View Corporate Center Dear Mr. Franzen: It is with regret that CSM Corporation is requesting that the above referenced project be . withdrawn from further consideration by the City Council. Due to existing economic conditions and the restrictions placed on the Topview access road, the development is no longer viable. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, David Carland Vice President 3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 06/05/01 SECTION: Public Hearings SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Donald R.Uram Hartford Commons YtL . C Michael D.Franzen Requested Action The Council can choose amongst the following options: 1. Allow the proponent to withdraw the project. 2. Approve the project based on the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 11,2001. 3. Prepare the project for denial. MOTIONS (Three Options) Option#1: Withdrawal(Only with proponent's consent.) Move to: • Close the Public Hearing and return the plans to the proponent without prejudice. Or Option#2: Approval • Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Regional Commercial to High Density Residential on 17.88 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 17.88 acres; and •• Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 17.88 acres and Zoning District Change from C-Reg-Ser to RM-6.5 Zoning District on 17.88 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for approval Preliminary Plat of 17.88 acres into 40 lots and 3 outlots; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Board and Staff recommendations, and Council conditions; and • Direct Staff to issue a land alteration permit to the Developer to proceed with construction at their own risk. Or • City Council Agenda -- Hartford Commons Page 2 Option#3: Denial Move to: • Close the public hearing; and • Deny the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, PUD Concept Amendment, PUD District Review with waivers, Zoning District Change, Site Plan, and Preliminary Plat based on the following findings: 1. The project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 2: The proposed plan is inconsistent-with the approved PUD plan and Developer Agreement dated November 1, 1994. 3. The project does not meet the following City code requirements: • Front Yard Setback from 30 feet to 15 feet. • Gross Site Area per Unit from 6,500 sq. ft. to 2,441 sq. ft. • Density from 6.7 units per acre to 17.84 units per acre. Synopsis Hartford Commons includes 319 multiple family townhomes with a gross density of 17.84 units per acre located at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Prairie Lakes Drive. There are four different building types: • Urban Townhouses: There are four, 18-unit buildings, two, 16-unit buildings, one, 14-unit building, and one, 12-unit building(114 units). • Urban Flat Townhouses: There are four, 16-unit buildings (64 units). • Urban Row townhouse: There are two, 7-unit buildings, six, 6-unit buildings, seven, 5-unit buildings,ten,4-unit buildings, and two, 3-unit buildings(131 units). • Live/Work Townhomes: There are two, 5-unit buildings (10 units). The project requires a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Regional Commercial to High Density Residential and the following PUD waivers. • Front Yard Setback from 30 feet to 15 feet. • Gross Site Area Per Unit from 6,500 sq. ft. to 2,441 sq. ft. • Density from 6.7 units per acre to 17.84 units per acre. At the May 14, 2001 meeting,the Community Planning Board voted 6-1-1 to deny the request of David Bernard Builders and Developers to the City Council for the following reasons: • The project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. • The proposed plan is inconsistent with the approved PUD plan and Developer Agreement dated November 1, 1994. City Council Agenda _ Hartford Commons Page 3 • The project does not meet the following City code requirements: • Front Yard Setback from 30 feet to 15 feet. • Gross Site Area per Unit from 6,500 sq. ft. to 2,441 sq. ft. • Density from 6.7 units per acre to 17.84 units per acre. The 120-day time limit to review this proposal ends August 13,2001. Background This site is currently guided Regional Commercial. The property is zoned Commercial Regional Service according to the approved 1994 Hartford Place PUD. The approved plan showed four retail buildings totaling approximately 165,000 square feet with pet shop, office supply, retail, and entertainment as the proposed land uses. • This site is part of the 1,000 acre Major Center Area(MCA)PUD approved in 1973. This PUD is generally located around Highway 212 and 494. This PUD envisioned a mixture of office, commercial, and residential uses. Of the 320 acres of land guided commercial in the MCA,there are 72.62 acres (including the proposed 17.88 acre site)vacant with an average parcel size of 3.3 acres. The MCA PUD identified clusters of high-density housing located primarily adjacent to natural features such as Lake Smetana,Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, and Anderson Lakes. There are no remaining sites guided high density residential in the MCA. There are five alternatives that may be appropriate for this site. Alternative One- Commercial • Developing the site for commercial would be consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan, the Major Center Area Plan, and the Hartford PUD. This is the last large commercial site adjacent to the Eden Prairie Mall that could provide supportive commercial uses typically found near other regional malls, and attract additional customers to the area. Alternative Two—Mixed Land Use Mixed land use can be appropriate on this site. The Hartford PUD is mixed use. Mixed land use reduces traffic, provides services in close proximity to housing, and offers employment opportunities. It may be appropriate to have commercial uses along Prairie Center Drive and residential uses located adjacent to existing residential. Alternative Three—Apartments or Condominiums• Apartments and condominiums developed at higher densities (up to 40 units per acre, consistent with the Guide Plan for the Major Center Area). Lincoln Parc on Singletree Lane is 38 units per acre with commercial on the first floor. No setback waivers were granted with that project. Alternative Four—Hartford Commons Townhouses This is the proposed 319-unit plan with setback, density, and open space waivers. 3 City Council Agenda Hartford Commons Page 4 Alternative Five—Hartford Commons Townhouses with Recommended Staff Changes The proposed waivers create a tight site plan with small open spaces and buildings close to the streets. The attention to detail in the design of the buildings, exterior materials, colors, landscaping, lighting, etc., is more critical than typical multiple family projects. Many multiple family projects use setbacks, berming and trees to soften the view of the buildings, and screen parking,trash,and mechanical equipment. The staff recommends the plan be changed as follows to help substantiate the guide plan change and requested waivers. • Revise the site plan so no garage elevations face the streets. The site plan should be changed for the buildings to have an internal access. • A design framework is needed to create variety in exterior materials and colors. This is - important since there are 319 units. • Change rock face block on all buildings to brick or natural stone. • The exterior elevations facing all public streets should be 75%face brick,natural stone,or glass. • The exterior elevations internal to the site should be 25%face brick,natural stone,or glass. • Provide a detailed landscape plan with specific plant types for the garden and foundation plantings. • Use decorative brick pavers instead of concrete between the steps and internal/external concrete sidewalks. • Use decorative fencing to screen air conditioners in front of the units. • Paint the air exchangers and utility meters located near the garage entrances to match the building. • Change wood steps to concrete. • Relocate boulevard trees to provide adequate site distances. Sidewalks should be moved closer to the street (5-foot setback) and the trees moved to the back side of the sidewalk to allow for snow storage and appropriate site lines. • Relocate trees to provide appropriate site triangles at all intersections. • Remove the "bump-outs" that indicate street parking the 4 project entrances to provide a minimum street access of 24 feet. • Revise building architecture to meet requirements of Section 504 of the Uniform Building Code. • • Sprinkle all buildings to meet fire code requirements. • Revise the plan to provide 10-foot drainage and utility easements over all public sanitary sewer and water lines. Easements cannot extend into any part of the proposed structures or foundations. Attachments 1. Resolution for Guide Plan Amendment 2. Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment 3. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 4. Community Planning Board Minutes dated May 14,2001 5. Staff Report dated May 11,2001 6. Request for Early Land Alteration Permit HARTFORD COMMONS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2001- 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 Hartford Commons by David Bernard Builders and Developers,is for 319 multiple family,townhome units. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby adopts the amendment of the Plan subject to Metropolitan Council approval as follows: 17.88 acres from Regional Commercial to High Density Residential, located at the southeast corner of Prairie Center Drive and Prairie Lakes Drive extending to Rolling Hills Road. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 5th day of June 2001. Jean L. Harris,Mayor • ATTEST: Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk 5 HARTFORD COMMONS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2001- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF HARTFORD COMMONS FOR DAVID BERNARD BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS 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 Community Planning Board did conduct a public hearing on Hartford Commons PUD Concept by David Bernard Builders and Developers, 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 June 5, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,as follows: 1. Hartford Commons, 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 May 25, 2001. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Community Planning Board dated May 14,2001. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 5th day of June,2001. Jean L. Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk 6 EXHIBIT A Hartford Commons Legal Description: Lots 1,2, and 3,Block 2,Prairie Lakes Business Park HARTFORD COMMONS • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2001- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HARTFORD COMMONS FOR DAVID BERNARD BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Hartford Commons for David Bernard Builders and Developers, dated May 25, 2001 and consisting of 17.88 acres into 40 lots,and 4 outlots,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 5th day of June, 2001. Jean L. Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Community Planning Board Minutes 3 May 15,2001 DRAFT 1 Page 9 I C. HARTFORD COMMONS by David Bernard Builders and Develop*s}R'igizest for Guide Plan Change from Regional Commercial to High Density Residential on 17.88 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17.88 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 17.88 acres, Zoning District Change from C-Reg-Ser to RM-6.5 Zoning District on 17.88 acres, Site Plan Review on 17.88 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 17.88 acres into 40 lots and 4 outlots. Location: Southeast corner of Prairie Center Drive and Prairie Lakes Drive extending to Rolling Hills Road. Chair Corneille opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. Richard Palmiter of Rottlund Homes introduced his staff and noted David Bernard is a division of Rottlund. Palmiter explained that earlier in the year they had proposed a concept to the City Council and requested TIF funds to support the project. The Council stated TIF was not appropriate for the area. Rottlund has met with the neighbors to improve the site planning and layout. They have made changes to the proposal and it is a better project. Tim Whitten mentioned David Bernard was created to address some more urban projects. Renaissance on the River is a project they are working on in downtown St. Paul, which involved working with the Heritage Preservation Commission for over a year. Materials used included rock-based block. Higher density residential belongs adjacent to the mall. Mixed-use development provides an opportunity to have a transitional use for existing property. They are introducing life-cycle housing for single professionals and professional couples as well as empty nesters, seniors, and retirees. There are 319 units on site for sale. There are four different housing types with a mixture of the types in each quadrant. Every townhome gets two parking spaces underground. Guest parking would need to be in the street. Sidewalks and tree-lined boulevards will be put in on the street. The site has satisfied the obligation for a park by treating the edges of the site and open spaces within the development as parks, with walking paths. There is a community garden and playground present for guests with children. There are four entrances to the development. Lighting design and benches will be incorporated. There are four project types, "new urban townhomes"—two story townhomes with underground garages and a front door to the street at 1600-1800 square feet at $200-$240,000; "urban flats" — one story townhomes with one flat on top of another with underground garages with the main level having private garage access; rock face block is used on the base with brick above it as exterior materials; "row-type" townhomes vary with 3-7 units and rear garage access and front door access to the front street at$180-$220,000; and the"live-work"townhomes combining residential and business. Franzen explained this site is guided regional commercial, and zoned Commercial Regional Service according to the approved 1994 Hartford Place PUD. The approved plan showed four retail buildings totaling approximately 165,000 square feet with pet shop, office supply, retail and entertainment. This site is part of the 1,000 acre Major Center Area (MCA) approved in 1973. The PUD envisioned a mix of office, commercial, and residential. There are currently 72.62 acres of vacant commercial 9 Community Planning Board Minutes May 15,2001 I DRAFT ; . Page 10 land in the MCA with an average parcel size of 3.3 acres. There are no remaining sites guided high density residential in the MCA. There are sites guided office or industrial that may also be suitable for high density residential throughout the city. This site is adjacent to lower density multi-family, office, retail and Prairie Center Drive. The proposed high-density residential plan has limited open space with buildings close to the street, creating a visual impact on existing neighborhoods. Developing the site for commercial would be consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan, the Major Center Area Plan, and the Hartford PUD. This is the last commercial site adjacent to the Eden Prairie Mall that could provide supportive commercial uses typically found near other regional malls, and attract additional customers to the area. Staff recommends alternative two for a continuance to make revisions to the architecture. Palmiter asked the Board to approve Alternative # 1, to move them on to the Council. Items in the Staff Report are not reflected in the plans, but many will be reflected when they go to the Council. He reviewed the staff recommendations. They would maintain the percentages of exterior materials as proposed on the elevations. The row townhomes would need to keep the wood steps; the other units could have concrete. Corneille thanked staff for providing maps to the Board of comparable properties in other areas. He noted it was very helpful. Terry Pearson, 10827 Leaping Deer Lane, representing Weston Woods Townhomes said a neighborhood group has emerged regarding Hartford Commons. They have opposed many previous developments because of unsightly proposals. The city agreed with the residents' concerns and did not approve those projects. This project presents a unique architecture, less traffic and noise,better transition, and is a pedestrian friendly, upscale residential community. It appeals to a range of demographics. They are endorsing the project. She has a petition of project endorsement signed by 238 neighborhood residents who support this project. They agree with staff concerns regarding the building materials and not allowing garage elevations to face the street. The fronts of homes should face the sidewalk and street front. They would also like the city to study the possibility of a 3-way stop sign at Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive. Laura Blumal of 10540 West Riverview Drive said she was opposed to the use of TIF financing requested of the City Council to place housing on this site; the developer said they could not build residential without TIF financing. Council liked the idea of this project with affordable housing, at $140,000. The proposal is not for affordable housing. Putting this on a less-expensive parcel would allow for lower housing prices. Eden Prairie does not have enough retail. She can't help it if these people didn't do their homework before they chose to buy a home next to retail. She did and she expected the city to have retail uses in the city. There is a traffic problem in the city because everyone has to go other places to shop. Brooks stated that the question was whether there were compelling reasons to change the guide plan. It has been guided retail for years and no one has come forward with a /0 k Community Planning Board Minutes May 15,2001 DRAFT Page 11 commercial project. He supports the guide plan change but isn't6tirely content with the current plan. Nelson said the Eden Prairie mall was renovating and has the potential to be profitable. This piece of property is right across from the mall and should be retail. There is no compelling reason to change the guide plan when they finally have a mall that may be profitable. She would like to give commercial a chance before giving up the opportunity to have a full commercial center. This project could be built somewhere else. Foote stated he agreed with Brooks; this property was a gem for commercial but no one has come forward. One of the most compelling reasons to change the guide plan is the reduced traffic perspective. It is a nice residential concept. He believes the best use is commercial, but will reluctantly support the idea of a guide plan change to residential because the property has been vacant for so long. Stoelting concurred with Nelson; this is commercial land and has a value of commercial land. The proposed project is along the lines of apartment density because of the commercial value of the land. There have been many different commercial projects, but none of them have been a match for what was approved in 1994. He questions whether the commercial community has had a fair chance with the recent status of the mall. He hopes a project aligned with original approval will come forward. Stock noted the mall would attract more people to the area. She said the project provides poor transition to a high traffic road; it should be either all commercial or partly residential. Koenig agreed this site was a commercial, high-density area with housing next to it. She would like to see the site either all commercial or providing more affordable housing units. She inquired about the density of Lincoln Parc. Franzen noted Lincoln Parc was 38 units per acre with 20,000 square feet of retail/ office on the first floor. Seymour suggested commercial has had the opportunity to do something on this site. This is a good opportunity for the surrounding area to get a higher intensity use that compares to area residential. Corneille said he supported the guide plan change. Continuing to wait for an acceptable commercial development was not going to do them any good. High density residential across from the mall will help the mall and make it more successful. He also recommended the possibility of a pedestrian bridge over Prairie Center Drive connecting to the mall. Brooks asked whether any developers have approached the City about commercial development. �I Community Planning Board Minutes My 15,Paa e 12 2001 1 g 1 DRAFT 1 - I 1 Franzen noted there are always general inquiries. Brooks stated Maple Grove has an outstanding balance of commercial and residential. He is not in favor of the level of density proposed in the residential, but would like to discuss it in more detail. Brooks stated Ryan Companies wanted to go with the plan as is. Nelson said she does not see the need to develop the property. There are no alternatives for commercial and a few more years can be given to give the mall a chance to prosper. There is no reason to go forward just because someone has an idea for the land. This property is a long-term community asset to provide commercial. Foote explained one concern with waiting on this site was the possibility of a high rise apartment. He never wanted to see this happen. That would be a danger if this project was denied. He would like to see commercial,but he can't support the residential with the density proposed. Stock said apartments would not be a good choice.Residents need to go out of town to get to specialty shops; some retail would be nice here. She asked staff to explain the MCA downtown plan. Franzen stated the plan was for a regional diversified center with a core downtown of about 1,000 acres around the 494 interchange. The freeway system can handle the traffic. The City had to decide whether to stick with the system or to change the comprehensive plan. 93% of the time the City approved projects concurrent with the comprehensive plan. There is no more land in the MCA guided medium or high- density. Residential uses will go on land guided industrial, office, or commercial. This site could be all commercial, commercial/housing mix, or all residential. The Board must determine whether changing the guide plan will change the vision for the City. • Koenig said it appeared she was the only one in favor of high-density housing. She asked Foote to comment. Foote said the only other appropriate site for high density residential would be near the transit station. Franzen stated the eastern half of the transit hub, about 9 or 10 acres, 18 acres on this site, and land along Highway 212 from Fountain Place to Prairie Center Drive, about 17 acres, could be appropriate for high density residential. This site is flat;the 212 site is not as flat. Land area and topography restrict development. Large consolidated retail site with a retail mass would be most appropriate on this site.Historically, commercial has lagged behind all other land uses in town. Retail is catching up and there is more interest in commercial.However,the aging market may want this type of housing. The Board is saying it wants both uses. Community Planning Board Minutes May 15,2001 I DRAFT Page 13 - L �:. ._. Seymour said commercial could have come in before values were out of hand. Downtown involves more than retail. Corneille said this type of product was not available in Eden Prairie and was a good use of the land. It will attract more people. Brooks asked what was approved for the site right now. Franzen said 165,000 square feet of retail along Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive. There are two small and two large retail buildings. Corneille stated there is an existing neighborhood in this area with over 200 neighbors that wanted this project. This needs to be taken into consideration also. Nelson stated high-tech companies look for amenities and if Eden Prairie doesn't provide commercial amenities they may miss out on attracting high-tech companies. All cities that have these companies have commercial areas for support. Koenig said she is not entirely against the proposal, but wants to hold out for commercial. Stoelting asked about the street parking and if it would fit in with city standards. Franzen stated that issue was a big discussion at the staff level. Other communities noted two parking spaces were adequate and they allowed on-street parking. One- fourth space per unit is required for guest parking; one-half space is being provided. Parking is restricted at certain locations on Rolling Hills Road, Prairie Center Drive, and Prairie Lakes Drive. Ray Mohr, 10825 Leaping Deer Lane in Weston Woods, stated they have waited 28 years for commercial development and it has not happened. They have looked at 4 plans in 5 years that were denied by Council and the Board. The proposed residential area will provide a higher tax base to the community than commercial. There are 238 people in favor of the project. He urged the Board to move the project forward. Stoelting asked about the traffic lights being required as a result of the project. Gray stated one traffic signal is required at Prairie Center and Prairie Lakes Drive. It has always been part of the area. The design and installation needs to take place. The neighbors want a four way stop at Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive. That has not been a recommendation, nor a need indicated from any traffic study. It would have to be evaluated. Brooks noted it appeared staff is supporting 17.6 units per acre and it seemed high without having affordable housing.He asked about similar areas in Eden Prairie. 3 r_ Community Planning Board Minutes May 15,2001 . I DRAFT I Page14 Franzen stated there are 160 units in the city that met the affordable housing-criteria --t under the Met Council. High density allows up to 40 units per acre. The Board must decide how much density the site can support. Fountain Place and Eden Place Apartments are at 17.4 units per acre; there are large berms in front. The visual impact with large apartments would be more than with small buildings. It is different visually; he asked whether Brooks was uncomfortable with the product, closeness to the road, or the densities. The density increase could be supported with the unique product type. Brooks stated his issue would be the number of units and the setbacks. Franzen noted there was no product like this in the city. Regency Parc on City West Parkway is 11 units per acre and would be the most comparable. Foote explained he was concerned about density and the setback to the road. Fifteen feet seems too close.He would rather see 30 feet. Franzen stated this product could be put at a 30-foot setback but this loses the ability to create the visual uniqueness of the product and changes the feel dramatically. An apartment complex with berming meeting the setbacks, but may not be a better product. Nelson asked for clarification of the setback. Franzen said there is a 15-foot setback requested from the building to the property line. There would be a 30-foot setback between the building and pavement on Prairie Center Drive. Setbacks don't apply to private roads. Nelson stated people will park in front and she was concerned with parking on Prairie Lakes Drive where commercial currently exists. The noise and no berming, will disturb people with open windows toward a high traffic four lane road. She asked whether Rolling Hills or Prairie Lakes Road could connect to Anderson Lakes Parkway, especially with the addition of residents. Franzen noted a road connection to Anderson Lakes Parkway was discussed years ago and the neighbors to the south did not want a road connection; the trade-off was not having the mix of traffic going south.Prairie Lakes Drive was built 45 feet wide; there is less office than it was originally built for. There is still 35 feet; wide enough to handle the parking. Seymour asked whether it was one side only. Stock said she would like to go to the conclusion section of the staff report. The density is too high, it was questionable whether there was a compelling reason for the change, there should be modifications to the exteriors, and the buildings are too close to the road. Koenig asked about the 15 foot setback and whether it included the sidewalk. /Li f t � Community Planning Board Minutes 1 DRAFT - May 15,2001 Page 15 -' Franzen stated the trail would be in the right of way, not in the 15 foot setback. There is 30 feet from the front door of the buildings to the curb line. Foote asked about the Pulte Townhomes on Staring Lake Road and the setbacks. Franzen said the city did not grant waivers there and it was 30 feet. Franzen summarized that it seemed like the Board was split on the decision to change the guide plan. If the developer returns with a plan meeting the concerns noted in the staff report,would the Board be willing to change the guide plan? Nelson stated she did not want to change this site from commercial. If she must make suggestions to the project, she could not accept a 15-foot setback. There are driveway • and open space issues. There is no affordable housing. She would like to see setbacks, driveways, and affordable housing. Brooks noted setbacks and density are definite issues. He is okay with the comprehensive plan change. There would need to be reduced units to meet the setback. Foote stated he would like to see something closer to an affordable unit. He would like to see the setbacks at 30' and the central park larger. The architect said he could probably not address this and maybe they could vote on the guide plan change. Stoelting noted the developer would like to know where the Board stands on changing the guide plan. Stock said she was not in favor of the change and would like to see more commercial. Koenig stated she was not in favor of the guide plan change. She does not like the 15- foot setback. Seymour stated there were compelling reasons for the change. Franzen directed the Board to keep the discussion going on the housing details since they were split on the guide plan change. They could have the developer come back to the next meeting with revised plans,based on the changes they would like to see. Corneille summarized issues as setback, density, affordable housing, and exterior materials. Stoelting noted it appeared there was a stalemate in changing the guide plan. He would be willing to recommend a continuance. 15 Community Planning Board Minutes 1 I May 15,2001 I DRAFT Page 16 The architect noted the need to accelerate the project. The developer was hoping a general understanding could be attained on the comprehensive plan change; they could deal with the other items as a separate piece and come to an agreement. Timing on this property is an issue. Even if there is not a recommendation for approval, the developer needs to move forward to the Council. The Board appears split on the land use issue. Corneille stated that he was disappointed with the Developer's position to fast track the project. If the Developer won't accept the continuation of the project to the next meeting,then the Board should simply make a motion. Motion by Nelson, second by Stoelting to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 8- 0. The hearing closed at 11:05 p.m. Motion by Nelson, second by Koenig to recommend denial of the guide plan change. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Nelson, Brooks, Stoelting, Stock, Koenig, and Seymour voting"aye." Corneille voted "nay" and Foote, abstained. J6 STAFF REPORT • TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Michael D.Franzen, City Planner Krista R. Flemming,Planner II DATE: May 11,2001 SUBJECT: Hartford Commons APPLICANT David Bernard Builders and Developers OWNER: Ryan Construction Companies of Minnesota LOCATION: East of Prairie Center Drive,between Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive. REQUEST: 1. Guide Plan Change from Regional Commercial to High Density Residential on 17.88 acres 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17.88 acres to the overall Hartford Place PUD 3. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 17.88 acres in the RM-6.5 Zoning District 4. Zoning District Change from Commercial Regional Service to the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 17.88 acres 4. Site Plan Review on 17.88 acres 5. Preliminary Plat of 17.88 acres into 40 lots and 4 outlots 13 Staff Report—Hartford Commons May 11,2001 BACKGROUND This site is currently guided Regional Commercial. The property is zoned Commercial Regional Service according to the approved 1994 Hartford Place PUD. The approved plan showed four retail buildings totaling approximately 165,000 square feet with pet shop, office supply, retail, and entertainment as the proposed land uses. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide compelling reasons to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Regional Commercial to High Density Residential. This change may impact the guide plan balance and surrounding land uses. This site is part of the 1,000 acre Major Center Area (MCA) PUD approved in 1973 (see Attachment A). This PUD is generally located around Highway 212 and 494. This PUD envisioned a mixture of office, commercial, and residential uses. Of the 320 acres of land guided commercial in the MCA,there are 72.62 acres (including the proposed 17.88 acre site)vacant with an average parcel size of 3.3 acres. The MCA PUD identified clusters of high-density housing located primarily adjacent to natural features such as Lake Smetana,Purgatory Creek Recreation Area,and Anderson Lakes. There are no remaining sites guided high density residential in the MCA. There are sites guided office or industrial that may also be suitable for high density residential. This site is adjacent to lower density multiple family, office, retail and Prairie Center Drive. The proposed high density residential plan has limited open space with buildings close to the street. This can be a visual impact on existing neighborhoods. Traffic and noise impact the proposed buildings along Prairie Center Drive. ALTERNATIVE LAND USES The Major Center Area(MCA)is where the higher intensity uses are appropriate. The MCA Land Use Plan shows the 80 acre Hartford PUD for highway commercial,regional service,regional office, and housing. The Hartford PUD is currently approved for a mix of office, commercial, and residential (see Attachment B). Developing the site for commercial would be consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan, the Major Center Area Plan, and the Hartford PUD. This is the last large commercial site adjacent to the Eden Prairie Mall that could provide supportive commercial uses typically found near other regional malls, and attract additional customers to the area. ' � Staff Report—Hartford Commons May 11,2001 Mixed land use can be appropriate on this site. The Hartford PUD is mixed use. Mixed land use reduces tr.ffic, provides services in close proximity to housing, and offers employment opportunities. It may be appropriate to have commercial uses along Prairie Center Drive and residential uses located adjacent to existing residential. This site could be developed for different types of housing including apartments and condominiums developed at higher densities (up to 40 units per acre, consistent with the guide plan). Lincoln Parc on Singletree Lane is 38 units per acre with commercial on the first floor. No setback waivers were granted with that project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Hartford Commons includes 319 multiple family townhomes with a gross density of 17.84 units per acre. The gross density of the Pulte townhomes to the southeast is 5.8 units per acre. The gross density of the Mark of Excellence twinhomes to the northeast is 4.0 units per acre. There are four different building types: • Urban Townhouses—114 units. There are four, 18-unit buildings,two, 16-unit buildings,one, 14-unit building, and one, 12-unit building. • Urban Flat Townhouses—64 units. There are four, 16-unit buildings. • Urban Row townhouse — 131 units. There are two, 7-unit buildings, six, 6-unit buildings, seven, 5-unit buildings,ten,4-unit buildings, and two, 3-unit buildings. • Live/Work Townhomes - 10 units. - There are two, 5-unit buildings. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS The applicant is requesting PUD waivers for setbacks, density, and open space. It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that these waivers result in a better site design and a clear benefit to the city. The project requires the following waivers from the City Code: • Front Yard Setback from 30 feet to 15 feet. • Gross Site Area per Unit from 6,500 sq, ft. to 2,441 sq. ft. • Density from 6.7 units per acre to 17.6 units per acre. The proposed waivers create a tight site plan with small open spaces and buildings close to the streets. The attention to detail in the design of the buildings, exterior materials, colors,landscaping, lighting, and other site details is more critical than typical multiple family projects. Multiple family projects use setbacks, berming and trees to soften the view of the buildings, and screen parking, I 1 Staff Report—Hartford Commons May 11,2001 trash, and mechanical equipment. In order to help substantiate the waivers,the plan should be changed as follows: 1. Reconfigure the site plan so no garage elevations face the street. There are two buildings near the intersection of Prairie Lakes Drive and Rolling Hills Road where garage entrances face the street. The site plan should be changed to have an internal access. One option may be the use of an"L"shaped structure at the corner(see Attachment C). The other option may be to use a different product type on this corner of the property. 2. A design framework is needed to create variety in exterior materials and colors.This is important since there are 319 units. 3. Change the rock face block on all buildings to brick or natural stone. 4. The exterior elevations facing all public streets should have 75%face brick,natural stone,or glass. 5. The exterior elevations internal to the site should be 25%face brick,natural stone, or glass. 6. Provide a detailed landscape plan for the garden and foundation plantings. 7. Use decorative brick pavers instead of concrete between the steps and internal and external concrete sidewalks. 8. Use decorative fencing to screen air conditioners in front of the units. 9. Paint the air exchangers and utility meters located near the garage entrances to match the building. 10. Steps should be concrete instead of wood. PARKING AND STREETS City Code requires 2 parking spaces per unit with one enclosed. City policy requires 1/4 space per unit for guest parking. The project meets this requirement by providing 2 underground parking spaces per unit and %2 space per unit guest parking on the street. Staff talked with planners from Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, and Maple Grove about David Bernard townhome projects currently built or under construction. These communities required 2 spaces per unit with no,or minimal, additional guest parking with parking permitted on city streets. No parking or emergency vehicle access problems were noted by any of these communities. The Hartford Commons project provides 2.5 spaces per unit. Internal parking is restricted to one side of the street to provide the required 20-foot fire lane. Parking is permitted on Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive. The minimum width of the private street should be 24 feet at the intersections with Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Lakes Drive. The"bump-outs"that indicate street parking should be eliminated at these 4 project entrances. The applicant indicated 2.5 spaces per unit are adequate for the project. The buyer profile information provided by the applicant for existing similar projects indicates the following: Staff Report—Hartford Commons May 11,2001 • Buyers of the Urban Townhomes are between 20-40 years old with 18 -20%having children. • Buyers of the Urban Flat Townhomes are over age 50 with 6%having children. WETLANDS There are three existing wetlands on the site..In 1993,Prairie Lakes Business Park received approval to fill and mitigate these wetlands onsite. The wetland mitigation was constructed along Prairie Center Drive,south of Rolling Hills Road, and an expansion of an existing wetland, southeast of the Hartford Place townhomes. The 2001 wetland inventory indicates there are .17 acres more than the 1994 inventory. Additional mitigation of .17 acres will be done offsite in accordance with requirements of the Watershed District. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The chart below compares traffic. A residential use on the property generates less traffic. I f i lc y l'm ' 4 - r; 1270'9 1 ,f [b p (s d G �' ' P1-011 4 o mo ; f Iti 1r 'A 'I1' ' i p�z t.' 4'rri.. I ,`J Dr 4<,hips ,°�J '�. `+ `.I_'e� ' �s ilj OP ; 1979 PUD 17,548 2,067 6,066 627 ,1994 PUD; r: 11,371 1,068 8,274 794 2000'PUD 9,719 882 6,712 608 2001 PIM" 4,497 445 1,850 171 The traffic study indicates a traffic signal is needed at the Prairie Lakes Drive and Prairie Center Drive intersection,but not the Rolling Hills Road and Prairie Center Drive intersection. LANDSCAPING The amount of landscaping is based on the building square footage. The landscaping requirement is 1,982 caliper inches. The landscape plan provides 1,476 caliper inches. The project cannot meet the caliper inch requirement since there is not enough room to plant all of the trees onsite. Staff suggested 511 caliper inches could be used for other features such as gardens, annual and perennial plantings, and decorative sidewalks. This was conditioned on a plan that provided more of these features than is typically found in townhome projects. • The landscape plan should be revised as follows: • Provide a detailed plan(specific plant types) for the garden and foundation plantings. • Use decorative brick pavers instead of concrete between the steps and internal and external sidewalks. I' ai Staff Report—Hartford Commons May 11,2001 • Relocate boulevard trees to provide adequate site distances. Sidewalks should be moved closer to the street(5-foot setback) and the trees moved to the back side of the sidewalk to allow for snow storage and appropriate site lines. • Relocate trees to provide appropriate site triangles at all intersections. The City Code defines a significant tree as a shade tree greater than 12 inches in diameter or a conifer tree greater than 8 inches in diameter. A significant tree is also defined by type. Elms, boxelder, and ornamental trees are not significant trees. Of the 7 trees on site, only two are considered significant,both are 26-inch ash trees. The City Code requires a 100%replacement of the diameter inches. The tree replacement requirement for this site from the approved PUD is 119 inches. The plan meets this requirement. ARCHITECTURE The RM-2.5 zoning district is typically used for apartments with densities in excess of 17.4 units per acre. The exterior material requirement is 75% face brick, glass, and natural stone. These materials are appropriate for the size of an apartment building, and necessary for durability and a higher quality finish. This project is 17.6 units per acre and could be placed in the RM-2.5 zoning district. However, considering the size of the buildings, the 75%brick, glass, and natural stone requirement may not be appropriate. Staff suggested the applicant ask for a density waiver in the RM-6.5 zoning district (6.7 units per acre maximum)rather than request an exterior materials waiver in the RM-2.5 district. The City has granted density waivers,but not exterior material waivers. This was based upon the applicant designing a product having more brick,glass,and stone than the typical townhouse project, but not as much as the typical apartment project. Section 504 of the Uniform Building Code impacts the design of each building and setbacks to property lines. The code limits the number of openings allowed on the buildings (i.e. doors, windows, etc.) and setbacks to decks or porches. The code also requires all buildings be sprinkled for fire protection. Based on a preliminary review by staff,it appears the buildings and site plan do not meet this requirement. The applicant must provide allowable area calculations. Since there are 319 units in this project, it is important to have a design framework that specifies colors and materials of each building. This is needed to create variety and visual interest. The staff recommends the following changes: • Change rock face block on all buildings to brick or natural stone. • The exterior elevations facing all public streets should have 75%face brick,natural stone, or glass. • The exterior elevations internal to the site should be 25% face brick,natural stone, or glass. • Change the wood steps to concrete. 7 as Staff Report—Hartford Commons May 11,2001 DRAINAGE Water drains to existing treatment ponds near the office buildings north of the proposed project. UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site. Additional drainage and utility easements over all public sanitary sewer and water lines are needed. Utilities are close to the buildings. The required 10-foot utility easements will encroach into structures or foundations. The plan should be revised to provide 10-foot easement areas that do not extend into any part of the proposed structures or foundations. TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS A five-foot wide sidewalk should be constructed along Prairie Lakes Drive and Rolling Hills Road. An eight-foot wide bituminous trail should be constructed along Prairie Center Drive. CONCLUSION There are four alternative land uses that could be acceptable on this site: 1. All commercial. • 2. A commercial and residential mix. 3. Apartments or condos(up to 40 units per acre). 4. Townhouses, as proposed,with modifications. If the Board believes that alternatives 1, 2, or 3 are the best uses for the site, then a denial recommendation should be sent to the City.Council. No further discussion of the plan details is required since compelling reasons to change the guide plan and grant the waivers have not been identified. If the Board believes that alternative 4 is the best use for the site,then discussion should continue about the following subjects: 1. Are there compelling reasons for changing the guide plan? 2. Is the density of the project appropriate for the area? 3. Are there compelling reasons for granting the waivers for density,setback,and open space? Will the granting of waivers result in a better site design? 4. Can the existing and planned road improvements accommodate the proposed traffic? Staff Report—Hartford Commons May 11,2001 5. Should the architecture and exterior materials change according to the staff recommendations? 6. Should the landscaping and other site details change according to the staff recommendations? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative One If the Community Planning Board believes compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the waivers from the City Code,then one option would be to recommend approval of: • Guide Plan Change from Regional Commercial to High Density Residential on 17.88 acres • Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 17.88 acres of the Hartford Place PUD • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 17.88 acres • Zoning District Change from C-Reg-Ser to the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 17.88 acres • Site Plan Review on 17.88 acres • Preliminary Plat of 17.88 acres into 40 lots and 4 outlots This would be based on plans dated May 7, 2001,this staff report, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review,proponent shall: A. Revise the site plan so no garage elevations face the streets. The site plan should be changed for the buildings to have an internal access. B. A design framework is needed to create variety in exterior materials and colors. This is important since there are 319 units. C. Change rock face block on all buildings to brick or natural stone. D. The exterior elevations facing all public streets should be 75%face brick,natural stone,or glass. E. The exterior elevations internal to the site should be 25%face brick,natural stone,or glass. F. Provide a detailed landscape plan with specific plant types for the garden and foundation plantings. G. Use decorative brick pavers instead of concrete between the steps and internal and external concrete sidewalks. H. Use decorative fencing to screen air conditioners in front of the units. I. Paint the air exchangers and utility meters located near the garage entrances to match the building. J. Change wood steps to concrete. K. Relocate boulevard trees to provide adequate site distances. Sidewalks should be moved closer to the street(5-foot setback) and the trees moved to the back side of the sidewalk to allow for snow storage and appropriate site lines. L. Relocate trees to provide appropriate site triangles at all intersections. M. Remove the"bump-outs"that indicate street parking the 4 project entrances to provide a minimum street access of 24 feet. �{ Staff Report—Hartford Commons May 11,2001 N. Revise building architecture to meet requirements of Section 504 of the Uniform Building Code. O. Sprinkle all buildings to meet fire code requirements. P. Revise the plan to provide 10-foot drainage and utility easements over all public sanitary sewer and water lines. Easements cannot extend into any part of the proposed structures or foundations. 2. Prior to grading permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Install erosion control and tree protection fencing at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Forester. B. Submit detailed street, storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. 3. Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Review the building plans with the Fire Marshal,including details regarding fire access to the site and sprinkling for each building. B. Review the building plans with the Senior Plan Reviewer, including details regarding • code requirements for each building based on property line locations. C. Submit a bond for landscaping in accordance with City Code. D. Submit samples of exterior materials. 4. The following waivers are granted as part of the PUD: A. Front Yard Setback from 30 feet to 15 feet. B. Gross Site Area per Unit from 6,500 sq. ft.to 2,441 sq. ft. C. Density from 6.7 units per acre to 17.6 units per acre. Alternative Two If the Community Planning Board does not believe compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and waivers from the City Code,then one option would be to recommend the project be continued with direction to revise the plan as follows: • Revise the site plan so no garage elevations face the streets. The site plan should be changed for the buildings to have an internal access. • A design framework is needed to create variety in exterior materials and colors.This is important since there are 319 units. • Change rock face block on all buildings to brick or natural stone. • The exterior elevations facing all public streets should be 75%face brick,natural stone,or glass. Staff Report—Hartford Commons May 11,2001 • The exterior elevations internal to the site should be 25%face brick,natural stone, or glass. • Provide a detailed landscape plan with specific plant types for the garden and foundation plantings. • Use decorative brick pavers instead of concrete between the steps and internal/external concrete sidewalks. • Use decorative fencing to screen air conditioners in front of the units. • Paint the air exchangers and utility meters located near the garage entrances to match the building. • Change wood steps to concrete. • Relocate boulevard trees to provide adequate site distances. Sidewalks should be moved closer to the street(5-foot setback) and the trees moved to the back side of the sidewalk to allow for snow storage and appropriate site lines. • Relocate trees to provide appropriate site triangles at all intersections. • Remove the "bump-outs" that indicate street parking the 4 project entrances to provide a minimum street access of 24 feet. • Revise building architecture to meet requirements of Section 504 of the Uniform Building Code. • Sprinkle all buildings to meet fire code requirements. • Revise the plan to provide 10-foot drainage and utility easements over all public sanitary sewer and water lines. Easements cannot extend into any part of the proposed structures or foundations. Alternative Three If the Community Planning Board does not believe compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the waivers from the City Code,then one option would be to recommend denial for the following reasons: • The project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. • The proposed plan is inconsistent with the approved PUD plan and Developer Agreement dated November 1, 1994. • The project does not meet requirements of the City Code as listed in this report. 1. Front Yard Setback from 30 feet to 15 feet. 2. Gross Site Area per Unit from 6,500 sq. ft. to 2,441 sq. ft. 3. Density from 6.7 units per acre to 17.6 units per acre. Staff recommends Alternative Two. Location Map __ Hartford Commons • >` /; ' ^; •. f r•': • `.T 4;l;, 1. 5 i >r_ r+ - 1' 4 ik� i' , r EC=" k , ,,,,,,,, ,..„ ....,,, 1 'i .- r - ..r. a., r s iiK ; i: ....., , :, , . ...:,.ter! r r ,„,,,,.., a' i• „i� t,7; :i4.ni ti��5 t' N 1.,_,,..,;..s.... , . ,, ,,, ,.,,„:.,:.i .,..,:•._.,,: , } f :*';'''''.:!!'*;';''',•;:,' •" 6 ::eraw`ri- „1��nti:l,' i<ti't , rl t sf:, l;r:'I<tt,t+, J" ,...4,,f, �:3.' •t1 r. F.tr :i a r• F' ie .:i;'`?_ ,,;per>•: •F' `::t , .. :. . t:r,) r�'rl ::��t 4:,> s,:. •. ..••'.-rr't .s. w• ,' ;. � \?1 ,. 02s r ,. 4 •a , t • � • nr t. L : �y� y :>"� ' 785 +'t."t,T,•„�r r "Y•w j N.I '„a;( :Okl;' �;i ,.5..'; ,`f�,�,'.,,: ,' ,iS,. (, .; a':S,•',..,,.,',., .2. l .r, i .},. ,i r �':. •Y, s A` ' i,: .r Y�:t I',.l,kJ t �4�,xrrr,, 4\:� ,.1, .d``�' /`. r�i¢'" "=,�� .:�T n �y�yr� 'Lf:'�• r :.t �:C :��,:� ';f` ;' ;"' ti's1, ` nij t' `."i..'}": ',fr ,"x,{ i•' :3. T.'''•T),}'4.s �i� >., �,l a; a©,r. ,..,;f Y., } ,: ,-'t:;;...., . / // -},, h 3R 4;: " . '�@ r, '•7'i sf;; 4 1, ,! , I rIY ' rid +,Ire, .4'.. �' ' k „t;:2i,< ,� r� 'in�+'e�'"� ,Fg ; r"Cj Ti 44ra; _ I ! t,' - �.' �� A 'y , !t { j.:.; i; •t,; r,`',,,,, `hit• e4,7 rr'r r �,��.. /� �,.! /� r •). ,� ,i;�.,^< it , f ' `'.,,x'; } 3 II ,- , a „ r' o= 6 tI q�(C' r,,•zZLC`" ...,/, °�`y r l a }',!t } r' , s% r A ; .,' '^' ,7r.•„ .1: 'keY, _ a i 4 s.2'F _153y� d %r /-1rr►4G rt t(} . � i+ !; ,`b t ".v. f�. k ,: , eh. 1w•.r"• ' ?;{' } r.;c?'-"' +A! r`w ,?;,;,, fir/ .aa ;:;;t• �,:;:a' (•,.. Q .1•,tt..:-.•7: ,f. '''!" r nri n ,, : ,'-'-*,„,,',x-,n,..‹..,':..'Tin '1, 1, -,-.- 12....,. .....,,,,\--Nch .„---. . .'. !.:,,,:,•:.4 t r�:i :417 } f 4. _ I (� a 6. u t :J tl s, t f �' f:i; I.. .,t� r 5 � - pr FS% t .,,,r6 ,,,,,,,,,7,:s i, .„,„,iy,... t,. ri", :4: `rr S. f _ ll JflY' Y�)•,'t. •'�`�''r'� r :j'. �Uq; eft ilq' S111: 4(1'' s ®„_a!, e r i i`���i'---'" tti : � �, .= b:c ag; ,i � 74; rt •3i.: i5- ';,- ':i�S^Y' r _ t ,,,,,,,,,A,..'-.-' ,}�/f�.f tf. `� ' • .. � ,r �'�\ %ice'-....' r`�,./ �' c \ ,:ram:, {� E't i", r ' tl 1> �•m�uo q u >s qt,�. r ' U orilj� q tl t y1 qq. Pb1 r. b' 1 't f•"- y t `r. ,•rM1 , >~t rQ: 7� r p r(t /' t, - `�r..�, ' i;' ,. q: q q >7 qq q . q • _� 1 1 4.w� f t�4._ w t. F .��t }; 1 k1 r I t . } , t' � : ._ 111 f E- 1 �, I 'ili I I Hi LL.��--= --,, t ' -,,;� cam,, ;. ; '',', ',L �k�� , 1I,' . � - --7-.1,,---7I1) i^_. =� :f, ,l :i1',. )j, ' '; ,,•J.r r/' 1' - �'� :i J it ���� _ �}`st', l (� �.\\"� {��I 1, �f. j ,r . l. .Aj;` )/ tl.... ��`'J,, ...._'.sr ..,..�al,_.'Y�`�.J_r�_.:_----- • ---'7• • �� f T ni3¢'"Cp d ^Tye• - ' '�+!� 7� •t'a3e ,....,--et-, . •.f .t• dFf� " 't tt t >` rsc .},r ..fr ptu"C�'l�{• C sr':•,.Y.4 l' ''. f{f�, �•,,,�+ •t._r, ; . H •_0.4 F � 'Q}• O' .2,di 'rr_.. {'ply y t f ,� - f u. �� r•: -17 ra. i �� fl t,� L' ? cv - _ + J w �A PTs^y^�� = .Vic: li i CQS o,;'fir - _ . ''' 1 1 +• •. -: $c 76 + .. :.1n-z-,,'n)4,,'"-.--,,;.1"-.."t ':y:C.•.-•-.:--';.:A..#7 a+'G.�; O. ram ' rt 6,sf `� _ •.,a "._ Oj .j„1 rr. , w1J{G., t. 7"F•-y,f'y,;tr, +• 7. (],,,:;• M- •�•f err. m.L1' (Y' 5 a:. 4i. ,i4, #•.: �.. r_1}`_. z 'of ;'�.'` {(y/�]�/' „. 3> _ -- 1 h `v .kir- t- tr�.+f* r,a s it t :, • .-^-`' " T•f)., 1, �'L.• ' + vt+0 ... 74 ,.. ......,IL,5,,,,,,,,,,,, , :;,..„-.,- N. _Ai- F "a'iLG r i'r� F y f k "F t( i a -/ i'�✓ +i `(1 s ... f • ,,.a. .tJK'• r'�..:•' L`,t'yi .' ,r+t i:ixi'in 4 A y r r„. .a.• t tirp.)., ✓ : r�� t ``- 411:;>•J Iv* JI •o ,is •i '•;y. 3 .•.--"'' (/)7 l' ti� •.J' ' .. .bar".„ L • •: / / �� ��^°ate `' •.,e i. ,,,..4V ' �ri• 4. .� rf i;' ��,. �F�+t _ '• +i 1 • r �t�c1r+. },a *e nhi L' fir rgL .d Y'y}L a a A 'n ..-..• 'ir Ij t, lard.. ' '1 • (�' U h.rw• .,- ' „U• ic' `fiy - `'�*�6"" to-�'A k,j�l��( G":+i r t�ii't^ ,,t i'-„ " + •�j. ai., ' -''�;¢c.'d 6...a X.'+F s '�tf' �1 VL} I • 11 <n A ,unl .+ 1 t + 7 5 y .� , • . ':+: c P r ft.7't�'y4y4,,,. r�, t�,rYe+r ., r a4s . {;;;11 •.- % �t} ar 5. fit Sw+ }�-{ y a }4 H•;i j ti N 1 f .4• ,�r..+1" s• T x ," kr x :.• },t @"s v y ;,a't-+ �✓ • 4s,• n71 f" 1• i Y, .j f j,1{P•3 h t. ;}T _} ls.� C 'f+Y 1• r'.aL kr S � rel.:, >k• o t • `• >'t e �fM1' o �� t ;�. i t' .. r '.•r •-w. .. , l • .�,f , kK t— ,tit - Y'.IP '�..3 O V VJ Q .ti •-• °•' ,,,:.-.-..1' t- • t t LI O_ 12 .- Q OOP.pY`)•m N • co - • ' U A. likr O 6 < O .. U. = ge lu s In O w U 2' 0 I In I to I- W Z¢ 0 =� / �' I W= INX V(11 < / •1 `' - 2W �,••¢Wi ram• et¢¢J� .-2 I s. , ••. - •�, I �00 O o9a- J 0 ¢U`V • 4441---191114•• '1 mW O4o - - ®�� b _ 1 00{4y 3 • 216 ----------'-''.\.` ...-*-1-":.:-..--:!:--• 10 . -. 4.2:L...,..---' -----: t • 1 I.; ./ ./.) La wci ;.,...-.T..5-e-- - , • • ---- • i , 1 ; ; ;4'z / • I") . ni • • C it,' et E A. -1--. ..." I ,0•1` �1--, " Alt\ r 114C �v W •'��/ �f',[ it},j�.',�4�y, q,---,.= c" ct t,of ,:e.4r .1%4 /5"LL.C.' ,. ''' 7• /0 • , it; tt ! ;\'‘ I••---1::::/.44. ,f,_.,-",_ __a_Ale 1 .11. • I EIT 1 IIN.,q4.1 \s, ivp. -11 . ....._.... „.._---. ......_. .< ._ i.• , ........----- . ...._:‘...._ 1... ,........„___,...,,,,, 4 cm. .1 qt.';,..' -\..i‘..-----' 4.1 E4Liliug:4-P /(1:44.4o- iiris � �,r i +. - 1'�-- ° j , o . -111 \ 1 ` V y z V 1 oU • �� fly a, , -.�, LA • ta rx. W O ••,.N.\, f- , I_!..ic N,-,__, .� ! \PCs La 14 Ir N O • <¢in NI U • wW < 1 ov 0Z ¢ O V Z N V 2 1 O 2 • 00. • a aC L- 1..C,IW ccIr • ¢J W C\--..---; - .,. La-k °P ...1,-.roj fl e Vole , ...,........„, ....,,,,..,...o.........,,.....W - . C../.' 1 t ' _ .., \ 1 . . ------) i• -,, (..../1 ...4..._ _.4 s t , . 1:6 --) -.-- k, 1 , C----1 ---1 1 •ir) . . It ........ . 1460 \ rLi . 7.. . '.. ,‘ ....'' i . . ; C:5" ' . on , ........ . i ii , , . : , , .„, . ri . "----- "-r---: -- . - II N. 1 I . ,..., . --,0 -- EB DAVID BERNARD BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS A DIVISION OFTHE ROTULUND COMPANY.INC. • May 17,2001 Mike Franzen Krista Flemming City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 . Re: Hartford Commons—Grading Permit Dear Mike and Krista, This is to request the issuance of a grading permit prior to the Developer's Agreement and final approval. We realize that this request is dependent on preliminary approval at the June 5,2001 City Council meeting. Please call me at(651) 638-0534 with any questions regarding this letter. Thank you for your consideration with this matter. Sincerely, 0'41 C.LCV ':' ' Richard Palmiter Vice President,Land Development • • 3065 CENTRE POINTE DRIVE ROSEVILLE,MN 55113 TEL:(651)638-0500 FAX:(651)638-0501 3 ( CITY COUNCIL AGENDA • DATE: 06/05/01 SECTION: Public Hearings SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: Community Development ITEM DESCRIPTION: Donald R.Uram ITEM NO.: Scott A.Kipp The Heritage VII ►-D Krista R.Flemming Requested Action Move to: • • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium , Density Residential on 23. 05 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 42.16 acres; and • • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 23.05 acres and from Rural to the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 19.11 acres; and • • Adopt the Resolution for the Preliminary Plat of 42.16 acres into 138 lots, 4 outlots, and right-of-way; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Staff and Board recommendations and Council conditions; and • Direct Staff to issue a land alteration permit to the Developer to proceed with construction at their own risk. Synopsis This project is for 33 single family homes, 53 one-story townhomes, 50 two-story townhomes, 4 • outlots, and City right-of-way located south of Pioneer Trail at Dell Road. The project requires a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 23.05 acres of the total 42.16-acre site. The following PUD waivers are requested: • Cul-de-sac lengths from 500 feet to 540 feet,550 feet, and 650 feet. • Front Yard Setback from 30 feet to 25 feet for Lots 12 and 22,Block 2. • Lot Frontage from 55 feet to 20 feet for Lot 10,Block 2. • Alternative Wetland Buffer Strip from 50 feet to 30 feet. The Community Planning Board first reviewed the project at the April 6 2001 meeting. The Board recommended a continuance and directed the Developer to reduce the density of the multiple family area and eliminate eight-unit buildings from the project. At the May 14, 2001 meeting, the revised plans included four less units with four and six-unit buildings. The Board voted 8-0 to recommend project approval to the City Council. City Council Agenda The Heritage Page 2 The deadline for the 120-day city review process is July 6,2001. Background The proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change is from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 23.05 acres. Medium density housing may be appropriate on this site for the following reasons: 1. The multiple family area is adjacent to multiple family in Oakparke (Eden Orchard). The Heritage multiple family density is 4.46 units per acre. The Oakparke multiple family density is 4.4 units per acre. 2. The project helps meet housing goals by providing single-story senior/empty-nester housing. 3. The wooded slope and stormwater pond on the east side of the multiple family units provide an internal transition between the proposed multiple and single-family. 4. The Planned Unit Development creates a west to east transition from the existing medium density residential in the Eden Orchard PUD to existing single family homes in the Cedar Forest neighborhood. 5. Additional townhouses will not substantially affect the guide plan balance of housing. Townhouses, condominiums, and twinhomes represent 23.8% (5,093 units) of the housing units in the City. Adding 103 units increases the number of multiple units by 2%. 6. The existing roadways and traffic signal at Dell Road and Pioneer Trail can accommodate the proposed traffic. A high quality wetland requires a 50-foot wetland buffer and 15-foot wetland buffer setback to meet City Code. Due to the location of a high quality wetland at the end of existing Valley Road, and the need to access the property from this road, encroachment into the wetland buffer cannot be avoided. The road has been shifted south to avoid the wetland. As a result, a waiver for the alternative wetland buffer from 50 feet to 30 feet is necessary on the north side of the wetland. Reasons to support the alternative wetland buffer may include wetland size, deteriorating wetland quality, and to permit access to the property. • Valley Road will remain a temporary "dead end" street until future development occurs on the adjacent,undeveloped properties. At that time,Valley Road will be extended to Dell Road. This future road connection is necessary to provide essential emergency vehicle access and eliminate . the need for the remaining undeveloped parcels to require direct access to Pioneer Trail. Attachments 1. Resolution for Guide Plan Amendment 2. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 3. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 4. Community Planning Board Minutes dated April 9 and May 14,2001 5. Staff Reports dated April 6 and May 11,2001 6. General Correspondence 7. Letter requesting early Land Use Alteration Permit THE HERITAGE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO.2001- 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 The Heritage by Carlson, Inc., is for a 33 single family units, 103 multiple family units,4 outlots, and right-of-way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby adopts the amendment of the Plan subject to Metropolitan Council approval as follows: 23.05 acres from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential,located at Dell Road and Pioneer Trail. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 5th day of June 2001. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 3 THE HERITAGE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2001- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF THE HERITAGE FOR CARLSTON,INC. 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 Community Planning Board did conduct a public hearing on The Heritage PUD Concept by Carlston, Inc., 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 June 5,2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Heritage,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 May 25,2001. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Community Planning Board dated May 14, 2001. • ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 5th day of June 2001. Jean L. Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk EDIT A The Heritage Legal Description: See Attached Sheets • LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR SINGLE RESIDENTIAL: That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said West Half; thence on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 57 minutes 40 seconds East along the West line of said West Half, 4-distance of 695.31 feet; thence Northeasterly along a curve concave to the Northwest, said curve having a radius of 3997.38 feet and central angle of 0 degrees 45 minutes 22 seconds and chord bearing of North 56 degrees 21 minutes 16 seconds East, an arc distance of 52.75 feet;thence North 55 degrees 58 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 1020.95 feet to the actual point of beginning of the parcel of land to be herein described; thence South 55 degrees 58 minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 57.57 feet; thence South 34 degrees 1 minute 25 seconds East a distance of 273 feet; thence South 55 degrees 58 minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 81.5 feet; thence South 7 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 157.36 feet; thence South 89 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 373.01 feet more or less to the point of intersection with the East line of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 20, thence Northerly along said East line to the point of intersection with a circular curve which is concave to the Southeast running Northeasterly from the actual point of beginning, said curve having a radius of 2006.53 feet and having a radial line bearing of South 34 degrees 1 minute 25 seconds East at the point of beginning; thence Southwesterly along said curved line to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota, AND; That part of the West 1/2 of the Southwest '/4 of Section 20, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said West 1/2 thence on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 57 minutes 40 seconds East along the West line of said West 'A., a distance of 695.81 feet; thence Northeasterly, along a curve concave to the Northwest, said curve having a radius of 3997.38 and central again of 0 degrees 45 minutes 22 seconds and chord bearing of North 56 degrees 21 minutes 16 seconds East, an arc distance of 52.75 feet; thence North 55 degrees 58 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 781.88 feet; thence South 34 degrees 01 minutes 25 seconds East a distance of 273 feet; thence North 55•degrees 58 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 100 feet; thence South 7 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 459.28 feet to the actual point of beginning of the parcel of land to be herein described; thence North 7 degrees 04 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 301.92 feet; thence South 89 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 373.01 feet more or less to the point of intersection with the East line of the West 1/2.of the Southwest '/4 of section 20; thence Southerly along said East line to the Southeast corner • of said West %thence Westerly along the South line of said West 1/2 a distance of 333.89 1' feet; thence Northerly 538.85 feet more of less to the actual point of beginning, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, AND; That part of the East 350 feet (as measured at right angles to the East line) of the Northwest '/4 of the Northwest '/4 of Section 29, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying North of the South 340.00 feet thereof. Together with an easement for ingress and egress over the East 100 feet of the North 50 feet of the South 340.00 feet of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 116, Range 22. (Said easement is now known as part of Cedarcrest Drive, as shown in Plat of Oakparke Estates 2nd Addition, filed as Document No. 7398571). 0 2001 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. - �l5 �1 Proposed Legal Description That part of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 116 North Range 22, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said West 1/2; thence on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees, 57 minutes, 40 seconds East along the West line • of said West 1/2, a distance of 695.81 feet; thence Northeasterly along a curve concave to the Northwest, said curve having a radius of 3997.38 feet, a central angle of 0 degrees, 45 minutes, 22 seconds, a chord bearing of - North 56 degrees, 21 minutes, 16 seconds East, an arc distance of 52.75 feet; thence North 55 degrees, 58 minutes, 35 seconds East a distance of 42Z98 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence South 20 degrees 51 minutes 25 seconds East a distance . of 458.11 feet; thence Southerly parallel with the East line of said West 1/2 of a distance of 537.82 feet more or less to the South line of said West 1/2; thence Easterly along said South line a distance of 422:39 feet more or less to the West line of the East 333.89 feet, as measured at right angles with the East line of said West 1/2; thence Northerly along said West line a distance of 538.85 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 358.18 feet; thence North 20 degrees f... 51 minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 495 feet; thence South 55 degrees 58 minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 61.67 feet more or less to the actual point of beginning. Together with a nonexclusive roadway easement created in Document No. 3802593. Together with: That part of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22 described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Southwest 1/4; thence North along the West line thereof to the centerline of County Road No. 1; thence Northeasterly along said centerline a distance of 480.73 feet; thence South 20 degrees 51 minutes 25 seconds East a distance of 458.11 feet; thence South parallel with the East line of the West 1/2 of the said Southwest 1/4 to the South line thereof; thence West to the point of beginning, EXCEPT the West 22 feet thereof • Together with: • That part of the North 506 feet of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 116, Range 22 lying East of the West 400 feet thereof and West of the East 350 feet thereof. Together with: - Outlot 8, OAKPARKE ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof Hennepin County, Minnesota. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property _, ..........„...„„V:4 i ---.\------------>'-1--..--.:Ijc. ,--:.- ca g02 / THE HERITAGE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2001- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE HERITAGE FOR CARLSTON,INC. BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of The Heritage for Carlston, Inc., dated May 25, 2001 and consisting of 42.16 acres into 138 lots,4 outlots and right-of-way, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED.by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 5th day of June 2001. Jean L.Harris,Mayor • ATTEST: • Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Community Planning Board Minutes April 9,2001 Page 3 B. THE HERITAGE by Carlston, Inc. Request for Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 23.05 acres, Planned Unit Development Conept Review on 42.16 acres, Planned Unit Development district Review with waivers on 42.16 acres, Zoning District Chage from Rural to R1- 13.5 Zoning District on 19.11 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 Zoning district on 23.05 acres, Site Plan review on 23.05 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 42.16 acres into 142 lots, 3 outlots, and right-of-way. Location: Dell Road and Pioneer Trail. Dwight Jelle of Westwood Engineering introduced traffic engineer Allan Klugman and Wayne Soujit, President for Ryland Homes. In area C, there was a 15% reduction in units. Area B will be one level executive townhomes. The NURP pond was relocated. Addressing item C, he worked with Cedar Forest Residents and purchased 19 acres of land for single family homes. There are 32 homes that willbe priced at$400-$700,000 with 2.83 acres of wooded buffer, and a conservation easement. He will be involved in every house built on the property. Trails and walkways,natural berms, and specialized prairie restoration will be put in place. Street naming will be after Eden Prairie residents. To address wetland issues, they worked out mitigation and type, resulting in a change of road location. They held a neighborhood meeting with Cedar Forest neighbors. Privacy screening will benefit both properties; he hired a landscape architect to address design, type, and size of trees. Design of the development is based on Braxton Woods. Executive townouses will be $300-$400,00 for empty nesters. Along C, two story townhomes will be from $250;000. There is an 8 foot berm to the rear. The guide plan change provides more of a continuation of the surrounding area. The overall density is 3.3 units per acre. Orrin Thompson property is at 4.4 units per acre. The conservation easement and 1.6 acre NURP creates open space and a visual setback. A variety of housing is covered, with an improved transportation plan. Franzen said the project was a change to the comprehensive plan. There are reasons for changing the guide plan as listed in the staff report with this project. Additional townhomes will not significantly affect the guide plan balance of housing. The PUD creates a west-east transition from the existing medium density residential to the existing single family homes. Wooded slope and stormwater pond provide a natural buffer and internal transition. Existing roadways and traffic signals can accommodate the proposed traffic. The Board should discuss whether the change in land use is appropriate. Diana Dunn of 9381 Cedar Hurst Road, said she is not familiar with the revised project and would like a better understanding of the locations. She asked whether the townhomes would be similar to the 8—units built nearby. Carlston said nearby units were priced from$200,000. Dunn asked about the Oak Park Development. Community Planning Board Minutes April 9,2001 Page 4 Carlston stated those were priced from$160,000. Dunn said she was concerned about multi-family developments and medium density. Corneille asked if her concern was density or quality. Dunn said both and she would like to see it changed. There are variables with wording with executive townhome versus twinhome and it is confusing. There are 30-40 single family followed by medium density. Braxton Woods was done well but it is too dense. She is concerned about storm drainage; a compressor pumps water and she can hear it. • Mike Wroblewski, .9360 Cedar Forest Road, Heritage Commissioner. He read from the history of Eden Prairie, the first 100 years. There are 50,000 people living in Eden Prairie. He questioned why the Board would approve the proposal with the current density. An example of a bad decision by city would be development of the Apple Orchard. He noted the current wildlife around Riley Lake and suggested the open spaces are what drew people to Eden Prairie. Land values are going up, housing is less affordable, and the environment is degrading. John Kierland, 17191 Cedar Crest Circle,thanked Mr. Carlson for stopping by his home. His concern was the circle was rebuilt last year and his lawn was torn up. He would like to know who would be responsible for fixing the front yards. A resident of 17150 Cedar Crest Drive said her concern was the traffic on Pioneer Trail. She has driven Pioneer Trail west to.Chaska for 20 years. Traffic is already bumper to bumper and a stoplight would not help. Joanne Wroblewski, 9360 Cedar Forest Road, thanked the council for the neighborhood meeting, and thanked developer. She is concerned with density and units per acre and agrees that the Apple Orchard was a mistake. The overall infrastructure impact should be considered. The city is nearly crippled by traffic. Senior housing and multiple units need public transportation and that is not available. Kim Gunn, 17120 Cedar Crest Drive, lives across from the natural pond, said they are the only residents that can view what is going up across from them. Their concern is not density but when they agreed to have city sewer and water. The single family home development will use the lift station they were assessed for. Her concern is water and sewer access assessment divided among current neighbors. Franzen read emails from Rick and Laura Beadle 17135 Valley Road, unable to attend. They met with Scott Carlston and believes the project provides larger lots, /0 Community Planning Board Minutes April 9,2001 Page 5 high quality homes, and acceptable density levels. Losing cul-de-sac is a negative but overall they are happy with the project. Franzen read an email from the Hartwigs at 17175 Valley Road, one of the neighboring property owners, support the plan and were impressed with the developer, neighborhood and individual meetings, and that privacy would be maintained. They are comfortable with the project. Corneille summarized issues of concern for neighbors as density and associated impacts, infrastructure, traffic, and schools, density/quality and fairness of the • assessments for future homes versus existing. He asked staff for comments. Alan Gray said the feasibility study was written in conjunction with the lift station; the assessment is for the lift station and sanitary sewer along Cedar Crest and Cedar Forest. The developer will share assessments. Carlston said the definition of executive townhome is really for the empty nester. Ryland product has good longevity and maintenance. Traffic on Pioneer is in the traffic engineer's plans — future expansion will take place on Pioneer Trail. He will be assessed as well for sewer and water, and trunk charges. Dunn said they are each paying $20,000 and it was not fair for a developer to pay only$100,000. Gray clarified trunk assessments are $520 for each lot, or over $2,000 per unit, just in trunks. Their assessment rates are higher than hers. Motion by Stoelting, second by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 7-0. The hearing closed at 8:08. Nelson asked about the density on single level and the plan looking like a one — bedroom. Carlston said it offers one bedroom plus den, and two bedrooms now. Nelson asked about the bedrooms for the two level townhomes. Wayne Soujit, President for Ryland Homes, said each home is a three bedroom with an optional finished basement of 1,750- 1,850 sf. Nelson asked whether the decks would go at all to the yard area. Soujit said they offer stairs,but not all would like them because of security. II Community Planning Board Minutes April 9,2001 Page 6 Nelson noted with 3-4 bedrooms, there may be children of varying ages. She asked about open space for kids. Soujit said they have built this project previously—it is constructed in Chaska and Lakeville. It is mostly professionals. There is 60 feet distance between backs of homes. No fences or encumbrances are allowed — green spaces are open for use by all residents. Nelson said there does not appear to be guest or street parking on Hackberry Court. She asked whether this would create overflow parking problems on side streets. Dwight Jelle said the city parking ratio is .25,the parking is shared, each unit can handle 9 cars, and has double and triple car garages. Corneille asked the Board to discuss whether this is a compelling reason to change the comprehensive guide plan. Stoelting asked about the density of sites B &C and how it has changed. Franzen said sites B & C were 5.5 units per acre. This is 4.4. Franzen added that the 1982 guide plan envisioned a population of 60-120,000. Due to fewer people per household, new environmental regulations and developers building lower density, the population will be closer to 60,000. He added that if the southwest area, which is the 1,500 acre MUSA line expansion, is developed low density according to the guide plan, 3,750 single finaily homes could be built. However, due to the desire to save open space and minimize for impacts, the Southwest Growth Strategy suggested 2,400 - 2,900 units and some multiple would be allowed. This part of Eden Prairie when fully developed will be 40% open space while the remainder of the community is 30%. Koenig asked Franzen to explain density transfer to the audience as it relates to a specific site transfer. Franzen said density transfer is used to save site features; on the twinhome site the twinhomes could have been the density of executive, being more spread out and resulting in loss of trees. Stock asked whether the school district was familiar with the guide plan, changes, and densities. Franzen said the city gives the school information about population every year. Stock inquired about exterior materials. Community Planning Board Minutes April 9,2001 Page 7 Carlston said stone, stucco or brick on front elevations, and roof timberline.The other three sides are maintenance-free siding. Stoelting asked about Valley Road and the outcome of how,when, and where it will go in. Gray said Valley Road is being reconstructed as the street/utility work will be • • done this year. Koenig said the staff report noted commercial is not recommended. She asked whether there would be enough commercial in the area to support the development. • Franzen said at Dell Road and Linwood Court, but it has not been built. They are waiting for 212 to go across the southern portion of the property. The Dell Road service area covers this area below Pioneer Trail. A small amount of commercial was originally proposed but the developer was unwilling to provide the required buffers next to residential. Koenig asked about the timeline for 212. Gray said there isn't a schedule for the 212 extension. Corneille asked about the priority timeline. Carlston stated the development would proceed as one project. Koenig asked about tree impacts and if there would be less tree loss at a lower density. Franzen said the roads take out most of the trees, so less density would not necessarily save more trees. Sodt expressed concern with traffic, whether the development could accommodate a four lane or two lane increase of Pioneer Trail, and the impact on the plan if it does increase. Carlston noted setbacks are already set for future expansion. Gray added the developer was dedicating additional right-of-way along Pioneer Trail.Hennepin County will have room for four lane,median, and trails. Stoelting asked about timeline and plans for expansion of Pioneer Trail. i3 Community Planning Board Minutes • April 9,2001 Page 8 Gray said about 5-7 years. Hennepin County is significantly behind in building roadway capacity and should be more proactive on roads. County Road 4 should have been done 10-12 years ago. Nelson said the density partially depends on senior housing task force. The southwest area of Eden Prairie is different than other areas — large homes or multiple units. She does not see affordable housing at $160-$170 going in. She likes the one level housing and will support the project because of senior housing. Franzen said when interest rates were high the R1-9.5 zoning was created to allow for affordable single family homes. However, the market demanded more expensive homes as interest rates lowered and big houses were built on small lots. Anywhere in the Twin Cities homes less than $250,000 are rare. There is a big housing demand, sales prices are up and land supply is down. It is a regional trend. There is a rift between the Met Council and homebuilders. Met Council is accused of holding back the MUSA line expansion, thereby driving up housing prices.He does not believe any houses will start at less than$225-$250. Stoelting inquired about the proposed townhomes and the proponet's comment about the style toward empty nesters. She questioned empty nesters moving into property at$300-400,000. Carlston said buyers of executive townhomes are mostly families who have lived here for awhile. Some are from Settlers Ridge, or live in town with businesses. Nelson commented the transition looks good. She likes the trees and green space. Koenig likes green space and buffer along 4 with NURP. Carlston said trees will be transplanted and used as buffers along Dell. Koenig inquired whether transplanted trees are included in tree loss. Carlston said they were not. Corneille asked staff to address waivers, specifically lot 1 minimum footage requirement. Franzen noted waivers are minor and typical of most subdivisions. Koenig asked whether tree loss could be brought down. Fox said in multifamily not without removing units. Carlston, on the single family,made considerable changes and brought it from 48%to 38%loss. Koenig asked whether if there was lower density it would pose the same issues. iy Community Planning Board Minutes April 9,2001 Page 9 Fox noted there would be grading issues; the same area would be graded. Wetlands and topography changes are balanced. Motion by Stoelting second by Koenig to approve The Heritage by Carlston, Inc. Request for Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium . Density Residential on 23.05 acres,Planned Unit Development Conept Review on 42.16 acres, Planned Unit Development district Review with waivers on 42.16 acres, Zoning District Chage from Rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on 19.11 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 Zoning district on 23.05 acres, Site Plan review on 23.05 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 42.16 acres into 142 lots, 3 outlots, and right-of-way. Nelson expressed concern with 8 units in a row; it is visually unappealing and appears too dense. Stock agreed with Nelson and said section C is too dense. Corneille asked whether if there was lower density in C the Board would be more comfortable. Corneille called for a roll—call vote on the motion. Motion failed, 5-2 -Nelson, no; Koenig, no; Seymour, no; Stoelting, yes; Stock, no; Sodt,no; Corneille,yes. Stock asked if C were changed to B would it change to lower density. Franzen asked whether the concern was density or physical appearance. Corneille said both. He suggested reducing density in section C. Nelson said the Board should look at taking out a couple units and varying building types. Koenig asked whether Nelson would be comfortable with fewer units. Sodt exited the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Nelson suggested removal of 2-4 units. Seymour asked the developer about Weidman Way and whether Horstfal was not landlocked. Gray explained there was a cross-access easement alternative access. Is Community Planning Board Minutes April 9,2001 Page 10 Stoelting noted the comments were not overall density,but about area C. Koenig questioned whether the density on C was similar to any existing development, especially Pine Brook. Franzen said Pine Brook on Andersen Lakes Parkway would be denser. Corneille asked whether a reduction in density to area C would result in reduction of density to the area. Koenig asked whether Carlston would consider a reduction in C for more open space and significant trees. Carlston agreed. Stock suggested 4 and 6 unit buildings instead of 6-8 in the middle. Franzen indicated that a general direction to reduce density is difficult to respond to and suggested that the Board consider a reduction in density to preserve trees and add open space. Motion by Stock, second by Koenig to reopen public hearing. Motion carried, 6-0. The hearing reopened at 9:23 p.m. Motion by Stoelting, second by Koenig to continue the hearing to May 14, 2001, with the direction to add more open space, and save more significant trees in area C by reducing the density in that area. Carlston noted that the units went from 96 to 76, they then dropped it to 54 and now the Board finds it unacceptable. He understood they were a couple units away from being okay to proceed. Motion carried, 6-0. C. FLYING CLOUD BUSINESS PARK by Moen-Leur Construction. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density residential to Industrial on 9 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 19.3 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 19.3 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to the I-2 Zoning District on 19.3 acres, Site Plan Review on 19.3 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 19.3 acres into 2 lots. Location: Northwest Corner of Pioneer Trail and Flying Cloud Drive. Brad Moen presented the site plan and architectrual elevations. l� Community Planning Board Minutes May15,2001 • s AFT , Page 7 B. THE HERITAGE by Carlston, Inc. Request for Guide Plan C$ange-from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 23.05 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.16 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 42.16 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on 19.11 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 Zoning District on 23.05 acres, Site Plan Review on 23.05 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 42.16 acres into 138 lots,4 outlots, and right-of-way. Location: Dell Road and Pioneer Trail. Chair Corneille opened the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Carlston thanked the staff for suggested changes. Concerns were density, traffic, and transition. He ran an MLS. There are four townhomes on the market between $200,000 and $250,000 and nine between $250,000 and $350,000, so there is a need for these townhomes. He is looking forward to continuing to work with neighbors. Single family homes will be $400,000 - $700,000. Ryland changed from 8-unit buildings to use only 4 and 6 unit buildings. The development of this area was originally approved by the Board at 76 units. He first proposed 54 units, and now it is at 50 units. He has also purchased the adjacent 19 acres to buffer and transition to the Cedar Forest neighborhood. The gross density is 3.2 units per acre. This will address empty-nester needs. He will be involved in building and development and will put in screening for transition. There is a balance and variety of housing. Flemming noted at its April 9 meeting, the Planning Board continued discussion of this project to its May 14 meeting. The developer was directed to reduce density and size of townhomes west of Dell Road (Area C) and decrease tree loss. The gross density of the townhomes was reduced from 4.6 to 4.46 units per acre. Four townhomes were removed from the west side of the project, the use of eight unit buildings was eliminated to provide additional green space and reduce building mass. All structures are 4 or 6-units. There is a cluster of existing trees, which is scattered and will not provide sufficient growth for screening. Staff recommends a berm and new landscaping to match the manicured look of the existing corners north of Pioneer Trail at Dell Road. Staff supports the revised plan and recommends approval based on plans dated May 4, 2001 and conditions listed in the staff report dated May 11,2001. John Wiedman, 17249 Valley Road, stated he sold 7 acres to Scott Carlston. He has lived in Eden Prairie for 9 years; he is supporting the project. This is a beautiful piece of property. He was assessed for water and sewer. After the William's Pipeline went through and removed many trees, he decided to sell soon. He has known Carlston for 26 years and suggested he creates beautiful properties. It would be a blessing to Cedar Forest for the City to approve the property. Rick Beedle, 17135 Valley Road, noted he has known Scott Carlston 3 months and met with him 2-3 times. They are concerned since their house is located at Cedar Forest and Valley Road. They went to the Pines development and were very impressed with Mr. Carlston's work. They support the development and believe he will be an asset to the neighborhood and will follow through with the development. 11- Community Planning Board Minutes } DRAFT May 15,2001 1 Page8 I _ Ted Hartwig, 17175 Valley Road, concurs, and said Carlston has done an excellent job. He lives there and will have to deal with it; he endorses and recommends the project and Carlston. Cindy Babcock lives on the other side of Cedar Forest. Everything was clear cut behind her and she was disappointed with that. This was done by a different developer, but she wished Carlston was developing behind her. It would be helpful in the future to have the Board have discussions and then allow public input after the discussions instead of just before them. Foote asked about the guiding for adjacent property. Flemming stated it is low density residential. Foote asked about where Valley Road would connect. Flemming said eventually it would connect to Dell Road. Nelson noted she was satisfied with the changes. It was much more livable and there was more green space. Stock stated there was not quite as much mass, and she was very happy about this; she concurs with Nelson. Seymour stated he supports the project; it looks more open. There was no further public comment. Motion by Stoelting, second by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 8- 0. The public hearing closed at 8:40 p.m. Motion by Stoelting, second by Stock to approve the request by Carlston, Inc., to the City Council for a Guide Plan Change from Low Density to Medium Density Residential on 23.05 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.16 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on 19.11 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 Zoning District on 23.05 acres, Site Plan review on 23.05 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 42.16 acres into 138 lots, 4 outlots, and right-of-way, based on plans dated May 3, 2001, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 11,2001. Motion carried, 8-0. Ig STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Krista Flemming,Planner II Scott Kipp, Senior Planner THROUGH: Michael D.Franzen, City Planner DATE: April 6,2001 SUBJECT: The Heritage APPLICANT: Carlston,Inc. Ryland Homes Manley Brothers Construction OWNERS: Scott Carlston,Inc. US Homes Corporation Robert and Mavis Hendrikson • John Weidman LOCATION: Dell Road and Pioneer Trail REQUEST: 1. Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 23.05 acres 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.16 acres 3. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 42.16 acres 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on 19.11 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 Zoning District on 23.05 acres 5. Site Plan Review on 23.05 acres 6. Preliminary Plat of 42.16 acres into 142 lots, 3 outlots, and right-of-way I1 Staff Report—The Heritage April 6,2001 BACKGROUND The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows the site as Low Density Residential. The site is zoned Rural. The Prairie Village at Dell Road project by Rottlund Homes was proposed in the fall of 2000 for the multiple family portion of the current project. Reports and minutes from the Rottlund project are attached for reference purposes. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE The site consists of 42.16 acres guided for Low Density Residential. The proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan change is from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 23.05 acres. Medium Density Residential allows up to 10 units per acre. Medium density housing may be appropriate on this site for the following reasons: • Additional townhouses will not substantially affect the guide plan balance of housing. Townhouses,condominiums,and twinhomes represent 23.8% (5,093 units)of the housing units in the City. Adding 107 units increases the number of multiple units by 2%. • The Planned Unit Development creates a west to east transition from the existing medium density residential approved in the Eden Orchard PUD to the existing single family homes in the Cedar Forest neighborhood. • The wooded slope and stormwater pond on the east side of the multiple family units provide a natural buffer and internal transition between the proposed multiple and single-family developments. • The existing roadways and traffic signal at the intersection of Dell Road and Pioneer Trail can accommodate the proposed traffic. • In 1995, the City Council established the Senior Issues Task Force to identify the impact of changing demographics of the senior population and the resulting needs for housing, transportation,health and social services and related issues. One of the needs identified by the Task Force was for a variety of senior and empty nester housing opportunities. This project provides 53 units with single-level housing focused toward seniors and empty nesters. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Overall Project The Heritage PUD includes 33 single family homes, 14 twinhomes, and 93 townhomes. The gross Staff Report—The Heritage April 6,2001 density of the 42.16 acre PUD is 3.32 units per acre. The density of the Sowles PUD(townhomes) east of Dell Road and north of Pioneer Trail is 3.5 units per acre. The gross density of the Cedar Forest neighborhood(single family)south of Pioneer Trail along Cedar Forest Road is 1.55 units per acre. The gross density of mutliple family(twinhomes and townhouses) portion of the Oakparke (Eden Orchard)PUD is.4.4 units per acres. Multiple Family This portion of the PUD is 23.05 acres at a gross density of 4.64 units per acre. City Code permits up to 6.7 units per acre in the RM-6.5 zoning district. The townhomes west of Dell Road(Lots 1-55,Block 2)include 54 units. These units are two-story and clustered into 6 and 8-unit buildings. The townhomes east of Dell Road(Lots 1-54,Block 1) include 53 units. These units are one-story, walkouts clustered into 2 and 3-unit buildings. All multiple units meet structure setbacks for the RM-6.5 zoning district. City Code requires 2 parking spaces per unit with one enclosed. The plan meets this requirement. City policy requires 1/4 space per unit for guest parking. The project meets this policy. The parking meets setback requirements for the RM-6.5 zoning district. Outlot A is a 2.83 acre wooded slope in a conservation easement to be owned and maintained by the Townhome Association. Outlot B is 1.49 acres used for storm water ponding. It should be dedicated to the City. Outlot C is .44 acres to be dedicated to the City along Dell Road. All existing structures and outbuildings will be removed from the site. Single Family This portion of the PUD includes 33 lots on 19.11 acres at a gross density of 1.7 units per acre. All lots meet minimum size requirements for the R1-13.5 zoning district and range between 13,500 square feet and 62,305 square feet with an average lot size of 21,074 square feet. All lots meet the lot frontage requirements for the R1-13.5 zoning district except for Lot 1,Block 1, and Lot 10, Block 2. Lot 1 should be revised to meet the 100-foot minimum lot frontage for a corner lot. Lot 10 is a flag lot with a frontage of 20 feet. City Code requires a minimum lot frontage of 55 feet on the radius of a cul-de-sac. This is a PUD waiver. The waiver may have merit since the flag lot serves a developable portion of the site without having to extend the cul-de-sac. Extending the cul-de-sac would remove additional trees and impact the wetland buffer. All structures meet setback requirements for the R1-13.5 zoning district except Lots 12 and 22, at Staff Report—The Heritage April 6,2001 • Block 2.A waiver from the front yard setback requirement of 30 feet to 25 feet is requested for these two lots. This waiver will provide a larger setback from the existing wetland adjacent to Lot 22, and provide a larger rear yard area between the house and rear utility easement location on Lot 12. • The two existing houses will be saved and incorporated into proposed Lot 3,Block 1, and Lot 17, Block 2. WETLANDS There are three wetlands totaling 1.02 acres within the single-family portion of the project. One low quality wetland and one high quality wetland are located on the northern half of the property with one moderate quality wetland on the southern' half of the site. The low quality wetland (approximately 520 square feet, or 1%of the total wetlands on site)is proposed to be filled. Since it is less than 2,000 square feet,mitigation is not required under the Wetlands Conservation Act. The moderate quality wetland(approximately.92 acres) and high quality wetland(approximately 3,920 square feet)will be preserved. The moderate quality wetland_includes a 30-foot wetland buffer and 15-foot wetland buffer setback required by City Code. A conservation easement is required over this wetland and wetland buffer area. The high quality wetland requires a 50-foot wetland buffer and 15-foot wetland buffer setback to meet City Code. Due to the wetland location at the end of existing Valley Road, and the need to access the property from this road, encroachment into the wetland buffer cannot be avoided. The road has been shifted south to avoid the wetland. As a result, a waiver for the alternative wetland buffer from 50 feet to 30 feet is required on the north side of the wetland. Reasons to support the alternative wetland buffer may include wetland size, deteriorating wetland quality, and to permit access to the property. This wetland should be placed in an outlot and dedicated to the City. A memo from Leslie Stovring, Environmental Coordinator, regarding the wetland buffer strip alternative analysis is attached. ACCESS Valley Road will be extended from the Cedar Forest neighborhood. This road is needed to provide access to this site and adjoining DeBono and Danielson properties. This internal access will eliminate the need for direct access to Pioneer Trail. Three cul-de-sacs provide access to the single-family portion of the development. The maximum cul-de-sac length permitted by City Code is 500 feet. All three cul-de-sacs will require a waiver for length of 540 feet, 550 feet, and 650 feet. These waivers may have merit for the following reasons: Staff Report—The Heritage April 6,2001 • The southernmost cul-de-sac is the only option to serve that portion of the property. • The two northerly cul-de-sacs are necessary to serve the property,reduce environmental impacts, and eliminate the need for direct access to Pioneer Trail. Valley Road will remain a temporary "dead end" street until future development occurs on the adjacent properties to the west. At that time, Valley Road will be extended to Dell Road. This future road connection is necessary to provide essential emergency vehicle access and eliminate the need for the remaining undeveloped parcels to require direct access to Pioneer Trail. Memos from Public Works and Public Safety Service Areas regarding this connection are attached. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic analysis indicates that the proposed development and planned improvements(temporary traffic signal installation)will allow the intersection at Pioneer Trail and Dell Road to operate at an acceptable level-of-service (LOS) C in both the AM and PM peak hours. The design standard for intersections is LOS D. The plans for the Pioneer Trail/Dell Road temporary traffic signal have been completed and the signal is expected to be installed and operational by the end of October 2001. The year 2015 analysis indicates that future improvements to Pioneer Trail would also help this intersection continue to operate at an acceptable level of service with future area development. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT There are three adjacent properties guided for Low Density Residential that are impacted by this project. The Horsfall property is 1.63 acres west of the multiple family area along Pioneer Trail. Both the multiple family portion of the proposed development and the approved townhouse development in the Eden Orchard PUD influence the Horsfall property. If the proposed plan were approved, the most compatible future land use for this adjacent site would be multiple family. An internal access easement will be provided from Dell Road to the Horsfall property through the proposed multiple family area on Weidman Way. This will eliminate the need for any future development to have direct access to Pioneer Trail. The DeBono property is 4.76 acres located between Outlot B (NURP pond)and the proposed single- family development along Pioneer Trail. The Danielson property is 1.02 acres located between the DeBono property and the proposed single-family development along Pioneer Trail. The single- family portion of the proposed project, road location, and NURP pond location influences development of these two properties. If the proposed plan were approved, the most compatible future land use for this adjacent site would be single-family. Valley Road will remain a temporary Staff Report—The Heritage April 6,2001 "dead end" street until future development occurs. At that time, Valley Road will need to be extended to Dell Road. This future road connection will eliminate the need for direct access to Pioneer Trail. SIGNIFICANT TREES Overall Project There are 5,107 significant diameter inches on the site. The total tree loss is 2,355 diameter inches, or 46%. Total tree replacement is 1,588 caliper inches. Multiple Family There are 1,304 diameter inches of significant trees on this portion of the site. The tree loss for this portion is 920 diameter inches for a total loss of 71%. Of the 920 inches lost,340 inches were planted as part of the existing homestead. The tree loss percentage of the site's naturally occurring trees is 44%. The required tree replacement for the multiple family site is 863 caliper inches. The plan provides 889 caliper inches. A conservation easement will be placed over Outlot A,the wooded portion of the townhome area. This area will be preserved with the exception of a 20-foot wide easement area for storm sewer construction. Single Family There are 3,803 significant diameter inches on this portion of the site. The tree loss for the site is 1,533 diameter inches for a loss of 40%. The required tree replacement for the single-family site is 820 caliper inches. LANDSCAPING The amount of landscaping is based on the building square footage and required only for the multiple family portion of the project. The landscaping requirement is 692 caliper inches. The landscape plan meets City Code. The berm shown at the southwest corner of Dell Road and Pioneer Trail should be increased to a height of 8 - 10 feet to soften the view of the townhome development from Pioneer Trail. ARCHITECTURE The townhomes west of Dell Road are two-story and 27 feet tall. The City Code permits up to a 40 foot tall building. The townhomes east of Dell Road will be one-story, walkouts and 24 feet tall. The City Code Staff Report—The Heritage April 6,2001 permits up to a 40 foot tall building. GRADING A majority of the single family lots will have custom grading to reduce the amount of overall tree loss. NURP ponds will be used to treat stormwater to city standards. UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and water is available to the multiple family portion of the project from Dell Road, Sanitary sewer and water will be available to the single-family portion of the project from the Cedar Forest neighborhood when utility installation is completed in the summer of 2001. TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS Multiple Family A five-foot wide sidewalk is located on the north side of Hackberry Court and the east side of Dell Road connecting to an eight-foot wide bituminous trail along Pioneer Trail. There will be five-foot wide interior sidewalks along Weidman Way and Rath Place connecting the townhomes to Dell Road. An eight-foot wide bituminous trail is located on the west side of Dell Road connecting to an eight- foot wide bituminous trail along Pioneer Trail. A five-foot wide sidewalk is on the north side of Haralson Drive. There will be five-foot wide sidewalk connections from Hanson and Ada Courts connecting to Dell Road. Single Family A five-foot wide•sidewalk will be constructed on the north side of Valley Road. CONCLUSION 1. Are there compelling reasons for amending the Comprehensive Guide Plan? 2. Is the density of the project appropriate for the area? 3. Does the proposed plan provide an appropriate transition? 4. Are the waivers reasonable and will the result of granting them be a better plan for the site and the City? 5. Is the amount of tree loss appropriate?If not,how might it be reduced? Staff Report—The Heritage April 6,2001 STAFF RECOIVIlVIENDATION • Alternative One If the Community Planning Board believes compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the waivers from the City Code,then one option would be to recommend approval of: • Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 23.05 acres • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.16 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 42.16 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on 19.11 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 Zoning District on 23.05 acres • Site Plan Review on 23.05 acres . • Preliminary Plat of 42.16 acres into 142 lots, 3 outlots, and right-of-way This would be based on plans dated March 29,2001,this staff report, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review,proponent shall: A. Revise Lot 1,Block 1,to meet the 100-foot minimum lot frontage for a corner lot. B. Show a conservation easement over the moderate quality wetland and wetland buffer area. C. Designate the area with the high quality wetland as an outlot to be dedicated to the City: • D. Revise the grading plan to increase the berm height to 8-10 feet along the southwest corner of Dell Road and Pioneer Trail. 2. Prior to grading permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Install erosion control and tree protection fencing at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Forester. B. Submit detailed street, storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. 3. Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Dedicate Outlot B (NURP pond) and high quality wetland area to the City. B. Review the building plans with the Fire Marshal, including details regarding fire access to the site. C. Provide documentation for conservation easements filed with Hennepin County. D. Submit a bond for wetland buffer restoration in accordance with City Code. E. Submit a bond for landscaping and tree replacement in accordance with City Code. Staff Report—The Heritage April 6,2001 F. Pay the cash park fee. 4. The following waivers are granted as part of the PUD: • Cul-de-sac lengths of 540 feet, 550 feet, and 650 feet for the single-family development. Code maximum is 500 feet. • Front Yard Setback of 25 feet for Lots 12 and 22,Block 2. Code minimum is 30 feet. • Lot Frontage of 20 feet for Lot 10,Block 2. Code requires 55 feet on the radius of a cul-de-sac. • Alternative Wetland Buffer Strip of 30 feet. Code requires a 50-foot Wetland Buffer Strip for a high quality wetland. • Alternative Two If the Community Planning Board does not believe compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the waivers from the City Code, then one option would be to recommend the project be continued with direction to revise the plan to meet the Comprehensive Guide Plan and City Code requirements. Alternative Three If the Community Planning Board does not believe compelling reasons have been provided to justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the waivers from the City Code,then one option would be to recommend denial for the following reasons: • The project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. • The project does not meet requirements of the City Code as listed in this report. Staff recommends Alternative One. • a-� _...., _. • , • . ... Map _ _ __ Location , The Heritage ._, g `."'"5--.- 1 tf":.151- .4;:".,'• ,,.., --......,a, .,.,.,;,.,' '..', -1.-W:1'''''.07.41 ''' ' '''''' , „, •.•:.• F.--..!4.7.f ''''''- •,'''F'-'; •-61,,,„.. ''''',M4 r•i , ,„ "."--e_;.; r•-:.:1, hr. .:.... . • -...,, . ,..-2,, ...J.,...y ,.:""Arl,'•/ .. ---t?,:',...l'.4.4..•.,"'s•17:0--,.,:,,...- '1:-..A,,,,,r._. I le.,,,,,, ,,,;,'! f,.... ..::..;' ''':...*-;„1:',.. t'-'''..F.::::.%,.. ‘,„.,„i,„,,i.1,1, ‘,...;,-.„-;',',.-'..:,Ay ..". ',....,,,,..'''....,,,. •:*,-, ',?;;i:::tm t.). ii..,,r,,,.. .i..:.,..1 ,-,.„. ...:,.. _ .,... .--4,4:,...,,..c. --„,.-,13.4..p.,_ ,.... . .,.-.. — ...- .6.4 .-•:-. ... 1,3g4i'er147.' ----... "5-'. •.-':,.--7 .. ;At,. , ..,:M - aiyi. i-:.-i"!';!." /":' `1.-;..-. '7 ....-.- ...i•k.',P.•:*.77:4A..4'..-7.,t).•-• --'..• ..---•••2.r".':1.-----r::•- -f„,*,' N.14.,_q,,T,?"...t.,-''' "...A''...,„,,,,r"'. , • 1:--..• '-1,F t.,,,.4;17,7,,7.7.•:.:4,,,xt,' 431 $"..-.L"--1-A V p_ ./k•-•:,---, ; • t,,,,,,,if.,;:t..::t4rp,:•;- 4, cr.:: : . v..v-,•,-,:-,tz.7-: .,,-::,?-r-L.,„-----.. '.......i....__>-, , 1 14-,:ey,,E,,:i:1,4r L..... ._.. -4,t,..:,, •,,,,,,..,,...t: i i?.,.:tzt-,F,,r,51,i,•--, :-• :%1,-• ' ni a .....V.:.5; ''.--...---.-- .. :..ivii;i- • 7......;.v.3.AP.::,:si&r:,,,,,..4 "''''''•2 1 ..... -., r....s.r",•.:.:,r. k .., ....__ ti......A,'•••, .. s us, , L.,._ --.... . - . -, , ,-...„........... . p.,*•••••,..,,,....2.,„ri;:. .14 •,!14,—Z* -.''•' .1 ,......, f• 1-...7%7-ti:;'''l'::t?':•/.45-•&"*...A.14.14. .-C•›. 4•..•.. .' ' 3 ' ...,...a. •••••'• --.-MaS.• :•••••••:.1•4•4.t.-0`...7.••W1/4 4 - '.-",: irs• ''7. ..;.1 fii+7.e,..c. l',., , __ A::::!rot.',..5.04P1441k,:%.-",....--',..... ',AI.•,... .- ...,... . ,'',',Ili 1..:4,,,'„±:. ...,,r.: ,:... ,,', *,:.04,...40..),:rrP1';143‘144441.4' ....ff^: , ,..;-: !i.::-..-1 ni..;"1::;',';.E7 ..-1,01,-2.:,;„1.14,--;,t;',r ettv.:-..:;;;;;.::;!•:::ift r-,,-;_,...-7.1A.k'',..*,•!',Z.,;;•'•,_,,,t ...'-fr-•:.-: . •-•-• ,.',..:•.'t-.,•••,::1 L•... k,,,'W'Z',.?5• .•,/. ,.•-•• . 1•.:•'*•"•.,4',•:r.'1,5t.1,!•01,1i7:*', tat 'A,'.i::.. i.,..--..,....''..'4".,:•*-:,:47, 44:it,71.,!;4:•-tY7-•..:4;f:f:;,•;::,," -.I'.P.,lir.:_,,,:a k:\.•..„.4''•::-'-.1'.- •. _..‘::,,,..,.. -' ,.i;tre-ii K,-.„..1,),......, '_•.1.:•1,,,-,:i.'...7,r"i",...1. '‘,...71.:.:•-' .,,-ill :a,.,:i:t::.fiei:_?::i.-?•••,t14Fa.4 fiSU If; ,i .. 4 .... .r,,tiE...;"':-_,,.- .if:::::tit;.:ift-i-*.1,ii''''.4f 1'Itt'le,„.,:t.t.:‘,;:,' .... '7.",,,A' f.O.k'it1;:i.;f1::.::117,11;'r"-•;:;:-.3::i4( '21', 1..g.kg tp.0.-$8;','.-..-:;,„--,*. tw, !..-ti ri.,-_-1.'„'ts1:,-11v;"....;:leit,tir.;,iti-',- --1.?I'A,,,,-..--T),,.';A,vr. •, , :-4,•,,:--;-i;-,... ,,,.g. /4.(iciz- '"?';',i'..'.'.1• .:,,,,4tiiitt B u,,7- ( ,,,.., ...,, _:.,,;,..,,..- _:.•,. . ..*:::„...k., „,...4a, •t. ,.. 1 ,,i,1,,,....m„„!tr.i.,,t.,....,.t.1.1.,....,:.x.„ t,,,x„. •......_ .4...,...e... . . .„ ,,,•:. .• ,,,,...,:t ,.„: ...,„ , t ,......!,:.:,.....,... c.c.z.1,......:_i. ... ,.,. ..i...i.4... „,...:s..f.c.,.., rii*.43_7 e....! .._•: ..i.,..i.,:......,.....„....:....11_,;...41,,,,,•.,_-..,", .•.,, ,,.‘,:>.; .....•...„...„..... . .7. ..... ,, • „, ...r....:_. :--‘:--","; •.1.'f. 1.4 e ...-'......1,.,;','":1,..-4'4:.•,..1.. •;:' i...'....' .41M-:;--*INVi . -‘1, , .e.f. *•"4::'..•-•..", ,.'1:'!" .." 441:- . N..2•411'4,"v:4',••• r•-"'''. ,,, ,.,•••,/,4.,1.-",`-',i•.-"" *,-A- 4.,;., ',, ;Ai R.,. y.s.4.1,:',-'- .; \ 9,!!4'.:„ :!1.. -p.1,1:I-,,gr...ir.• ,,...„,,,„. C'',.',, '..,,'k (.,i,z4.'.ti• `4T.:4'. '4'''' Itfle.M:r7.00,4 4,. .‘:`.,4'e ",:-..i!..!,:%%1 . 1;''''444-1,4, ,'0;le'--...1::'* .. .:'-.. .:14::4;t6*-• 4,4: .447'-I:: 0.4:*.,jen.,.'"41.i!" •...---1P.3.Nr. .„?*0A ,,'•9;i .7.2--'..it ;•••,,P1+7+.4574-.VW,. :4,' -,......o,.•;.. _. .1=.1;ti.,...,.':Mtn i .i,i.,A"..••1, A ,:!, . ,„), .,‘.!14,.;‘,V'.'1,4*.tri41.1*-7 •'1.,'.4.4'.1...:'2..'''',,,:5P'N,,,,'''41 ,tillg: ',,f'',1..:''., '''''' S'i4iiiiWY.Y14..':;31.6 . '.!-;::::::1-:;I:i:416 i' .:1','';;I.,:.::;:4::f. ::::::-;C:‹A:::'-11:1..;';;';'.\;:' ;‘,"'"i'l*".1.7-4.:::C:21'1.! litl,:r5i-t..4.‘111.t*1131.3 ..../.....V.*,..•',. -s ... '/• ,.;...,,,s2,..,5:71,V..%a. 1.;•,...•;••••‘,•4•4•4•,„*.4:r.:. .'''It. .1,..,:%.Iiir a-`4p‘V -••41:;4'•V ,c!.',:, .;,;,..c,•:".;,..p*,,-;.,:1,1,ile..•=',ii.l.I!....'r. .': '..40101.1i,,-g-i:ciliV'.1\03,0;.0.'•).‘0" ...•.••,. •• ' ..„,...., .., '' -;.....Y.'.' .r..-,,. '4 ,,., ''''-:'-"•!.. ..0,' 't•ts'‘.1.4f4'.`.%..?..54,4%.* t-41fil':•4414 .4- '.fi4.:':*': .lie"•.`\ •••.1.".1'7, .,': ,tC...i :..,... .::...J.:..:1..1:4:,,1:.. . - , ".. .., .......R,... t,., ' ;%;:..f. ;...Y.ii.;t1;:lig..24 ' ';'..4.7;74F;t:,'Zf.. ,;;.>''.L:H1:..' iltik\ '• .tf,14i'W..,..Y1..1...t...,‘.f••••41.'t • . 1.,•'••1:17.•re.....a..*1404,V-ff.* . . ... "'"'..q4-..7,...•;.0.. ,•• atet.....1 OP,'Ar. A-, .1•11.;;;.-1•10.. li , \,-,.::"(3:44pf4114.,•±A„.71,,,,,„*.,..1 ., - • , .••, •••,••••;%''A' • '..•..,,,. ...:',,,"•"*''`,,... ,,,,_....,•Lr,•'1,.•/1...J.;4, ,:eff. ••‘'-,1 r4.t.*...ftiV0.4. Oft:\ •. 14.102:4'L-!•-• *•Aig•fF,i';'. ...4,g,' . • . '..• ........,.f '''''''.' i,...7.,-' ...;•;;;:i j.....4,44•414,0...i...t ' . 1,, ..,•4•••., . ' , '""'"-^.- '''''' ..,-.,.,,• 4,-.-...;.,..o• ,....4.'!4i "',1,1;:,- ,ti.',i.icf.'::''' • * \9. .,'.\r1, .4°044.1.1:tf: ' • -• ,,,r,,r ',':t!r'' ''''- -‘,1 ' ..;* ",.;...,.:: :-.:''''''''''....a. •,. , '''' :''''':r".4.4.-.- 1,,,,,e,,,P,,..',... • \ ,,. ,. ../4'..,,,,...;:rio.N.,1.4......V.,i k". i'" ...aff:<;?. '. . . . \`'.- -* '..;'P.1,*''-.'f ,'•-:tp:ro--,.,5,-,..: -*: ',;',';',.:.-. ';':',,,„:',-::-. '-;,:-...-• ..'(..--- -.,:, '...-,:, ... - i°,t,t,,,,:t:--.1.1,:-Ja% . -- ---, t- ,-.,•,..e.t.:•• 1.,,r4-..„:. 4.-,,,!!:',- ',......4Y,v 7 ,4,1.,i;lip, .....,;.:444,1,mk. \_. . . ,, ..,., „tti:•:, ri-::i,1:* 1:.4:::; fik,•i,4741;?. .1,‘,...,...,..r.:4::1,-, V'i „.,,,, ,„„,,,,s. ,..1.--.1„ ,k....,...0 ,..,, ,i„-,., - ..,... ,,,,,,,,..;;„ -,f:.•,-; ., .•:4-,,.. ,;,....,..v. ,,,,,y,,,,fomov,i.1. . , ipict,:-.,..1 • , .. ,.. ;44.... ,-„.•.. ,, 1.'•;.;:!.-4.4•0- • 1:''.,c..nra:',;...i.j...:."•:;.•1+. • . •• ..‘ • 1„.. -ir 4' ''t•',r : i ,,,i:- .44.'",....r,".‘... ,, 1 ,44'..."4...4 t l'..''''.'''' Ty, , • .. •,-,0i:•'.,.5.: 7."444..4:-. -..-, v.re'r.:',.- e',04,.2.7.1-• , , ..., ,-4,....,1 IN% 4.,-04;:re I; .s*, .5-441••••., kivil 0.the'cs4..?"4.kt ,14.....7,,,vo.r, 1p5 '.',',11•sertr,.,14,:r. c.,,; " - 1...0.;,1Y.:".-','4-.W....4 i•'7.•::-,,-.7'--,,,„,41.1* •ita.le,47,:* .4.,C,P, ,,,,:k.,y:s.,:-,-.,,..,,......' rry;,7.,..,5 riAN,,,...1. 7,:,..!,,I, *., •I';'.r.', ...,•'•47e-V.h.I i P•,, .6.,.,•4••-• ,. ....,,.,,,'et.1.' 7-,,,,.1..,h, e.,.F...,,,, ,21.....-!..,..`,14%. ,‘:.4 4:W4:ski, l'..,:. '4,',',.'.14' ".,, ,'..,;,r ..'..;.......-•,...,.I. ''." 'fn.,'itTti 7.0,11.44,. A,ta "7"•P` ,,',.`,,,Z. ' • re.1 . f• :,.:e. .....,.':••::: 4../.tbt••••"..'"'''I'.'.:1.f°P.."LS''.44.• ''',7g't.1 n., 14 f•,,,,,,,.,, •,e':*,1,'i!relai?A' '11." t '''' '..*.:i...'.*:. '-'71/Oftlif?.,;.'fgt '',i...z7"1:-L'f.-s4i;'. i'd•';'•4440kg:* ir , Rt.. 1: • • i''.4 • . • • : ,-.., .,....1t, r`.,!.'W,•-•.77.••',.r:,,,z. 1.0,,Ir:--" •,14,1741:7;,;:!,•.; !,•,41:••••,..rim,,,e;t....% f. 4., fs.,..,,• ..• „:,..i . . .. _. ..,,,wit•-.:,;(,,v4itk-,;:•; ,,,,,,,,,,,c,,i,f,,1,-.._,, ,-,--..:,•,-,4,1,,,,:..-,im, ,,,-:::,-:.A. ,iii,,,q.,4,077*t .J ,t, '''',7 re,;,,.... . ‘.• , ...c. , . •• • • „ e-4:.,.-:,,,, ,•., ,,, ,p.41..,.. t•:,...4.,;•,,i,'..147,q.,.0,4t.ii,,s,:4•1r, •t:.:.it'v•t.1,,4.44"` ' '-.qe.,ift',',•''' :,..1„,‘.. c.,,,. . ,,.1710,,w,,.,;,t.„ij. .02-c...-ev,40,ro,.0 .i.,!0,0,),T,J4,, -; Iti.1,,,14,•:EJ;;„ IfV,'„-E4ittl'it.e3.-4*-.4.144. ttr..4.4-iftv.O.I. )01,-tt.,;.; ",.r..-,,,...„....,;,.,...:'•,:".'.'11'.21g, ' , • ' . ..,....;;•.,;:.:- .. • . . T.. .;•i•..r..,7••74.1!-,:f!:iii.41fi'-` .,\,,\1/44,-,On%.;,,,,•Ari,,,, *.,,,tt.iglieif.,!...,P4..Me;.. ''4,,,,,,,r1'4,.iia•r,,,,N•lit!4, 441.1,,, ..c. V 1,,,... i' .,,,,v,,....,,..i.At.i..§4..,,,,,';'C'ts-7 '',. • , • •••• •• '•• ''•r'16,!•-•:..4t:' ' .1('•'!"1: V••••••!,. l'•:::..I'R•,'` ‘'.."'-' '•:."'e--- •,•0:1*41• .„, . o.',,,,...L.1,, ..`! ,e'.4V4.11$1,!..iit.70'.'4..,"J" ..". ' 4 • .......,, A...„. ....,....„.:m„,,.... , .„ •,..... . , .. ••,.t,,........ .„. ...... ... .., ..4/.4..:4,.„,,''41 i'..' I''"•'t'al 4,4' ,:It.;.. . , ,1 ,f,•• ,•. ''.„ el' 4:' 'i,k:,-;? -, 4...' .Iii'n,.. ','''t.':''''' ' .. . . ,, • .., ,zei;4".;:r.?.,-2' •„s:,0.:11,1„0. :'•,:.-' 4 itt.:4;00e.1,:y..Z,..ti(-4,%="..:;r4ie/nre 1....8....,:a,,...t- .4..,,,,,,,,t,p.t.p,k„•tti.:::: •, • ..... A r.Pk''.,1"•:.r-,,, i-f.. ..••'-'•''"';1.tiailk X'alfdlliitel'il,N1114.7.Atr,„Vigi ,F;;,....,::474•:,;.-.1'.4.K1 ', ,,,,..tht 1'11'4?a•..? .-, - .•-•''."'.' ..,,,,1,1*y,',0.•,„.....7Alv ,-- .0,, , ,,z,• 4• ''`,•*.,'..,,T.i'.1":4-.,,''''t.".,..'','.,04,•"0,1*V4,41...•-•Air. 1 . : ',. ."1.;q::,..t.,,,,;• ,,,,,,i't\'(4i,•;i.,,,;:",,e;i7,'tc' ,t5..i.„,!;;;.i..:-.4.',.:;ii:?..,./:,,,;-••16•1*,,;,..i.:4,411:1,L;',,,41•§•*4111ifie..„;.;ii4,1"Vt);47.5p,'•41 k 410,sr.,,.... ....ei,'. r; ,'-7,1'1.S...7.1.''';.1'4•••• t.• P ,•kt',1,...4;i::.q,;,`,4.,: .•:, " "1.-.;f. . „4,.. .,,.,,,,, . , A „..,,,..,..,! --.4,s.....4'...k-, t•-' /47'4-0464:.-••",t, - .i......1.vAtt.k.r..'ir P'": .''',:‘ 4",...'e'lZ.,',. '.'..- '.4.... ' l'".‘,3-yi.',f, ,t-,.:"; • '" " ' '''' .kV'. . , :::..;,C.1.;.e•WN.Atif-.1 .." t.filt....%-rgialr I.r i - . • 07 4'+111,7,1.0.-* e . f4t-..., . 1.};',. e. '...°,1,.^.., .''1,,.•, ... ..4.1', '..1:484V.'441'4'..1 ,.. 'Z'-'•,7;t."....i,Vt. y. A ....tplAky,f1,71.1 f,... --"•"' - :,.:,ii • •••• ••;•,••‘•-••.",%','1,..•,.' , •f"....• :V.1/4,;,,,,•,,e,.t.'i„, ',.4'.,. 14.:;•,3';',!',...4,-,r VP'i'.1,';•i,,:l!'4,'N.,..v0,44,.. , -'',..t,„`,••' , ,..,•`.4'7(.', ... l'''..t:::-.4,-Zet,r,.,41.-^L4:11.""*.i„ilrt . .• '., , L: ''''' "r.."'"..,.1..',.:::e.,,:ti...;:...,..-;L.:;:',,V1.11.C.:'!' . '/'.. ' i''''...‘.!'',.;;V:':i.'i'41:0.. ,' "' .A'V.....`-,- .';'''.o, ):.:14.!*; r.,.',:••• •.t..r.;•,•14:41.!.,444,,..1••,•-, 1.,.., 7 A.i •,-,K-. .;.T.:',::::•.t p ....,:., 4.•At,i4,4..",;14.11'..L'IL-1;,71..•41... • ,., •:::.. :'•1,7?---rz 4-i•k'-'. :". „.....,.. .., ---,A:4, ,,,;.fv,:,, 4-1.-;,..-,,,....1,10,,491P:4$44.,cv,p) ; Ai.- s.,,,,.4-,• ,:..!./....,.gwo.'hi..ii,:';',.'•••••:•Lat.raN..."k•,., a,..,.. •kl..,,' ' IV: 3..,,,,,,,,.,.:. •••... ii.lt Vq,.,.kff2AK:c141',A1/4,74.,,,',V.,.. ..i..! :, . . ' : ..... ':1,.,;,`;....„/.., .v.:, 1..-, ./Vi:iliii..:‘,t2'....,,,,... 1.'":4,r1 . rrt^iir^..k‘46•TiZAV,M.1.1'4411';: r 3 „...4.0.0,. ... „, .,...:.......... ... ',...4''';''',".•%.' ,•'','.•4,...,•"•‘1,;'''.;.t.'.24*.er•,•11•::/ -...1•.:•••:!V•••S... •* 1,7' „ . . irt:4,, ,,,,„,,..:„.,,.•,........,,,..„...........i,„,,-,...-;,,,.. - •7.` Y:.;.N'7,7',-.',Alfe 1,,/'''''.'.',!'i:,.. ,n'.1_'.g'75;:.:)1);',;:tiV-4 , 1.:i,,Aiti."4,1A., .c.,.., , +.:=1.•' ...,,74.;?:.':;'Kil?,::4,4,48:......--4,4r-e.c.‘4t•4-is: •• ..1:: <.;'.;.,',.,.. '..,-;.),,, i ke ... -•:,,,• f.'1.t"....k--•...f.•,''',io: •,...„..„..„,,,...„, ,. ... 4.,,..,,,..,:.„„•,.„..„,,„,..„.„ ..2-ce-, ....,,-- - -,anal ti-• .77•S :•,...,:;•,:-...1.,,,,, ,,.,...,•, .: . .. .. ... '' -.- -•,' .' ', ..,.., •I'„,:: ...., ,';,;',,,,Ili';'.4--,r'•: .„:2 AV.'.,04..,;+. r,73::;;:i .,ri..7.A.:',..;.9 ' ,'`:''' 14: '-:',J ' ' ''-.'''' ' '."'-•-•.''''".'''.' 4e* ,•••• ..-2,--,,,, ‘6,-14:,,,..,.. i.,...,,,...„..1,,, ro.v,...,§..1.„.„,i,v,0 ',.MN •:-.=. ,r,-,..r.r.,71' , I '1•,...L. . L<::fy'::.'1.::'V:...:..0.1i,:::*,,:-.4,;,!--,=-•,,— .- 0146r4".""' - _ ,-.:‘ r• . ...;',;,1,,. .„'`','::.' ,,,.i•k:ti:,,...2.:47-Wif,i...., ...1r,:AiLiii.71-4410A •. 't:.'-,,- , Fx...4;:;:a E., ...<794,,_ •••• 1,.,' . •,., ,_ ., ,4„.„. I.. .::•'_.,j... !..4110,..,?,',,..,,,y..4-..', ,..,*.o.:4•.`,tf......7„-,,. ,,-,,..,-Q2.,,,,,,;-_,,,,-.,..4111.:11,, .,,, I./ ,,,,.9,ti.„,:i.,1,7„.,7,14.4.:4t,,,:,,‘. iti.iii.V.;,,: „ , .,ti.T,P,:t*,g1';'4..:.'''''''' 1:1,4t.'''' .;....c70,.t't'''..-e•.'.:,•"...::;'t,.r......4.41e,I.,.44V.t.t.t. .1 r. V.'''. j. •-•''''''' l';11.''..*:r'll: A*.';r:;.e'''/E'L'-' .:'4'i V-F,-4 '', `..:" ..-I, , _ii..4.::0•1 "-:)- ---:',A 14.-:.:4N \;,'.... FC:'''':',•'''''..::.• '':•...1;•''''',..:',..1".:;•;':.4:...':'.::.''''' 1•-•".Z 1,:r:,,?:Vitir.:;..1::.%(..i.-,--1. .•.11i:..• ...;;;;,',-••!..;;'•'...:':.i:;?; .',:f.":%,•;'r.:774, 17if.:4;1,; "4::;1/2' 1:-.,N,„,.......--;' rittAe.-;;; ,.- ' t_';',...,`, . .'f-r •::,„:,,,,.,,!'_•'.., „i-:Y.,- ...;',Nki. 'A-..,13,;%- ''''..4. j,-frii- tt•Alir.f..-.;• :,C.'.-....-. t•c•;:.•A'.'''..-.4,!...sc.i; -;."-'1.':'.',--,t:It,'"",,14.41.-;W, '''' ." :.: .... v-ii..';'-'Y.,:`4:11 UrrT ft."2'6.-.rift.clic; ';"':1:!.,:i':.-.''-:::;:,..:7•4.::::'77.2./.7,z ,'.;,.::-'.. t't,!.,,,'.'„.:-. :;=,.tr-:,-..;.:,:,:::-.:. ::::*;:',. -.- -'f.:,(iyz,•;:,:.;.:.:.5.,p.-:•,:--,-,...g.,.--•-•'; ---,--- -, 0-2 / ;,--..,. ,..-- 2.--.4., "---/ k, -.. --..-',- ,4\i: .''., :-.-•., '''.• ' - . -.,.,. . . ..,,, ., -,,,-1/4.-...---.•.,.:.!'":4-,.'-'..".:-",,,,....... i.?:&,..t-.-Pir.,40,4_1 1 r3 ,:....,....:...:...._.,..„:.:i.:::„::,. 1:..f 1.:f.,..-tifir::::-..i.1.1;:::,i:::::.:,:‘,-.-..,:-..-:1,...,.::-L.„....-i::::;.:- --4-i, ...-,i...•,.f.,.. .:..„.„..,.,...i..4, ., _ : . ,.low. :,.....,:,,,::::::,;,:::?•',75'.:1;••%'1.i...:-.-V:.'4.;,-• t.,:,•;•.;_•:!fl..`V.k. %.,L. 1.:-.:i:-. ?:.y.j.1-3'....,A-11-:-_--..''.,4:,..,..",.7,..,--f,..11„..f..114,..tr", Ili. _ . t 1 . . • - - •t.., • -„-.-,,, 't iiik)4::;:-..',.: '''''.i:'•-...-'1-• ____:vt'.•!!„. • ' t:,'",,,.77-''''',:.:-.',-,t.,',...\ _ ‘..,--,-,::'r.:.',..:::.....Ivi.Ai',_-,.7:-• "'-„,-.i.'.:.'1.,-;'::::.;;‘,:--',..-,:. ',„":-,:k. ,:--.,:".:i....":-.. :::-:;::1-,;..3•:?::::-,:-',.:'::-';-:--..:,ii'Ll:,11-7-_'; ':'`.V. :i'..: ;,....:-:. if.,':::'-4:''1' ,,-.-..-4-•::: -.....7.‘' ::::,. .: ‘''..Ir.f.'• - •,,=-•• -..--- irc2 . ... .., .. , . ...r. . ....- .i. ''. 1.‘•--....-'''. .••S. • V:....‘' Iti.,.....i4...7.7.1....7...4..4.,...:..f..• '1,.\li;,....... k:...;••:7,5',.-f•'',....t:_l...'•t4.::::.1.....1;-1,7..._.::.--.1,-",..:':?:.....:,17•114:;;::••;..'''...•'e. •tr-.1•.:.'•.-•-;•q•11:1-'••• '......'-'i:.1.t'.:14;:•";1:-...1.-:;11‘31;-':t4 ti"... '''' 'e•• •''i•'il,'• '.'• . '''-' . . a. - _'t _ ,•. � n1irie . apswitionimmuk- 8080 Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485• edenprairie.org•952/949-8300 r.:. �,. �. MEMORANDUM .•'-'.....- 7.. .. - TO: - Community Planning Board FROM: Randy Newton, Traffic Engineer THROUGH: Eugene A. Dietz,Director of Public Works • DATE: Apri16, 2001 SUBJECT: Heritage Development-Valley Road Connection Summary This memorandum is intended to summarize the importance of the extension of Valley Road from Cedar Forest Road to Dell Road and the rationale for recommending its inclusion in the Heritage development project. The primary reason for its inclusion is that City policy over the past 15 years has been to minimize the number of unnecessary cul-de-sacs and dead in streets in the system. Secondly, the connection provides a parallel alternative to Pioneer Trail (CSAH 1) that improves the access for the Cedar Forest neighborhood and enhances the ability of the neighborhood to be served by police, fire, public works (plowing and maintenance), the school district (buses), and service .operations (garbage and delivery). Background Information • The Valley Road connection from Cedar Forest Road to Dell Road results in a number of benefits to the Eden Prairie community and to the Cedar Forest neighborhood which are listed as follows: 1) Parallel alternative to Pioneer Trail for local traffic. - Improves the ability of the Cedar Forest neighborhood to be served by police, fire, public works (plowing and maintenance), the school district (buses), and service operations (garbage and delivery). - Serves the local traffic needs of the Cedar Forest and Heritage neighborhoods, . but will not serve as a cut through for regional traffic. Recycl le Paper _ Heritage Development-Valley Road Connection __ April 6,2001 - Page 2 of 2 2) Access to the Pioneer Trail/Dell Road signalized intersection - Provides a safer movement for neighborhood traffic destined for westbound Pioneer Trail and northbound Dell Road. - Additional signalized intersections on Pioneer Trail should not be planned or assumed. This is important because additional signals would be detrimental to the operation of Pioneer Trail. Also, Pioneer Trail is a Hennepin County road and the City does not have control over its design and operation. 3) Improve operation and safety of Pioneer Trail - Reduces volumes by removing short (local) trips from Pioneer Trail (i.e. vehicles destined for Dell Road). - Reduces potential need for additional traffic signals on Pioneer Trail. - Prevents additional access to Pioneer Trail. 4) Provide pedestrian access between the Cedar Forest neighborhood and the planned neighborhood park on Stable Path(Crestwood Park). These benefits along with City policy, over the past 15 years, to minimize the number of unnecessary cul-de-sacs and dead in streets in the system is the rationale for recommending the Valley Road connection from Cedar Forest Road to Dell Road. It is also important to note that the Valley Road connection has increased in importance because the Cedarcrest Drive connection to Dell Road was not made. • \\EP_2K\ENGINEERING\SSA\DEVELOPMENT PROJ-ACTIVE 1\Heritage\Valley Road Connection.doc 0 • Memorandum To: Development Review Committee From: Leslie A. Stovring,Environmental Coordinator Date: April 3,2001 Re: The Heritage—Wetland and Wetland Buffer Strip Alternative Analysis • Wetland Information, Mr. Scott Carlston of Carlston, Inc. has submitted plans for The Heritage. There are 3 wetlands within the proposed project site. They include: • Wetland 20-33-A, a small (approximately 520 square feet) low quality Type 1 forested wetland. • Wetland 20-33-B, a high quality Type 7 forested wetland. • Wetland 29-22-A(on the Diller parcel), a moderate quality, Type 3 shallow fresh marsh. Proposed Wetland Impacts The proposed plans do include wetland impact. These include: • Filling of Wetland 20-33-A. This would be less than 2,000 square feet, so mitigation would not be required under the Wetland Conservation Act. • Waiver for an alternative wetland buffer setback from 50 feet to approximately 30 to 45 feet for Wetland 20-33-B. The buffer width is as low as 20 feet on the southeastern corner of the wetland, along Valley Road, to 30 feet along the northern edge and 45.5 feet along Preston Place. Alternative Analysis This memorandum as well as previous reviews of the site plans submitted resulted in a staff recommendation for the alternative wetland buffer strip setback. The reasons for this conclusion are summarized below. • The existing configuration of Valley Road and the need to access the parcel from this roadway leave it impossible to avoid impacting the wetland buffer for Wetland 20-33-B. The road has been realigned to avoid filling the wetland. • Wetland 20-33-A is a low spot or drainage area on the northeastern portion of the site. Avoidance of this wetland would require realignment of Preston Place and the loss of many buildable lots. The Watershed District has given Staff approval of the fill. • The developer has worked with the City to re-align the roadways and concentrate the homes along the northern half of Preston Place, eliminating one large lot. This compromise will result in placement of the Wetland 20-33-B and its buffer strip in an Outlot that will be deeded to the City. This will help preserve critical upland habitat for the high quality • wetland from development. • Wetland 20-33-B was evaluated as a high quality wetland in 1997 for the City Inventory. During the Fall 2000 delineation, common buckthorn was identified in the wetland and 31 � r t The Heritage—Wetland Impact Analysis April 3,2001 - -- Page 2 of 2 wetland buffer strip areas. The presence of common buckthorn indicates that the quality of the wetland maybe deteriorating. • In accordance with the wetland ordinance, hardship was evaluated in relation to reasonable use of the land and hardship from not allowing the alternative buffer widths. Mr. Carlston has stated a hardship would result from not allowing the alternative that could prevent his development of the parcel. Based on this information, Staff recommends the alternative wetland buffer strip setback. However,there are some outstanding issues that still need to be evaluated. Outstanding Issues Prior to review by the City Council, the existing watershed for Wetland 20-33-B will be evaluated. The developer does need to provide adequate water to make up for any changes in the drainage patterns of the developed site. The alternatives the Engineer has been requested to evaluate include: ▪ Regrade Preston Place to eliminate the low spot and bring drainage from the north to ' the wetland. + Realign the storm drain system from the west, for Valley Road. Temporarily this may decrease the amount of water entering the wetland. However, when Valley Road construction is completed adequate water would be brought in to fully support the entire wetland area. 4- Leave the wetland drainage area as shown on the Plans dated March 29, 2001. This would result in a smaller catchment area for the wetland,potentially leading to a long- term decrease in the size of the wetland. However,the entire parcel would remain in an Outlot and would be retained as open space. Prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit,the following shall be done: • Wetland Buffer Evaluation for Wetland 20-33-B and Wetland 29-22-A to determine the full extent of invasive or noxious species. Common buckthorn was identified and will need to be removed from the buffer areas. A Plan needs to be submitted for removal, treatment and re- vegetation of these areas. A signed contract and a performance bond for landscaping and monitoring of the wetland buffers also needs to be submitted. • Additional erosion control, for example double silt fencing, will be required around Wetland 20-33-B to help protect the wetland during construction. This must be shown on the Grading Plans. • The final delineation line (shown as delineated by Barr Engineering) must be the only line shown on all Plans for Wetland 20-33-B. • A conservation easement is required over the wetland and wetland buffer strip for Wetland 29-22-A. This must be shown on the Grading Plan. Monument locations must also be shown on the Plat and Grading Plans. 3� STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Krista Flemming,Planner II Scott Kipp, Senior Planner THROUGH: Michael D.Franzen, City Planner DATE: May 11,2001 SUBJECT: The Heritage APPLICANT: Carlston,Inc. Ryland Homes Manley Brothers Construction OWNERS: Scott Carlston, Inc. US Homes Corporation Robert and Mavis Hendrikson John Weidman LOCATION: Dell Road and Pioneer Trail REQUEST: 1. Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 23.05 acres 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.16 acres 3. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 42.16 acres 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on 19.11 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 Zoning District on 23.05 acres 5. Site Plan Review on 23.05 acres 6. Preliminary Plat of 42.16 acres into 138 lots,4 outlots, and right-of-way �2 Staff Report—The Heritage May 11,2001 BACKGROUND At the April 9,2001,meeting,the Community Planning Board voted to continue discussion of this project to the May 14, 2001 meeting. The Community Planning Board directed the developer to reduce the density and size of the townhomes west of Dell Road(Area C) and decrease tree loss,if possible. PLAN CHANGES The proponent has made the following changes in the site plan: • The gross site density (townhomes) was reduced from 4.6 to 4.46 units per acre. (The gross density of the townhomes in the Eden Orchard PUD is 4.4 units per acre). • Four townhome units were removed from the west side of the project. The use of eight-unit buildings was eliminated to provide additional green space and reduce building mass. All structures are either 4 or 6-unit buildings. • There is a cluster of existing trees, mostly pines, brush, and one significant cedar tree, along Pioneer Trail. The tree mass is scattered and will not provide sufficient growth for adequate screening. Staff recommends a berm and new landscaping to match the manicured look of the existing corners north of the Pioneer Trail at the Dell Road intersection. Staff supports the revised plan since it provides additional green space throughout the townhome development by eliminating building mass,presents an appropriate transition from the existing Eden Orchard townhomes to the proposed single family homes, and reduces the townhome density. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend approval of the following: • Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 23.05 acres • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.16 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 42.16 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 Zoning District on 19.11 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 Zoning District on 23.05 acres • Site Plan Review on 23.05 acres • Preliminary Plat of 42.16 acres into 138 lots,4 outlots, and right-of-way This would be based on plans dated May 4,2001,this staff report, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to grading permit issuance,the proponent shall: 3y Staff Report—The Heritage May 11,2001 A. Install erosion control and tree protection fencing at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Forester. B. Submit detailed street,storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. 2. Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Dedicate Outlot B(NURP pond) and Outlot A(high quality wetland area)to the City. B. Review the building plans with the Fire Marshal, including details regarding fire access to the site. C. Provide documentation for conservation easements filed with Hennepin County. D. Submit a bond for wetland buffer restoration in accordance with City Code. E. Submit a bond for landscaping and tree replacement in accordance with City Code. F. Pay the cash park fee. 3. The following waivers are granted as part of the PUD: • Cul-de-sac lengths of 540 feet, 550 feet, and 650 feet for the single-family development. Code maximum is 500 feet. • Front Yard Setback of 25 feet for Lots 12 and 22, Block 2. Code minimum is 30 feet. • Lot Frontage of 20 feet for Lot 10,Block 2. Code requires 55 feet on the radius of a cul-de-sac. • Alternative Wetland Buffer Strip of 30 feet. Code requires a 50-foot Wetland Buffer Strip. Location Map ..,„, . ...5, ..,;...,...:, , , ,,,z.,.....,..a7„,.. .,.....,,,... . . ,,...77.1 ....: „..,....,,,,,. .... ,...,..,.....4_,...: :::,.•......„,,..„,.f., , •,. ,....*,. ,..........-: The Heritage A "1-'2;•:iT k - • 5.7.74r)."t --.4-. - :. r .:4 i -`:,' .:.4"..•;;,::.. '...,--..... ./. •.„.•-•;"••,. . ..7....c•-i',:.. - • - :1 ,.., ,:.:•::•.:•7:P 4.,'711.), --f../%5•...,. ./ ••••''.:. 3.., t I „,„..;• -.. . ..... .......-.. , -•,::.,e.- „„,...,...:•-•,;;-Nt. L 1 1",....., '',„,.. q •"-, •.•••:=%Z.'"i;•:• .,.1•••t;:ti43,17,,P-7. , . _. 1 ...:-ti '..i..•:•:'•'&-it''...L5S::'' ,V t . '-'s•- •••1 ',1 ittftiattlisis '''•'''''''•-••' •'''''•-••• A''• •tittUtlift.,......x. ::-;,•••:Dia - . - ... . • 1,,,..,,-•,,.,„,,.„,„,,,,..:.. . .:„:„ •.• mist 1 , - - • ,.,,,„,__..:..,,.:-.,.4*.`•• - t.s. ?. , n ri RR .„...,,,,,.., . ___----• . - ...•___;---'71..i :4!.!..;.,;:.:;.01",!;,7,.-ig,.........f.; 1 - ..' 1 liinikir..-- • ,..•$......., , . ''.i; " • . • ....••••>-. 7_.,.........7 , 1.......,.........,.. 1.i. ,..„ 77•::,.i.;-.17.,q tl" , '::.,'-:.,;..:•n,••:.7 • ,:' ,,` ' ,'Ll 1111. 494. i "•.....--r- I...1::•7; :.!......• i! ),..!,.•.,.,.:7.--;'!, •:-..-"-..:•-1,...Y 1,ti,,le.2-'7:7 si\ 're,.:;!,,'',,`":'•'.::,..- -•. • '- -.,...:••-•-•..., : p%.-..,..r-gi...-x-4-ca.,te.....1,-* ...r: . -- --to.-* ,. e , •,-,......., .......... .4;;.,,,. .".4,- ....„. ,' . • :41;:.14-;:it?';:r.f:.7.Ligi. ..-,t:..!..:i • ::••,. ,.." .1..i..'*iie;.:,,j....,,L.F.,....4.: . . [..:::-•...',4,!.. n j..::4 . ., . ./...:_.........,.....,i/ni...1,,,...,,:.1.-,,::...-Ae,'...:.;;,..t:,.:::::;:::".v:.. :...'..jt 1 IV‘:.1.1.\\.„.„...•:"' ..7. 1....,,,irii. .......T::......:. S ',3 -• - 1 . • ., . • -'•'' •4•,1„•:, ..;',,i; .:: - %'-'4.: .....;:7: ''.•'•:;..i.4'-'!.e?‘•'.-Vi.....!Ii.;...". ' .‹, ...'.../ ./: ",,,,,,.• are4V,,,_ 2.mose I. ..„,..,:,,i:-.-...,-,;,. ._, _..... „„. lh ''. "- i i-,'.•!... ''';i:•-- -".:•...t..,..:.-'!*.;...,;.•1 '<,.\•:••N> ."..-1,.-',.-;.''''V-.-.L.,•':.....q....4;:"-., , -...'-..:„::?) i 3 ..-..- ... .. ••-••-•...!....,.,...f„.4..‹ ,.../y/...,-„, :,''''e-S,-•-•:•,...-...;,..,..,:.-.. ,. -...,.., .-. .:.,;._,•..,:.1 .• . pan.• ----. -.1 ..- ,--,7 i •..,,..•;:..,_•-,:,:-....A: • i -.,-.. .,ii;,..,...,-„,-. ;,-,,,,..1.z.:-".,,,.;...-,,,,,&,„ . .„ , Ns.,._ •... ,,,..,.. t=, , mgit :4...• .. ..: .,.....:--,:-;:',,,liSlri.:.,:P....*:!:•••.,-,.:-:.2.•••', .,.,,,,,/,/:•:,./.....0V,-...,w•:-. ..„....!:w.,........N.::-...,,,...L... i:„i,,,;.,..., b ;.;•.;...,..!....:.-.7".!,..7. tr...17:1,cf;"'•••••!...14.;•4. ' '("724 27.: .-- I :;.5i.-:*',.:f.''. [1.00W.7):•';',.:.:' ,r'''"It.o>"...';;Y:',..':•7"...:..::::-•... ',-.'•:..':-''''..-.:--'. 111,r1:•::::'•1/51°1 I 1 n,,,_"!.1" 4'71r--;1:-'i..7.t.Z!..fg'.;.tV ..',..-....".".•••••'- .•;""•. ...'%'''... ".f. -•-.. '...- ''..-.... tvg:ii;V:,..7.:.;r.:!"..•'.'.. •j,,:: ::•••,i':'..:„.1,...1, ..••••••-'-'. i'2?;:g..7..17.:. 'ile_i;:;,, *4 ,!-•'''• .; i' '- ‘ •-k44.1,%•,.... -'44,---?•''i:•,..,:------'•-"" -I-,.• • V•••:•:-..;.•if,. -...";::::-. • ..........7,'i.",k1A 41 ••'••-. .•''' --Pi15-Y,'•,'...- ..k .,,,,,•''''l -t..";.`,.-':r!7-17,70...;Z-,- :1',,,, •)1•1-,, ,•6.• ••.k.: ,,. • A 4; .,....4 e•!.;/,,,:-.;?j:;:z.. J.,: ./.....e. .-.;„,•,...-.1.. ..1,',„.,. ' .,.::,; • ' • ' e.:;„1 f.-.-;,...:1.tit• ---,...1:,,-..:•:.!:., ';:.•' ,,,.,,. :\_,,..... • .:34:1.7;;.:kkik-r7;,1:;;.1* ..:f.• L'''. !..';1:-....-,\'-''' gr=I 2 .::;:',Irds.' 's'i,t,,:„...1,...r...-. "..,',',.%,!..:',5,.-';•',;•:.:...E.4;..., :'. .. 3;•-t?',._•:...7r,•'i- :::,'=•-•,:l. , .„-.., :;.4t;pilifilliff:iii.A •''-:'.„•.,:i .;:-,...A. -...\'-',5-14f pr, -:. ,,- x. ,-:;,.,:,::.. .-;';'..4..;:::,;.-,,..;:. !--t.;-...,.:,..,..41).a ' - ,...4,- . ,:.-[.., .:.,,v,,,,,,...4.,..i,,,,, ..-...i.,,,,:47r,:qz,,::',.:;•,:• .. .4. .. . ..•,,...,..,. ‘,.,..f.r..,..,44,1: ::::4,, ',..:,... ..0:t., -A.\.. s,, ...i.. ,.-.; -."2-- ‘'.,,'',....q.::-....-4---:V. .,..1.-......- - . -• - ••!'t.•_:-.A...;-.... . ,,l,',,,".:Qt-A!..,...•0. 406 , .,...,,,.....-, '..,•;•-••-:.. ....i';•••, ••: i,17f.I.`..T.dr•-‘,.••:•,-•/ •-• ".'1':'••••••:••••i.:;:.:;.,,T•,.•::'..r.,t, ,. .,. . ••'•'.". •,.....1.. -• .4•'`,4•.4•:••.••• •:-ximatiw i•, ..,....::,,,zii..i.,..;•,:. i.,,:fii;if,i li.i.fiAi: .1,44.Q.,:'?;k4.• ',",-",,•:,-,\6,,' .-,, ;". • r-,--.-:,•••!:'?.e-i%•-e2.:!f...c.t-. 14--'-'.;:a. -•... ••, ..•••••‘•-.=,•••••,•;!•'..." -- -',....*-1•‘..'''•••' . f'5'11;•.....:','.fi:`•'.. s.'ilV14.7•AE.1"•%,:;i:- . . ‘411;t43/471:. 7.:::.•'-'iiire.'.,,,i:...,....?"-.".........:...'L.•Ei •..7'....::}..".ff.:,.... !,.i..Z.i./::1:.:irii:.:413). --••..,... . ::::,5•?"•,,••••• .-',".;.;•4•1,...:.,:t•••.V' ,•;.f.t.'.'1•;:'!,1% ., i ' ' ••;•• .'i,%.:''t...• '.i- -1..:,:kk•••.;.,;...,V•0 .441.'.3,,:: 7,,,r•-••.:-,,•-•.1014.--. • •.:• • '' - :•''''.1.''..'''-•;.'''''''•••::::-.;;'‹ -*'•.' '-'' • 7..'.::. : .'.- .-tv'.-...•4 '''"7*-2:- :•;;•'.,.:4'2,',74.i., ; -,.....4145;10.:;40.11 . '.91‘;'4:erY0,‘4:''.7Y "7 " .s. '• • . .. '-';:k-Xii:ier.:$:::. .;J'.::-.‘••-ftl".r$ :.,*4 • -- . 7. - .-:.:•:'•:.. •:. . ;'.".'7'"!-. ... : :•:-i'.',.!•'?.4.:1 . 7;7:1.'" :'`''''''''''''fr1":".'i;.':"•A51 Z;iA:i,.#,.,ti...1;f::•L.:;.:''1''':1'"•''-'•••..;•.,•-4.7.-.''4.:..':.r"§':..4..,f,..'f.7O,-r.?-...::;‘•,7g'.•'4.'. .:,:••:,1-•1••3'•.,7.'..:,::•;.•-..: -•'•.••..'i.4...--:'...••-•"-.':'..''.....,4‘1,;;.6".47.-.'.',.1,'.-.I..\.-...;'::.4-'.1'-':'''"''•!T.:.:.7..;...'.i.7..',,\.,.1.'.7Lr;'.:-.--:-*•-'.-:.,‘:_'.•C.,7-.' 0..;..;..:..;,:...,.' a,;':i1i2,er9..!gj4'i.4i,',•:•.:':.:....., ..•..:.,'...'ti..,.:.:-V.•..".••'•',•-•- ':%..V.4:•0.:•4•4.•*:..•.3e 41: , 21'-.;.':i,. ••i•.••i2F•f•'t:'.t...„.4..1“;L.f,.1;•:'d.,•.;,;:,.,.1: i ,.....'....1}1,..",R-•. . ;.4 kE;!'''1.....•!.;',:-..,:...,.:.;>i,i-./.'....i,7 7.',.'':''4'.'., !.,''i,'.wf,':...'..•,•;4...4.,.:.:...-27-7-Y.;7.,"',..%1.....*,'../',.,.".4"1..,1 4.:.5.1il,7.;i'#.c:.1.;.1,I,i',.4:I"'.5.-..47:.4'.;1;?,1;•'.;iti1,.'}e„‘:.t..34..Ch7.4...;;1Pi';.z:,Y„.i,...'•4t;174Pt''.'..,14 1.2'eIO,S1'4,.,A.t*,'...A1t,4',:*'55..:.1,..i. ' • .-' ...;:t.'1', LL..itt.., .;',,,,;.4.1; .,' :,...41'.. , A..114 .4i4i.W.:;Th.. '.."• ' .. .:,..111::,\ .,,:.3.% ../...'..;:,.a.,,';'' .. 1 1 ` -' . .'.: •'. .,..i...,„ ,. '''Z' '...rei,' ,; 4 7••••‘ .•'.;•1.,, 'f'..P..21i..?:,-.7:3•40. ',:ilitkef•41',...?.?:' .‘:,:. . -,:,.i.t. ..C4-4.:: "il 7.4Y*4,::,:y. ...,,,,, r, - • 4.:::;:?‘ ,:i'-*.$14 110:1::'.F1'4494 4g 0,1;•111.0.3t.,•;•;:vp„ ., - . ' .:. - "7,1 ) .. • :''''14...,'4...;..i.:, - • '. , 1.„1-4..".:kao.......,‘ .::. ",?-4,44-(..rt ...v..iti.,•::.,,;,*-..4.s. 1.., ' '''-' ' • •'rot-x-r-vioill,1: -' - 117:0,...i.,....4 :-•-!.•.... z.h.i,......,... -;:,..-: •.:.,•;.•A,..„ , ' i.:1, ..e.-14:,,,, 3 dP t. 04.'".**„..,-...1.r. : • N • . •••-0.0••."sr-- '.''. '441';'114-.4 '44.1attlic.....,.• ,.;;;;17- ft,i‘-').:11.-4:N.,.. ottiti.r.r4-sra •-ot :,,.'-`:."',ct.:.•4:20..,.;-r ..: ,.. ,- :. "-,. •10.-P-0,0 .-..+"..'.4`:': -:"..-trelcqz,,11.'f4t z,,Te.**.ag:. • .'f.'' '''''-''''-•'-I.% rkli.f.v:"•,,••,:.,*, igg.p.)14-• ..;,,11;!;',:.•-;.t. -i•401,..'4,,A,,,..; •,,Lisis.4.0„,,„.Y-•,„.....,41: ,,,A,.,•„.-.•04...i„,• ., 11,0i....,i,..:.,...1. fa,,--,,,t.::',' 41:,..;,,,.....;.,..). 1.*;':•A;1•••:. .. ,,e•-,,,:•.,•,....np,:i„tr..,..s 34,-,. . ,- • .. „..,.,,,,..,r,.3: .•,. ',41..i.,...:.y,..' '."...,.. PI+,,i1:•oc..,.-. •••".4,t/t.• 13.7.„...:.,y4,...er, .,:f,..,.,..v. • • ••.,.r.t • 1, .-Y...7. ....te ,!n..V.r.i7VP,.A. ......... - ....;;N:.”:.,*,54,1,•thl' 'i i'l.; :.;:. '• • '. .".... .'..• '' : ••.;.,)"...;,.... •-:•). sr. '.- '''f"'''''.11 ' * 1:,.;).. i'f:ir;f;t4..fif(:.?;:.''''',4'N..'i.;::::::::;..; ..' A:t:t6;*. 6...i14-41;.k::41':il' „..... . 4, - ...„,....,i,,,w,,,,I.,-...., •1,..-,....„,,,..„.: ,,N,, r ..,r,,. .....,... .., . ,..,.4....„3 -., •.1. ....:.:.-....',....i. ',. ._:';',9X,•!61'''':),\:'. ',..7f'''''. , _. .;.. 1‘.:,!.......i.?.....f..,1•:,• *4.,,.. 4":451.41'.:.'..4... ..,.,. •f•.... 1 4 ,.c .. .. t .,.,14 ,j, . .,... •Nr,„•: 7.,:-.t,..,-...,.....',.• y.!, ,.. . -• ....,•.. ....• 4:.•,.'. ' •.•,,. ,•.t. •. ,.:,,...i.•,!,,„.....• , .,, ...,,,. ......„„...„. ,•,...L.„.,„.•,,,..,,,.,v,,,,,,•••••;-'- r•••-,• ,I, ...0,,- i ..,.. -- ••- •. .. .... ,., ... • - ,..,....,.., ,.. • .........-c-5-.I..-...:.• • ....e;.-...e.6.•.;.;,.\•N •.•,-,,:,•••••••- ••••9•••••.:. .- ..-..,•• a,•••:'7'......I.M.- - 4 ...•"•-• ' ....r''''' .:>...‘'.---.'..''.-I''' :;i•••• " •S :','-':",•••••••••••• Z•••'• ...,'•••-•••::•••• .,',0.•"4,:t:3•••!!.:!e•-•;'' -\-:\‘!"-'••,••'._.it'••••. '...:-:!';.;.:.--,:•••••••••:,'••••••Z::•.:.;:•;:•••4::/' •!'.;.!;•;.:1".`,1*::!Z$.2kV,I:St • ../.,:•. 1i,c,• ••-•;*:••1:,••-•,rift?,..;••••t i'•gr•••:.;!•••t.':%.14•-- ...'--ilr'.. 4 ... •' .... ......1:fit•;'''•-•-; •!::;:::':.;:.!-`4.:-... .-.1.,•;:•3-.., ';'\ .:••••.;;;,..t;..•:',;P, .•:";;::- ....''' 't.;'.*"• .4•':-•i-4;;;;,.'.!.;:55j•:' • .;:,...1...1 ,-7-. ,.-•,4,.,'.vr''1',.•",-.4,l-,t1.:,i.....'.:?,•:1.-',F.•,,,..'1.::;' 1- ••:'-'.-'-%!-:•-•';''''• .'.....''''''r •-.••.4,••r-...•'':• • :-- .-.4'..t:.•:••••:V`••- ....4,-...;]:1:-;4;'' ',.‘,..\''•••••:•Vil-.4•.- . - •••.• ' '•''''''..-7..ra • ..,..-;-•`,..re;'.: t A.-i...N.,..c. .ir...i k..."?...7..:.,?,71•:. .t:'•..',. 7 r, •,.,;...1,-,....,:•;..z.,.:,,., .„.. ....;...,,..i.....:i..,,.. 1.:/•::,..5...,•,.- ,,.....-.,,:.;25.1.... .a:,...,• . ,,,.: , .:. ..,••,,,.,4,...,,.,,. .;..,; .. ,.,,•,..:k.:.. ,.... . .......,..,,c:: ..,..,.:.,;;;,„.„.....i.•:.,;•„ bi,i,.,i.„.x.,,.. .,.:.....t....1..1....„!...... .:1..:•.:ii:.,....;.:....i. .,. ::::..„••.. • .„...„.41....t....4.........,..•..e.. .................. :. ,•_.. ....,....;,....1.,:...,;:4•4;,:,:s...........„...3....„,...,.,:..., ,..,•• ..7,:.,... ,..........„....;..i.:1t,,,,....f......,:•.......1.....,,•:,:,...:;,$,..,..„..„ ,, ,,:•v..,,f,,:i..„.....,:l..;..1,.4,,,.: :.... .&•,1:,...cL,•,.,.., 1: ,.1.:.....,.,. .,....;.1...:,,2......,._:..... ,. ... ... ,. • . .,,,.....,,:,,,. :•,..„,..4... '''T••' ••''' " ••• ".••":--::•-•• ..',;:-••,.•••:',";:::::'!'i itt:".•ii',..rt•PtIg3;•••.',••••:';:00 •• •-• • - - -••••• '''•-•.'•:::'=•. - fr.'.' 1 . .tf''.•• ••::•' ••r•••''.;:itii.1;:•;9•-3?" I-• -.••" •. .•., • .•.. ..:„. : •'-'1"°•'•.• .4. .'''''..•:,'.1!Z:, ...• .'. Ti•:••••••?..,'•.•,`•-•.•:?::"!•;7;4•0:.••••••';'''',"1",:-.4?;.P s• . Ariii•;1.•••1-'.'::''• r 7,1'1•i:.g•'4.:?.r. i"/ ..?„;3....;..,,,,7:.,4„.....,,.-,,,• ,1...: " ' •• ,'•,-,vt•-•••••f:':.!!'•I-•-:• ...•,., '''' ,••-....••.,;•:••-•••.,•.:-3.-.• .. -••••,-•; .1?V'. ...i.'''.•.' V.,.011...7.i;-:%, ''.1..u.i1;•4.-'4.A '-1/.!1 . 1::..2.,Y-.1:::°.-I.7.•';::::•.:'.. •.:.:....:g.1: '''' S..!..t: ., '...;.... : .. ,r,f:,,,..,...z',,,....;;;•,,.4 ,.,•,::...,....,:...J.,,,...„,..•.... •: .•.. ... ,,... ...,.. •..,,,,..,„•,..„..,.. _ ,.... ifl ..... ... ,. ...,":„.„..... _....„,•...•,..:...,....:„„,,,,,,,.......:..„,,„. „,..;.....„,...„,„....,.....,:„..,....„,=:„..,.:...,,... ......,.::„ •_.. ,.....,.,...... ._.. .. . ,...........i...., ...::,„.„..,.,..,....,.....4...„....„.„.„.....,..,..„ ....,..,..,....„,,......• .,...........„. ....... ... ,.,.....,_:.: . .......„...., . . .•.).„...".. .,....,....,..:•...„.„,,.„-c,„....r.,-4:-::',p'; , . - • ."i tc,..=',-;;..17,11••• _ _ !:',-..;, ...•i.-,,,-;.:t..-„,.w.,..,.',i,...;',,,w, 7.;.. ;•.:,,.. ., . ,, . . • •,-„4:-!. ..i . ' ‘.. •4'. •1 '••'..t. •,•,..;:',. ' 7... ! .:•:•:,:',L,.','"'Y';:,1•41.,'•‘",'•:1. ,-0,-,.•-„,.,,,'Vag II:,I•:'.`u :,ii;74! :,-`•'-.;:-•."::-•;•,-•:;,. • ..: 'i,.• •:•-;.'' •'• -::•''.:.`•-• -•:.• -,....-- - ii-.1 ,.',:t.-;:•"--..,•c••;:....,..•',•.'r'... ‘..:',''j ..t•il•l!cl-.(•4•:::Ii;i". •-...-.2..,„: . ,: J.e.•-,, 1771f-11 :: 42614 ••••;;;•-!-i-:-..k....::::.•J'...::•':•:1'';'''': : .•1 '- •;.,..;‘-Z:.••••: ", .'1::::.'• I ..:1.1. -...','" -t:• ., ••.,"•, i':.•• • •..,;...„••••,;-:..,:l.„;. ...1. ) '•-, •-• .......,'''''t',','!Ii•..1---...:;••••.' ••••-'-••.-••••:?tit "..- ...1..„.„...,.., ,•••?....4'.,-.t. E. .7,„.....-...;,:.,,.•••;...1 f"•: ''".•-•%.' .' ':•-•.:",- '•':•1::;- ":' ' ',.t", ••.:-,--:::..•‘,, .2:--- ' -'," 1 •-•... ..,',1i:f,.-.:' r.f.,-.'.'7.':;.6F:s'-'.':::". „ ... ..••-?::•••,'!.77;•...c•-!,..,....,,;.,:i.,.- ..--.-.-.:;,..,,.. . .., :-...:5-..;;'t,:•;•-•,......:•;i:....,. ,:f../:..„:•,:,- 5.......;;;. ..z;e..;,..;z1.°,..};.:..!; .;iy:',......,.;:....!:.,5'.i:',•:::.1.::.:1,::-.1. ...•[....,..-..,:-...,„ "..,..,. ,,....,......,..,, . ,. :, ,„,....,1 ..,.•••• ..,....-.1,...-.,-, •-,,- ,,••.,.A::-•":'-., --.71,•3•1,..• -,%.,,i;'...0•7••„"•••,4,440••••:1,• ---w-•,...f.:.;.":. :: ...t.?"-v.:::,g;:i',7,:;':::4:.-ii:::',;:i....',..::..s..:7..- ...-.-77.7,7:: •...-:-Ati!..ji..72.1-i.s.::::: ...':',-..:,::::,' ,..'i.'::,-;1.rk),- ,i,...::...'.:,(.:.... 7,.',:;:.:3:.',.1, ';:;.::.:4.,...t,.. ...!*,1.*:J.,',.:;:::4 . , .‹...... ii - ,y,...... i........,...„;.. -,...!..„ :::..-.-.,:,.......: ....:::...,..,..- : ...,.... ..,•:;,.-....:.. ,...r. i..'.."'7::1..: :.77.'.,7... ;t•;'f!:... '... ,:••••.' :I....7';:-.•:•',7,,,tt,7,!-,:."-;!..t.:'.1;-:‘,••,f..'17••• „ . :.• .-- .. •.. • ' -,...../ .-'• ...'• .:!.'.',.:'. -',.' ..• ..'--. •.:-:::'.:''...-"'..'.1.7 ;-:...''''."::,•• .....7„:-.;''..• ......-....:4:::::st•-, ...;.f..fv-::.,:;.,--t::: 1,-,'"•:•,'•F.: ,•.'.....„... ',-:::'••-•-.••:t-,..,•••.-:':..1•••,:.-.-..--•-•.•-..t- - • • • - • ... -- -. . .. ,. . „ . . .....•-•,, . - . . . , . -..• - ,,,,----7.7•1. .7 .. . .. . . ...--, -.... 1,.... . . . .. ...... . . . .. . .. . ..• . . . . ' • - - - - .. .. 3....-3„. .......:.....7. If. ','y:::'. - ' . - -- ' --- - - : • •-•-- • -••: '-. ' - - ... • Cn,.. A • . - '• -. "- - 1- - • - - • .._ , , . . \.Z.:;„..\/. <1-:::11: e : -- •..s"<-11:; :i. .. .,:t. ::::! •••• If_ :- -•-.-"--_-- -?--,.:11';',...--...:'...:: -:- i . :. . .: - -:•_.. -.- -.. ,-_ ..... !.. . ., .,..............,.....1. , -, - -4'1,- - - j"-• • - .- . • .•_-. i _L:.1/4.teer:-.-IA% -.;. i•-•'' ;-6 uwta CHRISM - _ _ _ . ua saint andrEw Lutheran church 13600 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE/EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344/TELEPHONE:952-937-2776 Fax: 952-937-2777 E-Mall: standrewlu@aol.com Web Site:standrewlu.com ���o THE w�RLD ROD ANDERSON,PASTOR {�v WORM Y Paul Hammarberg,Congregational Life Pastor May 9, 2001 Melanie Heuiser Hill,Teaching Pastor - Hans Wiersma,Youth&Family Pastor TO: EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION FR: PASTOR ROD ANDERSON RE: "THE HERITAGE" by SCOTT CARLSTON I regret that I am not able•to be present for the Planning Commission meeting scheduled on 'May 14 for hearing the continuance of-the request by Stott Cariston regarding his develop- ment along Pioneer Trail and West of my property at 9309 Cedar Forest Road in Eden Prairie. I was present at the beginning of the previous Planning Commission meeting, but could not stay to the end when his request was continued. • I feel that Scott and his group have done an excellent job of 'providing a very nice develop- ment adjacent to our Cedar Forest neighborhood, along with a buffer to higher density housing to the West. My observation is that he has made extra effort to respond to the requests of both the neighborhood and the City as it regards his proposal . I think that the Planning Commission should respond favorably to his proposal as it is excellent and other ultimate proposals that may follow it if this one is not can hardly be expected to be inprovements. Also; I have known Hendrickson's, Lommen's, Zghler's, Weidman's for the 24 years we have lived in Cedar Forest. They have worked hard and patiently to develop their property, as they have every right to do in collaboration with all responsiblg. It's time to let them go forward. Regarding the relationship of the developments one to another in our community, I recall • the wonderful mission put forth especially by the now deceased City Council member, Paul Redpath, as an understood objective in our community to phase housing densities such that at almost anywhere in the community one could draw a radius of a mile and therein find housing of almost every density category. I know that this is true throughout the community having visited in hundreds of homes in virtually every neighborhood. Paul Redpath's w.ay of saying it was• that he wanted to have his -kids and grandkid.s sitting in a classroom in Eden- Prairie with "someone who lived in a nicer house on one side of them, and someone who lived in a less expensive house on the other side." What has .resulted are neighborhoods Which do not divide the community by socio-economic standards such that the wealthy live "on one side of the tracks" and the poor live on the other side. Rather, we are brought together on wonderfully mixed community developments that provide a desirable diversity, as well as excellent buffers, breaks and pleasant green spaces of transition. I feel the The Heritage development by the' Carlston's is an excellent example fulfilling ' this .. '-ctive! And I support your acceptance of this proposal . • Gr. - ly, a, • ‘4P2 'astor Rod Anderson eg 31- • ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES Minnesota's Enduring Standard of Value 11 May 2001 Mr. Al Gray, Mr. Stuart Fox, Mr. Bob Lambert, Mr. Mike Franzen, Planning Commission, City Council and Staff. City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Ladies and Gentlemen: As the development around our OakParke project progresses we would like to raise some objections and concerns. While we do not object to the project as a whole we believe there are some details that need to be reviewed and addressed. 1. We are currently building a house in the old Cole property and insist that the proposed access is maintained to our site during the construction process. 2. The proposed driveway access is planned at a 10% grade, I believe this to be excessive and would like to see this grade lowered. 3. There should be additional landscaping and screening to block auto headlights at the corner where Cedarcrest turns north. 4. We have completed grading on our twinhomes and would like to make sure the proposed grading is cohesive with our as-built grades. There should be an easy transition and the grades should match from project to project. 5. The proposed trail connection is from the eastern cul-de-sac in our twin homes and runs on the south side of Cedarcrest and dead ends. I would like to see this trail connection run into Cedarcrest as it turns north, this connection would be more efficient and allow for better access to and from each community. Thank you for the opportunity to address my concerns. Best Regards: Cory Lepper Orrin Thompson Homes Sr.Land Manager cc: Scott Carlston 8421 Wayzata Boulevard,Suite 300 • Golden Valley,Minnesota 55426 (763) 541 7333 phone (763)544-9086 fax wdCounci -Apn 9 ity ounc[meetinr Scott ar ston evelopment age 11 From: "rlbma97"<rlbma97@gateway.net> To: <allcouncil@edenprairie.org> Date: Fri,Apr 6,2001 9:39 AM Subject: April 9 City Counci meeting-Scott Carlston development Good morning- We are Rick and Laura Beedle and we live at 17135 Valley Road. We will most likely be unable to attend the April 9 City Council meeting, however,we wanted to let you know that we recently met with Scott Carlston on his proposed development for the Wiedman, etc property. We believe that Scott will take every effort to preserve the environment as much as possible. His plan illustrated to us larger lots, high quality homes, and an acceptable overall project density level (which appeared lower than other proposals. We realize that we will be losing our Cul-de-sac and will have increased traffic on Valley Road and Cedar Forest. While this is a"negative"to us, we are comfortable and satisfied with Scott's development plans. Rick and Laura Beedle CC: <jharris@edenprairie.org> • -Y? wdCouncil-The eritage Developme Page 1 From: "Hartwig, Ted G." <thartwig@purina.com> To: "'jhan-is@edenprairie.org"' <jharris@edenprairie.org>, "'rcase@edenprairie.org"' <rcase@edenprairie.org>, "'sbutcher@edenprairie.org"'<sbutcher@edenprairie.org>, "'ntyra-lukens@edenprairie.org'" <ntyra-lukens@edenprairie.org>, "'jmosman@edenprairie.org"' <jmosman@edenprairie.org> Date: Fri, Apr 6, 2001 1:56 PM Subject: The Heritage Development It's my understanding that the council will be reviewing the Heritage Development being proposed by Scott Carlston, this Monday,April 9, 2001. I'm one of the property owners that lives next to the proposed development area. Our address is 17175 Valley Rd. Since this meeting falls during the spring break, my wife and I may not be able to attend the meeting. I would like to use this note to express our feelings regarding this proposal. First, and of most importance,we do support Mr. Carlston's plan. What has impressed us the most is that Mr. Carlston has taken the extra step to meet with everyone to allow impute into the Heritage Development. Not only did he have a neighborhood meeting, he has also taken time to meet with us individually. During these meetings, he has allowed for change in the plan. He is attempting to ensure that those aligning the development property line are comfortable with the plan. Mr. Carlston has taken extra steps to ensure our privacy is maintained and is offering to transplant trees along our property to maintain this privacy. We met with Mr. Carlston this past Saturday for 45 minutes and are very comfortable with this project. Please accept our approval of this new development. Feel free to contact us if you have questions or concerns. Ted &Cathy Hartwig 17175 Valley Rd to Y f 1a X� R •I e '1i ;`�i` r� 1` S 1>L � 1 'n'1°.': - .4-'''.4/' `, ;;.. May 24,2001 f lam. 4,* ` .Carlston Inc. • : r10 fir` 'c• 1 r,x . ;t -P, ,,,t, .;.w`r 1200 W. 78 St. {-,-4 ' �'C;",` " 4�,Eden.Prairie, MN 55344 S? 7'' ' e7tN'k y -,i.a , • �a • ii,'t '`` "' . r�h� ;�"R.e Request for.an early grading permit: -+.:?. { r is '9-v. * ,y t r.. t b , t �. "e°. Carlston Inc..would like to formally request an early grading permit for"The ,- i wM x ' b Heritage"development The Cedar Forest residents have made it clear that z ;r 'h-„ x their streets and yards.are currently.torn up from installation of sewer and ,, �,tr `c "��a`t water and would:like"The Heritage".project completed ASAP. We would ` l " *• ` ;.,',,;. a reciate our su ort.. : I. "� `� Fp Y pP yr )y t � r"� t 4 �}9 - Y i w t '`f,,iif.. t t r .t 3 r •� Y,� ;a 4 s ro r � r f t [ tMM a ,,,,iii.„1, ,...it:,., _ . ,,,k,:: 1,1,,,,,:i.i.,..;„6,44,.F.L..,,...,..::.,,,..,;,•,,,,„:_,. .-77.--.:.:.:,::: .. .,....: ,,,. ........;.,.,,..:.:,.....4.„,,,,.,c,,,,,,.,:.•..,:........,,,..._....:.:,,,,,,... ,...,,..,i,,,, ,, :, ::. ,,...,.: . :, , .. .." ,.. ,. : .... t?Ir r t l :'. Yp -, d t rt . it K�:S ,, r! r r '} :1 1l , Cglton. ncI t�F • ' r the I tge , t r I , , r t t 1 rj, , � _ �� °x tsco ..€ rlscn , ri 6. .fa t _,1,' '„�t' s it c ,,,; fj cti 1 It rI d ti# {,11ji ,T rti l 't i I �% � t i`pt ,' rr Oet i t�i1 : '.'y� ;', r i k - - ' f h, 'i 1tN 1 i'jij fi;',y arte r � 'tt 'I 1 rrr; 'r Y `# '" � i t � iia , ,r zz � r t q q ..,:,,..,::::::.,,,,..;14,.,...:.,.,1,:fit.lr,,i.:,_,...,i.:,i.,.._...,.:.,,•,:..:5:: 7,,,,;.,,,,,,f r:.,,,.,: -!,,..,,,.,::itil::::,11,,1;f.:,. .11;i,.,,,,;I,..11,,„11.:,.1:,.41,,,iti,,,,,t;I. ..,,,,;.:::1,4i,,i,,,,,.,,,i.::,t,,,i,:,:!..,,te 1.4., ,i,_.,.,,..,..._.[,,,,. i:-.,,,:.,::.:It..,..i.„.:?4,14,,:h,,Irci.,,t; ,,,,,,,;:.--:::,,..,-,.....il.'.::,;s- . ....._.. . ' . . .... : .: ., . .. , ....i : ' . • -e d rite t Ir « -/ , 1 j t 'r i hv0 r r - iet? ',� j� rafrr' 'k t4 Mi ',3� ,� Imt � • 11, li 0 ` X: i, ' oi'i' irtilliff lir:-'''''' Li( CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 06/05/01 SECTION: Public Hearings SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development Donald R.Uram Grace Church-Code Amendment E Michael D. Franzen Requested Action The Council can choose amongst the following options: 1. Allow the proponent to withdraw the code amendment proposal. 2. Approve the code amendment proposal. 3. Deny the code amendment proposal. MOTIONS (Three Options) Option#1: Withdrawal(Only with proponent's consent.) Move to: • Close the Public Hearing and return the proposed code amendment to the proponent without prejudice. Or Option#2: Approval Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Approve lst Reading of the Ordinance to Amend City Code to Permit Mining as a Conditional Use in the Public Zoning District. Or Option#3: Denial Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Deny the request of Grace Church to Amend City Code to Permit Mining as a Conditional Use in the Public Zoning District based on the following findings: 1. A mining operation would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. City Council Agenda Grace Church Code Amendment Page 2 2. Mining is inherently accompanied by noise and dust, often creates hazardous conditions and results in extended disfigurement of the places where it is carried on. 3. Mining will interfere with the existing land uses in nearby areas and delay further permanent development of the surrounding properties. 4. Mining will impair adequate planning or municipal development. 5. Mining will diminish the public health, safety, and general welfare. 6. The amendment would conflict with the City's' practice of zoning considered on the basis of the Comprehensive Guide Plan for the area and specific plans for structures and site development. 7. Conditional use permits require annual renewal and inspection for compliance on a regular basis,thus creating an ongoing administrative burden. 8. There are 1,147.93 acres of land zoned public in the City. These lands are close to lakes, wetlands, creeks, residential areas, schools parks, and churches. Mining is an incompatible use next to such uses and environmentally sensitive areas. 9. If the Code is amended to allow mining as conditional use in the public district, this will make it difficult to develop a rational basis to deny a request for mining as a conditional or permitted uses in all other zoning districts. This would further impact all existing homeowners,businesses, and environmentally sensitive areas in the City. Synopsis Grace Church recently learned that its site located south of Pioneer Trail and east of Eden Prairie Road contains a large quantity of granular soils. Since mining is not a permitted use in the Public Zoning District, Grace Church is requesting that the City Code be amended to permit mining as a Conditional Use. The mining is proposed to occur in two-acre increments.®The potential total area to be mined is 30 acres, or one million cubic yards of sand. At the May 14, 2001 meeting, the Community Planning Board voted 7-1 to recommend denial of the proposed code amendment to the City Council based on findings 1-9 listed under the denial option section of this report. The May 25, 2001 letter to the Mayor and City Council suggests two alternative amendments to the City code. One is a modified version of the request presented to the Community Planning Board for mining as a conditional use permit. The second alternative is to amend the City Code to allow soil exchange. The Community Planning Board has not reviewed the soil exchange alternative. The soil exchange alternative has not been included in any public notice to the newspaper or residents. The 120-day time limit to review this proposal ends on August 1, 2001. City Council Agenda Grace Church Code Amendment Page 3 Background Information The issue for the City Council is whether or not an activity involving the excavation of soil with air, noise, traffic, and environmental impacts should be allowed in a city that is almost fully developed. This activity, called mining, carries with it implications for Citywide impacts. 1. There are 1,146.93 acres (97 parcels) of land zoned public in the City. These lands are close to lakes, wetlands, creeks, residential areas, churches, and schools. There are 7,569.37 acres of land guided for a Public/Quasi-Public use that are or could be zoned public. A mining operation would create an undesirable impact on such uses and environmentally sensitive areas. 2. If the Code is amended to allow mining as conditional use in the public district, this will make it difficult to develop a rational basis to deny a request for mining as a conditional or permitted use in all other zoning districts. This would further impact all existing homeowners,businesses, and environmentally sensitive areas in the City. 3. Mining is inherently accompanied by noise and dust, often creates hazardous conditions and results in extended disfigurement of the places where it is carried on. 4. Mining will interfere with the existing land uses in nearby areas and delay further permanent development of the surrounding properties. 5. Mining will impair adequate planning and or municipal development. 6. Mining will diminish the public health, safety, and general welfare. There are two problems with adopting a provision for conditional use permits. 1. The City Code uses performance standards for regulating land uses rather than conditional uses permits. Conditional use permits will make the application of performance standards less meaningful. Existing residents or businesses purchased property on the basis of adjacent properties having specific permitted uses with performance standards. Conditional uses would change the use of adjacent properties and impact existing residents and businesses. 2. Conditional use permits require annual renewal and inspection for compliance on a regular basis, creating an ongoing administrative burden. Will the number of trucks increase due to the mining operation at Grace Church? No. However, the impact to specific roadways may be more or less due to the source of materials for specific jobs. For example, if the source of materials for the Pioneer Trail project dictate using T.H. 169, then there would be more trucks on Pioneer Trail from a Grace Church operation. If the source of material creates a preferred route that uses Pioneer Trail from Carver County, then the Grace Church site would be of less traffic impact. We do know that if the Grace Church proposal is approved, a specific truck traffic impact will result. The comparative impact for alternate source locations will depend on each project location-- variables that cannot be pre-defined. City Council Agenda Grace Church Code Amendment Page 4 Is there a value to Eden Prairie if we can buy high quality sand locally? Not of significance in the near future. The two most mentioned projects are T.H. 312 (between C.S.A.H. 4 and Purgatory Creek) and Pioneer Trail (between T.H. 212 and T.H. 169). Both contracts have been awarded and a bid price established. The contractor may find a more profitable source of material, but State, County and City would not share in the savings. In the short-term, the City will reconstruct Eden Prairie Road/Spring Road, but the same source of materials are available. The other projects might include Columbine Road and Crestwood Terrace, but the projects are not designed at present. Crestwood Terrace would likely include only a modest amount of sand (if any) and Columbine would be a fill project and would not supply a replacement material for Grace Church. There may be some development projects that could utilize some sand,but there are not significant projects in the 2-year time frame that staff is aware of. Does it make sense environmentally to use the sand rather than pave it over? Yes. However, the policy issue is "what activities are desirable in today's urban environment." The City has historically had mining operations within the community, but at a time when traffic volumes and population density were much less. It is highly possible that the number of trucks and the operation itself will have the perception of being a nuisance to the traffic corridor and the surrounding residential property on the north side of Pioneer Trail and along Eden Prairie Road. Although the traffic analysis by the Grace Church consultant predicts satisfactory service levels at the intersections, vehicles in que behind the more slowly accelerating trucks will perceive a delay. Attachments 1. Ordinance Amending City Code 2. Grace Church proposal (May 4 and May 25, 2001) 3. Community Planning Board Minutes dated May 14, 2001 4. Staff Report dated May 11, 2001 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY NIINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 BY AMENDING SECTION 11.35 RELATING TO THE PUB-PUBLIC DISTRICT BY ADDING MINING AS A CONDITIONAL USE, PROSCRIBING THE TERMS OF SUCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. The Eden Prairie City Code shall be amended by amending Section 11.35,by adding Subds.3,4,5, 6,7 and 8 as follows: Subd 3. Conditional Uses. A. Mining Operations. Subd. 4. Conditional Use Permit Required in the Public District. It is unlawful for • any person to use land for, or to engage directly or indirectly in, Mining Operations in the Public District unless such person shall first have applied to and obtained from the Council, in the manner hereinafter provided, a Conditional Use Permit authorizing the same. Subd. 5. Permit Fees for Mining Operations. An application fee must be paid at the time of the application. Application fees shall be in such amount which has 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 and uniformly enforced. Subd. 6. Required Conditions. A. A Conditional Use Permit may only be granted subject to the following conditions. 1. The Conditional Use Permit shall be for a period not in excess of twenty four (24) months, provided, however, that the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit or Permits effective subsequent to the expiration of a previously granted Conditional Use Permit. 2. A Mining Operations Permit has been applied for and issued pursuant to Section 11.55 hereof. 5 3. The land subject to the Conditional Use Permit shall abut a public street. 4. The earthly deposits to be excavated will be used for construction projects within the City. 5. The landowner shall provide a plan, approved in writing by the City Engineer,which includes: a. Erosion and dust control and provides for adequate levels of street cleaning to deal with potential debris created by the Mining Operation. b. Traffic control measures to assure the safety of neighboring landowners and occupants. c. Restoration of the site to preexisitng conditions, including but not limited to soil density, surface contours and elevations, vegetation and drainage patterns. d. Construction of perimeter berms which screen the mining activity from adjacent property and/or roads. Such berms shall be seeded or sodded and maintained. e. Construction of a paved driveway on the site from the area of mining to the public road. f. Limiting all truck traffic to County or State roads with a minimum nine (9)ton load limit. g. A noise control plan demonstrating compliance with City Code Section 9.41. 6. Mining Operations shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., on weekdays. No Mining Operations are to be conducted on weekends or holidays. 7. The maximum surface area of any land to be excavated for Mining Operations at any one time will be limited to two (2) acres and before Mining Operations can be conducted on adjacent or additional areas subject to the Conditional Use Permit, all prior areas of excavation are to be filled and rough graded to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11.55 Subd. 6 A. 6 no crushing, washing, grinding or sifting of earthly deposits shall be conducted. 9. The landowner shall obtain approval from all other governmental entities having jurisdiction over the activities to be conducted on the site. 10. The approved land alteration and development plans for the site including the grading and tree restoration plans for the property shall not change. 11. The landowner shall reimburse the City for cost of all staff time involved in monitoring compliance with the Conditional Use Permit. 12. The minimal lot size upon which Mining Operations may be conducted is 50 acres. 13. Mining Operations shall be set back from adjacent property lines a minimum of 50 feet on all sides. Property lines shall be clearly delineated with wooden fence posts at 50 foot spacing. Subd. 7. Council Action on a Mining Operations Conditional Use Permit Application. Within a reasonable time after receipt of an application that conforms with the requirements of this Subdivision and payment of the application fee, the Council shall approve or deny issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The Council may approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to conditions to be attached to the Conditional Use Permit, and, in all cases, the time period within which the mining operations are to be completed shall be stated on the face of the Conditional Use Permit. Approval, denial, or approval subject to conditions of a Conditional Use Permit shall be based upon the following factors: 1. Whether, and the extent to which,the mining operation may create anysafety risks to surrounding persons and property or exacerbate any existing risk. 2. Whether, and the extent to which, the mining operation may cause any harm to the environment including, but not limited to, noise, dust, erosion, undue destruction of vegetation and accumulation of waste materials or pollutants. 3. Whether adequate plans have been made for restoring the site of the mining operation once the operation has ceased. 4. Whether there is a substantial likelihood that the applicant will be able to comply with the rules and regulations of Subdivision 6 of Section 11.55 and Subsection 6 of this Section 11.35. Subd. 8. Duty to obtain Bond Prior to Issuance of Mining Operations Conditional Use Permit. The Council's approval of the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit shall be contingent upon the applicant performing the following within 10 days of said approval and prior to commencement of any mining operations or preparations therefore: 1. Applicant shall post a bond or letter of credit in an amount determined by the City Engineer as sufficient to restore the site in accordance with the provisions of this Section and Section 11.55. Subd. A. 15 The bond shall be for the benefit of the City only. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 5th day of June, 2001, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said Council on the day of , 2001. ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on Community Planning Board Minutes May 15,2001 ; ! Page2 1'4 DRAFT 1 ;, IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. GRACE CHURCH-CODE AMENDMENT by Grace Church Request for amending City code to allow for mining as a conditional use within the Public Zoning District. Location:Pioneer Trail and Eden Prairie Road. Chair Corneille opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Bob Solfelt 10508 Bluff Road, has been a member of Grace Church for over 35 years. They will relocate in about 18 months. They are here to request an amendment of the city code to allow for mining as a conditional use within a public zone. They are currently located on 53rd and France; 250 families of 6,500 members are located in Eden Prairie. Solfelt detailed a chronology of the project, beginning with the land purchase in 1998. Construction is on schedule with 300,000 of the approved 600,000 feet are currently being constructed. The church will be open for worship and community service in September, 2002. Braun Intertec and their excavator made them aware of an unusually large quantity of granular soils on the site. They believe the soils should be used. Loren Braun with Braun Intertec said he has been with the company 9 years and has 20 years of experience in soils. Sand is not frost-susceptible and is therefore a valuable building material in Minnesota. It is rare to find this much sand in one area. The intent is to mine the sand and replace it with compacted clay. Solfelt noted he was aware of concerns with soil exchange and the current code. Grace Church has constructed a berm 8 feet above the road bed. Construction on the site is not visible. A backhoe, frontloader, and dump trucks would be used to haul the mined materials. They will not be seen by the public. The staff report mentions the Maple Grove mine. The conditional use permit request states they will excavate in 2-acre increments, at 24 feet, and replacing them within 30 days with soils. Sand could go immediately to construction sites and be replaced immediately with other soils. This is not a for—profit venture. They have incurred stormwater and sewer charges, and charges associated with the increased NURP pond. The church could offset these costs with mining the sand. The improvements assessment is about $8 million. Grace Church agreed to absorb those charges. They don't believe this will set precedent and restrictions can be placed on the conditional use permit such as use of the sand within the City, 24-month restriction. Current projects in the city are utilizing sand from out of town and already generating truck traffic. Operations would take place from 9:00- 4:00 p.m. The original grading plan will be followed. Franzen stated Grace Church received Council approval for a master plan for a 600,000 square foot church campus; phase one construction is underway. The Church recently discovered the site contains a large quantity of granular soils, which it would like to mine from the site and exchange for other soils. Mining is not a permitted use under any zoning district at this time. Grace Church is requesting a city code amendment to permit mining as a conditional use in the public zoning district. The city adopted mining regulations in 1969; mining is not a permitted use because it is I ! ^j f i Community Planning Board Minutes May 15,2001 DRAFT I Page 3 • incompatible with a developed or developing urban/suburban'area.'Ci f Codl allows Council to issue mining permits if it is a permitted use under the zoning code or if the mining operation is a proper non-conforming use. The problem with adopting a provision for conditional use permits are the code uses performance standards for regulating land uses. Conditional use permits as a rule make application of performance standards in the code less meaningful. Conditional use would change the use of adjacent properties and impact existing residents and businesses. Conditional use permits require annual renewal and regular inspection for compliance, creating an ongoing administrative burden for the city staff. The code amendment affects 1200 acres of land zoned public within the city. Staff recommends denial of the code amendment. Fred Guille, 10060 Meade Lane, Eden Prairie expressed support for the project and for Grace Church providing support for the community. The church is not for profit. He understands the city's concern, but a code amendment could be drafted that would protect the city and allow the church to recuperate some of their construction costs. Gary Sotebeer, 8440 Montgomery Court, moved to Eden Prairie in 1973. He and his family are members of Grace Church. The city's government makes good decisions for citizens as a whole and individuals. Grace Church is a special circumstance. Utilizing local merchandise and materials is a good decision. The term mining infers leaving holes in the ground. This is merely a soil exchange and in no way will established plans change. The church is assuming a disproportionate amount of the assessments and soil exchange will offset costs. Narrow criteria will ensure this will not set a precedent. He asked the Board to consider this as an opportunity for a win- win situation. Edwin Sisam, 10109 Wild Duck Pass, said many decisions affecting his life have come from the Board. He is a long time resident and member of the community, and a member of Grace Church since 1976. He said the request was reasonable and important to the community. Sales will allow the church to invest back into the community. He understands Franzen is afraid of setting precedence and surrounding residents will object. Health, safety, and welfare of surrounding residents are not negatively impacted. This is not a change from the approved plan. The community benefit includes utilization of a local resource and fewer emissions and roadway wear. He read #9 from the staff report and explained it illustrated there is no rational basis for denial of the request. Mike Haug, not a resident of the community, is chairman of the Board for the church. Grace Church intends to be a good neighbor. There is a concern about disruption to neighbors during the process. They will work with the neighbors. The church will make a positive impact in the community. The engineer said it was the best site he had seen in 28 years. They will craft the conditional use permit in such a way as to minimize concerns. They believe it is incumbent upon the city to be good stewards for the resource and that divine intervention led them to the building site and its resources. Ken Clinton, 9115 Victoria Drive, would like the Board to consider some history in Eden Prairie. He understands the concern about setting precedence with conditional /0 Community Planning Board Minutes May 15,2001 Page 4 .1 I DRAFT I `. 1 • 1 use. The Board has seen many changes and found many ways to worls,_witli;difficult=-• issues. He asked the Board to consider past difficult issues and allow Grace Church to operate as they had proposed. Come up with a set of standards, restrictive to those afterwards. It will not be open mining. John Marshalla, 17039 Claycross Way, Eden Prairie, is a member of Grace Church and the community. He is here to express support for the conditional use permit; it would be wrong to waste the resource. There was no further public comment. Corneille asked for discussion from the Board. Stoelting asked staff about what the current code stated relating to mining or proposed soil exchange. Franzen stated mining is defined, but the code does not list mining as a permitted use. An ordinance was adopted to regulate existing mines (mines that existed before ordinances). Anyone can come before the city and ask for an amendment to the code. Foote inquired how much control the city has over regulating a conditional use permit. Franzen said that would need to be considered at the time of the permit. The current request is to amend the code. The Board would need to consider widespread impacts to the entire city if the code were to be changed. Public lands are situated near residential areas; typical mining operations cause environmental impacts. Nelson said allowing mining is a serious code change. Eden Prairie already has a dump and an airport. Saying mining is okay could affect the perception of the quality of life. The entire concept of allowing mining is not to be taken lightly and would need to be considered over time. She is concerned about the environmental hazards and widespread affects. She lived in a community that allowed gravel mining and it was • not an asset. She does not want it in the community. Stock inquired whether staff was assuming mining would take place in public areas. Franzen noted the code change would affect any area zoned public. It applies to any piece of property zoned anywhere in town. If the code is amended they could apply for a conditional use permit. Attorney Ric Rosow stated it is not a request to allow a conditional use permit for Grace Church to mine. It is a code amendment to allow mining in the public zone. The particulars of the permit are not before the Board. The Board must evaluate the request based on a widespread zoning impact. One particular parcel cannot be zoned for one particular use. I I Community Planning Board Minutes r t . May15,2001 T }DR AF ', Pages Koenig asked whether there was a possibility that anothetzoning..c iasstfieation would"4. request mining. Franzen said the old mining operations were located in the Golden Triangle area where sites would be developed industrial. Mining is not a permitted use and only took place before regulations existed. Brooks asked Solfelt about the financial impact of the value. Solfelt said likely $1 to $2 per yard. On the site there are between 500,000 to 1,000,000 yards of sand. Brooks noted there is a significant dollar amount here that warrants study by the city to see the effects of changing the zoning. • Franzen asked for clarification. Brooks stated specifically he was wondering about the potential impact on the city of other sites that could be mined. Franzen said some land zoned public has structures, some does not. There are about 1500 acres zoned public. There are also small pockets between 5 and 40 acres scattered throughout the city that are still open. Corneille said first the Board must decide whether to change the zoning to allow mining in land zoned public. Brooks said it was difficult to address until they knew the impact on the city by allowing this to take place in certain areas. Koenig asked if all public land was tax exempt. Franzen said lands with public uses would be tax exempt, such as churches and schools. Koenig noted there would be wear and tear on the infrastructure; taxpayers will have to support the infrastructure if there are problems. Grace Church will not pay for it, residents will. Corneille asked if conditional use permits were used anywhere else in the city. Franzen stated only in the MCA (Major Center Area). The landowner could use their property to pay taxes until someone came along and developed the property (such as using a home for an office). It was an interim use compatible and consistent with the area and guide plan. The city is one of a handful of communities keeping land zoned rural until it became part of the comprehensive plan. 12, Community Planning Board Minutes May 15,2001 RAF Page 6 J Rosow noted the issue is one of timing. There are performance-staii;ElatTs-for changing rural land to a different zoning. Conditional use permits can come at any time. Foote stated he does not want this from a mining perspective,but from a benefit to the city he can see it. The mining question must be answered first and he cannot support it. Stoelting inquired about past practice of conditional use approval. Franzen noted only in the MCA, around the Eden Prairie mall, with land-use transitions. There was a long-term vision for the area; this allowed residents to use their property for uses currently allowed by zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Brooks asked what percentage of public land was already developed. Franzen stated he was uncertain. A development could exist on 5 acres while the property could be 30 acres. Nelson asked whether this would allow them to conduct mining in the future, or development would preclude it. Mining creates a huge mess. The city has always protected its land and wetlands. Would we want someone to start mining the river bluffs? This could create problems if a more valuable resource was discovered in another area. Motion by Stoelting, second by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 8- 0. The public hearing closed at 8:13 p.m. Motion by Nelson, second by Koenig for denial of the request for amending City code to allow for mining as a conditional use within the Public Zoning District according to the recommendations of the staff report dated May 11, 2001. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Corneille, Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Seymour, Stoelting, and Stock voting"aye."Brooks,voted "nay," 7-1. 13 STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Michael D.Franzen, City Planner DATE: May 11,2001 SUBJECT: City Code Amendment to Permit Mining as a Conditional Use in the Public Zoning District APPLICANT/: Grace Church LOCATION: South of Pioneer Trail, east of Eden Prairie Road,west of Spring Road REQUEST: 1. Amending City Code to Permit Mining as a Conditional Use in the Public Zoning District. • Iy Location Map Grace Church \, A ./j2i ,)...,,..> '.',.,::_ '<,.._n'- •.-,.,t•-„,-..i.L..._h_ii• • --.) .1.:_____/.\-• ,,,,-/N, (11---,,,, ,--, .,,, )..--_-_,--7 r--7---7 i• . i,,,\•41:. , .,..ii . r-,•„\f... . , .,.• - •.,,,, __A, '-‘,';',./ 'N \\ ../e . --/ ,--... ./ t •,-,, • ^,'... C' .,..>KA.v, vly.' L--',',.,„ ,------I , 1,' •;7.---1 '\., i ..' f. V-:- --• I. . !li• ''';':;:-.',../ (''''.-'',,,,,,,> <-'',;.,, :'. --- .i-- ---7;,.., '1, r1-2_,--117.--I'r-1 \ '..,7" ''s.,-. ,.....-e'N,'-fr-s, : 7.1---1---1-- \ ,,------, •1 -1 I• \•, -•••• .11 7,,..„......'"' • '• ' --,..- i '... ''' '''.,-c,---- if ‘kl.:11 ._.] = :, j Lic....;..., '''.. ---„..4, .\ %.•`.'ll' ' ;____i 4---- . .1`,1"\''. .-, "17---s----•s•-, e; '''>:;„_jL>f r---kril V,i,,,..k.\• ---••,-.../1.-----3._ .',....‘____.- i____.1' - - •''''. \-1 - ,...„„.••• •- j------, :f• •,--,),,_..,:!,-.,,,,;',.22,----k. ./. .2_,...„., ..„. c......L,A__.1,•,:,...‹,.--.-..„ . ., -----• • • .. ' 11 ....... ..--• i ..,,.•-1: -,-• I ' , • , .._ . ...„..... .„„.....t.,....A 1, • -. Li• 1:•••;<-1 -1. II '. ...,.,.../ ,------'7--i' !. '-•-/'-''''1'..1 :''II.' - \‘--;.."/'.r-- .-1-11----r.. !----,.--,r--,-,---_,,,, .,\,./,.,, , ,. . ..... 1 ..7: In- 1 ;; if ),. , ii v \•,___,.,.._. .,( • /H. p i ILLI, ..._,z___L, . . , ___...,........... .___,,,..___ 7 • ___ ..._-‘ i 11 il 11____,) 1 • •' '------• .' '.. -. :• ! . •••• . .. . I .; --11. , --. • • -1-s ----, k•It .,•-•" ... •.------•,',--;-;=-' F-'''''•T' 1,7---- T••••:,: ; •,• ) , / •/- t . 1i . ., • - -• _,..._-..,-,k__,-.. . ,-11---------"--'- 1 — 1 . -4.--,f. -.--..-------r- -1i -1 - - 1,-----1-1, -r--71f---.7.- v , - -......-- 7-- --.7 ' . . • IIP :' 1 1.---1-,-,-,-.1' 11- ''. 1 !' Y's?.. ‘'. il. .L.L.5_,/,. i,,,:-.;,,,i,_13,y-i , L..: .. , :....__•. -,. .• ) i ,,,,;-..,-,\,,, - ,r----7, . l' l• , 1.• •,-----. --' ; .)----„ __... • 1 •,,,,,...„-k- __.'• -••.,.____AN.:.2.---.------ i•-__:-...1 ',-•-••• . '• F 'Ll! I '. ../'-''''' ' ' 1. Lc • '' , .1,•..,..,...,, ,,..----7.---7r-----71 4-..-.,-.,: . I— ,,,,,,,,,•..,.., . , ,.• L____. -,•,..,..,----.77 11 i....,,-,7-"D LI•F.,..-------, •!•••, . "L.---H11----I-4 J.: ' a ,:`,.:"'„,21 !::::-.•?:." • • ,_ 7---,-'lt----:-:-.1 • • • 7, ',.-:-..;::..". , ---•'----"---'--7- __- :, ' • : ,,'..- . ,. r7 I ,' '- ' i-] 1' .i • • .,•—i.‘--4:,Y 1,,,."'F1E721'11L-1 ------, • `'..c..M--,-'',-""""•,.[ 1 ,1.• • ' ', ,- •"'"'" I. ..' ...••s'•• It:::j; - . 1 IN'''''''-', ' • - .r.,--L-111-----.• '' 4 -'--i F:. 11„' '.-. '.1...,,,,, . 1,', .• . . 7."71'•r-'1, . .r.:=,.JT,I. ., __I,... • ,,f"--. ,',' - -1 -----. . 7 j i• ' ,.....,• .. ..,.. : ....,. ..1 ..i..,,,..----...• . .. ... . _:. •,.:. :. • ..-4...,---.--.. . . " . ,, — ,..,------- ..,',.. /,'77 --,,,,,„„j• . ----,---..-...., ;,----:,,,,.. ,-.,.....,- .„, ... . '-' • ril'11-71 ' — _'' .'. .' -...• ' '• ' FLI Li, -- ..• .. trdlo , : 1FILL_'•-•_._„ ••/. .. ..., ! . . - .,.,„,- ,..„ • . .. , ._......_. , •...„-,--_____r____: ..; .. -: ... •.:, . ••••-- 71 • .. r__•2\-E•5•I 1-7.---,-71,, • - i ,:,---„...,.... ..1 .:•:-.-:, :•... - Li . I. • ' 1 ' i .... . _............_---/r_i• 7.-----,,„......,,. -... . ,,,, .• .. •----.--, . : • 1,,..-,,,;,/___,. ,. •,• !,... r--,----T .i.--7-7.7 ' ' l' ''. i 'i. • I '.' :1*-,...,'1...1454..,-••[:,,,, i!r71.'.. ......:.'::.• !ff,•-ii" ,--',1, il,•''. i , -,LL)'41 •6--------,, .,,,..: //,.: ,J•y ),'r-EjL,..',.:;.' \ J.....•,,:;;,..:',..•,.-•,,,„,,,,,i.,,,.. : ...'•' , ....• • '•'• , . i„., ...,-, . .. . , . . , . ,,,,...144:k.014;./eei.,, - •,. . ....•,•'' ,.---(-,-,,,,),.----, '7. .--;---:- i., IR\ '---1,-,:. . ''')• '17':71' ii' 1i :.-- --:• 11----. ---1 - , ' ' • 1. ' t 441 1'4''11-1/4)'1.4. ' ' . i , '• . 1..-•:;-4. :1--O:, ,.--4,- ---r•-1• •;..„,,,..,,:z . 4., .......:1,, . ,, 44, if, i, . ,... r:.:',• !..:. ' ''. • 'II l''''''1,' ' .'''! ' ".,,` '''''''' •.: ''''t,''; ' p...-,to,..----_-,.... 1'.z-z':-•,,,h.•.'•/•.---..-,..7:': 1•••-••• . 'C P ''''.' ". ' '' ' ' 1. .k•-• • --•kii.‘,4,,,.. . ; `' • ' '...../ •••••:•- --\ k--7.,"'•••,•-,. ",--4,; P 1 • 1 - ••• • -• .,___.L.-:,...-7.1'• :_,--1....._.,t.,.,_,....,..,_ c ..,!... -'1.1: . ;el-14',-V1.i1 ,il'if1r.,: , .' .14•<./' 'r-----7:77,---77.-.. ----,,,...-..).••^,---• • ,/' ./,'-' ''''--:--.'''''•,,,..1-• --I. - ----- -- 1-777177177: ". r' fir 1-,. l''4. '". . 7 I ''',146.c,-- i. .,i1.":•••".!..eilfe:7•4:;;;."4 i-•.-;•„.-- .., '' it_ ii. _ •,i A' ',,7"--,- . '-fr '',; -','..-,.,/,1 f,- ,;-. 11', •. k.,', ' ',F • .] ''.,:=1••• -•1'.,1•1"4;;;-tiiv--A...-- ;L--..-..----- z,.• ---/ .• ,,,.._ /,•• /,' /,' .'k"--.:i •';"---k-,,, -.;, /•- t• /,.• 1,,,,, , -,...,,j,.,i,' : .. WO: -.41,1,,4,•-•'•.uk r.4 •1, - '•.''• ••• -•• •,.,.•:-•• '.•--•••-•.:„.../',',- -.. • ',/,• /,';' ,.....i.., .7./../:-..•-• ., . •./4,--;..,,:•...' :.•;; . l• ,:.' 11•1:..1,:,. .-4.1,'.•ir',.1'. • I.:.1[ . .1 '' ''''' I. '0.AttA 'N))01.-,'4',; .It,14 .1 , ' :....:...,-• `......1111-,....-.... -,..,..., •-•/,1• 1' 1•"1/..c --,11,„.',../ -i1.11.....,/,' /11. / '•:.r:''. ) •,11.1,. • 1, '':"••••-!,:',",'11:'':-!;..';'..•.. • :1-..::l•''''r-: '1;'1:r''..1 1.1/,• 1 .'''> • 1b ;,,,,,' . 1-1,!:11:-.. t,"17',.,-',,,. ',11_' ••;,.. : .1.. ,,,.. ,'.....::'1•7-,:..'s.:'-:-1• ,.._,,,, s•<'''''-'1:11'..in/1'•,.,'/;',/.,''ir::::;.:,/,,i,,,..,1/‘,,.../i.z,,,..,./•;'..,:<:-...-'''',1h''''''N/.'•1. :' ;±;_il'..,,1 •. '1'r:'L.• [2 ...--,..t . , - ..Y.L,..4 ,r,,,-V.;:;:i4-Y,'..•°. ••,':.'....,' - .. ' ..- -.. ,.•,-. •••.. .-'4.,=,-.,......- .,il..j.,..', 4...7/-- -7..• ,,.,.....•:••• , k, •,y, . •-----..4----7"FirTz7-‘ ,a0 • - _ •••• • . ••-...„ • .- , /, ,- ,,,,, 7 • ••,,,,,••• E.-;....',-1,.., i-.. I -,. I.,.-• . ,milt .. •,:,•„,. •;:t••• iril •,••,,,.•••%,,,,,t40,:•••, • . . • •••• • ..• • •-. ---• ••:--• ..•', ' '7.''''''.4:;.,..: Vj,,.„1"••• i'''/.. .1 '''N<,:j t•-•-:;--i',2....- ',..I; L...i......•-: ..,... ... •,-41,--042.1„.,!,,.4. .. ,,,j 't .„... ,.•.. 1.-4.0•c : - . ', . .•.':. , • -. 1.- -.-., .- -.- ,,•,4 „. ,:. /f... •,••• . :;,—i.....1",1-.: 'r7._.' " r..-ir=i--=----r; ;.. 17(''4,T.V, "- ;': ''i bi, ......):a.:;...k • .. ' .• ' . - .- .. .,.--. •.- ' - . . 1. • . . `• ..- ii. /".... -'-' ,•••, rITI -7-1‘13.".• !'''' '1•/',./1-, ...':-'-'514t,i14'.,•74.,•.i .ze,,A.I.T:.;7‘4,,i,- .s, .=..-,,,,,,,, 2 .. -.;,,........ , , : !-,...,...,::.::, -•-,:......,......,,, ,. -••,..,,.-;,,,,,--..:,,,,,, ..:,2..... ,4,,;„.„,. J.„......ii..•:- .:•:,-..,.i4,,._•_.4.,..4.,,,..„../ix.,, 1.•.,,...2f,,,,... _..$-,..,,,%•.14.4.4p.1....,•0:::..., ,A.i-.4. .„. , , . ..,•,,...„.-.,...,,....,. .., , .• ,.,,.... .. , . , - , -- -,•.• ., ..--,-,. -.. -....,...•-,,,,,,, ,I., ..- '..-'.:,.• .. . ,• ..11....--..,...,...,./ttr•.,.- 1 t.m: .t. , .:.4-,-., -,''!,r,ip.i., :0. -.;.'-'•, .,- ' ...2 ..;::,,,,,..'...- ;:,..!,..'.; 2,,. 'I. .:, . . :..• . : , - . .. ., , ..,.,,,,,,,,,,,, :',.,.:,, c-''':.• ',--,.' :`,-,' '!;':',1_,H-:-.C.t '''-, II.'14---i;kNiTI:i4,1441't.;.,-`:,4-6:14.;''... ;SU '' ' ' ":'.••-' - "'!-''''•''"T ' .--.-''''':':::-:''''-''-- •..•' --' •'''''.... . ' • • ' ' '' ' '•"''''. 2 i•"'"'' I- . •-- 1:..'"' I.'',.'0..c---L.,' : .-. '-''.,',;-',,%,,f7,.,14.i,..a,-,1.14-ce'..i:*!.-.,4-......,.-•.,k'e.,'„,10 Ct.:, . . '. - ';'.:-. .•.' ''.',.•-•-;' .,'-- . ,.7,- !. . r ' --,s.--.;--,.,..-:,...; ..: , ...',.-.•--.,:.,'.- ,-, ..i,-:-•-II ' 1-,.-.'-',,..- 1 V.10,.•'.•••' -. .,-:•••,:544 ;', ,:i,:1:11P,-4..4 .....1,147,, -. ..•.',. •... - • .'"";.•.: •• . 'i ,.'.' •' • • ' ,' 1 ' • .•' •• - , •.-• ..:': -: L...•::-',.:'--•-•';'--"--! 'I: -' '. .••,' i:• ' z.N#,-*•.,.•-,'--•• •' :"• • ..•. \',.\-f.,''• :1•.k..-,i.v.,;';::,,,,t1 , .-,..t..k,•-•.,:f..., .4.a., • . . . ,:.-.-,-,.,...-- ,,,,,,L,_ ..•_:______LL__.,,,___,„:„. .._.,.. ,.r., .4.,,,,,______.___,_7_,„_,7__...._. :' •'••-, I::••.• •,,,k,", ;'.' .• • • • . .•k.c•,•,.\ikk .y.lyki,;•••44,r,e;b1,-,; 1-34,„;:,,4": ir,L,_,_-_-_,.:_,;,.,;.;, -...,.„,..---,,7--- ..:----7-7. , :, -..:.,.,,...1:.,,,,.: -:::..,-. ..•:,•.,•.,..i.,,:i.-,,,,:' '',..,- ',''''',• . I:•./V:;',-''' •: -.•:.i.• ',:V'••-::. - '4.':t'il.'-''''...i t''.'',0Iti, . -:1"; . ' ' ..,..-:-... '-,-:-;.--2.. ••'-.-.,- •'-.- .:' ..•.' .....:,, .'..',---.',•,-,,., :'., .- :-:,.•4;::i..•...,..•...--'' -•.:.L'.'.-.--*-ta------ -.,4..--'.-4,'::....'...---,. ....- .'' '','-. ---..-z-:•141.-,'.'.:•i4-4t$''''' '...'404-41P ''.'' ' - -'•'.•'•,-• :---i . : •'.' ' -•: -.--. ' • ',..'.-:'•':-.,•;!.-.•:','.1-.'',-'...:.--.:..,•:','-'1'-'•,-•''!,,, ,• , •,....A.,,,..::.:... .:.:-.,,,..,...' .• • .,, .,-..,'.-.,,-;,,,.; s...„'•41,i'. `t ..'''.','''‘,..0.:* , T.•. ' , -',,,„_ ,... ,r,. , ,,,, , ,' . , . •,, .,• . .., ,• . ,,''•'...,,,,', ,„. '',i4in,-;'31''',SP-',1... ',• .,. ' . ,"'•' ' .'...,. •,:-,. ,,.' : ,, .,,,i ...,. :„..., ..-•:• , ..•'•'._, - , • ,.• .•.•,•• ', .;,, ,,-, 4,..9. ;441 • •',' • ,,' , . :, int•,,,••-• '-':•".:. ••'; .. i:..,*•••••,':' ',• .. . ;•,!' • • ', :- • •,: '' '1','' ' . '•. :.,,'. .‘',N,k41,;J:',',:p:'.1it,1,,,Ifi',:,1 ;: ...,, ; '.: , .• . . . ., , ''''' '',"5•1•!1.' ''li-.2,: •:-.•:' -':'",: ''' • 'l'... •'::. -,,.':!.:':.•.^t,-, • ,-._'''.,,,N,"4>!„,c l'41- :'II,.' -.' ' •••••• . . '''',!.• '',,r,,ir,,-Ii:9...../A.,„;.,,••:,' ',...‘;',,`,..,:,,,'':,,,:,: .:':': ' ---'-'7±7- --,,,,,- ----';'4.------7-7-77-7.7.77).,,' 1.1,-,•. -•'" ••'••' ., ,..•:' •,!.' ' •.,•'',, •k,.. ..' • - .7. '• . . • ',....-•'.;,k,•,k',.;',.,•..,:;. - • . •..-‘• ._ .••..•- .. , • - 1 .. ••••• - .' • ;• • . • . •, ° • . ...• • . .. • ,. . •.. -• •, •,, . . , . .• . . .•. ..,, . • . . . . , . ' - ' ‘ , '• ' ' -' . ' I • • - ' .\ • •• . . . 1 . . '.- .'• .-• - ...' '' •' ' .. . ,,. . . \,.:' •". '-•'.. .. •. ;- . . . . •;., . , ; , . • \•,\,,1/4. :. .. : • ,. ...-• :. .;'... . ... . . • -\,.\.•:•-_,, • t, • . -•,; • • .---7-.-7.---• ---kk-7----.- . . --\ ,1 • .-, • , • •-• - .. _ 1,,•,••••----'+' )'----- r;•,....„. ...; J .: -, • - ,•,....____-.• .•. --'`,,, • , ....:',1 ______ - --7 ',' • , . . ./ •i. - , '---t-,'-.'--,. 74. 1 • - • . • ..x, ----,-,-.7 -.• , ..- :i . .. \ I . „:-/' ' ,-,%„,"../ ,-, \• • I . . .. - f \: • .-.. 1 ,...- .. .• . ,„ .,1 . - ._•_• ,.. • ,. z.z...._ .,__________ ---,•____,I. _____,____•.r — -_---.7.--, .. , , .,,k•, 1,. I... .••:. , , _. • ,„ . .., ••., ••,,, i• I Staff Report—City Code Amendment to Permit Mining as a Conditional Use in the Public Zoning District May 11,2001 BACKGROUND Grace Church received City Council approval of a master plan for a 600,000 square foot church campus in 2000. Phase one construction is underway. The Church recently learned that the site contains a large quantity of granular soils,which it would like to mine from the site and exchange for other acceptable soils. Mining is not a permitted use under any zoning district at this time, and there is no current mining operations taking place. In order to mine the granular soils from the property, Grace Church is requesting that the City Code be amended to permit mining as a Conditional Use in the Public Zoning District. HISTORY OF MINING OPERATIONS IN THE CITY The Golden Triangle area of the City between 494,212, and 169 was actively mined, starting in the early 1960's,with the last operation finishing in 1984. The city adopted mining regulations in 1969. These regulations were adopted to regulate the existing uses. The code does not list mining as a permitted use because it is deemed incompatible with a developed or developing urban/suburban area. CITY CODE—MINING OPERATIONS The City Code defines Mining Operations as"any artificial excavation of the earth within the limits of the City operated for the commercial exploitation of earthly deposits removed therefrom and creating a depression or depressions exceeding in any one place 200 square feet of surface area,the bottom or lowest point of which shall be 2 feet or more below or lower than the level of the adjoining unexcavated land." City Code only allows the Council to issue permits for mining if the mining operation is a permitted use under the zoning code, or if the mining operation is a proper non-conforming use. CITY CODE PERMITTED USES—CONDITIONAL USES Eden Prairies City Code, Chapter 11,Zoning Regulations is based on two important concepts. 1. Zoning is considered on the basis of the Comprehensive Guide Plan for the area and specific plans for structures and site development. 2. Currently, conditional use permits are used only in connection with restricted temporary use of existing houses in the MCA PUD and defined by legal description. These homes can be used for commercial and office uses until such time that the land is ready to develop consistent with the guide plan. Staff Report—City Code Amendment to Permit Mining as a Conditional Use in the Public Zoning District May 11,2001 Not only is zoning in conformance with the Comprehensive Guide State Law,it has been a practice in the City since 1969. All land is kept in the Rural Zoning District,until such time that the city deems the land ready and appropriate to develop in accordance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. This practice gives the City appropriate control over the use of the property. Conditional use permits were invented for cities which have all of the lands zoned in advance of development. Thus, conditional use permits allows such cities to place additional restrictions on permitted uses,which could belong in a district,but only under certain conditions. For example, a gas station may be a conditional use and the permit would have conditions to minimize the impact of traffic,noise,lights, and smells. There are two problems with adopting a provision for conditional use permits. 1. The City code uses performance standards for regulating land uses rather than conditional uses permits. Conditional use permits will make the application of performance standards less meaningful.Existing residents or businesses purchased property on the basis of adjacent •properties having specific permitted uses with performance standards. Conditional uses would change the use of adjacent properties and impact existing residents and businesses. 2. Conditional use permits require annual renewal and inspection for compliance on a regular basis,creating an ongoing administrative burden. MAPLE GROVE MINING The City of Maple Grove has a 2,000 acre area designated on the Comprehensive Plan as a mining district,with a future land use designations for office,commercial,residential,and industrial uses. The mining started in the 1950's. The mining operated for years with little impact on the community since there were few homes or businesses in the area. As Maple Grove grew and development became closer to the mining area,the Maple Grove has reported to staff that it has been receiving complaints about debris,noise, dust and traffic. POTENTIAL CITY WIDE IMPACTS The request to amend the City Code for a conditional use permit for mining in the Public Zoning District carries with it implications for Citywide impacts. 1. There are 1,146.93 acres(97 parcels)of land zoned public in the City. These lands are close to lakes, wetlands, creeks, residential areas, churches, and schools. A mining operation would create an undesirable impact on such uses and environmentally sensitive areas. Staff Report—City Code Amendment to Permit Mining as a Conditional Use in the Public Zoning District May 11,2001 2. If the Code is amended to allow mining as conditional use in the public district, this will make it difficult to develop a rational basis to deny a request for mining as a conditional or permitted use in all other zoning districts. This would further impact all existing homeowners,businesses, and environmentally sensitive areas in the City. 3. Mining is inherently accompanied by noise and dust, often creates hazardous conditions and results in extended disfigurement of the places where it is carried on. 4. Mining will interfere with the existing land uses in nearby areas and delay further permanent development of the surrounding properties. 5. Mining will impair adequate planning and or municipal development. 6. Mining will diminish the public health, safety, and general welfare. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • The staff recommends that the Community Planning Board recommend denial of the code amendment to the City Council for the following reasons. 1. A mining operation would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 2. Mining is inherently accompanied by noise and dust, often creates hazardous conditions and results in extended disfigurement of the places where it is carried on. 3. Mining will interfere with the existing land uses in nearby areas and delay further permanent development of the surrounding properties. 4. Mining will impair adequate planning or municipal development. 5. Mining will diminish the public health, safety, and general welfare. 6. The amendment would conflict with the Citys'practice of zoning considered on the basis of the Comprehensive Guide Plan for the area and specific plans for structures and site development. 7. Conditional use permits require annual renewal and inspection for compliance on a regular basis, thus creating an ongoing administrative burden. 8. There are 1,147.93 acres of land zoned public in the City. These lands are close to lakes, wetlands, creeks,residential areas, schools parks, and churches. Mining is an incompatible use next to such uses and environmentally sensitive areas. 9. If the Code is amended to allow mining.as conditional use in the public district,this will make it difficult to develop a rational basis to deny a request for mining as a conditional or permitted uses in all other zoning districts. This would further impact all existing homeowners,businesses, and environmentally sensitive areas in the City. . r `6 0 Memorandum Immo Eden Prairie To: Community Planning Board From: Leslie A. Stowing,Environmental Coordinator Date: May 10,2001 Re: Mining operations within Public Districts Mining operations within the watershed for a lake, wetland or creek could potentially impact the water quality within these water bodies through air deposition or stormwater runoff. When land is cleared or disturbed, erosion and dust production increases. This type of activity would also generate a certain amount of debris. Many of the City's wetlands, lakes and creeks are within or adjacent to public districts, where the mining activities are proposed. In addition, many of our higher quality wetlands are within or adjacent to relatively undeveloped subwatersheds or public districts. Wetlands are typically the lowest point within a subwatershed and thus receive runoff conveyed or discharged from areas within the watershed. The watershed includes not only the water resource, but also the surrounding land from which the runoff drains. As this runoff runs over the open mines or associated impervious surfaces, it picks up and transports pollutants to the wetlands, lakes or creeks with little or no treatment. In addition, the dust and debris could also follow the downslope pattern of the watershed and be transported to the water resources through wind or deposition. Materials that could potentially leave the mining areas and be washed or deposited into the water resources include dust, sediment, and debris that settle out of the water and onto the plants, rocks and the bottom. Sediment or stormwater runoff typically contain nutrients; engine oils and greases; rubber and metal deposits from tire wear; antifreeze; heavy metals from truck exhaust, brake linings,weathered paint and rust; and sediments. Debris could include discarded cups,plastic bags, cigarette butts and other litter transported by runoff or wind. Nutrients, such as phosphorus, metals and other chemicals readily bond to soil particles, allowing transportation through dust and wind. Each of these materials has the potential to impact the water quality and floristic diversity of the water resources within the subwatershed where the mining is occurring. While all of these issues are a concern and must be addressed with all development,mining by its nature and scope can prolong the activity and increase the potential for adversely impact wetlands, creeks, and lakes. The tracking of material out on roadways due to the higher expected volume of trucks involved in the operation results in sediment carried into the storm sewer system to lakes wetlands and creeks. Impacts could include such things as: • Shading out of native vegetation • Clogging of fish gills with silt/sand, • Smothering of fish spawning areas with silt/sand, • Smothering of macroinvertebrates and other organisms on the bottom, • Changes in water chemistry • Interference with photosynthesis and growth by metals and pesticides, • Decreased aesthetic value, • Increased algae blooms, and • Increased susceptibility to invasive species. • DO MEMORANDUM0 - To: Mike Franzen Through: From: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer Date: May 10, 2001 Subject: Impacts from Mining Operations in Public Zoning Districts m Trairie From an engineering perspective,there are three potential impacts associated with traffic from mining operations. 1. Traffic Capacity. Heavy trucks have slow acceleration rates which result in their traffic impact exceeding that of the average vehicle particularly at intersections controlled by signals or stop signs. Loaded trucks require larger gaps in traffic to enter onto arterial roadways from minor streets and must often "pass" on gaps that other vehicles may safely utilize. Loaded trucks utilize more time to accelerate from the stop condition at signalized intersections reducing the number of vehicles proceeding through a single phase in their lane. 2. Safety. When the percentage of heavy commercial trucks increases an increase in accident rate often occurs. This is partially related to drivers of other lighter vehicles performing operations such as lane changes that they might otherwise not attempt. 3. Structural Capacity. Residential and minor collector streets in residential neighborhoods are not designed to support heavy commercial operations. Except for during new home construction, these streets see only a few heavy commercial vehicles per week. The trips associated with a mining operation may significantly shorten pavement life since these heavy loads are the most important factor in pavement design. • Several public zoning districts are within or near residential areas. Mining operations could result in the magnification of the above described impacts in these areas. AG.Mining Operations Impacts 05-10-01 ainnii�:��!,;°�.cc .•�-' '1=Ei'i, olr' y��' 111?►..........�.r1 - ♦�,'n a1k a �'. IliP 3.1l' .�'l�,`j; IV 1i:J_ ■ .lr_... : / � I� • {11 1 m.all/_ %IIII» �..,' lu• b • I♦pi.•-D I'- t ii: 15 I< J'�ia\�17Qoi. `CI -','•`:='=•�r'i.•.nnili%s ',a !`�I l�u./ /:.. r .ul���}%�� �/�_���► �..s Tir b�� O/-'-� �'•.�I/ll;;r lix lgritim nr uu a 11,6: °�- ;♦ v . t :! I- /i �A �l:. � I 1'vY / '1Y �ij•a1 . • �.� t��.allulll�..(uO eII .-1 �1/�/ �•,�-' :1 01-,1 ' 11�R 01 1 'ng Ii o. :rro■t�.:■-_ /� gin, Iltl ; : I, :441 t��� =� �Pi: ;A•;,. '�' Lh%('�� Ill ,.;...:;'Far_. �,.E�.:,.•;\�:YIlY 4.,, � � ■� ii..„ ;o, '►mil: ^lit �. //. •-5:t::,• r■■ai;6v - `r- I� c amid",. 111� :'%�-nQ/.�r'.ai_n■I ' rirl li lllil -.�♦ u������t''..1.�.t1:; 4ir,n�\���allun`�- � ��L� 1 �C v/ 1 ��,,, :rii• •1r (Irll• �I..: Gra-:^.....\.�♦.��3.",�: Uq': 7:7_u,'..�r�p .��.��,� \ itteak!!;. pvd tr a)f)(`t;ae• :,�,�`� 4 •,e': vl •�7f -.},.._:ae.ea=.:._�,/nn � gy�I�Y1 d.it I eigi.,;SP• �:_- �1 /,. !Em -- 1.,. V ^- . 1� :II PiI�i r �� .:. ::L e-'- ,../';?� a da� s� .�_.'_1i;..�71jp' r0i°nm�'-_a_i•�,�o= ►:, IP •a ► ��"'ll F;;Tq.:,;.•,•'.! r i �lal 1�-i"' ................... FA• 4, �, .& • `♦+ �"a,a"i. i Atrial imm ,p "°din-, ••iite. ' 1 Are' N•O•♦ r e ,'��.'jis"=ml�',� ��• q� \psk.at m I'Vita 1 ■1 tdW _ -._ Ar .toss/ a,,,i�otll?1��t' �1� 1`. .--:. 11 F 7 ogli NE Ertl \II�� A' ��11 1 I r 1.livi _ C ir~*T,r fill \ . -N D :'�I �,\� ���.� '��' t � ,(� Ilii r 1,�. 1w � %. ram' 'fir `11t�„r, `,'r°bir kI���,7,44 illei6v04...,,,„autate. 1. ---,,,-.-4-*. ' ! 7<L ''�` �1► ■�1 _=' .�II;t4i;,1, �I"___ :-:;;� .. gyp .�•a��,,�>��7�� ! I� ►��'�����1�� ���*�,, �I. ,�""; y:- .►Ili ii Y� ar „�`��� ,r 1 1/ ♦ii', I !'♦i1u n ram.:“kt,. ��=. �o �s.1� •1,10Pq-iiii1P12Veig‘6 r, � I .. a�l t.`. l ►��1�-�Iiii// ';�1 ��t1-.% • r . or Ir-ilr & '11` re '(I �."�t �`[n '1 i,/ . _ 1 I,ii& i' ��*- L.��'r` �!. . . \ Ai -rIII min �`.IIJ• � ? �•� inn I \ �•. // ,' ( .; Y . I. r� v \ Gnu.) _ ::iu :�•1- 1�Y I \\' ' :;t ° / @k. •J -1� ■14�0 1 .III ..lY\.;c= 111>• -Mill pi.IIIII,1I�11\�11_..,. �.1�' Ei�: �t,�"!::{:,?.:ate., ':.nuE `•••�r�ii.,. .11111,� /_t r—�j n./,.•c In" :.• — I♦n�i�.A I ,., I ' '`: �o•7:C� Ill°III •Fh`•:�, � U G'� �;.■� �r--- .o.:I„ii.�t`♦0.._I:rY'J/ •.•♦ - �,�, r/Ui. ���"s�f:-`:;aGFE'i 1 ����N��:n'�..::� I�l.I1' �1I�:%;2» !� /�a t ►\ a �; ..i .I;: v v51= o\irOd.�1 1�►�` :.. -.. :\. 1 t J i L"mac !I, w.ro yi.M _ll/U. /. ..CII.=- ....1:Ilbr'�♦ ��♦ 1. IJII1 ( .-•� ' .' -I 1n.IIgam' � �unr - ::I: :r,•�` ♦ il,\'r, __ 11 Ip�1!ir� �11 r 1 �■$, (9;1111 : 'in ' � 'u :' .L• .1 _,, =:'a: aj.,i�_"' '(' r ..:1l�I��1�` =__ 'ICIC:= -V` I r Ilr.11� 1` .t . :\ � CIO�., 1 to;.'�11i1ur �'rr , 1.\:ii,giaLl:^'i:!, ',\witeaE ;L.,f. :.�•:.f1:3t: %;� 'y{: I,m,GA,►f.rou, simm w . iv! r• nnur^a;�rr- •9E:Ic^, R��2.•�./,1_..,0.�:.,,,..._,,:�_,� 1 ,,r4 '' V,. . i% fotpttut ,: Arg filiP'4411114 111". ti, �...: �,. 7_,..—�, all��' 1-;;do ►:, ::i ♦I lig 1 -LW. ::: -..i4-!t.t.17:71:1vi g41.1111:ifittit&:-...,,.h,.:1,164.:4101,. ;Legilytth;Rillilielign: 2.. , �- Fvpt AO ��- I -f ' �f. �I/If111I11P' �6 � I,1♦ IA 1 rI� .' �� tiv a'I" t.r 1:fj { E" ,,,.311+1 ,fr"t s'{ �F•:,,'t ♦i•.'•�.':��`�Q tiliP �-,:..,•:•.•n.;t Ib ? <:1' 1 :.! ii it I Ile � 1► // 11 1'``` Iii III / ` 14...1 41N.11,11 Parcels Zoned Public - 97 To: Scott Kipp& The Eden Prairie Planning Board 5/10/01 From: Bob Broich 9105 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie Regarding: Grace Church Conditional Use Permit for Mining Dear Scott, I am opposed to amending city code allowing mining as a conditional use within the public zoning district for the following reasons: 1. It would set a dangerous precedent for others wanting to mine in Eden Prairie. We could have gravel pits all along the bluff. I think the last mine was closed in 1986. I can't see any benefit to the city. 2. In their proposal they have a customer that wants 150,000 cubic yards of gravel immediately. To move that amount, their engineer(Benshoop&Associates)stated in a letter dated 3-28-01 that there is the potential for 300 trucks a day with a maximum of 90 trucks in any one hour(I think there is the potential of 630 trucks per day if they worked at the maximum of 90 trucks per hour between the hours of 9-4 pm) 5 days a week for 2 months. It is my understanding there is approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards of gravel on this site. Their application puts no limit on how much they might mine. If they took all 1,000,000 cubic yards at the rate they want to take the 150,000 cubic yards they would be moving 300 trucks a day, 5 days a week for 14 months. Our roads would take a terrible beating and since Grace Church is tax exempt-Eden Prairie, the county and/or the state would foot the whole bill for the wear and tear on our roads! 3. TRAFFIC—County Road I is already busy. Combine the existing traffic with the construction planned to improve Cty Rd 1 to handle the increased traffic. We don't need 300 plus extra trips a day. I think it is too much to ask of the residents in the area. 4. From an environmental stand point it might be alright to replace gravel with sandy loam etc. What about the noise pollution not to mention the truck exhaust,fuel use, wear and tear on our roads that will probably need to be fixed sooner. Braon Intertec, Grace Church's soil consultants discuss the soils in their letter dated 2-20- 01. Please note in their general remarks they give no warranty that what they say is in fact true. I don't feel very comfortable with their opinions. In closing I would like to say—this sounds like a very profitable operation for a non profit, tax exempt organization. Grace Church talked about being a good neighbor. I don't think subjecting the neighbors to the inconveniences that go along with mining is very neighborly. Mayor and City Council Members • City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Dear Mayor and Council Members: I am an attender of Grace Church and resident of Eden Prairie. The church has applied to the City for you to consider a soil exchange program on our new site. We have been directed by the planning staff that this will require an amendment to the city code for a Conditional Use Permit. The issues around this request,we understand,require special consideration for the greater good of the city. To modify our city code to use this valuable resource would be . prudent management. The Conditional Use Permit,with specific conditions,would give the city flexibility and ultimate control of this request. Please approve our request at your Council meeting on June 5,2001. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, � vv r. J oyce War Ken fi f? 1816G Cedtad Ede,`-Pvaer;et M N a1-1 .I L Mayor and City Council Members City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Dear Mayor and Council Members: I am an attender of Grace Church and resident of Eden Prairie. The church has applied to the City for you to consider a soil exchange program on our new site. We have been directed by the planning staff that this will require an amendment to the city code for a Conditional Use Permit. The issues around this request,we understand,require special consideration for the greater good of the city. To modify our city code to use this valuable resource would be prudent management. The Conditional Use Permit,with specific conditions,would give the city flexibility and ultimate control of this request. Please approve our request at your Council meeting on June 5, 2001. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, as May 14, 2001 City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,Mn. 55344 Dear Council Person, I am writing in regards to the proposal for Grace Church to do mining on their property. I am strongly opposed to them doing this, because I feel their would be an extraordinary amount of traffic on the roads surrounding their property especially Pioneer Trail. Pioneer Trail is already overburdened and hard to cross during a large part of the daylight hours and this would only compound the problem. I respectfully request that you not allow Grace Church to mine their property. • Sincerely yours, Beverly Osekowsky 15361 r.se Crc(e_ P iae, n7t4 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Payment of Claims June 5, 2001 SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development and Payment of Claims tit Financial Services/Don Uram Requested Action Move to: Approve the Payment of Claims as submitted(roll call vote) Synopsis Checks 99993 - 100545 Wire Transfers 1060-1071 Background Information Attachments 1 City of Eden Prairie Council Check Summary 6/5/2001 Division Amount General 406,465 101 Legislative 2,762 102 Legal Counsel 44,285 110 City Clerk 91 111 General 11,939 112 Human Resources 6,234 • 113 Communication Services 12,484 114 Benefits&Training 11,864 115 Risk Management 29,647 116 Facilities 27,405 130 Assessing 209 131 Finance 800 132 Housing Trans Social Service 2,500 133 Community Development -213 134 Heritage Preservation 0 135 Information Technology 7,175 136 Wireless Communication 2,388 150 Park Administration 456 151 Park Maintenance 49,286 152 Parks Capital Outlay 3,267 153 Athletic Programs 5,890 154 Community Center 43,162 155 Beaches 693 156 Youth Programs 2,673 157 Special Events 2,023 158 Senior Center 1,783 159 Recreation Administration 35 160 Adaptive Recreation 615 161 Oak Point Pool 598 162 Arts 1,428 163 Park Facilities 1,305 180 Police 29,254 183 Civil Defense 80 184 Fire 9,202 185 Animal Control 431 186 Inspections 154 200 Engineering 1,059 201 Street Maintenance 37,389 202 Street Lighting 51,054 203 Fleet Services 42,701 117 City Center 3,711 204 Equipment Revolving 11 300 Heritage Preservation Grants 25,510 301 CDBG 26,682 303 Cemetary Operation 758 304 Senior Awareness Fund 287 314 Liquor Compliance 625 501 State Aid Construction 4,051 502 Park Development 4,584 503 Utility Improvement 1,495 507 TIF Improvement Fund 5,916 509 CIP Fund 40,096 511 Construction Fund 1,940 601 Prairie Village Liquor 101,666 602 Den Road Liquor 200,004 603 Prairie View Liquor 100,448 605 Den Road Building 15,000 701 Water Fund 199,623 702 Sewer Fund 217,675 703 Storm Drainage Fund 7,154 803 Escrow Fund 3,940 Total 1,811,749 City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 6/5/2001 Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit 1060 124,994 WELLS FARGO MINNESOTA N A Federal Taxes Withheld General Fund 1061 22,159 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE State Taxes Withheld General Fund 1062 13,466 ORCHARD TRUST CO AS TRUSTEE/CU Deferred Compensation General Fund 1063 7,009 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 Deferred Compensation General Fund 1064 341 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE Motor Fuels Fleet Services 1065 55,391 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE Sales Tax Payable Den Road Liquor Store 1066 15,000 WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA NA Accounts Receivable Den Road Building 1067 124,400 WELLS FARGO MINNESOTA N A Federal Taxes Withheld General Fund 1068 21,958 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE State Taxes Withheld General Fund 1069 13,716 ORCHARD TRUST CO AS TRUSTEE/CU Deferred Compensation General Fund 1070 7,409 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 Deferred Compensation General Fund 1071 60,140 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT Employers PERA General Fund 99993 1,800 AMERICAN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIO Dues&Subscriptions In Service Training 99994 50 BOSEK LYLE Licenses&Taxes Inspections-Administration 99995 32 BRUENING CHARLOTTE Operating Supplies Senior Center Operations 99996 85 CITY BUSINESS Dues&Subscriptions City Council 99997 759 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFI Board of Prisoner Police 99998 2,070 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-TAXP Licenses&Taxes Park Maintenance 99999 37 JIANG HAO Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons 100000 26 KAEDING KELLY Lessons&Classes Ice Arena 100001 70 LARSON BEN Wages No Benefits Elections 100002 88 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Dues&Subscriptions City Council 100004 202 LIMBERG KRISTY Operating Supplies Summer Theatre 100005 6 MARIENAU WAND Program Fee Senior Center Program 100007 171 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE Repair&Maint.Supplies Maintenance 100008 5 MORGAN STACY Fac.Rental-P&R Community Center Admin 100009 22 PATREK IRENE Lessons&Classes Pool Lessons 100010 112 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT Miscellaneous Police 100013 3,489 QWEST Telephone Fire 100014 40 STAMOS JIM Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons 100015 35 STORDAHL SUZANNE Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons 100016 900 TIMBER CREST CONSTRUCTION Other Contracted Services 2000 Rehab 100017 40 WARD STEVE Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons 100018 295 WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE MN Waste Disposal Prairie Village Liquor Store 100019 1,176 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC. Waste Disposal Public Works/Parks 100020 4 AT&T Telephone Prairie View Liquor Store 100021 32 CORDES JEFFREY Landscape Materials/Supp Reforestation • 100022 87 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY Other Contracted Services Prairie View Liquor Store 100023 21 G&K SERVICES DIRECT PURCHASE Clothing&Uniforms Street Maintenance 100024 20,000 GREENER PASTURES DEVELOPMENT C Other Contracted Services Park Maintenance 100025 1,272 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Other Contracted Services Construction Fund 100026 3,530 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GE Board of Prisoner Police 100027 142 HOME DEPOT/GECF Operating Supplies General Facilities 100028 20 JOHNSON MELISSA Program Fee Outdoor Center 100029 175 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY Landscape Materials/Supp Street Maintenance 100030 20,817 LANG PAULY GREGERSON AND ROSOW Legal Legal Criminal Procecution 100031 5 LIM JONGSOO Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons 100032 41 MINNCOMM PAGING Pager&Cell Phone Sewer Utility-General 100033 5,554 MINNEGASCO Gas Fire Station#1 100034 27 MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASS Printing Police 100035 1,229 MITCHELL REPAIR INFORMATION CO Software Fleet Services . 100036 219 PETTY CASH Training Supplies Police 100037 541 QWEST INTERPRISE Telephone General 100038 400 RAMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. Deposits Escrow 100039 10 STAPLES JANET Program Fee Outdoor Center 100040 34 STAR TRIBUNE Misc Non-Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 100041 91 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF A Legal Legal Criminal Procecution 100042 41 SYVERSON PHYLLIS Program Fee Adult Program 100043 8 TRANS UNION CORPORATION Other Contracted Services Police 100044 378 VERIZON DIRECTORIES CORP Advertising Prairie View Liquor Store 100045 22 ZAZAY MUHAMMAD Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons 3 City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 6/5/2001 Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit 100046 457 ALL SAINTS BRANDS DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store 100047 44 AMERIPRIDE LINEN&APPAREL SER Repair&Maint.Supplies Den Road Liquor Store 100048 1,122 BELLBOY CORPORATION Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store 100049 2,492 DAY DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store 100050 2,283 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 100053 10,990 GRIGGS COOPER&CO Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 100054 223 HOHENSTEINS INC Beer Den Road Liquor Store 100058 28,399 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 100059 1,751 LAKE REGION VENDING Tobacco Products Den Road Liquor Store 100060 18,212 MARK VII Beer Den Road Liquor Store 100061 682 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 100062 235 NORTH STAR ICE Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 100064 7,897 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Liquor Prairie Village Liquor Store 100065 508 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Operating Supplies Den Road Liquor Store 100066 782 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 100068 11,875 QUALITY WINE&SPIRTS CO Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 100069 24,453 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store 100070 633 WINE COMPANY THE Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 100071 974 WINE MERCHANTS INC Wine Imported Prairie Village Liquor Store 100072 10,852 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY Beer Den Road Liquor Store 100073 260 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING Special Event Fees Senior Center Program 100074 3,840 BRUCE JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION Other Contracted Services 2000 Rehab 100075 82 CUMMINGS KIM Postage Fire 100076 598 DELEGARD TOOL CO Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100077 261 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD Operating Supplies Wheelchair Basketball 100078 31 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Waste Disposal Park Maintenance 100079 68 HUBER LISA Operating Supplies Ice Show 100080 199 IOS CAPITAL Other Rentals Fire 100081 1,619 LIND ERIC Deposits Escrow 100082 25 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSI Operating Supplies Community Development 100083 90 MILLER LOUISE Instructor Service Outdoor Center 100084 2,639 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR Garnishment Withheld General Fund 100085 210 NESS BOB Operating Supplies Ice Show 100086 75 OTTERNESS RON Instructor Service Outdoor Center 100087 350 PRISM HOLIDAYS Special Event Fees Adult Program 100088 525 RICHARD ALAN PRODUCTIONS Other Contracted Services Staring Lake Concert 100089 20 RICHFIELD CITY OF Autos Public Safety 100090 19 ROUSE SUSAN Operating Supplies Ice Show 100091 212 ST PAUL CITY OF Waste Blacktop/Concrete Street Maintenance 100092 2,000 TEMPORARY HEROES INC Other Contracted Services July 4th Celebration 100096 20 CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 100097 100 CRAIG ELIZABETH Refunds Environmental Education 100098 20 DELEGARD TOOL CO Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 100099 40 GROEN ANITA Events/Admission Fee Adaptive Recreation 100100 100 HARRIS JEAN Miscellaneous City Council 100101 200 HOFFELT BRAD Refunds Environmental Education 100102 40 INT'L ASSN FOR PROPERTY AND EV Dues&Subscriptions Police 100103 15 INTERNATIONAL CHECK SERVICES I Other Contracted Services Prairie Village Liquor Store 100104 5 JOHNSON ROBERT Program Fee Outdoor Center 100105 40 KEMPPAINEN DEBRA Events/Admission Fee Adaptive Recreation 100106 100 KINDEM JAMES Refunds Environmental Education 100107 7,215 KLEVE HTG&AC Other Contracted Services 2000 Rehab 100108 1,822 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INS Insurance Risk Management 100109 40 MANN TRIA Mileage&Parking Special Events Administration 100110 17 MEMA ATTN KEN SOUTHORN Conference Expense Civil Defense 100111 45 MINNESOTA FIRE SERVICE CERTIFI Licenses&Taxes Fire 100112 949 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP Electric Street Lighting 100113 16 MINNESOTA'S BOOKSTORE Operating Supplies Finance 100114 25 MN LAW ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND Dues&Subscriptions Police 100115 333 O'CONNELL JAY Travel Expense Fire 100116 55 OLSON BILL Mileage&Parking Fire y City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 6/5/2001 Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit 100117 191 PROTECTION ONE Other Contracted Services Prairie View Liquor Store 100119 7,736 QWEST Telephone Police 100120 476 REBS MARKETING Other Contracted Services Water Accounting 100121 5 SCHOLD BIRGIT Program Fee Outdoor Center 100122 112 STAR TRIBUNE Dues&Subscriptions General 100123 77 STEIGAUF ANDREE Tuition Reimbursement/School Fitness Classes 100124 60 SUBWAY Operating Supplies Leisure Time 100125 90 TEKIELA STAN Operating Supplies Outdoor Center 100126 1,632 US POSTMASTER-HOPKINS Postage Water Accounting 100128 28 AT&T Telephone Water Utility-General 100129 40 BRETHEIM MARK Events/Admission Fee Adaptive Recreation 100130 65 WITTIG JANINE Program Fee Camps 100131 60 ADAMS SALLY Program Fee Drama Camp 100132 2,016 ARCH PAGING Pager&Cell Phone Wireless Communication 100133 179 BARLI ROBERT Clothing&Uniforms Police 100134 75 BOGREN ANN Travel Expense Police 100135 17 DISH NETWORK Cable TV Ice Arena 100136 6 DODGE CHRISTIE Lessons&Classes Pool Lessons 100137 17 FRALEY JULIE Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons 100138 100 GATES JOHN Refunds Environmental Education 100139 197 GE CAPITAL Equipment Repair&Maint General 100140 25 JOHNSON DEB Program Fee Spring Skill Development 100141 35 JOHNSON RUSSEL Program Fee Spring Skill Development 100142 32 LATTERNER TODD Program Fee Spring Skill Development 100143 32 LINDMAN SUSAN Program Fee Spring Skill Development 100144 25 MS SOCIETY Events/Admission Fee Adaptive Recreation 100145 25 NEILSEN ERIC Program Fee Spring Skill Development 100146 20 NORMANDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Fac.Rental-P&R Oak Point Operations 100147 42 OMDAHL NANCY Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons 100148 217 PARK NICOLLET CLINIC Other Contracted Services Risk Management 100149 25 PRUITT LORI Program Fee Spring Skill Development 100150 25 SAWYER NANCY Program Fee Spring Skill Development 100151 35 THOMPSON LISA Lessons&Classes Ice Arena 100152 14,927 TIM'S TOWER SERVICE INC. Other Assets Capital Impr./Maint.Fund 100153 1,095 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEVUE Telephone Police 100154 56 XCEL ENERGY Electric Traffic Signals 100155 53 XCEL ENERGY Electric Street Lighting 100159 2,079 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100160 226 ACE ICE COMPANY Misc Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store 100161 138 ALL SAINTS BRANDS DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store 100162 104 AMERIPRIDE LINEN&APPAREL SER Repair&Maint.Supplies Prairie Village Liquor Store 100163 2,021 BELLBOY CORPORATION Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 100164 160 BERNADAS WINES SELECTION INC Wine Imported Prairie View Liquor Store 100165 6,494 DAY DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store 100167 6,905 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 100168 19,371 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY Beer Den Road Liquor Store 100169 96 EXTREME BEVERAGE Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 100170 2,459 GRAPE BEGINNINGS Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 100172 9,422 GRIGGS COOPER&CO Liquor Prairie Village Liquor Store 100174 14,459 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 100175 1,555 LAKE REGION VENDING Tobacco Products Den Road Liquor Store 100176 6,802 MARK VII Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store 100177 485 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 100178 133 NORTH STAR ICE Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 100179 3,971 PAUSTIS&SONS COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 100180 595 PEPSI COLA COMPANY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 100181 14,357 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 100182 586 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Misc Non-Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 100183 3,107 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 100185 4,517 QUALITY WINE&SPIRTS CO Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 100186 21,213 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store 5 City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 6/5/2001 Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit 100187 1,007 WINE COMPANY THE Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 100188 2,468 WORLD CLASS WINES INC Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store 100189 461 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 100190 637 AMERICAN ELITE GYMNASTICS Instructor Service Spring Skill Development 100191 2,825 AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL ADV Travel Expense In Service Training 100192 400 ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT Deposits Escrow 100193 5,075 BANKS DUWAYNE Other Contracted Services 2000 Rehab 100194 113 BERNHJELM BETH Other Contracted Services Liquor Compliance 100195 218 CODE 3 COLLECTIBLES Operating Supplies Fire 100196 579 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS Safety Supplies Fleet Services 100197 100 DEBREY MARC Refunds Environmental Education 100198 702 DENARDO LINDA Other Contracted Services 2000 Rehab 100199 113 FADELL GILLIAN Other Contracted Services Liquor Compliance 100200 113 FRANZ KIM Other Contracted Services Liquor Compliance 100201 5,067 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE Conference Expense In Service Training 100202 112 GROVER RHODA AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund 100203 248 HENNEPIN COUNTY Waste Disposal Park Maintenance 100204 58 LARSON-WAUGH SUSAN Other Contracted Services 2000 Rehab 100205 113 LINDSTROM REBECCA Other Contracted Services Liquor Compliance 100206 35 MCFOA Dues&Subscriptions In Service Training 100207 325 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC Licenses&Taxes Water Utility-General 100208 6,566 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER Building Surcharge General Fund . 100209 37 MISTER Q'S Miscellaneous Fire 100210 1,249 MITCHELL REPAIR INFORMATION CO Software Fleet Services 100211 175 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT Operating Supplies Liquor Compliance 100212 7,212 REPLACEMENT WINDOW COMPANY TH Other Contracted Services 2000 Rehab 100213 175 SCHLOSSMACHER JIM Clothing&Uniforms Police 100214 295 US POSTMASTER-HOPKINS Postage Senior Center Program 100215 1,976 XCEL ENERGY Electric Water Treatment Plant 100216 26,627 AIRLAKE FORD-MERCURY INC. Autos Sewer Utility-General 100217 800 BCA/TRAINING&DEVELOPMENT Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 100218 252 BERGSTROM JIM Clothing&Uniforms Police 100219 125 CARDARELLE DAWN Other Contracted Services Accessibility 100220 46 CULLIGAN WATER Operating Supplies Fire 100221 205 DUCHSCHERE KYLE Clothing&Uniforms Police 100222 480 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS AS Awards Finance 100223 186 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Licenses&Taxes Assessing 100224 11 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Other Contracted Services Police 100225 148 HOME DEPOT/GECF Operating Supplies General Facilities 100226 100 MRPA Conference Expense In Service Training 100227 215 NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK A Dues&Subscriptions In Service Training 100228 186 NELSON MICHAEL AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund 100229 158 PETTY CASH Cash Over/Short General Fund ,100230 3,935 PRAIRIE PARTNERS SIX LLP Building Rental Prairie Village Liquor Store 100231 369 PROTECTION ONE Other Contracted Services Prairie Village Liquor Store 100232 11,129 RELIANT ENERGY RETAIL INC. Gas Maintenance 100233 1,753 RICHFIELD CITY OF Autos Sewer Utility-General 100234 11 STATE OF MINNESOTA Operating Supplies Fleet Services 100235 125 US POSTMASTER-HOPKINS Postage Water Utility-General 100236 266 VARGAS FRED Tuition Reimbursement/School Reserves 100237 1,605 WESTONKA GLASS SERVICE Other Contracted Services 2000 Rehab 100238 2,044 XCEL ENERGY Principal Traffic Signals 100239 125 ACE ICE COMPANY Misc Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store 100240 557 ALL SAINTS BRANDS DISTRIBUTING Beer Prairie View Liquor Store 100241 44 AMERIPRIDE LINEN&APPAREL SER Repair&Maint.Supplies Den Road Liquor Store 100242 2,315 BELLBOY CORPORATION Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 100243 7,893 DAY DISTRIBUTING Beer Prairie View Liquor Store 100244 1,591 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 100245 8,543 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY Beer Prairie View Liquor Store 100246 365 GETTMAN COMPANY Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 100247 8,482 GRIGGS COOPER&CO Liquor Den Road Liquor Store C City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 6/5/2001 Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit 100251 24,633 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 100252 1,721 LAKE REGION VENDING Tobacco Products Prairie View Liquor Store 100253 7,433 MARK VII Beer Den Road Liquor Store 100254 446 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 100255 386 NORTH STAR ICE Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 100257 4,212 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 100258 773 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Misc Non-Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 100259 1,107 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store 100260 8,301 QUALITY WINE&SPIRTS CO Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 100261 15,537 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store 100262 106,530 XCEL ENERGY Electric Street Lighting 100263 505 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC. Waste Disposal Water Treatment Plant 100264 5 AT&T Telephone General 100265 190 BLOOMINGTON CITY OF Kennel Services Animal Control 100266 1,070 C&J TRAVEL INC Travel Expense Police 100267 44 DAY()BUILDERS REMODELERS Building Permits General Fund 100268 210 ELANDER MECHANICAL Mechanical Permits General Fund 100269 250 GRABER MATT Instructor Service Outdoor Center 100270 26 HILLER ROBB Operating Supplies Street Maintenance 100271 40 HORNSETH JOHN AND JANE Operating Supplies Street Maintenance 100272 997 INTERNET BUSINESS CENTER LLC Other Contracted Services Golden Triange Study 100273 18,082 LANG PAULY GREGERSON AND ROSOW Legal Legal Council 100274 27,393 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INS Insurance Risk Management 100275 377 MAROTTA VIC Other Contracted Services Spring Skill Development 100276 180,973 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME Waste Disposal Sewer Utility-General 100277 2,639 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR Garnishment Withheld General Fund 100278 23 MPCA Licenses&Taxes Sewer Utility-General 100279 495 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES Conference Expense City Council 100280 1,077 OBIAZOR LAURIE Tuition Reimbursement/School In Service Training 100281 600 OPERATING ENG LOCAL 49 TRNG PR Conference Expense In Service Training 100282 75 OTTERNESS RON Instructor Service Outdoor Center 100283 292 PARENDO LIZ Instructor Service Outdoor Center 100284 10 PITNEY BOWES INC Postage General 100285 3,000 POSTAGE BY PHONE RESERVE ACCOU Postage General 100286 60 QWEST Telephone Preserve Park 100287 157 SPERNICK MICHELLE Building Permits General Fund 100288 1,500 SUN NEWSPAPERS Employment Advertising Human Resources 100289 40 TELEPHONE ANSWERING CENTER INC Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 100290 431 XCEL ENERGY Electric Street Lighting 100291 425 AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT Landscape Materials/Supp Water System Maintenance 100292 1,433 ABSOLUTE RAIN INC. Equipment Repair&Maint Fire Staion#3 100293 1,200 ACME WINDOW CLEANING INC. Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 100294 212 ADDED FLAIR Operating Supplies Preschool Events 100295 282 AMERICAN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIO Training Supplies Water Utility-General 100296 307 AMERICAN RED CROSS Safety Supplies Community Center Admin 100297 1,642 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI Training Supplies Water Utility-General 100298 839 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY Office Supplies General 100299 10,038 ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY Printing Communication Services 100300 260 ANDERBERG CRAIG W. Other Contracted Services Softball 100301 119 AQUA ENGINEERING INC Operating Supplies Street Maintenance 100302 229 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100303 165 ASSOCIATION OF TRAINING OFFICE Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 100304 44 AZTECH EMBROIDERY SERVICES Clothing&Uniforms Community Center Admin 100305 223 BACHMANS CREDIT DEPT Landscape Materials/Supp Reforestation 100306 77 BADGE A MINIT Operating Supplies Senior Awareness 100307 130 BARTOS PRODUCTS Capital Under$2000 Fleet Services 100308 306 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100309 859 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Ice Arena 100310 945 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC. Other Contracted Services Fire Station#2 100314 8,459 BIFFS INC Waste Disposal Park Maintenance 100315 837 BIG LAKE CONSTRUCTION Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 6/5/2001 Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit 100316 794 BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS Building Repair&Maint. Public Works/Parks 100317 115 BMS INTEGRATED OFFICE TECHNOLO Equipment Repair&Maint Police 100318 34 BROADWAY AWARDS Awards Raquetball 100319 16,949 BROCK WHITE CO Seal Coating Street Maintenance 100320 421 C&H DISTRIBUTORS INC. Operating Supplies Water Treatment Plant 100321 2,109 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS Capital Under$2000 Douglas More House 100322 3,267 CARLSON TRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT Machinery&Equipment Capital Outlay Parks 100323 1,300 CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC Software Information Technology 100324 1,256 CATCO CLUTCH&TRANSMISSION SE Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100325 53 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. Other Hardware Information Technology 100326 2,230 CEMSTONE Asphalt Overlay Street Maintenance 100327 277 CENTRAIRE INC Building Repair&Maint. Public Works/Parks 100328 2,303 CHAD NESTOR&ASSOCIATES Other Contracted Services Communication Services 100329 69 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100330 29 CLAREYS INC Fire Prevention Supplies Fire 100331 1,012 CONCRETE CUTTING&CORING INC Asphalt Overlay Street Maintenance 100332 436 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS Safety Supplies Fleet Services 100333 795 CONTINUING EDUCATION Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 100334 339 COPY EQUIPMENT INC Operating Supplies Traffic Signals 100335 5,625 CORNERSTONE Other Contracted Services Legal Council 100336 1,200 CORPORATE EXPRESS Office Supplies General 100337 136 CRIME PREVENTION RESOURCES Training Supplies Police 100338 88 CROWN MARKING INC Operating Supplies Police 100339 584 CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE Operating Supplies Outdoor Center 100340 11,665 CUSTOM CONVEYOR CORPORATION Machinery&Equipment Water Treatment Plant 100341 11,297 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 100342 3,004 CY'S UNIFORMS Clothing&Uniforms Police 100343 369 DALCO Cleaning Supplies Maintenance 100344 53 DALE GREEN COMPANY THE Landscape Materials/Supp Street Maintenance 100345 1,372 DALLAS MIDWEST Capital Under$2000 Water Treatment Plant 100346 2,259 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO Protective Clothing Fire 100347 280 DARTNELL CORPORATION THE Dues&Subscriptions Water Utility-General 100348 277 DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 100349 70 DEM CON LANDFILL INC Waste Disposal Park Maintenance 100350 3 DF COUNTRYMAN CO. Video&Photo Supplies Human Resources 100351 325 DIETHELM GARY Other Contracted Services Pleasant Hill Cemetary 100352 58 DIGI-KEY Repair&Maint.Supplies Wireless Communication 100353 236 DLT SOLUTIONS INC. Software Information Technology 100354 3,704 DPC INDUSTRIES INC Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 100356 451 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET Operating Supplies Fire 100357 7,500 DRT TRANSPORT Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 100358 1,404 EARL F ANDERSEN INC Signs Traffic Signs 100359 128 ECOLAB INC Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 100360 80 EDHLUND ERIC Other Contracted Services Softball 100361 1,675 EDINA SW PLUMBING Building Repair&Maint. Fire Station#1 100362 269 EF JOHNSON Equipment Parts Wireless Communication 100363 400 EKLUNDS TREE AND BRUSH DISPOSA Waste Disposal Tree Disease 100364 219 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Ice Arena 100365 233 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC Equipment Repair&Maint Fire 100366 6,959 FACILITY SYSTEMS INC Other Assets Furniture 100367 345 FASTSIGNS Other Contracted Services Prairie Village Liquor Store 100368 1,992 FB LEOPOLD INC Capital Under$2000 Water Treatment Plant 100369 283 FEIST BLANCHARD AUTOMOTIVE WAR Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100370 79 FERRELLGAS Motor Fuels Ice Arena 100371 160 FILTRATION SYSTEMS Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant 100372 169 FINLEY BROS INC Operating Supplies Miller Park 100373 233 FISHER SCIENTIFIC Operating Supplies Water System Maintenance 100374 240 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL Canine Supplies Police 100375 438 FORKLIFTS OF MINNESOTA INC Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 100376 94 FRANKLIN COVEY CO. Office Supplies General 100377 1,321 G&K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant U City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 6/5/2001 Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit 100378 3,281 GA INDUSTRIES INC Machinery&Equipment Water Treatment Plant 100379 542 GARDNER HARDWARE CO Building Repair&Maint. Water Treatment Plant 100380 2,210 GIRARD'S BUSINESS MACHINES INC Office Supplies General 100381 9,375 GOODPOINTE TECHNOLOGY CORPORAT Other Contracted Services Capital Impr./Maint.Fund 100382 1,532 GRAFIX SHOPPE Capital Under$2000 Fleet Services 100383 776 GRAYBOW COMMUNICATIONS GROUP Video&Photo Supplies Human Resources 100384 326 GREATAMERICA LEASING CORP. Other Rentals General 100385 32 GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN Operating Supplies Fleet Services 100386 1,007 HACH COMPANY Operating Supplies Water Treatment Plant 100387 6 HALDEMANN HOMME INC Printing Assessing 100388 5,012 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON Other Contracted Services Park Acquisition&Development 100389 253 HARMON AUTOGLASS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 100390 53 HARRIS COMMUNICATIONS Operating Supplies Prairie View Liquor Store 100391 22,418 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC Motor Fuels Fleet Services 100392 2,362 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 100393 733 HELLERS CARBONIC WEST Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 100394 646 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE Building Rental Winter Theatre 100395 300 HENRY PAUL Other Contracted Services Softball 100396 82 HERC U LIFT Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100397 500 HIGLEY STEVE Other Contracted Services Softball 100398 1,048 HIRSHFIELDS PAINT MANUFACTURIN Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 100399 43 HISCO Repair&Maint.Supplies Wireless Communication 100400 192 HOLMES DAVE Other Contracted Services Volleyball 100401 482 HOLMES JOHN CARTER Other Contracted Services Volleyball 100402 335 HOLMES TOM Other Contracted Services Softball 100403 34 HYDROLOGIC Operating Supplies Street Maintenance 100404 8 ICI DULUX PAINT CTRS Building Repair&Maint. Water Treatment Plant 100405 2,155 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST NO.27 Transportation Special Events&Trips 100406 771 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC Building Repair&Maint. Water Treatment Plant 100407 456 INGRAHAM&ASSOC Other Contracted Services Planning&Development 100408 1,000 INSPEC INC. Other Contracted Services Fire Staion#3 100409 1,385 INTOXIMETERS Operating Supplies Police 100410 437 ITASCA GREENHOUSE INC Landscape Materials/Supp Reforestation 100411 118 J J KELLER&ASSOCIATES INC Training Supplies Water Utility-General 100412 2,580 JANEX INC Cleaning Supplies General Facilities 100413 426 JB LAWN LANDSCAPING&SNOWPLOW Other Contracted Services Pleasant Hill Cemetary 100414 941 JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA IN Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 100415 691 KAESER&BLAIR INC Fire Prevention Supplies Fire 100416 27 KINKO'S Office Supplies Recreation Administration 100418 773 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC Operating Supplies Water Treatment Plant 100419 299 KRISS PREMIUM PRODUCTS INC Operating Supplies Water Treatment Plant 100420 82 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC Protective Clothing Water Treatment Plant 100421 182 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100422 197 LANDS END CORPORATE SALES Clothing&Uniforms Police 100423 12 LANO EQUIPMENT INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100424 359 LASER LABS INC Equipment Repair&Maint Police 100425 249 LAW ENFORCMENT TARGETS INC Training Supplies Police 100426 241 LEROY JOB TRUCKING Other Contracted Services Animal Control 100427 496 LESCO INC Landscape Materials/Supp Sewer System Maintenance 100428 765 LIFEGUARD STORE INC THE Clothing&Uniforms Pool Lessons 100429 692 LIGHTNING PRINTING Printing Senior Center Program 100430 137 LINHOFF PHOTO&DIGITAL IMAGIN Video&Photo Supplies Human Resources 100431 85 LOTUS LAWN&GARDEN Landscape Materials/Supp Reforestation 100432 21,798 LOVEGREEN INDUSTRIAL SERVICES Machinery&Equipment Water Treatment Plant 100433 224 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC Lubricants&Additives Fleet Services 100434 50 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100435 1,320 MAPLE GROVE CITY OF Other Rentals Police 100436 305 MARTIN-MCALLISTER Other Contracted Services Finance 100437 130 MAXI-PRINT INC Printing Police 100439 766 MENARDS Small Tools Street Maintenance 100440 287 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY Operating Supplies Park Maintenance I City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 6/5/2001 Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit 100441 37 METRO LEGAL SERVICES INC Other Contracted Services 2000 Rehab 100442 2,797 METRO SALES INCORPORATED* Other Rentals General 100443 897 METROPOLITAN FORD Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 100444 11,029 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION Patching Asphalt Street Maintenance 100445 111 MINN ST ADMIN ITG TELECOM SERV Software Information Technology 100446 1,067 MINNESOTA CONWAY Equipment Testing/Cert. Fleet Services 100447 90 MINNESOTA FIRE SERVICE CERTIFI Tuition Reimbursement/School Fire 100448 777 MINNESOTA ROADWAYS CO Asphalt Overlay Street Maintenance 100449 211 MINNESOTA VALLEY WHOLESALE Landscape Materials/Supp Park Maintenance 100450 40 MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOD SERVICE Miscellaneous General Facilities 100451 1,253 MONTGOMERY WATSON Design&Engineering Storm Drainage Projects 100452 300 MRPA Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 100453 1,433 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100454 935 MUNICILITE Capital Under$2000 Fleet Services 100455 180 MUNZ ERIC Other Contracted Services Softball 100456 614 NATIONAL TACTICAL OFFICERS ASS Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 100457 2,355 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE Employment Advertising Human Resources 100458 6,718 NATURAL REFLECTIONS VII LLC Machinery&Equipment Water Treatment Plant 100459 130 NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORIES Operating Supplies Water System Maintenance 100460 68 NORTHERN POWER PRODUCTS INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100461 123 NORTHERN TOOL&EQUIPMENT CO. Equipment Parts Street Maintenance 100462 87 NORTHWEST RESPIRATORY SERVICE Safety Supplies Fire 100463 29 OLSEN COMPANIES Repair&Maint.Supplies Water System Maintenance 100464 75 OSI BATTERIES INC Office Supplies General 100465 111 PAIN ENTERPRISES INC. Chemicals Pool Maintenance 100466 26 PAPER DIRECT INC Office Supplies General 100467 13,263 PARROTT CONTRACTING INC Other Contracted Services Sewer System Maintenance 100468 70 PEPPER OF MINNEAPOLIS Operating Supplies Art&Music 100469 44 PETSMART Canine Supplies Police 100470 2,219 PICHA GREENHOUSE Landscape Materials/Supp Park Maintenance 100471 855 PIONEER RIM&WHEEL CO Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100472 1,850 PLEHAL BLACKTOPPING INC Other Contracted Services Water System Maintenance 100473 7 PLYMOUTH CITY OF Miscellaneous City Council 100474 22,977 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY Equipment Repair&Maint Capital Impr./Maint.Fund 100475 286 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING Operating Supplies Traffic Signs 100476 128 PRINTERS SERVICE INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Ice Arena 100477 309 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 100478 2,931 PRO MAINTENANCE INC Equipment Repair&Maint Water Treatment Plant 100479 659 PROFILE EVALUATIONS INC Employment Support Test Human Resources 100480 2,477 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC Other Contracted Services Sewer Liftstation 100481 28 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER Postage General 100482 39 RAINBOW FOODS INC. Operating Supplies Tree Disease 100483 924 RAY LEE Other Contracted Services Softball 100484 25,510 RAYCO CONSTRUCTION INC Other Contracted Services Grant-in-Aid 2271 B-00-HE 100485 356 RCM&ASSOCIATES Telephone General 100486 100 RECREATION SUPPLY CO Operating Supplies Aquatics&Fitness Admin 100487 224 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100488 16,815 RMR SERVICES INC Equipment Parts Water Meter Repair 100489 457 ROBICHONS THE IN-LINE SKATE SC Other Contracted Services Spring Skill Development 100490 221 SHIP-IT Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant 100491 4,051 SHORT ELLIOT HENDRICKSON INC Design&Engineering State Aid Construction 100492 819 SHRED-IT Waste Disposal City Center Operations 100493 2,098 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS INC. Clothing&Uniforms Fire 100494 163 SNAP-ON TOOLS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 100495 5,437 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL I Software Maintenance Information Technology 100496 2,126 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMM! Dues&Subscriptions City Council 100497 105 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING- Employment Advertising Human Resources 100498 250 SPRUTH KAREN Operating Supplies Pool Special Events 100499 2,582 SQUARE CUT Capital Under$2000 Police 100500 6,530 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Other Contracted Services TIF fund 100501 58 ST JOSEPH EQUIPMENT INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 10 City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 6/5/2001 Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit 100502 893 STANDARD SPRING Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 100503 401 STATE CHEMICAL MFG.CO.THE Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant 100504 2,500 STOREFRONT GROUP THE Other Contracted Services Housing Trans&Human Sery 100505 43 STREICHERS Clothing&Uniforms Police 100507 623 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GEO Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100508 194 SUBURBAN PROPANE Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 100509 198 SUN NEWSPAPERS Employment Advertising Human Resources 100510 514 SUPER PC MEMORY INC Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant 100511 125 SWEDLUNDS Waste Disposal Outdoor Center 100512 1,063 SYSTEM CONTROL SERVICES Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 100513 410 TESSMAN SEED CO Chemicals Park Maintenance 100514 5,419 THERMA-STOR PRODUCTS Machinery&Equipment Water Treatment Plant 100515 200 THUNDER COMMUNICATIONS Other Contracted Services Senior Web Site 100516 518 THYSSEN LAGERQUIST ELEVATOR Building Repair&Maint. City Center Operations 100517 2,484 TKDA Design&Engineering Utility Improvement Fund 100518 2,212 TOTAL REGISTER Computers Prairie View Liquor Store 100519 158 TRANS ALARM INC Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 100520 36,049 TRAUT WELLS Other Contracted Services Water Well#5 100521 272 TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN MTKA Other Contracted Services Fire Station#2 100522 363 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO Lubricants&Additives Fleet Services 100523 1,593 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Clothing&Uniforms Police 100524 869 UNIQUE SPECIALITY BAGS Safety Supplies Fire 100525 526 UNITED LABORATORIES Cleaning Supplies Sewer System Maintenance 100526 431 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100527 326 US CAVALRY Clothing&Uniforms Police 100528 1,665 US FILTERNVATERPRO Repair&Maint.Supplies Water System Maintenance 100529 791 US OFFICE PRODUCTS Office Supplies Water Utility-General 100530 1,756 VERNCO MAINTENANCE INC Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 100531 97 VWR SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS Operating Supplies Water Treatment Plant 100532 192 W W GRAINGER Equipment Parts Fleet Services 100533 1,058 WALTERS SWIM SUPPLIES INC. Operating Supplies Pool Operations 100534 136 WATSON CO INC THE Merchandise for Resale Concessions 100538 960 WOLF CAMERA INC Video&Photo Supplies Communication Services 100539 6,257 WORK CONNECTION-BPARK Other Contracted Services Park Maintenance 100540 1,123 XPECT FIRST AID Safety Supplies Sewer Utility-General 100541 1,112 YALE INCORPORATED Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 100542 665 ZAHN GERALD Other Contracted Services Volleyball 100543 26 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE Safety Supplies Community Center Admin 100544 1,377 ZIEGLER INC Other Contracted Services Fire Station#1 100545 312 ZOELLNER MARK Other Contracted Services Softball 1,811,749 Grand Total /1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: June 5,2001 SECTION: Ordinances and Resolutions SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Public Works Final Plat Approval of Aztec Town Office Park j A , -Fs Engineering Services Randy Slick Requested Action Move to: Adopt the resolution rescinding the final plat approval of Aztec Town Office Park for 22 lots, approved by the City Council on March 6,2001. Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the revised final plat of Aztec Town Office for 14 lots and one outlot. Synopsis This proposal, located east of Aztec Drive and south of Anderson Lakes Parkway is a replat of Outlot A Anderson Lakes Commercial Center 3rd Addition. The plat was previously approved March 6, 2001 consisting of 6.48 acres to be divided into 22 lots and one outlot for future development. The Developer has revised the plat by taking sixteen of the original lots and combining them into eight larger lots,therefore reducing the total number of lots to fourteen. Background Information The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council January 16, 2001. Second Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer's Agreement was completed on February 20,2001. Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$644.00 • Prior to release of the final plat, Developer shall provide to the City a current title insurance policy insuring such a condition of title • The requirements as set forth in the Developer's Agreement • Provide a list of areas (to the nearest square foot) of all lots, outlots and road right-of- ways certified by surveyor • Prior to release of the final plat, Owners shall provide a.signed cross-access, parking and utilities use and maintenance agreement over proposed Lots 1-14, Block 1 Aztec Town Office Park Attachments Drawing of final plat KIN 1 riz ,r 1 i 11 if tit ii$ / N I ("i RR ; ii x II a•i r2 t, € x 4a / o INI Q .1 ,.i 11111 I[jI Li x . ER A 5 . _ plIP!• br 2rgsrri I/kr r f 0 i li ii ii !; in I •� tt �. N lido I fQ ly If• i s / $1 g rn f p St 1 fy1'S, 2� i �y rrZ I i }R — NOltwmn, I ir ` bmF a r1 ii illa ii9• Oi7StF7 i r o�w .J sil p �� \\ I. l IiI1I1 I \ g 4 t � '•5T: a \ r I I 1 i \•t: TGUW.NC Cr TMC INRI.W V Or \ V. -.c s»aun,u a Txc rm awiTu \ fLC,C1N Z;T,f6•tt 41,4 I; 111 t17 fr. I p1IT $py ig, - - - -. - ' _._._._. 7 c R s.! 17 i11 A =' Y /• ' —nattx uxc a TK saurn wu \ 33 ' 'i �. 925 9 @ Ticn Z a t .. . \ mW: 0 N. �. -SCUM 21 T,,..it \\ .P 1 if tir i i ■ M li ji - I ,-, ,. , . tip, it 11 i:3q1 I 1 r2; I, t. •,.. 1 >•s >.w .F \\\\\ tI I R j . 4 14 70 i i % ,,, IC t eteix ` n. , \, figr.f S r ti m E 011 5 r g. : 3 • ry 0\ i JIU Ififli 1 ,.,. a aI r t11 mao ♦ $ �M [1.. y 1 �11 j II ii Y : Iif I 1 7 ft ri �O a m S ,o li$ $a k $ ! �i 4 - I$ ( Ig , • � '1 !s `-. T S 1 111.i i7 B o �aa° t'a° :WI'..u° o au° o 1 p p I 1 I ]bI fit o0 till p i e 3 a # tF1s w \t--IT'cri1.� ..8m=°�'_9---•it?".. .. --min-- `., • 'yri 343.01 -' :. Xd➢•3a.!4-a t E si DMVE-: ......:..... a I I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2001- A RESOLUTION RESCINDING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF AZTEC TOWN OFFICE PARK WHEREAS, the final plat of Aztec Town Office Park (the Property) for 22 lots was approved by City Council,Resolution No.2001-44 on March 6,2001; and WHEREAS,the final plat of Aztec Town Office Park has not been executed by Mayor and City Manager; and WHEREAS, the Owner requests that approval of the plat of Aztec Town Office Park be rescinded. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Resolution 2001-44, approved by the City Council March 6, 2001 is hereby rescinded. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 5,2001. Jean L.Harris,Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen A.Porta,City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO.2001- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REVISED FINAL PLAT OF AZTEC TOWN OFFICE PARK WHEREAS, the preliminary plat of Aztec Town Office Park(the Property) for 22 lots was approved by City Council on January 16,2001; WHEREAS, the final plat of Aztec Town Office Park(the Property) for 22 lots was approved by City Council on March 6,2001; WHEREAS,the Owner has submitted a revised final plat of Aztex Town Office Park,which contains 14 lots; WHEREAS, the revised final plat of Aztec Town Office Park 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 revised 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. The revised Plat approval request for Aztec Town Office Park is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated June 5,2001. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. 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 June 5,2001. Jean L.Harris,Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: June 5,2001 SECTION: Ordinances and Resolutions SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: City Manager Status of Flying Cloud Airport Advisory 'X Chris Enger Commission Requested Action Move to: • Approve the 1st and 2nd readings of an Ordinance suspending the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission created under City Code Section 2.27 indefinitely. or • Move to: • Approve the 1st and 2nd readings of an Ordinance repealing City Code Section 2.27 and abolishing the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission. or Move to: • Approve the 1st and 2nd readings of an Ordinance amending the mission of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission to exclude all policy matters pertaining to the expansion of the Flying Cloud Airport, including but not limited to MAC Ordinance 51 and the environmental impact study being undertaken with respect to the expansion by the FAA and MAC. Synopsis Based upon the recommendation of special legal counsel, it is appropriate for the City Council to directly supervise and be involved with all matters pertaining to the expansion of the Flying Cloud Airport and the possible revision or repeal of Ordinance 51. The continued involvement of the Advisory Commission complicates and gives rise to potential confusion with respect to the City's goals and objectives regarding these matters. Background Peter Kirsch has presented to the City Council his initial assessment of a Comprehensive Strategy for Flying Cloud Airport. Special Legal Counsel believes it is in the City's best interest at this time that the City Council and its legal counsel be directly involved in all communications and discussions regarding the proposal to expand the Flying Cloud Airport and to revise or repeal Ordinance 51. The Flying Cloud . Airport Advisory Commission has provided invaluable assistance to the City Council thus far. However in order to insure that all future communications are consistent with the City Council's goals and objectives,it is necessary that the City Council be directly involved in communicating its positions and that there only be one voice speaking for the City Council with respect to the proposal to expand the airport. Attachment Alternative Ordinances for consideration by the City Council. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 18-2001 AN ORDINANCE OF TILE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 2 BY REPEALING SECTION 2.27 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF. THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. The Eden Prairie City Code shall be amended deleting in its entirety Section 2.27. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 5.99 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 5th day of June, 2001, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said Council on the5th day of June,2001. ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Jean L.Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 2001. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 18-2001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 2 BY AMENDING SECTION 2.27,TO ADD A NEW SUBDIVISION 2.C. RELATING TO THE MISSION OF THE FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION,AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF. THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. The Eden Prairie City Code shall be amended by adding Section 2.27, Subd.C., as follows: C. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subdivision 2.A and B,the Commission shall not engage in any communications,reviews,or recommendations regarding any matters pertaining to the expansion of the Flying Cloud Airport,including but not limited to MAC Ordinance 51 and the environmental impact study being undertaken with respect to the expansion by the FAA and MAC. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled"General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 5.99 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 5th day of June, 2001, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said Council on the 5th day of June, 2001. ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Jean L. Harris,Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 2001. 3 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 18-2001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 2 BY AMENDING SECTION 2.27, TO ADD A NEW SUBDIVISION 2. C. SUSPENDING INDEFINITELY THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF. THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. The Eden Prairie City Code shall be amended by adding Section 2.27, Subd. C., as follows: C. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subdivision 2. A and B, the Commission shall be suspended until such time as this Section 2.27, Subdivision C is repealed. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 5.99 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 5th day of June,2001, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said Council on the 5th day of June,2001. ATTEST: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Jean L.Harris,Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of ,2001. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: June 5,2001 SECTION: Petitions,Requests and Communications SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: City Manager Flying Cloud Airport Expansion: Special Legal Chris Enger Counsel and Regulation of Landside A. A . Development of Airport Property • Requested Action Move to: ■ Continue to retain Peter Kirsch and the law firm,Akin, Gump, Strauss,Hauer&Feld,L.L.P., as special legal counsel to the City,with respect to the proposed expansion of the Flying Cloud Airport,with authority to retain such consultants as deemed necessary by special counsel in consultation with the City Attorney and City Manager, and as approved by the City Counsel,including but not limited to • communications consultants; and ■ Direct staff to evaluate current zoning and land use regulations applicable to development at the Flying Cloud Airport and to develop and submit to the Community Planning Board, for its review and recommendation,proposals for additional regulation of such development. Synopsis Based on the initial action of the City Council in retaining Peter Kirsch and the law firm,Akin, Gump, Strauss,Hauer&Feld,L.L.P., as special legal counsel to the City,it is necessary to authorize his continued representation of the City and his retention of such consultants as deemed appropriate and approved by the City Council. Further based on Mr.Kirsch's recommendations,it is deemed appropriate to initiate the process to obtain the Community Planning Board's recommendations with respect to regulation of landside development of the airport. Background Peter Kirsch has presented to the City Council his initial assessment of a Comprehensive Strategy for Flying Cloud Airport. Mr.Kirsch believes it is in the City's interest at this time for his firm to retain a communications consultant to assist in this effort. His firm,in cooperation with the City Attorney,is interviewing several such firms and will submit through the City Manager a recommendation to the Council at the City Council meeting,including an estimate of his future legal costs and consultant costs. Further, Mr.Kirsch has recommended that the City initiate the process to develop regulations for the landside development of airport property. Mr.Kirsch will work with the City Attorney's office and the Community Planning staff to develop specific proposals to bring to the Community Planning Board. Attachment CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: June 5,2001 SECTION: Petitions,Requests and Communications SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Public Works Services.Area Morraine Way Pond Eugene A. Dietz I�� Requested Action Move to: Receive information submitted by the "Morraine Way Pond" neighborhood and refer the issue to City staff for evaluation of alternatives within 60 days. Synopsis The neighborhood adjacent to the Morraine Way Pond has requested an opportunity to present their views regarding the declining water levels in the Morraine Way Pond. Beyond the original petition submitted last year, there was no additional request. City Council is encouraged to identify the specific request being made by the neighborhood to clarify direction for staff. Background Information Attached is the following information: • A copy of the first page of the original petition submitted last fall by the neighborhood • A copy of the memorandum report dated April 10, 2001 that was received by City Council and mailed to the neighborhood • A copy of the April 27, 2001letter that transmitted the report to the neighborhood • A letter from Sheldon Michaletz dated May 8, 2001 • Notes from Dick and Ruth Nubson dated May 6,2001 • Copies of photos of the pond The staff report and transmittal letter concluded that there was no evidence that points to a specific event (such as construction of TH 212) that led to the declining water levels and that there is no specific evidence that property values are declining in the neighborhood that would lead to a reduction in taxes. The information from the neighborhood has no specific request beyond the original petition. It is anticipated that the neighborhood may bring a specific request forward at the council meeting. Attachments See above list CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: DATE: June 5,2001 Report of the Community Development and Financial Services Director SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development &Financial Services: Don Uram Purchase offers for the City owned"Singletree ,C David Lindahl Lane"property Requested Action: Move to: ■ Authorize staff to enter into a purchase agreement with(Hartford Group or North American Properties) for the sale of Lot 2 Block 1 Market Center 2nd Addition. Synopsis: Staff has received two offers for the purchase of a 5.6-acre site located between Bachman's and Brunswick on Singletree Lane: Hartford Group - mixed-use residential/commercial proposal with an affordable component called Lincoln Parc West. Financing will be similar to Lincoln Park East and will require TIF, CDBG, Housing Revenue Bonds, and a HUD insured mortgage. Their purchase offer is$2,741,000($11.25/sq. ft.) with a $10,000 earnest money deposit. The sale would close in 6 to 9 months after the date of a purchase agreement. North American Properties — mixed-use concept with restaurants, small office suites and luxury apartments. Their offer includes a purchase price of$2,600,000 ($10.65 sq. ft.) and a$125,000 earnest money deposit (non-refundable after 30 days). The sale would close within 4 months of signing a purchase agreement and construction would commence in October or November of 2001. They will provide 20% affordable if desired by the City and if TIF is provided. Timing should be considered when comparing offers due to the present value of the offers, tax considerations, and changing market conditions (see attached memo). Background: The site is part of a 21-acre acquisition made by the City in 1993. It is the last of four offered by the City as part of its Marketcenter on Singletree development which includes Bachman's,Water Tower Brewery/Brunswick Bowl, and Lincoln Parc. The development goal for the Marketcenter on Single Tree is to provide a combination of land uses that serve as a commercial service and recreational focal center for the Community. Both proposals meet these goals. Attachments: Staff Memo Letters of Intent/Concept Drawings -Hartford Group &North American Properties I MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Uram,Director of Community Development&Financial Services David Lindahl,HRA Manager THROUGH: Chris Enger, City Manager • DATE: May 31, 2001 SUBJECT: Purchase Offers—Lot 2 Block 1 Market Center 2nd Addition(Singletree Site) Summary As of May 14,2001 the City had received three offers for the purchase of the 5.6-acre site owned by the City and located between Bachman's and Brunswick on Singletree Lane. The offers are from the Hartford Group, North American Properties, and Dominion Development. Dominion withdrew their offer May 25, 2001. Comparative summaries of the two remaining offers are as follows: Hartford Lincoln Parc West North American Hartford vs.NAP 1. Total Price $2,741,000 $2,600,000 +$141,000 2. Per Square Foot $11.25 $10.65 +$0.60 3. Earnest Deposit $10,000 $125,000 - $115,000 4. Closing Date 6-9 months 4 months +2-5 months 5. Proposed Financing HUD Private 6. Concept Mixed-Use Mixed-Use • 7. Units 200 250 Luxury - 50 8. Affordable 75% If desired by City 9. Commercial 20-30,000 s.f. 16,000 s.f. (2 restaurants) +4 to 14,000 s.f. 10.Public Subsidy TIF, CDBG,Bonds None (unless affordable provided) Price When comparing the prices offered by the Hartford and NAP, it is important to consider the timing of the development. This is important for three reasons: 1. Present Value of Money - Simply stated, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. Assuming a difference in the closing date of 6 months, the Hartford offer would be worth $2,650,000 using a discount rate of 7%. Any further delays in closing would reduce the value of the offer below that of NAP. 2 2. Tax Considerations—This parcel is no longer classified tax exempt due to the length of time the City has owed the property. Beginning in 2002, estimated taxes for this property are $60,000. Closing on this property in 2001 will eliminate the City's property tax liability. Delaying the closing also impacts the ability to collect property taxes from the proposed development. Based on information provided by Hartford and NAP, anticipated market values range from $22.5 million to $27 million respectively. At full value, city taxes generated by these projects range from about$128,000 to $157,000. Based on the timelines provided by the developer's, full taxes from the Hartford proposal should be collectible in 2005 as compared to NAP in 2004. 3. Market Conditions — Delaying the closing on the property and the construction of either project increases the exposure of the City and the developer to adverse market conditions. Depending on market conditions, the possibility exists that the developer may not close on the property and that the City would retain ownership. This would become a temporary financial liability for the City. In any case, to help insure performance of the purchase agreement, acceptance of either offer should be contingent on a minimum earnest money deposit of$125,000. This amount would become nonrefundable after 30 days. Any extension beyond 6 Months would cost the developer $10,000 per month. Staff recommends limiting the extension to additional 6 months. Development Concept Both proposals have similar mixed-use development concepts and meet the original development goals for the site. The Hartford proposal has fewer units but more commercial space and is similar in design to Hartford's Lincoln Parc East,with two levels of underground parking. The NAP proposal would attempt to create "mainstreet" façade or experience along Singletree Lane. Parking would be structured and located at the center of the site and would be completely enclosed by the development. Two restaurants with patios for outside dining would anchor the front corners of the building. Affordable Housing Hartford is proposing to provide an affordable structure identical to Lincoln Parc East,with 20% of the units affordable to persons with incomes at 50% of the area median. These units would be credited towards meeting the City's Livable Communities goals. Another 55% would be rented to persons with incomes at 80% of median but would not qualify for Livable Communities. Hartford would need financial assistance to provide the affordable units. The City is providing $5,442,000 in TIF and CDBG funding for Lincoln Parc East,which is about $147,000 per affordable unit (37). If the subsidy per unit is similar for their new proposal,they would require about $5,800,000 from the City to provide 40 affordable(qualifying)units. The NAP proposal is for luxury apartments,but they have indicated they would provide affordable units if requested by the City and with the provision of TIF. Timing Hartford has indicated they will need 6-9 months to obtain a firm financing commitment from HUD, and to receive all municipal related approvals before they can close on the purchase of the 3 property. The project will pursue the same financing arrangement and HUD insured mortgage as Lincoln Park East,which took approximately two years to close(January 1999—November 2000). NAP is proposing to close within 120 days. Background—Market Center Concept The site is part of a 21-acre acquisition made by the City in 1993. It is the last of four parcels offered by the City as part of its Marketcenter on Singletree development which includes Bachman's, Water Tower Brewery/Brunswick Bowl, and Lincoln Parc. The development goal for the Marketcenter on Singletree is to provide a combination of land uses that serve as a commercial service and recreational focal center for the community. Both proposals meet these goals. • "^I 05/31/2001 22:18 8514059300 JAY SCOTT PAGE 01 NORTH AMERiCAN PROPERTIES June I, 2001 auir_ MCSIlViILE Mr. Don Dram City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 RE: Revised Offer to Purchase the 5.6-acre city-owned property along Singletree Lane Dear Don: As we discussed, please accept this letter as a revision to our earlier offer dated May 15, 2001, North American Properties, Inc. is willing to increase its purchase price for the above referenced property to$2,600,000.00. The other relevant terms we are proposing are as follows: • Due Diligence Period: 30 days following the execution of the purchase agreement. This would cover the basic physical due diligence on the property such as survey, title,Phase I and Geotechnical Soils Report. • Earnest Money Deposit: $125,000 upon execution of the purchase agreement. The earnest money deposit would become non-refundable following the expiration of the 30-day due diligence period. • Closing Date: 15 days following receipt of site plan approval. As we have discussed, it is our desire to commence construction on the property sometime this Fall. We will work diligently to submit all of our plans within 60 days from the date we sign a purchase agreement with the City of Eden Prairie. If you have any questions,please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, North American Properties,Inc., _ Ket (—:;a:Y)/v1. Scott Partner 18566 Bearpath Trail Minneapolis,MN $3347 ph:952-974-9200 fax:952.974-930o web;www.naproperties.com Atlanta I Cincinnati I Dallas I Ft.Myers I Minneapolis 5 05/14/2001 21:14 S514059300 JAY SCOTT PAGE 02 • NORTH AMERICAN PROPERTIES : May 15,2001 SOT VIA I ACS1MILE Mr. Don Uram City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 RE: Revised Offer to Purchase the 5.6-acre city-owned property along Singletree Lane Dear Don: As we discussed, please accept this letter as a revision to Our earlier offer dated May 7, 2001_ North American Properties, Inc. is willing to increase its purchase price for the above referenced property to $10.00 per square foot or approximately$2,439,360.00. The remaining terms and conditions such as earnest money and timing can be negotiated further and in more detail in the purchase agreement between the parties. As we have discussed,it is our intention to purchase the property immediately upon receipt of city approvals for the proposed development plans for the property. It would be our desire to commence construction on the property sometime this Fall. We are very interested in this development opportunity and I am convinced we can deliver an exciting project that will please the city and its residents upon completion. We look forward to your decision in the near future. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, North American Properties,Inc., Jay M. Scott Partner 18566 Bearpath Trail Minneapolis,MN 55347 ph:952.974,920o fax 952-974-930o web;www.naproperties.com Atlanta I Cincinnati I Dallas I Ft.Myers I Minneapolis 05/07/2001 03:10 6514059300 JAY SCOTT PAGE 02 • NORTH AMERICAN PROPERTIES 1 May 7,2001 Mr. Chris Enger City Manager City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 RE: Offer to Purchase the 5.6-acre property located along Singletree Lane Dear Mr. Enger: Please accept this letter of intent as a formal purchase offer from North American Properties to purchase the city's 5.6-acre parcel of property located along Singletree Lane. Details of the offer are identified below. 1. Site Plan/Proposed Use: North American Properties is proposing a three to four story mixed-use project involving luxury apartment housing with first floor, end-cap space for two casual dining restaurants_ Depending upon the results of our market analysis, we may provide additional space for some additional retail and or small boutique office space on the first floor. The site plan will locate the buildings right up along Singletree Lane to create a"hard- edge" along Singletree Lane, Parking will be internal to the site, likely in the form of a parking garage. The casual dining restaurants will anchor the corners of the property with distinctive architecture and outdoor plaza areas for dining. We will also locate a pedestrian entrance into the project right-off Singletree Lane to encourage an interaction with the vehicle and pedestrian traffic along Singletree Lane. We would commit to working with the city staff on the final site plan lay-out to ensure that site specific issues and the city's vision for this property is captured as well as reasonably possible. 2. Purchase Price: $2,195,424.00 cash. 3. Earliest Money Deposit: $100,000,00 refundable deposit to be made upon the execution of the purchase agreement. Said earnest money deposit would become non- refundable in the event of a default by buyer under the terms of the purchase agreement. 4. Project Timing: We would like to commence construction on this project in the fall of 2001,if appropriate city approvals can be obtained in that time frame. We would propose a 45-day due diligence period for physical inspection of the property and title. Following the initial inspection period,we would propose up to a 45-day period to formally complete and submit our plans and application for the project to the city. We 18$66 Bearpath Trail Mlnneapoli5.MN 55347 ph:9$2-974-9zoo fax;952-974-9300 web:www.naproperties.com Atlanta I Cincinnati I Dallas I Ft.Myers I Mlnneapalis 05/07/2001 03:10 6514059300 JAY SCOTT PAGE 03 Mr.Chris Eager May 7,2001 Page two would propose to purchase the property within five business clays upon receiving full and final city approvals. Seller shall provide to buyer any existing soil and phase I environmental reports it has in its possession. Seller shall also provide to buyer an ALTA survey of the property and a title commitment for buyer's review during the initial 45-day inspection period. 5. City Impact Fees: Buyer shall pay all typical and customary city impact fees associated with its development plans for the property, including park dedication fees, if any, and all utility trunk charges. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein,the parties expressly acknowledge and agree that this letter of intent is non-binding and does not create any legal obligation between the parties. Rather, the purpose of this letter of intent is simply to set forth the parties' preliminary understanding of certain terms related to the proposed transaction. A binding agreement with respect to the proposed transaction, and any and all terms related thereto, will only exist if and when the parties have successfully negotiated and executed a definitive purchase agreement. Either party may terminate negotiations with respect to the proposed transaction at any time and for any reason. Attached please find some brief information pertaining to the proposed development team members and our related team experience on similar projects in the Twin Cities area. We are excited about the development of this property and appreciate the city's consideration of North American Properties for this opportunity. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, North American Properties,Inc. Jay M. Scott Partner Enclosures 05/07/2001 03:10 6514059300 JAY SCOTT PAGE 04 IDENTIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT TEAM Developer/Owner: North American Properties, Inc. 18566 Bearpath Trail Eden Prairie,MN 55347 Contact: Jay M. Scott (952)974-9200—Phone (952)974-9300—Fax laymscott@cleanweb.net- e-mail address Contact: Michael L. Pacillio (972) 866-9555 —Phone (972)3 87-8242—Fax mpac, lli ( NAP4allaa,corn-e-mail address Architect: TH+-P (James,Harwick&Partners, Inc.) 8340 Meadow Road, Suite 248 Dallas, Texas 75231 Contact: Melissa Joesoef (214)363-5687—Phone (214) 363-9563—Fax mipoo #a' `h rch m- e-mail address Civil Engineer: MFRA.(McCombs Frank Roos Associates) 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55447 Contact: Dan Parks (763)476-6010—Phone (763)476-8532—Fax dpark 7a.intra.com-e-mail address Attorney: Siegel, Brill, Greupner,Duffy&Foster, P.A. 1300 Washington Square 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Contact: Anthony(Tony)I Gleekel (612)339-7131 —Phone (612)337-8108—Fax t9ny,9leekel@sbgacom- e-mail address 05/07/2001 03:10 6514059300 JAY SCOTT PAGE 05 TEAM EI�ERIENCE WITH.PROJECTS Q SIMILAR SIZE AND SCOPE North American Properties is a privately held real estate development company that develops, owns and manages retail, apartment and office properties across the United States. Since 1954,we've developed an extensive portfolio of properties that have effectively met the needs of our clients and the communities we've served. Our strong tenant relationships, experience in construction management and entitlement capabilities have produced some of the highest quality commercial and residential properties in the industry. Our growth and financial strength sustained over the years has afforded us the flexibility and independence to take advantage of market opportunities. For almost half a century the company has been a recognized leader in the real estate industry. In the future,North American Properties will continue to grow and remain committed to creating the best places to shop,live and work. The proposed development team led by Jay Scott and Mike Pacillio of North American Properties has extensive experience working on similar mixed-use development efforts in the Twin Cities and in many other parts of the United States such as Dallas, Atlanta, Orange County,Portland and Salt Lake City. Identified below are a few different mixed- use projects in the Twin Cities-area that the development team has completed in the last three years: • lighland Crossings(Ford Parkway&Cleveland Avenue in downtown I iighland Park). This project involved the redevelopment of a 12-acre site into a mixed-use project including, retail, office and apartment housing. • Golden Valley Commons(Hwy 55 and Winnetka Ave). This redevelopment project included a high-density retail development with many special architectural features and a new regional postal service center. • Arbor Lakes in Maple Grove. This large-scale master plan covered over 300-acres and included a new mixed-use"main street"with retail, office and housing, along with many other more traditional components of retail, office, entertainment, housing and a new city hall and postal facility. A few current projects under development by North American Properties in the Twin Cities include: • Plymouth Marketplace. This is a mixed-use project including a 100,000 square foot Lund's-anchored retail center and a 120-unit senior housing facility. This project is completing construction and will open on July 15th of this year. • Southwest Station in Eden Prairie. This transit-oriented mixed-use project includes high-density housing with over 250 luxury apartment units, 35 for-sale townhomes, a transit hub for Southwest Metro(including a 5-level parking garage),two free- /.0 05/07/2001 03:10 6514059300 JAY SCOTT PAGE 06 standing casual dining restaurants,and over 60,000 square feet of vertically- integrated retail and office space attached to the parking garage. + Plymouth Reserve. This is a 3-story, 370-unit luxury apartment project under construction at the intersection of Schmidt Lake Road and 1-494 in Plymouth. PROJECT FINANCIN( North American Properties has the ability to use an internal-source of funds for any financing or acquisition needs required for its development projects_ Most often upon successful acquisition of the property, the company will make an arrangement with one of its banking partners to place both construction and permanent debt on a property. Even though the proposed development will be complex in its design and will have a mix of uses, North American Properties will not have any financing contingencies in its pursuit of this development effort, �I C n HARTFORD II?II R;OUP INC. Real Estate Development•Architecture•Engineering•Financial Services THIS LETTER OF INTENT DATED MAY 30,2001 DEFINES THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO BE EXECUTED ON OR BEFORE JULY 16,2001,BY AND BETWEEN HARTFORD GROUP,INC.,PURCHASER AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,SELLER: PROPERTY LOCATION Lot 2,Block 1 Eden Prairie Marketcenter 2"d Addition,according to the recorded plat thereof,and situate in Hennepin County,Minnesota. PROPERTY SIZE 243,655 Square Feet 5.5935 Acres PRICE AND TERMS Two Million and Seven Hundred and Forty-One Thousand Dollars($2,741,000).Payment is cash at closing. The price is approximately eleven dollars and twenty-five cents($11.25)per square foot. EARNEST MONEY Earnest Money in the amount of$10,000 to be funded to a title company acceptable to both parties within 10 days of execution of a Purchase Agreement by both Seller and Purchaser. CONTINGENCIES The purchase is contingent upon: 1. Approval by the City of Eden Prairie of all municipal approvals necessary to construct a mixed-use development comprised of offices and residential housing. 2. Approval by the City of Eden Prairie of a Project Management Agreement,which provides tax-increment financing to support an affordable housing component for a minimum of twenty(20%)of the total units. 3. Firm financing commitment from Department of Housing and Urban Development for a mixed-use development comprised of offices and residential housing. CONTINGENCY PERIOD The contingency period extends for six months following the date of execution of the Purchase Agreement. During the Contingency Period,the Purchaser will submit all necessary applications to include plans and specifications to the City of Eden Prairie. If the Department of Housing and Urban Development has not yet issued a Firm Financing Commitment,the closing may be extended a total of 90 days upon payment to the Seller of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars.($25,000.00) All Earnest Money including any extension fees will be credited to the Buyer at closing. • SELLERS PURCHASER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HARTFORD GROUP,INC. By: By:John C.Brandt,President Date Date HARTFORD GROUP,INC. • 1500 McAndrews Road West•Burnsville,MN 55337-4472 (952)892-8417•Telephone www.hartfordcompanies.com (952)892-1156•Fax i DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT LINCOLN PARC WEST HARTFORD GROUP, INC. AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PROJECT TYPE The proposed development,Lincoln Parc West would be similar in concept to the Lincoln Parc project,which is now under construction. The primary component would be residential housing,which would include an affordable housing component integrated with market rate housing. A commercial component would also be included. We would explore various development concepts with the City and staff to determine the most acceptable development type. PROJECT SIZE AND FEATURES The proposed development would be similar in size to the current Lincoln Parc mixed-use development. Projected size and development features are as follows: • Rental apartments(200) • Storefront offices and commercial space(20,000-30,000 square feet) • Outdoor plaza with fountains and seating • Two levels of underground parking(450 spaces) • Elegant brick and stucco facade PROBABLE AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT • Twenty percent(20%)of the units would be reserved for very-low income tenants • Fifty-five percent(55%)of the units would be reserved for low-income units • Twenty five percent (25%)of the units would be reserved for market rate units with no income restrictions FINANCIAL MODEL The proposed method of financing the development would include: • Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds • Tax Increment Financing • Community Development Block Action Grant • Credit Enhancement: Department of Housing and Urban Development These financing components were used to successfully develop Lincoln Parc. Depending on the interest rate and general market conditions,we would also consider conventional financing. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS During the Contingency Period and prior to closing,Hartford would fund the following: • Architectural Fees • Engineering Fees • Environmental and Geotechnical Fees • Surveying Fees • Financing Fees • Legal Fees • Earnest Money Our commitment to this development would be substantial. 13 FEASIBILITY AND CONTINGENCY PERIOD During the Contingency Period,Hartford would work with the City to review development alternatives. Because of our extensive experience in working with the City and our recent experience of successfully developing the Lincoln Parc project,we believe that we could achieve the necessary municipal approvals within approximately six months. This period would also allow for the consideration of various development alternatives to be considered by the City and Hartford. As well,our development team of investment bankers,architects and legal representatives has successfully navigated the complex financing structure,which was utilized in the Lincoln Parc project. AREA DYNAMICS We believe that an additional project of similar size to Lincoln Parc would have a very positive impact on the general area. With the recent expansion of the Eden Prairie Mall,significant new employment base,new restaurants and commercial facilities,integrated affordable housing would be extremely desirable. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP This project would be developed in partnership with the City with the express purpose of providing affordable housing integrated with market rate housing. All available financial resources would be utilized by the City and Hartford to create a development of extraordinary quality,which would provide housing for people of all incomes. HARTFORD GROUP,INC. Hartford Group,Inc.is a locally based integrated real estate development and architectural company. The company is one of the leading developers of mixed-use integrated affordable housing projects in the Midwest. Hartford will be relocating their offices to the Lincoln Parc development in Fall 2001. Operating from this Eden Prairie location would facilitate the leasing and development of both Lincoln Parc East and Lincoln Parc West. L( HARTFORD II__I GROUP, INC. Real Estate Development•Architecture•Engineering•Financial Services THIS LETTER OF INTENT DATED APRIL 12,2001 DEFINES THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO BE EXECUTED ON OR BEFORE MAY 1,2001,BY AND BETWEEN HARTFORD DEVELOPMENT,LLC,PURCHASER AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,SELLERS: PROPERTY LOCATION Lot 2,Block 1 Eden Prairie Marketcenter 2"d Addition,according to the recorded plat thereof,and situate in Hennepin County,Minnesota. PROPERTY SIZE 243,655 Square Feet 5.5935 Acres PRICE AND TERMS One Million and Nine-Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars($1,950,000.00)Payment is cash at closing. The price is approximately eight dollars per square foot. EARNEST MONEY Earnest Money in the amount of$10,000 to be funded to a title company acceptable to both parties within 10 days of execution of a Purchase Agreement by both Seller and Purchaser. CONTINGENCIES The purchase is contingent upon: 1. Approval by the City of Eden Prairie of all municipal approvals necessary to construct a mixed-use development comprised of offices and residential housing. 2. Approval by the City of Eden Prairie of a Project Management Agreement,which provides financial support to allow for an affordable housing component. 3. Firm financing commitment from Department of Housing and Urban Development for a mixed-use development comprised of offices and residential housing. 4. Review and acceptance of soil tests,which will be provided by Seller. CONTINGENCY PERIOD The contingency period extends for twelve months following the date of execution of the Purchase Agreement. During the Contingency Period,the Purchaser will submit all necessary applications to include plans and specifications to the City of Eden Prairie. If the Department of Housing and Urban Development has not yet issued a Firm Commitment,the closing may be extended a total of 150 days upon payment to the Seller of Ten Thousand Dollars.($10,000.00) All Earnest Money including any extension fees will be credited to the Buyer at closing SELLERS PURCHASER City of Eden Prairie Hartford Development,LLC By: By:John C.Brandt,Chief Manager y// a/ Date Date HARTFORD GROUP,INC. • 1500 McAndrews Road West•Burnsville,MN 55337-4472 (952)892-8417•Telephone www.hartfordcompanies.com (952) 892-1156•Fax HARTFORD GROUP, INC. Real Estate Development•Architecture•Engineering•Financial Services DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT-LINCOLN PARC WEST PROJECT TYPE The proposed development,Lincoln Parc West would be similar in concept to the Lincoln Parc project,which is now under construction. The primary emphasis would be residential housing,which would include an affordable housing component integrated with market rate housing. A commercial component would also be included. We would explore various development concepts with the City and staff to determine the most acceptable development type. FINANCIAL MODEL The proposed method of financing the development would include: • Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds • Tax Increment Financing • Community Development Block Action Grant • Credit Enhancement Department of Housing and Urban Development These financing components were used to develop Lincoln Parc. Depending on the interest rate and general market conditions,we would also consider conventional financing. FUNDING REQUIREMENT During the Contingency Period and prior to closing,Hartford would fund the following: • Architectural and Engineering Fees • Environmental Fees • Surveying Fees • Financing Fees • Legal Fees • Earnest Money Our commitment to this development would be substantial. FEASIBILITY AND CONTINGENCY PERIOD We believe that the Department of Housing and Urban Development would only provide credit enhancement after the completion and lease up of Lincoln Parc. The final Certificate of Occupancy is scheduled to be provided in Summer 2002. We expect to be substantially leased by Fall 2002. Thus,a Contingency Period,which would allow for a closing to occur 12-16 months after execution of the Purchase Agreement would potentially allow for construction commencement of Lincoln Parc West in Fall 2002. This period would also allow for the consideration of various development alternatives to be considered by the City and Hartford. AREA DYNAMICS We believe that an additional project of similar size to Lincoln Parc would have a very positive impact on the general area. With the recent expansion of the Eden Prairie Mall,significant new employment base,new restaurants and commercial facilities,integrated affordable housing would be extremely desirable. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP This project would be developed in partnership with the City with the express purpose of providing affordable housing integrated with market rate housing. All available financial resources would be utilized by the City and Hartford to create a development of extraordinary quality,which would provide housing for people of all incomes. HARTFORD GROUP,INC.•1500 McAndrews Road West-Burnsville,MN 55337-4472 (952)892-8417•Telephone www.hartfordcompanies.com (952)892-1156•Fax l(0