HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/03/2002 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/FORUM
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3,2002 CITY CENTER
4:00 -6:25 PM,HERITAGE ROOM II
6:30—7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER
CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ron Case,David Luse and
Jan Mosman
CITY STAFF:
City Manager Scott Neal,Public Safety Director Jim Clark, Public Works Services Director
Eugene Dietz,Director of Parks and Recreation Services Bob Lambert, Community Development
and Financial Services Director Don Uram, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder Lorene
McWaters
Heritage Room II
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. 2003 BUDGET WORKSHOP
IV. OTHER TOPICS
Council Chamber
V. OPEN FORUM (Scheduled participants, 6:30-6:50 p.m.)
A. GREG GILBERT—DULUTH CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
B. GARY ECKENBURG—FORMER DULUTH CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
C. CORRINNE ERTZ—PRESENTATION OF ACS CITIZEN SURVEY
RESULTS
D. ROBERT BORHART—ATTORNEY
VI. OPEN PODIUM(Unscheduled participants, 6:50-7:00 p.m.)
VII. ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 3,2002 7:00 PM,CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ron Case,David
Luse and Jan Mosman
CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal,Parks &Recreation Director Bob Lambert,Public Works
Director Eugene Dietz,Management and Budget Director Don Uram,City Planner Michael Franzen,
City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Theresa Brundage
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. CITY COUNCIL FORUM,AUGUST 6,2002(p 1)
B. CITY COUNCIL/SCHOOL BOARD WORKSHOP,AUGUST 20,2002 (p3)
C. CITY COUNCIL MEETING,AUGUST 20,2002 (p7)
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST(p19)
B. HOUND DOG PET HOTEL by Hound Dog Pet Hotel,L.L.C. 2nd Reading
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.56 acres,Zoning
District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 1.56
acres, and Site Plan Review on 1.56 acres. Location: 13013 Valley View Road(East
of Children's World Daycare) (Ordinance for PUD District Review,Zoning
District Amendment, and Resolution for Site Plan Review) (p 20)
C. APPROVE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRAIL
CONSTRUCTION ALONG CRESTWOOD TERRACE (p 51)
D. CRESTWOOD PONDS by Terry Vogt Homes,Inc. 2nd Reading for Rezoning
from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.32 acres. Location: 9617 Crestwood Terrace.
(Ordinance for Rezoning) (p 55)
E. AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SUBMIT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR 2002-2003
WINTER SEASON FOR USAGE OF THE LRT TRAIL (p 79)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 3,2002
Page 2
F. AWARD CONTRACT FOR PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE/PRAIRIE LAKES
DRIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE TRAFFIC
SIGNAL CONNECT,I.C.94-5372 (p 82)
G. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SUIVIlVIIT
ENVIROSOLUTIONS FOR PHASE HI WELL FIELD MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS (p 84)
H. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SUMMIT
. ENVIROSOLUTIONS FOR ANNUAL SYSTEM MAINTENANCE,I.C. 98-5456
(p95)
I. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE GLENSHIRE OUTLOT
A AND WATER TREATMENT PLANT MITIGATION SITES (p 106)
J. APPROVE PETITION FROM RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK
. WATERSHED DISTRICT FOR THE ROUND LAKE WATER QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (p 108)
K. APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH SUMMIT ENVIRO-
SOLUTIONS FOR THE WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN (p 112)
L. ADOPT RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CITY'S PROPOSED 2003
PROPERTY TAX LEVIES,SETTING THE DATE FOR THE TRUTH-IN-
TAXATION HEARING,AND ACCEPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET FOR
GENERAL OPERATIONS AND TAX-SUPPORTED OBLIGATIONS (p 115)
M. ACCEPT HENNEPIN COUNTY REQUEST TO SERVE AS FISCAL AGENT
FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GRANT(p 117)
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS
A. VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS OVER PART OF
.DATASERVE BUSINESS CENTER(p 119)
B. RIVER VIEW by Wooddale Builders. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 34.73 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with
waivers on 34.73 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 18.07
acres, and Preliminary Plat on 34.73 acres into 29 single family lots,3 outlots, and
road right-of-way. Location: South of Riverview Road at Parker Drive. (Resolution
for PUD Concept Review,Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning
District Change,and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) (p 123)
VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS (p 176)
IX. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 3,2002
Page 3
X. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT TREE FORT IN CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AT 11623 LANDING ROAD (p 184)
XI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
XII. APPOINTMENTS
A. APPOINTMENTS TO THE ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION(p 190)
XDI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
1. Update of City's Strategic Plan
2. Fire Chief Appointment
3. Public Safety Department
C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR
G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIRECTOR
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XIV. OTHER BUSINESS
XV. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
COUNCIL FORUM
TUESDAY,AUGUST 6,2002 CITY CENTER
6:30 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER
CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ron Case, David Luse and
Jan Mosman
CITY STAFF:
City Manager Scott Neal,Recorder Lorene McWaters
V. OPEN FORUM (Scheduled participants, 6:30-6:50 p.m.)
A. Paul Wendorff
Mr.Wendorff introduced himself as long-time resident of Eden Prairie and owner
of a local technical business. He said his purpose in appearing before the Council
was to address the proposed smoking ordinance,which he said he is"one hundred
ten percent against." Mr. Wendorff showed a PowerPoint presentation that
outlined the reasons he is against such an ordinance. He said he would provide
copies of the presentation to the Councilmembers afterward. Wendorff listed
preservation of personal freedom and the possible detrimental effects a smoking
ban might have on restaurants as reasons not to pass an ordinance.
Wendorff said he was also concerned that the Council"has not been sensitized to
the MPAAT situation in regard to the Attorney General's case." He said the
Council is facing an ethics issue because MPAAT lobbied Eden Prairie
"illegally." Wendorff said he is also worried about the perception of Eden Prairie
as becoming a"do-gooder"community.
Wendorff said he believes there may also be conflicts of interest with Mayor
Tyra-Lukens and Councilmembers Mosman and Butcher. Mayor Tyra-Lukens
asked Wendorff if,in referring to conflict of interest,he was implying that she or
others had received some sort of financial gain. Wendorff said he was not
referring to any kind of financial interest or gain,but he said, for example,he was
uncomfortable with Butcher's and Mosman's "ties"to Leslie Ellis,the Chair of
Clean Air on the Prairie. Wendorff noted that Ellis is managing Butcher's
campaign for a State Senate seat and that a photo of Mosman dancing with Ellis at
a 4th of July event appeared in the Eden Prairie News. It was also noted that
Mayor Tyra-Lukens had done volunteer work with the American Cancer Society
in the past. Councilmember Case said he took exception to the notion that just
because an elected official has a background in a certain area,this alone renders
them unable to make unbiased decisions based on the good of the people.
Wendorff said he believes a compromise on a smoking ordinance is possible. He
proposed a non hospitality workplace ban on smoking and a partial restaurant ban
on smoking. He said 100 percent of the City's cigarette sales revenues and 50
percent of liquor sale profits should be used to install HVAC equipment in
restaurants to reduce the effects of second hand smoke.
VI. OPEN PODIUM(Unscheduled participants,6:50-7:00 p.m.)
A. Basil Wissner
Mr.Wissner said that he had been informed that he could follow up on his request
from the previous Council Forum to receive smoking ordinance-related
information by filling out a data request form. Mr. Wissner said he would be
happy to complete the form.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
•
_AL 3 Y
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
JOINT WORKSHOP OF THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
AND EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT
&COUNCIL FORUM
TUESDAY,AUGUST 20,2002 CITY CENTER
5:00- 6:25 PM,HERITAGE ROOM II
6:30—7:00 PM,COUNCIL CHAMBER
CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ron Case,David Luse and
Jan Mosman
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD:
Carol Bomben,David Hann, Claire Hilgeman,Mark Kantor,Phil Rose, Jill Scholtz
CITY STAFF:
City Manager Scott Neal,Public Safety Director James Clark, Parks &Recreation Director Bob
Lambert,Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, Management and Budget Director Don Uram,
City Attorney Ric Rosow and Recorder Lorene McWaters
SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFF:
Acting Superintendent Melissa Krull,Ph.D.,Executive Assistant to Supt&School Board
Cathryn Wilkinson,Director of Student Support Services Gretchen Durkot, Executive Director
of Business Services Patricia Magnuson, Human Resources Staffing Specialist Cathy Moen,
Director of Community Educational Services Jeanne Zetah,Ed.D. Director of Teaching and
Learning Larry Leebens,Eden Prairie High School Interim Principal William Sommers,Ph.D.
Heritage Room II
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as published,with the exception that item C was moved to the
beginning of the section III.
III. INTRODUCTIONS
HI. CITY/SCHOOL TOPICS OF DISCUSSIONS
A. REFERENDUM PLANS: SCHOOL AND CITY
Acting School Superintendent Melissa Krull handed out a letter that has been sent
to all Eden Prairie parents regarding the November 5 School Referendum. The
letter explains why the district is asking for the additional funding and how the
money would be spent. Krull stressed how important this operating levy is to the
District. She said between 55 and 60 teachers have been laid off and a number of
3
programs have been cut in the wake of the failure of the last referendum. Krull
said the proposed$3 million per year will allow the school district to maintain
current class sizes, staff and programming. Krull said there are more than 100
volunteers actively working on promoting the referendum,making phone calls
and raising funds to support the campaign.
Krull said it is possible the district will hold another referendum,probably next
year. Krull said the district will work with the City on timing of any referendum
to ensure they don't overlap with any city referendums.
B. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC PLANNING
Patty Magnuson,Executive Director of Business Services for the Schools, said
they have worked closely with the Eden Prairie Police Department to develop
transportation plans for each school. This is the first year students who live
within two miles of a school will have to pay a yearly fee to ride a bus.
Magnuson said that as far as they can tell,not very many students will be walking
to school in lieu of a bus ride. Some families have indicated they will drop
children off at school and many have chosen to pay the bus fee. Magnuson said
they will not know how smoothly the process will actually go until the first day of
school. School staff will be on site at each school to monitor the situation.
School Board Member David Hann asked if the City had considered installing
more sidewalks in light of the fact that more students may be walking to school.
Public Works Director Gene Dietz explained the City's policy for placement of
trails and sidewalks and said there has been no recent consideration of altering the
policy. Dietz pointed out that many homeowners object to having a trail or
sidewalk in front of their home when such projects are proposed.
Councilmember David Luse asked about the use of crossing guards. Police Chief
Jim Clark said they have worked with the schools for many years to train and use
student crossing guards at intersections closest to the schools and this has worked
well.
C. SCHOOL LEASE IN CITY CENTER
City Manager Scott Neal said the City is interested in getting an indication from
the School District on whether or not they will be taking advantage of their option
to occupy space currently under lease to C.H. Robinson(CHR), in the event that
CHR chooses not to renew their lease. School Board Chair Carol Bomben asked
if this is an issue that school and city staff can work on together over the coming
months. Both sides agreed this was possible.
D. HFT PARTNERSHIP
Management and Budget Director Don Uram gave an update on Habitat for
Technology(HFT) activities. Uram said HFT is a partnership involving the City,
Schools,businesses and the Chamber of Commerce.HFT's mission is to promote
Eden Prairie as a home for high tech businesses. Uram said a number of
internships with local businesses and with the City have taken place over the
4
summer. He said EMT is also looking into the potential development of a
business incubator. Eden Prairie-based Endurant has been working diligently on
the HFT web portal,which hosts the City's website and will eventually host web
sites for local businesses.
E. SCHOOL/POLICE LIAISON PROGRAM
Superintendent Krull invited Chief Clark to attend the September 19 School
Board Meeting to provide an update on the School/Police Liaison Program. Clark
said he or one of the Liaison Officers will attend to present information and
answer questions.
Council Chamber '
V. OPEN FORUM (Scheduled participants,6:30-6:50 p.m.)
A. Paul Ansolabehere—Anagram(Topic: Smoking Ordinance)
Ansolabehere introduced himself as the owner of Anagram, an Eden Prairie
company that manufactures mylar balloons and food packaging materials. He
said his current facility was built in 1992 on a 17.4 acre parcel. The Eden Prairie
facility employs 350 workers, about 50 percent of which are smokers.
Ansolabehere said he has built separate rooms with independent ventilation
systems to accommodate workers who wish to smoke.He said this ensures that
those who do not smoke are not exposed to second hand smoke. He believes if
the Council passes an ordinance that bans smoking in his facility,he will lose up
to 50 percent of his pressmen.
Ansolabehere said he met the late Mayor Harris, and feels certain she would have
wanted to approach the second hand smoke issue by"taking positive action,"not
by passing an ordinance that will hurt businesses. He implored the Council not to
pass a measure that would hurt his business. He also invited all of the Council
Members to visit his facility to see how well he has been able to contain second
hand smoke to particular areas of the building.
Councihnember Case asked if Mr.Ansolabehere knew of businesses, other than
restaurants and hospitality concerns, in Eden Prairie with similar concerns about
the proposed ordinance. Ansolabehere said he thinks other businesses have not
expressed concern because they do not understand the ramifications of the
proposed ordinance.
B. Michelle Gullickson—Minneapolis Mediation Program
Michelle Gullickson introduced her organization,Minneapolis Mediation
Program(MMP). She said it services are similar to those of a now defunct
organization called West Suburban Mediation,which the City used in the past.
Gullickson said MMP is working extensively with the Minneapolis City Council
on a number of contentious issues. She said MMP specializes in training in
conflict management skills,and they work a lot with neighbor-on-neighbor
dispute resolution. Gullickson said Councilmembers or staff can make referrals to
6
MAP, and they may remain anonymous if they wish. She said the service is
confidential and is often effective in cases in which no law has been broken but
there is still unhappiness with a situation.
VI. OPEN PODIUM (Unscheduled participants, 6:50-7:00 p.m.)
Ann Berne-Rannow, 17150 Cedarcrest Drive, said she wished to address Council
about an issue of erosion on their property caused by a nearby development under
construction by Scott Carlston Properties. Berne-Rannow said she has tried to
work with the developer to reduce the erosion on their property. She said the
developer has not been responsive to her concerns. She has also spoken with City
Engineers who ordered the developer to install a silt fence within 48 hours. The
developer failed to install the fence, so the City installed it. However,the fence
was not strong enough to withstand the pressure of several recent heavy rainfalls.
Berne Rannow said she is specifically seeking that 1) immediate steps be taken to
stop the erosion; 2)reparations be made for damage to their property from the
erosion. Berne-Rannow said Carlston has been verbally abusive to her during
phone conversations and has indicated several times that he considers any
drainage problem to be the responsibility of the City since they approved the
plans for the project. Public Works Director Dietz said he will meet with staff
and look into what legal steps can be taken if the developer refuses to cooperate
with City efforts to alleviate the erosion problem. Since it was time for the
regular council meeting to begin, Councilmember Luse suggested adding the
Berne-Rannow issue to the regular agenda for additional discussion.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
6
UNAPPROVED M NUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,AUGUST 20,2002 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ron Case,David
Luse and Jan Mosman
CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks &Recreation Director Bob Lambert,Public Works
Director Eugene Dietz,Management and Budget Director Don Uram, City Planner Michael Franzen,
City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Theresa Brundage
I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All members were present,
except Butcher.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
Mayor Tyra-Lukens said the Council Forum will be held the first and third Tuesday of the
month from 6:30—7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber.Please note that this portion of the
meeting is off-camera. The Council Forum will consist of two parts: scheduled and
unscheduled appearances. 6:30 to 6:50 p.m.is reserved for scheduled participants. If you
wish to schedule time to visit with the City Council and Service Area Directors,please notify
the City Manager's office (at 952-949-8412)by noon of the meeting date with your request.
The last 10 minutes of the Forum,from 6:50 to 7:00 p.m. is set aside for impromptu,
unscheduled appearances by individuals or organizations that wish to speak to the Council.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Luse added an item under XIII.A.1. DISCUSSION ON ISSUE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC
FORUM REGARDING MR.AND MRS.RANNOW. Tyra-Lukens added two items as
follows: XIII.A.2. DISCUSSION ON TRANSPORTATION ISSUE SITUATION; and
XIII.A.3 DISCUSSION ON HOUSING ISSUES.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Luse,to approve the Agenda as published and
amended. Motion carried 4-0.
V. MINUTES
A. CITY COUNCIL FORUM,AUGUST 6,2002
B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING,AUGUST 6,2002
MOTION:Mosman moved, seconded by Case,to approve as published,the Minutes
of the City Council Meeting held August 6,2002.Motion carried 4-0.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 20,2002
Page 2
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
B. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.2002-136 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
ANNETTE ESTATES
C. RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2002-137
SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR PIONEER TRAIL/FLYING CLOUD
DRIVE AREA UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS (I.C. 52-204) FOR SEPTEMBER
17,2002
D. DECLARE EXCESS COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AS SURPLUS AND
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO DISPOSE OF PROPERTY
MOTION: Luse moved, seconded by Mosman, to approve Items A-D of the Consent
Calendar.Motion carried 4-0.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS
A. HILLCREST/ALPINE STREET IMPROVEMENTS (Resolution)
Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the July 25 and August
1, 2002,Eden Prairie News and sent to 103 property owners. He said with the
assistance of HTPO, Inc.,the City Engineer has prepared a feasibility study for street
reconstruction in the Hillcrest/Alpine neighborhood. A public hearing is the next step
in the consideration of these improvements. In response to a petition for street and
utility improvements in 1998 from residents of Hillcrest/Alpine neighborhood, Council
authorized the preparation of a feasibility study. A study has been completed and based
on neighborhood meetings and surveys there is substantial support to proceed with
improvements based on proposed assessments.
This report is a culmination of neighborhood input and workshop meetings with City
Council. The result is expected to be the policy for reconstruction of streets that do
not meet current City design standards. The proposed assessment is 40%of the final
construction and engineering costs,plus interim financing and an administrative cost
of 9%. In 1973 each lot was assessed$2,633 for sanitary sewer and water main
improvements. This assessment was less than the full cost of the utility
improvements. The City paid the remaining portion and the cost of street
replacement in 1973.
When the 1973 assessed cost of$2,633 is adjusted,utilizing the Construction Index,
its current value is $9,190. When the current proposed assessment of$7,050 is
added,the total amount is$16,240,which is below the current maximum assessment
of$20,800. The results of the report show an equitable cost distribution in
conformance to our assessment policies and a total assessable amount substantially
below recently ordered projects in the community.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 20,2002
Page 3
Neal requested that Al Gray, City Engineer, give further explanation of the project.
Gray gave brief overview and background on the project. He said the central issue
for the neighborhood has been what is the appropriate level of assessment for the
improvements-what the neighborhood share should be for the neighborhood
residential streets and what portion of the cost the City should bear.He said
discussions have evolved to the point of establishing a 40%neighborhood and 60%
City proposed split.
Case expressed concern about future liability of this kind of project and how this
would apply to all City streets,including future rebuilds on City streets with upgraded
curb and gutter.
Dietz said the issue is trying to bring equitable distribution into the system so that
everybody is paying for the same thing in front of their home. He said this may
involve a future portion of assessments against all reconstruction projects,but
tonight's formulation of a policy needs to be done because the 16 miles of roadway in
this neighborhood have not participated to the same extent that the rest of the
community has. He said what we are doing is trying to develop a current policy for
those 16 miles that do not meet current City standards,to get the adjacent properties
to pay for those portions of the project that everybody else in the community has paid
for. He said the piece that this neighborhood has never paid for amounts to
approximately 40%. He said for the most part, elements of road improvements in
front of all homes in the other 250 miles of streets in the City have been paid for.
Mosman said there is no sanitary sewer and water that is being upgraded or added on
this project. Gray said that repair is expected on some of the sewer constructed 30
years ago. He said in a study, $30,000 was budgeted for that purpose,but it is not
proposed that an assessment be done for those costs -it will come from a utility fund
that would be maintenance.
Barney Uhlig of 16370 N. Hillcrest Ct. quoted parts of Minnesota State Statute
429.051. He said not the cost of the project,but only the benefit received by each
individual property is the only permissible basis for assessment. He further stated
that according to Minnesota Statute 429.031.1.b, a description of the methodology
used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels must be available at the
required public hearings. He said a market value analysis of the benefits received by
each individual parcel needs to be present at this meeting, and that can be the sole
basis for an assessment. He said such market-based analysis is not present tonight.
He said City engineers have failed to calculate individual assessments,nor have they
addressed the market value of the benefits,which he said is the only permissible basis
for assessment.He said if the City bases the assessment of project costs as proposed,
it will be in violation of Minnesota law.He asked that the mayor take counsel from
the City attorney, and not the City engineer. He said if the Council approves an
assessment based on"this illegal method,"he will file an assessment appeal.
Rosow stated he will give a response to and history of this once everyone has had a
chance to speak.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 20,2002
Page 4
Joe Lupo of 16390 N.Hillcrest Ct. also spoke in opposition of basing the
assessments on cost of the project. He said it is based on the benefit received,not the
cost. He said nowhere in the feasibility study were benefits received discussed or
addressed. He said when the time comes,he will also file an assessment appeal.
Terry Tucker of 16350 N. Hillcrest Ct. said she is in agreement of the legal issues
involving the feasibility study and would like to address the political issues. She
spoke about the history of petitions pertaining to the plan and said she and her
husband are in favor of having the project completed as long as it is done within the
guidelines of Minnesota law.
David and Carol Quanbeck of 16150 N. Hillcrest Ct. said most residents want a
solution and a resolution. He urged Council to approve this project without delay.
Al Bode of 16090 Alpine Way said the proposed cost of the project is now about half
of what was originally anticipated and the considerable majority of people want the
streets done.He said he and a number of his neighbors are in favor of the project and
hope this is the year it gets approved, and done next year.
Sally and Dick Bowles of 16041 Alpine Lane spoke in favor of the project. Sally
said they do feel that the 40%is a fair and equitable assessment for the
improvements. She said they are very anxious to see the project completed and urged
the Council to consider that and move forward as soon as possible. Dick echoed that
he is very anxious to see the project move ahead and commended City Staff for their
good job on it. He said he feels it is a fair assessment.
Michael and Trish Sandness of 7101 Center Drive spoke about the poor condition
of the road. Trish said she wants the project to go forward, she's OK with the 60/40,
and would hope the Council passes this along to get things rolling. Michael said he
too feels strongly about seeing the project finished on the street where he purchased
the home he grew up in.
Kim Vohs of 15900 N.Hillcrest Ct. said he is fine with the proposal as recommended
and said the compromise is a fair solution and something that needs to move forward.
He said the present policy is unclear as to what is repair and what is maintenance and
the policy needs to be clearer. He urged Council to move ahead.
Craig Pixley of 16001 Alpine Way said he is willing to move forward with the
assessment of$7,050 and is opposed to having sidewalks as part of the project.
Robert Johnson of 16371 N.Hillcrest Ct. said he recently had his home refinanced
and it was determined that the value of his property would not increase with the
addition of curb and gutter.He said if his property is going to be assessed,he'd like to
see a caveat put in that this is not based on an assessment,this is the final figure. He
said don't come back a year from now and want more money.
Jerry Johnson of 15801 N. Hillcrest Ct. commended of Mr. Gray for how he has
conducted himself during the meetings.He said he'd like to see the Council move
0
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 20,2002
Page 5
forward on this project and it needs to be done in a fairly short period of time.He said
he would be more comfortable with a formula based on the improvements and the
categories -the concept that the City would do the streets and residents pay for other
things-rather than a 60/40 split.He encouraged Council to get an engineering firm
with good quality control to monitor the project.
Glenn Hagan of 16351 N.Hillcrest Ct said he regrets signing the petition four years
ago because he didn't make the connection to the cost of what is being discussed here.
He said he believes everyone wants a new street,but does not see how his property
can increase in value by$7,000 with concrete curb and gutter.
Doug Lawyer of 16331 N. Hillcrest Ct. said he believes the$7,000 cost is not
worthwhile.
Luse said he wants to note that whatever the decision is tonight, it is not setting
precedence. He suggested a workshop be set to discuss the 16.5 miles in the future
and bring in Mr.Lambert's department as it relates to the trail systems. Tyra-Lukens
said the Council needs to re-look at the assessment policy based on the situations that
have come up. Luse said, as direction to Staff,before any future project were to move
in a life cycle that seems to be four years, that it does not come up to this Council or
any Council without having the opportunity to go through workshop process to
include with it trail systems that he will define as an overall safety issue for Eden
Prairie.
MOTION: Luse moved, seconded by Case,to close the Public Hearing. Motion
carried 4-0.
Attorney Rosow stated the test is the benefit to the property,not the cost estimates.
He said that is not the end of the analysis. The problem is whether to order the
improvement,not whether to make the assessment in the amount of the assessment.
He said the feasibility study would be insufficient if it did not analyze costs so
Council cannot proceed with ordering the improvements until Council receives the
feasibility study which they received tonight, and that is the first step in the process.
He said after that plans and specifications can be ordered and after that, ordering the
improvements. He said it is still not at the point in time where the amount of
assessment can be considered. He said this is not even a determination tonight-this
is an analysis in the feasibility study as to what the assessment would be. He said the
third major step is that after the project is done and all costs are in,the attorneys tell
the engineers that we are no longer talking about cost,but we are talking about
benefit and it is at that time that we address the benefit issue while Council is making
the actual determination as to the amount to be assessed.
Rosow said years ago the Supreme Court forced municipalities for a period of time to
have, at that assessment hearing which is down the road after the project is
completed, a full-blown hearing before the City Council where he brought in the
expert appraiser who was questioned as to the increase in value to the property. He
said the hearings were lengthy and residents were allowed to cross-examine the
appraiser. He said the Supreme Court has since backed off that process,but we do,
during that period of time when you're considering the assessment,address the cost
It
CITY COUNCIL MTFF.TING
August 20,2002
Page 6
issue and if in fact,the costs were grossly out of proportion to the benefit received,
then it would be Rosow's advice that Council would have to stay within the limits of
the benefit. However,that is not the determination tonight and it would be
inappropriate for any resident to,at this point,file an appeal because the assessment
has not yet been done and they would be wasting time and money to do that.
He said the process has to go to a certain point in time at which Council has a hearing
on the special assessment;they have to then come back,under the Statutes, and they
have to object, either in person or writing,at that hearing, and then they have 30 days
to file their appeal. Rosow said staff is following the process required under State'
law to present the feasibility study and Council has the option tonight to order the
improvement, or anytime within six months of tonight,take up that issue again to
allow time to think about ordering the improvement.
Tyra-Lukens said according to the project schedule, Council would not even deal
with final assessments until March 4. Rosow said he believes that-is correct.
Dietz said the process to follow would be to order the improvement tonight,prepare
plans and specifications, approve those and authorize bids to be received, and then
bids would be opened,providing a window between when bids were opened and
when we had to make an award. He said at about the same two weeks in time, a
public hearing would be held, and with the final cost of bids in hand,we would go
back through the proposed assessments to verify what has been estimated tonight and
propose the final assessment. He said we would hold the final assessment hearing
before the contract was awarded and if the overwhelming sentiment of the residents
was to object, Council may choose not to award the project,postpone it or abandon it.
Mosman said when the workshop is held, differences between repair and replacement
and maintenance will be clarified. She compared the project to roof replacement and
said maintenance costs of property are not looked at as adding value-it becomes
something like in this case with the road being substandard that the value needs to be
added or you will lose value.
Luse said he thinks it's unfair that residents have to wait until Council has that
workshop discussion to hear whether this is going to happen or not.He said he hopes
that Council would award, as language indicates,and let Staff handle it from there.
Case said he would like to look at the concept that Council would pay for the road,in
this particular development, and take that concept into the future. Luse said he is not
comfortable with that concept. Case said the piece of the precedent that would be
carried on is that we will be responsible for the parts of the project that had already
been previously paid in infrastructure.
•
Dietz said the $2,600 that residents paid back in 1972-73 was not the full cost of what
was done out there.Luse said he does not want to handicap future councils and bring
this back for review later.
Tyra-Lukens said she would hate not to vote for these improvements and potentially
delay the project further,and drive the costs up further. She encouraged Council to
i .
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 20,2002
Page 7
approve this realizing that there are issues that can still be addressed between now
and the final assessments.
Rosow said the motion before Council is to order the improvements, and that is the
resolution,it does not set the assessment. He said the record of tonight's meeting will
reflect the divergence of opinion on the Council with respect to the special
assessment,but that is not the matter to be decided tonight. He said the record will be
clear that what is being done tonight,if so voted,is to order the improvements. He
said ordering the improvements is different than the actual determination on the
special assessment which is yet to be made.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Luse,to adopt Resolution No. 2002-138
ordering Hillcrest/Alpine Street Improvements. Motion passed 4-0.
B. BLUFF COUNTRY VILLAGE AMENDMENT By Hustad Investment Corp.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to
Office on 3.0 acres,Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 8.8 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 8.8 acres, Zoning District Amendment
within the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District on 5.8 acres,Rezoning from
Neighborhood Commercial to Office on 3.0 acres, Site Plan Review on 8.8 acres, and
Preliminary Plat of 8.8 acres into 3 lots. Location: Hennepin Town Road and
Pioneer Trail.
Neal said Official notice of this public hearing was published in the August 8,2002,
Eden Prairie News and sent to 115 property owners. He said this project is an
amendment to the approved plan for Bluff Country Village located at the intersection of
Hennepin Town Road and Pioneer Trail. A guide plan change from Neighborhood
Commercial to Office is proposed for an office building and a daycare. There are
waivers from the City Code for building height and floor area for the retail apartment
building.
He said the proposed plan includes 188 total housing units and the approved plan is 161
housing units; 94 townhouses and the approved plan is 97 townhouses;45,000 sf of
retail and the approved plan is 50,000 sf of retail; 94 apartment units located above
28,011 sf of retail located on the west side of Hennepin Town Road and a 3,200 sf
restaurant, and the approved plan is 25,000 square feet of retail, 8 senior units, and 16
live-work units; and 9,900 sf daycare and 9,000 sf office building located north of the
pond on the east side of Hennepin Town Road and the approved plan is 40 senior units
located above 11,000 sf of retail.
Neal said this project was first reviewed at the June 24,2002,meeting. The
Community Planning Board voted to continue the project and directed the developer
to address height and mass of the apartment-retail building; location and screening of
the outdoor area for the restaurant; drive-thru and bank options; and berming and
landscaping along Highway 169.
Neal further stated at the July 24,2002,meeting,the Community Planning Board
voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the project based on revised plans,which
included the following changes:reduced building height for the commercial-
13
CITY COUNCIL 1 WE,TING
August 20,2002
Page 8
apartment building from 45'-7"to 39'-3",with the roof peak reduced by 10'-8";
moving the outdoor seating area of the restaurant to the west and screened with 12-
foot high conifers; eliminate the drive thru and bank options; and on the daycare-
office site add a 4-6 foot berm and 18 conifer trees and increase height of the conifer
trees from 7-12 feet as well as reduce the size of the office building by 900 square
feet and move all parking to the south side.
Beth Simonsted with Trek Development,representing Hustad Companies,presented the
revised site and building plan. She said additional concerns of the Planning Board have
been addressed. She said they need 27 additional units to financially justify providing
high quality design with attention to detail, along with high quality products and
materials.
Franzen said at the conclusion of a long public hearing in June,the Community
Planning Board could not reach a consensus other than to list a number of points that
they wanted the developer to address in the revised plans when they came back to the
meeting in July.He said it passed 4-3 with the chairman breaking the 3-3 tie vote.
Jeannette Gunderson of 9922 Balmoral Blvd said this property is surrounded by three
separate single family neighborhoods, all of which can be seen from the property. She
said neighbors are concerned about the density,height and mass of the buildings,traffic
congestion and safety of pedestrians,tree loss in the green space, and appropriate land
use and how it will fit in with the current surrounding family neighborhoods.
Kim Lindquist of 9933 Balmoral Lane said she is concerned that the definition of
what is considered Neighborhood Commercial has changed. She said all other
Neighborhood Commercial properties are well below the 50,000 sf cap limit, and said
she'd like to hear how the Council gets non-residential uses into the Neighborhood
Commercial to be over and above the 50,000 sf. She said the other issue related to
the Neighborhood Commercial concept is the apartment issue. She said neighbors
were surprised at a 4-story building, and it is a 4-story building to public views. She
said it is not an appropriate use,massing and size for Neighborhood Commercial use.
In addition, she said when it was stated that the project needs to be economically
viable it was a disappointment and not appropriate decision-making criteria. She said
it is poor to use that as the basis for a major land use amendment.
At the request of Luse,Tyra-Lukens allowed Simonsted to respond. Simonsted stated
that Lincoln Park is over twice the size of this project. As far as the process for
approvals,she said this is quite a long process as it goes back beyond six years ago.
She said through the last part of the approval process, a series of changes have been
made to the project based on neighbors concerns. She apologized for coming up
through the process again, saying it's not something that they wanted to do but they
have always felt it would be an excellent location,knowing the freeway was coming,
felt it was an appropriate place for Neighborhood Commercial. She said the product
has changed from the last approval to the revised plan and,after research,it is now a
much more viable product.
Luse asked why they would seek approval if it were not economically viable to begin
with,without the additional units. Simonsted said through the process of
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 20,2002
Page 9
compromises,they ended up with a somewhat different product, and also she
acknowledged they were trying to do something more innovate and creative and felt
there was a need. She said most of the projects they have done in Eden Prairie have
been large lot, single family, and more recently it has been low density townhomes.
She said she thinks it's very appropriate because a major freeway is right there which
she thinks will help as a sound barrier and also for privacy. She said it has been a well
thought out process.
Simonsted said as far as the economic viability, it is extremely important for the
community and neighborhood and for the developer. She said they do not want to
build a project that is not going to be successful.
Bruce Webster of 9953 Balmoral Lane said the project is inappropriate in a
residential setting.He said the density of non-residential property exceeds the 50,000
sf limit, and additional traffic to be generated is excessive for the site. He asked
Council to vote down the amendment.
Richard Schultek of Arden Hills, a licensed realtor, said he has been selling this
project for the past year,with 45-50 units sold and with one exception,those people
are very excited about the development.
Jennifer Scott of 10252 Normandy Crest asked Council to deny the project. She said
the need for 27 additional units is not justified in her mind.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Mosman,to close the Public Hearing.
Motion passed 4-0.
Luse asked Franzen where he sits on this project.Franzen said in his 18-year history
with the City, all Neighborhood Commercial properties tend to go the same way-
long, drawn out processes and very confusing. He gave a history on these types of
projects. He said this project is kind of a policy shift in how we view Neighborhood
Commercial in that we don't really have an example of a Neighborhood Commercial
property that incorporates a mixed use.
Case said he believes the area,mitigated correctly and transitioned correctly, can take
a lot more intense use than this plan.He said he thinks that the transitional pieces of
whatever goes on in the middle have been accomplished and to some degree
mitigated and he thinks this is a'tweaking.'He said once it is decided what's best,for
the City,then we decide what's best to help the neighbors. He said he thinks this
revised project is best for the City and it's a much better quality,more organized,
project that makes more sense. He said he'd be prepared to vote for it.
Mosman said she's concerned with traffic in the area causing congestion. She said
there is extra mass that is creating more traffic on a road that is rather heavily used
now. She said it is a good looking project and she likes the mixed use,but she is not
totally comfortable approving it with all of the extra things like the apartment
building on top of retail. She said it seems to be more profit and more density than is
necessary. She said she would hate to go ahead with it when Planning Board
members are split on it because they did have some good concerns.
f5
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 20,2002
Page 10
Luse said he sees it as more of a cutting edge project.He asked for clarification on the
vote sequence for the zoning change.Rosow said on the resolution for the
comprehensive guide plan change,the first item under closing a public hearing
requires a 2/3 vote of the entire Council,therefore requiring 4 votes. He said all the
other actions require a simple majority so he would recommend the procedure of
taking up the resolution for the comprehensive guide plan change first, and, if
Council is going to deny it, do not do that tonight,but direct Staff to prepare findings
supporting a resolution of denial. He said if the matter is going to pass, Council does
not need to take that extra step.
Case pointed out that three years ago a 3-2 vote was required and Council had a 4-1,
and this is a problem tonight if it were to come out to a 3-1 vote. He said Council
would then not have the majority of people accepting findings of denial. Rosow said
the Court of Appeals has ruled that a 3-1 approval when you need a 4-0 approval is
not a denial, so if you don't have a denial,then the project is approved by default.
Rosow said the second bullet point is substantial to be taken up next.He said Council
does have time to table discussion until the next meeting when a full Council is
present.
Tyra-Lukens said this plan is nice and she understands concerns about intensity,the
and visual impact of the building,but any building of that size will be visible until the
trees grow and greenery thickens. She said the building has a lot of good architectural
design. She said she feels a great effort was made on transition of this property, and
she would be in favor of the project. Tyra-Lukens noted that one of the places that has
been done with a building of this size,perhaps larger, that backs right up to
residential is the senior housing on Flying Cloud Drive. She said that is not only a 3-4
story building but it sits up above the homes that are behind it. She said this project's
transition is much better than the one of Flying Cloud Drive.
Rosow suggested Council 1.not take action until they had a full Council at the second
meeting in September; 2. see if you could proceed as a Council with a 4-0 vote on the
policy question on the change and then deal with the other issues as to whether there
are 'tweaks'to the project that you can make; 3. take the vote on the comprehensive
guide plan and if it is a 3-1 vote,it needs to be recognized that will not pass the guide
plan change. Therefore a 3-1 vote will not be obtained to support denial of the project
because 3 have voted in favor,but that was not enough to approve it. So,if
challenged, a court would have to understand that it was a denial because there was
no possibility of getting an affirmative vote or denial when a majority of the Council
had voted in favor. So,Rosow said he would remove his suggestion for findings and
go with with what we have tonight and it would pass or not pass.
Mosman asked how often has the City taken a residential neighborhood and changed
it over to commercial to office to commercial, adding square footage and density. She
said the transition was there,but it was manufactured-it wasn't there when the
residents moved in. She said not having met many of these neighbors, she is unsure
how they would feel about it.She said it's a somewhat subjective amount of
apartment units and amount of office and childcare on top of the Walgreens.
16
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 20,2002
Page 11
Neal said it can be put off and there needs to be an affirmative action to that effect by
September 27,so it could be tabled until September 17.He said the default decision,
as he understands it,is that if Council does not take an action to deny it,then the
guide plan change is approved.
MOTION: Luse moved to table until the September 17, 2002, City Council meeting
the Resolution for Guide Plan Change,Resolution for PUD Concept Review,
Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change,Resolution for
Preliminary Plat. Seconded by Case, motion passed 4-0.
VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Luse, to approve the Payment of Claims. The motion
was approved on a roll call vote,with Case,Luse,Mosman, and Tyra-Lukens voting
CCaye.99
IX. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
X. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
XI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
XII. APPOINTMENTS
XIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
1. DISCUSSION ON ISSUE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC FORUM
REGARDING MR.AND MRS.RANNOW.
Luse stated that he does not think this now needs to be discussed because her
issues have been addressed tonight by Neal.Neal said he and Dietz will meet
tomorrow to satisfy her concerns.
2. DISCUSSION ON TRANSPORTATION ISSUE SITUATION.
Tyra-Lukens announced that over the last Legislative Session,people who are
concerned about transportation have made a strong effort to get all parties
together to work towards solutions. She said a problem has arisen in that the
Minnesota Transportation Coalition, organized through the Minnesota
Chamber of Commerce and the League of Minnesota Cities was indirectly a
member of this organization. She said the League of Minnesota Cities has
membership in the Minnesota Transportation Alliance. She said the
Transportation Alliance was a member of the Transportation Coalition and the
problem has been that the coalition has taken the platform of saying that
member organizations cannot advocate for any issue that is not part of the
coalition's platform. She said the issue for the League of Cities is that one of
their platform items is to reduce local input on highway projects by changing
the process known as municipal consent. So the League has suspended its
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 20,2002
Page 12
membership in the Minnesota Transportation Alliance, something that she
would support.But, she said it is too bad the Transportation Coalition took
such a strong stance in denying members the ability to make their own voice
heard.
3. DISCUSSION ON HOUSING ISSUES.
Tyra-Lukens said she attended a mayor's housing task force meeting Friday
morning and Ted Mondale mentioned that suit had been brought against the
Met Council and the City of Eagan by two housing advocacy groups,MICAH
and the Community Stabilization Project. She said their contention was that
they feel that the Metropolitan Council is remiss in not being more affirmative
in working with cities to have specific numbers that they have to come up
with for affordable housing.
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR
G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIRECTOR
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XIV. OTHER BUSINESS
XV. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried
4-0. Mayor Tyra-Lukens adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE:
SECTION: Consent Calendar September 3,2002
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION• ITEM L+M DESCRIPTION:
Police/C.O.P.Unit Clerk's License Application List ITEM NO.:
Gretchen Laven LL A ,
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity.
Private Kennel
Danny J. Sheldon—Dogs
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 09/03/02
SECTION: Consent Agenda
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Community Development •
Donald R.Uram Hound Dog Pet Hotel V I ,
Scott A.Kipp
Requested Action
Move to:
• Approve 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with
waivers and Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning
District on 1.56 acres; and
• Adopt the Resolution for Site Plan Review; and
• Approve the Development Agreement for Hound Dog Pet Hotel
Synopsis
The proposal is for a 10,500 square foot pet hotel.
Attachments
1. Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers and Zoning District Amendment
2. Resolution for Site Plan Review
3. Development Agreement
0.0
HOUND DOG PET HOTEL
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 21-2002-PUD-15-2002
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, NIINNESOTA, 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 Commercial Regional Service Zoning District 21-2002-PUD-15-2002 (hereinafter "PUD-15-
2002-C-Reg-Ser).
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain
Developer's Agreement dated as of September 3, 2002, entered into between Hound Dog Pet
Hotel L.L.C. and the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The
Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-15-2002-C-Reg-Ser, and are
hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD-15-2002-C-Reg-Ser is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive
Guide Plan of the City.
B. PUD-15-2002-C-Reg-Ser 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-15-2002-C-Reg-Ser are justified by the design of the
development described therein.
D. PUD-15-2002-C-Reg-Ser is of sufficient size, composition,_and arrangement that
its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without
dependence upon any subsequent unit.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is
amended within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District and shall be included
hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-15-2002-C-Reg-Ser, and the legal descriptions
of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B,
shall be and are amended accordingly.
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated
verbatim herein.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and
publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the
6th day of August, 2002, 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 3rd day of
September, 2002.
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on
EXHIBIT A
PUD Legal Description —Hound Dog Pet Hotel
Lot 1,Block 1,PRAIRIE WASH ADDITION, Hennepin County Minnesota, according to the
recorded plat thereof.
HOUND DOG PET HOTEL
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE NO. 21-2002-PUD-15-2002
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
13013 Valley View Road within the Commercial Regional Service 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 Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.)
HOUND DOG PET HOTEL
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR HOUND DOG PET HOTEL
BY HOUND DOG PET HOTEL,L.L.C.
WHEREAS, Hound Dog Pet Hotel, L.L.C., has applied for Site Plan approval on 1.56
acres for construction of a 10,500 square foot pet hotel within the Commercial Regional Service
Zoning District on 1.56 acres by an Ordinance approved by the City Council on September 3,
2002; and
WHEREAS, the Community Planning Board reviewed said application at a public
hearing at its July 8,2002 meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its
August 6,2002 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Hound Dog Pet
Hotel, L.L.C., for the construction of a 10,500 square foot pet hotel, based on plans dated July
23,2002,between Hound Dog Hotel, L.L.C., and the City of Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of September,
2002.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
HOUND DOG PET HOTEL
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of September 3,2002,by Hound Dog Pet Hotel,L.L.C.,hereinafter
referred to as"Developer,"its successors and assigns,and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "City":
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.56 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.56 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the
Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 1.56 acres, and Site Plan Review on 1.56 acres,legally described
on Exhibit A(the"Property");
NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. 2002-134 for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Ordinance No. for Planned Unit
Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional
Service Zoning District on 1.56 acres, and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review,
Developer agrees to construct, develop and maintain the Property as follows:
1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised
-and-stamp-dated July 23, 2002, reviewed and-approved-by-the City Council-on-August 6, --- -
2002, (hereinafter the "Plans") and identified on Exhibit B, subject to such changes and
modifications as provided herein.
2. EXHIBIT C: Developer agrees to the terms,covenants,agreements,and conditions set forth
in Exhibit C.
3. ACCESS PERMIT: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall obtain, from
Hennepin County, a permit for access to Valley View Road, and provide a copy of said
permits to the City Engineer.
4. CROSS ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Prior to issuance of the first
building permit for the Property, the Developer shall grant cross access and provide a
maintenance agreement regarding cross access to Lots 1 &2,Block 1,Minnesota Tree Third
Addition,Lot 1,Block 1,Minnesota Tree Second Addition and Lot 1,Block 2,Minnesota
Tree Fourth Addition, the form of which must be approved by the City Engineer. This
Agreement shall address joint vehicle access and maintenance of driveways across the
Property. All of these facilities shall be privately owned and maintained by the Developer
or Owner.
Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the Property,Developer shall submit to the
City Engineer proof that the cross access and maintenance agreement has been recorded in
the Hennepin County Recorder's Office/Registrar of Titles' Office.
5. DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR CODE VIOLATIONS: In the event of a
violation of City Code relating to use of the Land construction thereon or failure to fulfill an
obligation imposed upon the Developer pursuant to this Agreement, City shall give 24 hour
notice of such violation in order to allow a cure of such violation,provided however, City
need not issue a building or occupancy permit for construction or occupancy on the Land
while such a violation is continuing,unless waived by City.
The existence of a violation of City Code or the failure to perform or fulfill an obligation
required by this Agreement shall be determined solely and conclusively by the City Manager
of the City or a designee.
6. DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTRACTORS: Developer shall
release, defend and indemnify City,its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents
from and against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, complaints, loss, costs (including
attorneys' fees), damages and injunctions relating to any acts, failures to act, errors,
omissions of Developer or Developer's consultants,contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and
agents. Developer shall not be released from its responsibilities to release, defend and
indemnify because of any inspection,review or approval by City.
7. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance,Developer shall submit to
the City Planner,and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan depicting exterior
materials and colors to be-used on the buildings on the Property.
Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer shall complete
implementation of the approved exterior materials and colors plan in accordance with the
terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
8. GRADING,DRAINAGE,AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS:
A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer agrees that the grading
and drainage plan contained in the Plans is conceptual. Prior to the release of a land
alteration permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City
Engineer's written approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the Property. The
final grading and drainage plan shall include all wetland, wetland buffer strips,
wetland buffer monument locations,water quality ponds, storm water detention areas
and other items required by the application for and release of a land alteration permit.
All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage
area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Prior to release
of the grading bond, Developer shall certify to the City that the water quality pond
conforms to the final grading plan.
Developer shall employ the design professional who prepared the final grading plan.
The design professional shall monitor construction for conformance to the approved
final grading plan and City erosion control policy. The design professional shall
provide a final report to the City certifying completion of the grading in conformance
the approved final grading plan and City erosion control policy.
B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a land alteration permit,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's written
approval of an erosion control plan for the Property. The erosion control plan shall
include all boundary erosion control features,temporary stockpile locations and turf
restoration procedures: All site grading operations shall conform to the City's
Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Prior to release of the grading bond, Developer shall complete implementation of the
approved plan.
Developer shall remove any sediment that accumulates in the existing and/or
proposed sedimentation pond during construction. Upon request by the City,
Developer shall provide preconstruction and post construction surveys for evaluation
by City.
9. IRRIGATION PLAN: Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City
Planner's written approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property.
The irrigation plan shall be designed so that water is not directed on or over public trails and
sidewalks.
Developer shall complete implementation of_the approvedirrigation plan in accordance with
the terms and conditions of Exhibit C prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the
Property.
10. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance,the Developer shall submit to the
City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of a final landscape plan for the
Property. The approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity,type, and size
of plant materials shown on the landscape plan on the Plans. Developer shall furnish to the
City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape bond equal to 150%of
the cost of said improvements as required by City Code.
Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer shall complete
implementation of the approved landscape plan in accordance with the terms and conditions
of Exhibit C.
11. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer shall submit to the City
Planner,and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan for screening of mechanical
equipment on the Property. For purposes of this paragraph, "mechanical equipment"
includes gas meters, electrical conduit,water meters, and standard heating,ventilating, and
air-conditioning units. Security to guarantee construction of said screening shall be included
with that provided for landscaping on the Property, in accordance with City Code
requirements. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan prior to
issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property.
If, after completion of construction of the mechanical equipment screening,it is determined
by the City Planner,in his or her sole discretion,that the constructed screening does not meet
the Code requirements to screen mechanical equipment from public streets and differing,
adjacent land uses, then the City Planner shall notify Developer and Developer shall take
corrective action to reconstruct the mechanical equipment screening in order to cure the
deficiencies identified by the City Planner. Developer agrees that the City will not release
the security provided until Developer completes all such corrective measures.
12. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: Developer agrees that the Property will be operated in
a manner meeting all applicable noise,vibration,dust and dirt, smoke, odor and glare laws
and regulations. Developer further agrees that the facility upon the Property shall be
operated so noise, vibration, dust and dirt, smoke, odor and glare do not go beyond the
Property boundary lines.
13. PRIVATE UTILITIES EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT:A private
easement and maintenance agreement will be required for the proposed private utilities
(sanitary sewer and water) shown to be constructed over a portion of Lot 1, Block 1,
Minnesota Tree Third Addition. The easement and maintenance agreement shall grant an
easement for these private utilities and address construction and maintenance. All of these
facilities shall be privately owned and maintained by the Owner of Lot 1,Block 1,Minnesota
Tree Third Addition.
Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Property,Developer shall submit to the
City Engineer proof that the utility easement and maintenance agreement has been recorded
in the Hennepin County Recorder's Office/Registrar of Titles' Office.
14. PROOF OF PARKING SPACES: Developer and City acknowledge that the 19 proof of
parking spaces proposed for the Property, depicted in the Plans, are not required to be
constructed at this time.
At such time as the City Manager,in his or her sole discretion, determines that it is necessary
for all or a portion of the proof of parking spaces to be constructed in order to accommodate
the use, the City Manager shall notify the Developer in writing of the need to construct
additional proof of parking spaces. This notification shall include the number, location and
timetable for construction of the additional proof-of-parking spaces. Developer shall comply
with all requirements contained in the City Manager's notification.
15. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: The city hereby grants the following waivers to City Code
requirements within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District through the Planned
Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of
PUD
A. Front yard setback to parking of 20 feet. City Code requires 35 feet.
B. Wetland buffer width of 15 feet. City Code requires 25 feet.
C. 21% of structure within the 15-foot structure setback(outdoor kennels only). City
Code permits up to 10%.
16. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for grading or
construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and
obtain the Chief Building Official's written approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls
identified on the grading plan in the Plans.
These plans shall include details with respect to the height,type of materials, and method of
construction to be used for the retaining walls.
Developer shall complete implementation of the approved retaining wall plan in accordance
with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto, prior to issuance of any
occupancy permit for the Property.
17. SIGNS: Developer agrees that for each sign which requires a permit by Eden Prairie City
Code, Section 11.70,Developer shall file with the City Planner and receive the City Planner's
written approval of an application for a sign permit. The application shall include a complete
description of the sign and a sketch showing the size, location,the manner of construction,
and other such information as necessary to inform the City of the kind, size, material
construction,and location of any such sign,consistent with the sign plan shown on the Plans
and in accordance with the requirements of City Code, Section 11.70, Subdivision 5a.
18. SITE LIGHTING: Prior to building permit issuance,Developer shall submit to the City
Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan for site lighting on the
3
Property. All pole lighting shall consist of downcast shoebox fixtures not to exceed 30 feet
in height. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved lighting plan prior to
issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property.
19. STREET PLANS: Concurrent with the development of the Property the Developer shall
be responsible for the construction of a right turn lane from Valley View Road to the access
on the east end of the property and for the relocation of the trail on the south side of Valley
View Road. The Developer shall also be responsible for closing the access to Valley View
Road on the west end of the property.
Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the construction of the turn lane, trail and
closure of the westerly drive for the Property,the Developer shall submit construction plans
to and receive written approval from both the City and Hennepin County. The construction
plans shall be consistent with both City and Hennepin County standards. The Developer is
responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and approvals from Hennepin County.
The Developer is responsible for providing a qualified engineer to provide daily inspection,
certify completion in conformance to approved plans and specifications and for recording
record drawings.
A permit fee of five percent of construction value shall be paid to City by Developer.
20. TRAIL EASEMENT: The construction of the right turn lane will require relocation of the
trail on the south side of Valley View Road on to the Property. Prior to the issuance of the
first building permit for the Property,the Developer shall convey a trail easement (Exhibit
E)of sufficient width to accommodate the relocated trail along the north side of the property
and provide proof to the City Engineer that the trail easement has been recorded in the
Hennepin County Recorder's Office/Registrar of Titles' Office.
21. TRASH ENCLOSURE: Developer shall submit to the City Planner, and obtain the City
Planner's written approval of a plan for the design and construction of the outside trash
enclosure for the Property. This trash enclosure shall be constructed with face brick to match
the building, and heavy-duty steel gates that completely screen the interior of the enclosure.
Developer shall complete implementation of the trash enclosure plan prior to issuance of any
occupancy permit for the Property.
22. WETLAND PLAN: Prior to release of the final plat for any portion of the Property,
Developer shall submit to the Environmental Coordinator and receive the Environmental
Coordinator's approval of a Wetland Plan. The approved Wetland Plan shall be consistent
with the materials and requirements shown on the Plans and as required by City Code. The
_ Plan shall include the following_elements. __
A. Wetland Delineation and Wetland Buffer Strip Vegetation Evaluation:
Developer shall submit to the City a Wetland Buffer Strip Vegetation Evaluation
Report("Buffer Report") and Wetland Delineation Report in accordance with the
1
Wetland Plan and City Code requirements prior to release of the final plat for any
portion of the Property. If the Buffer Report identifies any unacceptable vegetation
or other conditions,the wetland buffer strip shall be graded,treated,reseeded and/or
replanted (thereon known as `Landscaping", or "Landscaped") by the Developer
within 90 days of submission of the Buffer Report. If Landscaping of the wetland
buffer strip is required,the Developer shall submit a signed statement by a qualified
wetland consultant, as determined by the City Manager, stating that the wetland
buffer strip vegetation complies with all City requirements within 30 days of
completion of the Landscaping of the wetland buffer strip.
Prior to release of the final plat for any portion of the Property, Developer shall
submit a signed contract with a qualified wetland consultant, as determined by the
City Manager and/or designee,for preparation of annual Buffer Reports that evaluate
the condition of the wetland(s)and wetland buffer strip(s). The Buffer Reports shall
be submitted no later than November 1 of the calendar year in which the buffer
evaluation is required. The Buffer Reports shall provide an action plan and proposed
cost for correction of any problems identified. The final Buffer Report shall be
submitted two full growing seasons following completion of the development and
shall evaluate the wetland and wetland buffer strip to determine if the wetland and
wetland buffer strip remain in compliance with all City requirements. If any
unacceptable conditions or vegetation are identified within the Buffer Reports,the
Developer shall correct the area(s) identified within 90 days of submission of the
Buffer Report.
B. Conservation Easement: Prior to release of the final plat or building permit
issuance for any portion of the Property, Developer shall submit a Conservation
Easement (Exhibit F) for review and written approval by the Environmental
Coordinator,for the area delineated on the Plans.
Prior to release of the first building permit for the Property, Developer shall submit
evidence to the Environmental Coordinator that the approved Conservation Easement
has been filed in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrar of Titles' Office.
C. Wetland Buffer Strip Monuments: Prior to release of the final plat or building
permit issuance for any portion of the Property, Developer shall install all wetland
buffer strip monuments for the property. Wetland buffer strip monument locations
shall be shown on the final grading plan and final plat. The post shall be a fiberglass
reinforced composite post with a maximum size of 4 inch by 4 inch (4"x 4") that
states "Wetland Buffer: No Mowing Allowed". The post shall be mounted to a
height of a minimum of four feet above grade set at least 42 inches in the ground.
The bottom of the post must be fitted with an anchor attachment that would expand
upon attempted removal. Removal of the wetland buffer strip monuments is
prohibited.
D. Wetland Performance Bond: Developer shall furnish to the Environmental
Coordinator and receive the Environmental Coordinator's approval of a Wetland Plan
performance bond,cash escrow,or letter of credit with a corporation approved by the
City Manager or other guarantee acceptable to the City Manager equal to 150%of the
cost, as estimated by the City Manager, of completing said Wetland Plan
requirements and/or Landscaping as depicted on the Plans and as required by City
Code. Said performance bond, cash escrow, letter of credit or other guarantee shall
cover costs associated with the Wetland Plan during development and for two full
growing seasons following completion of the development.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be
executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
DEVELOPER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Hound Dog Pet Hotel,L.L.C.
By
David O.Hansen Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
Its Principal Partner
Scott H.Neal, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002,
by Nancy Tyra-Lukens and Scott H.Neal,respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City
of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002,by
David O. Hansen, the principal partner, of Hound Dog Pet Hotel, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited
liability corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
3L
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -HOUND DOG PET HOTEL
Legal Description
Lot 1,Block 1,PRAIRIE WASH ADDITION,Hennepin County Minnesota,according to the
recorded plat thereof.
35
EXIMIT B
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-HOUND DOG PET HOTEL
Plans
Certificate of Survey dated 5/10/02 by James R.Hill,Inc.
Site Plan dated 7/22/02 by James R.Hill,Inc.
Grading,Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan dated 7/22/02 by James R.Hill,Inc.
Utility Plan dated 7/22/02 by James R.Hill, Inc.
Civil Details Plan dated 7/02/02 by James R.Hill, Inc.
Landscape Plan dated 7/22/02 by James R.Hill,Inc.
Floor Plan not dated by AE Architecture
Elevations Plan dated 6/26/02 by AE Architecture
EXHIBIT C
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-HOUND DOG PET HOTEL
I. Prior to release of any building permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for
approval two copies of a development plan(1" =100' scale) showing existing and proposed
contours,proposed streets, and lot arrangements and size,minimum floor elevations on each
lot,preliminary alignment and grades for sanitary sewer,water main, and storm sewer, 100-
year flood plain contours, ponding areas, tributary areas to catch basins, arrows showing
direction of storm water flow on all lots, location of walks,trails,and any property deeded
to the City.
II. Developer shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer plans to the Watershed District
for review and approval. Developer shall follow all rules and recommendations of said
Watershed District.
III. Developer shall pay cash park fees as to all of the Property required by City Code in effect
as of the date of the issuance of each building permit for construction on the property.
Presently, the amount of cash park fees applicable to the Property is $6,600 per acre. The
amount to be paid by Developer shall be increased or decreased to the extent authorized
pursuant to the City Code to require a greater or lesser amount as of the date of the issuance
of any building permit for construction on the Property.
IV. If Developer fails to proceed in accordance with this Agreement within twenty-four (24)
months of the date hereof,Developer,for itself,its successors,and assigns, shall not oppose
the City's reconsideration and rescission of any PUD, Zoning Amendment, or Site Plan
review approved in connection with this Agreement,thus restoring the status of the Property
before the Development Agreement and all approvals listed above were approved.
V. Provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against owners,their
successors, and their assigns of the Property herein described.
VI. The Developer hereby irrevocably nominates, constitutes, and appoints and designates the
City as its attorney-in-fact for the sole purpose and right to amend Exhibit A hereto to
identify the legal description of the Property after platting thereof.
VII. Developer represents that it has marketable fee title to the Property, except:
Eden Prairie Auto Properties
With respect to any interest in all portions of the Property which Developer is required,
pursuant to this Agreement, to dedicate or convey to the City(the "Dedicated Property"),
Developer represents and warrants as follows now and at the time of dedication or
conveyance:
A. That Developer has marketable fee title free and clear of all mortgages, liens, and
other encumbrances. Prior to final plat approval,Developer shall provide to the City
a current title insurance policy insuring such a condition of title.
B. That Developer has not used, employed, deposited, stored, disposed of, placed or
otherwise allowed to come in or on the Dedicated Property, any hazardous substance,
hazardous waste, pollutant, or contaminant, including, but not limited to, those
defined in or pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9601,et. seq.,or Minn. Stat., Sec. 115B.01, et.
seq. (such substances,wastes,pollutants, and contaminants hereafter referred to as
"Hazardous Substances");
C. That Developer has not allowed any other person to use, employ, deposit, store,
dispose of,place or otherwise have,in or on the Property, any Hazardous Substances.
D. That no previous owner, operator or possessor of the Property deposited, stored,
disposed of, placed or otherwise allowed in or on the Property any hazardous
substances.
Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its successors and assigns,
against any and all loss, costs,damage and expense,including reasonable attorneys fees and
costs that the City incurs because of the breach of any of the above representations and
warranties and/or resulting from or due to the release or threatened release of Hazardous
Substances which were,or are claimed or alleged to have been,used, employed, deposited,
stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise located or allowed to be located, in or on the
Dedicated Property by Developer,its employees, agents, contractors or representatives.
VIII. Developer acknowledges that Developer is familiar with the requirements of Chapter 11,
Zoning,and Chapter 12,Subdivision Regulations,of the City Code and other applicable City
ordinances affecting the development of the Property. Developer agrees to develop the
Property in accordance with the requirements of all applicable City Code requirements and
City Ordinances.
IX. Prior to release of the final plat,Developer shall pay to City fees for the first three(3)years'
street lighting on the public streets adjacent to the Property(including installation costs, if
any, as determined by electrical power provider), engineering review, and street signs.
X. Developer shall submit detailed water main, fire protection, and emergency vehicle access
plans to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. Developer shall follow all the
recommendations of the Fire Marshal.
XI. Developer acknowledges that the rights of City performance of obligations of Developer
contemplated in this agreement are special,unique, and of an extraordinary character, and
that, in the event that Developer violates, or fails, or refuses to perform any covenant,
c>
0
condition, or provision made herein, City may be without an adequate remedy at law.
Developer agrees,therefore,that in the event Developer violates,fails,or refuses to perform
any covenant, condition, or provision made herein, City may, at its option, institute and
prosecute an action to specifically enforce such covenant, withhold building permits or
rescind or revoke any approvals granted by the City. No remedy conferred in this agreement
is intended to be exclusive and each shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every
other remedy. The election of anyone or more remedies shall not constitute a waiver of any
other remedy.
XII. Developer shall,prior to the commencement of any improvements,provide written notice
to Time Warner Cable, a Minnesota Limited Partnership, the franchisee under the City's
Cable Communication Ordinance (80-33) of the development contemplated by this
Developer's Agreement. Notice shall be sent to Time Warner Cable, 801 Plymouth Avenue
North,Minneapolis,Minnesota 55411.
XIII. Prior to building permit issuance, all fees associated with the building permit shall be paid
to the Inspections Department, including; Building permit fee, plan check fee, State
surcharge, metro system access charge (SAC), City SAC and City water access charge
(WAC),and park dedication. Contact Metropolitan Waste Control to determine the number
of SAC units.
XIV. Prior to building permit issuance, existing structures,walls and septic systems (if present)
shall be properly abandoned or removed as required by City ordinance and all permits
obtained through the Inspections Department.
XV. Prior to building permit issuance,provide two copies of an approved survey or site plan(1"
=200 scale) showing proposed building location and all proposed streets, with approved
street names, lot arrangements and property lines.
XVI. The City shall not issue any building permit for the construction of any building,structure,
or improvement on the Property until all requirements listed in this Exhibit C have been
satisfactorily addressed by Developer.
XVII. No failure of the City to comply with any term,condition,covenant or agreement herein shall
subject the City to liability for any claim for damages,costs or other financial or pecuniary
charges.No execution on any claim, demand, cause of action or judgment shall be levied
upon or collected from the general credit, general fund or taxing powers of the City.
XVIII. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Property,Developer shall permanently
demarcate the location of the boundary of the conservation easement on each lot property
line or corner with permanent four-foot tall posts. A 2_l2 by 6 inch sign or decal reading
"Scenic/Conservation Easement Boundary,City of Eden Prairie",will be affixed to the top
of the post.
EDIT D
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -HOUND DOG PET HOTEL
EROSION CONTROL POLICY-AUGUST 1, 1997
1. All construction projects permitted by the City of Eden Prairie which results in the temporary
disturbance of vegetative or non-vegetative surfaces protecting soils from erosion require the
use of Best Management Practices (BMP's) as outlined in the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency's manual,Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas,to mitigate the impact of erosion
on wetland and water resources. The City Engineer or the Director of Inspections may
impose special conditions to permits which stipulate erosion control procedures and/or direct
the installation of erosion control features or the clean up of erosion at construction sites.
Permits affected by this policy include all grading permits,building permits, and permits for
the installation of utilities.
2. All erosion control systems stipulated in the permit application shall be installed prior to the
issuance of the permit. Supplemental erosion control systems ordered by the City Engineer
or the Director of Inspections shall be installed within 48 hours of that order.
3. The applicant must maintain all erosion control systems in a functional condition until the
completion of turf and/or structural surfaces, which protect the soil from erosion. The
applicant must inspect erosion control biweekly and immediately after each rainfall event of
.5 inches or more. Needed maintenance shall be performed within 48 hours.
4. Best Management Practices(BMP's) shall be utilized at all construction sites to minimize the
trackage or spillage of soil on public streets or highways. BMP's may include,but are not
limited to,rock construction entrances,washing stations,frequent cleaning of streets adjacent
to the construction site or limiting operations when site conditions are unmanageable.
Trackage or spillage of soil on a public street or highway must be cleaned by power sweepers
within the time frame stipulated in the permit special conditions or as ordered by the City
Engineer or the Director of Inspections.
5. If erosion breaches the perimeter of a construction site, the applicant shall immediately
develop a clean up and restoration plans, obtain the right-of-entry from the adjoining
property owner, and implement the clean up and a restoration plan within 48 hours of
obtaining the adjoining property owner's permission. In the event eroded soils enter onto or
are tracked or spilled on a public street,highway,sidewalk or trail,the applicant shall remove
the soil material and thoroughly sweep the street or sidewalk surface within four hours. If
eroded soils enter,or entrance appears imminent,into wetlands or other water bodies,clean
up and repair shall be immediate. The applicant shall provide all traffic control and flagging
required to protect the traveling public during the clean up operations.
6. When an applicant fails to conform to any provision of this policy within the time stipulated
in a written notification,the City may take the following actions:
0
a. Withhold the scheduling of inspections and/or the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or other approvals.
b. Direct the correction of the deficiency by City personnel or separate contract.
c. Withhold the issuance of building permits
d. At its option,institute and prosecute an action to enjoin violations of this Agreement
and/or an action to specifically enforce performance of this Agreement
The issuance of a permit constitutes a right-of-entry for the City or its contractor to enter
upon the construction site for the purpose of correcting deficiencies in erosion control.
All costs, including but not limited to, attorneys'fees and engineering fees incurred by the
City in correcting erosion control deficiencies or enforcing this policy shall be reimbursed
by the applicant. All invoices for erosion control correction shall be due and payable within
30 days. Invoices not paid within 30 days shall accrue interest at a rate of 1%per month or
the highest legal rate.
Each charge for correction of erosion deficiencies shall be a lien upon the property to which
the permit applies. Invoices more than 30 days old on September 30 or any year or on any
other date as determined by the City Engineer or the Director of Inspections may be assessed
against the property. As a condition of the permit, the owner shall waive notice of any
assessment hearing to be conducted by the City, concur that the benefit to the property
exceeds the amount of the proposed assessment and waive all rights by virtue of Minnesota
Statute 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of the assessment.
I,We,The Undersigned,hereby accept the terms and conditions of the Erosion Control Policy dated
August 1, 1997 as set forth and agree to fully comply therewith, to the satisfaction of the City of
Eden Prairie,Minnesota.
By: By:
Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature
DEVELOPMENT NAME: Lot: Block:
OWNER INFORMATION OWNER(PRINT):
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
EXHIBIT E
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT —HOUND DOG PET HOTEL
Trail Easement
Hound Dog Pet Hotel, L.L.C. ("Grantor") hereby grants and conveys this day of
,2002,to City of Eden Prairie("Grantee")an easement("Easement")for the following uses
and purposes and subject to the following terms and conditions on,over,under,and across under real
property in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota,described in Exhibit A attached and made
a part here of. ("Easement Parcel")
1. Uses and Purposes. The Easement shall be for the following purposes and uses of
the Easement parcel:
A. To construct,maintain and replace a trail;
B. For pedestrian travel by the public in or on non-motorized vehicles;
C. For travel by the public in or on motorized vehicles authorized by Grantee;
D. To remove, cut and trim trees, shrubs and vegetation.
2. Nonexclusive. The Easement shall be nonexclusive,provided however,the
• Easement shall be paramount and superior to any other easement. Any other
easement shall be subject and subordinate to, and shall not interfere with,the
Easement without the consent,in writing, of Grantee.
3. Duration of Easement. The Easement shall be perpetual, shall run with the land
and shall be binding upon Grantor and Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns and
shall be for the benefit of Grantee,its successors and assigns.
4. Grantor covenants that Grantor is the record Fee Owner of the Easement Parcel,
holds the legal and equitable title thereto,free and clear of all mortgages, liens and
encumbrances,except the holder(s)
of which has/have agreed in writing to the Easement pursuant to the attached
consent(s) and has lawful right and authority without restriction to grant and
convey the Easement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be
executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
GRANTOR CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Hound Dog Pet Hotel,L.L.C.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
Scott H.Neal, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002,
by Nancy Tyra-Lukens and Scott H.Neal,respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City
of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002,by
David O. Hansen, the principal partner, of Hound Dog Pet Hotel, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited
liability corporation,on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
L13
EXHIBIT F
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT —HOUND DOG PET HOTEL
Conservation/Scenic Easement
THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made this day of ,2002 by
and between Hound Dog Pet Hotel, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited liability corporation,hereinafter
referred to as "Grantor," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a Minnesota municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "City";
WHEREAS, Grantor is the fee owner of land located in Hennepin County,Minnesota,more
fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said land hereinafter
referred to as "the Property"; and,
WHEREAS, Grantor has marketable title to the Property, free and clear of all liens,
mortgage, and encumbrances, except:
WHEREAS, Grantor and City wish to enter into an agreement which will grant to the City
a conservancy/scenic easement for conservation and preservation of the terrain and vegetation, and
to prohibit certain destructive acts thereon, over that portion of the subdivision as described in
Exhibit A,hereinafter referred to as the "Easement Area", attached hereto;
NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the premises contained herein,it is agreed by the
parties as follows:
1. Grantor hereby conveys to City and its successors and assigns a conservation and
scenic easement in, under, on, and over the `Basement Area", and City hereby
accepts such conveyance.
2. The following terms and conditions shall apply to the Easement Area:
A. The Easement Area shall be preserved predominantly in its natural condition.
No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be planted or removed from the
Easement Area without the prior written consent of the City. The City will
consider removal of noxious weeds, as defined by Minnesota Statutes
Sections 18.76-18.88, upon submission and approval of a Vegetation
Removal Plan. No vegetation cutting, fertilizer application or placement of
turfgrass, such as Kentucky bluegrass,shall occur within the Easement Area.
B. Wetland buffer monuments must be placed at the boundaries of the wetland
buffer strip as shown on Exhibit B. Removal of the wetland buffer strip
monuments is not allowed.
C. No building,road, sign,billboard,utility, or other structures shall be placed
in the Easement Area without the prior written consent of City.
D. No trash,waste, or other offensive material, soil, or landfill shall be placed
upon or within the Easement Area without the prior written consent of the
City.
E. No change in the general topography of the Easement Area landscape,
including,but not limited,to excavation, dredging,movement, and removal
or placement of soil, shall be allowed within the Easement Area without the
prior written consent of the City.
F. Grantor may,no more than once per calendar year,remove sediment caused
by stormwater drainage into a stormwater ponding area. Any removal of
sediment must be pre-approved in writing by the City and be in accordance
with City and Wetland Conservation Act guidelines. Landscaping must be
replaced in accordance with the requirements outlined in this Conservation
Easement.
3. With respect to the Easement Area, Grantor represents and warrants as follows:
A. That Grantor has marketable title free and clear of all liens,
encumbrances and mortgages.
B. That Grantor has not used, employed, deposited, stored, disposed of,
placed or otherwise allowed to come in or on the Easement Area, any
hazardous substance, hazardous waste, pollutant, or contaminant,
including, but not limited to, those defined in or pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 9601, et. seq., or Minn. Stat., Sec. 115B.01, et. seq. (such
substances,wastes,pollutants, and contaminants hereafter referred to
as "Hazardous Substances");
C. That Grantor has not allowed any other person to use, employ,
deposit, store, dispose of, place or otherwise have, in or on the
Easement Area, any Hazardous Substances;
D. That no previous owner, operator or possessor of the easement area,
deposited, stored, disposed of,placed, or otherwise allowed in or on
the Easement Area any Hazardous Substances;
Grantor agrees to indemnify,defend and hold harmless City,against any and all loss,
costs,damage and expense, including reasonable attorneys fees and costs that City
incurs because of the breach of any of the above representations or warranties and/or
resulting from or due to the inaccuracy or falsity of any representation or warranty
herein.
4. Grantor agrees to maintain the Easement Area subject to the provisions stated herein.
5. The duration of this easement is perpetual and shall bind and inure to the benefit of
the parties, their successors, and assigns.
6. Nothing contained herein shall impair any right of City now held or hereafter
acquired to construct or maintain public utilities in or on the Easement Area.
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be
executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
GRANTOR CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Hound Dog Pet Hotel,L.L.C.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
Scott H.Neal, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002,
by Nancy Tyra-Lukens and Scott H.Neal,respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City
of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002,by
David O. Hansen, the principal partner, of Hound Dog Pet Hotel, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited
liability corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
HOUND DOG PET HOTEL L.L.C.
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of September 3, 2002, by and between
Eden Prairie Auto Properties, a Minnesota corporation, ("Owner"), and the CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE ("City"):
For, and in consideration of,and to induce City to adopt Resolution No.2002-134 for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review, Ordinance No. for Planned Unit Development District Review
and Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District, and Resolution
No. for Site Plan Review, as more fully described in that certain Development Agreement
entered into as of September 3, 2002,by and between Hound Dog Pet Hotel, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited
liability corporation, and City("Development Agreement"), Owner agrees with City as follows:
1. If Hound Dog Pet Hotel,L.L.C., fails to commence development in accordance
with the Development Agreement and fails to obtain an occupancy permit for all
of the improvements referred to in the Development Agreement within 24 months
of the date of this Owners' Supplement, Owner shall not oppose the City's
reconsideration and rescission of Resolution No. 2002-134 for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review, Ordinance No. for Planned Unit
Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment within the
Commercial Regional Service Zoning District, and Resolution No.
for Site Plan Review,identified above, thus restoring the status of the Property
before the Development Agreement and all approvals listed above were approved.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its
successors, and assigns of the Property.
3. If Owner transfers this Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the
transferee requiring that such transferee agree to all of the terms, conditions and
obligations of"Developer" in the Development Agreement.
•
L1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to
be executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
OWNERS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By
Its Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
By
Its Scott H.Neal, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
,2002,by Nancy Tyra-Lukens and Scott H.Neal,respectively the Mayor and
the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said
corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2002,by ,the of Eden
Prairie Auto Properties, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
I9
EXHIBIT A
OWNERS SUPPLEMENT
Legal Description
Lot 1,Block 1,PRAIRIE WASH ADDITION,Hennepin County,Minnesota, according to the
recorded plat thereof.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
September 3,2002
SECTION: Consent Calendar
SERVICE AREAJDIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ELEM NO.:
Public Works Services Special Assessment Agreement Regarding Trail
Eugene A.Dietz Construction Along Crestwood Terrace
Requested Action
Move to: Approve Special Assessment Agreement with Paul J. and Sandra L. Offerman
for construction of a trail on Tract E,Registered Land Survey 1410,Hennepin
County,Minnesota adjacent to Crestwood Terrace.
Synopsis
At the public hearing for Crestwood Ponds on August 6, 2002, the Offermans requested that the
installation of the trail adjacent to their property be deferred to a future date. The proposed
action is to eliminate the requirement to construct the trail by the developer of the Crestwood
Ponds Addition and make it an obligation against the property owned by the Offermans.
Background Information
The Special Assessment Agreement for the construction of this trail creates a lien against the
Offerman property of $9,700. The "trigger" for constructing the trail would be one of the
following events:
1. Subdivision of the Offerman property
2. Subdivision of the Wheelock property(immediately north of the Offerman parcel)
3. Development of the Kanduth property(immediately north of Crestwood Ponds)
4. Construction of permanent roadway improvements for the remaining segment of
Crestwood Terrace
•
Essentially, the trail would be constructed concurrently with the final development of the
northerly remaining of segment of Crestwood Terrace, which would then make the entire trail
segment usable to Pioneer Trail.
Staff recommends approval of this provision for installation of the trail in lieu of having the
Crestwood Pond's developer construct it at this time.
Attachments
Special Assessment Agreement
5I
SSA No. 02-04
AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT MADE THIS day of ,2002 between the
City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, (the "City") and Paul I. Offerman and Sandra L.
Offerman,husband and wife(the"Owners").
A. The Owners hold legal and equitable title in and to Property legally described as
Tract E, Registered Land Survey 1410, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the
"Property").
B. The Owners desire to defer the installation by others of an 8-foot bituminous trail
adjacent to the Property, (the"Improvements").
C. The parties desire to enter into an Agreement that allows for the Improvements to
be constructed at a future date, a mechanism to finance the construction of the
Improvements, all of which will inure to the benefit of the Property, and the levying
of assessments for said Improvements.
AGREEMENT$
IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:
1. The Owners consent to the levying of assessments against the Property in an
amount not to exceed$9,700.00,which is the estimated cost of the Improvements.
2. In the event that redevelopment of the Property, including construction of the
Improvements by a private party does not occur prior to any of the following
events,the City may proceed with the construction of the Improvements concurrent
with or subsequent to said events:
• Application for subdivision of the Property
• Application for subdivision or development of Tract F, RLS 1410, Hennepin
County,Minnesota(a/k/a Zuttoni/Wheelock property) .
• Application for subdivision or development of Tract B, RLS 1410, Hennepin
County,Minnesota(a/k/a Kanduth property)
• Construction of permanent roadway improvements (Crestwood Terrace)
between Pioneer Trail(CSAH 1) and the northwesterly corner of Tract C, RLS
1410,Hennepin County,Minnesota(a/k/a Crestwood Ponds Addition)
3. Special assessments levied against the Property shall be due and payable in 20
installments along with interest at the same interest rate applicable to other
assessments levied by the City in the same year or if no other assessments are
levied in said year, at an interest rate determined in the same manner in which the
Sa
City historically determines interest rates for special assessments. The first
installment of said special assessment shall be payable commencing with the ad
valorem taxes due and payable the calendar year following the year the assessment
is levied.
4. The City's assessment records for the Property will show the assessments as a
"pending assessment"until levied.
5. The Owners represent that they are the sole owners of the Property. The Owners
hereby (a) petition the Council of the City of Eden Prairie to construct the
Improvements and assess the costs thereof in the manner set forth herein, (b)waive
notice of any hearing on said Petition, and (c) further waive notice of any
• assessment hearing to be held at which hearing or hearings the assessments are to be
considered by the City Council and thereafter approved and levied..
6. The Owners concur that the benefit to the Property by virtue of the Improvements
to be constructed are at least equal to if not greater than the amount of the
assessments to be levied against the Property hereunder.
7. In consideration of the City's agreement herein and particularly in consideration of
the amount of the assessment against the Property as set forth in Paragraph 2 above
the Owners waive all right they have by virtue of Minnesota Statute 429.081 or
otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of such assessments, or the
procedures used by the City in making the assessments and hereby releases the
City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all liability related to or
arising out of the imposition or levying of the assessments.
OWNERS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
A Minnesota Municipal Corporation
By:
Paul J. Offerman Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
By:
Sandra L. Offerman Scott H.Neal,City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2002,by Nancy Tyra-Lukens,the Mayor,and Scott H.Neal,the City Manager, of the City of Eden
Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2002,by Paul J. Offerman and Sandra L. Offerman,husband and wife.
•
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 09/03/02
SECTION: Consent Agenda
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Community Development
Donald R.Uram Crestwood Ponds la '
Michael D. Franzen
Requested Action
Move to:
• Approve the Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.32 acres; and
• Approve the Developer's Agreement for Crestwood Ponds
Synopsis
The proposal is for a subdivision of six single-family lots.
Staff met with Paul Offerman about a special assessment agreement for the trail along Crestwood
Terrace in front of his property. The estimate for the trail is approximately$9,000.00. The
trigger for the construction of the trail would be his land or the Wheelock's land developing,
whichever occurs first. The agreement has been prepared and submitted to Paul Offerman. A
signed agreement is expected shortly.
Attachments
1. Ordinance for Rezoning
2. Developer Agreement
55
CRESTWOOD PONDS
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. -2002
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING
CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER,
AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,NIINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the
"land")is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the
Rural District and be placed in the R1-13.5 District.
Section 3. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is
removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the R1-13.5 District, and the
legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1,
Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99,
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated
verbatim herein.
Section 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain
Developer's Agreement dated as of September 3, 2002, entered into between Terry Vogt Homes,
Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie, and which Agreement are hereby made a part hereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and
publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the
6th day of August,2002, 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 3rd day of
September,2002.
ATTEST:
Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
PUBT.TSHED in the Eden Prairie News on
EXMEIT A
Zoning — Crestwood Ponds
Legal Description
Tract C,RLS 1410,Hennepin County,MN
57
CRESTWOOD PONDS
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA
SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE NO. -2002
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA,
REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND
PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF
LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA,
ORDAINS:
Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located at 9617 Crestwood
Terrace to R1-13.5 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 Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.)
S
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
CRESTWOOD PONDS
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of September 3, 2002 by Terry Vogt Homes, Inc., hereinafter
referred to as"Developer,"its successors and assigns,and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,a municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "City":
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,Developer has applied to City for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat of 5.32
acres into 6 lots, legally described on Exhibit A(the"Property");
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No.
for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5, and Resolution No.
for Preliminary Plat,Developer agrees to construct,develop and maintain the
Property as follows:
1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised
and stamp dated July 30, 2002, reviewed and approved by the City Council on August 6,
2002, (hereinafter the "Plans") and identified on Exhibit B, subject to such changes and
modifications as provided herein.
2. EXHIBIT C: Developer agrees to the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set
forth in Exhibit C.
3. DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR CODE VIOLATIONS: In the event of a
violation of City Code relating to use of the Land construction thereon or failure to fulfill an
59
p
obligation imposed upon the Developer pursuant to this Agreement,City shall give 24 hour
notice of such violation in order to allow a cure of such violation,provided however, City
need not issue a building or occupancy permit for construction or occupancy on the Land
while such a violation is continuing,unless waived by City.
The existence of a violation of City Code or the failure to perform or fulfill an obligation
required by this Agreement shall be determined solely and conclusively by the City Manager
of the City or a designee.
4. DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTRACTORS: Developer shall
release,defend and indemnify City,its elected and appointed officials,employees and agents
from and against any and all claims, demands,lawsuits, complaints, loss, costs (including
attorneys' fees), damages and injunctions relating to any acts, failures to act, errors,
omissions of Developer or Developer's consultants,contractors,subcontractors,suppliers and
agents. Developer shall not be released from its responsibilities to release, defend and
indemnify because of any inspection,review or approval by City.
5. GRADING,DRAINAGE,AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS:
A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN:Developer agrees that the grading
and drainage plan contained in the Plans is conceptual. Prior to the release of a land
alteration permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City
Engineer's written approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the Property.
The final grading and drainage plan shall include all wetland,wetland buffer strips,
wetland buffer monument locations,water quality ponds,storm water detention areas
and other items required by the application for and release of a land alteration permit.
All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage
area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Prior to release
of the grading bond, Developer shall certify to the City that the water quality pond
conforms to the final grading plan.
Developer shall employ the design professional who prepared the final grading plan.
The design professional shall monitor construction for conformance to the approved
final grading plan and City erosion control policy. The design professional shall
provide a final report to the City certifying completion of the grading in conformance
the approved final grading plan and City erosion control policy.
B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a land alteration permit,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's written
approval of an erosion control plan for the Property. The erosion control plan shall
include all boundary erosion control features,temporary stockpile locations and turf
restoration procedures: All site grading operations shall conform to the City's
Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Prior to release of the grading bond,Developer shall complete implementation ofthe
approved plan.
Developer shall remove any sediment that accumulates in the existing and/or
proposed sedimentation pond during construction. Upon request by the City,
Developer shall provide preconstruction and post construction surveys for evaluation
by City.
6. REMOVAL/SEALING OF EXISTING WELL AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS: Prior to
issuance by City of any permit for grading or building on the Property, Developer shall
submit to the Chief Building Official and to obtain the Chief Building Official's written
approval of plans for demolition and removal of existing septic systems and wells on the
Property, and restoration of the Property.
Prior to such demolition or removal, Developer shall provide to the City a deposit in the
amount of$1,000.00 to guarantee that Developer completes implementation of the approved
plan. The City shall return to Developer the $1,000.00 deposit at such time as the Chief
Building Official has verified in writing that the Developer has completed implementation of
the approved plan.
7. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for grading or
construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and
obtain the Chief Building Official's written approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls
identified on the grading plan in the Plans.
These plans shall include details with respect to the height,type of materials,and method of
construction to be used for the retaining walls.
Developer shall complete implementation of the approved retaining wall plan in accordance
with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto, prior to issuance of any
occupancy permit for the Property.
8. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT: Prior to the release of a final plat for any
portion of the Property, Developer shall sign an assessment agreement, in the form and
substance as attached in Exhibit E, with the City for: (i) Crestwood Terrace Street and
Utility Improvements; and (ii) Trunk Sewer and Water Assessments (Trunk
Improvements). The assessments shall be as follows:
(a) The Property will be assessed for Trunk Improvements on 3.46 acres in an amount
of$17,997.20.
(b) The Property will be assessed for the Crestwood Terrace Street and Utility
Improvements in an amount not to exceed $79,851.00.
9. STREET AND UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the
construction of public streets and utilities for the Property,Developer shall submit to the City
Engineer,and obtain the City Engineer's written approval of plans for public streets,sanitary
sewer,water and stoma sewer.. Plans for public infrastructures shall be of a plan view and
profile on 24 x 36 plan sheets consistent with City standards. A permit fee of five percent of
construction value shall be paid to City by Developer. The design engineer shall provide
daily inspection,certify completion in conformance to approved plans and specifications and
provide record drawings.
10. TRAIL CONSTRUCTION: Prior to issuance by City of any building permit on the
Property,Developer shall submit to the Director of Parks and Recreation Services and obtain
the Director's written approval of detailed plans for an eight-foot wide bituminous trail along
the south side of Crestwood Terrace.
11. WETLAND PLAN:
A. Wetland Buffer Strip Vegetation Evaluation: Developer shall submit to the City a
Wetland Buffer Strip Vegetation Evaluation Report("Buffer Report")in accordance
with the Wetland Plan and City Code requirements prior to release of the final plat
for any portion of the Property. If any unacceptable vegetation or other conditions
are identified by the City,the wetland buffer strip shall be graded,treated,reseeded
and/or replanted (thereon known as "Landscaping", or "Landscaped") by the
Developer within 90 days of submission of the Buffer Report. If Landscaping of the
wetland buffer strip is required,the Developer shall submit a signed statement by a
qualified wetland consultant, as determined by the City Manager, stating that the
wetland buffer strip vegetation complies with all City requirements within 30 days of
completion of the Landscaping of the wetland buffer strip.
Prior to release of the final plat for any portion of the Property, Developer shall
submit a signed contract with a qualified wetland consultant, as determined by the
City Manager and/or designee,for preparation of annual Buffer Reports that evaluate
the condition of the wetland(s)and wetland buffer strip(s). The Buffer Reports shall
be submitted no later than October 1 of the calendar year in which the buffer
evaluation is required. The Buffer Reports shall provide an action plan and proposed
cost for correction of any problems identified. The final Buffer Report shall evaluate
the wetland buffer strip vegetation after completion of two full growing seasons
following completion of the development and shall evaluate the wetland buffer strip
vegetation to determine if the wetland buffer strip vegetation remains in compliance
with all City requirements. If any unacceptable conditions or vegetation are
identified within the Buffer Reports, the buffer shall be re-landscaped by the
Developer within 90 days of submission of the Buffer Report.
B. Conservation Easement: Prior to release of the final plat for any portion of the
Property,Developer shall submit a Conservation Easement (Exhibit F) for review
and written approval by the Environmental Coordinator, for the area delineated on
the Plans.
Prior to release of the first building permit for the Property,Developer shall submit
evidence to the Environmental Coordinator that the approved Conservation Easement
has been filed in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrar of Titles' Office.
C. Wetland Buffer Strip Monuments: Prior to release of the final plat for anyportion
of the Property,Developer shall install all wetland buffer strip monuments for the
property. Wetland buffer strip monument locations shall be shown on the final
grading plan and final plat. The post shall be a fiberglass reinforced composite post
with a maximum size of 4 inch by 4 inch(4"x 4")that states "Wetland Buffer:No
Mowing Allowed". The post shall be mounted to a height of a minimum of four feet
above grade set at least 42 inches in the ground. The bottom of the post must be
fitted with an anchor attachment that would expand upon attempted removal.
Removal of the wetland buffer strip monuments is prohibited.
D. Wetland Plan/Performance Bond: Prior to release of the final plat for anyportion
of the Property, Developer shall submit to the Environmental Coordinator and
receive the Environmental Coordinator's approval of a Wetland Plan. The approved
Wetland Plan shall be consistent with the materials and requirements shown on the
Plans. Developer shall furnish to the Environmental Coordinator and receive the
Environmental Coordinator's approval of a Wetland Plan performance bond, cash
escrow,or letter of credit with a corporation approved by the City Manager or other
guarantee acceptable to the City Manager equal to 150%of the cost,as estimated by
the City Manager,of completing said Wetland Plan requirements and/or Landscaping
as depicted on the Plans and as required by City Code. Said performance bond,cash
escrow, letter of credit or other guarantee shall cover two full growing seasons
following completion of the development.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be
executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
TERRY VOGT HOMES,INC CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By
Its Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
By
Its Scott H.Neal, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002,
by Nancy Tyra-Lukens and Scott H.Neal,respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City
of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation,on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002,by
and the and
respectively of Terry Vogt Homes,Inc, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation .
Notary Public
ry
EXIT A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT- CRESTWOOD PONDS
Legal Description Before Final Plat
Tract C, RLS 1410, Hennepin County, MN
Legal Description After Final Plat
Lots 1 —6,Block 1, Crestwood Ponds
'5
EXHIBIT B
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT- CRESTWOOD PONDS
PLANS
LIST OF MATERIALS
Cl Existing Conditions dated 6/24/02 by Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson,Inc.
C2 Preliminary Plat dated 6/24/02 by Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson,Inc.
C3 Grading,Drainage,Erosion Control Plan dated 6/24/02 by Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson,Inc.
C4 Utility Plan dated 6/24/02 by Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson,Inc.
C5 Tree Preservation Plan dated 6/24/02 by Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson,Inc.
EXHIBIT C
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - CRESTWOOD PONDS
I. Prior to release of any building permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for
approval two copies of a development plan(1"=100'scale)showing existing and proposed
contours,proposed streets,and lot arrangements and size,minimum floor elevations on each
lot,preliminary alignment and grades for sanitary sewer,water main,and storm sewer, 100-
year flood plain contours, ponding areas, tributary areas to catch basins, arrows showing
direction of storm water flow on all lots,location of walks,trails,and any property deeded to
the City.
II. Developer shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer plans to the Watershed District
for review and approval. Developer shall follow all rules and recommendations of said
Watershed District.
III. Developer shall pay cash park fees as to all of the Property required by City Code in effect as
of the date of the issuance of each building permit for construction on the property.
Presently, the amount of cash park fees applicable to the Property is $2,300 per unit. The
amount to be paid by Developer shall be increased or decreased to the extent authorized
pursuant to the City Code to require a greater or lesser amount as of the date of the issuance
of any building permit for construction on the Property.
IV. If Developer fails to proceed in accordance with this Agreement within twenty-four (24)
months of the date hereof,Developer,for itself,its successors,and assigns,shall not oppose
the City's reconsideration and rescission of any PUD, Rezoning, Site Plan Review and
Preliminary Plat approved in connection with this Agreement,thus restoring the status of the
Property before the Developer's Agreement and all approvals listed above were approved.
V. Provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against owners, their
successors, and their assigns of the Property herein described.
VI. The Developer hereby irrevocably nominates, constitutes, and appoints and designates the
City as its attorney-in-fact for the sole purpose and right to amend Exhibit A hereto to
identify the legal description of the Property after platting thereof.
VII. Developer represents that it has marketable fee title to the Property, except:
With respect to any interest in all portions of the Property which Developer is required,
pursuant to this Agreement, to dedicate or convey to the City(the "Dedicated Property"),
Developer represents and warrants as follows now and at the time of dedication or
conveyance:
A. That Developer has marketable fee title free and clear of all mortgages,liens, and
other encumbrances. Prior to final plat approval,Developer shall provide to the City
a current title insurance policy insuring such a condition of title.
B. That Developer has not used, employed, deposited, stored, disposed of,placed or
otherwise allowed to come in or on the Dedicated Property,any hazardous substance,
hazardous waste, pollutant, or contaminant, including, but not limited to, those
defined in or pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §9601,et.seq.,or Minn.Stat.,Sec. 115B.01,et.
seq. (such substances,wastes,pollutants, and contaminants hereafter referred to as
• "Hazardous Substances");
C. That Developer has not allowed any other person to use, employ, deposit, store,
dispose of,place or otherwise have,in or on the Property,any Hazardous Substances.
D. That to the best of the Developer's knowledge, no previous owner, operator or
possessor of the Property deposited,stored,disposed of,placed or otherwise allowed
in or on the Property any hazardous substances.
•
Developer agrees to indemnify,defend and hold harmless City,its successors and assigns,
against any and all loss,costs,damage and expense,including reasonable attorneys fees and
costs that the City incurs because of the breach of any of the above representations and
warranties and/or resulting from or due to the release or threatened release of Hazardous
Substances which were,or are claimed or alleged to have been,used,employed,deposited,
stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise located or allowed to be located, in or on the
Dedicated Property by Developer,its employees, agents, contractors or representatives.
VIII. Developer acknowledges that Developer is familiar with the requirements of Chapter 11,
Zoning,and Chapter 12,Subdivision Regulations,of the City Code and other applicable City
ordinances affecting the development of the Property. Developer agrees to develop the
Property in accordance with the requirements of all applicable City Code requirements and
City Ordinances.
IX. Prior to release of the final plat,Developer shall pay to City fees for the first three(3)years'
street lighting on the public streets adjacent to the Property(including installation costs,if
any, as determined by electrical power provider), engineering review, and street signs.
X. Developer shall submit detailed water main,fire protection,and emergency vehicle access
plans to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. Developer shall follow all the
recommendations of the Fire Marshal.
XI. Developer acknowledges that the rights of City performance of obligations of Developer
contemplated in this agreement are special,unique, and of an extraordinary character, and
that, in the event that Developer violates, or fails, or refuses to perform any covenant,
condition, or provision made herein, City may be without an adequate remedy at law.
Developer agrees,therefore,that in the event Developer violates,fails,or refuses to perform
any covenant, condition, or provision made herein, City may, at its option, institute and
prosecute an action to specifically enforce such covenant, withhold building permits or
rescind or revoke any approvals granted by the City. No remedy conferred in this agreement
is intended to be exclusive and each shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every
other remedy. The election of anyone or more remedies shall not constitute a waiver of any
other remedy.
XII. Developer shall,prior to the commencement of any improvements,provide written notice to
Time Warner Cable,a Minnesota Limited Partnership,the franchisee under the City's Cable
Communication Ordinance(80-33) of the development contemplated by this Developer's
Agreement. Notice shall be sent to Time Warner Cable, 801 Plymouth Avenue North,
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55411.
XIII. Prior to building permit issuance,all fees associated with the building permit shall be paid to
the Inspections Department,including;Building permit fee,plan check fee,State surcharge,
metro system access charge(SAC),City SAC and City water access charge(WAC),and park
dedication. Contact Metropolitan Waste Control to determine the number of SAC units.
XIV. Prior to building permit issuance, existing structures,walls and septic systems (if present)
shall be properly abandoned or removed as required by City ordinance and all permits
obtained through the Inspections Department.
XV. Prior to building permit issuance,provide two copies of an approved survey or site plan(1"=
200 scale)showing proposed building location and all proposed streets,with approved street
names, lot arrangements and property lines.
XVI. The City shall not issue any building permit for the construction of any building,structure,or
improvement on the Property until all requirements listed in this Exhibit C have been
satisfactorily addressed by Developer.
XVII. No failure of the City to comply with any term,condition,covenant or agreement herein shall
subject the City to liability for any claim for damages,costs or other financial or pecuniary
charges. No execution on any claim, demand, cause of action or judgment shall be levied
upon or collected from the general credit, general fund or taxing powers of the City.
XVIII. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Property,Developer shall permanently
demarcate the location of the boundary of the conservation easement on each lot property
line or corner with permanent four-foot tall posts. A 2 %2 by 6 inch sign or decal reading
"Scenic/Conservation Easement Boundary,City of Eden Prairie",will be affixed to the top of
the post.
EXHIBIT D
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - CRESTWOOD PONDS
EROSION CONTROL POLICY - AUGUST 1, 1997
'9
1. All construction projects permitted by the City of Eden Prairie which results in the temporary
disturbance of vegetative or non-vegetative surfaces protecting soils from erosion require the
use of Best Management Practices(BMP's)as outlined in the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency's manual,Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas,to mitigate the impact of erosion
on wetland and water resources. The City Engineer or the Director of Inspections may
impose special conditions to permits which stipulate erosion control procedures and/or direct
the installation of erosion control features or the clean up of erosion at construction sites.
Permits affected by this policy include all grading permits,building permits,and permits for
the installation of utilities.
2. All erosion control systems stipulated in the permit application shall be installed prior to the
issuance of the permit. Supplemental erosion control systems ordered by the City Engineer
or the Director of Inspections shall be installed within 48 hours of that order.
3. The applicant must maintain all erosion control systems in a functional condition until the
completion of turf and/or structural surfaces, which protect the soil from erosion. The
applicant must inspect erosion control biweekly and immediately after each rainfall event of
.5 inches or more. Needed maintenance shall be performed within 48 hours.
4. Best Management Practices(BMP's)shall be utilized at all construction sites to minimize the
trackage or spillage of soil on public streets or highways. BMP's may include,but are not
limited to,rock construction entrances,washing stations,frequent cleaning of streets adjacent
to the construction site or limiting operations when site conditions are unmanageable.
Trackage or spillage of soil on a public street or highway must be cleaned by power sweepers
within the time frame stipulated in the permit special conditions or as ordered by the City
Engineer or the Director of Inspections.
5. If erosion breaches the perimeter of a construction site, the applicant shall immediately
develop a clean up and restoration plans, obtain the right-of-entry from the adjoining
property owner, and implement the clean up and a restoration plan within 48 hours of
obtaining the adjoining property owner's permission. In the event eroded soils enter onto or
are tracked or spilled on a public street,highway,sidewalk or trail,the applicant shall remove
the soil material and thoroughly sweep the street or sidewalk surface within four hours. If
eroded soils enter,or entrance appears imminent,into wetlands or other water bodies,clean
up and repair shall be immediate. The applicant shall provide all traffic control and flagging
required to protect the traveling public during the clean up operations.
6. When an applicant fails to conform to any provision of this policy within the time stipulated
in a written notification,the City may take the following actions:
a. Withhold the scheduling of inspections and/or the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or other approvals.
b. Direct the correction of the deficiency by City personnel or separate contract.
c. Withhold the issuance of building permits
d. At its option,institute and prosecute an action to enjoin violations of this Agreement
and/or an action to specifically enforce performance of this Agreement
•
The issuance of a permit constitutes a right-of-entry for the City or its contractor to enter
upon the construction site for the purpose of correcting deficiencies in erosion control.
All costs, including but not limited to, attorneys'fees and engineering fees incurred by the
City in correcting erosion control deficiencies or enforcing this policy shall be reimbursed by
the applicant. All invoices for erosion control correction shall be due and payable within 30
days. Invoices not paid within 30 days shall accrue interest at a rate of 1%per month or the
highest legal rate.
Each charge for correction of erosion deficiencies shall be a lien upon the property to which
the permit applies. Invoices more than 30 days old on September 30 or any year or on any
other date as determined by the City Engineer or the Director of Inspections may be assessed
against the property. As a condition of the permit, the owner shall waive notice of any
assessment hearing to be conducted by the City, concur that the benefit to the property
exceeds the amount of the proposed assessment and waive all rights by virtue of Minnesota
Statute 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of the assessment.
I,We,The Undersigned,hereby accept the terms and conditions of the Erosion Control Policy dated
August 1, 1997 as set forth and agree to fully comply therewith, to the satisfaction of the City of
Eden Prairie,Minnesota.
By: By:
Its Applicant's Signature
DEVELOPMENT NAME: Lot: Block:
OWNER INFORMATION OWNER(PRINT):
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
71
EXHIBIT E
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT- CRESTWOOD PONDS
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
SSA No.
AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT MADE THIS day of ,2002 between the
City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, (the "City") and (the
"Owner").
A. The Owner holds legal and equitable title to the Property as described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto, which property is the subject of this Agreement and is hereinafter referred
to as the "Property".
B. The Owner desires to develop the Property in such a manner that relies upon and requires
the construction of the following public improvements:
1) City's trunk utility system, including trunk sanitary sewers, trunk watermains, wells
and elevated storage facilities (all of which is hereafter referred to as the "Trunk
Improvements").
2) Street and utility improvements adjacent to the Property(which is hereafter referred to
as "Crestwood Terrace Street and Utility Improvements").
AGREEMENTS
IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:
1. The Owner consents to the levying of assessments against the Property for the
construction, and maintenance of the Trunk Improvements and Crestwood Terrace Street
and Utility Improvements as follows:
a) The Property will be assessed for Trunk Improvements on 3.46 acres in an amount
of$17,997.20.
b) The Property will be assessed for the Crestwood Terrace Street and Utility
Improvements in an amount not to exceed $79,851.00.
2. The City has prepared a Feasibility Report that shows proposed costs to be assessed against
the Property and additional amounts to other lands for the Crestwood Terrace Street and
Utility Improvements. The actual cost to be assessed against the Property for the
Crestwood Terrace Street and Utility Improvements may differ from the amount in the
7
Feasibility Report. Actual costs to be assessed against the Property for the Crestwood
Terrace Street and Utility Improvements shall be determined in the same manner as
reported in the Feasibility Report prepared with respect to these improvements but in no
event shall this amount exceed $79,851.00.
3. For purposes of determining the amount of the assessments, the costs of the Crestwood
Terrace Street and Utility Improvements shall include, in addition to actual construction
costs, administrative, interest and engineering costs and fees incurred or paid by the City
in relationship to construction of the Improvements and costs incurred for acquisition of
easements and or right-of-way, including attorney fees, but in no event shall this amount
exceed $79,851.00.
4. The City's assessment records for the Property will show the assessments as a"pending"
assessment" until levied.
5. The Owner waives notice of any assessment hearing to be held at which hearing or
hearings the assessments are to be considered by the City Council and thereafter approved
and levied.
6. The Owner concurs that the benefit to the Property by virtue of the Crestwood Terrace
Street and Utility Improvements and the Trunk Improvements exceed the amounts to be
assessed in accordance with this Agreement. The Owner waives all rights it has by virtue
of Minnesota Statute 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of the
assessments, or the procedures used by the City in apportioning the assessments and
hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all liability
related to or arising out of the imposition or levying of the assessments a against the
Property as set forth above or validity of the assessments.
7. Special assessments levied against the Property shall be due and payable in installments,
the first of which shall be payable commencing with the ad valorem taxes due and payable
in the year following year the special assessments are levied. The City shall levy the
Trunk Assessments and Crestwood Terrace Street and Utility assessments in 2002.
8. This agreement shall be effective immediately.
-73
OWNERS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Terry Vogt Homes, Inc. A Minnesota Municipal Corporation
By: By:
Its Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
By: By:
Its Scott H. Neal, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2002, by Nancy Tyra-Lukens, the Mayor and Scott H. Neal, the City
Manager, of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the
corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2002, by the
and , the , respectively of Terry
Vogt Homes, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the owners.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
City of Eden Prairie
Engineering Division
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
L
EXHIBIT F
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - CRESTWOOD PONDS
CONSERVATION/SCENIC EASEMENT
THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made this day of ,2002 by and
between ,a Minnesota Corporation,hereinafter referred to as"Grantor,"
and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a Minnesota municipal corporation,hereinafter referred to as
"City";
WHEREAS,Grantor is the fee owner of land located in Hennepin County,Minnesota,more
fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said land hereinafter
referred to as "the Property"; and,
WHEREAS, Grantor has marketable title to the Property, free and clear of all liens,
mortgage, and encumbrances, except:
• WHEREAS,Grantor and City wish to enter into an agreement which will grant to the City a
conservancy/scenic easement for conservation and preservation of the terrain and vegetation,and to
prohibit certain destructive acts thereon,over that portion of the subdivision as described in Exhibit
A,hereinafter referred to as the "Easement Area", attached hereto;
NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the premises contained herein,it is agreed by the
parties as follows:
1. Grantor hereby conveys to City and its successors and assigns a conservation and
scenic easement in, under, on, and over the "Easement Area", and City hereby
accepts such conveyance.
2. The following terms and conditions shall apply to the Easement Area:
A. The Easement Area shall be preserved predominantly in its natural condition.
No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be planted or removed from the
Easement Area without the prior written consent of the City. The City will
consider removal of noxious weeds, as defined by Minnesota Statutes
Sections 18.76-18.88, upon submission and approval of a Vegetation
Removal Plan. No vegetation cutting, fertilizer application or placement of
turfgrass,such as Kentucky bluegrass,shall occur within the Easement Area.
B. Wetland buffer monuments must be placed at the boundaries of the wetland
buffer strip as shown on Exhibit B. Removal of the wetland buffer strip
monuments is not allowed.
C. No building,road,sign,billboard,utility, or other structures shall be placed
in the Easement Area without the prior written consent of City.
D. No trash,waste, or other offensive material, soil, or landfill shall be placed '
upon or within the Easement Area without the prior written consent of the
City.
E. No change in the general topography of the Easement Area landscape,
including,but not limited,to excavation,dredging,movement,and removal
or placement of soil, shall be allowed within the Easement Area without the
prior written consent of the City.
F. Grantor may,no more than once per calendar year,remove sediment caused •
by stormwater drainage into a stormwater ponding area. Any removal of
sediment must be pre-approved in writing by the City and be in accordance
with City and Wetland Conservation Act guidelines. Landscaping must be
replaced in accordance with the requirements outlined in this Conservation
Easement.
3. With respect to the Easement Area, Grantor represents and warrants as follows:
A. That Grantor has marketable title free and clear of all liens, encumbrances
and mortgages.
B. That Grantor has not used, employed, deposited, stored,disposed of,placed
or otherwise allowed to come in or on the Easement Area, any hazardous
substance, hazardous waste, pollutant, or contaminant, including, but not
limited to,those defined in or pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §9601,et.seq.,or Minn.
Stat., Sec. 115B.01, et. seq. (such substances, wastes, pollutants, and
contaminants hereafter referred to as "Hazardous Substances");
C. That Grantor has not allowed any other person to use,employ,deposit,store,
dispose of, place or otherwise have, in or on the Easement Area, any
Hazardous Substances;
D. That to the best of the Developer's knowledge,no previous owner,operator
or possessor of the easement area, deposited, stored, disposed of,placed, or
otherwise allowed in or on the Easement Area any Hazardous Substances;
Grantor agrees to indemnify,defend and hold harmless City,against any and all loss,
costs, damage and expense,including reasonable attorneys fees and costs that City
incurs because of the breach of any of the above representations or warranties and/or
resulting from or due to the inaccuracy or falsity of any representation or warranty
herein.
4. Grantor agrees to maintain the Easement Area subject to the provisions stated herein.
5. The duration of this easement is perpetual and shall bind and inure to the benefit of
the parties,their successors, and assigns.
6. Nothing contained herein shall impair any right of City now held or hereafter
acquired to construct or maintain public utilities in or on the Easement Area.
-71
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be
executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
GRANTOR
TERRY VOGT HOMES,INC CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
BY
ITS
Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
BY
ITS
Scott H.Neal, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) •
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002,
by Nancy Tyra-Lukens and Scott H.Neal,respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City
of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation,on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2002,by
and the and
respectively of Terry Vogt Homes, Inc, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: September 3,
SECTION: Consent Calendar 2002
SERVICE AREA\DIVISION: SUBJECT: Winter Usage of the LRT Trail ITEM NO.
Park&Recreation from November 15,2002 March 31,2003
Through:Robert A Lambert, , ,
Director of Parks&Recreation
From: Stuart A. Fox,Manager/'
Parks&Natural Resources'6,'i"
Requested Action: •
Move to: Authorize staff to submit a permit application for the 2002-2003 winter season
regarding winter usage of the LRT trail. The winter use permit would run from
November 15, 2002-March 31, 2003.
Background:
Currently, Three Rivers Park District does not provide use of the LRT trail between November 15th
and March 31st of each year. It is up to the City to request permitted use of the trail during this time.
The City has entered into a permit agreement with for the past several winters allowing hiking and
cross-country skiing by the public. In order to do this,the City must make an annual application for
a winter use permit.
Staff will make application for usage of the LRT trail in a manner similar to previous years;however,
adding the condition that the City would be plowing this trail. In order to plow the trail signs would
be posted at each road intersection indicating that the trail is being maintained by the City of Prairie
for winter activity use. These signs would limit activities such as snowmobiling and traveling by
motorized vehicles such as ATV's. The winter use signs would be installed prior to November 15th
and removed by April 15th of the following year. The signs would be the responsibility of the City to
place and maintain.
A copy of the application form is attached for your information.
SAF:mdd
HJStuart 2002/LRT Trail Winter Use
�9
THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT
REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM
2002 2003 WINTER TRAIL PERMIT
Name of City City Hall Phone
Contact Person Phone
Regional Trail From to
Authorized 2002-2003 Winter Activities
Regional Trail From to
Authorized 2002-2003 Winter Activities
Regional Trail From to
Authorized 2002-2003 Winter Activities
Regional Trail From to
Authorized 2002-2003 Winter Activities
Authorization is hereby requested from the Park District Board of Commissioners to use portions of the Regional Trail
Corridor for winter use activities between November 15,2002 and March 31,2003,.as determined by each municipality
within guidelines set forth herein on District property located within individual City boundaries.
It is understood and agreed that approval from the Three Rivers Park District Board of Commissioners is contingent
upon the following conditions:
• The City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Park District, its officials, officers, agents,
volunteers,and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action,judgments, damages, losses,costs or
expenses,including reasonable attorney's fees,resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of
the City, its respective contractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for
whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable for related to the winter use of the Regional Trail Corridor.
If City maintains general liability insurance at the time this permit is issued, City shall provide the Park
District with a Certificate of Insurance,naming Park District as an additional named insured.
• The City agrees to maintain.the trail, including,but not limited to,any plowing,sweeping, sanding,packing,trash
pick-up, and sign replacement, between November 15, 2002-March 31, 2003. The City further agrees to
immediately address all safety issues on or adjacent to trails.
• The City will provide signage at locations approved by the Park District,notifying the public of authorized winter
activities within its city limits;activities may include,but are not limited to, hiking,biking,snowmobiling, cross-
country skiing, snowshoeing, or pet walking. Winter use signs must be installed by the City at designated
locations prior to November 15, 2002 and removed by the City no later than.April 15, 2003. These signs are
totally the responsibility of each municipality.
• Snowmobiling is not allowed on asphalt trails. Permitted use for snowmobiles will be limited to direct crossing
and/or in areas where the snowmobile trail is kept from running on paved trails and bridges. If snowmobiling is
permitted,cities must take steps to keep snowmobiles from damaging paved trails,bridges and other property:
• The City agrees to enforce rules and regulations established by the municipality as part of its request for a Winter
Use Permit.
U0
a The City agrees to repair all trail surface damage that occurs as a result of winter trail activities and/or
rmintmnanre, including, but not limited to, bituminous/concrete repair bridge deck repair, grading or adding
aggregate pursuant to guidelines established by the Park District
• The City agrees that winter trail use will be available to all persons,regardless of residence.
Each City is required to submit its anmial permit requests,including proposed rules and regulations, by September
30, 2002, after which the Park District may take up to 45 business days to process. Each permit request mast be
submitted as a result of formal City Council action, with accompanying verification, agreeing to the terms and
conditions outlined by the Park District's Winter Use Permit. It should be further understood that no winter activity
will be allowed on segments of the Regional Trail Corridor where municipalities-do not request and receive permits.
The Park District reserves the right to terminate a permit at any time,if the conditions set forth herein are not followed.
Signed: Date:
• Title:
(Authorized Representative of the City)
•
c �
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
September 3,2002
SECTION: Consent Calendar
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C.94-5372 ITEM NO.:
Engineering Services Award Contract for Prairie Center Drive/
Randy Newton Prairie Lakes Drive Traffic Signal and Prairie . F,
Center Drive Traffic Signal Interconnect
Requested Action
Move to: Award contract for I.C. 94-5372 (Prairie Center Drive / Prairie Lakes Drive
Traffic Signal and Prairie Center Drive Signal Interconnect) to Egan-McKay
Electrical Contractors in the amount of$131,149.00.
Synopsis
Sealed bids were received Thursday August 15, 2002 for this project. Three bids were received
and are summarized in the consultant recommendation letter. The low bid in the amount of
$131,149.00, submitted by Egan-McKay Electrical Contractors, is $12,288.00 (9%) below the
engineer's estimate. The bids received were very competitive with approximately $4,000
separating the three bids.
Therefore, staff recommends awarding the contract for the project to Egan-McKay Electrical
Contractors in the amount of$131,149.00.
Background Information
The intersection currently meets the warrants for traffic signal installation and its installation
should coincide closely with the completion of the Hartford Commons project. The proposed
project also includes traffic signal interconnect on Prairie Center Drive between TH 212 and
Viking Drive and between West 78th Street and Preserve Boulevard. The traffic signal
interconnect will help manage the traffic signal system and as a result will improve traffic flow
on Prairie Center Drive.
Financial Implications
As part of the 1994 Hartford Place PUD development proposals $71,000 was allocated towards
the construction of the Prairie Center Drive/Prairie Lakes Drive traffic signal. The remainder of
the construction cost for this project will be paid from the Construction Fund.
Attachments
Consultant's recommendation letter.
Westwood Professional Services,Inc
PLANNING . ENGINEERING .SURVEYING
7599 Anagram Drive
Eden Praire,MN 55344
Phone:952-937-5150
Fax 952-937-5822
Toll free:1-888-937-5150
E-mail:wps®westwoodps.com
August 16, 2002 TWIN CITIES/METRO
ST.CLOUD
•
Mr. Randy Newton, P.E. BRAINERD
Traffic Engineer
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Award of Contract
Traffic Control Signal System —Prairie Center Drive at Prairie Lakes Drive
City Project No. I. C. 94-5372 -
Dear Mr. Newton:
On August 15, 2002, at 10:00 a.m., 3 bids were received and opened for the above referenced
project. We have reviewed the bids submitted to the City of Eden Prairie and determined that
Eagan- McKay Electrical Contractors has submitted the lowest responsible bid.
s ' -1 The following summary is provided:
•
Engineer's Estimate $143,437.00
Eagan-McKay Electrical Contractors $131,149.00
Electrical Installation & Maintenance $135,200.00
Collins Electrical Systems, Inc. dba ColliSys $134,000.00
The $131,149.00 bid is approximately 9% below the Engineer's Estimate for the project.
•
We recommend that the City award the project to Eagan-McKay Electrical Contractors in
accordance with their proposal form.
Respectfully submitted,
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
.13ty-e_
Bruce F. Boje
Senior Associate, Transportation
73 Desgrang tl:e FLm re Todapsnce 1972
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - DATE:
September 3,2002
SECTION: Consent Calendar
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C.98-5456 ITEM NO.:
Public Works Dep t Approve Professional Services Agreement with
Eugene A.Dietz Summit Envirosolutions for Phase III Well Tt• G-.
Field Management Systems
Requested Action
Move to: Authorize an agreement for professional services with Summit Envirosolutions
for Phase III, development and installation of the "Realflow" (Welifield
Management System)cost module in an amount not to exceed$32,600.
Synopsis
The City of Eden Prairie began a consultant relationship with Summit Envirosolutions approximately
four years ago to develop a reliable method of monitoring the impacts of our municipal wells on the
aquifer and the ability to manage the wellfield system in terms of efficiency and cost. This final
phase of the project will complete that process and allow plant operators a convenient and efficient
way to make daily decisions on the operation of our well field.
Background Information
The software developed by Summit Envirosolutions is named "Realflow" and is a proprietary
system. The project emerged on the premise of the following mutual benefits:
• Summit desired an entry into the municipal well pumping market to further enhance
proprietary software that they had developed for other applications.
• The City has a need to efficiently manage our well field and water production.
The resultant phases of the contract have included installation of monitoring devices at each of our
wells, a telemetry system to carry the information back to the water plant and a software and
' hardware system to collect the data. The final phase of the project is to enhance the software in a
way that will analyze the incoming data to the water plant and display it on a computer monitor to
allow the plant operators to make value decisions on the operation of the wellfield without a
laborious review and interpretation of data. In essence, each running well will have a real time cost
per thousand gallons display. The operators have the ability to manipulate which wells are
operational and at what speed they are running to optimize/minimize the cost. Although not intended
to generate specific cost for each well,the cost display is a relative measure of one well compared to
another based on the actual operational characteristics of the well field and the positive or negative
influence of one well to the next.
In 2001,we pumped 2.9 billion gallons of water to our customers. The ability to optimize power cost
and to monitor well performance for maintenance needs is expected to provide a long term economic
benefit to our operation. Staff therefore recommends approval of the contract for services with
Snmmit Envirosolutions. •
Attachment
Agreement
�y�
Summit
• #1%.....Envirosoiutions
July 8,2002
• Mr.Ed Sorensen
Manager of Utility Operations •
City of Eden Prairie
Utilities Division
- 8080 Mitchell Road .
Eden Prairie,MN 553'1 d 1185
•
Subject: Proposal for Phase III:Development and Installation of the Realflow Cost Module
City of Eden Prairie Well Field
Dear Mr.Sorensen:
•
Summit Envirosolutions,Inc (Summit)is pleased to submit this proposal for Phase III: Development and
• Installation of the Realflow Cost Module for the City of Eden Prairie well field. The proposed scope of
work includes system programming to support real-time cost evaluations; development and
implementation of operator interface screens for cost and operational parameters; operator training
associated with the above enhancements; and, a documentation report for Realflow and furnished
products.The estimated cost for the proposed scope of work is $32,600.
'This proposal contains background information, a proposed work scope,and estimated costs.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Since 1999, the city has been using Summit's Realflow system to monitor performance of individual
wells within the City's well field.This is the third and fmal proposal in a series of work activities related
to enhancing Realflow to address wellfield interference, equipment upgrades and power costs. The
proposed scope of work for this final phase consists of four general tasks:
1. System programming to support real-time cost evaluations;
2. Development and implementation of operator interface screens for cost and operational parameters;
3. Operator training associated with the above enhancements; and,
.4. Documentation and project management associated with the above scope of work.
These four tasks are described in the following scope of services.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The goal of this scope of work is to enhance the ability of City staff to make use of Realflow system for
operational, financial and educational purposes. The scope of work, when implemented, will allow the
City to continuously monitor the energy costs associated with differing pumping scenarios, and will
provide real-time feedback to facilitate decisions regarding well field operation.
1217 Bandana Boulevard North•St.Paul,LIN 55108•Phone(651)644-8080•Fax i651)647-0888
Offices Strateg cam'j Located Natonwide
• - Mr.Ed Sorensen-7/8t2002
Proposal for Phase III:Cost Module
Page 2 -
The proposed scope of work is detailed below.
Task 1:System Programming -
Summit will review and evaluate the City's energy cost structure associated with well-field pumping.
• Based upon the results of the evaluation, programming changes will be made to the existing Realflow
modules to reflect that portion of the energy costs attributable to different wellfield pumping.scenarios.
These programming changes, coupled with the City's recent installation of variable-frequency drives in
all wells,will result in the ability to fully utilise Realflow to cost-effectively manage the well field.
Task 2:Development and Implementation of Operator Interface Screens
Summit will update and revise the existing operator SCADA interface screens to reflect the enhanced
ability to manage the wellfield based upon energy cost,groundwater flow,and/or well/pump performance
criteria. This will include a per-well readout of energy cost per"1000 gallons produced, as well as
revisions to the existing readouts to make use of the variable-frequency drive information. The resultant
interface screens will allow the operations staff to continuously monitor and control the wellfield based
upon any combination of the above parameters.
Task 3:Operator Training Associated with the Above Enhancements
•
Summit will conduct a training session with the operators•and facility personnel to introduce the new
.- screens,and to discussways that the information can be used to optimally manage the well field.
Task 4:Documentation and Project Administration •
Summit will prepare a documentation report outlining the changes made to the Realflow system, and will
administer the above tasks from a project management standpoint,
COST ESTIMATE/TEAM MEMBER IDENTIFICATION - •
•
The following Summit employee's and partners will serve as the project team for the tasks outlined in this
proposal.
Team Member Title
Kevin Miller Senior Project Manager/Principal Hydrogeologist
Paul Donovan SCADA Specialist '
Bob Dryden Systems Analyst
Mark Packard GIS Coordinator/Hydrogeologist
- Mr.Ed Sorensen-7/8/2002
Proposal for Phase HE Cost Module
Page 3
A breakdown of the costs is presented in the table below.
Cost Basis Cost Estimate
1-System Programming 100 hours @ $100 per hour $10,000
2-Development and Implementation of 120 hours @ $100 per hour $12,000
Operator Interface Screens
3-Operator Training 26 Hours @ $100 per hour $2,600
4_Documentation Report and Project 80 Hours @ $100 per hour $8,000
Administration
', l,_4 #.: 't . r'. ° - . 1 ; :Y' _`TaskTotals-. $32;600
Summit proposes to perform these tasks on a time and materials, not-to-exceed basis in accordance with
our fee schedule and the City of Eden Prairie General Conditions,.both of which are attached and
considered to be part of this proposal. Once written authorization to proceed has been received, the tasks
presented in this proposal can be attended to immediately. We will not exceed the authorized amount
without prior approval,received in writing,from the City.
We look forward to working with you. If you have questions regarding the contents of this proposal or
the project in general,please contact our office.
Sincerely, "
Sununit Envirosolutions,Inc.
•
tin J.Miller,CPG
. Senior Project Manager
ACCEPTANCE: • S
City Manager: S Mayor:
Signature: , Signature:
Date: - Date:
• CITY OF EDEN FRAME
GENERAL CoonrrIONs
Consultant Agreement
•
SECTION 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
• 2.5 City agrees to render reasonable assistance requested by
• 1.1 City will provide to Consultant all known information Consultant to enable performance of work without delay or
regarding existing and proposed conditions of the site or which interference,and upon request of Consultant,to provide a suitable
affects the work to be performed by Consultant. Such workplace.
• information shall include, but not be limited to site plans,
surveys, known hazardous waste or conditions, previous 2.6 City will be responsible for locating and identifying all -
laboratory analysis results,written reports,soil boring logs and subterranean structures- and utilities. Consultant will take
applicable regulatory site response(Project Information). . reasonable precautions to avoid damage or injury to subterranean
structures and utilities identified and located by City and/or
1.2 City will transmit to Consultant any additions,updates;or representatives of Utility Companies.
revisions to the Project Information as it becomes available to
City,its subcontractors or consultants. . SECTION 3: SAMPLES
•
1.3 City will provide an on-site representative to Consultant • Not Applicable
within 24 hours upon request, to.aid, define, supervise, or
coordinate work or Project Information as requested 'by • SECTION 4: FEE PAYMENT/CLAIMS
Consultant. .
•
4.1 Consultant will submit invoices to City monthly,and a final
1.4 Consultant will not be liable for any decision,conclusion, invoice upon completion of work. Invoices will show charges
recommendations, judgement or advice based on any based on the current Consultant Fee Schedule or other documents
inaccurate information furnished by City,' or other as attached.
subcontractors or consultants engaged by City.
4.2 To receive any payment on this Contract,the invoice or bill
SECTION 2: SITE LOCATION,ACCESS,PERMITS, must include the following signed and dated statement "I declare
APPROVALS AND UTILITIES 'under penalty of perjury that this account,claim,or demand is just
• and correct and that no part of it has been paid.."
2.1 City will indicate to Consultant the property lines of the site
and assume responsibility for accuracy of markers. 4.3 The balance stated on the invoice shall be deemed correct
. unless City notifies Consultant,in writing,of the particular item
2.2 City will provide for right-of-way for Consultant personnel that is alleged to be incorrect within ten(10)days from'the invoice
and equipment necessary to perform the work. • date. Consultant will review the alleged incorrect item within ten
' (10) days and either submits a corrected invoice or a statement
2.3 City will be solely responsible for applying for and indicating the original amount is correct.
• obtaining permits and approvals.necessary.for Consultant to
perform the work. Consultant will assist City in applying for 4.4 Payment is due upon receipt of invoice(or corrected invoice)
and obtaining such permits and approvals,as needed. It is and is past due sixty(60)days from invoice date. On past due
.understood that City authorizes Consultant.to act as agent for accounts,City will pay a finance charge of 1.5%per month on the
City for City's responsibilities under this section including unpaid balance, or the maximum allowed by-law,whichever is
signing certain forms on City's behalf such as Right-of-Way less,until invoice is fully paid.
forms.
• 4.5 If City fails to pay Consultant within sixty(60)days following
2.4 While Consultant will take reasonable precautions to invoice date, Consultant may deem the default a breach of its
minimize any damage to property,it is understood by City that agreement,terminate the agreement,and be relieved of any and all
in the normal course of the work some damage may occur. The duties under the agreement. City however,will not be relieved of
correction of any damage is'the responsibility of City or, at Fee Payment responsibilities by the default or termination of the
City's.direction,the damage may be corrected by Consultant agreement.
and billed to City at cost plus 15%. Notwithstanding the
• above,Consultant agrees to be responsible for damage caused 4.6 City will be solely responsible for applying for and obtaining
by Consultant's negligence. any applicable compensation fund reimbursements from various
City of Eden Prairie General Conditions
Consultant Agreement
February 2001
Page 1 of4
•
' • state and federal programs. Consultant may assist City in
applying for or meeting notification requirements,however. 6.2 City will pay all reasonahIe litigation or collection expenses
Consultant makes no representations or guarantees as to what including attorney fees that Consultant incurs in collecting any
fund reimbursement City may receive. Consultant shall not be delinquent amount City owes under this agreement
Iable for any reductions from reimbursement programs made
for any reason by state or federal agencies,except as may be 6.3 If City institutes a suit against Consultant,which is dismissed,
caused by Consultant's negligence. dropped,or for which judgement is rendered for Consultant,City
will pay Consultant for all costs of defense, including attorney
4.7 City may withhold from any final payment due the fees,expert witness fees and court costs.
Consultant such amounts as are incurred or expended.by the
City on account of the termination of the Contract. 6.4 If Consultant institutes a suit against City,which is dismissed,
dropped,or for which judgement is rendered for City,Consultant
SECTION 5: OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS will pay City for all costs of defense, including attorney fees,
expert witness fees and court costs.
5.1 Consultant will deliver to City certain reports as
instruments of the professional work or services performed 6.5 Dispute Resolution
pursuant to this Agreement. All reports are intended solely for
• City,and Consultant will not be liable for any interpretations 6.5.1 Mediation
made by others.
• • All claims, disputes and other matters in question (hereinafter
5.2 City agrees that all reports and other work furnished to "claim")between the parties to this Agreement,arising out of or
City,or City's agents or representatives,which are not paid for, relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof,shall be subject
will be returned to Consultant upon demand and will not be to mediation. If the parties have not resolved the dispute within
used by City for any purpose. thirty(30)days of receipt of a written complaint,each party may
require the dispute be submitted for mediation. If the parties are
• _ 5.3 Unless otherwise agreed,Consultant will retain all pertinent unable to agree on a mediator within ten(10) days following a
records or reports concerning work and services performed for request for mediation,either party may request that a mediator be
a period of at least two (2) years after report is submitted. appointed by the Fourth Judicial District Court. The parties agree
During that time the records will be made available to City to share equally all fees incurred in the mediation.
during Consultant's normal business hours. City may obtain
reproducible copies of all software,manuals,maps,drawings, The parties shall submit to mediation for a minimum of eight(8)
logs and reports at cost,plus 15%,for data and materials not , 'hours. The parties agree that the mediation proceedings are
being provided as part of the scope of work for the project. private and confidential. If,at the end of eight hours of mediation,
the parties have not resolved the dispute,the parties may agree to
5.4 City may use the Consultant report in its entirety and may extend hours of mediation.
make copies of the entire report available to others. However, . •
City shall not make disclosure to others of any portions or 6.5.2 Arbitration
excerpts of a report constituting less than the entire report,or .
to mislead others by omitting certain aspects contained in the At the option of the party asserting the same,a claim between the
report. parties to this Agreement, arising out of or relating to this
Agreement or the breach thereof, whereby the party or parties
5.5 Consultant will consider Project Information as confidential asserting the same claims entitlement to damages or payment of
and will, not disclose to third parties information that it less than$25,000.00 in aggregate maybe decided by arbitration
• acquires,uncovers,or generates in the course of performing the in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of
work,except as and to the extent Consultant may,in its sole the American Arbitration Association then existing unless the
discretion,deem itself required by law to disclose. parties mutually agree otherwise. In the event any person shall
commence an action in any court for any claim arising out of or
relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof or the Project or
• construction thereof or any contract for such construction, the
party making a claim in arbitration may dismiss such proceedings
SECTION 6: DISPUTES / LIMITATIONS OF (unless the hearing on the claim has commenced) and elect to
REMEDIES assert its claim in such action if such party could have done so but
for the provisions of this Paragraph. •
6.1 In the event of a breach of Contract by City,the Consultant
shall not be entitled to recover punitive, special or The parties agree to bear equal responsibility for the fees of AAA,
consequential damages or damages for loss of business. including the arbitrator(s). Judgement upon the award rendered
City of Fd'n Prairie General Conditions
Consultant Agreement
February 2001
Page 2 of4
•
UC1
•
by the-arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having COMPENSATION
jurisdiction thereof. _
9.1 Consultant represents and warrants that it has and will
In the event that arbitration services are not available from maintain during the performance of this agreement Worker's
AAA,either party may request that an arbitrator be appointed Compensation Insurance coverage required pursuant to 11Tnn.
by the Fourth Judicial District Court. Stat 176.181,subd.2 and that the Certificate of Insurance or the
written order of the Commissioner of Commerce permitting self
6.5.3 Compliance insurance of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage
provided to the City prior to execution of this agreement is current
The parties deem the dispute resolution procedure as set forth and in force and effect
herein to be an integral and essential part of this Agreement .
A parry's failure to comply in all respects with this procedure 9.2 Consultant shall procure and maintain professional liability
shall be a substantial breach of this Agreement The insurance for protection from claims arising out of professional
arbitrator(s)shall be-authorized to assess costs and attorney's services caused by any negligent act,error or omission for which
fees against a party that has failed to comply with the procedure Consultant is legally liable.
in all respects,and,may as a condition precedent to arbitration, •
require the parties to mediate in accordance with Section 6.5.1 9.3 Certificate of insurance will be provided to City upon request.
hereof,
SECTION 10: TERMINATION
SECTION 7: STANDARD OF CARE •
10.1 The agreement_between Consultant and City may be
7.1 Consultant's opinions;conclusions,recommendations,and terminated by either party upon thirty-(30)days written notice.
report,if any,will be prepared in accordance with the City's
Request for Proposal and Consultant's proposal and no 10.2 If the agreement is terminated prior to completion of the
warranties,representations,guarantees,or certifications will be project, Consultant will receive an equitable adjustment of
made. Except that Consultant warrants'that hardware'and compensation.
software will perform as represented in-their proposal and other
. parts of this agreement. SECTION 11: .ASSIGNMENT
7.2 Although data obtained from discrete sample locations will 11.1 Neither party may assign duties, rights or interests in the
be used to' infer conditions between sample locations"no performance of the work without obtaining the prior written
guarantee may be given that the inferred conditions exist 'consent of the other party,which consent will not be unreasonably
because soil, surface and groundwater quality conditions withheld.
between sample locations may vary.significantly,and because
conditions at the time of sample collection may also vary SECTION 12: DELAYS
. significantly with respect .to soil, surface water and,
groundwater quality at any other given time and for other 12.1 If Consultant is delayed in performance due to any cause
• reasons beyond Consultant's control. beyond its reasonable control,including but not limited to strikes,
riots,fires,acts of God,governmental actions,actions of a third
7.3 Consultant will not be responsible or liable for the party, or actions or inactions of City, the time for performance
interpretation of its data or report by others. shall be extended by a period of time lost by reason of the delay.
Consultant will be 'entitled to payment for its reasonable
SECTION 8: GENERAL,INDEMNIFICATION additional charges,if any,due to the delay.
8.1 Consultant will indemnify and hold City harmless from and SECTION 13: EXTRA WORK
against demands, damages, and expenses caused by
. Consultant's negligent acts and omissions, and breach of 13.1 Extra work;additional compensation for same,and extension
contract and those'negligent acts,omissions,and breaches of of time for completion shall be covered by written amendment to
persons for whom Consultant is legally responsible..City will this agreement prior to proceeding with any extra work or related
indemnify and hold Consultant harmless from and'against expenditures.
demands,damages,and expenses caused by City's negligent
acts and omissions, and breach of contract and those acts, SECTION 14: WITHHOLDING TAXES
omissions,and breaches of persons for whom City is legally
responsible. 14.1 No final payment shall be made to the Consultant until the
Consultant has provided satisfactory evidence to the City that the
SECTION 9: INSURANCE/WORKER'S Consultant and each of its subcontracts has complied with the
City of Eden Prairie General Conditions
Consultant Agreement
February 2001
Page 3 af4
•
- • provisions of Mlnn. Stat. 290.92 relating to withholding of 18.1 This Agreement contains the entire understanding between
income taxes upon wages. A certificate by the Commissioner the City and Consultant and supersedes any prior written or oral
ctf Revenue shall satisfy this requirement agreements between them respecting the written subject matter.
There are no representations, agreements, arrangements or
SECTION 15: AUDIT'S understandings, oral or written between City and Consultant
relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are not fully
15.1 The books,records,documents and accounting procedures expressed herein.
and practices of the Consultant or other parties relevant to this
Agreement are subject to examination by the City and either 18.2 The agreement between Consultant and City may be
the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six modified only by a written amendment executed by both City and
(6)years after the effective date of this Contract. Consultant.
SECTION 16: PAYMENT TO SUBCONTRACTORS 18.3 This agreement is governed by the laws of the State of
Minnesota. '
16.1 The Consultant shall pay to any Subcontractor within ten ' -
- (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. • •
SECTION 17: DATA PRACTICES ACT COMPLIANCE
17.1 The Consultant shall at all times abide by Minn. Stat
13.01 et seq.,the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act,
. to the extent the Act is applicable to data and documents in the
possession of the Consultant. '
•
SECTION 18: DISCRIMINATION
•
In performance of this contract, the Consultant shall not
discriminate on the grounds of or because of race,color,creed, ,
religion,national origin,sex,marital status,status with regards
to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or age
•
against any employee of the Consultant,any subcontractor of •
•
. the Consultant, or any applicant for employment. •The • -
• Consultant shall include a similar provision in all contracts with
subcontractors to this Contract. The Consultant further agrees .
to comply will all aspects 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 Disabilities Act of 1990.
•
•
SECTION 19: CONFLICTS
No salaried officer or employee of the City and no member of '
the Board of the City shall have a financial interest,direct or
indirect, in this contract. The violation of this provision
renders the Contract void. Any federal regulations and • •
•
applicable state statutes shall not be violated. •
•
SECTION 20: ENTIRE AGREEMENT
City of Eden Prairie General Conditions
Consultant Agreement
February 2001
Page 4 of4
91
SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS,INC. •
2002 CONSULTING FEE SCHEDULE
EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION HOURLY RATE*
PRINCIPAL $120.00
SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER $110.00
SENIOR SCIENTIST/ENGINEER ' $100.00
PROJECT MANAGER $ 90.00
SCIENTIST/ENGINEER. - $ 80.00
SENIOR FIELD SCIENTIST/ENGINEER $ 70.00
FIELD SCIENTIST/ENGINEER • $ 60.00
TECHNICIAN II` $ 50.00 •
• TECHNICIAN I - $ 40.00 • •
CLERICAL ' • $ 30.00 -
LEGAL/EXPERT TESTIMONY • 2.0 x Rate
Weekend, holiday, >12 hour day, and emergency response work may be at rates higher than fee schedule. '
- Contact project manager for applicable rates,
•
SUBCONTRACTOR FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES FEE
SUBCONTRACTOR INVOICES PROCESSED BY SUMMIT 'COST+ 15%
EMPLOYEE.REIlVIBURSABLE EXPENSES • . COST+ 15%
SHIPPING&COURIER EXPENSES COST+ 15%
OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES ** • • COST+ 15%
• PROJECT-SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT& SUPPLIES - VARIES
• ' *Represents minimum rates for each classification. - ' •
** Includes expenses'not specifically itemized, such as long distance telephone charges,
postage,reproduction costs and mobile telephone charges. -
•
•
•
•
•
2002 Fee Schedule subject to change without notice. Invoicing to client on a monthly basis.
Terms:' Due upon receipt. Finance charge of 1.5% per month on accounts past 30 days
outstanding. _ -
02feesth.doc C101-0202
SUM:M1T ENVIROSOLUlIONS,INC.
•2002 EQUIPMENT FEE SCHEDULE
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE FEE
PHOTOIONIZATION DETECTOR(PID) $90.00/day
YSI OXYGEN METER 20.00/day
EXPLOSIMETER • 15.00/day
LEVEL C FIELD WORK(per person) 150.00/day
LEVEL D FIELD WORK(per person) 25.00/day
FIELD SUPPLIES 25.00/day
ARCHAEOLOGY EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT • 10.00/day
MICROSCOPE • • 20.00/day
CAMERA- 20.00/day
VIDEO CAMERA 40.00/day
GENERATOR 100.00/day
COVER POINT'PROJECTION DEVICE . 75.00/day
TEMPERATURE,"CONDUCTIVITY,pH METER 25.00/day
PRODUCT/WA TER INTERFACE PROBE 35.00/day
BAILER USAGE -15.00 ea.
DATALOGGER 100.00/day
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER 35.00/day
WATER LEVEL INDICATOR 20.00/day
WATER FILTRATION EQUIPMENT 15.00 ea.
BRASS LOCKS/LOCKING DEVICE 16.50 ea. -
T-CAP WELL SEAL . 10.00 ea.
IRON TEST - • 10.00 ea.
PERISTALTIC PUMP 30.00/day
BK HAND PUMP 25.00/day
1.75 SUBMERSIBLE PUMP 100.00/day .
HAND AUGER/SOIL PROBE 15.00/day
SEDIMENT SAMPLING DREDGE • .. 30.00/day
SS BOMB SAMPLER . • 30.00/day
METAL DETECTOR 45.00/day
PORTABLE COMPUTER 40.00/day
SURVEY EQUIPMENT 50.00/day
VEHICLE MILEAGE(personal vehicle) .50/mi.
COMPANY TRUCK MILEAGE .65/mi.
COMPANY TRUCK RENTAL(A day minimum) 50.00/day
"OFF-ROAD"VEHICLE SURCHARGE 55.00/day -
SOIL VAPOR.EXTRACTION BLOWER . 100.00/day
SOIL VAPOR WELLHEAD CONFIGURATION 50.00/day
ANEMOMETER 15.00/day
SPARGING WELLHEAD CONFIGURATION . 10.00/day
PESTICIDE ASSAY EQUIPMENT 150.00/day
NITRATE PROBE 100.00/day
AMMONIA PROBE 100.00/day
2002 Fee Schedule subject to change without notice. Invoicing to client on a monthly basis.
Terms: Due upon receipt. Finance charge of 1.5% per month on accounts past,30 days
outstanding.
c1 3 02feesch.doc C101-0202
SUMMIT ENVIROSOLU11ONS,INC.
2002 EQUIPMENT FEE SCHEDULE
GEOPROBE SYSTEM - FEE
• GEOPROBE RENTAL(4 hr minimum) - • - $65.00/hr
SOIL VAPOR&HEADSPACE ANALYSIS . NO CHARGE
PURGE-AND-TRAP SAMPLE ANALYSIS • $50.00/sample"
•
DOWN HOLE VIDEO/LOGGING
•
VIDEO AND GEOPHYSICAL LOGGING(including-operator,-2 hr minimum) • $250.00/hr
• VIDEO LOGGING TRAVEL/MOBILIZATION(including operator) • $130.00/hr
. TAPE REPRODUCTION $45,00/ea
MILEAGE $0.65/mi
Note: Equipment not listed on this fee schedule may be-procured and billed in accordance with,
project specific requirements.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2002 Fee Schedule subject to change without notice. Invoicing to client on a monthly basis.
Terms: Due upon receipt. Finance charge of 1.5% per month on accounts past 30 days
outstanding.
L.
02feescb doc Ci101-0202
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
September 3,2002
SECTION: Consent Calendar
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C.98-5456 11EM NO.:
Public Works Depar ent Approve Professional Services Agreement with
Eugene A.Dietz C,/' Summit Envirosolutions for Annual System • V < < H
C Maintenance
Requested Action
Move to: Approve professional services agreement with Summit Envirosolutions for
annual maintenance of the Realflow (Wellfield Management System) in a not
to exceed amount of$30,000.
Synopsis
In the previous agenda item, City Council is being asked to approve the final phase consultant
agreement with Summit Enviro solutions to complete implementation of our aquifer/wellfield
management system. This annual maintenance fee will provide the professional services to
maintain the software and computer system. Preventative and repair maintenance to provide
reliable data is essential for proper utilization of the system that has been developed. It is not
practical to create a staff.position with the specific expertise to perform this maintenance
support.
Background Information
See background information on previous agenda item.
Attachment
Agreement
•
•
•i s t
Summit
,1%.E.Envirosolutions
July 8,2002
•
Mr.Ed Sorensen
Manager of Utility Operations
City of Eden Prairie
Utilities Division - •
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344-4485
•
• Subject: Proposal•for Ongoing Realflow Support
City of Eden Prairie Well Field
Dear Mr. Sorensen:
•
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc (Summit) is pleased to submit this proposal for continuation of Realflow _
support for the City of Eden Prairie well field. The proposed,scope of work includes a monthly system
•
check, data download, and reporting task, as well as a budget for annual calibration activities. The
estimated cost for the proposed scope of work is$30,000.
This proposal is being submitted in response to the written recommendations in our report dated May 30,
2002, and our meeting of June 25, 2002. This proposal contains background information, a proposed
work scope,and estimated costs. •
•
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Since 1999, the city has been using'Summit's Realflow system to monitor performance of individual
wells within the City's well field.Based upon our discussions on June 25th, the City requests Summit to •
bring continued value to the well field operations by assisting with the utilisation of Realflow, including
data manipulation, data evaluation,reporting and calibration activities. We discussed that Summit would
provide assistance to the City in three main areas:
. 1. Performing monthly data downloads and system checks to verify that high quality data are being
• recorded,and that all sensors are performing as designed;
2. Preparing monthly summary reports identifying key trends in the data, anomalies that may require
further evaluation,and recommendations for system modifications;and,
3. Conducting periodic maintenance and calibration of the Realflow system to maintain peak
performance.
These three tasks are described in the following scope of services. •
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The goal of this scope of work is to maintain continued operation of the Realflow system, and to provide
a mechanism for reviewing the data and making recommendations to the City based on observed trends.
96
1217 Bandana Bou:erard North•St.Paul,MN 55108•Phone(651)644-8080•Fax(651)647-0888
Offices Strategically Located Nationwide
Mr.Ed Sorensen-7/8/2002
:Proposal for Ongoing Realflow Support
Page 2
The proposed scope of work entails the following activities:
• Performing monthly data downloads and system checks;
• Preparing monthly summary reports;and,
• Conducting periodic maintenance and calibration of the Realflow system. •
A detailed outline for each of these tasks is provided below.
Task 1:Monthly Data Downloads and System Checks
Summit will. download the data from the on-site computer system on a monthly basis. We will make
copies of the monthly files for use by City staff hi addition, the monthly data will be appended to the
historical database to facilitate the observation of long-term trends by City staff and Summit.
Summit will work in conjunction with the City of Eden Prairie Utilities Division to develop a series of
standardized system checks.These checks will outline the steps to be taken each month to verify that the
• system continues to acquire high-quality data suitable for continuous and long-teen evaluation. Summit
will perform these checks on a routine basis,normally within the first five days following-the end of the
• month. Any problems with the system will be reported to the City, and a plan and accompanying budget
prepared for repair or replacement.to get the system functioning properly.
•
Task 2:Monthly Summary Reports
•
Summit will review and evaluate the prior months data, and will prepare a brief summary report based
upon the data evaluation. The report will include appropriate recommendations for modifications to the •
well field operation based upon the evaluation. The monthly summary. will be presented in electronic •
format, and will be suitable for circulation within the department to key staff.
Task 3:Annual Maintenance and Calibration
•
Summit will calibrate the water level sensors on an annual basis to verify that the sensors are maintained
in working order. It is assumed that the power meters and flow meters will be maintained and calibrated
• by others as necessary, although Summit will identify the need for repair or replacement of these meters
as appropriate.
COST ESTIMATE/TEAM MEMBER IDENTIFICATION
•
The following Summit employee's and partners will serve as the project team for the tasks outlined in this
proposal.
•
•
Team Member Title •
. Kevin Miller Senior Project Manager/Principal Hydrogeologist •
Bob Dryden Systems Analyst
Mark Packard GIS Coordinator/Hydrogeologist
•
•
cri
. Mr.Ed Sorensen-7/8/2002
Proposal for Ongoing Realflow Support
Page 3
A breakdown of the costs is presented in the table below.
Task Cost Basis Cost Estimate
1—Data Downloads and System Checks 12 months @$750 per month $9,000
2—Reporting 12 months @ $1,500 per month • $18,000
3—Annual Calibration Annual Event $3,000
'-....w�' :.^rr�/"�-.� =1."G�-��' � � �Tii.Z�b G° �..."�`��'w.: rc'^� '•s`.�...��T,': `fa �.� Qtl��' •r�`'n"..r"r?`.�f3�0 V�.
Summit proposes to perform these tasks on a time and materials, not-to-exceed basis in accordance with
our fee schedule and the City of Eden Prairie General Conditions, both of which are attached and
considered to be part of this proposal. Once written authorization to proceed has been received,the tasks
presented in this proposal can be attended to immediately.Monthly reports for the months of April,May
and June will be prepared and submitted in order to provide for an evaluation of these data.
We will not exceed the authorized amount without prior approval,received in writing,from the City. We
look forward to working with you: If you have questions regarding the contents of this proposal or the
project in general,please contact our office.
Sincerely, .
Summit Envirosolutions,Inc.
•
K J.Miller,CPG
Senior Project Manager
ACCEPTANCE: • •
City Manager: Mayor:
. Signature: Signature:
Date: Date:
•
9)
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE •
GENERAL CONDITIONS
Consultant Agreement
SECTION 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
2.5 City agrees to render reasonable assistance requested by
1.1 City will provide to Consultant all known information Consultant to enable performance of work without delay or
regarding existing and proposed conditions of the site or which interference,and upon request of Consultant,to provide a suitable
affects the work to be performed by Consultant. Such workplace. .
information shall include, but not be limited to site plans,•
surveys, known hazardous waste or conditions, previous 2.6 City will be responsible for locating and identifying all -
laboratory analysis results,written reports,soil boring logs and subterranean structures and, utilities. Consultant will take
applicable regulatory site response(Project Information). reasonable precautions to avoid damage or injury to subterranean
structures and utilities identified and located by City and/or
1.2 City will transmit to Consultant any additions,updates,or representatives of Utility Companies.
revisions to the Project Information as it becomes available to
City,its subcontractors or consultants. SECTION 3: SAMPLES
•
1.3 City will provide an on-site representative to Consultant Not Applicable
within 24 hours upon request, to aid, define, supervise, or •
coordinate work or Project Information as requested by SECTION 4: FEE PAYMENT/CLAIMS
Consultant.
4.1 Consultant will submit invoices to City monthly,and a final
1.4 Consultant will not be liable for any decision,conclusion, invoice upon completion of work. Invoices will show charges
recommendations, judgement or advice based on any based on the current Consultant Fee Schedule or other documents
inaccurate information furnished by City, or other as attached.
subcontractors or consultants engaged by City.
4.2 To receive any payment on this Contract,the invoice or bill
SECTION 2: SITE LOCATION,ACCESS,PERMITS, must include the following signed and dated statement: "I declare
APPROVALS AND UTILITIES under penalty of perjury that this account,claim,or demand is just
and correct and that no part of it has been paid."
2.1 City will indicate to Consultant the property lines of the site
and assume responsibility for accuracy of markers. 4.3 The balance stated on the invoice shall be deemed correct
unless City notifies Consultant,in writing,of the particular item
2.2 City will provide for right-of-way for Consultant personnel that is alleged to be incorrect within ten(10)days from the invoice
and equipment necessary to perform the work. date. Consultant will review the alleged incorrect item within ten
(10) days and either submits a corrected invoice or a statement
2.3 City will be solely responsible for applying for and indicating the original amount is correct.
obtaining permits and approvals necessary for Consultant to
perform the work. Consultant will assist City in applying for 4.4 Payment is due upon receipt of invoice(or corrected invoice)
and obtaining such permits'and approvals.as needed. It is and is past due sixty(60)days from invoice date. On past due
understood that City authorizes Consultant to act as agent for accounts,City will pay a finance charge of 1.5%per month on the
City for City's responsibilities under this section including unpaid balance, or the maximum allowed by law, whichever is
signing certain forms on City's behalf such as Right-of-Way less,until invoice is fully paid.
forms.
• 4.5 If City fails to pay Consultant within sixty(60)days following
2.4 While Consultant will take reasonable precautions to invoice date, Consultant may deem the default a breach of its
minimize any damage to property,it is understood by City that agreement,terminate the agreement,and be relieved of any and all
in the normal course of the work some damage may occur. The duties under the agreement. City however,will not be relieved of
correction of any damage is the responsibility of City or, at Fee Payment responsibilities by the default or termination of the
City's.direction,the damage may be corrected by Consultant agreement.
and billed to City at cost plus 15%. Notwithstanding the
above,Consultant agrees to be responsible for damage caused 4.6 City will be solely responsible for applying for and obtaining
by Consultant's negligence. any applicable compensation fund reimbursements from various
City of Eden Prairie General Conditions
Consultant Agreement
February 2001
Page 1 of4 �
, f
state and federal programs_ Consultant may assist City in
applying for or meeting notification requirements,however. 6.2 City will pay all reasonable litigation or collection expenses
Consultant makes no representations or guarantees as to what including attorney fees that Consultant incurs in collecting any
fund reimbursement City may receive. Consultant shall not be delinquent amount City owes under this agreement.
liable for any reductions from reimbursement programs made
for any reason by state or federal agencies,except as may be 63 If City institutes a suit against Consultant,which is dismissed,
caused by Consultant's negligence. dropped,or for which judgement is rendered for Consultant,City
will pay Consultant for all costs of defense, including attorney
4.7 City may withhold from any final payment due the fees,expert witness fees and court costs.
Consultant such amounts as are incurred or expended.by the
City on account of the termination of the Contract. 6.4 If Consultant institutes a suit against City,which is dismissed,
dropped,or for which judgement is rendered for City,Consultant
SECTION 5: OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS will pay City for all costs of defense, including attorney fees,
expert witness fees and court costs.
5.1 Consultant will deliver to City certain reports as
instruments of the professional work or services performed 6.5 Dispute Resolution
pursuant to this Agreement. All reports are intended solely for
City,and Consultant will not be liable for any interpretations 6.5.1 Mediation
made by others.
• • All claims, disputes and other matters in question (hereinafter
5.2 City agrees that all reports and other work furnished to "claim")between the parties to this Agreement,arising out of or
City,or City's agents or representatives,which are not paid for, relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof,shall be subject
• will be returned to Consultant upon demand and will not be to mediation. If the parties have not resolved the dispute within
used by City for any purpose. • thirty(30)days of receipt of a written complaint,each party may
require the dispute be submitted for mediation. If the parties are
• 5.3 Unless otherwise agreed,Consultant will retain all pertinent unable to agree on a mediator within ten(10) days following a
records or reports concerning work and services performed for. request for mediation,either party may request that a mediator be
a period of at least two (2) years after report is submitted. appointed by the Fourth Judicial District Court. The parties agree
During that time the records will be made available to City to share equally all fees incurred in the mediation.
during Consultant's normal business hours. City may obtain.
. reproducible copies of all software,manuals,maps,drawings, The parties shall submit to mediation for a minimum of eight(8)
logs and reports at cost,plus 15%,for data and materials not 'hours. The parties agree that the mediation proceedings are
being provided as part of the scope of work for the project. private and confidential. If,at the end of eight hours of mediation,
the parties have not resolved the dispute,the parties may agree to
5.4 City may use the Consultant report in its entirety and may extend hours of mediation.
make copies of the entire report available to others. However,
City shall not make disclosure to others of any portions or 6.5.2 Arbitration
excerpts of a report constituting less than the entire report,or
to mislead others by omitting certain aspects contained in the At the option of the party asserting the same,a claim between.the
report. parties to this Agreement, arising out of or relating to this
• Agreement or the breach thereof, whereby the party or parties
5.5 Consultant will consider Project Information as confidential asserting the same claims entitlement.to damages or payment of
and will not disclose to third parties information that it less than$25,000.00 in aggregate may be decided by arbitration
acquires,uncovers,or generates in the course of performing the in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of
work,except as and to the extent Consultant may, in its sole the American Arbitration,Association then existing unless the
discretion,deem itself required by law to disclose. parties mutually agree otherwise. In the event any person shall
commence an action in any court for any claim arising out of or
• relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof or the Project or
• construction thereof or any contract for such construction, the
party making a.claim in arbitration may dismiss such proceedings
SECTION 6: DISPUTES / LIMITATIONS OF (unless the hearing on the claim has.commenced) and elect to
REMEDIES assert its claim in such action if such party could have done so but
for the provisions of this Paragraph.
6.1 In the event of a breach of Contract by City,the Consultant
shall not be entitled to recover punitive, special or The parties agree to bear equal responsibility for the fees of AAA,
consequential damages or damages for loss of business. including the arbitrator(s). Judgement upon the award rendered
City of Eden Prairie General Conditions
Consultant Agreement
February 2001
Page 2 of4 f CO
f
by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having COMPENSATION
jurisdiction thereof.
9.1 Consultant represents and warrants that it has and will
In the event that arbitration services are not available from maintain during the performance of this agreement Worker's
AAA,either party may request that an arbitrator be appointed - Compensation Insurance coverage required pursuant to IVlinn.
by the Fourth Judicial District Court. Stat 176.181,subd.2 and that the Certificate of Insurance or the
written order of the Commissioner of Commerce permitting self
6.5.3 Compliance insurance of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage
provided to the City prior to execution of this agreement is current
The parties deem the dispute resolution procedure as set forth and in force and effect.
• herein to be an integral and essential part of this Agreement.
A party's failure to comply in all respects with this procedure 9.2 Consultant shall procure and maintain professional liability
shall be a substantial breach of this Agreement. The insurance for protection from claims arising out of professional
arbitrator(s)shall be authorized to assess costs and attorney's services caused by any negligent act,error or omission for which
fees against a party that has failed to comply with the procedure Consultant is legally liable.
in all respects,and,may as a condition precedent to arbitration,
require the parties to mediate in accordance with Section 6.5.1 9.3 Certificate of insurance will be provided to City upon request.
hereof.
• SECTION 10: TERMINATION
SECTION 7: STANDARD OF CARE
10.1 The agreement between Consultant and City may be
7.1 Consultant's opinions,conclusions,recommendations,and terminated by either party upon thirty-(30)days written notice.
report,if any,will be prepared in accordance with the City's
Request for Proposal and Consultant's proposal and no 10.2 If the agreement is terminated prior to completion of the
warranties,representations,guarantees,or certifications will be project, Consultant will receive an equitable adjustment of
made. 'Except that Consultant warrants'that hardware and compensation.
software will perform as represented in their proposal and other
parts of this agreement. SECTION 11: ASSIGNMENT
7.2 Although data obtained from discrete sample locations will 11.1.Neither party may assign duties, rights or interests in the
be used to infer•conditions between sample locations"no performance of the work without obtaining the prior written
guarantee may be given that the inferred conditions exist 'consent of the other party,which consent will not be unreasonably
because soil, surface and groundwater quality conditions withheld.
• between sample locations may vary significantly,and because
conditions at the time of sample collection may also.vary SECTION 12: DELAYS -
significantly with respect to soil, surface water .and,
groundwater quality at any other given time and for other 12.1 If Consultant is delayed in performance due to any cause
reasons beyond Consultant's control. beyond its reasonable control,including but not limited to strikes,
riots,fires,acts of God,governmental actions,actions of a third
7.3 Consultant will not be responsible or liable for the party, or actions or inactions of City,the time for performance
interpretation of its data or report by others. shall be extended by a period of time lost by reason of the delay.
Consultant will be entitled to payment for its reasonable
SECTION 8: GENERAL INDEMNIFICATION additional charges,if any,due to the delay.
8.1 Consultant will indemnify and hold City harmless from and SECTION 13: EXTRA WORK
against demands, damages, and expenses caused by
Consultant's negligent acts and omissions, and breach of 13.1 Extra work,additional compensation for same,and extension
contract and those negligent acts,omissions,and breathes of of time for completion shall be covered by written amendment to
persons for whom Consultant is legally responsible. City will this agreement prior to proceeding with any extra work or related
indemnify and hold Consultant harmless from and against expenditures.
demands,damages,and expenses caused by City's negligent
acts and omissions, and breach of contract and those acts, SECTION 14: WITHHOLDING TAXES
omissions,and breaches of persons for whom City is legally
responsible. 14.1 No final payment shall be made to the Consultant until the
Consultant has provided satisfactory evidence to the City that the
SECTION 9: INSURANCE/WORKER'S Consultant and each of its subcontracts has complied with the
Cuy of Eden Prairie General Conditions
Consultant Agreement
February 2001 110 I
Page3of4
t F
- provisions of N&nn. Stat. 290.92 relating to withholding of 18.1 This Agreement contains the entire understanding between
income taxes upon wages. A certificate by the Commissioner the City and Consultant and supersedes any prior written or oral
of Revenue shall satisfy this requirement. agreements between them respecting the written subject matter.
There are no representations, agreements, arrangements or
SECTION 15: AUDITS understandings, oral or written between City and Consultant
relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are not fully
15.1 The books,records,documents and accounting procedures expressed herein.
and practices of the Consultant or other parties relevant to•this
Agreement are.subject to examination by the City and either 18.2 The agreement between Consultant and City may be
the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six modified only by a written amendment executed by both City and
(6)years after the effective date of this Contract. Consultant
•
SECTION 16: PAYMENT TO SUBCONTRACTORS 18.3 This agreement is governed by the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
16.1 The Consultant shall pay to any Subcontractor within ten
(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. • •
SECTION 17: DATA PRACTICES ACT COMPLIANCE .
17.1 The Consultant shall at all times abide by Minn. Stat.
13.01 et seq.,the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act,
to the extent the Act is applicable to data and documents in the
possession of the Consultant.
•
SECTION 18: DISCRIMINATION
In performance. of this contract, the Consultant shall not
•
discriminate on the grounds of or because of race,color,creed,
religion,national origin,sex,marital status,status with regards
to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or age
against any employee of the Consultant,any subcontractor of
the Consultant, or any applicant for employment. The - •
Consultant shall include a similar provision in all contracts with
subcontractors to this Contract. The Consultant further agrees .
to comply will all aspects 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 Disabilities Act of 1990.
SECTION 19: CONFLICTS
No salaried officer or.employee of the City and no member of
the Board of the City shall have a financial interest,direct or
•
indirect, in this contract. The violation of this provision
renders the Contract void. Any federal regulations and •
applicable state statutes shall not be violated.
SECTION 20: ENTIRE AGREEMENT
Cuy of Eden Prairie General Conditions
Consultant Agreement
February 2001
Page4of4 l «
SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS,INC.
2002 CONSULTING FEE SCHEDULE
EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION HOURLY RATE"
PRINCIPAL . $120.00
SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER $110.00
SENIOR SCIENTIST/ENGINEER $100:00
PROJECT MANAGER $ 90.00
SCIENTIST/ENGINEER $ 80.00
SENIOR FIELD SCIENTIST/ENGINEER • $ 70.00
FIELD SCIENTIST/ENGINEER ' . $ 60.00 .
TECHNICIAN II $ 50.00
TECHNICIAN I $ 40.00
. CLERICAL • $ 30.00
LEGAL/EXPERT TESTIMONY 2.0 x Rate
Weekend, holiday, >12 hour day, and emergency response work may be at rates higher than fee schedule.
• Contact project manager for applicable rates.
•
SUBCONTRACTOR FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES • FEE
SUBCONTRACTOR INVOICES PROCESSED BY SUMMIT COST+ 15%
EMPLOYEE REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES . COST+ 15%
SHIPPING& COURIEREXPENSES COST+ 15%
OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES ** • COST+ 15%
PROJECT-SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT& SUPPLIES • VARIES
• *Represents minimum rates for each classification. .
** Includes expenses not specifically itemized, such as long distance telephone charges,
postage,reproduction costs and mobile telephone charges.
•
•
•
•
•
2002 Fee Schedule subject to change without notice. Invoicing to client on a monthly basis.
Terms: Due upon receipt. Finance charge of 1.5% per month on accounts past 30 days
outstanding. I/03
02fees:.h.dcc C101-Q2}2
-SUMMIT ENVI2OSOLUTIONS,INC_
2002 EQUIPMENT FEE SCHEDULE
•
_ EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE FEE
PHOTOIONIZATION DETECTOR(PID) $90.00/day _ •
• YSI OXYGEN METER 20.00/day
EXPLOSIMETER - 15.00/day
LEVEL C HELD WORK(per person) 150.00/day
LEVEL D 1-i1hLD WORK(per person) 25.00/day
FIELD SUPPLIES 25.00/day
ARCHAEOLOGY EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT 10.00/day •
•
MICROSCOPE • 20.00/day
CAMERA 20.00/day
VIDEO CAMERA • 40.00/day .
GENERATOR 100.00/day •
COVER POINT PROJECTION DEVICE 75.00/day..
TEMPERATURE,CONDUCTIVITY,pH METER - • . • 25.00/day
PRODUCT/WATER INTERFACE PROBE' 3 5.00/day
• BAILER USAGE •15.00 ea. -
DATALOGGER 100.00/day
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER ' • . . 35.00/day
WATER LEVEL INDICATOR - 20.00/day
WATER FILTRATION EQUIPMENT •
15.00 ea.
BRASS LOCKS/LOCKING DEVICE 16.50 ea. •
T-CAP WELL SEAL 10.00 ea.
IRON TEST ' • - 10:00 ea.
• PERISTALTIC PUMP •
30.00/day
• BK HAND PUMP 25.00/day
1.75"-SUBMERSIBLE PUMP 100.00/day
• HAND AUGER/SOIL PROBE 15.00/day
SEDIMENT SAMPLING DREDGE • • . , •30.00/day
SS BOMB SAMPLER - 30.00/day
METAL DETECTOR 45.00/day
• PORTABLE COMPUTER •
40.00/day
. SURVEY EQUIPMENT 50.00/day
VEHICLE MILEAGE(personal vehicle) .50/mi.
COMPANY TRUCK MILEAGE .65/mi.
COMPANY TRUCK RENTAL(1/2 day minimum) 50.00/day
"OFF-ROAD"VEHICLE SURCHARGE 55.00/day
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION BLOWER . 100.00/day
SOIL VAPOR WELLHEAD CONFIGURATION 50.00/day
ANEMOMETER 15.00/clay
SPARGING WELLHEAD CONFIGURATION . 10.00/day
PESTICIDE ASSAY EQUIPMENT 150.00/day
NITRATE PROBE : • 100.00/day
AMMONIA PROBE 100.00/day
2002 Fee Schedule subject to change without notice. Invoicing to client on a monthly basis.
•
Terms: Due upon receipt. Finance charge of 1.5% per month on accounts past.30 days
outstanding. /0
02feesclidx CI01-0202
y ;
SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS,INC •. _
- 2002 EQUIPMENT F.P. SCH ULE
GEOPROBE SYSTEM : - - _
GEOPROBE RENTAL(4 hr minimum) '- - -. - $05.00/hr
- SOIL VAPOR&HEADSPACE ANALYSIS .• - _ NO CHARGE
PURGE-AND-TRAP SAMPLE ANALYSIS - $50.00/sample' -
DOWN HOLE VIDEO/LOGGING : • • • - .
• •-VIDEO AND GEOPHYSICAL.LOGGING(incbu iing•opeiator,2 hr minimum) $250.00/hr• -
- VIDEO LOGGING TRAVEL/MOBILIZATION(including operator) • • $130.00/hr - - .
- • TAPE REPRODUCTION . - . . $45,00/ea '
MILEAGE -. • . ' $0.65/mi•
. Note: Equipment not-listed on this fee. schedule may be•procured and billed in accordance With, -. • • .
•. . . project specific requirements.,• .- - - -
.
•
•
•
2002 Fee.Schedule subject to change without notice. Invoicing to client on a monthly basis.
• Terms: Due upon receipt. Finance charge of 1.5% per_month on accounts past 30 days
outstanding. _
! 02feesch.doc Cl01-0202.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
September 3,2002
SECTION: Consent Agenda
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Glenshire Oudot
Public Works Department A and Water Treatment Plant Mitigation ITEM NO.:
Leslie Stowing •
Sites Plans and Specifications
Through Eugene Dietz
Requested Action •
Move to: Approve the Plans and Specifications for the Glenshire Outlot A and Water Treatment
Plant Mitigation Sites
Synopsis
• Glenshire Outlot A and the Water Treatment Plant have been permitted by the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff
Creek Watershed District for use as wetland mitigation bank sites. The wetland mitigation credits
will be used to offset the wetland mitigation requirements from the Columbine Road and Purgatory
Creek Recreation Area projects. Remaining wetland mitigation requirements (1.14 acres)will be
purchased from a wetland mitigation bank in Sibley County. The resulting mitigation areas will
require development of Deeds of Restrictions and Covenants to preserve these areas as permanent
wetland and wetland buffer mitigation areas. •
Background Information
Glenshire Outlot A
Glenshire Outlot A was a tax-forfeited parcel conveyed to the City of Eden Prairie in 1999. The City
signed a Conservation Easement over to the Minnesota Land Trust in 2000 that allowed the City to
. restore approximately 3-1/2 acres of the site to wetland conditions.Wetland mitigation opportunities
within the City are scarce and this project was seen as a benefit to the City not only for restoring this
parcel to its historical wetland conditions but to protect this parcel from future development.
The completion of the wetland mitigation is seen as culmination of 7 years of work between City
staff, State Representative Tom Workman and members of the Glenshire-Edenvale Conservation
Group. Residents adjacent to the Glenshire property formed this Group in 1995 in an effort to
protect the site from future development. This group negotiated this compromise with the City for
future use of this site.
The Glenshire wetland mitigation proj ect includes 2.8 acres of new wetland and 2.1 acres of upland
buffer credit for a total of 4.9 acres of wetland credit. The entire credits will be used for the
Columbine Road and Purgatory Creek Recreation Area requirements from the Watershed District
and U.S. Corps of Engineers.
I"
Glenshire Outlot A&Water Treatment PlantMitigation Sites
Plans and Specifications
September 3,2002
Page2of2 -
Water Treatment Plant
Preliminary grading and landscaping of the Water Treatment Plant(WTP)stormwater ponding and
wetland areas was completed in 1999. This portion of the WTP site was historically wetland but was
filled to create the original water plant lagoons. After construction of the water treatment plant,no
jurisdictional wetlands under the Wetland Conservation Act remained. Additional grading and
landscaping are required for two reasons,to expand the wetland mitigation area and to correct soil
deficiencies identified on site.
The soil deficiencies identified include high levels of salt and sodium from historical usage of the
site for salt storage. This has resulted in problems such as bald spots with little or no vegetation,
hard or compacted soils and erosion channels on the slopes. These effects are widespread throughout
the upland and wetland areas. The enclosed plans and specifications include efforts to not only
finish the wetland restoration project but to also repair the soil problems throughout the area around
the ponds.
The wetland mitigation project includes 1.1 acres of new wetland credit,0.82 acres of upland buffer
credit and 0.45 acres of public value credit for stormwater ponding for a total of 2.37 acres of
wetland credit. The entire credits will be used for the Columbine Road and Purgatory Creek
Recreation Area requirements from the U.S.Corps of Engineers(COE). There will be 0.46 acres of
excess new wetland credits and 0.49 acres of excess public value credits under WCA that will be
banked for future City projects that do not require COE mitigation.
•
•
•
i0ir
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Consent Agenda September 3,2002
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approve
Public Works Department Petition from Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek ITEM NO.:
Leslie Stovring Watershed District for the Round Lake VT k
Through Eugene Dietz Water Quality Improvement Project
Requested Action
Move to: Approve Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District's Petition for Funding the
Round Lake Water Quality Improvement Project
Synopsis
On May 21,2002 the City Council adopted a resolution to petition the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District to commit to funding the Round Lake water quality improvement project. The
Watershed District approved the petition on July 10,2002.,The District attorney has requested that
the City Council approve the attached petition to formalize the conditions of the project.
Background
The purpose of the Round Lake Use Attainability Analysis(UAA)was to provide an assessment of
the water quality of Round Lake, analyze the problems and provide alternative remedial measures
that would result in the attainment of water quality sufficient to fully support swimming and sport
fishing.
The resolution forwarded to the District in July included the following scope of work. The District
did not approve the fish feeding station as recent research by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR)indicates that feeding is not successful.
1. Upgrade of three existing runoff detention ponds to meet NURP standards ($96,000).
2. Addition of one new runoff detention for a subwatershed that does not have a stormwater pond
($30,000).
3. Installation of a second fishing pier to facilitate bluegill harvest($43,000).
4. Initial stocking of the lake in 2003 with northern pike to thin the bluegill population($400).
The resolution passed on May 21,2002 included a provision that the City would provide up to a 50%
match to complete the construction items as part of the overall Round Lake water quality
improvement project. The engineering estimate provided in the UAA was$169,400 for the approved
scope of work.
The District will pay 100%of the costs for the stormwater ponding upgrades and construction. The
50% cost share would only be for the fishing pier. The City will will pay for the fish stocking at
100%. The City's share of$21,500 would come out of the stormwater utility fund as the overall
intent of the increased fishing pressure is for water quality improvement.
Attachment
Petition
I
PETITION OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE OF
RILEY PURGATORY BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
FOR THE ROUND LAKE BASIC WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT
I. AUTHORITY
The City of Eden Prairie petitions the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District,
pursuant to the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes Sections 103D.201, 103D.705, and 103D.905,
to undertake'a basic water management project to protect and improve the water quality in Round
Lake.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of the project is to protect and maintain Round Lake in a condition that allows
for the maintenance of existing beneficial uses, particularly protection of recreational uses, aquatic
communities, and wildlife uses. The Board of Water and Soil Resources approved and the Board of
Managers adopted a watershed management plan that assessed the condition of the lake through
determination of its physical, chemical, and biological qualities. The approved and adopted
watershed management plan dated May 1996 is incorporated by reference.
The adoption of the plan led to a study of significant discharges from point and non-point
sources to determine whether additional control measures beyond those required by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency could reasonably be taken to minimize the impact of discharges on
Round Lake. The Round Lake Use Attainability Analysis dated June 1999 is incorporated by
reference. The Board of Managers considered the economic and social impacts of the development
around Round Lake, the impact of discharges on the quality of the lake, the lake characteristics,
cumulative impacts of possible new or expanded discharges, and the costs of additional treatment.
The Managers recognize that the potential capacity of the water to assimilate additional
wastes and the beneficial uses inherent in water resources are valuable public resources. The project
intends to implement the policy of the State of Minnesota to protect waters from significant
degradation from point and non-point sources and wetland alterations, and to maintain existing
water uses, aquatic and wetland habitats, and the level of water quality necessary to protect these
uses.
•
III. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED AND PURPOSES
The project proposes additional control measures, beyond those previously required by best
management practices of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, that can reasonably be taken to
minimize the impact of discharges on Round Lake. The project proposes to upgrade three (3)
existing storm water management basins and create one (1) new stormwater basin within the
watershed of the lake. In dry to average weather conditions, these improvements will reduce the
phosphorus loading to the lake by approximately 13 to 17%. The creation of the new basin will
reduce the phosphorus loads by an additional 5 to 8%. The new and upgraded basins will conform
to the standards for the National Urban Runoff Ponding Basins and the requirements of the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
_ - Petition of the City of Eden Prairie
Of Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
For the Round Lake Basic Water management Project
September 3,2002 -
Page 2 of 3
Further, per the recommendations of the Department of Natural Resources, a second fishing
pier is proposed to facilitate the harvest of the bluegills.
Overall the project will increase the recreational use of swimming in Round Lake by
reducing the.phosphorous loads to the lake by 18 to 25%, thereby limiting the number of days the
actual water quality exceeds the standard for recreational swimming. This is a Trophic State Index
(TSI) of 53 (<40 mg/1),which is the guidance published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
to assess full support for primary contact recreation and aesthetics.
The project intends continued monitoring and re-evaluation of the effect of constructing the
proposed improvements for the purpose of determining whether additional controls are required.
The proposed work is consistent with additional controls, if required to maintain the existing
beneficial uses of Round Lake.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDS OVER WHICH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IS
LOCATED
The project will be located in the general area of Valley View Road and County Road 4 in
the City of Eden Prairie. The improvements are described in detail in the Round Lake Use
Attainability Analysis,which is incorporated by reference.
V. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PART OF THE DISTRICT AFFECTED
The area of the District that is affected is located in the City of Eden Prairie and includes the
riparian and tributary drainage areas to Round Lake. Round Lake's direct watershed consists of
single-family homes (289 acres), parks and open areas (150 acres), and commercial (21 acres) land
use. The direct and indirect watershed for the lake totals 483 acres. Generally, the affected area is
located just north of T.H. 5, and west of County Road 4.
VI. NEED AND NECESSITY FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
Analysis of data previously collected demonstrates impairments to recreational uses and
aquatic communities and the inadequacy of existing controls to maintain existing beneficial uses.
VIE. THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT WILL BE CONDUCIVE TO THE PUBLIC
HEALTH, CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE
The City of Eden Prairie petitions for the project because it will be conducive to the public
health, convenience and welfare of the District and the City. Completion of the project, and
associated recreational improvements, will preserve and enhance the public use and enjoyment of
Round Lake and the adjacent park, both of which are significant natural resources of the District
and region.
1
Petition of the City of Eden Prairie
Of Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
For the Round Lake Basic Water management Project
September 3,2002
Page 3 of 3
VIII. FINANCING OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
The project is a priority and of common benefit to the entire District. Funding for the
project, which is identified in the District's plan, is pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
103D.905. The District will fund 100% of the costs of the project with the exception of the fishing
pier. The City and District will share equally(50%)in the cost of the fishing pier.
IX. PROJECT ABANDONMENT
The City of Eden Prairie hereby states and acknowledges that it will pay all costs and
expenses that may be incurred in the event the project is dismissed, no construction contract is let,
or the City withdraws its project petition.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Mayor of City of Eden Prairie
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
City Manager
3 f
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Consent Agenda September 3,2002
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Contract
Public Works Department ITEM NO.:
Leslie Stovring Amendment for the Wellhead Protection
Plan • \<
Through Eugene Dietz
Requested Action
Move to: Approve Contract Amendment with Summit Envirosolutions for the Wellhead
Protection Plan
Synopsis
The Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP) is both a mandated and City identified need. The
development of the WHPP by Summit Envirosolutions has languished due to staff turnover and
issues beyond our control.While tempting to just insist that the work be completed at no extra cost,
there are extra scope items that are legitimate and we believe our relationship with Summit can be
ongoing with the attitude and commitment presently exhibited by the consultant. We have invested
$27,379.97 to date. Staff believes the additional $5,500 is the best investment we can make to
complete the needed work. Therefore, it is recommended that Council approve the additional
expenditure of$5,500 for completion of the WHPP.
Background
The Minnesota Department of Health (MD- H) oversees the development of Wellhead Protection
Plans(WHPP's)by individual Cities. The MDH has reviewed the data collected and has stated that
the information provided by Summit to date is incomplete for approval of the Phase I activities.
Phase I includes the modeling for the groundwater entering and flowing through the City. To date
Summit has completed a Draft Phase I Groundwater Modeling Report and portions of the Phase II
activities, such as the Contaminant Assessment. The total billed to date is $27,379.97 out of a
$30,600 budget.
The additional budget request is intended to cover costs that Summit has stated were unforeseen in
preparation of the WHPP. This includes the following items:
• Adjustment of the model domain outside of the City limits. Initial estimates were that the
Wellhead Protection Area would be entirely within the City limits.
• Upgrade to a newer version of ModFlow,the groundwater modeling software. This version was
released after contract approval.
• Comparison of the Eden Prairie model outputs with the Metropolitan Groundwater Model. The
Metropolitan Model was in the process of being released when the City's WHPP began.
• Evaluation and incorporation into the vulnerability assessment of additional tritium sampling
performed by the MDH.
Summit has agreed to write off$13,000 of the cost overruns,as they were due to management and
modeling personnel changes. Summit is requesting that the budget be increased by$5,500 to help
cover the additional scope of work items.
Attachments
• Request for Additional Funding dated March 13,2002
1 la
b �
,# Summit
Envirosolutions
March 13,2002
Ms.Leslie Stovring
•
Environmental Coordinator
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,Minnesota .55344-2230 •
Subject: Request for Additional Funding: Wellhead Protection Plan
City of Eden Prairie Well Field
Dear Ms.Stovring: •
Summit. Envirosolutions, Inc (Summit) is submitting .this additional funding request for
' completion of the wellhead protection plan for the City of Eden Prairie well field. This request is
for $5,500, and represents the increased scope of work necessary to complete the following
project deliverables:
•
•
• Vulnerability Assessment
• Contaminant Source Inventory
• Report Preparation
•
•
In summary, the project budgets were exceeded due to changes in scope with respect to the
• groundwater-modeling task.These changes included: •
• Changes to the model domain. The modeled area was adjusted to include greater coverage
•
beyond the city limits. -
• Utilization of the newest version of ModFlow (groundwater modeling software). The new
version was released after we were already underway with the modeling task.The decision to
• switch over to the newer version was made to facilitate future revisions to the model as new
• wells are added.However,it required that some of the input files be redone..
• Verification of the Eden Prairie model outputs with the Metropolitan Groundwater Model.
The Eden Prairie groundwater-modeling task was being completed just as the Metropolitan
Groundwater Model was being released. While we had planned.to have this information
available sooner in the modeling process to aid in developing modeling inputs, the release of
the Metropolitan model was delayed. Summit performed final adjustments to the Eden
. Prairie model based upon the Metropolitan model.
• • Evaluation of and incorporation into the vulnerability assessment of the Minnesota
• Department of Health tritium sampling results for three wells.
In hindsight, each of these issues should have been raised far sooner and additional funding
requested from the City as the changes in scope were recognized. However the extent of the cost
overruns was never fully addressed in a timely manner, in part due to the changes in project
management.
•
113
1217 Bandana Boulevard North•St.Paul,MN 55108•Phone(651)644-8080.Fax(651)647-0888
www.surnmite.com
•
Ms.Leslie Stovring-3/13/2002
Additional Funding Request—Wellhead Protection Plan
Page 2
Summit has been carrying over$13,000 in additional,unbilled charges to this project going back
to the modeling effort last summer. Approximately $7,500 of these charges resulted from the
project going over budget due to management changes at Summit, and the remaining $5,500
from changes in scope. Summit is willing to write off the entire $13,000 in unbilled time in
. ' exchange for the City's willingness to increase the project budget by$5,500 in order for Summit
• to complete the remaining tasks.
The tasks remaining to be completed at this time include the vulnerability assessment, the'
• contaminant source inventory, and the report preparation. A summary of the pertinent budget
numbers follows: -
. Task - Budgeted Amount Remaining Budget
Task 1: Project Management/Meetings $7,600 $630
Task 2: Groundwater Modeling $13,760 $0
Task 3: Vulnerability Assessment $2,800 $0
Task 4: Contaminant Source Inventory . $1,400 • $1,350
Task 5: Report Preparation -$5,040 •$1,240
TOTAL • $30,600 .$3,220
•
Estimated amount to complete Tasks 3,4 and 5: • $8,700 .
Amount of additional funding requested: $5,500
• We believe that your approval of this request, in combination with the $13,000 write-off offered
by Summit, is a fair resolution of an unfortunate.situation. We apologize for the budget getting
this far out of hand before making this.request. However, we were waiting for a time when the
full nature of the problem was known to finish the project. We trust that in the end, the City will
• •receive a quality work product at a fair price, and we remain committed to that goal. . •
Once the additional funding has been approved, Summit will complete Tasks 3, 4 and 5 as soon-
as possible. If you have questions regarding the contents of this request or the project in general,
please contact our office.
•
Sincerely,
Summit Envirosolutions,Inc.
v n J.Miller, CPG
Senior Project Manager ACCEPTANCE:
Title:
Signature: •
Date:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 09/03/02
SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Resolution certifying proposed 2003 property tax ITEM NO.:
Management and Budget- levy, accepting the proposed 2003 budget, and
Yr 'L'Donald Uram '
setting date(s)for Truth-in-Taxation hearing(s)
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt the resolution that:
• Certifies the proposed 2003 net property tax levy to be $25,702,073; and
• Sets the "Truth-in-Taxation" public hearing for Monday, December 2, 2002 and, if
necessary,to reconvene the public hearing on Tuesday,December 17,2000; and
• Accepts the proposed 2003 budget of $31,642,699 as reviewed by the Council on
September 3,2002.
Background Information
Minnesota Law and administration rules prescribe a detailed process for public notification and
participation in setting taxes and budgets of local governments. Cities must adopt a proposed net
property tax levy by September 16 and certify it to the county auditor. In addition, the City
Council must accept a proposed budget for the coming year.
This is the second year of the City's biennial budget process that was completed in December
2001. At that time, the 2003 proposed budget including debt service totaled $31,972,415. The
amended 2003 budget including debt service totals $31,642,699 reflecting a 1.3% increase over
the 2002 budget.
The City must also set a date for the "Truth-in-Taxation" hearing and a date to reconvene it (if
necessary). These dates may not conflict with the initial hearing dates set by Hennepin County,
school districts, or the metropolitan taxing districts. Because they get to set their dates before we
do, there are a very limited number of dates available. The dates of December 2 and December
17 are the most feasible for us to be within the schedule established by the Minnesota
Department of Revenue. The Council must adopt the final tax levy and budget by December 17.
Attachments
•
Resolution
' IJ
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY'S PROPOSED 2003 PROPERTY TAX
LEVIES AND ACCEPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET FOR GENERAL OPERATIONS
AND TAX-SUPPORTED OBLIGATIONS FOR 2003
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie has reviewed the City Manager's
recommended 2003 budget and tax levies; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has decided to accept these recommendations at this time.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council:
1. Establishes the following proposed taxes on real and personal property within the City of Eden
Prairie for the 2003 budget.
Levy on Tax Capacity $2&079,073
Levy on Market Value 623,000
Total LEVY $25,702,073
The proposed total Levy may not be exceeded when the City Council sets the final tax levy for
2003.
2. Accepts the 2003 proposed levy of$25,702,073 and proposed budget totaling$31,642,699 at this
time.
ADOPTED by the City Council on September 3, 2002.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Consent Calendar September 2,2002
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Public Safety Accept Hennepin County Request to Serve as VI ,M
Molly Koivumaki Fiscal Agent for Emergency Management Grant
Requested Action:
MOTION: Approve request from Hennepin County Preparedness for City of Eden Prairie to be
named fiscal agent for the distribution of grant money.
•
Synopsis:
Hennepin Co received a small grant in the amount of$8000 to be distributed to eight cities in the
Southwest Metro Planning Group. Each group must have a fiscal agent and the County
requested Eden Prairie be the fiscal agent for this group of which we are a part.
Background Information:
The grant money is to be spent on emergency management activities and/or resources.
This short term agreement will require minimal administration and staff time.
Attachments:
Letter from Tim Turnbull,Director of Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness
l ii--
Hennepin County Transportation Department
Hennepin
1600 Prairie Drive 763-745-7500,Phone
Medina,MN 55340-5421 763-478-4000,FAX
763-478-4030,TDD
www.co.hennepin.mn.us
August 22, 2002
Molly Koivumaki,Director
Eden Prairie Emergency Preparedness
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230
Dear Molly,
Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness has $8,000 in grant funding designated for
each of four emergency planning groups in the county. The groups have decided how to
spend the money to benefit the individual cities and planning groups.
Each group must have a fiscal agent named to receive the funds and distribute them to the
cities according to the consensus of the cities. The South Hennepin group, of which Eden
Prairie is a member, decided that each of the eight cities would receive$1,000 to spend on
emergency management related activities and/or resources.
The fiscal agent will receive the $8,000, distribute$1,000 to each community based on
receipts, and supply copies of the paperwork to our office for our records. Hennepin
County Emergency Preparedness respectfully requests that the City of Eden Prairie act as
fiscal agent for this single grant.
Thank you for assisting our office and the emergency management community in south
Hennepin County.
• Sincerely,
Tim Turnbull,Director
Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness
cc: other members of planning group
Judy Rue
Wayne Nehrenz
An Equal Qpp2rtun!Ty Emp!o,2r Rec;d dPLpzr
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
September 3,2002
SECTION: Public Hearing
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation 02-03 ITEM NO.:
Engineering Services Vacation of Right-of-Way and Easements over Vri
Dave Olson Part of Dataserve Business Center
Eugene A.Dietz (Published 08/15/02)
Requested Action
Move to: •
1. Close the public hearing and
2. Adopt the resolution
Synopsis
The property owner has requested the vacation of underlying right-of-way and easements to
provide a clear title for the property and to better enable replatting. The vacation affects only Lot
2, Block 1, Dataserve Business Center which will be replatted into Prairie Medical Center.
Replacement easements, consistent with constructed roadway alignments, will be dedicated
through the Prairie Medical Center Plat.
Attachments •
Vacation Drawings
jlq
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN
DATASERVE BUSINESS CENTER
VACATION 02-03
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has easements across property described as: Lot 2, Block 1,
Dataserve Business Center, except that part thereof shown as Parcel 86 on Minnesota
Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-53 (hereinafter the "Property");
WHEREAS,the Property is to be replatted as Lot 1 and Lot 2,Block 1, Prairie Medical Center;
WHEREAS,the Property is subject to easements over the easterly 5 feet, the southerly 5 feet, and
the southwesterly 10 feet;
WHEREAS, the Property is also subject to certain right-of-way and utility easements, created by
Document No. 4738571,Hennepin County;
WHEREAS,a public hearing was held on September 3, 2002, after due notice was given to affected
property owners and published in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851;
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said right-of-way and easements are not necessary and
have no interest to the public,therefore, should be vacated.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
1. The right-of-way and easements as above described are hereby vacated.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of proceedings in accordance with
M.S.A. 412.851.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on September 3,2002.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
Kathleen A.Porta,City Clerk
hi
Z _ e �_ oa .4 3 - a� - vi
o = e _ - =_ �o pro »4
- tom I
�a 9 E� " - - I o
el
1.
il
_.. '05 IlIZZIE. Ai -9ppEE,i 2 c 4. c W O
�3 •o I. — _ - c o0ie _ O v o
Pi =€ 5 42 =�€'a °� _ _ ate" 8 =6 3 a
r « $ _ 111 r L_ 1 °'a mII _- rw rc s c _ 3 x
f1J r -c m ,-a 1%3.4 d zd, „� ;FAu m a'1 -a m 5 n. o' A. m -a z m
W
Z ciail . satin
Woa g • a.w.ao.o0 a I=
ti —— _ i
7 T w7�+9 a etYK T——— "
1 lwuum3 Alm A.a0a.op"— J 3/kern pn•7 !W ve - , t ��/
Q, — �//
U e v`+! Ay a1� /
' e /
r'' � ` /
W 04,,, // '-0' 4
�-- N v ' / ,ScV /
' / 4' /
Y '!'/ 4 //
a / /
�' r .t i •
%
+� / /
4' /
1•jt U ',� r' * •/ /
f /
,n' ;J'� 3yy w', / /
A. / /
//
/
kJ.' a' e �'„^%/ /
o /
h Y/
-. fir/ 'e� /
•'.9 o x / /
0 "j/ /
7 :% ‹~
CO •P / /
` .} '°•/ .r' /
/ /
V ♦ $ / /
e° <i ,' / /
s~ ?tea; �p # ��� 1`- o`° / / c
♦` @ /
\ 4- `'.fib: / /
\ o. ~JY / / a.
../ \ dJ ,, /
y d // // ' % �i
_ \ // /
/ F„e'a
�' \ / / m
\ /• / i
1al
__ iris - w wa
m
riE
O °O IIYy~AA6 G O i
•SO°O�NN m S i�
wII Y4II 4L nII �eTC CA O3. = F ^�• YZ °
=6 a C VlmI us: a C RM9•1t1; w 1 F t
'�� i s eo.5`a,:. mne s C: f�',"> : cv' e _ u .°.xi
4a a ;5 - oc I a mii " 0 5
d � � � 9 ''»�ee.d �� s;; .mom" a � '' o t o � Gz
• II • ;des.�1A- iw o wiali: = a o H i I g CT i M°I
e.I a m �zJi°o m� 9 I �N.II. - m u Ry 5 5 54 a°S .ri.. n
G Q • e ... zw HY W _m a °x o uua:or ay.: a __ _
♦Y IE
.CmCy OC W li ax.w>.Yea m AAN OiL
yii Ya H` i y= g QU4•°P°9J uax nC9 ob Z ae •S LYb a z9F was 5 : ?;rqo 4 4s N€ � Hy xw � �? �:;: H °ea UIIT s p5 tlb e� ix a ene n-°i��.m°. .c aema �a" a ..1! z � v ns o ° 1 L a'im x� 9.. e:IIue ° hi.
`qd ooe oT,i° ww YNII u T • w M ua
r44 i m• m <p; • 1 12 t.°raiYu .wcs .TN o nC1..) 091u hi AN9 1 m• O A
• S HY NU F T mA HO09i0.0T t °FiY HLN m N•y..NUq°n mT WF Hq0 O mT RA G 0 U wU p
tl• .� CGS. CUYV•eO0o..m UN! Nowt°�TG1°
•°lei_°R M G ;111;:Y-Y 1:11n4Y 4 O•I O G Ill.
GC.9c °Yo • w4 weu=M i� �• a i L O
11:41 yy» MIL4:;°e:iiiratIAx1i"55: Wi III y - I Hb
'Al! NOd •�ls'a•vI9 m•tl�wggC••~i•N Di 0°�OaII u M1 N
Ce pe T OqC 1.- •;111:; !,Iii am WY LI
m Y °O.
°cc ��z °w°e'"a c"em qOo"'o°eti Gum<a °w a y
Li aS•�$enw °�•°
l gSYV it Gtfl. e••Barimoc i:Li CCTnGG Hti y N •�10 u as e
Cmi ON YGO�GiCtiOC°.Ni G +°iq�u iYy �; .- u L' d Y
Vem!Y 1!P '�°Bio°1iaY•o-°+oa%po >um Yq N 6 • N Y S
Z a 9°m C:tlGw Y° m Q • N § 8 I
4.U4Cw �p Moq�°� CC�1 moi tl1CLwN UMo mG i o
o° % • be•9Ma° II.°ia•C! Y w0
f, II L° o° ° ■miw°Y b1G•U.a1i !is A p Ij A
■!! °� Y° Yv 90 II+ri�II YYIIII Sn-.I�+a N YT F 4
4T YYYwa NA •H� 6 m
4%O 4C.G4NCMm YYN CN IIm > d ? °•° O dw O Y ~x1 4O• : V.i y °U O.O�MNNiiv C4 R L EE S 6r
V N »GS ^ yqN NC°tl"."53S C°b " ao°m" ° mU Y U I M N Y ° •
O ° °
•II• aM•• M°°ta Coo c 1v o.A Ta [+ INma e�
•
JL1I %G°ao CC �� obEEY ° MN- dCS�MYyOlq liAY°Y II e..la."1 q4 u "ewm� 4n•°' �p �au4..°. 1°n aim°Y•e uo° n a ro I y aao.aa: so` -9� zoa °4a ca9H4amuc�<4 C�:.n-stleHa <d � is c mn ° o•a ,A ap
1 n W [5 m Yii4.t yGu 4 •mu m I, nu wN C I qU
f', = VYx > �VwL +Gi.Gi°�Y J V°OHY OGt C�n°a°•TC�9 uV w O o mR "
x Y I O u9�U q�'nY yyqG uO�n 03MOCO YSm7-1 y •�G T nN lJ o °L
].:11:1! Oi q ••AI'N d � U°°a4° ttU °Ap4Nrw°l.m°U q� N vmq G.m.. ,. " yp
Z2 mC°A o yON'U °IIi0 LVa�bprYYeCn .waC lYvn ° 'U °O 4R.S � N6 yq �H "N G
__ Z ;11:it; Iaa Cpyy°pCC 1y40yeoYpNNOSN°v~in; LLAgy O°7 °01 Y4Y .GI N m-°Y bbq S
y C • CO Uale°4°'I e•Y 9.y la9° w 4vy YIIO 4 3yM-, az41 C ° WS C
C S pCv gild Gr F•>9N >•.�b•buw%OMba.,o ? tl oS •,: N nA p! „1 O
w p,%°.T•' •C mL Vun ONNnYy qY VCC
Y gill g i iyU4a H04 NY 9II nqY P. nT qO b. ° mII r0 m JTI.•'3� >.iv �UC O GGG 9Oq Ntib HG YA
I N 4s-rsaaig11 C •1 gEl.s Ob Y+,°•v,ilim O9YLtlb iw G U G u q
N FY°.N'J'. Ue•IIA UUm3 AU 40n0mvexmN+tlO VQ� CII YV° pWhii.. Al C y
�'\ uY ;WI
O ''tlaY 3P L.H v • >„ 41 v `
_/■ Y L I >TI .1 mT NV a n. 354 N m U8 H U
_ %4M0
J ° m G
M n F -b/'E+S J^�AIN%/J°HM'N•Y/Je ECM^YI.M•:1 Js43 Wl
} —. costs t ._�.-- . ...._r pd- 'r
I4
•
u I .•..`•-.—.•••_-• •emmua S�lloll�J a6nnNp�
i — Iuxuag H.YrM1'b n+°� S��.' k?:e
ti
II) 9 J al / m= pi/
•�1 3 i J
v' 1 W L_. _. /
i' f' VA t I// °I -- I
lai r �
dit,
z`C Fh i ati
r-- i ; ,`
r cr.) A,
\ N•a'SJ°OarMNJ"•/j MUD'JQ�M NNJ•••'/I M•V1: y; � s~r�
'adE�ia95 +K'---SI�^SJ•N7xwuaR'IJi3+Yl' // .. ‘C• a°aC
tiry
., zi C `?r xt: G Pao,:
14I 3 \ , ;
Q•
+k' .n' 1 -.I
' 2w6 \ E
B QL\ s
W
$ 7 , r
T•- \
jq
J
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 09103/02
SECTION: Public Hearings
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Community Development
Donald R.Uram River View V ,
Scott A.Kipp
Requested Action
Move to:
• Close the Public Hearing; and
• Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 34.73 acres; and
• Approve lst Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers on 34.73 acres
and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 18.07 acres, and
• Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 34.73 acres into 29 lots and 3 outlots; and
• Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Staff and Board
recommendations and Council conditions; and
• Authorize Staff to issue a land alteration permit
Synopsis
This project is a 29 lot single-family subdivision located south of Riverview Road at Parker
Drive. PUD waivers will be required for front yard setbacks and lot frontage for various lots,
and rural lot size for a remnant parcel.
Community Planning Board Recommendation
The Community Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City
Council at the August 12,2002 meeting.
Background Information
Riverview Road
The developer will construct the segment of Riverview Road that abuts the property in a
manner consistent with the preliminary plan for Riverview Road developed by the City
with neighborhood input.
Archaeological Analysis
A phase I archaeological survey and report was completed in 1999 for Native American
burial mounds potential and a historic trail along the base of the bluff for cultural
deposits. In May of 2002, a burial authentication investigation was conducted which
found no burial mounds, but indicated cause for concern due to the proximity to the
Fowler mound east of the site. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed a report
and recommended that continued archaeological monitoring be conducted during initial
Ic
City Council Agenda—River View
September 3,2002
Page 2
grading and prior to construction on Lots 11 through 13, Block 1. Monitoring should
also take place during the construction of the storm sewer outlet at the base of the slope
near the historic trail.
The potential archaeological site closest the Fowler burial, and the rear yard areas of Lots
11 thorough 16, Block 1 will be included within a conservation easement.
PUD Waivers
The following waivers are requested through the PUD.
• Front yard structure setback of 25 feet for Lots 9 through 16, Block 1. Code
requires 30 feet. This is for the garage portion of the houses. This will provide
additional distance from the significant trees.
• Lot frontage of 67 feet for Lot 9,Block 1,45 feet for Lots 10 and 11,Block 1, and
79 feet for Lot 12, Block 1. Code requires 85 feet. A cul-de-sac could be
constructed to serve these lots meeting code,but would result in unnecessary grading
and more hard surface area.
• Rural lot size of 1.2 acres for outlot B. Code requires 10 acres. This outlot is the
result of platting Riverview Road. The remnant property is not part of the
development proposal. No building on the property can take place unless detailed
development plans have been approved by the City Council through the public
hearing process.
Comprehensive Trail Plan
The City's Comprehensive Trail Plan shows a future trail along the Minnesota River and
Purgatory Creek. A 150-foot wide outlot is needed adjacent to the Minnesota River. A
20-foot wide trail easement is needed generally along the north side of Purgatory Creek
from the Minnesota River.
The future Minnesota River Trail and Purgatory Creek Trail is located in Outlot A.
Outlot A is owned by Wally Hustad. Dedication of the trail corridors will take place
when or if Outlot A is developed.
Attachments
1. Resolution for PUD Concept
2. Resolution for Preliminary Plat
3. Staff Report dated August 9,2002
4. Community Planning Board minutes dated August 12,2002
5. Staff Reports and Planning Commission Minutes for the 2/8/99, 5/10/99, and 6/14/99
meetings.
6. Letter from Westwood Engineering dated August 21,2002
aq
RIVER VIEW
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.2002-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT OF RIVER VIEW
FOR WOODDALE BUILDERS
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 August 12,
2002 on River View by Wooddale Builders and considered their request for approval of the PUD
Concept plan and recommended approval of the request to the City Council; and
WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on September 3,2002.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,Minnesota,
as follows:
1. River View,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 August 23,2002.
3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Community Planning
Board dated August 12,2002.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of September,2002.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
Kathleen A.Porta,City Clerk
1245
EYRIBIT A
PUD Concept-River View
Legal Description:
That part of Government Lot 2,Section 36,Township 116,Range 22,Hennepin County,Minnesota,
lying easterly of the following described line and its extensions:
Commencing at the northwest corner of Government Lot 1, said Section36;thence on an assumed
bearing of South 88 degrees 52 minutes 24 seconds East along the north lines of said Government
Lot 1 and 2 a distance of 1750.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
South 00 degrees 10 minutes West, 1500 feet more or less, to the northerly shoreline of the
Minnesota River and said line there terminating.
is
RIVER VIEW
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,IVIINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.2002-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF RIVER VIEW FOR WOODDALE BUILDERS
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of River View for Wooddale Builders dated August 23, 2002, and
consisting of 34.73 acres into 29 lots and 3 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 3rd day of September, 2002.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
TO: Community Planning Board
THROUGH: Michael D.Franzen, City Planner
FROM: Scott A.Kipp,Senior Planner
DATE: August 9, 2002
SUBJECT: River View
APPLICANT: Wooddale•Builders
FEE OWNER: Wallace Hustad
LOCATION: South of Riverview Road at Parker Drive
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 34.73 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 34.73
acres.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 18.07 acres.
4. Preliminary Plat of 34.73 acres into 29 lots,4 outlots,and road right-
of-way.
127
Area Location Map for
River View
i&ip iparo
....
11111 414x
#if iiiiii. .#41"1" •
• dill *AT* i g 4114 i I pi t4ito
Apr
AR illiiii
_...., . . ._
....- ,• , . .- ...
. . . _ .
- .•. .
:-.: -,--' .:-.---.1i11.:'.--..e.,-,--..--,; -.:.,-,. ...--,•,...,;:e,..,,,-- - . -4,-1--t,-....3...'.041-4' 4 bill UM --
v ,..,__._....:... . .
Sli Vlii •-:;:-00',.'tii:11.4-4'..E'-'7:-:1'-:4;.•:-r;.i.: tr,0:1;:::_4,i..i .,-,.. , -.:'::i..'?i-4 --i::F5?-...:.:::::,.-:.!
zl \ Ito..-.114k•,1;!...-6.4:..1i;-31.:':-71-c+111.-:..S.-i i t-c010 --.;I----,-z•:-...•.-a-:::::.:1,'-;..;-.'.'7. ..Z.-'.-:.-!:,•".;'-'',9 ,..44:•-=':ft.4-----'.-:::'' •i-N
ii. ....
..:.. ... - . -•-•::-• . ;'''-•,:-','.•••,:•••''--,••-•:';';'.. .•••.?.--::4 i,t;.••-.,•••; .•:'Z F...i-7*.'.-`-•!•".;..'•::Z a 1';k 1"..•...;/....g.-....•. 1.1'-•-.:.c. . .. ..;
'-------.;ri- -"..4'''.-11-6 la,•:-.T:d.r.••• -.i • -- -:,:iel1/464 4-4.4,,,4-.74-g.-:.--; r:... ..:.....:.„:„
„.._ .. . ._.„..-:,..„. .,.,.....-....„.7., .....„- '.7.r.'...":•:447,...i',5:',..1.-r Li Milt ....-.4.,tte,---:=;;:i..-4:
::7'..-',.::-:----,-7j.: .*.:.;--:.- .7----.:-71.-. .,-.‘,.V.:i.; ,,--,-4-s-i:" +, . ";..;:' ;.,-:;,....-...••:,z,..-,-,:,•,--:-.1i.li:Ti:,..7sirl:4:4tti.,?;,-ice;-: ::,-,,-.,:trtre,-i-.!:,---.-,71.1,,,,, -,:-.,._,.,.. 7:- -: •
..., .. -,-,='-'- t' - '--:-... :.... ...-,,,.....-.:,,,,.....,..-..m,,,,..v.is:c....r..,v.-.,• ::7'-''7':4..'-''i.',f,:,'.-.,.i:.,,".:.,''.---7--..'''•..-:•:-:'-1''I...'.-Y....•..,'1,:..4...---...;.i'::-;:,.-.1••,:':,•-•:-i-;•'.-1.;..::;..:;..-.:,:..-F...:-k-L.._f.;.i,.'.,.';'..,•,:,.;,.4.-"..-.,...--).,e:'•....-:.-.:;k.,;,.?•t-,%::'.r':-ii,::i!7;g9.:1;'t4-':.,;'i:I,:7;ti1,-1:rici,-1,T!.L,t.ii.:i•vt-.z1l-..riT—.•','t4eK_.,t.i*V1,-it.>41!,:.14i•kW,.,i'4ti"_,f=i11i1-;f1t47tf4i-i-nit,af-4.**tf:A:`:ti4cii:q5y3',:1,1i0.'1;2c,f,5:t--tV-':1..1:,11-.1'i7.1z.0r..l.4;-i4Aa:r-.:1*.•4I.71 1,A%;7;1 1,,.r,i1....i.i.-1.-.ii..'l10l;i•.,I:%ti7;.1.i1',.fti,7:.,e.4',-•i,•....'3,i.2t.-.-,.i,'.:,:,i'.1;...,.;h2,.1rT,•i.-,•?.•:,_-7gr11,.,;1..,.-1l,,.1.-14i4:!.zf4-1:.6,7=1-f.-..,,";p-.'::_-4-i3;•.-wAiv.t,;k4-1:-‹.-..t.:;.;:i1q.---i-,7;:-::f..i:.,t-:s:.tt--Af:'.2:'4.h.:-2:-;1•,i;1-,„14-!,:--..:::-,:4,.:"-a'-f.:i:.,a1l3'r414-:,:.:14,n.,.-.-"-.,..14,.4i.t.,P,Ii,;,l1J,,k,'e.c4j,::•:W:ii1.t.f,..ilg:ipXi..:.,il,•.W.l„•::7:11 t3...t'i.3,F1-'.-e...,.•-..='..41:i,it'li 2,e1...;•;Et-A117-.rl5;-4:-..1i,-•,:::..;i,-s:4!.FP:.,3A..:'-,v•-i-•W'YfItK,;i,:.:.?-i;1A::4.,.i-,•:1k•it;:i.:.:--.,4-..-i.1 P„,g.,1-1-,.,3 i.,,--E'i'15:t1-1!4vi;;1..9,7.}•',c:,a7..-..:4:--.;0.4±-1-•-•1'•..,i.,‘.1•.-,t:!4i,ift1:'i'.'l.-??.‘.6.-:1,..1:„.x.....-.i?4.V..11.:.97.A1.j,I-.*.-.•..1..;.i:..,,7,i1..t,!- --?;!c‘Z:,..:!.....-.•••.::•,,;.:..4
4 " , rwgarKer Drive : , f. -: :.;. , .. F
'..-..j,1'-‘5."-.7.--.%..F..5,.'.z--.--,...'1,":••.._-i:-,..i.'--.',..-::.-,4.-.•--:.1,:I,;:.:L,-:.P•:.-.--i 4,•-kI-:'.-45'=:.r-.1.ci7-i-..-
i-li;.!•
A-,... .:4-4,41-n14.44:1AW.q.,.,,.-,.i*. .P;;1144..i..-ivV.t.;.:-:-..11-:.:ei.:::',417114:.,:=4•2•Ig.W43.4.,...iVt.f,-:. iiii...45,,-;...,, -..7',.E•7•:•14..,-,I.,,,:•! . :,-,j..-;,,.. ..i
••.._,...-%,.4.4:-•,:--",7--.,4.•-,;:.7•:-. -----..:714,.kt.41,:..V.,i1A•zi--.,?it,,i,„,,.4i,•-•-,,,,l,,w1:1--,vi.:••,.. f.;,•.t-:•,-ye-4.-4,11.-1,...;,*=:••;4,-..,-7-0-..e.:;.„ •-:z.,..., ...A',m c,..::,,,,,.ie,s.:”,- *,..,. '....:...•.).;.c,,.., .
•.:..-'::1:::,-,_. .:':;.....„,.......z...r.:.:.:?,...,,,..;,...,'ir'...',...;:.::.!''''i..-L'1..c..,t'ILIZi‘4.41414.t4-463A1141415.;-,. .e441:1134114Sit4*-4-61 ''''''i''';''d%'-‘4::;4:7'..4:17a.;1.-'•-•':,Rive-r,,VIe.w.,-,'‘R„.,0,.,a„d..,-.13.,..,7z........:„.'„-- :---.-_‘:"esi.:,-,:-.7.-.-4,,za-'4*-:._--i:•....:-.Ti-
't.7',,,,:::. ,-:,:,-,..._ ..,-,.,-..-...!-:-: •••,,,--,..--..:,.,...,...7,,,,..,....v._,---„,..-rE,re.;_-,.,.,_,;.g...a.„..-3;;;..24,4-..s.c.,t• -.,,,•::::,.;.3--•,,-.....;,,.„..-.-.:--.:,-.....:p.r....43-,...,,,...,,:..,-...-,--=1.:-....r,"....:•.,,-,..•-... ....-: • .-..-„:,-,.-..--.., -..........i:a
%'...' :.C' "..:`'"?.':;-•••-A- 'l'• ••.•:'. ..-•':-.v:iV,41,t;:lk4•44Z+4340.-tifedri4:44I'rlf-:.',4,4:.&?•11:44,5,.4..ellrf.. ' •,...-:: •,",:?.1:!.":•17--•••i7:::,:',":277-',.-4-,-,•ii !!:'.:.:4-.4.'1,-f4'.'1,1-.::`,....-.,:'!•. •-:•'...?1:k.f'‘•-•4',-.."4.-,..1,•:.-;".•::,';--, ,,.::.
'...4....!..7.-:.:..;. :.::.;',ii?‘....•-•5.4...,:.:.!::;•,,-•;.•..-;.:,...--,• :•-c!: t;-:•:"•;,i iii4itifirktTait11.:itialf. ,;'"••-•••• .. .•.4414441t;'4tf..:.'n144:1,-;f:.4";.•:,:':;..-i:•-•i4-14:r. ::':1•...:. Nl'.,;f'g;1,,":211.4.-':.:-:. '-':%••••,&.:,
I.:,-. Sil R1-441:Eitrf,514-Agg...g41,.. •,,,:! :!.,f..,- :,.!,., •*--;l'irviiiig.ft*Ai,'..ii:fh:..-e4z2:Jilflt,i.v.-4, !.,,,i,,,: .1•:, ...,.,•..: ,-. .:
-:;::,,,-4,-.-- .•:;:i.,-,.:...-,-,.,2 ::.-3;:t•!---•!--- . ----,l!its.m•o",:xisivizfhtikwirritraigApys.,:::1•,.4E::,,:::,:,:-:-,-.•••,.)-4-it,, •l':._: „tri,!, c.7;,.,4:1-41.1=7;i:,3-4,_flivalf:-.711,-.-:,..-:,.71!!:.':i..-•,-•,•;;:::!.:-.?''.!••qt‘'.'7-r.:.,:•,:er.,
.., ,,.:.----- L':•-f 4:::!It''''•Z .'•'.1:1:41•4,i4•11-4,,,-.41fIFI/ritrii?4•1*.le.ffig,:il'ittlaiig-:. -1;•-4Aft-•;...:.i;': •-• ":2':',1; ;.:". '44.:e.":1.:104.-r:;-' !Wl.k4;112 ...-...,...3#1.41:,:i11-:**-7 --;,--:
•:z?.”.;;c,... gt- ,-- ..p,i;,1)ifawic4PAiklip.;,-'16*61,44-44-1t,,i'7:.7,1;4'5E:i.7.•,,,,,,T. i-!-i-,f •7,7,,,-;i1,- - :' i-.. :41-,.i.i.i.:7131--i;.;-?.:.;•- •:.• '044.-?:141,.-",--.i.‘•-•1.-4.-..,?:..i
p9jWii0V244t24t,.53.gle.14,kijil,:is.,;--.4,i11,1". . -`4t-! '-'1_,-,'k4-;;:-'1-.:7-1.ii, '-'•ii:41...`k-V4-15tiiti.,.. tof';;;,:i.f.:••:41;-Hiii•::!•ie." ,§''•:.::.-1:!:?.,J.4::::ze-._. .f.--.'j,-f.-1..,,i.-17...-•
.....-,;27.,,,,n',:.;„-•. ,.:,..,.. ::.,-::..;.:,:::•;-_,„i:„-,--:::,•-7.1.•:.,:mir ci::44,...-15,,i.mt,,...e,4:.-tetili,ti-e:g4,0-tltIVWL:li 4:,..*.;:ir-T2,0,t;1,, ---:4. .4.-..4,..li?-!--.'-,-.:,---: -.4.-4-- .:7,; •61.1-':t4P.'.::1; .,..,_ ..:. 'L.•-'-
'....f.'"•,:-.2;1-.7i.tz.if,-..i•,-. --.:•7,..g7:,:t1....•••,,if,„ .1•!, ,.-lartA•'...115,Wirlf-ji.'4N1-.5-':-!'ex,:4.;•z,r'-...-iii.t1r-41"...,,4:41•:.i?;;, :',-7-!'•''Lt."•-•,.
""'''..' '.- h----
c4.2.?-. . ..-.74:.•L:.•.,..-.57-,. .,:..:,4,,,..,...."-..t, .41:441,....izyz..:x.d • •, , ,,,..12.1-:..„ .K.;......pti,.:- 1i?-:.....-1..%•;;4;:-
v:A"'Az'''' 'f'-.; '•-:• •''--7.•.`1.''''l''i..!:'''...7.4A:'iAV.;‘,„,110.11.tVI: • . z751..5'...414', .-'•t-r.1-",t-:',.'.i•.,et,%,-.,, .. . .. . .
7Ii:
44_-,4.41147,..Utp.pl , ,.• • t,.... - i,,,,„.„„:„..,..... ,,,,....„,...,,„:„.,.,,. ,,,......,,,,......„...,,,..,..„.,:„,:„.;,....„.
i-t'ti-V;7•:.-,• ,: %.-1...-",..- - :.', i--i!,-..la-i-•.i.w.N.T-...44„94., . ,....;„Tri.,-..z}.,.,..--ilit-Tri.:.ii-4:.J.';. '- ',i'ar':-7-:..:-.f;:A7.4-:.''A:..1.1:-'•••3.-X0'-;:ii'.-..-';'._.....:-.-4i-..i..-)E:-.;:l.i.:Ege.;'47."1-•:Igi,!:'f•-.:',4
*IF'1:-.474-1i-1::•-,;•4';-:::i,4:.i.•::_i:.::: ---''',-'i'i•`!-;;I:',;'4 L-.71':.--:'e_tY;ftie..t'il.t4/4i4tM•i!,!..i-i5rIbit;in-iti:It:"-1472, .•?„,,-Farz.t';:ii;t07i.;:i.Vri'44:•„-,4:4 -5,:',./Wt.;.4.4:-.',.$_i'.',;_liz,.ii.,7•'4..,:•.:,,•'.',,r.:.--,::::,::-,,.,
--‘1:r%.€'1--"--ri;i'-',1=''-j'''..'''..:'''''',•;:fi-:::.-..-'-',..:-';'-ii,,,,':.:ri-A•ii.:1?14f?,:f„,ii:11-FPAVO.,:t•he'11.--;t4::-Ift-4_,:fd-VA''7.V.4r:14g.:;t3,-,.Z.,•!7',A.,:i.' ,Z..•::.47S-,;,-6-11-V,TYZ---•12.1i'le- ....:7-1 4 '.L4'7 ..".:':',1•-•13:'.
•!„-T;.'4",'.i-.4.,:;;::;,,..fti;;F:i..,Z••.•,...':.:R7i:Mi!::::;'', 14,f,:f:Ft;"-:..-•.).:.--.:.::..,:.i,'.:.t-:.,-.I.%-..-':i;•`i.i,7r:,1i.-:•.i:.;4;.V:,:'.:.i",1r:.:2i''.:•:7 i2'-.'..-;.-'3;.:..:,•-:•Z'?."7...".L.,,4.P-_;_4-::..:i'.'4•::''••"'•1;''3:V3.'i1.::s4z'.zY.i.;A:.:...E:.";::-'-.-1.-••^'...:'..::••...,':--f.:-:-7::.:?..-'.,...;::•-f::„Z'-1,;-'•,-:--17'•4•';;'!i-7'i;"i.:::.•.:':.:-;'‘-i!..-1.7.e.,'!1.,.!1.7i-q.:11;,:.::1.411' ,1,•...74i-i-A;11i:1,c.:f44:1f4-.fe.i,-:,:1-:,--,'7-:13rf.,t74-'641.1k4411i-rt441b..e4.1.".-'1.V..,1''4rt"‘:.:eb.•i..'5;!i4r,g1,.:1-1.%Ig4i•.tlA:r:i5;*R;to,;',;e:•.4.f-4f1S1.4•.-,-:,7,X--,"V;;•;:!•-'•4,:•:;4.•:i-:'--4-.!44...,,Ii# . t ; 'it "'i-.;1-•,,•,::.4{:;..•;,',ii=.-;,tt.-i4";5-;,4,r..l1.?:Wq::.,i*;va?,:.,•A-:.I,:,Llt;4-7;:'i.,'4'4..1',;t,_,g44'-174"i•-l;q,-;/12:.k•;41,•.5:7iifr,4.$ie.0.ri4,P..'.78.,.31,.....VF4;-.I•qC-.Z-,•.7n:.t:L:,f..-'.-s1.:-•:'l,-:4q...,.t.n;•1.I4..-tZ.1:''3-..t1i...:'mi,4'1•;v?45-::-14i.;''4,.t4'.0'ai-,.;:q1'.-tp.P4i•i,,tr.5etict.4At.eiviRi tI.ftitU.hert,.u:-gAra;-'i-.1 rl*-:.1-0•q,g-a:-'-4 -
-Y2.4'::tA:,.:'Y.,r:4i::ii:•1s1.17,:.'.411,7.;..,"-,f,i:f;,4...;-,4i•-:..1;:,.....t...1-7t4..P-..i:;.„3.:3?,,:•!A,r;•%:i.:.-•;N•:,.•f•;.i.;,:..r,ri':.S;:t4.:-::1,.,-:-14-.3F-;,56.1,:•.,.!7::::-:..:I-2.:-:,,S:.:.:A. -
. - 21 -,;-.:i,-.i,.;1 4i.1i,5-4:;:V•:;T4,.-i4.l,..,%.,7
,.,..,5,z.,k•a;,.:,i:<,t.,:k..-::1„I-..,i
..-..,:i.rgli,..,..fli-k.•i:;;;;,-..001",t-.0...•-.t:17.i..!;•c,i .4114:.-::0'•:-.4'.7.----4F7=2.'ifigir'ii.'1•44.--.z&.;'7,",•-•'-'1,-:Ti".•''ei-:;•'-';',:-'4.._-:,...:q,-1:: ;..-...-,:tia.tr.:ZI.:4::P!,'4.;i:X. ::.'-'!•"-...'..e.;•::..-
' ::%.?:..•'...:.;•••, ',:1114L-t4,4,111.3q4e,:tfiriit..4t•tifit;414-41.....-441•sr*, .. ...4_ ,i•Pq;:..ifelt•frt,zniZt-'3.•.-,-. 7:;;.i:5,,.F..i.1.--10; -r-tk!i.t..;,i•:'. -Ca .- -..‘P.!. ''-..".!;'“,.-.•L-
....7".. .
til,A.VAryir.q1Cifer,,r4,e4'..:4?-.1-1`f;NLV,ie,,A'!:1•iv''..1 ,,,'61•±E,' '.,i.;:larint.,1,..4ARt, .-eil,.Iv,.r.:4r.•••11-re,":-;:i4,i-.•i,',-;..i-',:i-Y_Iil-•.."-re-f:.'i,-.ri•:"---.•t:;.:. 7..-._'.:;?:..... -
1:114.1Z'i.-4404.5!;4•Witili":'.1rt;:r.'re.11A7.- ','W-Ar*:-I'--I'&41,4!':;-,-..:;* :-•''':?:•-i:-:-...i.,';'•,;)47ft):,/:=',",1`...-_-:7'..-11:`.4---'!-.:.i.'7!1-...-:.27,-.t--;;;•'.--.:•: -,-;.-1,r.---;',12.'WF.-.-'
.--• iVVes1,0e*I'Ll'11410.,:i.iV.17:4VETAlib-i i'••-•':';;I:• -:;:ili:it-i.4 .. . .-,;..--12".--. --.;-V.:".•:;I:•:.1. ..;;!•- ...--7•-•.--1- '7',..;;-•::;-- -.
a.,.e1;ir0A.i-41%e;•;_•-`r-'%.,!; -..-,.'-'--.7-.1.' •-..;.:-11••.tirF.-1,-,-i:L."--;=:::-.-:•,•.--,,-;:',!....._•,,,,-.:...7&4.1.-.;=,a... :i....,,-;.,5,-,:•;•-1,:-..-:;5.1,-.........-;_-,-...:;:,-.:....p.- •
-.04.,...:9,,,rte.4;4,5,-..elq.Air.5.4f.r4c-.11.-2.-.•,t1r.i,,ivrtl..:.:1-.:i z.-: '7-7•:.--..r,,,-;-::-,,"-'--;-•.1'.1;:•'•••-..;••1:;.;:a".-;.'%.,,:i.--.'-.';';',...,•.,‘-.-..,,t:,-.-:•;........-.1.;.•-.''..•:,.,...-'...t':7','-.:-.: -
1-77:ri.--Nt_444:-Siic5:14E,a•f:ggi:At‘'..- -::-i,,,,,..-,::,--63:-*i.•‘:.;-.;'‘'.::;,..1 7.!-;:::',I'.:,;:.11,4:t....!7 A-:,....--;:**,':::;J. ,%k:'"),,'-'-'-%71,..":-:v-,','•-•''7--4-4'.1...,?.-
.4`•,-tly-!•-4.,.Ztr,*4a4Sil's;.37•144::-7.4; i'7-''.t:.......'4,;‘.'-'J'ff:',14.•11.171:r.',..1:--;1"-;:-'••.'4•''''''-''''''''''''':•'..-:' :,:;.•''..I--•r•:•-••-•::,•:-4.• 7,: '.1-4-,..i."-•:.•'
-''!".4,1',KM:3;fikif•ifK";.i,::':•.!"..,..,,..'4••%,',...'';.;.,;,•;-4:•-ji,•4,,:,,V5-;:'"-Ttv, :-.:•...•.••••,•:',„:„:::..i-,•:,-.--..:,-:'- ." .-; .'4'.:1.;•,:i•V•Fki•-i?,!::-. li.i'•,-t7.4'...:•7.:•••.:4.,
''''45.;410'1:6441;:41 ;1 •i--.--4-:"--?3- -k:::-.:.'-';:--'? '-'. ---.1'LT•:;;':-.,:tre?.f.1.6'-',.--1.-•-•:,".•:•••••-,... -.'r4-i:,---'..;:'.'•--.=';--;::.:-.7'.':=:e'r.:::.•!f:.:,;;..
''''''"•14:t.i;t4.37•:;'.:'Z.:;';;,..--.!..!..i.11-,-43--,i4.-•Iii" ,:ii--!-'''':'-','..i.'N•i'Vc•-"-"'.7-'.i,.'"''''-,.'-'-'•-. ---'.,..1?:: .4'-':':;-'7 i•..".---'7 t;'',7'..
-"el'tt,..;;5!:'--F•-•1,..'-','-'---..rilir"-iP.:7,:ii.".;•:.if‘;i'_;:.:;P:'130,11,...g•"';-:1'1'1.':A;sir;•"-:. ....- ' .-:., .',-...4:-:-.7-1-..`_;.41.-..-.
. ,
. - 1---.f-..:;--,.-','.-j,-!"4". -f'.'t.e.i.:1,-'14.•=1:-';:-'..' n7:-.1: -.1,',-1-'-''''''-''-'7'-.-:i•-':••-• -,Li-r
: - .... -•. .
-: ,''.•'-',41,'..77....".54f.i1- 5 '...-:.'.": . ;.T...:-' ' -
,: •
"7-7;t::i.'.1'.,.-.." ' r'-'...•:1 • -::44.-..:" .n.- ,"•.'y 1-.,-:...!1.:--' .:.7:.-,'- '-:• '"..-..,'..
- • •.,.-,.--.„-.', •.:,;:i::,11.,..:„.:,--...-1..-:-,,:--.-_-,-.-:.1--.'n-,,-.:.-,. , -.,-• ,. ..
Shakopee
,. .-....• •
-_-... •..-. - .. .... .• .. ,
.,.. .-.
.... . ._. .
C--1-j )
N. . ......,.,, .. . .. ., . ..
• -•
Minnesota River '
No Scale
Staff Report—River View _
August 9,2002
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows the site as Low Density Residential and Open Space. The
guide plan permits up to 2.5 units per acre. Surrounding land uses are guided Low Density
Residential and Open Space.
The site is zone Rural. Surrounding land is zoned R1-13.5 and Rural.
PROJECT HISTORY
In 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed three proposals for this property.
1. Rezoning and subdivision request for 20 multi-family units on the northeast six acres of the
site, a realigned Riverview Road,with land south of Riverview Road designated for future
development. This proposal was withdrawn.
2. Rezoning and subdivision request for 47 units (22 twinhome units and 25, R1-9.5 single-
family units) using density transfer to keep units off the Minnesota River Bluff, with
Riverview Road in its current location, and a NURP pond at the base of the bluff. The
Commission continued the project for the developer to address the overall density of the
project, and remove the multi-family housing.
3. Concept plan for 38 single-family units with development on the bluff,keeping Riverview
Road in its current location, and a NURP pond at the base of the bluff. The Commission
recommended the following plan revisions:
A. Meet City Code requirements for the R1-13.5 Zoning District.
B. 20%significant tree loss
C. Avoid impacts on any documented archeological features.
D. Meet Fire Marshal requirements.
E. Provide storm water ponding to NURP standards.
F. Leave Riverview Road generally in its current alignment.
No rezoning request followed the concept plan discussion and the proposal was withdrawn.
SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT
The current plan is to rezone 18.07 acres of the 34.73-acre property and develop 29,R1-13.5 single-
family lots served by a public road. Outlots A and B will remain Rural.
l 30
Staff Report—River View
August 9,2002
The project has a gross density(less outlot B)of 0.86 units per acre,and a net density(less outlot B
and the 100-year floodplain) of 1.3 units per acre. Lot size range between 14,075 square feet and
51,038 square feet,with an average lot size of 21,444 square feet. A minimum lot size of 13,500
square feet is required in the R1-13.5 zoning district.
Outlot A includes the 100 year floodplain, wetlands, steep slopes, and trees. It is also within a
Shoreland Area. No access is proposed to Outlot A. A conservation easement will be placed over
the wetland areas as required by City Code.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS
The following waivers are requested through the PUD.
• Front yard structure setback of 25 feet for Lots 9 through 16,Block 1. Code requires 30
feet. This will provide additional distance from the significant trees.
• Lot frontage of 67 feet for Lot 9,Block 1,45 feet for Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, and 79 feet
for Lot 12,Block 1. Code requires 85 feet. A cul-de-sac could be constructed to serve these
lots meeting code, but would result in unnecessary grading and more hard surface area.
• Rural lot size of 1.2 acres for outlot B. Code requires 10 acres. This outlot is the result of •
platting Riverview Road. The remnant property is not part of the development proposal. No
building on the property can take place unless detailed development plans have been approved by
the City Council through the public hearing process.
TREE PRESERVATION
There are 14,110 diameter inches of significant trees on the property. The tree loss is 10%,or 1,399
caliper inches. The required tree replacement is 185 caliper inches. A total of 291 caliper inches are
proposed. A conservation easement is proposed at the grading limits to protect the existing slope and
trees.
DRAINAGE
The majority of the storm water drains to a NURP pond within the development then to an existing
storm sewer in Riverview Road. House and rear yard drainage for Lots 9 through 16,Block 1 will be
drain through a series of catch basins and piped to the flood plain.
ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY
A phase I archaeological survey and report was completed in 1999 for Native American burial
13(
Staff Report—River View
August 9,2002
mounds potential and a historic trail along the base of the bluff for cultural deposits. In May of
2002, a burial authentication investigation was conducted.
On June 17, 2002, the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed a report prepared by IMA
Consulting. The HPC recommended that continued archaeological monitoring be conducted prior to
construction on Lots 11 through 13,Block 1.
An archaeological assessment of these lots is important due to the proximity to the Fowler burial
(21HE214), which is located to the east of the proposal but occupies the same landform.
Construction may proceed outside the area to be monitored, however, if human remains are
encountered, local authorities and the State Archaeologist should be contacted immediately.
Monitoring should also take place during the construction of the storm sewer outlet at the base of the
slope near the historic trail.
The potential archaeological site closest the Fowler burial will be included within a conservation
easement.
SHORELAND ORDINANCE
The Shoreland area is defined as a 300-foot distance from the bank of Purgatory Creek and
Minnesota River, or the landward extent of the flood plain,whichever is greater. Development is
proposed outside of this area. Since there are no abutting lots proposed, fill, or tree removal
occurring within the Shoreland area,provisions of the Shoreland ordinance do not apply.
UTILITIES
Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from existing lines within Riverview Road.
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN
The City's Comprehensive Trail Plan shows a future trail along the Minnesota River and Purgatory
Creek. To accommodate the future trail,the developer should provide a 150-foot wide outlot along
the most southerly portion of the plat along the Minnesota River. In addition, a 20-foot wide trail
easement should be provided generally along the north side of Purgatory Creek from the Minnesota
River.
RIVERVIEW ROAD
The City with the assistance of a neighborhood committee of Bell Oaks residents developed a
preliminary plan for the future improvement of Riverview Road between Homeward Hills Road and
Purgatory Creek. The proposed subdivision would implement a segment of that overall plan in a
13a..
Staff Report—River View
August 9,2002
manner consistent with the preliminary plan developed with neighborhood input.
CONCLUSION
1. The proposed development is consistent with the direction given by the Planning Commission.
2. The density is consistent with recent developments in the surrounding area and along the river
bluff.Bell Oaks has a gross density of 1.13 units per acre and a net density of 1.44 units per acre.
The average gross density of recent projects along the river bluff is 1.02 units per acre. The net
density is 1.4 units per acre.
3. Tree loss is 10%. Bell Oaks tree loss is 23%. The average tree loss for recent projects along the
river bluff is 20%
4. Conservation easements will protect the steep slopes,wetlands, and a potential archaeological
site.
5. The Riverview Road alignment is consistent with a plan developed by the city and neighborhood
committee.
6. The NURP pond is relocated from base of the river bluff to the interior of the public road.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the following:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 34.73 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 34.73 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 18.07 acres
• Preliminary Plat of 34.73 acres into 29 lots and 3 outlots.
This is based on plans dated August 9, 2002, the Staff Report dated August 9, 2002, and the
following conditions:
1. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall revise the plans to show a 150-foot
wide outlot along the most southerly portion of the plat along the Minnesota River. In
addition,a 20-foot wide trail easement should be provided generally along the north side
of Purgatory Creek from the Minnesota River.
2. Prior to final plat approval,the proponent shall submit detailed storm water runoff,utility
and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District.
3. Prior release of the final plat,the proponent shall:
A. Submit a conservation easement for protection of the wetlands and wetland buffer
within outlot A.
133
Staff Report—River View
August 9,2002
B. Submit a conservation easement for protection of the steep slopes and potential
archaeological site.
C. Dedicate to the City the 150-foot wide outlot and 20-foot wide easement for trail
purposes.
4. Prior to grading permit issuance,the proponent shall notify the City Engineer,Watershed
District, and City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in
place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal.
5. Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall:
A. Submit a tree replacement bond for review.
B. Pay the Cash Park fee.
6. The following waivers are approved through the PUD for the property:
A. Front yard structure setback of 25 feet for Lots 9 through 16,Block 1. Code requires
30 feet.
B. Lot frontage of 67 feet for Lot 9,Blk 1,45 feet for Lots 10 and 11,Blk 1,and 79 feet
for Lot 12,Blk 1. Code requires 85 feet.
C. Rural lot size of 1.2 acres for outlot B. Code requires 10 acres.
p
13I
Community Planning Board Minutes
August 12,2002
Page 2
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. RIVER VIEW BY WOODDALE BUILDERS
Dwight Jelle, Westwood Professional Services, reviewed the history of the site.
The new plan is for a high-end development. Wooddale Builders will be the sole
builder and developer on the property. Waivers help to preserve the trees; the
frontage waivers would allow elimination of the cul de sac and less impervious
surface would be needed.
Franzen summarized the staff report. The current plan follows direction given by
the Planning Commission in 1999, to lessen environmental impacts. The current
plan is to rezone 18.07 acres of the property and develop 29 R1-13.5 single family
lots served by a public road. Outlots A and B will remain rural. Staff
recommends approval with one change; a 150-foot wide outlot along the southern
portion of the river for future trails.
The public hearing opened at 7:17 p.m.
Tony Phillippi, 10300 Riverview Road, who owns a 25-acre home site to the east
of this property, complimented the developers for the work on this project. He
inquired whether outlot B could have a scenic easement and whether the
stormwater drainage could be collected to the street before going downhill. Most
homes are taking the stormwater to Riverview; he questioned whether this would
be adequate.
Franzen explained outlot B is left zoned rural. No building can occur until a
rezoning of the property through a public process. The site is limited by steep
slopes, trees, setbacks and availability of sewer and water.
Gray explained there are two separate storm water systems. There is a minor
system serving homes that back up to the bluff which really serves the drainage
from the rear of the roofs and rear of the lots. A structural storm sewer will
convey this to the floodplain level so that erosion would not take place. The
primary system drains to a pond, which will serve a 100 year storm event and
provide filtering. It currently serves approximately ten acres. Stormwater will
outlet through the pond; peak flow will be managed.
Susanna Fowler, 10315 Riverview Road, is concerned with erosion. Her property
adjoins the proposed development. She questioned the developer's course of
action should they encounter Indian burial grounds. She was not aware of a
proposed trail. Her land is in a conservation easement; she questioned how a trail
could be put through it.
135
Community PIanning Board Minutes
August 12,2002
Page 3
Jelle noted they had identified a potential mound area; it will be included in a
conservation easement and the potential mound area as well as the area adjacent
will be monitored during construction.
Fox noted the Minnesota River Corridor was identified as a trail link. They would
have to work with the property owner and US Fisheries and Wildlife.
Ed Schlamp, 10901 Riverview Road, questioned the NURP pond and where the
water would go following a 100-year event. If it overflows it will cause erosion.
Gray stated it would flow into the street if it overflowed; it would need to rise
over two feet above the 100-year flood level. It would be a small volume which
would hit the Minnesota River Bluff and if this occurred it is a possibility some
erosion may occur. Minor overflow could go into the second system.
Wolfgang Schroeder, 10584 Boss Circle, asked about changes in Riverview Road
plans.
Gray stated the alignment of Riverview Road has been developed with the
neighborhood; it will not change very much.
Joe Swanson, 10425 Purdy Road, stated he lives across the street from the
development. There is poor drainage in Bell Oaks. He wants to ensure drainage is
adequate.
Nelson questioned whether the development was open for custom homes which
might not fit the footprints, whether this would be a gated community, and
expressed concern regarding the steepness of lots and whether soil sampling had
been completed. She does not approve of a 25 foot setback. The homes will look
to close to the street.
Steve Schwieters, Woodland Builders, noted footprints were plans for the floor,
not elevations. They have done many upscale single-family homes. The footprints
were sizes they felt would fit the lot size. It will not be a gated community.
Gray noted a secondary storm sewer and a retaining wall are part of the grading of
the subdivision. Water will not run over or around it. Rear lots will drain through
intakes and be routed around the bluff.
Fox stated there was a significant tree mass positively affected by the 25 foot
setback. Rear yard storm drainage and retaining walls will need to go in. There is
a conservation easement.
Jelle noted not all garage doors would face the street; the corner of the garage
would be at the 25 foot zone so the house could be pulled farther from the trees.
Community Planning Board Minutes
August 12,2002
Page 4
Steppat inquired about the process should human remains be recovered and how
the developer would ensure the stability of the retaining walls.
Franzen explained State Archeologist would be on the site. The area identified as
a potential burial ground will be staked off. Should human remains be
encountered during construction, all work would stop until it was investigated.
This is a federal law.
Jelle stated a structural engineer would design and review the retaining wall; it
would be inspected and a geo-technical company would inspect and test it as well.
•
Stoelting inquired about the rear-yard distance from the retaining wall and the
reason for the 10-foot easement behind the wall. He inquired about the variances
for lot foot frontage.
Jelle explained the worst case would be a 30-foot distance from the structure to
the wall, with a conservation easement behind it. The ten feet would allow a
distance for construction and maintenance. Originally they considered a cul de
sac; the large pavement area and maintenance were concerns, so they wished to
consider frontage waivers instead.
Sodt expressed concern about building over the hill and whether this was a
concern several years ago.
Franzen stated a plan in 1999 showed buildings 100 feet further down the slope.
Koenig inquired whether the building began where the land started sloping, and
whether most land on the river would stay in the conservation easement. She
asked about the Fowler property and its size. This plan is an improvement over
previous plans; it fits well with the community. She is concerned about drainage.
She inquired about closeness of the development to the adjacent property owner.
Jelle noted this was correct; buildings begin where the land slopes. He showed
proposed screening,fencing, and monuments.
Fowler stated her property was 22 acres and most was in land trust.
Gray stated there was a significant difference between this development and Bell
Oaks,which has no pond and no rear yard storm sewer.
Wesley Sund, 1097 Purdy Road, noted those living in Bell Oaks were concerned
about Outlot B and inquired why they would not make it scenic easement.
Steve Schwieters,Woodland Builders,noted the builders did not purchase
333.
Community Planning Board Minutes
August 12,2002
Page 5
Outlot B. It was not part of this plat. If they did choose to develop it they would
need to go through the normal approval process.
Franzen noted the outlot was not being used in the calculation of the project's
density or for tree loss.
Loretta Swanson asked for clarification that her soil would not be further eroded
and she would like to see elevations of the new development.
Gray stated the new storm sewer intercepts drainage. If the property develops as
presented, it will not drain toward the Swanson property but to the storm sewer.
The area draining to the Swanson property would be reduced.
Anita Phillippi, 10300 Riverview Road, expressed concern about the drainage. As
it drains now it runs down the road and causes erosion.
Gray explained this road has never been served by storm sewer. Storm sewers will
be put in; the part with poor drainage is a rural section that will be re-graded to an
urban section and curb and gutter, catch basins and intakes will be added.
Wolfgang Schroeder stated he would like Riverview Road to be preserved; this is
the best plan they have seen. It would not make sense to build anything on Outlot
B.
MOTION by Stoelting, second by Steppat to close the public hearing. Motion
carried,
8-0.
The public hearing closed at 8:05 p.m.
Stoelting expressed approval at the way the neighbors had remained involved in
this project and the way the developer had worked on it. This is an exciting plan.
Sodt stated the waivers were justified and he had faith in the engineers and that
proper drainage would be in place.
MOTION by Stoelting, second by Koenig to approve River View by Wooddale
Builders Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 34.73 acres;
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 34.73 acres; Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 18.07 acres; and Preliminary Plat on
34.73 acres into 29 single family lots, 4 outlots, and road right-of-way located
South of Riverview Road at Parker Drive based on the recommendations in the
staff report and plans dated August 9,2002. Motion carried, 8-0.
lag
. 7 STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
Scott A.Kipp, Senior Planner
DATE: February 5, 1999
SUBJECT: Flint Ridge
APPLICANT: Trek Development
FEE OWNER: Wallace Hustad
LOCATION: South of Riverview Road at Parker-Drive
REQUEST: 1. >. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 34.83 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 6 acres. "
±t� 3. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 6 acres.
4. Site Plan Review on 6 acres. • .
5. Preliminary Plat of 34.83 acres into 20 lots, 1 outlot, and road right-
of-way.
•
- T
1-
ty]�[-C�_c.-.�,- -�.s•' ':.'�.�=--- ,'ty .. `<_•rr .._ ._-_ i ,.�. ...._ -;-c
' � �•� •
{� 1")•+K. .4 t'3, y .. o f j tr.,C., � t�r f
1T� y r a y •y C2Ej atj.7s�tr tI71 11.777 _[�
t all EY7 a (+) a $.. - -
T �`)`z..".• " ''�.. j(3T1 t o
ti
1. •• "Al, 4 \ ;'im M s utsury`vl�, Atm tiA (igyA .-.1 . t s a f3 -...• .i:+)
# i A
•K i/
• J4 1 -•
•
is
gA
' * "• ••• (241 .) (327• k),.',y fi) V:s.a(2a1 - fl!) _...
• atR. • (t1lla (so '+r � • • " kill a (lal f r, s• ` 3/ l�.)
ttal •4 ti." O) f _3UFF•I _ - •.(na (ZI 4 • , - �V gam. f
?,.• y s• (A I.tinl t :_r•.tt3X(ti) r. g. 2. a� ( 1 r
a.
t ql)
gl
/ OaTi al s• , '� ^c-"vr-•• ow. ^w .nr ..•., i o� I^" (2) • es ., ).. �" -
760.
•
•i? tip I ` Sri 1 . j I23 I
(W f (]21
' 1r MR t • .. f - tvl - (111
r
' • 4 a I. tnl . •
• itirall
�•r'�••.;� r r �� yRT• •as.Cent. 01 �• • ^� r,Y ./ .•,,; 'ts. • 14n..
(Is
. . it a(s+) ` (M) um t2i r.` "u.,o• -(•2) o . . .
Cy 111 ;s••f,',' J•' . t221 .4 ) t21) do') •• •d, MAN ,�t72), ,t*��,• 1LlJ;li -.
��s3 'Rt ? t22) ',Qi+v��1�L .C_q t.. ii �`�i' din .t'. • • •,►
I . smog(Id • •
a •lit fa ttl• as k ‘s. y .U:011
UQ a._ n •
cy
Y
t y r ft2) tlft...j0. f r y,S' ru; • `ti) - t on :tams ?• s II
R' ''
1 4) . cta,s(4) . x•i•..._..�1. IrI•AI(7A, •. z.. ..r. t. :•w•' (li) 1 cm srst..
,....0.. t t• 1 'y >Y ' 1 �t
• I d (n) (,'ss',•. a ' '...,w.�•'q'r« / (7! s 7 2 I y:3--• y 1` r•a�• ' Cy
.F1); } 'a ti• ^ .vn fU di(tol ':, (71) t,,j's'� ./
•
Iii a.` � t b ttf on aw a. 'i71ta'tt (721 '�•\ I-- r _ 1 a r y �//�/�'�j nr• .atA •tP (w7 - tle,'
a.,-0 .!v l I•., 1 sr r re \ t.► (A d} t 111 q H6/ty�t7 • (�\S�\`! �^ ">.._a_.
Rr t f l'a 4"--.• t•e . a. r t. • I.N . • 'm'TS"S , _•'may' �•- . •. .,
.F 'Z:*:+ a- (43)2 a;a 4ca iaa2i m . Z, • • t ^, •�::;
•
saA JIq • `} ..."� `�
Id
al s,
ra
. '♦, 44• a„r,rw.
(.t 4 s�s•�� ,� t. I y
}• f .. ..
of (m �F t
1
.,,. (24) •rr+2 1 I • .. d • (t,
a.• i •
490. as a 137.1 IA ••r•• 1 • • ♦ • rrt..
•
...f• t••,1. (A : 51h1TE , .. ,e•L
t I " a
MCI 2
a ."."."--el t2l
I • •
t •
•Z, •
f I
1
• i
(1
j, .I�ilj " I h r I I ..........
r' '•�, s
t► r�� 7_r_ { �•1ti tii
.1 •
•
_:�t.•"a
Staff Report
Flint Ridge
February 5, 1999
BACKGROUND
This 34.83, acre site is zone•Rural. Adjacent land uses consist of Bell Oaks to the north zoned R1-
13.5, and undeveloped Rural sites to the east and west.
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN
The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows the site as Low Density Residential. A portion of Open
Space exists below the 711.5 contour elevation, or 100 year floodplain. The property, as guided
permits up to 2.5 units per acre. Since densities are calculated on a gross acreage basis, a total
of 87 housing units are possible. The actual densities permitted are based upon performance
standards of the City code. The application of the performance standards for other projects
approved along the river bluff have resulted in net densities (exclusive of the 100 year
floodplain) between 0.67 and 2.0 units per acre.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND DENSITY TRANSFER
The PUD Concept is to subdivide the northerly portion of the property into 20 multi-family lots,
realign a portion of Riverview Road, and to plat the south portion of the property into an outlot for.
future development. While a specific site plan for the south portion of the property will not be
developed until after the completion of an archaeological survey this spring, Staff review will be
based on placing an overall density limit for the entire 34.83 site to be consistent with other
developments approved along the river bluff. Any development proposal for the south side of the
property will require a public hearing process for rezoning and platting based on the density
established in this review.
The City uses Planned Unit Developments to encourage a more creative and efficient
development of property. In exchange for higher densities and clustering of housing units
through density transfer, the City benefits from preservation of natural features, dedication of
open space, housing variety, sidewalks and trails, and landscaping.
The City has approved two different types of subdivisions on the Minnesota River bluff:
1. Large lot single family with homes built on the Minnesota River bluff. Average net
density exclusive of 100 year floodplain of 1.3 units per acre, 20% average gross tree
loss, and 35,500 sq. ft. average lot size. (Timber Bluffs, Riverview Heights, Walnut
Ridge Riverview Bluff)
li-1l
Staff Report
Flint Ridge
February 5, 1999
Applying the large lot approach to this site would result in 31 units at a net density of 1.3 units
per acre, with 20% tree loss, and an average lot size of 33,000 sq. ft.
2. Cluster housing at a higher density with-no grading or homes built on the Minnesota
River bluff. (Chimney Pines)
Applying the cluster approach to this site would result in 47 units at a net density of 2.0 units
per acre, 8 acres of bluff preserved, 15.6% tree loss, and an average lot size of 13,000 sq. ft.
Gross Acres - 33.39 41.2 42.3 28.32 26.0 •
Gross Density .66 du/acre .34 du/acre 1.2 du/acre 1.59 du/acre 1.33 du/acre
Net Acres 14.79 22.4 13.3 28.32 26.0 s
•
Net Density 1.49 .67 * 2.0 1.59 1.33
Average Lot Size 25,600 63,000 5,500 20,800 32,400
Gross Tree Loss 20% 15% 15.6% 25% 17%
Net Tree Loss • 39% 74% 49% 25% 50%
Dedicated Bluff Acres 0 0 12 0 0
Floodplain Acres 18.6 18.8 17 0 0
Number of Units 22 14 52 45 34
*The density of the Timber Bluffs project is lower because most of the lots were on steep slopes
and it was not possible to access the lower portion of the property with a public road without
significantly altering the Bluff. The large lots were needed to keep gross tree loss at 15%. If
-. the bluff portion of lots are excluded, the net density is 1.3 units per acre with an average lot
size of approximately 35,000 sq. ft. •
I Lf
-4
•
.yf
Staff Report -
Flint Ridge
February 5, 1999
DENSITY CONSIDERATIONS
The-Flint Ridge proposal is similar to the cluster approach since density is being transferred to
preserve the Minnesota River Bluff. The bluff on this property is defined as generally from the
815 contour elevation down to the 100 year floodplain. This area is approximately 8 acres in
size. If a net density of 2.0 units per acre is used, 16 units could be transferred off the bluff.
With 20 units currently proposed on the north side of the realigned Riverview Road, up to 27
units could be developed on the south side for twinhomes or single family. The actual number
of units will be based on City Code, including but not limited to, tree loss, grading, roads, and
an archaeological survey. The result being 8 acres of open space preserved on the bluff.
Preserving the 8 acre bluff, with significant trees and tree mass could be considered a desirable
trade off for cluster housing. However, the City must also consider the impact of density
transfer on the low density single family areas to the north. The density of the RM-6.5 area is
3.3 units per acre as compared to 1.5 units per acre in Belle Oaks to the north.
The site plan review section of the City Code requires a transition where there are differences
in land use, building mass, height, or densities. The proposed buildings are at the minimum rear
yard setback of 20 feet. This is similar to twinhomes next to single family on Falcons Way and
ems.
Fawns Way. In those situations the land was guided for higher density with a PUD approval
for multi-family. •
A full density transfer does not leave enough room adjacent to Bell Oaks to provide an adequate
transition. Relocating three units to the south side of realigned Riverview Road would allow the
northerly buildings to shift an additional 20 feet to the south and allow room for berming and
more plantings.
•
SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT
The site plan shows 20 multi-family units in 9 buildings served by a private loop road.
The density of the project based on the 6 acre site is 3.33 units per acre.
• All buildings meet City Code for setbacks in the RM-6.5 zoning district. Lot size meets City Code
and range between 5,911 sq. ft. and 18,973 sq. ft.,with and average lot size of 11,717 sq. ft.
Each driveway is at least 25 feet from the private road to accommodate vehicle parking consistent
-with City policy.
•
41
Ni
Staff Report Th
Flint Ridge
February 5, 1999
•
A Conservation Easement should be shown over the rear of lots 8 through 14 for preservation of the
existing slope and trees.
SHOREI.AND ORDINANCE
The Shoreland area is defined as a 300 foot distance from the bank of Purgatory Creek and
Minnesota River, or the landward extent of the flood plain, whichever is greater. Development is
proposed outside of this area. Since there are no abutting lots proposed, fill, or tree removal
occurring within the Shoreland area, provisions of the Shoreland ordinance do not apply.
TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT
There are approximately 9,240 diameter inches of significant trees on the 34.83 acre property. A
total of 864 diameter inches are on the multi-family portion of the property. The proposed tree loss
for the multi-family development is 164 diameter inches. This represents a gross tree loss of 1.8%,
and a net tree loss of 19%. Tree replacement is 41 caliper inches.
The average gross tree loss for development within;the City is approximately 30%. Tree loss for
the cluster housing development along the Minnesota River bluff was 15.6%. To remain consistent '
with this development, additional tree loss of up to 13.8%, or 1,276 diameter inches could take place
as part of developing the south side of the property. Based on the tree inventory for the south side,
tree loss will be significantly less with the density transfer approach.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Site drainage will be handled through catch basins directing drainage away from the steep slope
along the northeast corner of the site, including the roof drainage from lots 8 through 14. A
temporary pond is proposed on the south side of the road until developments plans are available for
this portion of the site.
• y
UTILITIES
Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from existing lines within Riverview Road.
•
RIVERVIEW ROAD
The segment of existing Riverview Road between Homeward Ills Road and Purgatory Creek is one
. -of the more deficient residential collector streets within Eden Prairie. From a transportation
perspective, the road may be characterized by narrow lanes, short sight distance, structural failure, -
J
5
Staff Report
Flint Ridge
February 5, 1999
and lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
The Flint Ridge development proposes to reconstruct a portion of Riverview Road on a revised
alignment and to vacate the existing alignment. This proposal may have some advantages over
reconstruction of Riverview Road along its current alignment. The potential benefits may be
summarized as follows:
• The proposed realignment through Flint Ridge will result in a safer series of curves than can
be achieved reconstructing on the existing alignment along the north and east boundaries of
. the property.
• The Flint Ridge proposal dedicates the additional right-of-way required for Riverview Road
reconstruction. Additional right-of-way would need to be acquired for reconstruction along
the current alignment.
• Approximately 25% of the length of Riverview Road between Homeward Hulls Road and
Purgatory Creek will be reconstructed at no cost to the City of other adjoining property
~:} owners.
From an engineering perspective, the revised alignment proposed for Riverview Road through the
Flint Ridge subdivision is an improvement over reconstruction of Riverview Road along its current
alignment.
ARCHITECTURE
The majority.of the units are walkouts. Building materials will consist of stone and face brick fronts
with stucco on the side and rear elevations.
LANDSCAPING
A total of 274 caliper inches of landscaping is required based on total size of all buildings. Together
with the tree replacement of 41 caliper inches, a total of 315 caliper inches is necessary. The plan
provides 392 caliper inches of new landscaping.
STAFF RECOMIVLENDATIONS
L The Planning Commission could recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development
Concept Review,Planned Unit Development District Review,Zoning District Change to the
RM-6.5 Zoning District, Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat based on plans dated
61
; 11- 5
Staff Report
Flint Ridge
February 5, 1999
January 29, 1999, and the following conditions:
1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water runof utility and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water runolZ utility and erosion control plans for
review by the City Engineer.
C. Revise the plans to show a Conservation Easement over the rear portion of
Lots 8 through 14 for preservation of the wooded slope.
2. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer,
Watershed District, and City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees
must be in place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal.
3. Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall: ';'
•
A. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements.
B. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review.
C. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review.
4. The following conditions apply to the development of the property: .
A. Up to 27 units on the south side of realigned Riverview Road.
B. Up to 1,276 diatneter inches of significant tree loss on the south side of
realigned Riverview Road.
C. Bluff and floodplain to be placed in outlot with conservation easements.
D. No grading or development on the bluff.
E. Submit an archaeological survey for property on the south side of realigned
- Riverview Road.
7/
1Li
F
•
Staff Report
Flint Ridge - .
February 5, 1999
•
II. The Planning Commission could recommend approval of a revised plan with three units
shifted to the south side of Riverview Road in order to create a 40 foot setback between the
twinhomes and the single family development to the north. This would allow room for
berining and heavy landscaping to create the transition.
• up to 47 total units
• 17 multi-family units north of Riverview Road
• up to 30 single family or multi-family units south of Riverview Road
• up to 2.0 net site density exclusive of the floodplain with no grading or development
. on the bluff
• 15.6%gross tree loss •
• Bluff and floodplain to be placed in outlot with conservation easements
M. The Planning Commission could recommend approval of a revised plan for single family
homes with grading and development on the Minnesota River bluff.
• up to 31 total units
• up to 9 single family units north of Riverview Road
• up to 22 single family units south of Riverview Road
• up to 1.3 net site density exclusive of the floodplain
• maximum 20%gross tree loss
• conservation easements for tree preservation
Staff recommends alternative II
•
- T 1q-3-
-I
il •
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES �_
February 8,1999
Page 2
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. FLINT RIDGE by Trek Development,Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development .
Concept Review on 34.83 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 6 acres,
Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on.6 acres,Site Plan Review on 6 acres,
.Preliminary Plat of 34.83 acres into 20 lots, 1 outlot,and road right-of-way. Location:
South of Riverview Road at Parker Drive.
Beth Simenstad,Trek Development,representing Wallace Hustad,stated she had worked
with the Hustad's for the past fifteen years. She reviewed the project site plan and
described the location of the proposed units. They are proposing to construct 20 luxury
. townhomes on the northern part of the site. At this time the Hustad's are not proposing to
develop the southern portion of the site, as they intend to build a home there for themselves.
She noted that Riverview Road is and always has been a beautiful country road,but Eden
Prairie is no longer a rural community. She discussed the history of the area and the
development which has occurred on the land along Riverview Road. There have been
approximately fifteen single family subdivisions along the road over the past twenty years.
The road is in dire need of improvement and upgrading. She discussed the history of the
realignment of the roadway and the different stages it has gone through. She discussed the
,- m, assessments which would be placed against the directly benefitting properties if the roadway
'°ti° �� were to be upgraded and realigned as the City proposed. If this road can be realigned so
the Hustad's can develop their property it will offset these assessment costs against other _
homeowners and that portion of the costs for the road which goes through the subject
property would be borne by the Hustads.
The existing roadway is an easement but not dedicated right-of-way. If this easement is
•' vacated it would be divided in half with the northern 33 feet reverting to the properties to
the north and the southern half to the subject property. This would widen the separation
- between the proposed development and the existing homes to the north. She discussed the
landscaping plan and noted the tree loss was minimal with this project. They held a
neighborhood meeting and concern was expressed because these are townhomes which will
be adjacent to single familyhomes but they are proposing a very nice buffer between their
development and Bell Oaks to the north.
She described the units they are proposing to construct,which will range in price from
•, $300,000 to$500,000 depending on the unit. Foote asked if the alignment they are
proposing was similar to the one proposed by the neighbors and Simenstad responded it
was not. She showed the elevations between the proposed development and the existing
single family housing to the north. They will be planting trees on top of the berm to provide
buffering between the development and the adjacent properties.
Kipp reviewed the staff report and described three options which staff has presented to the
- Planning Commission for their review,noting stipulations contained in Item#4. Staff is
. recommending Alternative II which would allow room for additional berming and
I LF
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8,1999
Page 3
landscaping with the stipulations listed in the staff report. This alternative would shift three
units to the southern portion of the site. Foote asked if the Hustads were aware of this and
Kipp responded they had been sent a letter regarding this but staff had not heard from them
regarding this. Habicht asked if they realign the road what would they be saving in
assessments. Gray responded by describing the alignment noting about 20%of the area
=would be reconstructed. The costs would go down as the result of this project but the
exact amounts have not been determined. This is an area where the City has to acquire
additional right-of-way,which would be non-existent through the Hustad property.
Alexander asked about the dimensions of the roadway right-of-way which she understood
would be 60 feet wide and Gray responded that was correct. Dorn commented land •
acquisition costs and construction costs would be about a trade off,and Gray responded
staff had looked at the entire project which would include right-of-way acquisition from the
Hustad property which is the only place they need it: Then they need to determine how
they would asses these costs back by the number of units along the corridor which would
participate equally in the costs of the project. In this case the proponents are proposing to
construct the segment of roadway that goes through the Hustad property and will provide •
the right-of-way. Staff would prefer to work with the project as it is developed so they can
acquire the right-of-way and obtain the alignment they want. Staff is recommending that
the Planning commission look at the project as a whole,but if the project is not done then '`` ';\
the City will have to acquire the right-of-Way.
•
Dom commented he was concerned about the cost to the City if they have to buy the right-
of-way from the Hustads when they could save an estimated$100,000 if the proponents
construct this segment of the roadway. Discussion ensued regarding how the costs would
be assessed or who would have what responsibility for these construction costs for the
roadway. It was noted that if this project moves ahead the roadway would be almost 25%
completed. Gray noted that from an engineering perspective this alignment has more merit
• and it is a better road for safety reasons.
Clinton asked which units staff would recommend moving to the south portion of the site
and Kipp responded two units on the triangle should be moved and one other from the
interior of the project.
•
The Public Hearing was opened.
John Meiners, 10520 Grant Drive,representing a title company, stated he had received a
letter from City Attorney Ric Rosow regarding a special assessment agreement for Bell
Oaks. He asked if this development would result in special assessments against other lots in
Bell Oaks abutting Riverview Road. Rosow responded that without a feasibility study he
could not tell him if they would be assessed or not but there is an assessment agreement
where the property owner agreed to an assessment and waived their right to object. It is a
potential and it is not determined if one would be levied by the City Council.
I .• r-.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8,1999
• __...-• Page 4
Richard Schultek,3415 Lake Jobanna Boulevard,Arden Hills,representing Wooddale
Realty which is a subsidy of Wooddale Builders. He has been involved in selling townhomes in Eden Prairie and this project will be one of the best. He noted the price
range would be between$425,000 and$500,000 and the people who will be purchasing .
these units will be excellent citizens. He showed photos of townhomes they have built in.
Bearpath,Bluffs East,and Shelter Grove which illustrate the type of units they are
• proposing. •
Joe Floyd, 10569 Purdey Road in the Bell Oaks Subdivision,noted that people want to
•
preserve the road as much as possible. He discussed the use of density transfer to
developing properties. He asked the Planning Commission to consider having a portion of
this development face existing Riverview Road by flipping it upside down.
Pete Cesare, 10599 Parker Drive,noted his home is on the corner of Riverview Road and
Parker Drive, and when he purchased his home he expected the road to stay in its present
location. If the roadway is realigned,he will no longer have the separation of the roadway
- between his home and the new development. His view will become the rear of the
townhome units,and he felt this was unfair and he asked the Planning Commission not to
realign the road. He believed the roadway should be maintained in its present location to.
f•_" keep the character of the area intact as much as possible.
Jerry Brill 4827 Queen Avenue South, stated he was an attorney representing Anita and
Tony Philipi who live across the street from this proposed development. The
Comprehensive Guide Plan calls for a density of 2.5 units per acre and to construct this
project it will call for a change to the zoning ordinance. If they change the zoning it will be
inconsistent with the Guide Plan which does not make sense. It would be"spot zoning"
which is not something that is wanted. There is no agreement on the part of the Hustads to
build a single family home on the southern portion of the site. On bluff areas the City has
• had a policy of maintaining two units per acre and this development would be inconsistent
with City policy.
Franzen noted the question was what guarantee there is for how the property to the south
might develop in the future. He described a project which was done in 1986 and noted the
City had a Developers Agreement which put stipulations on that development of the
remaining area and set design standards for the rest of the area. He explained how the
. density transfer works and how it has helped out other developments and staff was not
concerned about the land to the south and how it might develop in the future because it will
have to adhere to the zoning ordinance requirements.
- Chris Dietzin, an attorney with Larkin Hoffman,7900 Xerxes Avenue South, stated he
represented Michael Clark. His client opposes this development because it is inconsistent
with the Guide Plan,and is opposed to the roadway realignment and the economics are
more important to the City than the concerns of the residents. The Comprehensive Plan
supports compatible development between adjacent developments and this parcel should be
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8,1999
Page 5 f
Th
developed as low density. It would be inconsistent with the development in the surrounding
area if it is developed as proposed. He was concerned about losing the character of the
roadway which has existed since the 1930s. They believe there could be less density in the
development without changing the alignment of the roadway. Lack of buffering between
this development and the adjacent residential properties could create problems such as
-erosion along the bluffs and impact the archeological study,which has yet to be completed.
fle requested the City to require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet to address these
concerns prior to approving the project.
Nick Kemp, 9451 Riverview Road, stated he bought his home there because the entire area
was unique and he was concerned that the roadway realignment would ruin the aesthetics of
the area. There were alternatives which could include the wishes of the residents as well as
those of the developer. He described the view from the roadway and noted there may be
another solution which would give them an improved which met safety standards and
preserves the aesthetics of the area. Sandstad noted he appreciated the view down the
Purgatory Creek corridor and asked if there could be an overlook on the northeast corner to
preserve this view. Simestead responded the proponents propose to gift 14 acres to the
City but they have not thought about creating an overlook because this area is heavily
wooded and the trees leaf out in the summer obscuring that view.
Mark Ebel, 10903 Purdey Road,stated they saw the road about 2.5 years ago and moved
from California to live here and plan to stay for the next 35 years. He believed the plan was
focused on.maximizing the value of the land being considered while reducing the value of
adjacent properties. He felt this was being done to the benefit of a small group of people
but not the entire area as a whole. He asked the Planning Commission to continue the
project to allow a better plan to be presented.
Jim Snyder, 10437 Purdey Road, stated he lives adjacent to the area where the townhomes
• would be located and he shared the concerns of the other residents regarding the
environment and strategic concerns. However,he firmly believed the roadway needs to be
upgraded for safety reasons. He was concerned about the numbers of single family homes
that were being built and felt,there may be too many for the future,when residents want to
downsize and live in something other than a single family home.
. Dan Patterson, 8680 Great Waters Alcove, a former Bell Oaks resident,noted he had funds
• tied up in an escrow account towards the assessment agreement. This area has developed
and he learned that once something is built,it is there to stay, at least for our lifetimes. He
requested this plan be continued to allow other plans to be developed. He asked if this
developer does end up constructing part of the roadway,if that would release him from the
assessment agreement. Rosow responded when the special assessment agreement was done
it was done in the vacuum of a lack of understanding of what would be built on the adjacent
land. He did not know the answer to that question until the City Council received a
feasibility study which determines which properties benefit. The purpose of any special
assessment agreement is to ensure that the assessments will be paid and it runs with the
51
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES =-
February 8,1999
Page 6
land,not with the property owner.
Helen Fowler, 10315 Riverview Road, asked about the tree loss and noted they have roots
which hold the bluff area. When•these trees are gone the bluff will become unstable. There
will be storm sewers but this will not be adequate to handle a large storm event. She was
,opposed to the lot size and the density. She stated trees take a long time to grow to a
substantial size,and should be preserved. She asked who would bear the cost of
constructing the road through the Hustad property and Foote responded that they would
pay for the road between both their property lines. Fowler noted her property would not be
developed and it would stay the way it is today. Sandstad commented the project has a
very low tree loss on this site and they are not cutting any trees along the bluff area.
Elliott Cobb, 10509 Purdey Road, stated the proponent had the right to develop their land
but the existing homeowners also have the right to a continuance and continuity to what
already exists in the area. He asked that the plan be continued to allow a better plan to be
devised and requested the City not to rush into anything. The road is a unique road but it is
not a dangerousroad. If the road is changed it will change the neighborhood.
Doug Faust, 10504 Purdey Road, stated he was involved with the neighborhood group to
get information regarding special assessments. He was opposed to the project because the
Guide Plan is not being adhered to and he felt the roadway should not be realigned but left
in its original position. There was a plan put together for the roadway upgrading in 1997.
The road alignment did not change significantly and he understood this would be done as
soon as the upgrading of Pioneer Trail was completed. He did not see the density as adding
any value to the neighborhood.
• Wolfgang Schreder, 10584 Boss Circle, showed the roadway plan developed by the
residents of Bell Oaks who worked with the City for over four years to address all the
• issues and concerns regarding Riverview Road. They had endeavored to come up with the
best plan possible to make the needed improvements while still maintaining the character of
the area. They dealt with issues such as floodplain,retaining walls,trees, etc.to come up
with this plan. They addressed safety issues and environmental issues. He reviewed the
factors which entered into the designing of the roadway. He had spent more than four years
working on this plan and wanted to be sure the Planning Commission was aware of the time
and effort that went into this plan. They deliberately avoided straightening out the curves in
•
the roadway to limit the speed, and they wish to keep the speeds reduced on the road.
Their plan allows the vistas to be enjoyed by everyone,not just the developer and the future
owners of the townhomes. He asked the Planning Commission to adopt the layout of the
roadway plan developed by the residents working with the City so everyone can see what is
intended.
Joseph Swanson, 10425 Purdey Road, stated he has the worst case of erosion in his back
yard right now in the Bell Oaks subdivision, and he felt compelled to notify the Planning
Commission that review and approval by the City does not guarantee a buildable lot. They
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •
February 8,1999
Page 7
have lost thousands of feet of their lot because of improper drainage planning by the
developer and the City. The lot was sold without storm sewer provisions after the dam was-
removed. The water which drains across his lot comes from the Hustad property. He
urged the Planning Commission to carefully review the drainage of the entire area which
could impact not only this development but other areas in the vicinity. He has been working
'with the City to resolve these problems. He wanted assurance from the City that this
development will not exacerbate his situation. If the roadway is moved there will be no way
to access his back yard to allow heavy equipment in to repair his yard.
Lori Swanson, 10425 Purdey Road, stated they have part of their yard in a conservation
easement. She supported the idea of having a scenic overlook on the roadway. This
development was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She was opposed to
moving Riverview Road because it will give definition to the Hustad development. She was
part of the citizens group that worked on the roadway design. She reviewed the
development history of the Hustad property. She believed the density of the proposed
project was too high, and would have negative impacts on the adjacent properties. She
requested the Planning Commission to deny the project and review the letter from the
Department of Natural Resources.
Chris Dahlquist, 10859 Purdey Road, stated they purchased their home in Eden Prairie r.`"
because of the road and the beauty of the area. He was opposed to having multi-family
housing across from his home. He likes his neighborhood the way it is.
Laura Bluml, 10540 West Riverview Drive,stated she lives about a half mile from this
development and she is concerned about this project. She reviewed the variety of housing
-.types that exist along the river bluff and noted she believed the density was too high for
bluff property. They believe the road should be improved but maintained in its existing
location. She appreciated the efforts of the citizens to develop the plan to improve the
• roadway. The beautiful road would be changed forever and natural scenery would be lost if
the roadway is realigned. The trail would be good to have if its possible to construct it.
She would object to any realignment which would transfer the assessments to another
property or increase the footage on which the assessments are based. She described the
traffic,and suggested that a shoulder be made on which to park where people could see the
view without endangering traffic on the roadway.
•
Beth Simenstad clarified that the assessment agreement discussed by the residents of the
Bell Oaks Subdivision had nothing to do with their project. They are only offering to
construct the portion of the roadway which would go through their development site,which
is about 25%. They are within the low density requirements of 2.5 units per acre in the
• Guide Plan. The roadway is dangerous now because there are 500 to 600 homes in this
area and the traffic has increased significantly. They have gone through the process and
have done what is required of them by City Ordinance. The additional access points have
been added by other developments. They could leave the road where it is and they would
still get the same density in their development. She noted they have paid for all the
153
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8,1999
Page 8
roadways in their developments, and not passed those costs on to.the buyers.
Wolf Schreder commented they were not objecting to the development but it has to be done
with care and needs a second look to ensure it will not cause damage to adjacent properties. •
,Clinton commented if the roadway committee's plans are the plan the residents want why
Was it not brought up from the beginning.
Lewis commented that property will always be developed,but she felt the density in the •
proposed plan was too high,and did not enhance the pristine nature of the area. She felt
moving the roadway was not in the best interest of the community. However,the road does
• need to be repaired and the City should take the recommendations of the citizens committee
to heart. The scenic overlook has some merit, and care needs to be taken to preserve the
character of this area. The developer needs to lower the density and redistribute it to make
it more in keeping with the surrounding area. She noted that any bluff lots should have the
lowest density.
Habicht did not think the housing units would detract from the area. He had a problem with
the density transfer and realized it was to favor the bluffs. He did not feel that the road
should be moved because it would make the density a bigger issue. He believed the highest
density should be located in the center of the site with lower density surrounding it. He was
not inclined to move the road.
Sandstad felt the density transfer was reasonable from his point of view. We have a poor
transition and buffer to the north which needs to be addressed. He asked if the proponent
would consider a continuance to reevaluate keeping the roadway in place. He appreciated
their generosity in offering to pay for the portion of the roadway which would be on their
property.
Dom stated he has been on the site and was not sure that these units were right for this area
even though they were beautiful homes. He did not feel the roadway alignment should be
changed. He was concemed'bout what would happen to the southern portion of the land
when this area was sold and developed. He was concerned that the density transfer may not
be adhered to in the future when most of the buildable land in Eden Prairie was gone.
Alexander did not support the density as proposed and was not in favor of moving the road.
She felt the character of the area should be preserved, and noted that no affordable housing
was being built in Eden Prairie and these homes were too expensive. She noted erosion
exists in the vicinity of this project and this issue should be addressed. She felt the plans
should be revised.
Clinton felt the roadway should be improved but not moved. He did not have a problem
with the density as these townhomes will be used by people who no longer want to live in
big single family houses. He believed this property was being developed with this in mind.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 8, 1999 ,1y
Page 9
Foote appreciated the comments from the residents,and concurred the road should be
upgraded but left in its original location, with possible minor modifications for safety. If
single family homes are constructed they will destroy a lot of the bluff area. He supported
density transfer but would like to see the density spread out more. He noted townhomes
are needed in Eden Prairie.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton,to continue Flint Ridge to the March 8,
1999 agenda with direction to the developer to improve transition and buffering to the
north,leave Riverview Road in its original location but improve it, preserve the bluff area,
and retain the density transfer to give incentive to keep the land to the north left over from
the roadway as open space. Motion carried 7-0.
•
•
155
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott A.Kipp, Senior Planner
• DATE: May 7, 1999
• SUBJECT: Flint Ridge-1999
APPLICANT: Trek Development
FEE OWNER: Wallace Hustad
LOCATION: South of Riverview Road at Parker Drive
„v.
REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 34.83 acres. •
2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on. 34.83
• acres.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on.7.3 acres, and from
•!.;4:1,:•)• •
Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.5 acres.
• 4. Preliminary Plat of 34.83 acres into 47 lots,2 outlots, and road right-
of-way.
•
• ,/ •
-
- - •
•
5
-
1 4 ,,,,F5,-• ;4\ 1-X.-.2 .74.• -.4 . r:',.. - ' itgri 47 -, ...I .
•
•+ t14 . <� W i yI r 7 ■if, • ll» 1`I.r�i MI on Gft txt a��t2i}at tu,- r"d
?` • N♦ t't»' cur ` `��` "r FIU „ 1 1 14
"9
tn,
• '' ••-r. q.•-" 3,• j I241 I29 (223 1213 �l,2 t1) iCr f
12:aca(27) I211 =: �
• wr. "���'T •]X►• " NW on c - Ial r �` ••.v ul 3ffg1: n' I t101 (27) r s.l : ..
' t2q xti.- (If . Cl') . 31FF,� ' �] • a- (I21■1 r
at
y,•� �'� Alf • •:,
"•X till to I.
•' 1 •n aRf (771 r
# .tCi• r' • t71 7 a , ban.• ? 1, (2» r • .. ,,
..".• qy_ D� tp (» ^� glikt •f` ,,; �,• �� r �1st1 pit•
2•/ ...`•MY•M •'S • +.. - .•r•y:A Yr�1 71 (2) `'arpi) ar f2A �' (11
•O.tXt '�' ><M .■ •.1 Y•+-rT_� w , 41 ”.• • y t7l �f77) 6 t)
il I60) `1.
• tit y r �t • J •
MI
' tiny. ,S ••....1 i+...-- 1 - . (A -a - (W ••' pil
1;-)..
4 .(� >r (231' ss, 4 pl• = fu1 (2q - tsA
.-r�■-'.` s•1 1. .s.��.e•• Y • '. rry `I - r •'•••,rii r? - cot• • .-
as
to
Asa.
+�
Zt q I +ono 1 .. 4„I - (21 • (2e1 2' 1 din
He� ;� ���+`-, (.iJ�•- -•(4)1, '1) • �`
i c y. • (I 4 • (2$) (201 `■ - a"9• •nta a 44 ,�fD7l ;s4♦�. limn
•
31
4 .wjL�•ta.' ? lift \'cF'> t21) f;' rya +gyp.+ �' •-wrier.(;I) ' z.• '^iJ,'•�
f 91 =U0) '.f211 t O �') . n 3 Ur) es. •:,` i llrl a •
(N) to a'•:: • (2A ..e,.•.pw w Ni. S Ill 2 • ? .. 1 -lj'1]t,
;r.a I .s• •7 dins • sr. e .{ii(271 U21r..,.a. ,•u a ` .a L. Itll .' .'?fAI ) -
r '?I1RC v .. 3 I: I I231 p'. ' F • um• ., , _ - + �•� trA," �yd _ 2mf
♦ • (12) • I. 54.•• •7•Y to w '•4 (l) oc..' ' Q • .
•..• .'•'1 -(�.,,, f
1 a 1 1� 177••�. pt r • •Y• ••A. f3a7q • p 2 • G .• CM
t c.) a s.. � +
a AWN y ♦ 3,r 4,7, •• ^•
(f) tea) a 1. u far) • w •
r 1c�'' 7r; ?s '".. ,w ++r•1;.' f7, x -° r • 'ir.. •.' i a ; „ : '
ilkFX'. �'. it y v ,t,Jj fAl } •a-n df ! , tf]I "'� - (t0
1 l:A t6) (`"a '1711 V ;.' • •
1 •
r /1 1• v2,t�, •(•O)
+1•., ..O..1..,, /A(31"� `>••»�tat� • N) - '(' f» tlu q w�d��,61 ' �°�
fcm s,,.-4,,�•_� ° `a•'• • ,n v •y •l_.�"•y I l on
tar
�•� �:Cx/A:a.? `ADOM •.a{ 1 t2rATti r17. : • •1 1` , ' ;
ar 1•I• .�
r
L r •• _,a I • • 1 • 'AlV ✓2 r;� • 1 •
t1 q•r 7; (13) - • • M •
•
• 42:4
4r I2A �� •r .�
•
OOP , } �fr) ! • ,•;,.. ....
• ;
a' 22atw { 1
•,.r.• fix;.ti ` . ! I J a -- 2
MI
••' f» �f •. �b
w •
• y
I •
�•
•.
• ter^-•• -----.-. my
•
24
# j • --ar7
•
,rx • • • , CREEK -
• +iE B • •-—•---• ..
t•�, .. • . £.fir • p) •• 104:-• i - .
(41
CAUSAL • ••
h0i0 1967J • • ♦ i-
_� '■--- ---
i.1T' ; r
Staff Report-Flint Ridge-1999
May 7,1999
BACKGROUND
In February of 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed a plan for Flint Ridge for 20 multi-family
units on six acres located to the northeast of a realigned Riverview Road and an outlot for future
development. The Planning Commission voted to continued the project and directed the developer
to revise the plans as follows:
1. Create a better transition and buffering of the multi-family units to the single-family homes to the
north.
•
2. Leave Riverview Road in the location recommended by the Riverview Road Committee.
' 3. Preserve the Minnesota River bluff using density transfer.
•
4. Preserve the Purgatory Creek bluff area northeast of Riverview Road using density transfer.
At a March Planning Commission meeting the developer withdrew the project. The Planning
Commission voted to close the public hearing and return the plans to the developer.
SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT
The current plan is to develop 47 total housing units(22 twinhome units and 25 single-family units),
while preserving the bluff areas of the Minnesota River and Purgatory Creek. The right of way
alignment for a future upgraded Riverview Road follows the recommendation of the Riverview Road
Committee.
The site is guided low density residential for up to 2.5 units per gross acre. The project has a net
density(less the 100-year floodplain)of 2.0 units per acre. The single family homes and twin homes
are clustered,through the use of density transfer,to preserve 9 acres of significant trees and tree mass
along the Minnesota River and Purgatory Creek. The Minnesota River bluff area (below the 815
contour to the 100-year floodplain)is approximately eight acres in size. The Purgatory Creek bluff
area is approximately one acre.At a net density of 2.0 units per net acre, 18 units are transferred.
All twinhome units are adjacent to Riverview Read, or are internal to the development. Single-family
homes are adjacent to properties to the east and west that are currently guided low density residential.
All lots meet City Code for size for the RM-6.5 and R1-9.5 districts,with an average lot size of 8,300
square feet for the twinhome units,and 13,570 square feet for the single-family units.
15 -
Staff Report-Flint Ridge-1999 }r"\
May 7, 1999
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS
The City uses planned unit developments as a tool to preserve desirable areas of natural open space.
By using density transfer to cluster housing and granting waivers to the developer,the City benefits
by preserving 9 acres of the Minnesota River bluff and Purgatory Creek bluff areas. Density transfer
also helps preserve 94.1%of the significant trees or 8,841 diameter inches.
The following waivers are necessary for the project and may have merit for the above reasons:
1. Front yard structure setback of 25 feet. Code requires 30 feet.
Lots 1-14, 17, 21-28, 31,Block 1, and Lots 1-14,Block 2.
2. Lot frontage less than.70 feet(90 feet for corner lots)in the R1-9.5 district.
Lots 15-22, 26-29, 33,'Block 1, and Lots 1 and 2,Block 2. .
3. Zero lot line setback for driveways. Code requires 3 feet.
Lots 18-20,Block 1. ti''''"
A Conservation Easement should be shown over Outlots A and B for preservation of the existing
slope and trees.
• ARCHAEOLOGY STUDY
The archaeology study for this property indicates no areas of potential signfficants would be impacted
by the proposed homes and roads. There is a trail with historic potential, a storm water outlet, and
NURP pond just above the floodplain. These areas may contain significant archaeological deposits
and warrants closer examination.prior p City Council review.
SHORELAND ORDINANCE
The Shoreland area is defined as a 300-foot distance from the bank of Purgatory Creek and
• Minnesota River, or the landward extent of the flood plain, whichever is greater. Development is
- - proposed outside of this area. Since there are no abutting lots proposed, fill, or tree removal
occurring within the Shoreland area,provisions of the Shoreland ordinance do not apply.
•
tom,
•
1
•
Staff Report-Flint Ridge-1999
• May 7, 1999
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
There are approximately 9,400 diameter inches of significant trees on the 34.83 acre property. The
proposed tree loss is 559 diameter inches. This represents a tree loss of 5.9%, and is significantly
below the--average tree loss of 30% for residential developments and the 20% average for other
Minnesota River bluff developments. Tree replacement is 44 caliper inches, and is included in the
landscaping plan.
Site drainage will be handled through a series of catch basins, including all rear yard drainage along
the top of the bluff, and directed to a NURP pond proposed at the base of the bluff.
UTILITIES
Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from existing lines within Riverview Road.
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN
The City's Comprehensive Trail Plan shows a future trail along the Minnesota River and Purgatory
€ :?ai Creek. To accommodate the future trail,the developer should provide a 150-foot wide outlot along
the most southerly portion of the plat along the Minnesota River. In addition, a 20-foot wide trail
easement should be provided generally along the north side of Purgatory Creek from the Minnesota
River.
RIVERVIEW ROAD
•
The proposal has been designed to work with the road alignment recommended by the Riverview
Road Committee. The road improvement is not part of the development.
ARCHITECTURE
•
The majority of the units are walkouts. 'Budding materials will consist of stone and face brick fronts
with stucco on the side and rear elevations.
LANDSCAPING
•
- A total of 300 caliper inches of landscaping are required for the twinhomes. Tree replacement is 44
caliper inches. The landscape plan provides 416 caliper inches. A row of evergreens,maple trees,
and a wrought iron fence is proposed along Riverview Road.
f
Staff Report-Flint Ridge-1999
May 7, 1999
CONCLUSION •
The development proposal is consistent with the previous direction given by the Planning Commission
in the following ways:
1. The plan provides a transition to the single-family development to the north and land.guided low
density residential to the east and west. All twinhome units back up to Riverview Road, or are
internal to the development. Single-family homes are adjacent to properties to the east and west.
2. Riverview Road is proposed consistent with the alignment recommended by the Riverview Road
Committee.
3. Density transfer preserves the Minnesota River bluff and Purgatory Creek bluff areas. The
preservation of land and trees are a tradeoff for the PUD waivers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 34.83 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 34.83 acres, Zoning District Change from
Rural to RM-6.5 on 7.3 acres, and from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 34.83 \
acres into 47 lots, 2 outlots and road right of way, based on plans dated April 20, 1999, and May 7,
1999 and the following conditions:
1. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall submit additional archaeology
information relating to the area from the top of the bluff down to the flood plain.
•
2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for
review by the City Engineer.
• C. Revise the plans to show a Conservation Easement over Outlots A and B for
preservation purposes •
3. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer,
• Watershed District,and City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees
must be in place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal.
I61
Staff Report-Flint Ridge-1999
May 7,1999
4. Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall.
A. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements.
B. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review.
C. Submit a landscaping bond for review.
D. Pay the Cash Park fee.
5. The following waivers are approved through the PUD for the property:
A. Front yard structure setback of 25 feet. Code requires 30 feet.
Lots 1-14, 17, 21-28, 31,Block 1, and Lots 1-14,Block 2.
B. Lot frontage less than 70 feet(90 feet for corner lots)in the R1-9.5 district.
Lots 15-22,26-29, 33,Block 1, and Lots 1 and 2,Block 2.
C. Zero lot line setback for driveways. Code requires 3 feet.
• Lots 18-20,Block 1.
•
f f
F
l -
1
APPROVED MINUTES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
SSION
MONDAY,MAY 10, 1999 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton,Randy Foote,Bill Habicht,
• Rebecca Lewis,Douglas Sandstad
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D.Franzen, City Planner;Krista Flemming,
Planner I;and Judith Kunz, City Recorder
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL
•
Chair Foote called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
IL • APPROVAL OF AGENDA •
MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Clinton to approve the Agenda as published. Motion
carried 5-0.
•
HI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Habicht,to approve the Minutes of the April 26, 1999
Planning Commission as submitted. Motion carried 5-0.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR MAY 10, 1999
•
A. FLINT RIDGE by Trek Development Inc.
•
City Planner Franzen reviewed the history of the previous proposal and asked the developer to
present the new revised proposal.
Beth Simonsted, Trek Developmen ,informed the Planning Commission that they had been meeting
with the neighbors and the revised plan includes changes requested by the surrounding property
owners;including realignment of the river View Road. The density is approximately two units per
acre and less than half of the property will actually be developed to preserve the bluff, provide open
•
space,and preserve the scenic buffer. Simonsted indicated the tree loss is less than.6 per cent. The
exteriors will be primarily of brick and stucco;.townhomes selling in the range of$350-$450,000
and the single family homes in the range of$450-$650,000. The landscaping plan shows a dense
buffer and boulevard trees on each property.
Habicht asked about Outlot B. Simonsted responded that Outlot A, creek bluff area is combined
with Outlot B resulting in.gifting back to the city of approximately eight acres.
Sandstad asked about the storm sewer installation down the bluff stating concern. Simonsted
J r
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
City of Eden Prairie
May 10,1999
Page 2
stated they are relying on the expertise of the City Engineer and the Watershed District, indicating
both have asked for the least impact of the installation.
Franzen stated the staff recommends approval with the stipulations outlined in the staff report and
granting of the variances to cluster as much of the project as possible to preserve the bluff. He
reminded the Commissioners that at the previous public hearing,the Commission members had
requested preservation of the bluff area when the plan was revised.
Sharon Walgren,Larkin Hoffman,representing T. Michael Clark,property owner in the area stated
her client was in favor of development of the property for housing but had the following concerns:
density of this type conflicts with the Guide Plan;density transfer which permits higher density;and
compatibility with the surrounding area which is much less dense. Walgren,on behalf of her client,
urged the Planning Commission not to grant the density transfer. Walgren referenced a letter sent
to the Planning Commission and staff;also requesting ail EAW be done.
Franzen responded to the statements of Walgren as follows: it seemed that they were confusing the
zoning ordinance with the land use plan by referring to the number of units per acre not the type.
He stated the bluff is developable because the flood plain is greater than 300 feet from the bluff,
therefore, in this proposal it does not apply. Regarding compatibility,there are no triplexes on the,-;.:....
site so plan review is not required. Regarding the'density transfer,historically the city has for 20 \ ;;
years done density transfers. Regarding the EAW, 47 units does not trip requirements for and
EAW. The EAW requirements are for in excess of 275 single-family units or 375 attached units.
Joseph Swanson, ,thanked the Planning
Commission for actions taken at the last public hearing. He stated big concerns about erosion and
• drainage. In his back yard,he loses more land each time it rains and it has caused a 50-foot deep
canyon around the two-foot drainpipe. He stated the 45-foot dike was removed because of city
requirements. He stated concern because there appears to be no provision for improving the road
and protecting his property. He asked what was going to happen to his backyard and how much of
the drainage north of the road will this plan take care of. He asked the Planning Commission to
correct mistakes of the past.
John Mc , ,moved to this area five months ago.
He stated this proposal does not seem compatible with the existing houses. It shows smaller lots
and believes it will negatively impact the neighborhood.
Helen Fowler, , appeared with several clarification
questions. The Planning Commission and City Planner clarified the terminology. She stated her-
opposition to this plan because of the townhouses not fitting in with the neighborhood. She
encouraged the Commission to keep the value up for the present property owners.
Wolf Schroeder, 10584 Boss Circle?,thanked the developer and Planning Commission for taking --'
into account River Road and Purgatory Creek. He encouraged the Commission to take the
15
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
-- City of Eden Prairie
May 10, 1999
Page 3
flooding issues seriously. He stated opposition to density transfer because it is not reasonable. He
would prefer that variances not be granted. He reminded the Commission that this is the last area
to develop in this nei'hborhood.
Laura Bloom, , stated appreciation of preserving River View Road.
She stated concern with too small sideyard setbacks of 15 feet. She suggested additional screening
for the trail on the west side of the river and good screening on the north side. She stated a
concern about density transfer.
Bill Hall?, 10796 Purdy Road,U of M Architecture , stated no problem with
. the Trek Development track record but stated concern with this proposal. It's out of character
with the surrounding developments.
Bill?Pentel, 11027 Bell Oaks Estate Road,representing Bell Oaks neighborhood stated they were
all opposed to the character of this development. Bell Oaks is not against development but this is a
desecration of beautiful property. He stated concern with traffic generating more than 200
additional cars a day.
John Mayler, 10461 Purdy Road, moved here six months ago because of what the area offered. He
a is opposed to this development.
Carol Smith, 11093 , stated opposition to the density. She asked the
Commission to respect the land and beauty and resources of the area. She stated concern about the
erosion on the south end of the development.
Mark Wagner, 10636 Purdy Road?, asked why the bluff area is not being considered for
development to the reduce the density. He has taken a financial risk to live in this area and asked if
this proposal would put his investment in jeopardy.
Tony Fillipe, 10300 River road, showed an aerial photo of the area from 1945; another one from
the fall of 1996; and an overlay of the proposal.
Sally Hall, 10796 Purdy road, asked the Planning Commission what their vision is for Eden Prairie.
Hall also asked why zoning changes are granted.
Anita Fillipe, , stated her concern with density transfer because the land
that is gifted is not available to the residents of Eden Prairie—only to those that live in the
development.
Franzen stated that density transfer is discretionary on the part of the city depending upon the
proposal; and again reminded the Commission that at the last proposal they gave staff and the
developer direction to preserve the bluff area.
• L Y
t
PLANNING COMNIISSION MINUTES -
City of Eden Prairie
May 10, 1999
Page 4
Will,Schroeder, Bell Oaks,encouraged the Commission to walk the bluffs,
stating it is not buildable and future liability will fall back on the city.
Steve ,builder showed photos of the homes potentially to be built in this project.
•
The Commissioners discussed the density issues, density transfer issues,the sideyard setback issue,
and the townhome compatibility issue. The Commissioners agreed that it was important to strike a
balance between preserving the bluff and compatibility with the surrounding area. Sandstad stated
his opposition to continuing this item again when all four issues that were raised in February have
been addressed and resolved. The Planning Commission asked the developer if they would be
willing to come back with another plan. Simonsted indicated they would be willing to work again
with the staff to resolve further issues raised by the neighbors. The Commissioners agreed to be
more specific based on the testimony received at this meeting. Sandstad stated his opposition to
the continuance. -
MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Lewis to continue this item to the Planning Commission
meeting of June 14, 1999. Motion carried 4-1 with Sandstad voting no.
Chair Foote informed the residences there would be no further notices sent regarding the June 14
continuance.
•
- y
•
•
•
tiMr,
>:
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
•
FROM: Michael D.Franzen, City Planner
• Scott A.Kipp, Senior Planner
DATE: ' June 11, 1999
SUBJECT: Flint Ridge .
APPLICANT: Trek Development
FEE OWNER: Wallace Hustad
LOCATION: South of Riverview Road at ParkelDrive
. REQUEST: 1. s Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 34.83 acres.
• 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 34.83
acres.
3. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 7.3 acres, and from
Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.5 acres.
4. Preliminary Plat of 34.83 acres into 47 lots, 2 outlot, and road right-
. • of-way.
•
•/
•
•
42
111' 1.
_� �� -�� 1t i� ....Ma�� M ie yISiY_a�w •a,Lr'2t an
71(ul d : +� • .y � • � ,.-3i
h } �• i t �• 'v � [i9 Iul ltil t1e1'1• t2o1; „ -tu 1 (I71 g (7a}� (In (xi on till�tZl7ir,
4.. ,.„-...--(.1.
'. _- ys tttl * � � { f 'E FH.1A1C0
+ • S '' $ (2+) al. t22)• I2t);1,c pl a_ '•2:za(b) • t2!) .I�
14
'�3. cam e •
a �s - k T ul y •
1: a 3 •! •: .n„)a•laia .7 ) ��.,%, (all - teal f v ink:
' IWI an M 1 s `
Iifl 'M1.' p) r 3UfF•■ _ cI t (1)1, n Y: c t`.t•1 "s 2 f
.. .. r - - (A. - ni ..��:x(Itl a>, • r ' . ••.i Ialt r.
�i. 1R t 1 ' Sa • _ce, r"`a (2It .�+r _:ti =t
*^ y ' t t a. J •�lJq a _
,;.�'�• m Jt (a1 (� (+) "'111 ITk� Ry 'a tea- .r , (7)1
•t / ,• � +Y^..-- - . !"�'^� ...•. rt 1.. k
(21 �'rl`.•6! + .3U31 7,1 - (i
...,._.,. 's ..
. ISM a ` .' -• sf�11►� J
i4' (aal `� (1I Y•"7. -- u 7:14:24:3
."'../ .1 ''' • 4/ 4S.... s• &WI _ (fit) :ri;.-A° pnI. ,� ` __ i -'`,____ 1•
1 i 1. (+71j •I•
=�'tini 4 . a (�) �,` cut11
R (III ." M
• rt Us f i.%,,• .•s', N. rta �� - 1 •'•'•"rit 7 2 ��a71t�7
•:. 1•1.14y'�'*: (�1`� • ' w a .UI .�,•• (+)1 • 77..,(4::.‘..
" •
.21:
ililza• '`� ▪ • • ¢aItst (N) n aa 4, :(+t1 v a r`
a.e :s'' t111 (2q (2R) n • se,..
1M•n• •f )� #yt* •t Kum
.i• 7 .Y t 9 t Ita) j tk (711 ih �" do,4cst
y .1.rt 2 I211 ' pi-+• CA t.. ,rd +. • III) '.,.._. `�?: '••. tLST�a
t eal ;�(1a) t: \�•.•�•, ' (II) (2n '; .•c.:.„. '7y- .'. a: Ue1 p •qjJ� •t •'''• - (A) 1 int(64
>..a » vim y ;.{.1 OLiS ^a(27t (22) •'z r'•4• ,„ �1 a tttt t� 1 _ , w.
' •pl)R^• ▪ ..I211 • . a 1f201 ..• ± ,xix •xn Ifa) p,s Y ,`. - '4, . J \,- $ 4j,
t. •� •7 / •, �'(+A •..� ;: ../. _F .. _• ••'•• - •i Ly'Y '(1I) f taa it;1.`/' (I0 1fi4•14) -(,:22
fill a/ • 'S.•. 7�� 1..0-••at. rw; i 1 - 11 • 4t' 'xi,•. q .. - ,, '7 l
t 7 . (niv„ to tt:Ia"I av _Fps.? r..:� 7 f 7 tb �i• t
(SIIt3 CH) xtr... ',y,. h� (II)+ •�%7tl' (t1 •.1• (,) ,ate to)•,..!?.
�• •.i••4114, �1 t77) ;ai.". _�V�� -•
• '�a. 5 '• ... ? r • •
•..• o• 1 ya .. !fat •.
a,- 1 1 MP 't 71 ,"4•- ; : x •• ,F•• -,A;• : •a•
t • ,,r._ - I la d , 1 7 \d
xiFW` a• . •J K''•�3" r as!Ir`` t�l• ! •
` 1 Iatllat'�. -". , (:A a:�'r' 1 (sal lal
ctS • 7 7
t (.A rot (n1 `aIG (L)� '7 3'_ . . f �•',,qq n1. . sr `(W) I
•1_�, bat`�'t`r.. r •ixi f („ J'("?'"74 t� , tom) 7' !sl ttl) +J6/1{/�'► i (�+°� •..�.. -s
,r.jil.s .,• . . SS S^0 •.•... 1 r
:� ... _- Y.....7.
�- ► tit , tyaa iirsri 17a• - • N. •
' ' yaw I ..•••..� `'r
Ye A- a •
Jay tt • 1 k n ' • a aW s.k
3 , 1
(a 4 S 1.�,. •..... vn. • • `
(t'l ,rr'2 Jill It)
t�,� 5 \
MR. 1E
na- I01 •
r .
1
it t
1 4
•
e.
• l�1q_ ` \ • •. _ a `s ` .-r' pc
'_
•
Staff Report-Flint Ridge
- June 11, 1999
BACKGROUND
This project was first reviewed at the February 8, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. The
Commission continued the project for the developer to address multi-family density and transition
from the existing single-family to the north,the relocation of Riverview road, and protection of the
bluff. The proponent withdrew the project.
A new project was reviewed at the May 10, 1999, Planning Commission meeting which relocated
Riverview Road, provided a tr nsition to the single-family to the north, protected the bluff and
provided a mix of single-family and multi-family units. The Commission continued the project for
the developer to address the overall density of the project, and remove the multi-family housing.
The new concept plan shows a R1-13.5 single-family development with lots proposed on the bluff.
The proponent is requesting that the Planning Commission endorse the concept plan so they may
return to the Planning Commission with detailed plans for review and approval.
CONCEPT PLAN
1ry,y
,01 The two approaches that have been used for development along the Minnesota River bluff are:
1. Larger lot single-family with homes built on the bluff.
2. Smaller lot cluster housing with density transfer to protect the bluff.
Based on the feedback from the neighborhood and Planning Commission,the proponent is proposing
the larger lot approach.
The concept plan shows 38 single-f.mily lots on the 34.83 acres at a gross density of•1.09 units per
acre,and a net density(less the 100-year floodplain)of 1.6 units per acre. Approved densities along
the Minnesota River bluff range between 1.33 units per acre and 1.5 units per acre.
The lots vary between 13,500 square feet and 82,300 square feet, with an average lot size of 21,100
square feet. There are 10 lots proposed partially, or completely, on the bluff.
•
• The plan depends upon waivers to the City Code for lot frontage and structure setbacks.
Riverview Road has been shifted to the south to accommodate three lots at the northeast corner of
the property. At a previous meeting,the Planning Commission recommended that Riverview Road
remain in the alignment as recommended by the Riverview Road committee.
ti -
•
Staff Report-Flint Ridge _ f )
June 11,1999 Y
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the concept plan dated June 7, 1999, with the following
revisions:,
A. Meet City Code requirements for the R1-13.5 Zoning District.
B. Do not exceed 20% significant tree loss (the average for bluff developments).
C. Avoid impacts on any documented archeological features.
D. Meet Fire Marshal requirements.
E. Provide stormwater handling to NURP standards.
The Planning Commission should recommend that the project be continued to the July 12, 1999,
Planning Commission meeting, directing the developer to prepare detailed plans based on the
recommendations of the Staff Report.
•
.?y
3
r 1
PLANNING COMMESSIONMINUTES
City of Eden Prairie
June 14, 1999
Page 6
F. FLINT RIDGE by Trek Development,Inc. (continued from 5/10/99)
Beth Simonsted,representing Trek Development,presented a revised concept plan for 38 single-
family lots, and requested approval of the plan so they can develop detailed plans and return to the
Planning Commission on July 26, 1999.
Kipp stated staff recommends approval of the concept and continuance based on the specific
recommendations listed in the June 11, 1999 StaffReport.
Joe Swanson, 10425 Purdy Road, addressed his concerns about the drainage problem on his and his
neighbor's property. He told the Commission that the house next to his is now vacant because the
owner cannot sell the house because of the water/drainage problems. He stated concern with safety
issues of the entrance of the proposal. HO asked what assurances he has that his neighbor's house
and his backyard doesn't go down the hihbecause of the increased drainage problems. He asked
how much fill would be.needed for this proposed development. He asked the Commission to look
closely at the setbacks and determine if they are adequate.
'- Peter Coyle, of Larkin, Hoffman law firm,representing Mille Clark, owner of the neighboring
property, stated concerns with zoning and PUD actions. He stated appreciation of the Planning
Commission for the review process they are using for this site.
Helen Fowler, 10315 Riverview Road, appeared stating her concern that the density is still too
high. She asked why the road change was still in the proposal when she thought that was decided at
a previous meeting not to be done. She asked what the development will do the natural
environment and wildlife. She asked if the ravine is filled in,will she end up with a wall of dirt?
She stated concern about drainage.
Kipp stated the details of the proposal will be submitted for an upcoming Planning Commission
meeting and that tonight the developer is asking only for concept approval. He stated all lots will
meet the required setbacks. •
Ms. Fowler asked if the Planning Commission received a letter from her engineer. They indicated
they had not yet but would look for it. She again stated her unhappiness about changing the road.
_ Bill Hall, 10796 Purdy Road, stated that he is the original owner of his home of 8 years. He stated
concern that the project is too dense and asked that the Commission protect the neighborhood.
•
- Chuck Bond, 11068 Bell Oaks Estates Road, stated he is not in agreement with the proposal and
that 20-25 homes would be better. He stated concern with the road change, safety because of
additional traffic, values of these homes being consistent with the existing homes, and the wildlife.
Scott Addyman, 10449 Purdy Road, asked the Commission not to change the road and stated his
17R
f �
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
City of Eden Prairie
June 14, 1999
Page 7
concern that the density is too high. He also asked why the City doesn't take care of the problem
at Mr. Swanson's home before they continue with further development in the area.
Wolfgang Schroeder, 10584 Boss Circle, asked that the road be preserved and stated concern with
budding on the north side to save the road.
Mark Ebel, 10903 Purdy Road, asked for a successful development but is concerned about the road
being moved.
Anita Pbillippi, 10300 Riverview Road, asked if the community could receive some benefit from
this development, e.g.,the vista. She asked the Commission to leave the road where it is.
Laurel Blummel, 10545 Riverview Road, asked the benefit of gifting property at the bottom of the
bluff when no one monitors it or provides safety features such as trails to it.
Habicht stated the property should be developed without waivers. He would be in favor of not
moving the road and building over the hill.
Lewis stated her concern with Mr. Swanson's water/drainage problems and hopes for resolution
but advised that the Planning Commission is not the right city body to address the problem. She `%1
sees the developer making headway on the density issue and would also like to see the development
without waivers.
Alexander would like to see the road remain where it is and agrees with Commissioner's Sandstad's
comment at the last meeting, to have a viewing area and not to build on the north side of the road.
She stated her disappointment that the erosion problem on.Mr. Swanson's property has not been
taken care of. She also stated that the road should not be moved or built on the north side. She
agrees with the proposed density.
•
Franzen stated the project will need waivers for the private drives accessing the bluff lots, which is
consistent with other bluff developments. The Commission agreed.
MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Lewis to continue the public hearing to the July 26, 1999
meeting with the direction that the developer prepare detailed plans based on the following
conditions:
A. Meet City Code requirements for the R1-13.5 Zoning District.
B. Do not exceed 20% significant tree loss (the average for bluff developments).
C. Avoid impacts on any documented archeological features.
D. Meet Fire Marshal requirements. -f
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
City of Eden Prairie
_ . June 14, 1999
Page 8
E. Provide stormwater handling to NURP standards.
F. Leave River Road generally in its current alignment.
G. -I4e attentive to public comments made at tonight's hearing especially with regard to density.
Motion carried 4-0.
Chair Foote stated no new notices would be sent regarding the continuance.
-.7
•
I.1
Westwood Professional Services,Inc
PLANNING - ENGINEERING - SURVEYING
August 21,2002
7599 Anagram Drive
Eden Praire,MN 55344
Phone:952-937-5150
Fasc 952-937-5822
Toll free:1-888-937-5150
E-mail:wps@westwoodps.com
TWIN CITIES/METRO
ST.CLOUD
Mr.Scott Kipp
City of Eden Prairie BRAINERD
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230
Re: River View Ref 2001-1129
Dear Scott:
On behalf of Wooddale Builders,we formally request the ability to start grading prior to the 2"d reading at City
Council. We understand that we will need Watershed and Staff approval to begin grading.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WESTWOOD PROFS NAL SERVICES,INC. : 1 [ ( Vi �N t
id P!_ANN!NG ohi-i
Li
Dwight Jell ,P. . q.
Principal 5,,� 1 'Y O-
Copy: Steve Schwieters,Wooddale Builders - "�� 1 RI.E
I"7 5 Desf;n:ng the Future Tcda; n<-e 1972
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE:
SECTION: Payment of Claims Sept.3,2002
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Community Development and Payment of Claims
Financial Services/Don Uram
Requested Action
Move to: Approve the Payment of Claims as submitted(roll call vote)
Synopsis
Checks 112800-113120
Wire Transfers 1592-1598
Background Information
Attachments
176
City of Eden Prairie
Council Check Summary
9/3/2002
Division Amount
General 248,483
101 Legislative 2,436
102 Legal Counsel 19,937
104 Contingency 2,466
110 City Clerk 7
111 Customer Service 1,963
112 Human Resources 192
113 Communication Services 149
114 Benefits&Training 53,449
116 Facilities 8,180
117 City Center 655
130 Assessing 250
133 Community Development 282
135 Information Technology 49,475
136 Wireless Communication 1,213
150 Park Administration 3,049
151 Park Maintenance 43,302
153 Athletic Programs 7,703
154 Community Center 18,006
155 Beaches 121
156 Youth Programs 15,908
157 Special Events 128
158 Senior Center 3,854
160 Adaptive Recreation 1,058
161 Oak Point Pool 228
162 Arts 4,907
163 Park Facilities 1,325
180 Police 29,964
181 Telecommunicators 30
182 Police Administration 200
183 Civil Defense 63
184 Fire 4,007
185 Animal Control 523
186 Inspections 28
200 Engineering 265
201 Street Maintenance 23,798
202 Street Lighting 74,401
203 Fleet Services 26,844
303 Cemetary Operation 8
304 Senior Awareness Fund 6
308 E-911 1,466
311 Grant Fund 114
314 Liquor Compliance 409
402 2nd Sheet of Ice 1992A 270
503 Utility Improvement 3,612
505 Utility Reserve 18,960
506 Improvment Bonds 1996 2,114
507 Construction Fund 75,651
509 CIP Fund 92,747
511 Construction Fund 46,005
601 Prairie Village Liquor 60,323
602 Den Road Liquor 100,098
603 Prairie View Liquor 63,772
701 Water Fund 112,064
702 Sewer Fund 174,810
703 Storm Drainage Fund 5,111
803 Escrow Fund 62,256
806 SAC Agency Fund 34,600
Report Totals 1,503,249
117
City of Eden Prairie
Council Check Register
9/3/2002
Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit
1592 129,578 WELLS FARGO MINNESOTA N A Federal Taxes Withheld General Fund
1593 24,006 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE State Taxes Withheld General Fund
1594 15,258 ORCHARD TRUST CO AS TRUSTEE/CU Deferred Compensation General Fund
1595 8,409 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 Deferred Compensation General Fund
1596 64,094 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT Employers PERA General Fund
1597 391 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE Motor Fuels Fleet Services
1598 74,034 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE Sales Tax Payable Den Road Liquor Store
112800 125 BACHMANS CREDIT DEPT Small Tools Park Maintenance
112801 1,100 BARTZ,GERALD Other Contracted Services Volleyball
112802 334 BOSACKER,MIKE Travel Expense Police
112803 54 BROQUIST,BRUCE Outside Water Sales Water Enterprise Fund
112804 91 BROWN,THOMAS K Other Contracted Services Police
112805 40 CITY ENGINEERS ASSOC OF MINNES Dues&Subscriptions In Service Training
112806 316 CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE Operating Supplies Police
112807 29 CULLIGAN WATER Operating Supplies Fire
112808 113 CUMMINGS,KIM Mileage&Parking Fire
112809 1,735 EXCEL LANDSCAPING INC Other Contracted Services Park Maintenance
112810 168 GROVER,JAMES Deposits Escrow
112811 118 HANCE COMPANIES Equipment Parts Fleet Services
112812 94 KALKES,JAYNA Employee Award Human Resources
112813 1,718 KAUFMAN,ANNETTE Deposits Escrow
112814 62 KEATING,MARY Mileage&Parking Community Development
112815 115 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC Operating Supplies Special Events Administration
112816 350 LARA,EULOGIO L. Other Contracted Services Staring Lake Concert
112817 23,560 LETTUCE ENTERTAIN YOU WAC-Water Utility Reserve Fund
112818 99 LINDGREN,JIM Clothing&Uniforms Police
112819 1,541 MARVIN,GINNY Deposits Escrow
112820 181 MINGER CONSTRUCTION INC Cash Over/Short General Fund
112821 750 MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASS Computers Police
112822 150 MN-HTCIA Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
112823 500 MRCAC Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
112824 50 NAIR,ARCHANA Other Contracted Services Staring Lake Concert
112825 700 PAUL,CYRIL Other Contracted Services Staring Lake Concert
112826 60 PFISTER,KATIE Other Contracted Services Liquor Compliance
112827 4,166 QWEST Telephone E-911 Program
112828 483 REBS MARKETING Other Contracted Services Water Accounting
112829 73 ROHDE,ANDREW Clothing&Uniforms Police
112830 16 SABRE HEATING AND AC Mechanical Permits General Fund
112831 475 SCHIFFMAN,JIM Other Contracted Services Staring Lake Concert
112832 584 SEVER PETERSON FARM Deposits Escrow
112833 7 SVOBODA,GARY Program Fee Senior Center Program
112834 60 THIELMAN,MARC Mileage&Parking General Facilities
112835 269 US POSTMASTER-HOPKINS Printing Senior Center Program
112836 11 VICKERY,JOHN Capital Under$2,000 Environmental Education
112837 3,020 US POSTMASTER Postage Community Brochure
112838 220 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING Other Contracted Services Senior Center Program
112839 199 BAGELMAN'S NEW YORK BAKERY Miscellaneous General Facilities
112840 265 BLOOMINGTON,CITY OF Kennel Services Animal Control
112841 100 BUSWELL,DAVE Licenses&Taxes Assessing
112842 217 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. Equipment Repair&Maint Police
112843 4,633 COMARK GOVT&EDUCATION SALES Software Maintenance Information Technology
112844 1,000 D'ARCE,MARTIN Other Contracted Services Staring Lake Concert
112845 995 EMA INC Conference Expense Water Utility-General
112846 142 FEDEX Postage General
112847 118 FRANKLIN COVEY Operating Supplies Teen Programs
112848 1,639 G&K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant
112849 49 GRAY,ALAN Miscellaneous Improvement Projects 1996
112850 2,075 HENNEPIN CNN TREAS-GENERAL Board of Prisoner Police
112851 332 HENNEPIN COUNTY ITT DEPT Software Maintenance Information Technology
112852 1,354 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFI Board of Prisoner Police
112853 300 IUOP LOCAL 49 TRNG PROGRAM Conference Expense In Service Training
112854 10 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Conference Expense In Service Training
112855 53 LEROY JOB TRUCKING Other Contracted Services Animal Control
112856 29,700 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Due to Other Governments SAC Agency Fund
112857 2,094 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR Garnishment Withheld General Fund
I7
City of Eden Prairie
Council Check Register
9/3/2002
Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit
112858 111 MINN STADMIN ITG TELECOM SERV Software Maintenance Information Technology
112859 80 MINNESOTA CITY/COUNTY MANAGEME Dues&Subscriptions City Council
112860 20,908 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE Sales Tax Payable Den Road Liquor Store
112861 6,282 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER Building Surcharge General Fund
112862 1,179 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP Electric Street Lighting
112863 276 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT Operating Supplies Liquor Compliance
112864 13 POTTER,DORIAN Operating Supplies Summer Theatre
112865 150 SCHMIDT,COLIN Licenses&Taxes Assessing
112866 750 SHOW PRO CORPORATION Other Contracted Services Staring Lake Concert
112867 5,962 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL I Software Information Technology
112868 69 STEVE LUCAS PHOTOGRAPHY Other Contracted Services Communication Services
112869 35 VERISIGN Other Contracted Services Airport
112870 329 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEVUE Pager&Cell Phone Park Maintenance
112871 179 ACE ICE COMPANY Misc Non-Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store
112872 732 ALL SAINTS BRANDS DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store
112873 39 AMERIPRIDE LINEN&APPAREL SER Repair&Maint.Supplies Den Road Liquor Store
112874 589 ARCTIC GLACIER INC Misc Non-Taxable Den Road Liquor Store
112875 5,013 BELLBOY CORPORATION Liquor Den Road Liquor Store
112876 7,394 DAY DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store
112877 3,729 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store
112878 15,289 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY Beer Den Road Liquor Store
112879 32 EXTREME BEVERAGE Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store
112880 677 GETTMAN COMPANY Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store
112881 1,368 GRAPE BEGINNINGS Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store
112882 9,943 GRIGGS COOPER&CO Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store
112884 18,511 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Liquor Prairie Village Liquor Store
112885 1,813 LAKE REGION VENDING Tobacco Products Den Road Liquor Store
112886 15,308 MARK VII Beer Prairie View Liquor Store
112887 519 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store
112888 717 PAUSTIS&SONS COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
112889 331 PEPSI COLA COMPANY Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store
112890 5,821 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
112891 750 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Tobacco Products Den Road Liquor Store
112892 1,803 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
112893 5,059 QUALITY WINE&SPIRITS CO Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store
112894 28,913 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store
112895 83 VINTAGE ONE WINES INC Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store
112896 314 WINE MERCHANTS INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
112897 2,754 WORLD CLASS WINES INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
112898 112 ACKER,TAYLOR Other Contracted Services Teen Work Program\
112899 5 BEATON,CARRIE Program Fee Tennis
112900 96 BISCHOFF,DAN Other Contracted Services Teen Work Program\
112901 5 BRADLEY,KIMBERLY Program Fee Tennis
112902 293 BREDAHL,TIFFANY Tuition Reimbursement/School In Service Training
112903 5 CAI,AIJUAN Program Fee Tennis
112904 5 CHRISTENSEN,LISA Program Fee Tennis
112905 5 COUGHLAN,JULIE Program Fee Tennis
112906 250 DEGREE,BETH Mileage&Parking Aquatics&Fitness Admin
112907 5 DUNGAN,TRACY Program Fee Tennis
112908 134 EDEN PRAIRIE NOON ROTARY CLUB Dues&Subscriptions City Council
112909 113 GIN,MICHELLE Other Contracted Services Teen Work Program\
112910 741 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC Other Contracted Services Sewer System Maintenance
112911 5 HELLER,CARRIE Program Fee Tennis
112912 5 HEYMAN,JODI Program Fee Tennis
112913 295 HOOGENAKKER,KATHLEEN Tuition Reimbursement/School In Service Training
112914 211 JACOBSON,LAURA Mileage&Parking Tree Disease
112915 2,040 LACROSSE UNLIMITED Other Contracted Services Athletics
112916 50,598 LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST Workers Comp Insurance Employee Benefits
112917 5 LEONARD,LAURI Program Fee Tennis
112918 80 MCFERRIN,TANYA Instructor Service Outdoor Center
112919 24 MENARDS Operating Supplies City Center Operations
112920 30 METROPOLITAN MECHANICAL Cash Over/Short General Fund
112921 80 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG Conference Expense Water Utility-General
112922 30 MPSA Conference Expense In Service Training
112923 55 O'BRIEN,COLLIN L Other Contracted Services Teen Work Program\
179
City of Eden Prairie
Council Check Register
9/3/2002
Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit
112924 17 O'BRIEN,THEA M. Other Contracted Services Teen Work Program)
112925 729 OAKWOOD BUILDERS Building Permits General Fund
112926 186 PERFORMANCE POOLS Building Permits General Fund
112927 86 PETERSON,CLARE Youth Resident Community Center Admin
112928 6,580 RELIANT ENERGY RETAIL INC. Gas Maintenance
112929 80 STEVE LUCAS PHOTOGRAPHY Video&Photo Supplies Communication Services
112930 1,500 TEMPORARY HEROES INC Other Contracted Services Staring Lake Concert
112931 10 THOMPSON,ELLEN Program Fee Tennis
112932 238 WADE,LOU Other Contracted Services Engineering
112933 500 WALSTEIN,LOUISE M. Instructor Service Outdoor Center
112934 5 ZEIEN,KAREN Program Fee Tennis
112935 14,592 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER&FELD Legal Counsel Airport Airport
112936 185 DARTNELL CORPORATION,THE Dues&Subscriptions Water Utility-General
112937 362 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER Miscellaneous In Service Training
112938 442 HAMMERLIND,PETE Tuition Reimbursement/School In Service Training
112939 270 LINDQUIST&VENNUM PLLP Paying Agent HRA 2nd Sheet of Ice 1992A
112940 560 MRPA Conference Expense In Service Training
112942 323 PETTY CASH Operating Supplies Day Camp
112943 343 RICHARDSON,JIM Other Contracted Services Summer Skill Development
112944 1,042 ROBICHONS THE IN-LINE SKATE SC Other Contracted Services Summer Safety Camp
112945 200 SCOTT COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT Deposits Escrow
112946 10,904 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY Other Contracted Services Camps
112947 45 SQUIRES,HEIDI Repair&Maint.Supplies Environmental Education
112948 140 STOLP,DENA M Other Contracted Services Accessibility
112949 2 TRIARCO Recreation Supplies Youth Programs Administration
112950 65 VOSBEEK,PETER Clothing&Uniforms Police
112951 122,615 XCEL ENERGY Electric Street Lighting
112952 53,956 NORTH AMERICAN PROPERTIES Deposits Escrow
112953 40 BARLI,ROBERT Clothing&Uniforms Police
112954 72 CONLEY,JOYCE Clothing&Uniforms Police
112955 696 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVI Other Rentals General
112956 286 DELL MARKETING L.P. Other Hardware Information Technology
112957 18 DISH NETWORK Cable TV Ice Arena
112958 283 DUPONT,BRENT Travel Expense Police
112959 119 EASTBURN,EMILY Travel Expense Police
112960 197 GE CAPITAL Other Rentals General
112961 320 GOOD,JAMIE Clothing&Uniforms Police
112962 140 HOLTE,MARY Other Contracted Services Accessibility
112963 140 HOME DEPOT/GECF Building Materials Miller Park
112964 30 LINDGREN,KRISTI M. Clothing&Uniforms Telecommunicators
112965 168,826 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME Waste Disposal Sewer Utility-General
112966 18,709 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP Other Contracted Services Street Lighting
112967 506 MITCHELL,JULIE Other Contracted Services Police
112968 70 MORROW,LYNN Clothing&Uniforms Police
112969 117 PAIN ENTERPRISES INC. Chemicals Pool Maintenance
112970 358 PAULSON,DENNIS Clothing&Uniforms Police
112971 7,295 PRAIRIE PARTNERS SIX LLP Building Rental Prairie Village Liquor Store
112972 9,254 PRAIRIEVIEW RETAIL LLC Building Rental Prairie View Liquor Store
112973 369 RIVIERA HOTEL&CASINO Travel Expense In Service Training
112974 150 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION Miscellaneous In Service Training
112975 233 SIEBERT,CHARLES Tuition Reimbursement/School Fire
112977 16,968 STREICHERS Training Supplies Police
112978 542 A P LAWN INC Building Repair&Maint. Fire Station#1
112979 20 ADVANTAGE FIRST AID AND SAFETY Operating Supplies Youth Programs Administration
112980 2,158 AIM ELECTRONICS Repair&Maint.Supplies Park Maintenance
112981 673 ALL TEST&INSPECTION Equipment Testing/Cert. Water Treatment Plant
112982 3,668 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI Dues&Subscriptions Water Utility-General
112983 867 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY Office Supplies General
112984 280 ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY Printing Adaptive Recreation
112985 989 ARSENAULT ASSOCIATES Software Maintenance Information Technology
112986 90 AUTO ELECTRIC SPECIALISTS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services
112987 234 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY Tires Fleet Services
112988 137 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Ice Arena
112989 367 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC, Other Contracted Services Fire Station#2
112991 9,054 BIFFS INC Waste Disposal Park Maintenance
I 0
City of Eden Prairie
Council Check Register
9/3/2002
Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit
112992 85 BITSTREAM UNDERGROUND Other Contracted Services Airport
112993 20,900 BLACKTOP REPAIR SERVICE INC Seal Coating Round Lake
112994 894 BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS Building Repair&Maint. Water Treatment Plant
112995 1,120 BROWN,PAUL Other Contracted Services Volleyball
112996 4,543 CEMSTONE Repair&Maint.Supplies Storm Drainage
112997 200 CHAD NESTOR&ASSOCIATES Printing Adaptive Recreation
112998 63 COMMUNITY THEATRE OF BURNSVILL Other Rentals Summer Theatre
112999 15 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC Operating Supplies Street Maintenance
113000 5,625 CORNERSTONE Other Contracted Services Legal Council
113001 2,205 CORPORATE EXPRESS Office Supplies Police
113002 471 CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE Operating Supplies Outdoor Center
113003 8,404 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY Chemicals Water Treatment Plant
113004 13 CY'S UNIFORMS Clothing&Uniforms Police
113005 327 DALCO Cleaning Supplies Maintenance
113006 ' 64 DALE GREEN COMPANY,THE Landscape Materials/Supp Street Maintenance
113007 766 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO Capital Under$2,000 Water System Maintenance
113008 286 DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant
113009 359 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY Recreation Supplies Youth Programs Administration
113010 186 DOUGLAS INDUSTRIES INC Operating Supplies Round Lake
113011 2,991 DOWNTOWN COLLISION Equipment Repair&Maint Water System Maintenance
113013 331 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET Miscellaneous General Facilities
113014 445 DYNA SYSTEMS Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant
113015 2,748 EARL F ANDERSEN INC Signs Traffic Signs
113016 575 ECOLAB INC Building Repair&Maint. Maintenance
113017 480 EGAN-MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRACT Equipment Repair&Maint Traffic Signals
113018 2,140 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC Equipment Repair&Maint Fire
113019 2,466 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE GROUP Other Contracted Services Reserve
113020 834 FARMINGTON TRUCK CENTER Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services
113021 244 FERRELLGAS Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Utility-General
113022 505 FOREMOST PROMOTIONS Fire Prevention Supplies Fire
113023 1,227 GARTNER REFRIGERATION&MFG IN Equipment Repair&Maint Ice Arena
113024 332 GEBO,ROBERT L. Other Contracted Services Volleyball
113025 2,027 GENERAL REPAIR SERVICE Capital Under$2,000 Water Treatment Plant
113026 147 GINA MARIAS INC Operating Supplies Fire
113027 528 GME CONSULTANTS INC Design&Engineering Capital Impr./Maint.Fund
113028 324 GRAYBAR Operating Supplies Street Lighting
113029 124 GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN Waste Disposal Fleet Services
113030 574 HAMILTON,MICHAEL Other Contracted Services Softball
113031 31 HARMON AUTOGLASS Building Repair&Maint. Park Maintenance
113032 10,021 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC Motor Fuels Fleet Services
113033 2,715 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP Chemicals Water Treatment Plant
113034 518 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Operating Supplies Community Development
113035 448 HENRY,PAUL Other Contracted Services Softball
113036 820 HIGLEY,STEVE Other Contracted Services Softball
113037 1,572 HIRSHFIELDS PAINT MANUFACTURIN Operating Supplies Park Maintenance
113038 80 HYDROLOGIC Repair&Maint.Supplies Park Maintenance
113039 137 ICI DULUX PAINT CTRS Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant
113040 214 INDUSTRIAL FLOOR MAINTENANCE I Equipment Parts Fleet Services
113041 294 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC Operating Supplies Water Treatment Plant
113042 75,651 INGRAM EXCAVATING INC Improvement Contracts Charlson Area Construction
113043 274 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL COMPANY Operating Supplies City Center Operations
113044 1,123 JANEX INC Cleaning Supplies Maintenance
113045 401 JAYDEE EQUIPMENT CO Equipment Repair&Maint Park Maintenance
113046 501 JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA IN Equipment Repair&Maint Water Treatment Plant
113047 148 KINKO'S Printing Adaptive Recreation
113048 209 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant
113049 742 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES Equipment Parts Fleet Services
113050 9,668 LAMETTRYS COLLISION Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services
113051 200 LANDS END CORPORATE SALES Clothing&Uniforms Police Administration
113052 45,077 LOGIS LOGIS Information Technology
113053 1,124 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
113054 299 MAXI-PRINT INC Printing Police
113055 646 MENARDS Building Materials Richard T.Anderson Cons.Area
113056 712 METRO CONCRETE RAISING INC Other Contracted Services Storm Drainage
113057 602 METROPOLITAN FORD Equipment Parts Fleet Services
City of Eden Prairie
Council Check Register
9/3/2002
Check# Amount Vendor Account Description Business Unit
113058 67,162 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION Other Assets Capital Impr./Maid.Fund
113059 13 MIDWEST ENGINE SERVICE&SUPPL Equipment Repair&Maint Park Maintenance
113060 20 MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES Repair&Maint.Supplies Round Lake
113061 350 MINNESOTA HIGHWAY SAFETY&RES Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
113062 215 MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATIO Tuition Reimbursement/School Police
113063 11 MINNESOTA TROPHIES&GIFTS Operating Supplies Fire
113064 21 MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOD SERVICE Miscellaneous General Facilities
113065 1,015 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
113066 367 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES Training Supplies Fire
113067 146 NORTHERN TOOL&EQUIPMENT CO. Cleaning Supplies Water Utility-General
113068 62 OSI BATTERIES INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
113069 97 PAGING&WIRELESS SERVICE CENT Equipment Repair&Maint Wireless Communication
113070 48 PAPER WAREHOUSE Employee Award Human Resources
113071 305 POWERPLAN Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services
113072 11 PRAIRIE CYCLE&SKI Other Contracted Services Police
113073 4,947 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY Other Contracted Services Street Lighting
113074 117 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN Operating Supplies Park Maintenance
113075 144 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING Printing Police
113076 112 PRINTERS SERVICE INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Ice Arena
113077 328 RAINBOW FOODS INC. Operating Supplies Senior Center Program
113078 857 RAY,LEE Other Contracted Services Softball
113079 2,538 RMR SERVICES INC Other Contracted Services Water Meter Reading
113080 1,745 S&D DOOR REPAIR INC Building Repair&Maint. Water Treatment Plant
113081 216 SANCO CLEANING SUPPLIES Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant
113082 190 SAUGEN,ANNA Other Contracted Services Volleyball
113083 105 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant
113084 580 SCHWARTZ,DONALD Other Contracted Services Softball
113085 100 SCRAP METAL PROCESSORS INC Other Rentals Water System Maintenance
113086 103 SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO Operating Supplies Street Maintenance
113087 69,340 SHORT ELLIOT HENDRICKSON INC Design&Engineering Construction Fund
113088 60 SHRED-IT Waste Disposal City Center Operations
113089 213 SKEESICK,FORREST Other Contracted Services Summer Skill Development
113090 2,703 SNELL MECHANICAL INC Equipment Repair&Maint Maintenance
113091 2,131 SOUTHWEST LOCK&KEY Building Repair&Maint. Maintenance
113092 51 SOUTHWEST SALES AND RENTAL Operating Supplies Park Maintenance
113093 8 SPS COMPANIES Repair&Maint.Supplies Park Maintenance
113094 7,208 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Other Contracted Services Planning&Development
113095 1,801 ST CROIX RECREATION CO INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Park Maintenance
113096 545 STATE SUPPLY COMPANY Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant
113097 260 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GEO Equipment Parts Fleet Services
113098 2,200 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY Dues&Subscriptions City Council
113099 37 SUPERIOR PRODUCTS MFG CO Capital Under$2,000 Concessions
113100 250 SWEDLUNDS Waste Disposal Outdoor Center
113101 1,598 SYSTEM CONTROL SERVICES Equipment Repair&Maint Water Treatment Plant
113102 3,612 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION&EQUIPMENT Improvement Contracts Utility Improvement Fund
113103 137 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO Lubricants&Additives Fleet Services
113104 277 TWIN CITY SEED CO Landscape Materials/Supp Park Maintenance
113105 220 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Clothing&Uniforms Fire
113106 13,888 UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOL Contracted Striping Traffic Signs
113107 309 UNITED RENTALS-HT BRANCH#229 Other Contracted Services Police
113108 6 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC Operating Supplies Park Maintenance
113109 4,774 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC Capital Under$2,000 Water Treatment Plant
113110 683 W W GRAINGER Small Tools General Facilities
113111 46 WEST WELD Small Tools Fleet Services
113112 182 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services
113113 1,835 WHEELER LUMBER LLC Signs Traffic Signs
113114 377 WILSONS NURSERY Landscape Materials/Supp Wyndam Knoll
113115 785 WISSOTA MANUFACTURING CO Operating Supplies Concessions
113116 322 WOLF CAMERA Equipment Repair&Maint Police
113117 148 YOCUM OIL COMPANY INC Other Contracted Services Fire Station#1
113118 1,590 ZAHN,GERALD Other Contracted Services Volleyball
113119 4 ZIEGLER INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
113120 46 ZOELLNER,MARK Other Contracted Services Softball
1,503,249 Grand Total
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ' DATE: September 3,
2002
SECTION:Petitions,Requests and Communications
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION:Request to Construct ITEM NO:
Parks and Recreation Tree Fort in Conservation Easement at 11623
Robert A.Lambert Director- ,, Landing Road
.
Requested Action
City staff recommends the Council consider following one of the following options:
OPTION#1
Motion: Move to deny the request, as this would set an undesirable precedent for
acceptable land uses in conservation easements.
OPTION#2
Motion: Move to consider approving the request subject to the conditions of the August
23rd letter from Brian H. Liebo regarding this request and restricting the size of
the tree fort to 120 square feet or less.
Synopsis
City staff are concerned that the Council will be setting a precedent to have regular requests for
exceptions to the use of conservation easements if a tree house is authorized in this conservation
easement. Staff does not see any specific condition that makes this situation unique from any
. other conservation easement, other than the fact that this is a relatively small conservation
easement that is surrounded by homes rather than part of a larger conservation area such as the
Purgatory Creek Valley,Riley Creek Valley, etc.
Background
On May 15, 2002, City staff received an anonymous call reporting that a tree house was being
built in a conservation area along Landing Road. The following day, staff inspected the area and
noticed the tree fort was being constructed in the wooded area behind 11623 Landing Road. The
staff returned to the City offices to obtain a lot survey to check the location of the conservation
easement. Upon returning to the site, staff explained to the individuals who were working on the
project that construction had to cease as the structure was in violation of a conservation
easement.
I
City Council Agenda 9/3/02
Request to Construct Tree Fort in Conservation Easement at 11623 Landing Road
Page 2
On May 20th Kathy Washburn called the Manager of Parks and Natural Resources to ask how to
appeal the easement condition_ On June 4th the City received a letter dated May 3lst from
Helmuth and Johnson:attorneys attorneys representing Andrew and Kathy Washburn, seeking written
consent of the City to complete the construction of the tree fort.
This letter was forwarded to the City Attorney who then called Mr. Liebo who requested an
appearance at the City Council meeting to petition for a change in the scenic/conservation
easement document.
Attached is letter dated August 23rd formally requesting the City Council to grant approval for
the construction of the tree fort.
Attachements: Survey Map
Lot Map
Letter from Mr. Liebo
BL:mdd
-;...,\.I.,E..,Z.:lc O,
/:2•;//,
!' `SP j9b `O CD ¢ ,sc,›--i7,- Z "�Q
iZtE ..P\,I-.b....-/..Q.".1.),.
ti / \\ 9l l'4 Z Z 1 I
///4,,,.e.e7/o„.ri 4/4/4,•/vs.:
/s
C.
,,,:,,.,--a4,.,#.
!)::6.,.?..6:c:6:\.
,
'•C,36I'•.4Ac
S,7,•1.:I;..\,.
..4?al•,I,;.".
1 Q z / ���0 /p�� m ////OT le \ Ld_56T 3y100.4
00 59 \`2S'0 r'
•
.:,
al a. / qil i ACP '''s, .•.8e..9 'CV crlY / elf.; •,: \.
L NZ / 0p\ \ /// �r , O \
W ''` h / �' ^ 0 'dry OJ p01
pz, /p p \
�( p� `'�'/ -t\\\B. _2a J /0 y �? e
/ \ mil\ �6` r./• y �;. y�
`•// //�\ \eJ Fst v �- al as\v•im-+-•• . �o`,co , pO:ge.re ",
/ y\ ni m > 00'
\ \ a lT { La
! f
-, / kt o\�� r _ 0 / Jcm
„ ro y4.4 �� 0 .3•0O.OZ• / I P. W to
v n•o, 1,/ 11 00, o •p` / Thy -- Iw r�T
/`vo �// / O6T y 00 �'''•• S 6, / l� c
0 o /l v
o /"w CU �% /y t•'es\ L�\ I ao
/ c //ti 6y // t o tc o
cv _� e\ /finrt, I /a y.Op'��.IZS y,.,9 z
n C
/ 1 66'65J q-=1 `1/ l 102 ray \ I ' / -�
row 1 J. \�T? • /r
n v / 01
wn i` o-/I
d , 4 ri c yOO,Dz TZSr/ T,W • 9 • .
��, sd
Hni i4Alisv
/li I 6
a r I jY: , m t
a4,-u if I q _ •
vo;risk.
,,
..-.
...... .... ,7
_ // I
sa TeT y.Do o,.� .�* N 1
2.T�S
M.B0,6Z.L0, I /( m
/ti411I at
/ �� / r I lT T9T
` �L �,,, I ''8f gp LT J �' / I�t / c,�' ,�
�e
c° I' I/ os T�``�� I mo £},V4.£�N `-- tiN
"' ,Z9_65 1 V/ tr~( CO.£ �1 o l y Op 02 TZS ��'�7 -~ gg•17 01 r I`"7.
y y6 1 0
r ZL �S9 L.i�99-Se -di
/I ,^op /I/°�� OO eej���4oiyB ;
Nco
Zdr / ' y/ /'v I in c 1 •
6 j / 1 _
cta
\�� , 6 9Zs,y --�• •
ER L5 �
\�t � .,•BO-9T.OZ�gsBT=T- EV"ELf ''- `;'.
t / ! t, t;=r_i 3:OU,E6'.ZQN a ,--b
T !7!, �\ ��._,,;< can ,r s`r o
t.jLi L. �� ;i�o
V f / ��, IP!— 6 WI
m {,, a
_.....ie, 13.4.2.1. .. - .43...- .. - --,--.3,.. .-,,
- - .--=...-7-14.;-;,7,... .,_,..,„.- • -- '-
--.: -.,,. ..- .---__. • ., ,..'7.7%,,-.--,:--...:---,-.. ,: .- .c _-4". -_- ,-...T.- _.-,-4.t's:--,-''.. •- 0:1---.-41••=':":-''';-t-- '-':' `-'73.'"1
-...---"'•;5 .--•,-. ;.",-.-- ' 74'•-,,„' • W - -= -.„..trjeq:=-'7..-:.-- .- :--' --t-:--,:7;...e.-v-T'"- '..:--.1 " 43- ._-,,-- ••-‘.--s-1-..---e-- _,:-..,- , 7.t..-;;;- ,. .-:-.. ‘.t.,45-:. --;ii"---
-4.":,---.14`17-:',..,-..';,;:'4„:--__:-..-:1-7-2---i-,,c.-- •:::-"•-. , . ,....,,x,,„.'ie‘ _ - Z."... ,---7:-",-__ tfrf:1-4"1-4:7. 'I' ... ,:-..":-.-.. •''-'"...:::4":, -,-7 e.-----_ .r.--.. .. ---.....
,;,--f.,---.ar---.z„:- -7,,-..--t-,-;:ri-,..-:.-:-- ---:- .:,:.: -. :,-A--?,„cix•--... e ....---:-.7.-_-----.f-_::;°•-i.;:e•E> ,-. `-'7714-71.'''''•-t..k--='-:=4-,i-*4.4, : tia'''.:--t; '"•-' 77"7'4:*-Crk---- - ''.. '1-.7",-1.-*:÷;.-74-k-•-r.:7-7, -'-7-.'i77.: •":44•"„.'4t :1
/AK
"Ii-•'--.±.---T-f7.:4•J:r::•''72...--2-is-irr.,".i.-7.7...4.7'. •7.:... .'•1:"----fr--„ - -4-. 1......-;"--,-- If ------.7 .-- ---." ---"---iitt.-: C,:b -.4. 4- 'tt-1- 1r1-4-. -f..,--r • -,-z-`45-i-...,,:_-_z1"..."7-,47e.:-— . • _ _ -.,4-t. :•41
.1..,,,::.,-3:4...--:-.LZ-7-",-71:4-:"44.--}:'7-7.-'-' ,,'.;,L7r,) 4.6.:).: ".:':--4.. - 47 7 ,7-4-,--,- 1,, ",-*r-3-.":44"Fi--7--,.."--."-:;',,:t_tir -- .-.6-7" •--.4.ii.--,•.1--.11I--•-••!' --- •Igfr fi'' ,...` - -0, I•ii
-* --.7'.. -.,,...-,4 .- 4X,.:--_. - .:.-- ....• : - ::,-,.-....-.---":7---, .l'-',, :f_, ..-1.7i4.i."4.:-';i:- ',...:j.eis'. •,.. : ',.." .'''.A.F.__.it'.-3.:74.1"."- '-'.: ..'1;7.,--,,r,...r'''+'et-A.:-...t.,,,...,..- -1cC.-,,,, . i'ai
• - 4,,.. 5=771?:, .:451..':..' .-;,...r,'• .-• .- .'•.-1-.. ,.-- qb -TGT-Zt'a5.i--'' ;1.,",11ic''.-7'• - ::'.
. ...74;E-.;'.:4- '.--44,'8.:',";"'-.'.-=--' '. •.... ..;....:-,-. _'".-::--, . .,v.,..- :...:---5.7-01...,...u1-5%-&.-7 --,.-:.
_
.:: ' i. :. - -,...:..1., ,.., - .t:-= .1t-'''Cif7::•""7--4:' -.'. .:-...
-",..--.--:-. ---
.,•4, 7. =.--•., ?44,4"- .,..,-'• „.,. Z's2 .-,- _ ----"..., _ ,",.
LI 'kr ‘'.-z-74-7.13,-;-:•....: 7.'"7-i.-;',,,i7,4-7,:;:;',::;-:" ::' .77,__- f,:.,,-:4-,:,"-:,7.:4174:,--_,. '.,n._::,4.1c--- _ .C.: !.-,..:.:-.,-, :',.- .. ,.,-..- -*-.....r. 4:,..-. 1-4. 4,_,--.77;;., :....,.:..f.4.1,,
... 1— .%Of,-,..4. -,:r.r.,,,,- ,r....„--,:,--..t.--,:,:,-.".„...---- - ..., --,A:,- :--r,:::-..-_----_.: ,.., A:.------ ....,--2:. .,-,31,,,,.-,.k -A3-7- "--;-"-g,-...,:7--_-.:-.;-: -...i;av-..... '. '''',i6:::-..:*.-''-- ' .-.--,'-'-',-ii-',7-s-'•--- --------_•41
. _i.... 't --4 --',4-..---,.;:.',.,..*.',.--,f4-:-1,,_:..;z17,W--.•=•-..;.:.;,;--•::;1'-f...T-..:-:f.--cf: .• •••••' . .'_:• -_'..7:4r.: 444.,L;%•-:,!.'7.7--'..Z. :,;:::::.'.-:::"..7'.!-; _."::,:-4.,_-- .,;,,cisap4-_-..„.-,---5---47.-...---..---,st :4•4‘
_-,.-..;:4 r• , - • -'..- ,-,-, ! .:-.....k.:...- :_.:-e-- -..-..,:-.z.----r-.T,:.-, -.-- .,- -.-.17.-.,-7'n. .;--.... .,-..,.. ..-.7.,,•: -....,•-•••: -...,-..,v•-.,_v',. -"vt-',,,c,s'"--.-,..2,-t---- .. .-.' --445.
1 -4...- __._13 II ..--11-••=1"-, --..k...-.-1'-`v,FA.", :;•:'-'17F.:-..'".2 ','"?.-:'... ' Lt:,ri.' .i-f'-'-',.•',(P -; -.•:'!. ..-n.tr-i-7' 4---.t-'-..:7f-.- ..t.-?.`,1v:.,:,,--.7-'?„'..*.....-',1:14=;;;';', 1--__.1'7.: •-•74i, -._ -.. `,.-11%'-2.-;-'-Z-L-."--:-.-41...A7X-,7.4,1.i.'
' 141 ;-c,*'-1--.-7,-,-----•--.-- '47,...`: `,4:;-•-` -:::--:--:-;--*--;..-gir.-''',,I70'•'- '7--*--- .;T.:-.,--'1' --.•7,i',- -,:it"'•47--F-4.i a--7:-. '-_-ts.4''-'-;-‘•;—-• _,`!--,•1..' '14k.---,A*-;:4-k44'.51'''74-----.71:•;-7.•,;,,,=:
LIT r, — .;_,_:".:'-:,; 4` -i•,:'1.1,.-,-----wv.;:.-:----4i. ..74-7-i•-;.:.... --wx.----:-.:A14•4-f-...---.44,,-1,_'''-f" - -. .--,4, -- ...f-,.;;.-.7.' -t-'*'-4":::.E .44'',4.....,.. ,..."--3.7"'"-, ..-.----i-i,-- .f::L--_,,'" '-'1.3.tit,'-'-'..,,iia''' -..*.;=.1.5;1-',.•:.,.,
% ""' F.;----;;''.1•1.--3-- ..:f‘s7.-:',-,1,,' --ev.----.''''':t.r.-4.1_-_,.: ,--;1:%---5.,,,-.:,••••-,-e• Z.-;-.7*..Nr10.1=,', .. -t:)..- :...,-- --i,'...'' ',...:..,.!.'.,_;,-.':.-7'..;...3:...,7‹..:-p A --..-..."...-.-1.14.:14- ''..- '5,1-5"4:-;.. '7;,-,...-A.--.....
wn ---:,,ii-- ""ft.7.-cii.- . 7:.;1 .- .:_l.,,-,7:4'.'rg•::::::::";,.:1..:.:,........'.:::... .! :::*-4r--:'.-:'-'''..trY. -, .‘?.'''.':.-...---1. ,,,4C.-
. - 1
1 2.:Si;,_•Fr..--;".;112,,!'?7.-4,-..2 .,: ,,,L.V,';.....- .,'.'ex',„.:4,,..4".-.;.zi-,.:::._...-'.....:'...!;:a 1k -....-, trk:. ''; '''1.-
..
.•%.s.-4:--r-Tr-,. :n'i-'"::-'Ve.•-k•Eiz-.4:::•E'-'t4'fv-tf-:gr_.-,:.-1-7V,---:-:- .:.--7.7, -,t -Z'W'.C '''...:'-:,.-C4: -''''V''"', --'14r-7 -•. ' •; ',Pe 44-ki.::-:`-';-...t.. -'•-er,,t;z7* --1„,
3 1,,:". •••44.4k ' "fl-z$V,',;-,,,i-F:47;.-',',.;- roi7"-- ---4,‘:4,1, :-.7'.'.'4-4 '',7-,:t15--':,2..1;404,„7 7 i•.!"7.2.. .-.:. 1,....,,,:. -, •...-.-;'1 1,..:%.:.• . .,..;.'..;:...-,1,.-.. ;,-. ;.. 1-,;- •--',..'.;; 41- ,-.o,t,-..-..-. . '-'0,.ilr.4:•
-''''' ';''S.0•11'...4.;'-'4,111-7-;.:1'. -.r.:=4"?;3:1- ,:.;.'..7:,,-C4'... •. ":".-.:.".';:•`•' .';-::,,:,.-,-::,4.-.F:4=.1-, - .,....,a,k• ,..e....-....,...,..,,,, ,,i-a...:1„;,.,;,1,,,,,.:. -....,,,,,„;:,...,,,,...„.,,,,!,...„->,, t__ ÷,-*--.1.71,--,1-.. -.".•f..-N.±..;:',?': .7...j,t-rfi.e.',3.t4 ,:-‘4., - ..-t-f?..:'.....-.. : WiT;;,:.:_;;-.L.:::.."4:-,: r.7.‘,;`";,-;.•;.7--'-',7:4g.-",--- ...
.:.:...4",-"4;:--77?'X.1,7$4-:4;-71.i.4;.'7,,,i`-tf. .; •, ',1,'4.1f1434,-,,,- 74:ii,7"..' -„•
7 4-R7,--4-,4.",74-..----,,-J.- . ".7-4-, •41-":.7' .-7 7.c=" '''..r.--.'-'''. '-':7. - . " ."1--.7"'--Y-1-77vA451's 1-'%'!' ".7 4.,."'I'',,7 a .i.--v7,..:,...4,4,44.,-----;:,--,-
1 Z-.2 ., -,.c'.4,-- --''''''4 "-,,..:3! ,,,' ,,,,,,-;!';'41:43-.44 . 44Z-,1,5•'' 4 - - • -. . •-4-41.--,,,:44?: . - ,....:',4•, ,i-:::.-;,::_-.4,;;;v44,.:A•z444.4,1455....._ . ...‘„_,_,....,-.7:vr...,44,,,;-
•:::;;;Xt,:;.,--••••.i',_.4.:.:':',..i;'''•'`. ..::-.1-r.te.;.....-....! ,-• -i-2:'..i::::.j-...--.lilts;•.4.7.!*,;.24 , :-.R.,.,„- r.,..,:,,,,,,., .-...,..-T.,:,,,...1
-ot-i7:-.,..,..k,:-..;.5..,111,74,-i..4--,:_.6,--,,—..1,4,,L,„,-....
t -- t-*I''''' 171;t.. AC.0:4-.:';: "....71`' •1'.- .:#'. ...4:tg.g:':?2i-':- ...41-..::::..'7,.--,..:,:f-1„..::,..,''''WO:i .-7k.i-..':%4';.,;;":44;';'. .4'.: .'.--XFP_ . ',.!,::-.."'f,..I''''*1• ..,'54i‘,,7:•74-.,.; ,_'.
W. --:e%'::::.t.:-...'".q....s,.-It,i4:"' "'.-" '?,:. '' ..417‘.,. 'OYT',...,:'.::J::.." '''I- ::".•:. ; '' : - ''2.:.;rg:'.'':-.4.4;Rj.:--"-: .-.3'-".A11147...-,-.:'"'-';;T.4•-1-- .,4-:,-,,irsat,,,..ie,-, J4-2
. w ,•0,-;,....:„;,.,,,its*,, ,,,t.t,.. 4_, ,,...:::.,..,-,,,,,:.,14-: ,.j., ,,i...4tzt„..-,,...,4_-. ,,,-„.. .:-...f:-''' .1,127A:f,;'..::-Ilkt,.,.,...:,'::-.)".''444:14. -'-.4.'....1.-e..Z. ..,'At.':hi'...-41.f:,..,,.. .ti;„'':,z/4-iLziri. . ,1.!-,-:,..\mt.,,f'.-:,14
Ii - -1.•gcf4.Z4,'.4-PeliW'-itj7,4-4f ::':.•!,,.1:.%,.,.4-T';',.,,,,ful,.: -,:-,V. '• :-..-•,:•71.1 -41.0fe-Calkoi,a''w---.-:-'' tk-':'''-ti.--• ':1-7•-''''-'r•:.T. -'•''''. t- t•Vie ''!--,PI''.15.1
r:11).i.f-tr4,•,__ ,,,.44•4_,, 77:-...:•-•-fg--. ::.$,A:-•-• ...:-:,:4,&.. ''''y,,i),:t..:-..,:.,-77s-eit,-;t, :-......-'' : "::::'-`40- ;••, 1- rlq:'.'•,,.(.•-•'.t.'. :: :i.-'- „,.. :%0.4.211-i:rAiV74,:''
' '''',' •'-*IVr•t.S.,....c:40 .,!:z?-)7,...i.;..:.';,::..5.7,..1,•1'.3,:;44. " ::M. ..---....*:: tk,,,--, :,..4 .....,.....i'lk.-4 - 7.,7Ak,..7•77, .." ''7,77: .,,,:472:-47' .Y•7;,,X.2'-?,......is.7",. ..,,,vV7Iia
.„ , , ..A.44.1/4.,.A;,.•,-.,,_ ......A,4. ,._,, ..,5.......,,,. .•,71,...A,4,. -i. _..,. :...i:‘,......7 ..-e.,,:". , ,- -..,--v1
- ...2t-:"A`''•:,f.:-..:„..."-.."-:',•,.--s-:t.t,F...,fk;:.'::.;•,....".,..1T,....;?:.,':7;-Cy .!i:,.....ge.4,:n,*:,•'..,.r.At 0•Ce4g.....,..),::•'-• "....*: ,....,- ..7.*:.,7,,,,:i-2,.j-klzy az:' '4'd• 'e 1:..- '''''..:
Wagacit' '''''qt•':'....'.....;.4 ;'11,i'''.:',''-7.:t7,5*:','''::.::4!....4,g•.!.:k%?,.•;,'...-:,..,.::'1..•::::::!Vq:..."*.te'.,.."...r•::.f!4...i., i- 17:.- ' •:.. kr.tip:;2,51%1,.**.:•...,g;t4gf-,._,_.:,`"*.:.f'A'''...S1034:::'';,,A,i '....q,rti..:11P,,,,n.,...,"-‘*.'
,.,,,...:.4„.....,,i ,. •,:. ....,,if!.&tv kg,.*A.A,'..:,,,P.,.:44,;..:.,-,t,.,:1.,..-7:,,7,., 53,,:pxv: t,,,,p..:•.,,c;-;-•,,iv,i,:zei':...;147,.......'.;..,;..,..::,,,4-...e.,..!.-:-.,;-,..iti.pq 744,.....-7-11..,,,, '-$1:',4..,:.••••:.--A...' - 4,...• ...tt..?
4.4V.,..,7,k, ',•:-.:,,:-;,-;,3.-:‘•;,.,• :,. .,,i ...4:•;.,-;,:',,,4t, T.1.-,:_f.sit,..1:1;.;,-..„,..',-,•,04..:-.. ..,..-.z..c.,?`-y- - F-4,"-....' •••••••,,,,-A457....--"-•..- -4 eViliA7=C: ,--7•,',i. '• .''''''',2".1.1,i.A.,.%.,`''.'*•....-',..,--,":.,,," 4
r.
.:. ..;,.„ ..,,..:1.,.,;:„...:1:..41.:..t.i:;,....,,,,_...,44..... ...,. ..,.vice.segkliP44gi;z...,..:151:5C-Vik... 1t;
a,,t:::-':-,t.!— . ,.-:,.:: ,s,..-.,:,:i',::,''S a 4 c,.,•t.c*,2,4,;;,..,•••:,..i:,f'!.,,;,..7.,,,Eirr.6,',:iig ......f.,;4r4:'.1;:t':';' :,t;'::''.'':•+.4",.-:•!';' ,..-,' ''• :&,'''9% .a'Arifr.Vii;''.'X.A7A 4,,,:tit.';':'9' 4'Vki,..2'11;i* --'!:*•?4.0."-',g..32.'..';''‘t''''
..''*,:i.."?..:;t.4.U..... :T.::,4,ift:L.;.,;:• .4......!M:Vfze'71.-J.,,,,,''''' '!-_;7;4'.".-ii,:'!'f?i..,:. ..--.,, T.Z''''' ,..R..1..i•?-0.....:.,,,!'..3.gli.:ie/42:41,,,,..."•:,,:,::7:',,,St.ielriF'1 '.•Z''' , po L.,-4-7,.
i ,•.::',.;.., :.4-.3.—#..,;;;E:;-44;:;.'...,bys, . .,.P.,:e.,,,.f.:.'':,' t,,,.4.-4 . v.
4.: -`10
-i'7.-17;'''27*.f:7:4,"'734!8'':';L':1•104 f...* tit`:4:2:.;''' ''..;;.''''''.g:-V.....‘.'''''':'''''i-t; ,+45-7:7 7'l.' 7'7".Z.e-T;'.7:4fite,ri'F,7,7.:'•7''7.V.k.N;;;;iN,`7,r.e 7'4'...:'A'.7.1.t"'''.0W.T.Y.,..'W:SF n`15);,,A.N....;...7!1.4'077-k r 7,.: 3,43.4, -.-7'',7-4*.:";k0.17N, VI
..,;k7:i.ioli, -,-74-!:•,......„,,,::,:a.,....:.,:,.-........,47.„..„.„ •.:,..„......,,,...1„,„7„.........„,?„."..,,...,. .:,:,,4:1,,4,._... ,,,:i....„...;,...L::_,:: ''',4,41 T4LIskis,tif,'..i.t.-4,74+,...o‘t,ti..,04-...k-...::i...e-q....R.,,,,-...-4.,,l'.: .. ;•'. .. ,r.,•,-:ti.,,,,„• •-,...,1-,,tx6t.ii. ,
1.41-7.,i's:7,R.'":"`,...-,.. .• .__.......: ,'-;.--.: 'la. •.:- ::-.-:7-,-,f,i;••••• .4057 f;',.7.,i,. -...;1.44.'4,4 " A=kgAiiiit..4:::e. •,.. _•:... , .ir,,,,A44. -&-.ist,v,,,,,,,,,- ....,,i.dare,:,,h,it.„1. ...,!.4 „;.,;,,s, „,..,„.„4,-„•-1-,, ^,,,,,,N41'1.1`:,,Yr.. .4. .,,,
.•,',"-..f;;Pc.:-•i,--.eit,:f'Ff;r..:: .,;.'!F;:'•iJ'T .;:11!..;:;;;*'''i51^.. .,:141..;%;'..-,,i-•: !....4„-,;:.,:.T.:•.,..1.4.cc.t.,5,4":05..„-. ,,..,.-.-_,,.,-.4, .....,_ • ,..,,,.,,,,...--fv,0,4,--....,,, ••-- ,... W1).i-'cr'"I*41.1•''k;I:".'4.:'-..'"'"'•''.../-1-4r;;0,•,-i.,:::'-';,•lelre?-:.- , •
:Ilia'.t•z,'"•''17:Tg.'.''''':'-F.'.1.1:1-:,'q:-',;: -,..,4.1 -i',,•!•••:::4: :;:•-',. 2.:-'•'!''..1•4b)-•:,1 ''''..-:!-1,;.:1 .r:•-7:;:*ie E:'-'''1::;•'1•00..4-'''' !: .;ii*41-"':',S,'W.":^4.-'.i'vg' .7,..1,.q:kIN-44i'':'''';''l'i4.1,ki.V44An':'''C'ef::"....'j';fT..1"1-'..
1.5.*<,-.0AP fr'''..::--'''''':t'5'. ''''".•'''''.'.1.' :1,X.<1.,`..4,'14:2:',.......,,,,Z. ..f;:t.„..n...,,,,,„:1,...- . 0.;.',..,q,,,A.,:tt..it 411,134F,":(,',:::'.; ''...•::re.: '.14if.f? Fkg,,,wroq.' 77,‘.. .it le7.::Ik.,Z... :.,.,..-'k'..;..:r:-.itk,1.7.t..40Z .,''''.7"4„,$-..17:......y.7.:.t.t4.i.k
.4 •- • . -, --,. ,,,,44,, . .4-114.4.....4,,,,,_, - . ! ....0,....-;'.. -----<,..44-4.4" : '7 .0-ti=f-i'.4 ..V.--. .;,.. t '.... eg.i.."k.,i4 ,_Vt.,.4.• •...",•. 'i"''-; ,,:i.,,,e'
•;,'...1'!....:.'..'..i.,... ni',,Atie i.,';;'•4::`,,.;:',-,k,rii-....4.',.,,q.V.!.:e., --• ,...'44;7,4,•44‘.., .- ..:.4.:741.54.-t!',4-e--44.4.-- 4-'•41'7,'A7.7'' 7'..'"" -7'4 ".`W, -,17 ' '' ...e.,•-•'s ''',4:Irv'Vi'`-e"V;-4‘S*,'7'-4•1.-•,Ait'sg,•:-
lif'''',,:,' 4--'7,-...;fJlit',.fi:-: .'..."."r---I.fg41.7:sgrit.: "71.' ,1.,,..4-.2.."4.-17"•'"",Y7-it^.t '7--_:*.;4•'.-7,91: -•.1";..'f.,i7414•;T;;AY,i1:4-,t„- 7-ik,.;5'7 !,10%),,z.;;Rij-Nkylir,i, ', ,,,,,-6,-,„4........,„4,4„,,,,„4-vy.. ,....,,,-..,-.47,4,4:**;. ....4.,..i •i.,%,,,,,,,,,::
eZP3iz..-.f,;-..-.,,.,:-.. •.,..;,... 1,4*.:to, .1-,,,,; • :r-.e.,11,4••,t'f...„•••&••:l'-ZhP•:•::,-;.•;;;.4.1,11:;.:',',....". ..f.-.'.'''..,--k .444' ,,,i1:.-i .,7::VV:,:..i.,N.L*.;?..;*.C4i.";,::1 "'i-,; 47,:_461:4*ili;.k;-"I;.-- •:•^"T.tit2'fr4lie'',OtAliVril-tft.A.C,:',,,' ',-
.1-11 '2 P.'''''''P 14''''" '''' 11-461'''''''''''.'' '''''''';'?"'X'"'-'.''''''''''''-'"'''''*'C' ''"”-I.'"T''''.? t"'' - p;',''''..r.,.. 2';',-.'''''''Fi.';'•.r.•'','N', 4C1%‘":2',2,;i, .t.,:, • ....4- estr,TV*:,N,.r'...7. .f.1.-..-, .4,'''' - .:-'';'.'",)Ve•'...1;. ''.4.
f.4;:lit::'1..''.:..-;:4;:':'''!. .4,40irr4'''''''''''''''At'1::"..'-'l'...?:'''!tti,ti4:fit:t- :4;%g:.•::.4...P...'c.::•';';;;;-;."if4i0:-.-'1;,':';Ig-'t.b..4...'-'.:-1.......'''!:1•S''-'':.:'.N.fla.r. -L,16,'"'''''''. ..,741..Lff.4.14''''71::%??,:t'.4.;7.1,14'irIll'4,11.''''.,.&,'•''''''b''''?'''494:443'. Aftlr.q::':',140•1•1;1:,,44,44L4-,..'-':*'''&2.°10,1,,:;.;'.4.
1.2191CANT•' -••,•,..i.,;,.,j,:itilizi.t.:, 3,,.,;,kniN;•.1",::•••••••••..-":41f-'4Z•3'•.3.,gi'-:!' .-- ..',AM''.2.':.-.''',.•':4..:.A.4t,'"ir';7'7.,'...4,-'4%:',7',.. 7'41,S•riz4"-'*4,1:w€W414:4,Vesi,;„.1',4r1114-a,. -',..i fike4f-til
kr•krit.'1.:41.21i,k:.z.y,:z,...s.1,4',.F.:*6;7;"''',•2..,..41tAitt.,;:*.ii':'.q.; .''... •-.4-liat47'''''''2%:,;;•0_,,,,,i.,_.' :,!#‘1.-Ok,, :'...:1 i'.:.7..: ":.•'''.$4,41",iis'i!-.::2,-;:'''.; .':',4'. .';'.:;;.1'-....-',:::A• ','f'P,•;,--':'14',:N4.•;141,:::t:440:4,_.--.Z4r,e':-,-.;:5,;-_,..7ikk4
.../....- 7.--;- -•••,••••.,,,,,,,..±.,640A-,*:•••-,,,,,,-. .•-•.wg,3--..-..:.‘,•••:.•••••••:,.4 -,••••••.,t,. --. ,-,k?--,•,,,,•-..: •,.-. .••,.... •-•••.... ---., -,-,,.., ,F,,,,,..... . •:„..:.: ,,,,,, • -,,.•,,...-:••,-4,:•••- •-, -,,,, ..,'„k4A..e4'2'
tt'ZI'4,l'ri,:,....:ti, ,, .... ' '''''...4,:••••-•,z*, g.::.---,,,...kg,-,,•:-......:,,-:::••••,1-m r....4:7gi/4/.4..w.:. ' ..,...,:i>„-,N.:.•/-2-..---.;:-,w-0••,-,Fw7,..,,,,‘,.%-_,..--,-...-,.....•4:-L!%,„...,.Y.- :0.: :-',..7-,•V14-1,1....,,,,,-,k*,:www,."-4,Ari•,,,tioi,11?1
::,..04,3,1-...7,:,,,,,,,,,,I.o.i!...,;3gerj•g4,1,,,..„-.,;„,.,..::::,,...,...,?•,,5•6:::',-.!:',..',,,„,. .'.....:.,43t-,..•,„--t..T.it.,,,,..'_'.--'./..,,,.',1,• ••:,..;;;;;"...:::•4":.;.1,•..'Aff.--•_''',;"•:..,.. .','•0'r•'‘.:•'-'44,:i*,,r•Z•z•:•$. .•,t11. i.:.. .i.44-4,44::MW.e4f...?itilkiqi".4
It.•,-,'•-‘;i---_,'.:i:•.17.,'-•:..?'4..c:,:i'4„.ki-.*U4,..:4;sf,•'?...,,--;,••`••••::.--;-•-•.131P-fli-... .r44,•. , ..' ..: •:::.....',.v..k.0!-•,,'''..i.•,:--?-6:•,.....c.-414•14,4:44 '•;,f,'..4I-.1,-,44.:.i.w. ,-k-ittfa'Az6.,04-,• -
_"'.,:',•';':•••••i:TWA2...-454.10--,i-,,..;_?••te,•,:-7.;; ...;.. ...."••••',4;,-"•2..;,:li,...-4?. '..-,.",-,- ,,,..p,i,6-•-••,..1-• ,-;,i?,,-*.$•;,.46:,-,,,,,,-,4,:-•,•atemviis:ot4A4,•-•:•,'•;.'',..A.rot-01.,1''.'.-%.,.1,5-•,•:zk..,..r 4 :-..:,,,- 4sitik
Z•••••••,.,1;•-:;:::• • :::-.17,40:',:,-7.,7. .:'.:. '-iAlkg'!..':::•' '';','-:,'Ilg4.4,te.., 'A,..4-'- ..'..- ;:•-•*1.r.$•<•*„ si 41/4.t,,•...,.."..;';',NtititIVP*,.., f,--..,','','-`i.-gf,,..,-41.(,'•:,--•:•-,i,.-1:4‘,,;,".0.,..g..; .•,..;.:M'Ai„
1
-:,...,,,,,k.e.•,..:..•?:?:•*.isz:.: -,.•‘..‘.;-,..:::•,.4§5,3tm- - ',4*,•::,),..-qiic:••!•;-„0...!z!.',•:4-:.,..,:,.....'414,,,...C:,Z.,''.A-'';'•ia.'.±:'... : ,!''..' V. 7
r+ -&-ct':- 1 t.,' '';i,.','..:,.,,,•.0..44,i'x-,,,itilt.,'-;1.i,447''.5 ,.
(74(0.41-VA:*';.:'' ,41',:i.v.,11.0;":-'4'.." ''''"':.',;r:',',•:'-'440..'f'x'Z'A: " ,'•',i5.1,ftr.:--.4 4,4:-'''%A.-1,* - It'l.m t-1- ..,.'klt.-,!:..,&,.A4.T,..7....7,-•-§Y.:.-'...vi,;,:7,4::.=.4,,:t.,--„A
. ,..... ._.„,,....„.. _ .,..,...„,;„,.*, ,,,.,;,,,„..,..,„.:,,,:, ,. ,,,,,a,,, ,,..,,,,,,,,,-„...k.d.,/ktma„,,,,,,,,,,.. ,,,..t•-•;,-.0.:--- ,,.:,. .',...,x,.,,,,gri,i,
wz:.,,,,;‘,-,,,,,,-,7.-.414,,,-;44.,trf•34q .p.:4,41,4*:.*tz,.s.4 -.•:•,.•:.,,::::4,1-,,j,:,...14,-.0••••;,.,a.rik,1• to.-•:),:,..•:-,,i,,,,,,. --t',.-=;••.•:. --.:N1,4,: ,•' ;- ale. ,......;
...,---,„•\,.....,,:i.-40-..,;„,....:;:: "44i:t"..4.'''."' .:'.'''';;':-. ''hl'I'5-46'.'1;''64;',:iT;;C:.i''-.4'''''..•*14qi.z.-•:p_$':.',Qt'''.''',"'''''..:•;,',"'1-'kY.,%'' '. A: '"':',., '.: '•',''';',
,,,..65.v.4,.,.....„,, . ,,;,,,,g:ni,;.:.,'.•'0,;;;•,:,'„4,,t7',.,:„, 7.- :7,•"... Ati4.4)S4•*.,. _47.•„_1,:-..-:,-,77'7.'4 4'7'...-',e,V.,t4.5:', .0-,-.,:'':.'.;:-. •:' ' It.'t-, .r.. • - 11,-1 '. •;,•.7-27'.1•..',•.,.;.%H-..alitk, ••;„: :-.4.,L.V....4smfr.7i.:;•A'i,!.. ..74::
Wgit'44ttakk47-.4t7:::: ''''.*e%"t•,••'•Wo'.41. i-vt.3.•TI:, ••*•.,,,,,,,,g.,..--;:..-,-.,&451-,-;zi..s,,,v.:4:04-„,...--.0,•*', ,..-', •.s:-.,3,.--1-4.1.,. •:,i,-;„,..,:1-.-...,,,=..,1..4...:,:,.,,i,... ..,-.• .i,•.•,....,..:,..,.,:,,-.0p,,,:..).,.,,,-,P-..',,
>,,,,,•;,!,,,-,,,,,,4-:,,,;:„,„,,,,',,,,...,4414:••,,,-;,... - .-y .%,:••••--:-.,,,,fr-...4•••1;.,'„ .,..•.:.',#. 4•1•..,,T.,--4.-3,r,--,6!..ipw.,„. .„,grto :;•;!, „,--•:•,,---.....-:•••::,.,..,..4.4..,... .3..-.n..;.ry:,<:'-'..,".•-.,,,,,,,,,... 1-2,-„,,.,::.,,,,wi,,:•41,,, ;,..,:a.)-4.4t,- .-„,.-4,.? :, :_...,,_,.,
f:,1:.,...,Y-.4-s, ,s. :.7,.7vIt-;4,,,,,tlik,:;..„-•==.,-.,4:,-sz-,..,,........,'Ni:: 4:.7.....t....,..44,:r‘'Ni...i•,,1 ',,.'.4.0,,on.-....wk.,%fp -:A.:..:.,....q,.,..:•Ar-,," '‘.;..,1cm?-ir.....;-a. :-.'''.t...-1.1f0t;-'4',;°'''vP'ft.4i7,,-:',u.7,- .•;-'•,•,•I'l":,!•••"":,-''''-'
:.;g4-.)2,&;:;,,,,,.,,,„•,:,.,....:-...--::•?!....,44rtz•.:.-.1/4,.... :;..,-.:4•0;f4tii,,...„ •..;'...ifsq ...E,:1;;',.:•,':T,....,:::`::,...',.•.':,!,..-:.:L.,•:..-:.....•'Am,,,,:•ez:••717.A.,••!.;:t.y--,:.-.:.f.i.,..i ,..,1;`,#.?.`„;,..;4:ai,..,;4:.,i..,,...-i'zsev1.-.'xii,.:.47,44%i,--4.4 a...,.;ft-'4., .'j.s.,r4-,,,-;-.?,,e,7'..,:-....
.‘i-VigOVCia§','''.f,:..,, -,..- r-C.;',.t;•:,i,-.:4\1,.'....,,,,,:-4";--:s'r;....i,"t4- •:.,':77 11(TiVA-A..:4-"itti 1;;N`.'i";,'...::23174 4444'7.4".!'.:::-,--' 7 44,i,t31411f:',.! 1.4''•i.,Ai.,:,474,-040,..,-:ilt-ektV.441-,F,ft-,E7-"'..7"45-,)",,f4i.1r':',,,s,1
:4-10;.,;"7-4.'P..;;grqdr•-.11L„f"474q„, 44- 4.7,:,;",-.'. .;;1."--:'f .,*74-A.`;,-4......:'"et.,47!!7,4f-"; t4"-14`e,MrAt''- .*A'..','t-;1'.-77-',&'.'- ‘',.'i6.:' .:,•l'e.,7,7rT.'204r,,,,i..,17 r,r,'4„....,:::it:.f...:,•...-;;Iti, zi
,---- •..•,::- - --..'•%••••-NA.t.i.,,...t...-4-V.,..:-..„:...',.0.:0-;,-.4%::;.01.0•• •••;-:,--‘-4h;4...';',.7.c:••.. .--;.•-t),.. -,::?,,,r.,4-:-„,,,•,....,,,,,.••g-tne.,:t.,..,,r:•.,,,n„ , ••ei.,..?, ‘,•.,;:-•,..,....•-...----..ikr•ALV. .i..4....-;••atk.,.i.;-z'f-vs"',;,.. ,..J,•::::,44,,x„.4--v,-..,,,c,:-s.
i
..,,,,••.........••.,...,,,0$5.•,o..6,itt...., -••••,,,,,,,,,,,.z.,...‘„.4_,,,,,,,,,•,,,.• •A. ••••,,,,,,cryjr,,,,...„... -•,...••,.-.• • t:- .„..i. .....-•,.., . • • , .,..,.. „,, 4- •;44,4 k...w..„ . . ...,6, •au: .*• 4,--4 ., ,.,Ar.444
1161, ,-47"' ." '-:,i,',•*41.*7---'7-,72''''' l'I-V % 7*.•>.4,,'"i"..--:-.--'s" :47-•'-,4,:""`"P7f;.•-4-4:7i,'. ,".•'-,' -,,,ex-'.7-' ••••:4W.•1.-'S-. : ' '' ,--,r4. - , ' -,•.. ' 4
44'.47 -;-
'.:::::.;:i''.','-^;.•,',:nS':. a45-1::1IA.f''',.. .. ''.. ,,Y.W.,..t..q.:S.,::V..'Wii....,,*,.;.,.,AVOZIT.;!......."'. ...-4:1:,,t...q•j,•*.s1.,;; ?"'',.:C.:1•A'.. ,','..',Al•gl-Yit.-/11.h.:;,04,,,.44, :z -,..P.I.kir,Y4.'',.:--%. ,, ..,, -,..„,,,..',-.... '" ,,.
I.,, ,. . ,,,I.,,,...„, .,..-,,,A.,,,,,.._. "4.4.,-4,,,, , ,.„..0.4.. .,-,It.,.,..., ,,..,cr-ke,..4.f. . ,A4.1,2,:fil,14c4-....tr. ,...,,.:',.,---.711-0t',"' vt,„,...-te•-!". ,:..44,..•',P4.'::',:i14*-t.,:•1 ---''''',"."';'''''','"?4!&t.4"
''•4,f",,, .,:. .....,,,....k1/4. ..,... v:;;-#.1;ly,.,:, 4, ,-,....%::',..:::*.,,'X':,. .:4,•?....1-, .....'-'- --zilCit.P.4441.: •`3.si.. .0 tr,' 6:41.7.,. 11.11',....". :40,•,4',:7%• .....,...:7g74,,‘", .;',14.i,A,7-,•4;;• •1
, ..7.• '"'•loki-•?:7"i7fi.i.....''''.-14..--4'''''.;4.7;'.:77'''',,'''7,1•-'.7r-..- .'-'...'L 47.7,,,.117'' ',.;.777--:,..'•••• •:.7•447'•%,,'4707.1)74:.1:...,.., • 7' 7'4' •`••••• tz...,7 •7.,,71- 7,7, ....,:. .fA'i;?iettkv-Zg-„.. g.'•'`.1757',.=.7*, -7....'•1-,,e,..•••',".:Q01,
•:',7'.".;;*;`,0,;;;.4'1.1.:.47taNii.5`t.:.:„...,:r7,47,: •'''1 tf-V-1.',"'' ..*';.'.‘5Y1cair q•!..t:iii..,,L.:.'"-.aseteg- 4.0q,•K.04-ra:-... :;44-....,-...,-''‘''•4.1.464...,--,,..4.----.,44,:04,...Ci "J 4 .-1.,4',.$77`.'-i•i;":74a.tV.,,Cle :.7,•-:41:44%•,,-1,'"'-•
:.7,',=.t:::.:.'•'.$:-.4tP.5:16,11.;•:47,44".';ilk::.-..1f;k::,.,.'; ',. 44463;....;:-:1;'..." 4. :-"%iqfkif::4 `',:-'°'4••'-.--•:.:,' •'7:_..ft.1.4411,-'4,4(4:Sti55s'Z'i4a?-;le;„ L,'"i3t.'4.•':-44-ktk474.,,t--.4a'f*N'f'k.',::*4;.44;V't.41-.. t. •,'.'--4,--7;110-','
Jill
..i.'"•,•:,-,-..!...14:pizia';',7:.,1..iiiity„aili,: '..41,-...x,}:.,...-:'-,-,.!-•,,,,-:--41.14-•R'f'"; 47744-•-•*."'•-r:77',.4 .'"'4'--4 '"-f,,4-•7,-"-4... :7',. ''.---' ,F,00,1e:,-"ge,frii,FaTA9.1t,„11:.z4i*Ig-a klit,1,....t;R::.qi::-..::.i., ',.".,45jA".4 ..-;*.
iuiii;4';',;;,+...':-.'....:-:.:.:.'"--e"::.i-•,..'...1 ',4,4f.;._ •4.: %....... .,... . ........„...7,.. 74.: r:i.:::::•.:c; 5-7.7 ...',:. .;i';'4i.:!;„..'",.. ,NV;:-:,?•!:,:•..f. '...... ,ipt:,a,-.9,,,...a.,Yle.',45,,,4
W,.....1 •:'-••••'...',..t.*-.. ''':,,,..e..,....: '',.m.,.,
.74i A.:477.1,7j.7,4;1 .„7.,;',..,NC.4.-,;••••.,4!.-4,4_4 0.-s,,-:7-).44-,..,,„s ,..„„ ••_„, ,:,.. -4._,Ft.1.,B.,.:,.1-:.-1-.,-.4.,,,-;,"••,.7,:t•:-.:7Y'rs:: -.,71.7. .Ci",:-.4/.k•-•"-:,'IN.,,01.41,70-44•40...44.-0, „. . :-.,..7444,--4,.e.,1 N7 '
.' ' '".'‘W\l'''. '''''''''''k'';';'-: '',;":frev,-' 'Ai•,,,•.-' -':'1*i;ctr.1-',-41,;.'41...,4-...,.....11'''..-r."'t'ttelk:-.-:75.v....47=.,:':".KZiii:):4'...:',-",zt;4*,•'-:*•,.;ti:.--:=':"'•iii-'',:'?A,
'i:iii.%.*".,-,:.„,t-:.:,..,''. .4:,.234-,z...t. .,.k. :'o,,,-.,.:i..0.7,•,.,.. .„.. -- ._-?..•'..--:-..7,..-=.•.,-..i.g.,..14P-±v•I, 4,3"17?,,,i1P,74-;;;;;,..,‘,41,077•4,-..:ritir.e4r1:,::::.,...:•)-7,,,:::. ',.•- ..5P-1.4.:-,:t00
t.t.,•''.5‘.!;.?: :.'"„ti• '••'!'"'.."....c.`,,i.. ::'.g-..7,''..1.,.ff. -4 4.zt•A_5-,,, W.Ig..134.4..r, --...., ,,, •,.E.,,,;.,„:"...;-.. ',.' :..,.,..Z-,:-,...4,;,-, LV.•.',:s;vz.:-'7,-'''''.7..."': ,...' :,•,- '141.4.'4'
k...,,,; .1.,, •.Ak-'7-v-,.•••••;=.4.-,-,-- , . ,,,,,;.:...-:„. ., -,,,s4...A.,:ct, .,.1., -1, ._.-1..4.4....,...,....,. .,. .-.4:*'-'+"4'7 - '-'.- If...:4`..":..,...)i''' '':.:47•-g7.;7:'(0'4' ... ?,::
Itc.„:".•7 4 -"";',;-.-%'....f`-,77'Xi-4"."-4".:•Y'-;-:-:ita stt. .-K'%';7-1,7f-,:i' ..71',`7';":7`74S1p7,7.;:ift-t- 3•:41-4,-.1..if—k.:0"443.1..1.I ..;..b.,it 'N,77 444'2:'„f.':77,i7.-..::-'4 ''''.;.•:itic•-.4:4,4'77,','4
aie:V.•,•.;,;.,,.." .,,,:.4 ,,...:‘,.,,,,,,-± t. ; z"'''.'.11-'4'4-,,, ' '''t'•'11.&:;Z-f.'•'''.2,-':: ‘r'''.;',':.:'-',A t'''',';'.::':::-,.`jM:2!rt:;:-11:74*:,4.-i,V...,,..*!,:iZe•;7e.:,,,,,..,.V.1, ,_ • ,..,:.jet''.4.7.' etjr.,,41
IfoiT
g; ."--1 • *„!,:t'' ';?.1.tz.,4.:,-i,:.,,...,,,i;41". '' ...1L,.-•::-f-0.41...i.t li' .,,,.. .f;A„I,:-C-..‘,.--'. .''.. ''''•.- „ '1':•iki".,-'..r-:'''''.'fli'-'t40.11k,r•L.3.''''W,'";?''Af5-..:;- ;.R.
‘-i..Pt...%:' ,l'' '':'•4*. ,t7:''''..ik, ,i'l
...I
S f. f4:; '''''.4.4;-"tite,*;:k1'...i'''.:Tt.:.Rk,i';':*:14.1t.,,A•i;1!..g:;;;''s.;1-i:' ;''' ..4''W."1 '.....,:-".,4:- ... .r;A': '.';'.-.7•-• ';:7",.--4
10;
,...." ‘i--tvg4,,..4‘.:-.7 "-•,"-•,•,-.:••••,.:•---!7,3- 10,:4',.*,44-...,•'...-7.::::-4: 0':4:,,*•:-.....-.... .2i.,;,:ati.,7 ,--,:totA,,,--,.,:f....v.;:::.'..:2:-,:":,.... ::::,-'4,-..:5,2.,i'...VA,,,,:_i4,4,4:4
,..._....,,4,.....14,„ 4 T.:!:71,,,,' %Ittio,..-. ''..110,1,,,,,.,4 .00-1:;..ii•-•?.)":::',, .---,'.1f...,.•'rt.'.''',,,'..-z:.'4-*".4,•rei=44;;-•.,,41.r*-7 N -"..
ile.".,7,44-'747,1:".-17.'7,4 *,,..:'!. ,..",. ''''.";.•-.4.--477-7,4"..,... •44;;;;;
'.a ''''''-""t•""'74.0.• """11-Z"''.- ' 7sA*4"'• --.- 7'. `-'7,-.-----.41:44.A3a,,,-,-- '77•-••,,,,i, "- ,•.7,‘,10.:1 '., *es:,:,'...,,:c.'-,- -4‘--.-:-..-4-Isr,••-...t,....-•,46'
'.--',. ;.:-•,-V"...7.-4.4;74k...,....4-...%'.---v..:-4.•:,:4. ...-.,'.--"r-,, ! -,;.tt...1,..: -4.;,0.2,iy.vins ,...,..e,;.,.!,-- ,,, .-74...,,..-4& ..........,11,-..:t,--,..c,:e...v:, •..- 7..i..,...,\'7..±0,,,,,:. • .•-4-1-,',..',',1,%.,7::.,4".-V.,'
91
-,..,,
,t.:4)0.".•' ' '''Z''''''''.tti,tc-,,V4';',,".fitf 1,''',''4'1;,, --'', 1,;1,;.:.,_'4I-:-*-V_ii,""'""0**;-1--",,IV-11:-.".-,!'""-.'-.2; "...:'-'-.-3••.i 2'-,7 P''r• ', .'-k;: It!,P4V, '_.467,..4-..i 472 4, ..7,-,,'4,',
7,....,7 7_,-,7 . '..ki.:4',.......7,..„'r-' 47:t-,77`..0.:'-'_ --'• 747 ''-'1.•"'77s.-qt;r:tr.r..,''-4-":77‘.t4A"'.‘1,'4'0:7'4,"-..."- 4- 7‘". 7' No..' ' ' ' ''''.4.-•7itorr'1,7,.'7,7•:77• ••-",,,".7'7."'''''1--'-'77-4 -
,,,--- .4..•?,,P.: 44,-V,.',7,,,,,4,44. , ,-..,.•:„:-7-,.,,7k,•f_7"-,4 iAt'idi.,,tz,,_7M.,AA,,,,,:fir,114-4-4,z-,41,•4'.5fe-i,41,', ..7:.--...vgio.:,•C ' -,-;:-.',,...1'.,':::!•E-f,-?:-....,' ' :'--7!....k,-;...4*-i:-.4:.i.:''iL'-`4,trg*=i,!-XA;!';,4---Pt• i.,...1
. 0.7 t--3-,,e,::,.,,,,:.,..„.i0-....;vzs50,4.*:..,...__.i..!-4,..,,,_,,,,,I;e:,."8.,,,,,:r.._,4vv4...;.-al".?„,z7.:'::::,...,'....."71.,"c15,:_.4'..*.-,,,,tk...s:15.t.:::*_,i14-. t„,'..,;e:var:...'.ialv:r;,,,4-:,•o. .,:4,I,_....z:.:'„;,,:,it;,..:,'.,..,.:t-,m,,,,s;:,,:,a,_1,,,.,..e2__,,__4:..,4„%•,,,\i::-'s:.,,t,:,.tt..t ..z..:i.,s7,,,4-„•,.!....-_.;;,7s,:tk-:::,:..,:;,:[it,,'..i,;,ir......;:Z.at. t,,„,7.'..-zt.,.,:.7:,:.,,:_ _,,,,T:S;,--!z--.-..;.,z..,,::.„.;::;,.,....:,..-„..,r:r_?i;:,F......f. 'r :5,,,..i;.:,',1,i,
ta.
lg- '0"''. ."`'-'1"'''' ',...4-rii61 -''.4''-,..: "'"A-v-'1'.,1, --Satiiiti :-. :lten.r..,- '-'''':'!'N- •..----..,-,-,17ti,....•., -•;,A. ..-r-gz*-, ,• -.--7:-. .',.,:... .•z",:z-,-:iz-'..---,.:.
--. ...,1.'-'"..!m:,„,.:-• - —_ - ,-,.:...-• r.cf..,-.,"_.,:,•:.,-1-.ti,--. . • - ;---,,,- :....V., ---.!...-F ,..,., ,...-.p.- . ..,. .-,'-.",..-.-.-,,,--..: ----,....,--7....
___,--,---„,‘, ,,,y- ,..:,,,--„. , .-.,,,,,...-,-,,,,-...:.,..,_-, , ..1„,...,..,..4„_.„.....: - . •,....:
.':.;,?,Z:,i'4:.:1,:-;-. 7.2:6:','I'':',:-_':':L.77'''''''. r,7:4T,:",.j=lt.,';'. 7::.-:1C.-gr,f':-?‘;;.•X•:=71'.-•-;-: ":_c_7514, 41.-4:,-'4''"If- 7'7' '1v--:45,- -:-..-..-, --2-.4 :,.. _-__-,--,-f:-....,,,,..-....:,;•:--,,. ..::
,A ,,,i-:, ..:..,,:....c... .r.4.,•;r,,,A;-:-_-_,-.:.,..-- ..•-•.t.,,.,..w.5-,•;-:-i,,,,,,,,,.1-.,,74,--.:!,_x-;.i_f,•,i-g-:,,,,,,?. .--...,,,.•,----•:,,i.,--_-:-,7-,,':-.,_-7.4„,-,:- .:. -,.:7.:-•-.,JP.;:,.... :,.:.-‘.::-,.: • _ -.. -..-7-_ -,-,-,-,-,-,----i-,,
2 _ __-.._.-_-..„:„Ai,;- ,,.7.7,7,, -,...,,,,-..;-,,.-...... .„--0_,..cr,- *-7::74.7t-r.,,,,z;-- :. '....--...--7.t.,.-_. ::...ni_v--:-1...•••• ca— . .,.. ,.-,...._. •_ ,— :„ie---_-,..--;,.,-_;:',.-,,,_-:,.:_
,,,-;-:..,-.t..,,?.-. i..,,,,•.,-.-L..:_. ,,J,Tr.:0-,..,,,.::,:-.4,,,,...,,.-- ,-.,F.,-.,:::,-;.;_:,,f...:3.,.ff.,:,-, _...-.: .,,-...:::..v!.., ,--_:=...,:.-4.,...:,,, tr.r.,-- -.._,:s.,.-.,...1._-_,.:...,...;.,,„:1,14,..„, -..._,1„:: ..... ,, .-._,...„.„:._.:
F4„,--.:,,,:-.•=42-z-,7,--,‘-_---__,.--,!:$_-...--.:,.---,,,,_.--2A,-------D.,:,-,„.!..-::-..,--i,r ---:_-_ .• _. '-.:.-.- - c.,..,7„-%.-f•-, . „...,- .-.::::--1:7,....t,. .•,,,,,.7,., -
,,,,,,r_-„.----- ,_,,,,, z-...-:',,,1:-..c.i.ck,--•c.f,.:-.4-,i, ,-.I.--:,..-,-;:s4"3--„-.1.4,7,-_..,- --..::.:-..,... •- ,, r.,..---..i.-if.7 :.-....-:s...:47,,,r7,-.,,,,,c;.:,-,-,1-!7-,;L,..,.., ._,-_,,... ___;.
- : -;•,-5,----,.,-: Cq(.0- `'-''.:•oi? f..i 7if41,-. 4-4,--.4.1 .7.-4:77 ''.-:--.:.. v4,..- -.V-. ' _'---2-; -,,• 5-7-----7-t.T.--'.`:-'17:--..;:i7:-. - -.•••:,- et,7.-.;-:,,,.. ...,-.,....„..-_,:_,---_,-,-;
:-L7._;;;-.., - ,.....„-,..,., .,-,-.- .....- -•-%.--___...--
i 77V.4..•......;.- 4•41.:::,,.:,-......lit:--1i..-.,.....;.:..,::. ...7.1..,......-1.1.,..,,....•- - •
r 0 aty
Eden Prairie
imma 8080 Mitchell Road•Eden Prairie,MN 55344-4485-edenprairie.org•952-949-8300•TDD 952-949-8399
August 19,2002
Andrew and Kathy Washburn
11623 Landing Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344-4485
Subject: Tree House Construction on Scenic/Conservation Easement
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Washburn:
I have been updated by the City Attorney and city staff related to a tree house that was
being constructed in your back yard earlier this year. The information as presented to me
is as follows:
• A tree house was being built on your property and that Stuart Fox, Manager of
Parks and Natural Resources visited your property on May 16, 2002 to see if it
• was in a protected area.
• The work on the tree house was ordered to stop since it was occurring in an area
that is covered by a scenic and conservation easement.
• Mr.Fox spoke with Mrs. Washburn on May 20, 2002 and explained the reason
for the stop work order.He mailed a copy of the scenic/conservation easement
document to your home and explained that the tree house would need to be
removed from the restricted area.
• When asked how the tree house could remain,Mr. Fox said that the conservation
• easement document would have to be changed and that this could only be done by
City Council authorization.
• A letter was received from Brian Liebo, an attorney on your behalf,requesting
that the City change(waive)the condition within the easement document that
prohibits man made structures within the scenic/conservation easement area. This
letter was forwarded to the City Attorney. Craig Boates then called Mr. Liebo,
who requested an appearance at a City Council meeting to petition for a change in
the scenic/conservation easement document.
Scenic and Conservation easements are land use conditions that are agreed upon during
the process of new subdivision development review by the various advisory boards and
ultimately by the City Council.The subdivision that you live in,Riverview Heights,was
approved by the City Council in 1993. One of the many conditions for subdivision
4
} August 19, 2002
Page 2
within the subdivision. This was done to protect an area that contained steep,slopes and
significant oak woodlands. Because of mass grading and loss of trees associated with
grading for road and home sites within the subdivision a conservation easement was
proposed and agreed to by the developer and City Council. This document was filed with
Hennepin County in March 1994 and became part of the permanent property record for
your lot.
I can appreciate your desire to build a tree house for your kids to enjoy. The fact is that
conditions listed in scenic/conservation easements prohibit tree houses from being
constructed. You have the right to petition the City Council to amend the document but
be aware that the staff will not recommend a change of this nature because of the
implications to the other three properties covered in the document and the development
review process that recommended the placement of these restrictions as a condition of the
subdivision approval.
Sincerely,
Scott H. Neal
City Manager
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Appointments September 3,2002
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Tria Mann,Arts&Events Appointments to the Arts and Culture
Coordinator Commission A
Parks,Recreation&Natural
Resources
Requested Action
Move to: Appoint to the Arts&Culture Commission
Todd Persteiner-Term to expire 3/31/2005
Steve Mosow-Term to expire 3/31/2004
Doug White-Term to expire 3/31/2003
Synopsis
In March of 2002, five residents were appointed to the Arts&Cultural Commission
which has a 5 to 7 membership range.
At the August Arts & Cultural Commission meeting Freinde Mills announced that she
and her family will be moving to Minnetonka. Therefore, she has resigned her position on
the Commission.
Staff sent an email to resident artists and art contacts in Eden Prairie to notify them of the
opening. Three individuals applied for the commission. After reviewing the applications, staff
recommends that all three be appointed to the commission, thereby bringing the commission to a
full seven members.
All three applicants have backgrounds and interests in the arts as well as being involved in the
government process. Staff also believes that each one has strengthens they could provide the
commission. Having a seven member commission will also allow us to spread out the work
more, better reach the public, and receive more feedback and information from different view
points.
Staff commends that Todd Persteiner be appointed to serve out Freinde Mills' term,which would
be held until 2005. Doug White and Steve Mosow would be appointed to fill the 2003 and the
2004 terms. This would give us two one-year members,three two-year members, and two three-
year members.
Attachments-Applications (-y-0 CO 1 ci I 0 n l y)
1'70