Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 06/03/2003 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE.CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/FORUM TUESDAY,JUNE 3,2003 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, and Jan Mosman, and Philip Young CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal,Police Chief Dan Carlson,Fire Chief George Esbensen,Public Works Director Eugene Dietz,Director of Parks and Recreation Bob Lambert,Management and Budget Director Don Uram, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder Lorene McWaters Heritage Room II I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. DISCUSSION TOPICS A. STRATEGIC PLANNING UPDATE IV. OTHER TOPICS Outside City Center V. RIBBON CUTTING CEREMONY FOR NEW LADDER FIRE TRUCK— FATHER TIM(6:30-6:50 p.m.) Council Chamber VI. OPEN FORUM(Canceled) VII. OPEN PODIUM(Unscheduled participants, 6:50-7:00 p.m.) VIII. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,JUNE 3,2003 7:00 PM,CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ron Case,Jan Mosman, and Philip Young 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. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD MAY 20,2003 (p. 1) B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,MAY 20,2003 (p. 5) VI. CONSENT CALENDAR . A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST (p. 18) B. THE COVE 2ND ADDITION by Rick Lamettry. 2nd Reading for Planned Unit Development District Review within. the RI-22 Zoning District with waivers on 3.2 acres. Location: 6861 and 6871Beach Road. (Ordinance for PUD District Review, Zoning District Amendment) (p. 19) C. WEDDING DAY JEWELERS by Marquis Jewelers. 2nd Reading for Planned Unit Development District Review on 0.68 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial-Regional-Service Zoning District on 0.68 acres, and Site Plan Review on 0.68 acres. Location: 8320 Crystal View Road. (Ordinance for PUD District Review,Zoning District Amendment,Resolution for Site Plan Review) (p. 48) D. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF MITCHELL CROSSING 2ND ADDITION(p. 72) E. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF THE PINES AT SETTLERS RIDGE 2ND ADDITION(p. 75) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 3,2003 Page 2 F. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF EAGLE RIDGE AT HENNEPIN VILLAGE ONE (p. 79) G. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH H ENNEPIN COUNTY FOR VALLEY VIEW ROAD/TH 212 PROJECT,I.C. 01-5543 (p. 82) H. AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO WRITE A LETTER TO TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY TO REQUEST AN EASEMENT (p. 95) I. DECLARATION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY (p. 98) J. AWARD CONTRACT FOR CITY CENTER PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS TO DMJ CORPORATION (p. 100) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS /MEETINGS A. WOODDALE CHURCH MASTER PLAN by Wooddale Church. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.07 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 31.07 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 31.07 acres, and Site Plan Review on 31.07 acres. Location: Shady Oak Road and Bryant Lake Drive. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review, Zoning District Amendment) (p. 101) B. PONDS EDGE by LandGeeks, LLC. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 8.63 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 8.63 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 7.16 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 1.47 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.63 acres into 15 lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Pioneer Trail,west of Stable Path. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review, Zoning District Change, Zoning District Amendment,Resolution for Preliminary Plat) (p. 113) VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS (p. 126) 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 B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 3,2003 Page 3 C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR 1. AppraisaI for Shuldhiess Property (p. 135) 2. Naming Park Site (p. 152) 3. Off-leash Dog Exercise Area (p. 153) D. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF F. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIRECTOR H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XIV. OTHER BUSINESS XV. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY,JUNE 3 2003 7:00 PM,CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road HOUSING&REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEMBERS: Mayor Nancy Tyra- Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ron Case,Jan Mosman, and Philip Young 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 IL RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS BY THE HRA OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE(MEMORIAL BLOOD CENTERS) IV. ADJOURNMENT HRA AGENDA DATE: y { June 3,2003 SECTION: 1 i.ti SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Management and Budget Resolution Cplling for a Public Hearing on the Don Uram,Director proposed Issuance of Commercial Development Revenue Bonds By the HRA of the City of Eden Prairie Requested Action Move to: Adopt Resolution calling for a Public Hearing on the proposed Issuance of Commercial Development Revenue Bonds by the HRA of the City of Eden Prairie Synopsis Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.54, Subdivision 4 and in compliance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the BRA is required to conduct a public hearing on the Project and the financing thereof. A public hearing on the proposal to finance the Project and to issue the Bonds is hereby called and shall be held on July 1, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., at the City Hall, 8080 Mitchell Road,Eden Prairie,Minnesota, 55344-2230. Background Information Pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1651, the HRA is authorized to issue revenue bonds in anticipation of the collection of revenues of a project to finance the cost of acquisition, construction,reconstruction,improvement, or extension thereof. The Authority proposes to issue its revenue bonds for the purpose of financing a portion or all of the cost of a proposed project on behalf of Memorial Blood Centers, a qualified 501(c)(3) organization and nonprofit corporation of the state of Minnesota, consisting of(i) the acquisition of a 26,722 gross square foot office building and 92,780 square feet of associated land from Braun Intertec and (ii) conversion of the Facilities from an office building and engineering laboratory to a central operating facility for the Corporation. The Facilities will be owned and operated by the Memorial Blood Centers and are located at 6801 Washington Avenue South in the City. Attachment Resolution CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA H.R.A.RESOLUTION NO. 2003- RESOLUTION RELATING TO A PROJECT ON BEHALF OF MEMORIAL BLOOD CENTERS AND ITS FINANCING UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 469.152 TO 469.1651; CALLING FOR A PUBLIC BEARING THEREON BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: SECTION 1 Recitals 1.1. Pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1651, the Authority is authorized to issue revenue bonds in anticipation of the collection of revenues of a project to finance the cost of acquisition, construction,reconstruction, improvement, or extension thereof. The Authority proposes to issue its revenue bonds (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing a portion or all of the cost of a proposed project (the "Project") on behalf of Memorial Blood Centers, a qualified 501(c)(3) organization and nonprofit corporation of the state of Minnesota (the "Corporation"), consisting of (i) the acquisition of a 26,722 gross square foot office building (the "Facilities") and 92,780 square feet of associated land from Braun Intertec and (ii) conversion of the Facilities from an office building and engineering laboratory to a central operating facility for the Corporation. The Facilities will be owned and operated by the Corporation and are located at 6801 Washington Avenue South in the City. SECTION 2 Public Hearing 2.1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.54, Subdivision 4 and in compliance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, this Board is required to conduct a public hearing on the Project and the financing thereof. A public hearing on the proposal to finance the Project and to issue the Bonds is hereby called and shall be held on July 1, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., at the City Hall, 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie,Minnesota, 55344- 2230. 2.2. The Secretary shall cause notice of the public hearing to be published in the official newspaper of the City at least once not fewer than fourteen(14)nor more than thirty(30) days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing. The notice to be published shall be in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A hereto. Adopted this 2nd day of June,2003. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Chair Attest: Scott H.Neal,Executive Director EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES,SECTIONS 469.152 THROUGH 469.1651,AS AMENDED,ON BEHALF OF MEMORIAL BLOOD CENTERS HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority(the Authority)of the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota(the City),will meet on July 1,2003,at 7:00 o'clock P.M.,at the City Hall, 8080 Mitchell Road,in Eden Prairie,Minnesota,for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on a proposal that the City issue its revenue bonds(the Bonds),in one or more series,under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1651,as amended, in order to fmance, on behalf of Memorial Blood Centers, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the Corporation)the cost of a project(the Project) comprised of: (i)the acquisition of a 26,722 gross square foot office building(the"Facilities")and 92,780 square feet of associated land from Braun Intertec and(ii) conversion of the Facilities from an office building and engineering laboratory to a central operating facility for the Corporation. The Facilities will be owned and operated by the Corporation. The Facilities are located at 6801 Washington Avenue South in the City. The maximum aggregate principal amount of the proposed Bond issue is$2,250,000. The Bonds shall be limited obligations of the Authority, and the Bonds and interest thereon shall be payable solely from the revenue pledged to the payment thereof. No holder of any such Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the Authority or the City to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon,nor to enforce payment against any property of the Authority except the property pledged to the payment thereof. Before issuing the Bonds,the Authority will enter into an agreement with the Corporation,whereby the Corporation will be obligated to make payments at least sufficient at all times to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due. A draft copy of the proposed Application to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development for approval of the Project,together with draft copies of all attachments and exhibits thereto,is available for public inspection at the office of the Secretary,located in the City Hall, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M.,on normal City business days. All persons interested may appear and be heard at the time and place set forth above, or may file written comments with the Secretary prior to the date of the hearing set forth above. Dated: ,2003 BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS /s/ Secretary - v. A UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/FORUM TUESDAY,MAY 20,2003 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, and Jan Mosman, and Philip Young CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal,Police Chief Dan Carlson,Fire Chief George Esbensen,Public Works Director Eugene Dietz,Director of Parks and Recreation Bob Lambert,Management and Budget Director Don Uram, City Attorney Ric Rosow,Manager of Finance Sue Kotchevar, and Recorder Lorene McWaters Heritage Room II I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. DISCUSSION TOPICS A. 2004-2005 BUDGET PLANNING Finance Director Don Uram gave a presentation that included an overview of the City's past and current budget policies, current fiscal status, and considerations for the 2004-2005 budget. • Uram noted that since the legislature has not made final decisions on major budget issues, staff has been working with incomplete information and has been forced to make some assumptions. Uram said the 1996 budget model forecasted significant deficits,ranging from $1.2 million in 1996 to$7.2 million in 2005. In response to these forecasts, staff implemented the following plan: • Freeze the employee count and operating expenses • Reduce the rate of increase of operating expenses to below 7 percent • End the use of"one-time"revenues for operating expenses • Implementation of new programs or services to be matched by reductions in existing services The following budget objectives were also developed: • Comply with levy limits • Minimize tax impacts • • Fund necessary services/staff • Maintain a balanced budget model • Provide funding for the Capital Improvement Program(CIP) • Implement two-year budgeting cycle Uram said these policies and objectives resulted in increasing fund balances. 2002 financial results were as follows: • Revenue stabilization fund- $1,022,000 • Reserve for severance- $1,000,000 • Designated health care- $600,000 • Designated for working capital-$852,000 • Liquor operations retained earnings - $600,000 Uram said that although some of these reserves may appear high, it is important to note that in 2005 the school district's lease payments on their portion of the City Center will be considerably lower than today, and that C.H. Robinson's lease is up in 2005. It is unclear whether or not they will choose to renew the lease. If their space is vacated,the City will be responsible for covering significant operating costs for the empty areas until a new tenant is found. Uram said the 2002 general fund balance designated for working capital was $9.3 million,with$2.5 million in reserve for severance, and$600,000 designated for healthcare. The revenue stabilization fund balance was $4.3 million, CIP was $9.5 million, and liquor operations$2.5 million. Uram said that although the legislature has not made final decisions, it appears the City will be facing major legislative issues,including levy limits, debt limits, and possible reverse referendum. The City expects to lose approximately$1 million in state funding in the form of Local Government Aid and Market Value Homestead Credit. Other revenues are expected to increase only minimally. In addition, employee health insurance premiums are expected to rise by up to 25%. The City is also attempting to determine its financial liability in. remediating a contaminated fire training site it co-owns with several other western suburban communities. . IV. OTHER TOPICS a Council Chamber V. OPEN FORUM (Scheduled participants, 6:30-6:50 p.m.) A. Jeff Strate—Hennepin Village Jeff Strate addressed Council regarding concerns about the Liatris Lane easements being considered as part of the Hennepin Village development. He said he is concerned that damage can occur despite an easement. Strate said he has heard of problem in other communities, such as Minnetonka Beach,with similar easements. He said that uses can be challenged and changed later. Another concern is that there is only one access point to the conservation area. Strate asked Council to reconsider this portion of the Hennepin Village proposal and keep Liatris Lane either public or tweak the agreement to make it stronger. Councilmember Case said he is understands Strate's concerns but would need to know what benefit there would be to keeping the road public. City Manager Neal said that while there may be merit to Strate's concerns,the heart of the issue appears to be the City's ability to maintain public access to the conservation area. Neal said staff feels the City will be able to maintain access to the trailhead. Neal also said staff is concerned about pulling out one small piece of a much larger agreement that is the result of ongoing negotiations between staff and the developer. Neal said that tonight was an important date for the Hennepin Village item because Council is running out of time to make a decision on the agreement. Councilmember Mosman asked,if the discussion of Mr. Strate's concerns could be fmished during the Council Meeting since another speaker was scheduled for Open Forum. Council agreed to continue the discussion during the regular Council Meeting and Mr. Strate said he would be happy to stay for the meeting. B. Loren &Norma Wuttke—Proposed Development Norma and Loren Wuttke told Council their family has lived in Eden Prairie on one of the most beautiful 51-acre parcels in the City for 20 years. They said they are now ready to share this site with the community, and have solicited concept plans for a"50+active adult community." They acknowledged that this parcel is guided low density,but questioned whether or not this is the best use for it. They said they received one concept plan with which they are very pleased. The development would appeal to older active adults who want a natural setting and security. They said they are looking forward to the assistance of City staff in helping this proposal go forward. ,They said they would like to know if the Council feels it can support this proposal. Some of the amenities included in the development include preservation of 60 percent of the natural space, 24-7 on-site management, a clubhouse, and underground parking to reduce the amount impervious surface. Mayor Tyra-Lukens asked how many units are proposed under this concept. They said there would be 11-15 units per acre, or a total of 613 units. Tyra-Lukens said that while the concept sounds interesting,the Wuttke's would need to take the proposal through the normal process of staff review and presentation to the Community Planning Board. 3 VI. OPEN PODIUM(Unscheduled participants, 6:50-7:00 p.m.) VII. ADJOURNMENT • . y _Y .E UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,MAY 20,2003 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ron Case, Jan Mosman, and Philip Young 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 Mayor Tyra-Lukens stated that the City Council provides an Open Forum opportunity for Eden Prairie citizens to address the Council on issues related to Eden Prairie city government on the first and third Tuesday of each month from 6:30-6:50 p.m. in the Council Chambers immediately prior to the start of the City Council's regularly scheduled meetings. She said Open Forum is reserved for scheduled participants, and if you wish to speak to the Council during Open Forum,please contact Ms. Lorene McWaters in the City Manager's office by calling 952.949.8412 by noon of the meeting date with your name and the subject matter you wish to address. She said the Council also provides an impromptu, unscheduled Open Podium opportunity for citizens to address the Council concerning issues related to Eden Prairie city government from 6:50 to 7:00 p.m. immediately following Open Forum. Open Forum and Open Podium are not recorded or televised. The City Council reserves the right to adjust the time allocations for Open Forum and Open Podium. If you have questions about the process or procedures of Open Forum or Open Podium,please contact the City Manager's office. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS City Manager Scott Neal asked that Item B of the Consent Calendar be considered separately prior to the public hearings. Tyra-Lukens announced that the open house for the Southwest LRT, Hennepin County Light Rail Study,will be held Thursday, May 22 at Southwest Station from 4-7 p.m. She said scheduled recommendations are from the Technical Advisory Committee which is one of two committees. She said the Policy Advisory Committee's recommendations are expected in late June. Butcher added under Councilmember Reports discussion on passage of the Conceal and Carry bill and what it means to the city. 5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 20,2003 Page 2 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Mosman,to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried 5-0. V. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD MAY 6,2003 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Young,to approve as published the Minutes of the Council Workshop held May 6,2003. Motion carried 5-0. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,MAY 6,2003 MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Mosman, to approve as published the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held May 6, 2003. Motion carried 5-0. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. HENNEPIN VILLAGE- SITES C &D by Pemtom Land Company. 2nd Reading of Planned Unit Development District Review on 64.9 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 16.9 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 48 acres, and Site Plan Review on 48 acres. Location: North of Hwy. 212, east of Spring Road. (Ordinance No. 8-2003-PUD-4-2003 for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change,Resolution No. 2003-82 for Site Plan Review) C. LORENCE 3rd ADDITION by Jon and Katie Thoma. 2nd Reading of Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to Public on.05 acres, and Zoning District Change from Public to R1-13.5 on.05 acres. Location: 17195 Valley View Road. (Ordinance No. 13-2003 for Zoning District Change) D. AWARD BID FOR PHASE II PARK IMPROVEMENTS FOR PURGATORY CREEK RECREATION AREA TO AMERICAN LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION E. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2003 SEALCOAT TO PEARSON BROTHERS F. AWARD CONTRACT FOR 2003 BITUMINOUS MILL AND OVERLAY TO BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC. G. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR THE INSTITUTION COMMUNITY WORK CREW(ICWCZ H. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2003-83 AMENDING RESOLUTION 2002-190, FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2003 I. APPROVE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE NO. 14-2003 GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO CENTER POINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.2003-84 APPROVING SUMMARY ORDINANCE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 20,2003 Page 3 J. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SOUTHDALE YMCA'S 20TH YEAR ANNIVERSARY OPERATING EDEN PRAIRIE'S SCHOOL AGE CHILD CARE PROGRAM K. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2003-85 APPROVING COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH MN/DOT FOR THE TH 212/ VALLEY VIEW ROAD INTERCHANGE AREA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MOTION: Case moved to approve Items A and C-K of the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Mosman, motion carried 5-0. Discussion was held regarding.Item B of the Consent Calendar. City Manager Scott Neal said there is additional information on Item B that should be considered by the Council. City Planner Michael Franzen said Liatris Lane is in Phase III and is not part of the property that is being subdivided at this time and Council will be able to revisit the developer's agreement prior to approval of the final plat for Phase III. He said if necessary, appropriate language regarding public access may be applied at that time. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve Item B of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WITHIN THE PLAT OF STORAGE COMPLEX,VACATION 03-06(Resolution No. 2003-86) City Manager Scott Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the May 1,2003,Eden Prairie Sun Current and sent to one property owner.He said Perntom Land Company has requested this vacation to enable the incorporation and replatting of the area requested for vacation into the Williams Property project. The area will comprise right-of-way dedication and platted lots.Neal said Staff considers this a housekeeping item and Staff recommends approval. There were no comments from the public. MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing and adopt the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements over part of Lot 1,Block 1, Storage Complex, further described in the vacation resolution. Motion carried 5-0. B. THE BLUFFS AT PURGATORY CREEK by O'Catarais, LLC. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.55 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 10.55 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 10.55 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 10.55 acres into 3 lots and 1 outlot. Location: North of the terminus of Center Drive. (Resolution No. 2003-87 for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change,Resolution No. 2003-88 for Preliminary Plat) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 20,2003 Page 4 City Manager Scott Neal said Official notice of this public hearing was published in the May 8,2003,Eden Prairie Sun Current and sent to 55 property owners. He said this is for three single family lots. The project requires waivers relating to the use of a private drive rather than a public road. The tree replacement plan has been revised to meet the recommendations of the staff report. The Community Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the project at its April 28,2003 meeting. Neal said the following waivers are requested as part of the PUD: 1. Lots 1 and 2 without public road frontage. Code requires frontage on a public road. 2. Public road frontage of 39.5 feet for Lot 3. Code requires 90 feet in the R1-22 district. 3. Average lot width of 82 feet for Lot 2. Code requires 90 feet. 4. Average lot width of 68 feet for Lot 3. Code requires 90 feet. Neal said the development could meet City code if a public road were used rather than the private drive. However,this would result in higher tree loss and greater impervious surface as demonstrated in the proponent's previous development proposal, and would remove the existing cul-de-sac on Center Drive that the existing residents desire to retain. Significant tree loss is 36%. The tree replacement plan has been revised to show 383 caliper inches as recommended in the staff report. He said a private drive will be extended into the project from the existing Center Drive cul-de-sac. This is supported by the existing abutting residents. Permanent road easements will be obtained at no cost from these property owners to reconstruct the cul-de-sac to City standards as part of the City's road improvement project in the area. City Planner Michael Franzen said the current plan is an alternative to what was first submitted to the Planning Board. He said the current plan received Planning Board approval because there was clear benefit to the City in that it reduces the tree loss and gives a better buffer zone to the existing conservation area. Kim Vohs of 15900 N. Hillcrest Court asked if the developer would still be giving part of the land to the City as part of the plan. Neal said yes. There were no further comments from the public. MOTION: Young moved to close the Public Hearing; and adopt the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.55 acres; and approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 10.55 acres; and adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 10.55 acres into 3 lots and 1 outlot; and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Board recommendations and Council conditions. Seconded by Mosman,motion carried 5-0. 0 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 20,2003 Page 5 C. PRAIRIE CENTRE TOWN OFFICE PARK by F&D Holdings,LLC. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.8 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 1.8 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 1.8 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.8 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 1.8 acres into 1 lot. Location: Aztec Drive, south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. (Resolution No. 2003- 89 for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change,Resolution No.2003-90 for Preliminary Plat) City Manager Scott Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in *the May 8, 2003,Eden Prairie Sun Current and sent to 55 property owners.He said this project is for seven town office units located at Aztec Drive, south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. A front yard setback waiver to parking is required. The Community Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council at the April 28, 2003,meeting. This site is an outlot of the Aztec Town Office Park project,which was approved in 2002. At that time the guide plan for this site was changed from Neighborhood Commercial to Office. In order to create an appropriate transition to the residential development to the east, a front setback waiver to parking will be needed from 35 feet to 17.5 feet. This waiver will provide added area for an increased berm height and additional space for plantings. City Planner Michael Franzen said the key part of this project is making the transition to the neighborhood. He said the developer is present to answer questions. There was no public comment. MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Case,to close the Public Hearing; and adopt the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.8 acres; and approve the lst Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and Zoning District change from Rural to Office on 1.8 acres; and adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 1.8 acres into one lot; and direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Staff and Board recommendations and Council conditions. Case asked if homeowners could be involved in the planning for location of tree placements and berms. Franzen said the developer in the first phase worked with homeowners on some tree placements. He said there is a landscape surety that is kept with projects that guarantees berms are in the right location, at the right height, and trees are in the right location. In addition,he said homeowners'requests for specific trees in specific locations will be considered. Motion carried 5-0. D. WILLIAM A. SMALL PROPERTY by The Pemtom Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5 acres. Location: 16525 Beverly Drive. (Resolution No. 2003-91 for PUD Concept Review) City Manager Scott Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the May 8, 2003,Eden Prairie Sun Current and sent to 39 property owners. He said this is for a Planned Unit Development concept for 9 single family lots located at the southwest corner of Eden Prairie Road and Beverly Drive. The Community Planning CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 20,2003 Page 6 Board voted 9-0 to recommend approval of the project at its April 14,2003 meeting. This site is part of the Cedar Hills West subdivision approved in 1979 consisting of ten, five-acre rural lots served by existing well and septic systems. There is no City sewer and water serving this site or surrounding property. There are no plans or feasibility study underway for serving the area with City sewer and water. The earliest these services could be available is 2005. Neal said the PUD concept plan shows the future development of nine single-family lots served by a new public road. Density for the site is 1.8 units per acre, consistent with the Low Density Residential guiding for the area. The concept anticipates a rezoning of the property to R1-13.5 when City sewer and water is available. All lots and structure setbacks are shown to be consistent with City code for this future zoning district. No direct access to Beverly Drive or Eden Prairie Road will be permitted. Tree loss is 61 diameter inches, or 49%. The tree replacement plan shows the required 101 caliper inches of tree replacement. An updated tree inventory will be necessary at the time of rezoning. This proposal is for PUD Concept approval only. Any future development will require City sewer and water, and rezoning of the property based on review and approval of detailed development plans by the Community Planning Board and City Council through a public hearing process. City Planner Michael Franzen said this is a joint venture between the property owner and Pemtom Land Company. He said there are two primary reasons for doing the concept plan-it shows how the property could be divided into lots in conformance with the Guide Plan, and it also shows the best location for the extension of utilities. Tyra-Lukens asked what the concerns of neighbors were. Franzen said there were no noted concerns of neighbors,but the Planning Board was concerned with changing the character of the area because it is one of the last areas of the city that is five-acre lots. The City should approve the plan since it is consistent with the guide plan and the requirements of the R1-13.5 zoning district. Tyra-Lukens asked in what way voting in favor would-obligate the city. Franzen said the PUD is only a framework for future decision making on how the site might develop in the future. Keiran W. O'Brien of 17135 Beverly Drive said he objects to the project. He said breaking the lots into nine parcels destroys the whole concept of the area and also destroys his property value. Tyra-Lukens asked Franzen what is motivating the PUD concept plan at this time. Franzen asked Dan Herbst from Pemtom to explain.Herbst said the original 1978 preliminary plat showed how landowners could subdivide, and he was approached by Mr. Small to assist with the plan.He said with no variances requested and the applicant taking care of storm water ponding and providing for utilities, this request is going to be a benefit to the neighborhood. He said he believes there are other residents who will also want to do similar subdividing of their properties. CITY COUNCIL.MINUTES May 20,2003 Page 7 Tyra Lukens asked if the earliest sewer and water would be available would be 2005 for that portion of the development. Herbst said three additional phases would be proposed on sites C and D which would take the project to 2005,but it will depend on the speed at which homes sell in the area. Mr. O'Brien said when property owners originally bought the lots,they were only allowed to put one home on the lot and asked how this overrules that. Tyra-Lukens said unless there are restrictive covenants that prohibit subdivision,the city does not have the ability to prohibit a landowner to subdivide once services are available. Mosman asked if there was something in the Comprehensive Guide Plan that referred to the future development of the area.Franzen said everything on the west side of Eden Prairie Road is low density residential and the only multiple family area is the east side which is part of Hennepin Village.He said the sewer line is along the bluff line along 212 and it was expected sewer would be available at some point depending on when owners and developers submit plans. There were no further comments from the public. MOTION: Case moved to close the Public Hearing; and adopt the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5 acres; and direct staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Board recommendations and Council conditions. Seconded by Butcher, motion carried 5-0. E. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR THE HILLCREST/ALPINE NIEGHBORHOOD,I.C. 98-5471 (Resolution No. 2003-92) City Manager Scott Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the May 1, 2003,Eden Prairie Sun Current and sent to 108 property owners. He said this hearing will be to assess the street and storm sewer costs and to gauge the extent of potential objections to the amount of special assessments in advance of awarding the construction contract for the project(later in agenda). This process reduces the risk associated with assessment appeals. The amounts to be assessed are in accordance with the feasibility study. The preliminary hearing for this project was held August 20, 2002. The estimated assessment presented at the hearing was $7,050.60 per unit. Based on bids received March 6, 2003,the proposed assessment is $5,936.00 per unit. The proposed assessments represent 40 percent of the cost for street construction and storm sewer improvements. Public Works Director Eugene Dietz gave a history of the project. He said there was a petition in 1998 with 74 signatures from property owners that included a request for storm sewers, street paving, cement curb and gutters to bring the neighborhood up to City Code. He said the final sentence of the petition asked that the neighborhood have the opportunity to accept or reject the final plan after the cost has been determined. Dietz said a feasibility study was ordered by the City Council in August of 1998 and a cost participation policy had not been developed and there was not an approved assessment policy for street reconstruction projects at that time.He said in the process there have been six neighborhood meetings, an open house and significant correspondence between residents and Staff and residents and City Council. I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 20,2003 Page 8 Dietz said in July of 2002,the feasibility study was finalized with a 60/40 split on the cost with the City paying 60 percent.He said pending additional objections, Staff recommends moving forward on the project.He noted that the individual unit assessment of$5,936 can be spread over 20 years at 6.25%interest. Dietz said residents can choose to fully pay the assessment prior to November 30, 2003 to avoid interest. Dietz said in assessment projects,benefit to the neighborhood must be shown. He said there must be a policy that makes sense for the future, is consistent with the past and will apply to the remainder of the streets in the community. City Attorney Ric Rosow spoke about the assessment showing benefit to the neighborhood.He stated with special assessments, the value increase for the homes or properties being assessed must meet or exceed the amount of assessment. He said the law presumes and allows the City to presume that the cost of the improvement is an indicator of the increase in value. He then explained the special assessment appeal process and said in anticipation of litigation on this project,he has consulted and retained an appraiser who provided advice on whether or not the project would increase the value of the homes by at least the amount of the assessment. He said he believes that Council is on strong ground to make the assessment at the level recommended. Butcher asked the percentage of neighbors impacted by the project.Dietz said there are approximately 106 property owners. Barney Uhlig of 16370 N.Hillcrest Ct. said the Public Works Department is proposing an assessment that ignores statutory and case law that governs assessment in the state. He said assessments are to be based on individual benefits received and not project costs. He said the methodology used must approximate market value analysis and there is no market value analysis available for the properties. He said all properties must not be assessed for the value increase of a few and the proposed assessment will not increase the value of his property. Uhlig said asphalt curbs are a cost effective alternative to concrete curbs and are only a political obstacle to resurfacing a street. He asked Council to order whatever is needed to fix the streets after three decades of neglect, and order that what was done to the west side of Hillcrest Court be done to the east side. He said Council should not approve the unlawful attempt to assess regardless of benefits received. He said if Council approves the proposed assessment,the decision will be made in district court in an assessment appeal. City Attorney Ric Rosow said there is no disagreement that benefits must be received by the property in order for the assessment to be sustained.He said the courts have regularly sustained assessments by city councils based upon the same type of evidence presented in this case, and there is not a requirement for each property to be appraised before an assessment is made.He said an individual analysis is not the law. Craig Pixley of 16001 Alpine Way said he supports the project moving forward. He said he would rather see it go forward and forfeit the right to file an objection because he does not want to see the project derailed after several years of process. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 20,2003 . Page 9 Michael Sandness of 7101 Center Drive said he has been a resident of the neighbor- hood since 1972.He moved to the city because of quality of life and asked Council to allow residents to invest in their homes and not the legal system.He said water and sediment is a problem in his area and asked for Council support of the project. Laura Jester of 16145 Hillcrest Lane said she just moved to the neighborhood a couple years ago and agreed that the roads needs to be resurfaced and potholes are not acceptable. She said from an environmental view,there are new and innovative ways to convey storm water with infiltration basins and rainwater gardens and they should have been proposed by the public works department and environmental services department. She said the addition of curbs will actually increase the amount of storm water going into the wetlands and Purgatory Creek. Dominic Louwagie of 15980 N. Hillcrest Court asked if the private road costs associated with the adoption of the bluffs at Purgatory Creek would impact the costs associated with this project. Dietz said it would not.Mr Louwagie also said he has lived in the area for 10 years and the street has not had the maintenance it should have so there needs to be a policy adopted that addresses regular maintenance of streets to keep them safe. Dietz said there is a policy in effect in the form of a pavement management program and that program will be paying the majority of the city's portion of this project. Joe Lupo of 16390 N. Hillcrest Ct. stated the assessment should be based on benefit that the property receives and not the cost of the project. He said he has not heard talk about the benefits each property will receive. He asked why he should be assessed for roads to be fixed blocks away from his house. Carol and David Quanbeck of 16150 N. Hillcrest Ln. spoke in support of the project. David presented photos of existing streets in the neighborhood and stated cement curbs and catch basins will significantly improve storm water flow in the area.He encouraged Council to take positive action and approve the project. Carol also asked Council to vote in favor of the project. Don Bloyer of 16351 S. Hillcrest Ct. stated he is in support of the project. He asked for this type of improvements to streets,would other neighborhoods in the city be assessed the same way or as a result of this, get different levels of assessment because of results of this assessment.He also asked if the sewer is a maintenance issue or something that has to be upgraded at the cost of the residents,because it was a code- based sewer at one time. Dietz said the 60/40 split is the proposed policy and what is being gauged,based on what City Council decides, is establishing policy that will apply to the additional 15.5 miles of streets similar to this neighborhood.Dietz said what the city agreed to pay for regarding storm sewer is upgrades to existing outfalls and deal with drainage from County Road 4.He said the expansion of the storm sewer is part and parcel of the curb and gutter system. He said environmental issues are being considered with "stormseptors"being added.He said the possibility of putting ponds in the area was studied but too many trees would have been impacted to do that. I ? CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 20,2003 Page 10 Brian Tsuchiya of 16165 Hillcrest Lane said he and his wife Cheryl are in support of the project and encourage Council to move forward with it.He thanked Dietz and his staff for their patience and resilience during the last five years. He said he appreciates the communication that was open and honest.He said beautification and safety of the neighborhood is important and he believes the project will add to his property value. He also said the work will reduce the property damage from drainage. Jim Tucker of 16350 N. Hillcrest Ct. asked if the property owners at the bottom of the hill would no longer have problems with drainage with this project. Dietz said the problems would not be totally eliminated because it is a 10-year storm sewer design and there is a 10 percent chance in any given year that it will be exceeded. He said none of the city is designed beyond the 10-year design. Jerry Johnson of 15801 N. Hillcrest Ct. said the streets need repair and this project will fix that. He said the streets are a safety hazard to children, storm water drainage is inadequate, asphalt curbs are in poor shape. He said although he'd like to pay a smaller amount of money for the project, a reasonable compromise has been reached and he urged Council to vote in favor of the project. He said he hopes residents in the neighborhood can accept and respect Council's decision so they can continue to enjoy a fantastic neighborhood and a great community. Kim Vohs of 15900 N.Hillcrest Court said he believes there is a consensus that residents want the project and he is relieved at the cost of$5,900 and residents should seize the opportunity considering original cost estimates of over$15,000. He said safety of children in the streets is an issue. He said he hopes Council will go with the vast majority of neighbors who are in favor of the project. He said objections were made to reserve the right to appeal at a later date, and he believes the majority are unlikely to appeal. There were no further comments from the public. MOTION: Case moved to close the public hearing; and adopt the resolution ' approving final assessments for street and utility improvements in the Hillcrest/Alpine Neighborhood(LC. 98-5471). Mosman seconded the motion. Mosman said the environmental concept referred to require a master plan with grading of roads,vegetation placement and other issues and it is not feasible with this project. She said there is a strong environmental faction in the Public Works department. She asked Rosow if the value of individual properties is public information. Rosow said once litigation is initiated and courts are open,testimony will be presented in open court with respect to each appraiser's valuation of particular homes.He said individual appraisals would be done for each home that is appealing and those homes would also be required to have their own individual appraisals to be presented in court. He said such information would normally be public information. Young said this is an important issue for how the City approaches assessments.He said he has studied municipal policy issues defining the project, legal analysis of the project and how the City responds to possible appeals and he thinks the City is doing the right thing. I21 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 20,2003 Page 11 Butcher said she believes this project is long overdue. She said she has walked and driven the streets in the area,talked to neighbors, and said the project must go forward because 80 percent of the residents do support it.In addition, she said the City's street standards must be met.Butcher said she believes the project has a reasonable assessment that will clearly improve the appearance and functions of the streets and water drainage. She said it would be cumbersome and costly to evaluate individual property benefits. She said whatever the final disposition of the project, she hopes the neighborhood will heal and grow together. Case said there is a historical record that the City has done assessments like this and this is nothing new.He said after legal and Staff advice, Councilmembers are charged to do what is best for the City of Eden Prairie, so he will join in voting for the project with no hesitation. There were no further comments. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Tyra-Lukens called a short break. VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher,to approve the Payment of Claims. The motion was approved on a roll call vote,with Butcher, Case, Mosman and Tyra-Lukens voting "aye." Councilmember Young was not present for the vote,but returned shortly thereafter. 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 Butcher said she received numerous phone calls from residents regarding ramifications of the Conceal and Carry bill that is now a law and will be in effect in July of this year. She said the legislature has made provisions for the capitol to be a gun-free zone and said she is confused as to why the same provisions would not apply to local government. She said a number of cities have submitted resolutions stating their concerns about the law and asked if this Council would like to do the same. She said there is a resolution from Bloomington where the Council unanimously made points about how they felt the law would impact them. She said the City Council is the official governing body of Eden Prairie and she believes Council has the right to weigh in on laws that affect local government so she'd like to hear comments from other Councilmembers. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 20,2003 Page 12 Tyra-Lukens said she agrees and has emailed legislators with her concerns. She added that there are aspects of the new law that she does like such as training and new regulations. Young said he is concerned about one unit of government passing a resolution on a formal act of another unit of government.He said a resolution on a state action is not the preferred method to express opinion. Mosman said maybe a resolution is not the appropriate method,but not discussing it would be neglecting concerns of the citizens. She said she is in favor of having some type of discussion with the Council and invite feedback from residents. Case said he is not happy with any aspects of the law.He said Council now needs to work within the process and maybe hold a workshop at some point,but a public hearing at this stage would be wrong. He said it is Council's role to channel feedback and advice up to the next level. Butcher said she has no intention of rewriting legislation. She said she believes it's very important when a Council is mandated at a local level by the State, to at least let the legislators know how the legislation impacts government at a local level. She said concerns and impacts to local government should be heard. Neal said Staff is in the process of lining up a workshop with State representatives to conduct a discussion on a number of issues and that may be a good opportunity to discuss this issue. He said there is really nothing in the law that requires persons to conceal what they are carrying and the bill is more about carrying than concealing. He said action on the bill will begin May 28,2003 which is the first date that sheriffs will receive application for permits to carry.Neal said there has been discussion with Hennepin County regarding the law and a considerable amount of study is being done. He said there are still a number of questions on how it will be implemented. Neal said the Staff must proceed with a plan to implement the law. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 1. Contract for HillcrestfAlpine Area Street and Storm Sewer Improvements (Resolution No. 2003-93) City Manager Scott Neal said six bids were received for this project on March 6, 2003. The lowest bid from S.M.Hentges and Sons was$1,261,957.46, which is 21%below the Engineer's Estimate of$1,590,316.00. The bid is also 11%below the Feasibility Study Estimate of$1,414,000.00. The resultant assessment per unit is $5,936.00,which is $1,114 less than the estimated unit assessment as defined in the Feasibility Study. l' CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 20,2003 Page 13 Neal said pursuant to action earlier tonight on this project,City Staff recommends that Council award the bid to S.M.Hentges and Sons. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Young,to adopt a resolution awarding contract for I.C. 98-5471,Hillcrest/Alpine Area Street and Storm Sewer Improvements to S.M.Hentges and Sons. Motion carried 5-0. E. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF F. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIRECTOR IL REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XIV. OTHER BUSINESS XV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Butcher,to adjourn the meeting.Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Tyra-Lukens adjourned the meeting at 9:39 p.m. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 3,2003 SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Police/C.O.P.Unit Clerk's License Application List .f Christy Weigel These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. Commercial Lawn Fertilizer Applicators Parkway Lawn Service, Inc CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6/3/03 SECTION: Consent Agenda DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Management and Budget/Planning -�- Donald R.Uram The Cove 2nd Addition 3— _E Scott A.Kipp Requested Action Move to: • Approve 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review within the R1-22 Zoning District on 3.2 acres; and • Approve the Development Agreement for The Cove 2nd Addition Synopsis This is for replotting of two existing single family lots to create a third single family lot. Attachments 1. Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment 2. Development Agreement 19 THE COVE 2ND ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 15-2003-PUD-6-2003 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CERTAIN LAND WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be amended within the R1-22 Zoning District 15-2003-PUD-6-2003 (hereinafter"PUD-6-2003-R1-22). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Development Agreement dated as of June 3, 2003, entered into between Richard A. LaMettry and Theodore R. Vickerman and the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter "Development Agreement"). The Development Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-6-2003- R1-22, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-6-2003-R1-22 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-6-2003-R1-22 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-6-2003-R1-22 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-6-2003-R1-22 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 R1-22 District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development 6-2003-R1-22, 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 May, 2003, 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 June, 2003. ATTEST: • Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on at EXHIBIT A PUD Legal Description — The Cove 2nd Addition Legal Description Before Final Plat Lot 12 and 13,Block 1,THE COVE,Hennepin County,MN. Legal Description After Final Plat Lot 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, THE COVE 2nd ADDITION, Hennepin County, MN. THE COVE 2ND ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-2003-PUD-6-2003 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 6861 and 6871 Beach Road within the R1-22 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 Sun Current on the . (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) D3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THE COVE 2nd ADDITION THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT("Agreement")is entered into as of June 3,2003,by Richard A., and Joanne LaMettry, husband and wife, and Theodore R. Vickerman, an individual, 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 3.2 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review within the R1-22 zoning district on 3.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.2 acres into 3 lots, legally described on Exhibit A(the"Property"); NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. for Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Ordinance No. for Planned Unit Development District Review within the Rl-22 zoning district,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 May 2,2003,reviewed and approved by the City Council on May 6,2003, (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. CONNECTION FEE: Prior to the release of the final plat for any portion of the Property, Developer shall pay sanitary sewer connection fees for a total amount of$8,115.00. 4. CROSS ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Prior to release of the final plat for the Property,Developer shall enter into a cross access and maintenance agreement with respect to the driveway areas common to Lot 1 and Lot 2. The agreement shall address joint vehicle access and maintenance of the driveway common to both lots. The driveway shall be privately owned and maintained. 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. 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. 5 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 implementatign 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. 8. GRADING IN THE WOODED AREAS ON SITE: Prior to grading within any of the wooded areas on the Property, delineated on Exhibit B, Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the City Forester's written approval of a plan depicting construction grading limits on the Property. Prior to the issuance of any land alteration permit,Developer shall place a construction fence on the approved construction grading limits. Developer shall notify the City and watershed district 48 hours in advance of grading so that the construction limit fence may be field inspected and approved by the City Engineer and City Forester. Developer shall maintain the construction limit fence until written approval is granted bythe City to remove the fence. 9. PLANS FOR INDIVIDUAL HOME CONSTRUCTION: Prior to building permit issuance for each residential structure on each lot of the Property,a Certificate of Survey for such parcel shall be submitted for review and written approval by the Building Department. The Certificate of Survey shall include a certification by the builder that construction of the residence is consistent with this Agreement and all exhibits attached hereto,and shall further contain the following information: A. Topography with 2 foot contour intervals for existing and proposed grades. Topography must be field verified. B. Location of structures with finished floor elevations. C. Retaining walls,type,height, and type of details. D. Location of sewer,water, gas and electric lines. E. Location, size and type of all significant trees on site. F. Method of erosion control. G. Detailed grading plans. H. No construction or grading within any conservancy easement area. I. Engineered design for footing, foundation, and retaining walls. 10. 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. • 11. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT: Prior to the release of the 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 Trunk Sewer and Water Assessments (Trunk Improvements)on an assessable acreage of 0.9487 acres in the amount of$4,933.24. 12. TREE LOSS-TREE REPLACEMENT: There are 2,214 diameter inches of significant trees on the Property. Tree loss related to development on the Property is calculated at 447 diameter inches. Tree replacement required is 119 caliper inches.Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for the Property,Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the City Forester's written approval of a tree replacement plan for 119 caliper inches. This approved plan shall include replacement trees of a 3-inch diameter minimum size for a shade tree and a 7-foot minimum height for conifer trees. The approved plan shall also provide that, should actual tree loss exceed that calculated herein,Developer shall provide tree replacement on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis for such excess loss. Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the Property,Developer shall furnish to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a tree replacement bond equal to 150%of the cost of said improvements as required by City Code. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved tree replacement plan prior to occupancy permit issuance. 13. 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 the City Council and City Code. The Plan shall include the following elements. A. Wetland and 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. The Buffer Report shall provide an action plan and proposed cost for correction of any problems identified. B. Vegetation Management Plan: A Vegetation Management Plan must be developed if the Buffer Report identifies any unacceptable vegetation, sod, turf, structures or other unacceptable conditions within the lake,wetland and/or wetland buffer strip. The Vegetation Management Plan shall include plans to grade,treat,reseed and/or replant (thereon known as "Landscaping", or "Landscaped") the wetland and/or wetland buffer strip by the Developer within 60 days of submission of the Buffer Report. If Landscaping of the wetland and/or 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 and/or wetland buffer strip vegetation complies with all City requirements within 30 days of completion of the Landscaping. C. Lake Access: Developer shall furnish to the Environmental Coordinator and receive the Environmental Coordinator's approval of a Lake Access Plan as part of the Vegetation Management Plan. The Lake Access Plan shall include a minimal path to the lake shore for recreational use by the Owner of the property and one dock. This area shall be incorporated into the Vegetation Management Plan as a grassed area. The Vegetation Management Plan for this area shall include the proposed grass seed mixture, mowing schedules and other proposed management plans. D. Annual Wetland and Wetland Buffer Strip Evaluation Reports: 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 a Annual Wetland and Wetland Buffer Strip Evaluation Report (Annual Buffer Report) that evaluates the condition of the wetland(s) and wetland buffer strip(s). The first Annual Buffer Report shall be submitted no later than November 1 of the calendar year in which construction of the wetland and/or wetland buffer strip is completed and thereafter annually until the final Annual Report is submitted. The Annual Buffer Report shall provide an action plan and proposed cost for correction of any problems identified. The final Annual 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 Annual Buffer Reports, the Developer shall correct the area(s) identified within 90 days of submission of the Annual Buffer Report. E. 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. This shall include the wetland and wetland buffer areas. 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. F. Wetland Buffer Strip Monuments: Prior to release of the final plat 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. G. 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,Vegetation Management Plan and/or Landscaping requirements 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 and Vegetation Management 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 Richard A. LaMettry Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor Joanne LaMettry Scott H.Neal, City Manager Theodore R. Vickerman STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2003,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 ,2003,by Richard A. LaMettry and Joanne LaMettry,husband and wife. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2003,by Theodore R. Vickerman, an individual. Notary Public 30 EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-THE COVE 2ND ADDITION Legal Description Before Final Plat Lot 12 and 13,Block 1,THE COVE,Hennepin County,MN. Legal Description After Final Plat Lot 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, THE COVE 2nd ADDITION,Hennepin County,MN. 31 EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-THE COVE 2ND ADDITION Preliminary Plat dated 05-02-03 by Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson,Inc. Bluff Analysis Plan not dated by Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc. Reforestation Plan dated 01-02-03 by Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc. 3a EXHIBIT C DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—THE COVE 2ND ADDITION 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. 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, or Preliminary Plat 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. 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. 33 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 knowingly 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 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 or 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 31 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 Development 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. 35 EXIIIBIT D DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—THE COVE 2ND ADDITION 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: 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—THE COVE 2ND ADDITION AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS THIS IS AN AGREEMENT MADE THIS day of , 2003, between the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, (the "City") and Richard A., and Joanne LaMettry (the "Owner"). A. The Owner holds legal and equitable title to property described as ,Hennepin County, Minnesota,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 the City's trunk utility system, including trunk sanitary sewers, trunk watermains, wells, elevated storage facilities and a water treatment plant (all of which is hereafter referred to as the "Improvement"). C. The parties hereto desire to enter into an Agreement concerning the financing of the construction of the Improvements all of which will inure to the benefit of the Property. AGREEMENTS IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows: 1. The Owners consent to the levying of assessments against the Property in the amount of$4,933.24 for the Improvements. 2. The City's assessment records for the Property will show the assessments as a "pending assessment" until levied. 3. The Owners waive notice of any assessment hearing to be held at which hearing or hearings the assessment is to be considered by the City Council and thereafter approved and levied. 4. The Owners concur that the benefit to the Property by virtue of the Improvements to be constructed exceeds the amount of the assessment to be levied against the Property. 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. 3� OWNER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE A Minnesota Municipal Corporation Richard A. LaMettry By: Joanne LaMettry Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor By: Scott H. Neal, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2003, 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 2003, by Richard A., and Joanne LaMettry, husband and wife. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road 3 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 LIO EXIT F DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—THE COVE 2ND ADDITION CONSERVATION/SCENIC EASEMENT THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made this day of ,2003 by and between Richard A., and Joanne LaMettry, husband and wife, and Theodore R. Vickerman, an individual, 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 Property as described in Exhibit B, 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 Management Plan. No vegetation cutting,fertilizer application or placement of turfgrass, such as Kentucky bluegrass, shall occur within the Easement Area. Li B. Wetland buffer monuments must be placed at the boundaries of the wetland buffer strip as shown on Exhibit C. 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 maintain minimal access to the lake shore and one dock through the wetland buffer strip area. The Grantor must submit a Vegetation Management Plan to the City delineating the size,type and location of access as well as the proposed vegetation management plan for this area. 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 knowingly 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 Grantor'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 attorney's 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 —I), 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. • y3 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 Richard A. LaMettry Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor Joanne LaMettry Scott H.Neal, City Manager Theodore R. Vickerman STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2003, 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 ,2003, by Richard A. LaMettry and Joanne LaMettry, husband and wife. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2003, by Theodore R. Vickerman, an individual. Notary Public EXFIIBIT A "THE PROPERTY" y5 E��IT B "EASEMENT AREA" EXIT C "EASEMENT AREA"DIAGRAM 1� CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6/03/03 SECTION: Consent Agenda DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Management and Budget/Planning • Donald R.Uram Wedding Day Jewelers C Danette M. Moore Requested Action Move to: • Approve 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial-Regional-Service Zoning District on 0.68 acres, and • Adopt the Resolution for Site Plan Review on 0.68 acres; and • Approve the Development Agreement for Wedding Day Jewelers Synopsis This is for a 1,583 square foot addition to allow a jewelry store. Attachments 1. Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Development Agreement • H7. WEDDING DAY JEWELERS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 17-2003-PUD-8-2003 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CERTAIN LAND WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be amended within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District 17-2003-PUD-8-2003 (hereinafter "PUD-8-2003- Com-Reg-Ser). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Development Agreement dated as of June 3,2003, entered into between Marquis Jewelers and the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter "Development Agreement"). The Development Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-8-2003-Com-Reg-Ser, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-8-2003-Com-Reg-Ser is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-8-2003-Com-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-8-2003-Com-Reg-Ser are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-8-2003-Com-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. L49 Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is amended within the Commercial Regional Service District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development 8-2003-Com-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 May, 2003, 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 June, 2003. ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on April 24,2003. So EXHIBIT A PUD Legal Description —Wedding Day Jewelers Legal Description LOT 2,BLOCK 2, THE PRESERVE COMMERCIAL PARK NORTH SECOND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota 51 WEDDING DAY JEWELERS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 17-2003-PUD-8-2003 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 8320 Crystal 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 Sun Current on the (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) • WEDDING DAY JEWELERS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2003- A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR WEDDING DAY JEWELERS BY MARQUIS JEWELERS WHEREAS, Marquis Jewelers, has applied for Site Plan approval of Wedding Day Jewelers for construction of a 1,583 square foot addition, by an Ordinance approved by the City Council on June 3, 2003; and WHEREAS,the Community Planning Board reviewed said application at a public hearing at its April 14, 2003 meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its May 6, 2003 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Marquis Jewelers for a 1,582 square foot addition, based on plans dated March 26, 2003, between Marquis Jewelers, and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of June, 2003. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WEDDING DAY JEWELERS THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of June 3, 2003, by Marquis Jewelers, 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 Amendment on 0.68 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 0.68 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 0.68 acres,and Site Plan Review on 0.68 acres,legally described on Exhibit A(the "Property"); NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No.2003- for Planned Unit Development Concept Review,Ordinance No. -2003-PUD- -2003 for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on0.68 acres and Resolution No.2003- 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 May 2,2003,reviewed and approved by the City Council on June 3,2003, (hereinafter the "Plans") and identified on Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 5y 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 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. 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. 6. 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. 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 f5 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. 7. 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 approved irrigation plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. 8. 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. 9. NURP POND: Developer has represented that a NURP facility for the treatment of storm water on the Property is not feasible. As a result of the addition,Developer has volunteered 5 to make an additional payment to the City equal to $5,740, which the Developer and City agree is an amount sufficient to substantially offset the additional impact on the City's storm water facilities caused by the absence of a NURP pond on the property. 10. 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. 11. PROOF OF PARKING SPACE: Developer and City acknowledge that the 1 proof of parking space proposed for the Property, depicted in the Plans, is 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 the proof of parking space to be constructed in order to accommodate the use,the City Manager shall notify the Developer in writing of the need to construct the additional proof of parking space. This notification shall include the location and timetable for construction of the additional proof-of-parking space. Developer shall comply with all requirements contained in the City Manager's notification. 12. RIGHT OF ENTRY: Developer shall grant to the City, at no cost to the City, a Right of Entry, attached hereto as Exhibit E, to enter upon the property to survey, design, and construct intersection improvements at Prairie Center Drive and Flying Cloud Drive (TH 212). 13. TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS:Developer agrees that by signing this agreement,a temporary easement for improvements to the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Flying Cloud Drive(TH 212)shall be granted to the City over the easterly twenty feet of the Property described in Exhibit A. 14. SIDEWALKS: Prior to building permit issuance,the Developer shall convey to the City a sidewalk/trail easement,attached hereto as Exhibit F,in such location as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation,Services 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. The sidewalk shall be constructed in the following location: A. A ten-foot wide easement to accommodate a concrete sidewalk to be located along the west side of Flying Cloud Drive(TH 212) across the Property. 15. 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. 15. 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 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. Sg 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 Marquis Jewelers By By Nancy Tyra-Lukens Its Its Mayor By Scott H.Neal Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2003, 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 ,2003,by of Marquis Jewelers, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public Sc) EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -WEDDING DAY JEWELERS Legal Description LOT 2, BLOCK 2, THE PRESERVE COMMERCIAL PARK NORTH SECOND.ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -WEDDING DAY JEWELERS Plans Certificate of Survey dated 2/28/03 by Lot Surveys Company,Inc. Grading and Utility Plan dated 3/07/03 by Paramount Engineering and Design Site Demolition Plan dated 3/07/03 by Tanek Architecture Site Plan dated 3/07/03 by Tanek Architecture Floor Plan dated 3/07/03 by Tanek Architecture Elevations Plan dated 3/07/03 by Tanek Architecture EXHIBIT C DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -WEDDING DAY JEWELERS 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. 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: Joginder Cheema 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 . 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, 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 63 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 -WEDDING DAY JEWELERS 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: (O� 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-WEDDING DAY JEWELERS RIGHT OF ENTRY Marquis Jewelers,the owner of certain lands in the City of Eden Prairie, does hereby consent and grant the City of Eden Prairie and its consultant and contractor,the right to enter upon for survey, design and construction purposes on, over,under and across the property described as follows: The easterly twenty feet of LOT 2,BLOCK 2, THE PRESERVE COMMERCIAL PARK NORTH SECOND ADDITION,Hennepin County,Minnesota It is understood that the contractor will restore the property to a condition as nearly equal as possible to that which existed prior to construction. 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 Marquis Jewelers By By Nancy Tyra-Lukens Its Its Mayor By Scott H.Neal Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2003, 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 ,2003,by , of Marquis Jewelers, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -WEDDING DAY JEWELERS TRAIL/SIDEWALK EASEMENT Marquis Jewelers("Grantor")hereby grants and conveys this day of ,2003,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/sidewalk; 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 Joginder Cheema,the holder of which has 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. DEVELOPER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Marquis Jewelers By By Nancy Tyra-Lukens Its Its Mayor By Scott H.Neal Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2003, 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 ,2003,by , of Marquis Jewelers, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public EXIIIBIT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -WEDDING DAY JEWELERS TRAIL EASEMENT Legal Description The easterly twenty feet of LOT 2,BLOCK 2, THE PRESERVE COMMERCIAL PARK NORTH SECOND ADDITION,Hennepin County,Minnesota. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 3,2003 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Engineering Resolution Approving Final Plat of Mitchell 1T -p Randy Slick Crossing 2nd Addition JC Requested Action Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Mitchell Crossing 2"d Addition. Synopsis This proposal, located at the southeast corner of Mitchell Road and Martin Drive. The plat consists of 3.45 acres to be divided into one lot and one outlot. This replat consists of extending the Easterly lot line of Lot 1 five feet to the south in exchange for the MnDOT taking along the north property line. This proposal falls under the guideline for a "simple subdivision" defined within the City Code. Background Information The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council March 19, 2002. Second Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and final approval will be completed on April 16,2002. Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$396.75 • Provide a list of areas (to the nearest square foot) of all lots, outlots and road right-of- ways certified by surveyor Attachments Drawing of final plat CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2003- A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF MITCHELL CROSSING 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS,the plat of Mitchell Crossing 2nd Addition has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for Mitchell Crossing 2nd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated June 3, 2003. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 3,2003. Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen Porta, City Clerk /`',1,,E- til �I a �� ;:,��� / a IF / \ ,r„ r3 l rT\a\\ kO y ▪ �/ 'OI . I, 0 r ,Y ^ SC V11,,,- ad I —�sSsi • 3tt6O 1 I if es it'a ~� N65'O37/£� � j I �Fl `h�•. :�� I i� /9/.09— 15.83 r �� o .0 I 8 15 I a 5== _ • I o� r I . i• aI � _= 1 a q.1 'hI A 3' " a �2 T a o 2 �r•'-'I I'p`,,Zt '0 ,' • g'a; o 'I ni I G . ,, N 2•Jrw r--- >N cc,Ci I U 1 xrss:it owx_-n/-Soo_•:. gaol )> r I I _ UDa rz as VA m 1 ci 7 �vn1 x3 °U: N T b1 S90 101 i I : 1 Ca 9 f I 7i . i rJ I h7 I �. ` �,Mfj�S JC7 // ►ZS ▪ --r— T! h. m CI C7 .90 ' i. �z al C7 yy ,N -, g - y _a' v/� roe+ C� 2 m0 aM I a <�<; I >> N mg c a C7 "....,, ,• 1 o \£ mE ‹. Ol �` m^ I ii '• '.0a ' c . I m < : I , f'. I Cl)[7 I I I €• { 4 z _ ; = c c m gn5- ,n ii a35.n= 3 .. "o s° O 's 8ill N it al, 2. " 50k H y' •io a; ze9i le, s , s :;a a N 'R P ° • r i.s _ s 9ig ;9 _a Pv is 24 ° m - ° *-P a g2 " 4. - s -a iR S R LZ + •O R c 8 3n $ = 0 q ° �. 2 s - 3• _ n g=SS IZI °_ , s s 3. ° ma1 a x •a 3lV a9.o 3 g S 3!;g PA i IT a. a`_2' 3., " S ., 3-n 5 o a ' 1;9 s s. - _ o $ 1 a - 2Re5. 81s' ., - s 'Asa sn � S 8 _ m Ti. < I m a m p4sg °_ 5 55 9 �z 3 .. a 2 uz ' 9 Sao 32 ° 4 0 IT - '-E 3^ n3 ni 3^ 1 F • E '� ago .-g_ ° I z� 2" 0 $os ms 2-2 - 2, s Z a°z• m 77 35 n - - 2. o rt g i3= _ a � o - _s_ 5 2gst ° •is 0S _ _ -7y CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 3,2003 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Engineering Resolution Approving Final Plat of The Pines at E Randy Slick Settlers Ridge 2nd Addition Requested Action Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of The Pines at Settlers Ridge 2nd Addition. Synopsis This proposal is located at the southwest corner of Pioneer Trail and Settlement Drive. The plat consists of 1.84 acres to be divided into 10 lots for the construction of 9 townhome units. This is a replat of Outlot A, The Pines at Settlers Ridge. Background Information The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council September 18, 2001. Second Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer's Agreement was completed on November 6, 2001. Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$427.50. • The requirements as set forth in the Developer's Agreement. • Provide a list of areas (to the nearest square foot) of all lots, outlots and road right-of- ways certified by surveyor. • Revision to plat to include ten-foot drainage and utility easements along street frontages. Attachments Drawing of final plat -15 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OFTHE PINES AT SETTLERS RIDGE 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS,the plat of The Pines at Settlers Ridge 2nd Addition has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for The Pines at Settlers Ridge 2nd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated June 3, 2003. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 3, 2003. Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen Porta, City Clerk 7 \ \ c \ \ \ c� \ `~ \ \ "), \ llili iivia \ n1 lisla Yk. \ W O.<-' it • 'ate ` n \ .1.2.1 Q? c„IP /�.i /,• -,Is` ass . G- \ _ 111 c \ 7�� - �� Nj j/ 4 , Tay, w\F •� 8 ,'\;tW, , �i, • / Q \ 4 \ ••) Z• Ill if il`. N rn ,ovi G ` 8i - Ka CO ea u u 'pl ` 7. Lax ,f, `g g f 3 u \ oi'x •� s•''•y� 8 O 5bc off .Q \ �"°i LdsOBIIJ °� -'4T� E. jO t,, - ' -F. • _I 7^ j^ Ul •- C ,R 8 p6 P 1 a / "'• �LN \ �•• •� .. 8` ` \ _ + \ O O \ / /J\ O s 0 Z i / / O .,,,-35 .---- ---\ ?pi 14 l, , _ � ' Q' -77 \ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OFTHE PINES AT SETTLERS RIDGE 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS,the plat of The Pines at Settlers Ridge 2nd Addition has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for The Pines at Settlers Ridge 2nd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated June 3,2003. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 3, 2003. • Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk 76 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 3, 2003 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Engineering Resolution Approving Final Plat of Eagle Ridge Randy Slick Hennepin Village One Requested Action Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Eagle Ridge at Hennepin Village One. Synopsis This proposal is located north of TH 212 between Spring Road and Flying Cloud Airport. The plat consists of 44.87 acres to be divided into 214 lots, 9 outlots and right-of-way dedication for street purposes. This phase will have 144 townhome units and 64 single family lots. Background Information The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council March 18, 2003. Second Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer's Agreement was completed on May 20, 2003. Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$10,165.00. • Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of$1,264.20. • Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of$1,080.30. • Prior to release of the final plat, Developer shall provide to the City a current title insurance policy. • Satisfaction of bonding requirements for the installation of public improvements. • Execution of Special Assessment Agreement for trunk utility improvements. • The requirements as set forth in the Developer's Agreement. • Provide a list of areas (to the nearest square foot) of all lots, outlots and road right-of- ways certified by surveyor. • Prior to the release of the final plat, Developer shall submit sidewalk and trail easements for review and approval by the Director of Parks and Recreation. • Prior to the release of the final plat, Developer shall submit public easement for Liatris Lane for review and approval by the Director of Parks and Recreation. • Revision to plat to include standard five and ten foot boundary drainage and utility easements on all lots. • Revision to plat to include twenty foot drainage and utility easements over all proposed public utilities. Attachments Drawing of final plat 19 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2003- A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF EAGLE RIDGE AT HENNEPIN VILLAGE ONE WHEREAS, the plat of Eagle Ridge at Hennepin Village One has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for Eagle Ridge at Hennepin Village One is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated June 3,2003. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 3,2003. Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen Porta, City Clerk c O • _t1 r V,e r>L...; y r, �a.a,.,1c�: %A _ '•g"t COWS JL cr.67N fix i I Z { v R R 2 2 4. 44 t: R 2 2 2 2 a � ci 0 = I 2 g il ma 0 I Y Java, .<.. I _ ,. _ • I q N lours 1. . . g 4_`eh I 2: & i 1 a 'ON ,-,A n^ n ,Vv n•v 'i3ii1 CL�� V,r ,vr,�4:,.: vier, v.irJ.i - �Y W anizia •aa I coR c 1 R a 1's 0 I ~ t •& 8 s .K otil 3 "'�' R 22 a s aasa a C seRs 2 i *a:�a\ o r o a i f$�`P .p g R 8ffi ' IIiD • e •, j i CC ! II wu gawa= e 44 Casa .�Q�$f�1+14—_� . f °�" o''.0.6� o' 14 b trouts i; t.�� 8 $ k R r f J tt11 2Rees Yr•' e Y 1O7N,D eU R'=RI I b t I I I 0O O V • 44, i~ C 9'< a rc r _ R , R RI I / Q1�4 Jj I. M1Si W ` ^ t 41 9 Q aVV 'b _q 3 i a :_ b • ` I �u e9 as ,•.r ^ L.11 � : �, ._ ; ^ M.K.7riPY ! x o W44 12 t:� 4 q I _ K� R _ .Si ar Pam•" It u1 f Y10uno rs Q Ian 8��t'i 4. 20, al� �• r....11 . R Ts 7,J 444" t. •-.. Y C4 41 4 al P I g 4,. `1:-.,-,- ".,:i- # a 4 S �q • ®` t::8� ` , ex 414 -- Iw000c,CI efi+ 4f ` 4016 W v l v 341.1Ta r3 Lr pPw , /CC �Y yr xrSDMnetY,+Z$ � V- r/ _;. . :3Ft .. tilo, / • � .tfrifEi. t / ��urn - -- _ —,_—_a . o°.7` 4? N /` zrrr s µ0., o _ • FJ * w � tt i �f .1-,ab SS4 / e. /i •, am,- 4 _ P^ alar Rci 4/ ��o � d p ht ry 'S:. C' S . r ` " vdP/ 3'p?k t ` a ../sao, 1r} ,s; 4 ¢ Wa I a ` a ` \. / .. 3N1 d^. o'v S 31 SO -, , `F 7. + � 4r hS �a. 1 f �+J4-!' . /a. ti �:°y C 1$ / /1:4 N&7°35 70� 3tt6¢% z ga j�/ u4 1 0 i b��h i` / i�1 666i vt z •T,�c r af9r - \R• D/pI "'y�y a. /74 iiEl s I •r vaa Nw.mwtnrTSI 01> fli �,n1 *0PVa..0.,..r�` ` ` $i caZ‘ \., 1 , ,r"pv t3 I c. :y S:• : �Go' •�3S " '�l f w;"v is 3F12 da o'. S 31 \dC i7X:S }ice \ \ ' \ $ Tsl CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 3,2003 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Adopt Resolution Approving Construction Engineering Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for •6r. Randy Newton the TH 212/Valley View Road Interchange Area Improvement Project. I.C. 01-5543 Requested Action Move to: Adopt resolution approving Construction Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for the TH 212 / Valley View Road Interchange Area Improvement Project. Synopsis The Construction Cooperative Agreement defines Hennepin County's and the City's obligations for the TH 212 / Valley View Road Interchange Area Improvement Project. The agreement indicates that Hennepin County will provide a maximum contribution of$130,000 towards the construction cost of the$1,600,000 project. Background The TH 212/Valley View Road Interchange Area Improvement Project includes double left turn lanes from Bryant Lake Drive to Valley View Road, a trail along Bryant Lake Drive and replacement of the watermain that has been a continuing maintenance problem. The plans and specifications for the project were approved at the April 15th City Council meeting. The bid date for the project was rescheduled and is now scheduled for June 12th. The project is expected to be presented for award at the June 17th City Council meeting. Financial Implications The current construction cost estimate for the project is $1,600,000. As identified in the agreement, Hennepin County will provide a maximum contribution of $130,000 towards the project. In addition, Mn/DOT has allocated $982,963 for the construction of the project. The remaining construction costs ($487,000) are the responsibility of the City and will be paid from the Construction and Utility funds. Attachments Hennepin County Construction Cooperative Agreement No.PW 21-49-03 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2003- APPROVE CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE TH 212/VALLEY VIEW ROAD INTERCHANGE AREA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT I.C. 01-5543 WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and approved plans and specifications for the improvement of the TH 212/Valley View Road interchange area; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has prepared a Construction Cooperative Agreement that identifies the obligations for Hennepin County and the City for this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that Hennepin County Construction Cooperative Agreement No. PW 21-49-03 for City Project No. 01-5543 is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 3, 2003. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Agreement No.PW 21-49-03 County Project No. 0220 County State Aid Highway No. 39 City of Eden Prairie County of Hennepin CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT,Made and entered into this day of ,2003, by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota,hereinafter referred to as the"County", and the City of Eden Prairie, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota,hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS,the City or its agent,in conjunction with the Minnesota Department of Transportation,hereinafter referred to as "Mn/DOT",has prepared plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Bryant Lake Drive between County State Aid Highway No. (CSAH) 39 (Valley View Road) and the Trunk Highway(T.H.)212/312 access ramps, and for associated improvements on CSAH 39 from approximately 460 feet northwest of Bryant Lake Road to approximately 350 feet south of Flying Cloud Drive, as shown on the plans for City Project No. 01-5543; and WHEREAS,the aforereferenced roadway improvements,hereinafter referred to as the "Project" are also identified and known as State Project No. 2745-29,Hennepin County Project No. 0220, and Hennepin County State Aid Project(SAP)No. 27-639-04, contemplate and include the reconstruction of a median island and a traffic control signal system, and other related improvements and the CSAH 39 intersection with Bryant Lake Drive; and WHEREAS,the City has requested that the County approve the plans and specifications for the work being proposed on CSAH 39 as part of said Project, authorize the City to perform the work in accordance with said plans and specifications, and to participate in the construction costs of the Project; and WHEREAS,the City has prepared an Engineer's Estimate of quantities and unit prices for the construction contract work of the above described Project in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Ninety Eight Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Five Dollars and Twelve Cents ($1,598,325.12). A copy of said estimate marked Exhibit"A"is attached hereto and by this reference is made a part hereof; and WHEREAS,the County has indicated its willingness to approve said plans and specifications, authorize the City to perform the work, and participate in the construction costs of said Project under the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS,It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 162.17, Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59. Agreement No.PW 21-49-03 CSAH NO.39, C.P. 0220 NOW THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I The City or its agents shall, at no cost to the County,prepare the necessary plans, specifications, and proposal; obtain approval of said plans and specifications from the County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation; advertise for bids for the work and construction,receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such bidder; administer the contract; and perform the required engineering and inspection; all in accordance with said plans and specifications. It is understood that the City will be contracting with Mn/DOT for the use of Mn/DOT construction personnel to oversee the actual construction of the Project and perform the City's contract administration, construction engineering and inspection duties. II The City or its agents shall administer the construction contract and perform all required engineering,inspection and testing. All construction and materials sampling and testing for CSAH 39 shall be accomplished in accordance with all applicable standards and requirements of the Mn/DOT's State Aid for Local Transportation Division in effect at the time of Contract award. The contract shall include the plans and specifications prepared by the City or its agents and approved by the County,which plans and specifications are by this reference made a part hereof. The City shall also obtain, and comply with, any and all permits and approvals required from other governmental or regulatory agencies to accomplish the Project. Said permits and approvals shall be obtained prior to the start of any construction and made available to the County upon request. III The construction of this Project shall be under the supervision and direction of the City's City Engineer and Mn/DOT personnel. All work on CSAH 39 shall be completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The County Engineer and delegated representatives of the County's Transportation Department staff shall have the right, as the work progresses,to enter upon the premises to make any inspections deemed necessary and shall cooperate with the City's City Engineer and staff and the Mn/DOT personnel at their request to the extent necessary. The County agrees that the City may make changes in the aforereferenced approved plans or in the character of said contract construction which are reasonably necessary to cause said construction to be in all things performed and completed in a satisfactory manner. It is further agreed by the County that the City may enter into any change orders or supplemental agreements with the City's contractor for the performance of any additional construction or construction occasioned by any necessary, advantageous or desirable changes in plans,within the original scope of the Project. The City shall obtain the approval of the County Engineer or a designated representative on all changes to the plans and specifications that relate to the work to be completed on CSAH 39. Agreement No. PW 21-49-03 CSAH NO. 39, C.P. 0220 IV It is hereby understood that all work to be performed on CSAH 39 as part of the Project is to be completed within the existing County right of way, and that no new right of way along or adjacent to CSAH 39 will be required. V Prior to beginning construction, the City shall furnish the County with two (2) complete sets of fully approved plans and specifications for said Project. VI The County will participate in the contract construction costs of the project, to a maximum of $130,000.00,provided all costs to be paid by the County are eligible for County State Aid funding. It is understood that the Engineer's Estimate referred to on Page 1 of this Agreement and included in Exhibit "A" is an estimate of the cost for said Project and that the unit prices set forth in the contract with the successful bidder shall govern in computing the County's cost participation of said Project according to the provisions hereinafter set forth. VII After an award by the City to the successful bidder on the Project,the City shall invoice the County for the County's lump sum payment of its participation in the contract construction costs for Project. The County's share of said costs shall be computed in accordance with the following: A. The amount computed by multiplying the unit prices set forth in the contract with the successful bidder with the County's proportionate quantities for the respective contract pay items as established in the column identified as SAP 27-639-04 in Exhibit"A"of this Agreement, or$130,000.00,whichever is less. B. In the event the County's proportionate share computed in accordance with paragraph A above is less than$130,000.00,the County's participation may also include an additional amount based on the costs to construct the right turn lane from southbound Bryant Lake Drive to westbound CSAH 39. Said costs are included in the column identified as SP 2745- 29/SAP 181-010-13 in Exhibit"A"of this Agreement. The additional participation by the County shall be computed using only those pay items and estimated quantities involved in the construction of said turn lane. The City shall first apply the funds received from Mn/DOT under a separate agreement to the construction costs for the turn lane according to the terms of said separate agreement. The County's participation in the construction costs of said turn lane shall then be computed as either,the difference between the total estimated construction cost of said turn lane and the funds contributed thereto from Mn/DOT, or the difference between the amount computed in accordance with paragraph A above and $130,000.00,whichever is less. Agreement No.PW 21-49-03 CSAH NO. 39, C.P. 0220 A complete, detailed breakdown of the City's computations of the County's participation in the construction costs for the Project shall be submitted with the invoice. Payment shall be made to the City by the County for the full amount due as stated on the invoice within forty five(45)days of the invoice date. The City understands and agrees that the amount due on the invoice shall not exceed $130,000.00. The City further understands and agrees that the payment made by the County in response to the aforesaid invoice shall be the County's sole and final payment for all costs associated with the Project and that any additional costs that may be incurred during the construction of the aforesaid right turn lane on Bryant Lake Drive or on CSAH 39 shall not be the responsibility of the County. VIII It is hereby understood and agreed that the County will be funding its share of the costs for the Project with County State Aid monies. It is further understood and agreed that the County reserves the right not to make payment to the City for its share of the costs if any action or inaction of the City causes MnJDOT's State Aid Engineer to determine that the County's costs as set forth herein are not eligible for State Aid funding. IX Upon completion of this Project,the City or its agents, shall furnish the County with one(1) complete set of as-built reproducible construction plans. X Included in the Project is the reconstruction of an existing traffic control signal system at the intersection of CSAH 39 with Bryant Lake Drive. It is understood by the parties hereto that the operation and maintenance responsibilities for the reconstructed signal system at said intersection shall continue as set forth under Hennepin County Agreement No.PW 01-40-83 (a.k.a.Mn/DOT Agreement No. 61217),which presently exists in full force and effect. XI It is understood and agreed that upon completion of any and all improvements proposed herein, all street lighting,water distribution system components,concrete pedestrian ramps,bituminous trails, and all municipal street construction included in the Project and constructed within the County's right of way shall be the property of the City and all maintenance,restoration,repair,replacement or other work or services required thereafter shall be performed by the City at no expense to the County. - Agreement No.PW 21-49-03 CSAH NO. 39, C.P. 0220 XII It is also understood by the City that the County requires an operational clear zone along the side of the road for storage of snow removed from the County roadways. The City hereby agrees to be responsible for the removal of any snow that may be placed on pedestrian facilities as a result of the County's snow removal operations on CSAH 39 within the limits of said Project. Snow removal from said pedestrian facilities shall be in accordance with established City policy. XIII Upon completion of the Project the County will own and maintain those portions of the roadway storm sewer drainage system functioning as catch basins and their associated lead pipes that are within or between the outermost curblines of CSAH 39 and also those within the radius return limits of intersecting municipal streets. All other components of the roadway storm sewer drainage system, constructed on the County's right of way as a part of this Project,including but not limited to all trunk lines and water quality structures, shall become the property of the City and all maintenance, restoration or repair required thereafter shall be performed by the City at no cost to the County. All questions of maintenance responsibilities that may arise shall be jointly resolved by the City's City Engineer and the County's Operations Division Engineer. XIV The City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its elected 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 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 ownership, maintenance, existence,restoration,repair or replacement of the City owned improvements established herein. The City's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or other applicable law. The County agrees to defend,indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected 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 County,its 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 ownership, maintenance, existence,restoration,repair or replacement of the County owned improvements established herein. The County's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or other applicable law. XV The City will prepare weekly progress reports for the Project as provided in the specifications. Copies of these reports will be furnished to the County upon request. Agreement No.PW 21-49-03 CSAH NO. 39, C.P. 0220 XVI All records kept by the City and the County with respect to this Project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. XVII The County reserves the right not to issue any permits for a period of five(5)years after completion of said Project for any service cuts in the roadway surfacing of the County Highways included in this Project for any installation of underground utilities which would be considered as new work; service cuts shall be allowed for the maintenance and repair of any existing underground utilities. XVIII Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by the law, and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The County's and the City's liability is governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. The County and the City each warrant that they are able to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance program. XIX The City agrees that any contract let by the City or their agents for the performance of the construction work on CSAH 39 as provided herein, or for any maintenance activities associated with the herein established City owned improvements installed as part of this Project shall include clauses that will: 1)Require the Contractor to defend, indemnify, and hold the County, its officials, officers, agents and employees harmless from any liability, causes of action,judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses including,without limitation,reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of or by reason of the acts and/or omissions of the said Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors; 2) Require the Contractor to be an independent contractor for the purposes of completing the work provided for in this Agreement; and 3)Require the Contractor to provide and maintain insurance in accordance with the following: 1. Commercial General Liability on an occurrence basis with Contractual Liability and Explosion, Collapse and Underground Property Damage(XCU)Liability coverages: Limits General Aggregate $1,000,000 Products--Completed Operations Aggregate $1,000,000 Personal and Advertising Injury $1,000,000 Each Occurrence-Combined Bodily Injury and Property Damage $1,000,000 Agreement No.PW 21-49-03 CSAH NO. 39, C.P. 0220 Hennepin County shall be named as an additional insured for the Commercial General Liability coverage with respect to operations covered under this Agreement. 2. Automobile Liability: Combined Single limit each occurrence coverage or the equivalent covering owned,non-owned, and hired automobiles: $1,000,000 3. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: A. Workers' Compensation Statutory If the Contractor is based outside the State of Minnesota, coverages must apply to Minnesota laws. B. Employer's Liability-Bodily injury by: Each Accident $100,000 Disease-Policy Limit $500,000 Disease-Each Employee $100,000 An Umbrella Liability policy over primary liability coverages is an acceptable method to provide the required insurance limits. The above subparagraphs establish minimum insurance requirements. It shall be the sole responsibility of the City's contractor(s)to determine the need for and to procure additional insurance which may be needed in connection with said Project. All insurance policies shall be open to inspection by the County and copies of policies shall be submitted to the County upon written request. XX It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act or Minnesota Economic Security Law on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. 90 Agreement No.PW 21-49-03 CSAH NO.39, C.P. 0220 Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City,and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers'Compensation Act or the Minnesota Economic Security Law on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. XXI Any alterations,variations,modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. XXII In order to coordinate the services of the County with the activities of the City so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement,the Hennepin County Engineer or a designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the County and serve as liaison between the County and the City. In order to coordinate the services of the City with the activities of the County so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement,the City's Public Works Services Director or a designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the City and serve as liaison between the City and the County. XXIII The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. (this space left intentionally blank) _y_ l ( Agreement No.PW 21-49-03 CSAH NO. 39, C.P. 0220 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,The parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE (Seal) By: Mayor Date: And: Manager Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: By: By: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board Chair of its County Board Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator By: Date: Assistant County Attorney And: Date: Assistant County Administrator,Public Works and County Engineer Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By: By: Assistant County Attorney Director,Transportation Department Date: Date: Gs i i 88 zgs; ;8 8 : zi P! a 77 Kger P a s ^ . IRS 14 Pg Li 8 $ 8 a 8 a 8 $ s '8 8 8 R 8 8 8 8 8 rn _ a m s 1 gF $ "x a1 A :AA 'A k a$ s$ $ i E ;y o -- SE - ^.Ff".'"_ _ B $ x 8$ 8U.8 888 $ $$$$sagg$ 888,888888 $ a 8 ^ a Q $ $$ gym y $ g $s s 93$ ss$8$$a$ b a zs aR g x„ t� R # $ 7 gx"r_. � ;�= �H Y ,1 ErgW ai �14' o „„ ^R:_l ----$..1.,- :F qME 7R< a .2 88a__.. _ 8 as s o�_ z Y R..^-_. Q Ili 6 i a a ,11 g 8 R l . . 8F$ $ z $g M , a S x$ 8 x$$$ 88 8$$$ $$$$Q888 yp g §§ gg g §g ygy p3 40 & !I ? :��aiiilkig11HH; H Ult, 1 H s IxR R. R gx# 1 Is $ HH $R i g H V o g U g" H$UH i �VIR x V ga gg$$$ F ytCa.� q ga " ==z 3_ _ " "s 4~a _ a n s. n a „ i as„_ _ 4a _z ....^"a ^ z:. E-J a$ a'a k $ $ „„ gEELggg_ n„... _ _ -a ig!ggE;RR g r.x£ s -- x EA - ---. "4x 8 N „n^ 0 RE SBc-_.. - E.AN = $:_ EEx.--_,- F gggggq gg$§ gs f _ < 1 g U g%ggge""-R%3���g$$g W g gggsgggx$ $ aag s $ 8 ^ H $ Z..La sa x aDili g g $8 $g = gi"8 a 88 a 0gg $ G8 _ ' a V( 1 55 NNNNNH-22222222N2H aaaaazusz 5 III 1 5 22 5 55 2 2222 55 a 1 NNN12 a K 55 5N NNN222 1 N222 N 122 M 222 22 IMMO NV94 . . .. . ' ' ' ' ' 3 riii a y•N1ijiJJi SyE� 4 ; G g E ' d � < 5 l A g� i1 1 ' 1Hi !I ! iY Q U i !h 4 ID Hkh g 1eIn: it li!i i ji JJi 1 111 : ! y� ! i`J I i 1 : huh i�_�1 !t 8��d < K a 5R xxxs2RS55S555$5 =??5 R5 p_'II55 z 555y 5 5 5 x �S 5 5555 �4 5 5 z 5=a 5 5 55 $i 555 555 5 s$55 s 555 55 1 S S as aaaaa�aaz!xaaAgaaa �g^adass! d 11t ^a a 3?i 5 0! 5 : 0g 55 5 '{ k5555 a n as as NJJ5.'x.5 g aati a Ifl 7a 13 she .. _E. f 3 lit Itly 01 8 RBSSR9R Q IR 31NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII s 1 I 1 • INfO alb 1 IuIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIOIIIIIII " I I . 2I I ill$ i a x "Ra`' - 9 aBaeegs nl RZ A Y W 5i Ill , d� II!I 1 1q W� � . g Y @ z 101.6 0 HE lidillotei 66 ! g fix-sa��� 1 111111i1411 =._. E. a H lgl, E 5 a aa''="' _ 4app$Hfl 1 la 6q.-:ilq 1 etr t r t t HUM t n 11 MA 9 Q 5 fi RUM 5 Y]mON 1 I 3 s I 1xs 1 ell e •I - s -- diZ R ill KEE¢¢@¢@¢ pp x ^�¢ g8 BB1i s 8 i 1FR $B$ I!dII!IIII i 1 1 1 - 1 li'll 1 i 1 II i ° 11'111411 g 1 01 ..caa lumm000001000©QO'QO'0o00�uou : 4 g; F 4 i°-R 11 1 R illiM iii-Ba5 =.,iiii: iM BAA ';3 a! g 3';x3 1 £ = 5A2'iii R 1 pogo, 1 as _ AAAtAAA EXAM 'a"a M EE M Na MIA a axaaaaa g .* -. � __ 91 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 3, 2003 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Authorize Mayor to ITEM NO.: Write a Letter to Twin Cities&Western Railroad Robert A.Lambert,Director Company to Request an Easement �- IA • Parks and Recreation • Requested Action Motion: Move to authorize the Mayor to write a letter to the Twin Cities and Western Railroad Company to request a park easement over Twin Cities and Western Railroad Company property adjacent to the Birch Island Woods Conservation Area. Synopsis The Twin Cities and Western Railroad Company owns approximately six acres of land on the northwest side of Birch Island Woods Conservation Area as part of the railroad right-of-way. This property is a high wooded hill that is used by the public for hiking, bird watching, etc. Most park users believe it is part of the park property and some park users have used the hill for mountain bike riding, which is causing severe erosion to the steep slopes. City staff would like to limit the use to pedestrian use only and to provide trails to the top of the hill that would not cause erosion, but would allow the public the right to enjoy the use of the property. Attached is an aerial photo depicting the location of the property. Staff have had initial meetings with the representatives from Twin Cities and Western Railroad Company. Those representatives have requested the City to take the action necessary to submit a formal request to their company. Attachment: Aerial Photo of Property RAL:mdd • 95 Birch Island Woods Cons. Area - • y . tiV 1 • j. 1. 11 S -.- s . it!' a a•", ~� S ;i. .S. a North T r ... ,-.., .. . •-..., . . • • . .. . - . . . - - .. -. • ',......- _ ... . . . . . . . .. . . .- -. . • - .. . .-. . . ..... . • .-.:•-...-.: , r. aT .. .E ar •,:., .._::. E.,-. . .4. . . . . . ••_• . ..... ) . _. . . • . . . . ... .,. • •.. . .. . g . . _._ I., • CD . 4v- ....,..-...7.:-. •...',..:-.:.•,--1,..:,:,-.-, ,. ---,. .`_;-,"'.."''' -'*- , :, ' ''W-.--: ..-,'..i' ' 'I' r,--,,:' 1. _,'„'' ' • " ..tts,:.;' .:; =i 1 0 ;.:'' - • .:-.-....,:-.,.., ...,-,‘,....„. :...-...,,.:,-4.,- ..,'.;:'.--.. ...'7,,,-,..;.p.q+.,•::-,g.f.,,,,,,.•,-;,!., 1,'.::i...7..,1';,'E'...,.'...,-, .,.....:,.;:::. ..:::. su = .-,.......•:::::: ::::•„,.,;:..-.,s.— - -..1f.';:.L.:,*•:,,•,',,,,..•::•;:-.,•:-,1„,.-•,, :-..,f2,,:-::,,,2,-•;:-..-.:,:.-5,,,-.A.,,,.:t••:T4 .:••;.,:• *-r.i..i:-'-.'.':::. O. 4.) X ..7..F-',... •.'''...,'. .'.'1...41?" -.c.1-,,:,,-.-:i--i-,-:,:r-,...4:'.,...,:.,.:---,....fy.-.... ,:;',--,,, riii,I1g:L..K7,--'2:-..-::4'.:.'.--:.:...,..-',...,.,: .:.:; . . . „ .. .7.!... , .•-.1„., ,•,.,::-.!-, 1,,,-,n.-:.,,,:,...,.9.4. .,'.,,,,-.--- .....,...-;.:L,..,1, 0"- 'T''...:'.." '..:,:,:i.i...,-•.-::V„........:,,,,,r,...., ,, 2_.. ,..,, . .,. ,._, . C2. -:.: 'a ‘'i''''• ':.-.' :':"4:-.:,'.:',''''',::-!.':::!;• -•1'..:':.:''''.:-....'.,!!'•,•'!.:''''''.1.141-:,:-;h2":',. ..;4";;IN4L'',1;7:g:i:-ci.ii1;1:' CO v \ te .,7,'::.:. •-.,;f::,.'s,'".*e,.,-..::';t-:,:..'.,:,;..-;•...--,-.1?L r 4,-,-. .,:,....'' .,1*-..,2-6,....)4ikyvg,,,y,-.,:,ip:P.,.,.:.i:::,,..J.,. ...... : * ; V. ; .,...., ,-.:.-. .,..,., :::.,•;:"zr:'•;-.5',4:!,;•,,,'.:', ,,,,,t•-?.:' ,:;..f.i.;: '.1.1c4:',,,',,,,Vi4.'s‘',:r,r':•-,,...i.:;11.:.?.-4;'.'-', .. :y. so % •,,,\IA '-,12...t, .K.';',.. ,..s.zA ,•:..'-: ,,,',,..'1'.-. .•-,..-',!•"-:--'r,"::4',''''% - 'V',':Seig40i-.*:,;-.:•ri,:',7. '. I.:sj'ZIE-,F,- R mi. '"sk, .. A i,:'''''.„ ''.'..i.;‘,..„,„,.::,.,- ;', ....:2'....!A:?,,,4,..44._ !',i•P'k,),'"4-.)...,,'k'.4;!;' ,:i.i.•:','..:',,szg'.:.i. .:.' CO) . .. 4.IMF 't t. 'O.'`.:•''....,....”.?,,'VV'X'',..'7,;-.1:4:,-i...,1 •-...,s,:,..t:,,-,...;,..,..:‘,..,.. .z...,...•. .4, -411'=.".C.'"F-,-p"'-',"-...ICA.;,*':;:§:i.,:i. ,.-..,....,„.F..i.i0.4k..,..,,,,,.. —...:... • ,,t:,....„., •.•:,.....„..„,..„..c...:::.,„.,,, 3.,„.. k. • n,,...‘::: ••••.•......,..,,,,,,,,,...,..,,,,,..,-...,,,,,, b6., .,.,. .. •.,„N,..,,,,,.'‘.,...4.7.,,,,,..-..i..,?i,,,-,.•::,•,,,,,,..1.,,:s,:,,,,,.....,,,;%..,13,j;,,,,,,ii„..,,:....4„,„,,,,,.„;:;.,,,,ii::.;.:',..:,...k\.:.,:s..,..„.F.klA,ki,s4.i.••:.....s?.. n.,,::,?• . . ..„. .. ... . • ,•,„.. \ %-\;- -•-• • .,. . . • ._...13 M . ' :•..i,' ,. a..) •\ „.....••;:7;7...k‘:',•, •$;.f,'-'.. .,,••• s. = : •;:i`:.:'.:•,,;,J4.:•.,,,,-. •N : .. .:•i.:e,.0"..,...t.iiiiItto,,,,•••,,...,4-.:..,.k,,,..,..• irigg1.,.....`:',.t, ',.-...:,.;-:.......,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,R,t....,-,,."::::...,,,....,‘ 0,,,,,,...:•,..,.,....-. , .... 1'..;s' '..;i•..4--..V.4n, .z ••'a,N,„, . i.•'.:•..::','..,;;,,r?.„^,-..,..p.-v.,...k 4,, .....f: SD .111.111e. %;.'$5zz.44,1. , iv. . `,',....,,.'z,'..:::,...,:ti:,,.i,f'sk'''''.:•:"..''.'i'l,\ 4: :::, ' , :. ...,..„:„.„..„..,.,.....,,, , ,:i,t. 43 **,\ .1-:.!,::V4..,..:..-,;,:,..'. ,,,,!..,k,' , 1,,...F..4,,,-.f.§.tx0:,,,sf.'•:,,.....&N. ...- ,,, 8 g ,, \ .: .... .......__,.. ..,..,,,,:.:„,.4a f , . ,:,, cr —.. Ns. '•.-‘,tt.::,c.-za ..w- • , i ..; ........).„ :.,.,_ • ,,,, , .. ,,,vi. ' L:1 e; • '''= ',',:::,'. :'." .,.." % % ,tz.- ,,1-.1 6- -. .,- g ° k) ' ' er ...'• 4', ‘• P . ' --... ,;1. ,,... to 0 \ - so \ \:':.' '''''')(-11' •:.",.1.tk 44611 1:''''.''..*''' 4 ; - g"4, ',%'4 ''''': ft..:I'.41.r. sA•• % .•% ' -•,...-i4 -t:, ilk ;71 mst )04 .,,,:;-.W.,','..,;',i3 ':-• ' ''."'"'".."4"`••, \ t v.--. 4),:ht• A. - • K r N.I tt. !;,v,,s-,:.:.:-..,,:.4,....-:!:.:.. el ....z,c0.4 . -.,, ......:\ ,.... , k • ::4,,,,zr..st.,!•:`,PZ:•:,,,:i,...;N \ ..., ti?". i,....).„z4,3,,,,,,,,,..,-.A......,,A,,,,,,,,,,..,..::::.,—,..\,t N.-, . •41/4,16'. ., ....": , :1 ..0. •%',iPe,•':::,''''''''W.i*Z:'....n.s.,"..a:'..:k,.* :.4'.. .-\ 'V'Y''.i.,..,--:;..,., ';;''''''''',*:..;. - .„1.....„. 44 1*i§)•,:.-;•!;:N,..k,..v.,,,, ,..!.',4;5:s.:;ci,:%,. ..,„„..,,,,.0..;,,:„..„,,.,„. 4,-,AtgortIvii,,r, ...-.,...•,,7,•.;...!...:.::„...,-;2,,„. t,,,y,...:,,:i.,,Az..,Zs-r$,,N,,,',.•:,,,,, . ' •:::,.. ', ,4-4..k46:::.A.V\-.;•'",7.074:,,,t,":.*••"'''.''/:46'.. .71,4CSf'. '''''•::-.:'.4' .\!,...-.;.,-..'''''''.•'?-•itsz:,‘,.'ik.,\:.14;:.;."-fg.:',`;'.,••.., '' .-..,..' 'II [kV i'i'N.',,:i';.V.:,-,.:5'..-1.4:%..,.‘.',.1„-r 1,,..- ...„1,,,p....,,,.•...iN•.„.:, •V...w...:,;i,....%,...,:a,s:,:::•-ct..;,,;-.:-.:',..,. • —•...• ..... ,..,,,,,\.'s.,••.,-4.. ..,-...?,i(. •-., .,,, ,....-.,:•,:`,• k,,,,,l',,-. .. '`!-s.,,,,,, • '.. ti,..V.V••,..,..',. ••••',.:,'.*Z.,,beitti `, ....!...'4,,,.. ,. ",..4,,..i...,,,;4.f...V.7..4, ..;.:,,:.4.1.,.. ..:*,,,,,..:... ...... N,,, '.S • fl'i. 4' X•0•:',-.10g4V:A11131'..i."1.i*.:.1 t•I'L ..1...f.:.4''''''',..'ft0.;:::,,NN S'4•=01';'AiS.A3ii..:':-f • i • ., ii ,w..,k..!-, -.N:.,......,.iw4U4J.1',-t.- '.-f. :*..;:e ''',,W.A :4-4:;:.1.. 4,.‘'':'':••7.1 • . •• , .. :...?'s...,.,•,',:e'q"-- ',' ',,I."''.'''''sd.-7*.• r;,... ti.'• ;•,,t,'-; )4:1s.:,,..!:‘z.::, `., 4'; . -,.....,:-,,,?,,t,..:"..6,r•••' :-..v:-. •..4r*"4?-,4-.4y2.1' i., ''-0"..,•*&•:,‘ ' . •••-'1"-,K,,:..„ \tk,v. ii.... .Wt,..'4-:,'' ');1,,i; .,,,,'4,„ *0 ,4,..41,,<, ,,,t .''','•,...z,,,.. `..i, ' ' ' °'‘.(:'.''-:r;',.. '' '111.. l*gt,A. :.4'''.1'..4'‘' '.•i'',*011itit..%:'.,,F)::4k.Nt.i.. ,.."'' :::.r.;..,...,*"""""'..nr"......--,,, \ ,.,,;.,-,,,,37..-...,,,,,,,,*.,0,,,i„...,..,,,-.1„. Ataxtri."4,..„.:,-,..,,,,,s4,,.,z„..:...... ....t.:,•-4...-, 40--, ..... .„:„...:., .h*V- s..''•`-,:',...'4 Ni•$''' ',..'''...1'...,-5. . -,4C.A'A ..7.:;,.;',,::,..., ''', 'AP'..,:',f',..C":":. •'O.). ... ....... ....... 'l':::!7.??,...'"*04:4'1,.:i7j1..,t, ..! 4,11q)'4'4 1., ...s:'•;:f':-.;.*.i.••:::..:‘..;.*1:.'.,ie" ' ''',,r;'::-.•'00.2i!:.3. ..;;,:1:::• ••.:.;.:,•:.,•.',,,•:::.'?..- :::f‘,.;':., "';:::;',".•''..:• ;‘ ''' .1..• .--.-,, ,,,-,-....5%= ”..'',_.'...:...».—•,..7-.... .,,.. M .-''',.j.;'7,,x....N.-:,...•:.. -,%: ',:.,.. "31'1Z.i,:-.IVI'•, :`.'': ''',,,;,'''. :1,*-*"1•"'". ,,,,..,-,r1&.-1:•.--'*'', "..,.,. .s.,..;.,•,...: ., A.:iim,.g. . ,......,•,,,,...,.:,:„...v. ...r,',.: P"' • .4- „.,r...,..1.,,,, 1,•.•.',-' •--,\::::;t",,:;:.,,,,,,,.....:,.. ''''1:•-, '.:14R.3K-,ig,',-:1••• ::,;'s;.,:zsIja.":DY,...6,../. --„,,i •-_,..r ..1 -14-. -',7.;•-A,,;".0. ,','•;•,,';. .P.iAl;'•'''. ,'5'.:?:,''''ril ,,,......„,...,,a,:..,ti.,.. ..:!..i.:1 ',,,:... . .:,,,..,,,.''''t;H:.'et.,-,'''''''"!'t1,....-.,40t..„,;,-.•'X-!'i'''. .lo 0 4 .s.„,,.....,,,,„,„„_,"•••• .:.''... ..'.1".....11.",...'. .T1 , ,,N..42q1-47,,,,fA,....,,,':%'.•-•• •A,.i., . 1 I •.„.....„„,,,,,,,,..:•.„....,,,,,: F.,,,,,....„.••.,,,,.....,;.- • • ;-.., . . ,••,...- k, • I M 1 I P r Iliti Birch Island Woods City of Eden Prairie F:U&A Logoll&ALogotaip 1510 Caw Avows Ecullsoot .' . . ' Master Plan Parks and Natural Resources ursn,25,0va40,0554g ....b,".......d..... C11- CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 3,2003 DEPARTMENT: ITEM NO.: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Robert A. Lambert Director of Parks &Recreation Surplus Property Requested Action Motion: Move to declare the list of property as surplus property and authorize the City Manager to dispose of the property as per Section 2.86, Subdivision 3 of the City Code. Synopsis Every few years it is necessary to auction off property that has been determined to be surplus and is utilizing valuable storage space. The Police Department auctions off surplus property on an annual basis, and the Public Works Department utilizes the County Auction to dispose of surplus vehicles. Other departments generally request to dispose of surplus property every two to three years. The following list of equipment has been provided by all departments. The value of the surplus property exceeds $500. SURPLUS PROPERTY LIST Public Works 1. Five drawer file cabinet 2. Four drawer file cabinet 3. Two office chairs 4. One single axel trailer 5. One tandem axel trailer 6. One tri-axle trailer 7. Seven lab sinks and faucets Facilities 1. Five general office desks 2. Three bookshelves 3. Two four drawer file cabinets 4. One two drawer file cabinet 5. Two conference type tables 6. Two round tables 7. Twelve office chairs 8. Five Army cots good shape 9. John Deere tractor 218 with 52"mower deck, chain driven snowblower, and small trailer 10. Antique looking gas stove(not sure where this came from) 11. Corner couch assembly 3 seater and 2 seater 12. Car top carrier 13. Square end table office type • Surplus Property June 3,2003 Page 2 14. Two single confy chairs 15. Ten conference room chairs 16. Two Reznor Unit Heaters 17. One cord reel 18. One high pressure cord reel 19. One low pressure hose reel with 60' of 1 inch line on it 20. One Kenmore microwave 21. Ten 30"by 8' folding tables in various conditions copier 22. Large freezer 23. One white board 48"by 72" 24. One large bulletin board 25. One 19 cu ft refrigerator 26. One 4'roll up door assembly Community Center 30. Boxes of old shirts 1. Ten pieces of fitness equipment 31.Meeting room chairs 32. Two file cabinets 2. Floor scrubber 3. Fax machine (Ricoh 800) 33. Two ping pong tables 4. Typewriter Parks and Recreation 5. Fax machine(Ricoh MV74) 6. Panasonic black and white monitor 1. Two automatic coffee makers 7. Sony monitor 2. One fruit punch maker 8. Thirty pair of skates 3. One cotton candy machine 9. Microwave 4. One drink dispenser 10. Coffee pot 5. Two large first aide boxes 11. Natcho Chips holder 6. One ice cream maker (hand turn 12. Pizza oven style) 13. Water cooler 7. One record player 14. Hotdog machine 15. Ice Shaver Park Maintenance Division 16. Lifeguard chair 1. Microwave oven 17. Gymnastics equipment 2. Johnson four horse outboard motor 18.Wading pool furniture 3. Evenrude 3 horse outboard motor 19. Handicapped chairlift for pool 4. Three point hitch box scrapper 20. Four cash registers 5. Five sun fish sailboats 21. Three keyboards 6. Two 14 foot fishing boats (Alumina 22. Monitor Craft) 23. Credit Card Charge swiper 7. Two small paddle boats 24. Two tape deck receivers 8. Two slides from playgrounds 25. Radio tuner 9. One bike rack 26. Space heater 10. Three basketball hoops with posts 27. Patio furniture 11. Three paddle boats 28. Two vacuum cleaners 29. Airdyne bike CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: June 3,2003 SECTION: DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Award contract for City ITEM NO.: Management and Budget- Center Parking Lot Improvements Facilities .T. Marc Thielman Wayne Estenson Requested Action: Move to: Award contract for City Center Parking Lot Improvements to DMJ Corporation for the amount of$199,532.20. Synopsis: Sealed bids were received Thursday May 8, 2003 for the City Center Parking Lot Improvements. Seven bids were received and are tabulated as follows; Frattalone Excavating and Grading,Inc. $243,266.51 Ingram, LLC $237,819.66 Midwest Asphalt $206,491.70 Northwest Asphalt, Inc $218,311.56 Bituminous Roadways, Inc $233,653.75 Hardrives,Inc $275,341.53 DMJ Corporation $199,532.20 Background Information The approved 2003 CIP budget reflects an amount of$250,000.00 for City Center Parking Lot Improvements. Some funds were previously allocated for the engineering and planning for this project. /00 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6/03//03 SECTION: Public Hearings DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Management and Budget/Planning __--- Donald R.Uram Wooddale Church v ' l . 4 , Michael D. Franzen Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.07 acres; and • Approve lst Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with and Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 31.07 acres; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Board recommendations and Council conditions; and • Direct staff to issue a Land Alteration Permit to Wooddale Church Synopsis This project is amendment of the 1988 approved plan. The following are changes to the approved plan. • Relocation and enlargement of the existing pond. • Construction of 227 additional parking spaces. • A reduced setback to parking along Bryant Drive from 70-80 feet to 50 feet. Community Planning Board Recommendation The Community Planning Board voted 7-2 to recommend approval of the project at its April 28, 2003 meeting, subject to revising the plan for a 50 foot setback to parking along Bryant Lake Drive,with a 7-9 foot berm, and plantings. The plans have been revised to meet the 50 foot setback and berming. The landscaping plan has not been revised. Staff recommends that the required 512 inches of tree replacement be located within the 50 foot setback to parking. Background The approved plan is a 70 to 80 foot parking setback from the right of way of Bryant Lake Drive. The code setback is 25 feet. The reason for the larger setback is to screen views of surface parlcing and future parking deck, as required by code, and to help reduce the visual impact of the 101 City Council Public Hearings—Wooddale Church June 3,2003 Page 2 height of the church. In 1988 Wooddale Church received a building height waiver from 75 feet to 200 feet. Within the 70 -80 foot approved setback there is a mass of the cottonwood and elm trees. In 1988,the majority of trees did not meet the 12 inch minimum requirement for being designated as significant trees, and therefore not subject to replacement. However, since the existing tree mass would screen parking and view of the building height,the City required the tree mass to be replaced. The approved master plan includes a reforestation plan of maple and birch trees and no berming. The plan submitted to the Community Planning Board proposed a 25 foot setback to parking. The 25 foot setback did not provide enough room for plantings to achieve the required screening. The staff report suggested a 50 foot setback to parking with a 7-9 foot berm and plantings. The 50 foot setback to parking,with a berm and trees will be as effective as the approved 70—80 foot setback. This summer Wooddale Church will also be constricting the 1988 approved education addition. The two story addition is approximately 20,000 square feet. Since this addition is part of the approved master plan and consistent in size, location and architecture no action is required by the City Council. Attachments • 1. Resolution for PUD Concept 2. Community Planning Board minutes dated May 12, 2003 4. Staff report dated May 9,2003 WOODDALE CHURCH MASTER PLAN CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2003- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF WOODDALE CHURCH MASTER PLAN FOR WOODDALE CHURCH 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 May 12, 2003 by 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 June 3,2003. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,Minnesota, as follows: 1. Wooddale Church, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A,is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the. City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated May 28, 2003. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Community Planning Board dated May 12,2003. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of June,2003. Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk /03 EXHIBIT A PUD Concept-Wooddale Church Master Plan Lot 1, Block 1, Wooddale Church Addition loy Planning Board Minutes May 12,2003 Page 10 C. WOODDALE CHURCH MASTER PLAN by Wooddale Church. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.07 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 31.07 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 31.07 acres, and Site Plan Review on 31.07 acres. Location: Shady Oak Road and Bryant Lake Drive. r• Joe Christensen presented the project. He stated that the request is for additional parking and a change to the approved setback to parking. The master plan from the 1980s,has a 75 foot setback. The church would like the setback changed to 25 feet. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., displayed a site map and indicated there have been a number of phases of construction over the years. The larger setbacks were discussed and at that time Eden Prairie was very rural. Today, Eden Prairie is much more built up, particularly the area around the church. Their reason for asking for a 25 foot setback is that they want to be able to create more parking.He said they are planning to add an additional 250 parking stalls. Joe Christensen stated that straightening the entrance will improve circulation and the additional stalls will provide more convenient parking. Franzen stated that there are two code setbacks when there are two public frontages. One needs to be at 50 feet and the other at 25. The reason for the 75 foot setback is to screen parking, the future parking deck and as a tradeoff for the height waiver. Grace Church has a 50 foot setback with a berm and trees because there are 3,500 parking spaces long Pioneer Trail. Wooddale Church will have almost as much but only 900 parking spaces front Bryant Lake Drive. Roger Winfelt of 6621 Golden Ridge Drive feels their request is very reasonable. There are no residences and it's all freeway. Seymour asked if the trees on the east side of Bryfint Lake Drive are part of the church property. Uban responded they are part of the public right of way and will be maintained by the church. Seymour asked whether the City has done this in the past. Franzen replied that because this is the MN DOT right of way, it's up to them to allow the trees. The only case that Eden Prairie has allowed trees in the street right of way was with Hartford Commons. As a rule, the City does not allow it. MNDOT has allowed plantings in the right of way at Southwest Station along 212. • Sodt stated the need is to screen the ramp, the church needs to be visible. He asked if the developer had talked to the neighbors to the south of the church. Uban responded they haven't as of yet but plan to have a neighborhood meeting when Wooddale has developed the master plan. /05 Planning Board Minutes May 12,2003 Page 11 Sodt said the church wants to increase parking spaces. He asked if they had thought of putting the ramp in another area where it wouldn't interfere with setbacks. Uban responded that the large parking area in the southwest corner and the other one is at a good entrance location. Existing parking is at the level the ramp will be at. It will not be very visible. Franzen stated that Dave Pavelka, who owns a home to the south of Wooddale Church, stopped at City Hall and reviewed the plans and had no problems with the parking lot expansion. The 1988 approved plan showed a deck out front and in the back. Koenig stated that in the 1980s the additional setback was in exchange for the 200 foot variance in the height of the spire. Koenig said with the City Council there was a lot of discussion regarding the height of the spire. It has a lot of impact, even now,with it being more urbanized. She asked staff if the church is willing to work with the berm whether it will cause an increase in tree loss. Franzen stated tree loss will be the same. • Koenig asked if the pond is to be relocated and enlarged. Uban responded it is proposed to be relocated and enlarged. Brooks stated that in the 1980s the City granted a height waiver for the spire in exchange for a larger setback. He agrees with staff that there should be a 50 foot setback. Steppat asked how the 50 foot setback would affect the plan. Uban responded it would reduce parking and place a burden on the church. Since the office buildings don't have to do that they feel the church should not have to either. The right of way is large and they want it to.be smaller so that it's convenient for people to park there. The use of the parking lot is generally on Sundays,not everyday; it should be attractive and convenient. Nelson stated that he is,concerned about the trees. She said the church is very noticeable from 212 and the trees do screen it. If the trees are removed it may startle night time drivers. She expressed her concern about cutting back setbacks. With site lines and the potential safety problem with trees removed. The City should be very careful about setbacks. She stated they need a tall berm and a 50 foot setback. Once trees are removed and if they're not happy with the result, they can't put them back. Foote stated it looks as though losing 15-20 parking spots is not that much to lose. It's important to include as much berm and setback there as possible. Planning Board Minutes May 12,2003 Page 12 Stoelting asked about the office building across the street and whether it has a ramp. Franzen replied it does. Seymour stated there are a minimal number of spaces lost by a 50 foot setback and with the future ramps, there is no reason to reduce it. Koenig stated she is also uncomfortable going with less than a 50 foot setback. Sutherland asked whether plans have been developed to the elevation of the decks. Uban responded the they are the same elevation as other parking. A wall will go around the upper portion. He emphasized that they do need all the parking. They have already eliminated 80 stalls and with costs rising 20 or 30 stalls may not seem like a lot but it is a significant impact and cost issue. Foote asked Uban if the pond is bigger than it needs to be. Uban responded that the pond is perfectly sized. Sutherland asked which area of the parking lot would lose the parking spaces and how many decks are they putting in. Uban responded there will be two decks, and a third in the back in the future. Koenig asked about the 80 spaces they lost. Uban responded they were lost on the perimeter when the trail was built. Staff wanted grade separation around the trail and eliminated what amounted to 80 stalls. MOTION by Sutherland, seconded by Brooks to close the public hearing. MOTION by Sutherland, seconded by Sodt, to approve a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.07 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 31.07 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 31.07 acres, and Site Plan Review on 31.07 acres, based on plans dated May 9, 2003, subject to staff recommendations of the staff report, deleting lA and allowing a 25 foot setback,to the City Council . Vote: Brooks, Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Stoelting voted nay, Sodt and Sutherland voted aye. Motion failed, 7 nays, 2 ayes MOTION by Steppat, seconded by Koenig, to approve a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.07 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 31.07 acres, Zoning,District Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 31.07 acres, and Site Plan Review on 31.07 acres, based on plans dated May 9, 2003, subject to the recommendations of the staff report, including the 50 foot setback,to the City Council Planning Board Minutes May 12,2003 Page 13 Vote: Brooks, Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Stoelting voted aye, Sodt and Sutherland voted nay. Motion passed,7 ayes,2 nays Brooks asked staff if the proponent can go before the City Council with their plans as submitted. Franzen responded that if the Board makes the recommendation, the church should prepare new plans. The church can also go before the City Council and ask for the reduced 25 foot setback presented here. 'oU STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: May 9,2003 SUBJECT: Wooddale Master Plan Amendment 2003 APPLICANT/ Wooddale Church OWNER LOCATION: Byrant Lake Drive and Shady Oak Road REQUEST: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.07 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review on 31.07 acres • Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 31.07 acres • Site Plan Review on 31.07 acres • • �. io9 i . Area Location Map - Community Planning Board Wooddale Church. ,. . . . .:. ....., Shady Oak Rod -: .i't.-7,1;.!:,--..• --_-_-,,z-f-..:=,..-Zil,.. - _''..--:....-.-f.j,- ,.1,-.. . .., - x.,1-.:- - .-.:-7. ., t..• ".1-.-4,-.7..;4--..'-'.--i.i- ,...-..,-!‘c:.-- --. .; ,-..: -.. . . ----' - W t P rkWaY n. .•''?'-'•-. -'•:--• - City es a ,,.., ,.„._ ,-.T-y7--.•-.. ::-.r.,..1.,_:.,.-, .,._,:,....-1,:, 0-.1-;_.:-+-,. .:-,... _1:1 '- :-_,Th..4---;-':'%-_,,,t.4-r.."-;',_'..4..-411--,74.47-T471.-"er::". t 1.:5`4.., - - • • Miniii1111,7,' . :ii-2.3i i'l',1: -T-W1.1.---.-X--4;:•ik.:;'::.'1.'.1.1.1-%-.4-,-i'f..."--k-.4 -;f'77:-,Z,:-.-:--°:-..4:.•-i:;: ,---, ''. -i-:-,:',....1,-,:127i4Z-:1;'.2.4.-7.::fZ.-14' ,,•-, --,:sti:Igati,i.,:vr.::4,-_4_:2,--- 3-4c,&-,-,- -i._ ,.--,-.;"-t,,,,,;+ :-,:-... p▪ r :-.z2--..7,i-j':ii. 7-ii,"-- ,-t.,.::!. i"--•-1771R..12,--. ..4 51.::':j72i11-'.9'41.4. .i; 1.-rn,-,,!;..-:4-3'.1-k;,.....Ai;t;..i...,"-:--0 4:•=t-k:h.d.-..!,1,1.j....--7-:;1':‘41:.7...f.--‘14-!-;-12;f--7 -.-et:7- 4-1-:-;,•.;7:-.-,..-5:;;;-;-.1-1,7 .i-illq, Golden Ridge Dr. ,:,;:f.t...,,•_4--- ..:.„%, ‘,7---: -I:in:Li:a.:-A -t--.?.:--.--.14-1,;-3.-7,,- ..,. .....n.,, .:-:1;-1-?-1. 1,1-„LiTr., c.r.i.'"".- . '.41 L:-..-i'7.L*'"Wl.fi."-14,17:1•H' --rit .•'.il':!' P,A.Y-t1.-:•‘'.4..474.2"-.1":".1-''' ( II :1:7'1"....-v4t47"f!":41-1.'"•i.7 1..T::: Pi...174'.,-,-",4:".".s.:"...:.t. -.S. .i"-f:tit74.7ms.,.VP.::?..4.7.,2,1 11,3,...&,i,_-.'''A-,--,--z:•AAT.:.:,' 41,1-7.4.774-z-1-01EcrY4---4.•- ---- :.,-:111.•::?..i'l..24,.,-.,2.4 ri-ta;,,i. . --t-''-; --.L.::(2,-ii.;-.7.-41 ,-7.4-:'.2.',..;`0.!-. , .."- .=-4c....i4==--''-' ri.t..4.e.''-T-....qt..Ma ;},----TIN:41,-,- --- .• -s-'...::`•`-'ti,'2'--1-17.:1:'.' -1 7---- 7:1---•''".. ..::-- '.-.:: . !) ---tq''.:' ::•.-.34-,-"0:,......,-::F. - •--e-%-'• .r-, - -. - ,,,, • -,. '''-•t.'!...; ,...• i• • '4 ' • ' ., ,..i '• , • , :,,,,,,I, - ,-1•:11,..•,"•••4A,F. or— - • • . - -. . ..- -,,-,,, -,.fl'• .,.----ir;:, ' 2 -,..,.,i,-...:4,0,- . ' ' -: --• • • '.7-;.:',- :!'-_,--7-: ; , , -.--.1-4,,-,'..-1,;1. ,„i„ Bryant Lake Drive ... „... •-!:..6.4.1:- -,7 •:.;':-:. - ; •P‘:..: f,-"! -,t4:i7:j:,--!.•,..' l':., - .."•• • • ., ":... '-:`"1 ''r- .• .d.- •• . • 6-- , , , ••••••• • • , ,,ft•j).1.V. ' ''1,'•!=i1.-. , -,:' • . ' '-7'— ''.'.'.'..!. • . . . . . . .,..`1111111-i- •:;%;;;:,.........,::- ..'• SITE . .. .•.... . . ..: ..•. , ...,, . : . • . : - _ . . . . • • _ . . , •.. _ _.„- . ..:., ,.•,i _ .: . .,. . . . ,'i•- :'-b.;•,,,•:,",rr,-;1.,4..-,:.1'.4.4.5..,:;,..".i."eIf..:i'.,,:,.,.f,'?,"•:I:1,•;M Y4 ii4..1t' ':i!.:1.7,4',,;i-:1i 1.:4;-7..-.70,_,:::;:;i;..;.-:.,;..!...•.,,r,-:_. .-. ..,-..4,4-1. ,1:s-::.v..i,,,....•:.,.:,..•-,..-..-.,-.!-.;,,:..::'—..,,,',c..-'-,•- . ::t.i.,,i:..:,.•....::...A..,„. ..i .:.e..•.••.,..,..,%....i,,. ;.•.•.:... ...-1..Il„....i;l...,':,'.....:1r'..'....:,..:„,..'17:..".j.;„.`" r .- • 0 4 ... - kWit-1 7 ,.4.,..,.71,.i..,...1s4u.1.1..4..,.„s".:........411•? .- - 4 g7f : f ` , '',.'.:-.".'SOX,--L.;.j•.' -:q,.1i114-; •5;.!--,:.:.-.- ,..-'.• :„••7 1:--:...• .; • ,,,.; . — -..%. .. .-.,. ,....A.T....044,.-..0.s, •--41.91iy...:.04.4.41,'!• i i •r .."!••• ''..0-•-:.•'• '-',"-'' '1:-04-,11:444:ititFtrq404;•4:4PY . ,-;'1;T4::•.:7:1.9.•- r'!::-,T1.•;.:Z1-:;:,':'--,•ii.•,:i''•:"4E'TT7".•":".5".!V.1:1'4.1-44.'.i'•II•411•'•-,,,.--. ,..:!.... , . : . ..!• .'' •*'• !•,,f',...•1.V._411'::71 3. .174:Alril. 6%..4 '.• .!•;14:.r:1*-1fiFilis I-'egur'X_,g.'114! '.1.•''', ' - •!,',"..";,-,.,,;.:,1" ,,,.,;i'' -..f:''..--1.'4 3 -1".1;:4••i!..E .1110:".• ,' • ; %,. •••":t,',••• :.. .. .1. '1'..::;',..,/....1,1:::1....-:\?I.',.. ...., , ' . -'1..:•:,/,i. ''''''''-'•. US Highway#212 , . . . L ,...,.1,•-„;..!F.'te:i.j;r2....:::C'!..•;hi:4:•":1:-..t•,i••'I.'-?:.." '' ' !i :f:C;-'. :";-•' :•' :7 1:''•':!3 .'''s . ' • •'••i':'1".: •.'i"I:'..' -•:'' ti,f,44_,,?-46:, 2,14'.'N ill.• 1.q-474;.1",IPTer*.10. •• . f./0,,,,.r . .. ..,•,, i. • .. . ',... • ,g'.:;:::':•,- ,i5Liiii,•:.agAN4-1 qt,10.:: ;.: Mels Way '„ F.':•? ...4' '. .',.., • ,',..i,$'•11•;,.,• - .7.4-1::i "3...0.11..! , .-t...:0-311- • f. -41,111".-..5:'''..1 •;'11:r • • v't l'"i'41'''11. ': '4..::'.1.'•''.-..5firrlq,'il'! ...§40; i, -.;I:,.;,.."...i..'•,.i y .:4-.'i!i'.....-;i,..P.,E.-,“:.ti_, ,d r- 'ii'' lirI' -• '...--- •,•,.0 1,3',/..1,2,..,4•,t-0•".:q."..'77.1•1;",1413. :,,-•.i.,", 1 --'6",•:1'...*•,1,'...e'''''',i' :• ' . •, ,. • 1,:i..];..79, De.'.n.: :"4 .:?..,",,•11.',.."1-',t404'...1 d•q.e.'f., ., h. ,_• ,i 1,4-,.- , ..,,, ., ,.. .•. .-‘-17 .,.. ,.. , . . --r.:1 -.!,..•.,?;, -•.-.. s. :,...:-. ,:: --.!,,,,,,::- _i ,4 if, 4...s,•;341..• 1 "-J,',";`,..-`'.*:'-i•,-....P;.-!..,,..J:- •-•i;':',.-.'-.;.:t'.,-,t-.-. • ;. , ‘;1-., ., .r.-f-: ''.:'-.T.--.'4:.4:..-414;..,ii....--afV,..,.....i,_:::-..ilaik.i.;,,,.- , ;• . .;-:,..1.,-1., ' - . . " ,.'.... 14:.4.'" •!:-.1.;-, ..ii a•. '. .: .1. ;•,; ... - . .- -.0-- ,,,- - .--.41p i-?•;...n.,:.r.,..,...f:IfIletc.1;-•,4 N'145. '.. .'•.r I!. ':2,,f,':.;,-:::::•J,.L'.iv,•'''.,:•••.''i',T;',1•1:.'44,-‘...3.T7'i :/;11:••‘;::2:,...tn.:41'g.•..'r.:t:-...:,1.4:4:''- illirr... ". • • .. , 11/** 41tati ,...4,i- . _;,.4,.,-1.• - ,-„....... ,Arik. ,L.: .1'• .. I . • .. • ,. . .. No Scale. . . • - - / /0 Staff Report—Wooddale Church Master Plan Amendment 2003 (May 9,2003) BACKGROUND This site is guided Church. The site is zoned public. The 1981 approved plan for this site is 100,000 square feet of building and 1,140 parking spaces. The plan was amended in 1988 for an additional 67,000 square feet of building and a total of 2,250 parking spaces. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT The amendment of the approved plan includes the following. • Relocation and enlargement of the existing pond. • Construction of 227 additional parking spaces. • A reduced setback to parking along Bryant Drive from 70-80 feet to 25 feet. SETBACK TO PARKING ALONG BRYANT DRIVE The approved plan has a 70 to 80 foot setback from the right of way along Bryant Lake Drive. The code setback is 25 feet. The reason for the larger setback is to screen views of surface parking and future parking deck, as required by code, and to help reduce the visual impact of the height of the church. In 1988 Wooddale Church received a building height waiver from 75 feet to 200 feet. Within the 70 -80 foot approved setback there is a mass of the cottonwood and elm trees. In 1988,the majority of trees did not meet the 12 inch minimum requirement for being designated as a significant tree, and therefore not subject to replacement. However, since the existing tree mass would screen parking and view of the building height, the City required the tree mass to be replaced. The approved master plan includes a reforestation plan of maple and birch trees. There are 5,548 diameter inches of significant trees on the property. A total of 1,684 inches were lost due to construction in previous phases and 1,134 inches were replaced. A total of 944 inches will be lost due to the construction of new parking spaces and pond relocation. The required tree replacement is 552 inches. By reducing the parking setback to 25 feet along Bryant Lake Drive, there will not be enough horizontal area to provide a meaningful reforestation to screen the on grade parking and future one level parking deck shown in the 1988 plan. The staff recommends that the minimum setback to parking along Bryant Lake Drive be 50 feet. A IiI Staff Report—Wooddale Church Master Plan Amendment 2003 (May 9,2003) This would provide enough area to create a 7-9 foot berm. Additional trees will be needed. This approach is similar to the berm that screens the parking and future parking deck at Grace Church along Pioneer. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the following request: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 31.07 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review on 31.07 acres • Zoning District Amendment in the Public Zoning District on 31.07 acres • Site Plan Review on 31.07 acres This is based on plans dated May 9, 2003, the Staff Report dated May 9, 2003, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review,the proponent shall revise the plan as follows. A. Revise the plan for a minimum 50 foot setback to parking along Bryant Lake Drive,with a 7- 9 foot berm, and plantings. 2. Prior to grading permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Install erosion control on the property,as well as tree protection fencing at the grading limits in the wooded areas for.trees to be preserved as part of the development. Said fencing shall be field inspected by the City Forester prior to any grading. C. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility, and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District. 3. Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the proponent shall: A. Provide a landscape surety equivalent to 150% of the cost of the tree replacement improvements indicated on the approved plan. 1' Ic2 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 613/03 SECTION: Public Hearings DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Management and Budget/Planning Donald R.Uram Ponds Edge Scott A. Kipp Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 8.63 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers, and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 7.16 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 1.47 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 8.63 acres into 15 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Board recommendations and Council conditions. Synopsis This project is for 15 single-family lots. Four of the existing Stonegate lots adjacent to Dane Drive are included in the proposal and will be reconfigured to work with the development. All lots meet City Code for size and dimension. A PUD waiver is requested for front yard setback from 30 feet to 25 feet for Lots 13, 14, and 15, Block 1, adjacent to the existing wetland. The plans have been revised according to the staff report, except for relocating the required 95 caliper inches of tree replacement outside of Outlot A. This revision will need to take place prior 2nd Reading for the project. Community Planning Board Recommendation The Community Planning Board voted 9-0 to recommended approval of the project to the City Council at the May 12, 2003 meeting. Background Information The PUD waiver for front yard setback to 25 feet for lots 13, 14, and 15, Block 1 will provide additional distance from the wetland, and is consistent with a lot in Stonegate where a similar waiver was approved for a lot between a wetland and Stable Path. The wider 66-foot right-of- way of Stable Path along these lots will maintain a greater distance to the road than a standard 50-foot right-of-way would provide. 113 City Council Agenda—Ponds Edge June 3,2003 Page 2 Outlot A will be dedicated to the City. All tree replacement should be relocated outside of this outlot. Attachments 1. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 2. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 3. Staff Report dated May 9, 2003 4. Community Planning Board minutes dated May 12,2003 I PONDS EDGE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.2003- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF PONDS EDGE FOR LANDGEEKS,LLC 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 May 12,2003 for Ponds Edge by LandGeeks,LLC 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 June 3,2003. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,Minnesota, as follows: 1. Ponds Edge,being in Hennepin County,Minnesota,legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated May 22, 2003. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Community Planning Board dated May 12, 2003. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 3rd day of June, 2003. Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 115 EXHIBIT A PUD Concept-Ponds Edge The north 300.00 feet lying east of the west 284.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 116,Range 22,Hennepin County,Minnesota, except for that part of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter embraced within Hennepin County Highway plat No. 6, according to the recorded plat thereof. Subject to Dell Road as filed in Book 1 of Highway Plats, Page 4, according to the recorded plat thereof. AND Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 3, STONEGATE OF EDEN PRAIRIE,Hennepin County,Minnesota. 116 PONDS EDGE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2003- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PONDS EDGE FOR LANDGEEKS,LLC BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Ponds Edge for LandGeeks,LLC dated May 22,2003,and consisting of 8.63 acres into 151ots, 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 June,,2003. Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 114 STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Scott A.Kipp, Senior Planner DATE: May 9,2003 SUBJECT: Ponds Edge APPLICANT: LandGeeks, LLC OWNERS: Warren S. Carlson and Scott Carlston LOCATION: South of Pioneer Trail,west of Stable Path REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 8.63 acres 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 8.63 acres 3. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 7.16 acres 4. Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 1.47 acres 5. Preliminary Plat on 8.63 acres into 15 lots, one outlot and road right-of- way I (8 Area Location Map = Community Planning Board Ponds Edge __ .mot-__..._ :._, -ma '..:' '_ .,- _: - _ _ 17.; - -_ - - _ •_ _ - _'._.'-'!—_ - _'.L—_--jam-'J.-r.. 4• - _ •ELT_ .. = _--- _-_. __ __- _-=__ - -'sue, _-_ -- _ _•- _ =.4==ems=:'_ _"1._ _ _ `='_' = _ - __- - Riley Lake Rd- =- -_-_- --_"T_ `- ..-_• -.=r1� - - -_ _ ' ._'`r¢'. • _•"�•--- •'--i-�3 ' -'`^_i. - -r7: i-••41'ij','r-.l .:T't-- ,•-�a F._.r•L• rho - I.. LL- - - - --,: . - • = :^`rn Bea ath Tr. ;_ �':_ :�+ '== _ _ ')`t�'�--_` 4:ii''•-• a-*- :.•aim'. it -Fi'�:'�"_ =�"__-� _ _ MI': _ri}-�_ - __ __ - _ __:�: - `. _ _'-;mot_#-�`'E'.11- •i,':*f, - _ _',C--_`-. _ -_ - — :.h',: it rr_ _•_E. �3.1'_ __ .'�5 ��t?rF-'!�;`�r"i ..;��_ _4, - [1 .E-., _ _ __ _.-__ _•i!-T- _ ___ •:.... ":Rr�.:.--. a-a-tik•4-- �• •. .a :C ....Fa.'r'y.*^.+.._�-' .'':'.w�,•-�''�-F+;-.'-'_' :�'=u,��t:,r-_-,•1'}••:-_�. - e.r.i. �a;P:r�-i+- - `,•=1. "�, _..:w. _ "� '• �r,_:•-�'-"'-' _ - ,1•., • ..}:,:ram'-!,,,fir': - •i.4 � � - -_ a- ,.5i_E� � r .",Lis-=:''.=-�1 _ `�d •,,• - 'rL .,; " - iIJt • • Pioneer Tr. i • iL ,_ r.j_ -''' r•�'i_ , I_•, ,.,,,i•- . , - • -r•' - - _•'1 („ ':t • •`",y:•.a''ai:.' •-yr,-.,,fl-e'.1•`;'y'' • •••'4 =tei ri-A.,, �, •''ru,_j �'. .',•• _ -qC-g, =' ,fri' O,421•_ Haralson Dr. ' .' q' _ -! a ''' .� :-u--'iT '• • , ,T- •'?.-- • • SITE • . . ., . litip ', 'J'-�ir ,. 'F ' ' '',1 - • "rrTr-�•Y" 'T''.'.,.-(l,r.,t.'. •'. ":•`f 'I, •-- '-' a `' Dane Dr. • �' e.: McGee Way L- ki'-!4 •` -', ,f ".L,I,r:. Marshall Rd. - 'tL;j,• :tip: -' ,r _ ;I.;, _� �. '-': ,' �" e I i,4'.�•, -•'1.,. ^r _'•,i. • T ,:.,:. • , �•~ -''. " ',.. • y,i �'�• .'iq. ' 2'•' ''h f.%� ' :b•, ,M1rl I yi•.1 C 4.y.'1, .1'l.l •, - ` ••' ••,.r'q'1'•.'",r' ., _ -�-..r.}'r;�it '2 rt.. `;.N'ir�'-. .[�F,:'e�• �• � 1•r �xr,. •-' 14r-•�'-r'`1 •, r• •:4T. .,ny•• 1,.. t}:-_ r n-•' ••••+r,ro-" w.-•++c., '. --.�4 �,.; �"��fq"- ws• .,�",_,,. ,�. �. •n._ ;.•.. , •:4 ����,,.:.II I ��" Stable Path = :P�., YWA�,'7 " �.�-r. ;11.•,•i'-:L..t "r''w;-•p,Lq�eL•i9a•_�!�.'`17��,.��;: -�,i'r ral�:�tt.,. }a�>rn. ``','�',_,,511{' t ir ' �','. ( �i'' ".'ti q ' ' r ,:,+'T.i .W,64.,a'-' •tl,', • i ",t, 1•:'�l•.,�',M•� • .t�.7,,_ii 57• ", ='.s _ t• ." . , �'i,,.. ,ii,'i"N, ..._t-., . �.3+ia••,: .• '�'�` ..- -li. _11 , :Tip'•• :-••-1'_r„4y Y".a±"";dj'?a. .ri'. 'arg ,- , ,..7' a+.',•.,.„1'^-'�,;:'h4", ,.1:•r. .�•.fit,.i - } T*" ., '' i '�•• 6p•'�?•.�,n y 1,�„ ,-�+•r,i1 .'..-, -1. -',' ,i e, _.rj.. 1. ',,d, 11 '-I -..;,,If.: 'q,e1-F, d ,t,',,.' ,i' - Y,i"d,F_ ,F r. rC:•', r-:, .'�-'. _ '1'-,,�i�•: "�• ",'�, , '+r• :#;.t..!� }' ' 2.,;q.5',�i ,.l•: 1M5�-, ., N.V. R. �`;.�'` 4�•: a�•. • •u `rrd • ,!:-;31;5',.°. I:"•?4,_0. '••`t.; r _,cy } "••,. _ • `.,:'a i C,Fc',4,',•r:•_r�q, a 1-'r=`'' g ' ••1V',wry";•:P;.4;' 5.e•i; ,'1F.,.''_ .,'•r{,..t' .t.' , -,9 'I.I•'!ti„TM F:• 1• _ • '4',: r.'S-:pt::,`,1'?•••r ca" ,� •,i irILL l,r EIrk` 1.1.'-':'i: • ' ,_ � ' �i ' �.I,'14':°,r_1 t:.u ,! • ter .e".,�� - "- 1 "�i � : ...:. a_ �' 1 i,'_ ;.fir n t :ij ,�i.: ; : ce:' _ {. .,••.:,_c"_ .:i,,_ _ - ,'_ •-��� __- • trNo Sc_ le -' .,r =.;y:;- - - . :- Dell Rd. • i•,l:--.'=', ..F., }i,L,.+;} 1 -4 ._ .,r • ,�•i-.•`r.., .,;..., _-.,. , \ °_ •:_ f?„L! .---: II9 Staff Report—Ponds Edge May 9,2003 Page 2 BACKGROUND The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows this site as Low-Density Residential for up to 2.5 units per acre. The property is zoned Rural and R1-13.5. Surrounding land use consists of single- family residential to the south, east and west, with a small portion of Rural zoned property to the north adjacent to Pioneer Trail. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The proposal is to develop 15 single-family lots in the R1-13.5 zoning district. The portion of property adjacent to Dane Drive was originally part of the Stonegate development, and will be reconfigured as part of this proposal. The density of the project is 1.7 units per acre. This is consistent with the Stonegate development. All lots meet City Code for size and dimension. The minimum lot size is 13,500 square feet, with an average lot size of 13,980 square feet. Outlot A will be dedicated to the City. Additional right-of-way dedication is proposed along Pioneer Trail and Stable Path. A shared driveway easement that served previous undeveloped properties extends along the west and southwest boundary of the site. This easement will need to be eliminated as part of the project. The development will require the following waiver through the PUD. • Front yard setback of 25 feet for Lots 13, 14, and 15,Block 1. Code requires 30 feet. This flexibility will provide additional distance from the wetland, and is consistent with a similar waiver in Stonegate for a lot adjacent to a wetland and Stable Path. A standard road right-of-way width is 50 feet. The wider 66-foot right-of-way of Stable Path along these lots will maintain a greater distance to the road. TREE LOSS There are 370 diameter inches of significant trees on the property. The City Forester has determined tree loss of 162.5 diameter inches, or 44%. Many of the significant trees are red cedars that were planted by the property owner along a gravel driveway in the northwest portion of the property. The required tree replacement is 95 caliper inches. The tree replacement plan shows 78 caliper inches of replacement trees mainly located within Outlot A. The plan will need to be revised to show 95 caliper inches of tree replacement within the lots, and out of Outlot A. WETLANDS A 2.83 acre low to moderate quality wetland occupies the central portion of the property. Alteration of 5% of the wetland is proposed on the west side of the wetland. Wetland fill totals /JO Staff Report—Ponds Edge May 9,2003 Page 3 6,251 square feet, which requires mitigation at a 2:1 ratio. Mitigation consists of new wetland replacement and public value credit adjacent to the existing wetland to meet this requirement. The plan meets the alternative wetland buffer strip requirements permitted by code with a buffer width minimum of 10 feet, and an average width of 30 feet. The buffer strip setback is 15 feet. Outlot A, covering the majority of the wetland will be dedicated to the City. The remaining wetland and wetland buffer area will be placed in a conservation easement. DRAINAGE The majority of the storm water will be directed to the existing NURP pond located on the west end of the Stonegate development. This pond was sized to accommodate this development. The storm sewer outlet at the southeast corner of the site will need to be extended to reach the wetland. UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and water is available in Dane Drive and McGee Way. Sewer and water to serve lots 13, 14, and 15 will come from Stable Path when this roadway improvement project takes place possibly this summer or next year. No building permits for these lots will be permitted until Stable Path has been substantially completed. PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk was approved along the north side of Dane Drive with the Stonegate development. This sidewalk will connect to future bituminous trails to be installed with the future upgrading of Pioneer Trail and Stable Path. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the following request: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 8.63 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 8.63 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 7.16 acres • Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 1.47 acres • Preliminary Plat on 8.63 acres into 15 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way This is based on plans dated May 7, 2003, the Staff Report dated May 9, 2003, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review,the proponent shall: �a � Staff Report—Ponds Edge May 9,2003 Page 4 A. Show a conservation easement over the wetland and wetland buffers within the proposed lots. B. Revise the tree replacement plan to show 95 caliper inches of tree replacement outside of Outlot A. C. Extend the storm sewer outlet located at the southeast corner of the property to the wetland. 2. Prior to final plat,the proponent shall: A. Provide written proof that the private driveway easement that crosses the property has been eliminated. B. Dedicate Outlot A to the City. 3. Prior to grading permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Install erosion control on the property, as well as tree protection fencing at the grading limits in the wooded areas for trees to be preserved as part of the development. Said fencing shall be field inspected by the City Forester prior to any grading. C. Submit a conservation easement over the wetland and wetland buffers Said easement shall be recorded with the final plat for the property. D. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility, and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District. E. Provide written proof that the private driveway easement that crosses the property has been eliminated. 4. Prior to building permit issuance for the property,the proponent shall: A. Provide a tree replacement surety equivalent to 150% of the cost of the tree replacement improvements indicated on the approved plan. B. Pay the Cash Park Fee. 5. No building permits for Lots 13, 14, and 15, Block 1 shall be issued until Stable Path improvements, including sanitary sewer and water,have been substantially completed. Staff Report—Ponds Edge May 9, 2003 Page 5 6. The following waiver has been granted through the PUD District Review for the property: A. Front yard setback of 25 feet for Lots 13, 14, and 15,Block 1. City Code requires 30 feet. I3 Planning Board Minutes May 12,2003 Page 8 B. PONDS EDGE by LandGeeks, LLC. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 8.63 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 8.63 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 7.16 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 1.47 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.63 acres into 15 lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Pioneer Trail,west of Stable Path. Michael Vincent of LandGeeks, LLC, presented the project. He stated it includes reintegrating a small piece of the Ponds Edge development and blend it with Stonegate. It includes reengineering the lot layout. Franzen stated staff recommends approval according to the recommendations on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. Items A, B and C are project details that need to be shown on the plan before proceeding to the City Council. These include a conservation easement over the wetland and wetland buffers, tree replacement and extending storm sewer outlets for proper drainage, Scott Carlston stated he was speaking on behalf of the development. He stated its important to continue what started with the Stonegate development which consists of expensive homes and in order to provide a transition between Ponds Edge into the Stonegate area, four of the Stonegate lots are planned to become part of the Ponds Edge development. There are no natural breaks between the development and, as a result,the same covenants need to be in place for both developments, such as fencing, architecture, accessory buildings, etc. Carlston said there are things that can be done in the contracts to restrict tree removal. He stated he has addendums added to development contracts to prohibit tree removal by homebuyers. Nelson stated that she has concerns about the 44% tree loss and that putting them back on Outlot A didn't seem reasonable. She asked staff whether they really need a waiver to setbacks. A 25 foot setback doesn't seem like enough and it appears they are trying to squeeze extra lots in. Franzen responded that if they were developing at the maximum of 2 1/2 units per acre that tree loss would be an issue but this project is one unit per acre less and the City didn't recommend taking out lots. The City has approved front yard setback • waivers in the past to increase;the buffers and minimize impacts to wetlands. Koneig asked staff to explain wetland public value credit and how that works. She said her understanding was that the wetland mitigation is two to one on the property plus public value credit. Al Gray, City Engineer, explained that when the wetland restoration is done the rules allow a certain amount of public value credits. The way this is structured is consistent with the rules and regulations of the state wetland act, the watershed district and the City Eden Prairie wetland ordinances. The credits would come from the storm water pond. lay Planning Board Minutes May 12,2003 Page 9 Koenig asked if they would mitigate solely on the site. Vincent showed on the site map where they would be removing vegetation on certain lots and replacing it around the wetland. Koenig asked staff whether there will be a lot of trees lost. Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources, stated that there will be a loss of nine trees due to construction and the majority will be cedar trees. He said Stonegate had a loss of 37% which may sound like quite a bit but in terms of tree cover on the site there were 23 significant trees and, as a result, the removal of just z°• a few trees results in a higher percentage lost. Koenig asked if there was a mass of trees on the east side of the pond. Fox responded that those trees would not be affected, only the westerly side of the site. Koenig asked staff to address the transition issues. Franzen responded that the City doesn't require a transition for single family homes. If it was a townhome development, the site plan review section would allow for changes regarding architecture, landscaping and transition. Stoetling asked if it would be possible on lots 13, 14 and 15 to move the front setbacks back five feet to 20 feet which would increase the wetland buffer and move the homes closer to the road. Franzen responded that is a possibility but it would be important to allow for enough room in the back for decks and other structures. Since Stable Path Road is a 66 foot right of way as compared to typical 50 foot right of way, there is more green space between the house and the road even with a 25 foot setback. Nelson asked about the lot where they will be filling the wetland area and whether it will create a wet basement on that lot. Gray responded they would need to look at the soil to determine what they could do. He said it's important to keep basements above the high water table areas. It's a site specific problem for the builder. MOTION by Brooks,seconded by Foote to close the public hearing. MOTION :'BY Brooks, seconded by Foote to approve the Planned Unit • Development Concept Review on 8.63 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 8.63 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 7.16 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 1.47 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.63 acres into 15 lots, one outlot, and road right-of- way,based on plans dated May 7, 2003, subject to the recommendations of the staff reporttdated May 9,2003,to the City Council. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6/3/03 SECTION: Public Hearings DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Management and Budget/Planning Donald R.Uram Heritage Preservation Site Alteration Permit— John Gertz Riley-Jacques Farm Requested Action Move to: • Continue the Public Hearing to July 15, 2003. Synopsis The Heritage Preservation Site Alteration Permit is for the renovation of the Riley-Jacques Farm, including the barn, associated parking area and park trail connections. The barn has a total of 4,400 square feet. The future use of the building is to provide a flexible space for theatre, as well as,various recreation programs and rentable space for gatherings. Staff is reviewing the cost estimates and funding for the renovation project, and will present this information at the July 15, 2003 meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Payment of Claims June 3,2003 SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Community Development and Payment of Claims V I Financial Services/Don Uram Requested Action Move to: Approve the Payment of Claims as submitted(roll call vote) Synopsis Checks 120287- 120682 Wire Transfers 1799 - 1808 Background Information Attachments �a6 City of Eden Prairie Council Check Summary 6/3/2003 Division Amount General 238,241 101 Legislative 128 102 Legal Counsel 6,021 110 City Clerk 1,099 111 Customer Service 9,324 112 Human Resources 11,086 113 Communication Services 183 114 Benefits&Training 6,558 115 Risk Management 3,094 116 Facilities 13,425 117 City Center 729 130 Assessing 493 131 Finance 827 133 Community Development 28 135 Information Technology 11,592 136 Wireless Communication 6,273 137 Economic Development 65 150 Park Administration 2,312 151 Park Maintenance 15,799 152 Parks Capital Outlay 4,745 153 Athletic Programs 3,638 154 Community Center 44,912 156 Youth Programs 472 158 Senior Center 840 159 Recreation Administration 722 160 Adaptive Recreation 36 161 Oak Point Pool 6,896 162 Arts 2,392 163 Park Facilities 1,427 180 Police 16,348 183 Civil Defense 844 184 Fire 7,914 185 Animal Control 539 186 Inspections 275 200 Engineering 561 201 Street Maintenance 18,179 202 Street Lighting 51,407 203 Fleet Services 25,828 204 Equipment Revolving 13,296 303 Cemetary Operation 7 304 Senior Awareness Fund 163 308 E-911 3,256 314 Liquor Compliance 91 503 Utility Improvement 47,190 506 Improvment Bonds 1996 17,686 507 Construction Fund 57,860 509 CIP Fund 12,739 511 Construction Fund 52,475 601 Prairie Village Liquor 94,386 602 Den Road Liquor 131,730 603 Prairie View Liquor 94,783 701 Water Fund 120,683 702 Sewer Fund 187,133 703 Storm Drainage Fund 41,742 803 Escrow Fund 8,564 Report Totals 1,399,037 1TT City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 6/32003 Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit 1799 63,056 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE Cash Over/Short General Fund 1800 292 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE Motor Fuels Fleet Services 1801 532 WELLS FARGO MINNESOTA N A Bank and Service Charges Finance 1802 56,678 WELLS FARGO MINNESOTAN A Federal Taxes Withheld General Fund 1803 63,859 WELLS FARGO MINNESOTA N A Employers SS&Medicare General Fund 1804 22,866 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE State Taxes Withheld General Fund 1805 8,760 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 Deferred Compensation General Fund 1806 15,118 ORCHARD TRUST CO AS TRUSTEE/CU Deferred Compensation General Fund 1807 66,396 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT Employers PERA General Fund 1808 5 WELLS FARGO MINNESOTA N A Employers SS&Medicare General Fund 120287 14 ANDERSON,PATTY Lessons&Classes Fitness Classes 120288 50 BEST,MIKE Other Contracted Services Assessing 120289 19,589 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MARKETING I Gas Water Treatment Plant 120290 195 CHOICE INC Other Contracted Services Prairie Village Liquor Store 120291 12,884 EDEN PRAIRIE HIGH SCHOOL Fac.Rental-P&R Ice Arena 120292 396 GREGERSON ROSOW JOHNSON&NILA Legal Legal Council 120293 275 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS Other Contracted Services Engineering 120294 28 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Operating Supplies Community Development 120295 32 HOLZWORTH,KENT Lessons&Classes Ice Arena 120296 100 ILSTRUP,JUDY Other Contracted Services Assessing 120297 111 JAMAR TECHNOLOGIES INC Operating Supplies Engineering 120298 41 KIVARI,SONJA Lessons&Classes Fitness Classes 120299 100 MALAM,DOUG Other Contracted Services Assessing 120300 2,000 MARK VII Beer Prairie View Liquor Store 120301 111 MINN ST ADMIN ITG TELECOM SERV Software Maintenance Information Technology 120302 1,195 MOORE,DANE1"1'h Tuition Reimbursement/School In Service Training 120303 117 MUENCH,JOHANNA Operating Supplies Ice Show 120304 781 NILSSEN,BETH Instructor Service Ice Arena 120305 100 O'CONNOR,ANNE f1'h Other Contracted Services Assessing 120306 425 PETTY CASH Petty Cash&Change Funds General Fund 120307 100 PIDCOCK,PATRICIA Other Contracted Services Assessing 120308 923 PORTER,OMER T Wages No Benefits Fitness Classes 120309 5,481 QWEST Telephone E-911 Program 120310 1,468 Qwest COMMUNICATIONS Pager&Cell Phone Police 120311 4 SCHACHT,KELLY Lessons&Classes Fitness Classes 120312 91 STATE OF MINNESOTA Legal Liquor Compliance 120313 295 URAM,DONALD Conference Expense Finance 120314 50 VANCE,DIANE Program Fee Preschool Events 120315 36 AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT Landscape Materials/Supp Storm Drainage 120316 240 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING Other Contracted Services Senior Center Program 120317 3,418 ARCH PAGING Capital Under$2,000 Fleet Services 120318 27 BATTERY STORE INC,THE Operating Supplies Engineering 120319 2,150 BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES INC Deposits Escrow 120320 539 BLOOMINGTON,CITY OF Kennel Services Animal Control 120321 191 CLAREYS INC Safety Supplies Fleet Services 120322 75 DNR WATERS Licenses&Taxes Water Utility-General 120323 94 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET Merchandise for Resale Concessions 120324 801 EF JOHNSON Equipment Repair&Maint Wireless Communication 120325 120 FORKLIFTS OF MINNESOTA INC Equipment Repair&Maint Water Treatment Plant 120326 839 GENERAL REPAIR SERVICE Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant 120327 88 GREG LARSON SPORTS Operating Supplies Raquetball 120328 1,799 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON Design&Engineering Construction Fund 120329 125 LIMBERG,KRISTY Operating Supplies Summer Theatre 120330 123 MENARDS Repair&Maint.Supplies Water System Maintenance 120331 158 METALS JOINING LAB CO INC Equipment Repair&Maint Sewer System Maintenance 120332 23 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH Licenses&Taxes Water Utility-General 120333 1,342 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP Electric Sewer Lilistation 120334 2,628 NATURAL REFLECTIONS VII LLC Machinery&Equipment Water Treatment Plant 120335 22 NORTHERN TOOL&EQUIPMENT CO. Repair&Maint.Supplies Storm Drainage as Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit 120336 148 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS Equipment Repair&Main' Fleet Services 120337 1,292 REED BUSINESS INFORMATION Legal Notices Publishing Improvement Projects 1996 120338 28 SECRETARY OF STATE Other Contracted Services Economic Development 120339 52,388 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Design&Engineering Charison Area Construction 120340 32 STAR TRIBUNE Misc Non-Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store 120341 500 STATE OF MINNESOTA CPV PROGRAM Dues&Subscriptions In Service Training 120342 85 STOVRING,LESLIE Operating Supplies Environmental Education 120343 46 SUBURBAN PROPANE Lubricants&Additives Fleet Services 120344 120 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Conference Expense Engineering 120345 1,330 URBAN COMMUNICATIONS Operating Supplies Ice Show 120346 183 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEVUE Pager&Cell Phone Inspections-Administration 120347 4,529 WILLIAMS PIPE LINE COMPANY Other Contracted Services Chanson Area Construction 120348 57 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE Safety Supplies Community Center Admin 120349 21 ACE ICE COMPANY Misc Non-Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store 120350 68 AMERIPRIDE LINEN&APPAREL SER Repair&Maint.Supplies Prairie Village Liquor Store 120351 125 ARCTIC GLACIER INC Misc Non-Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 120352 3,298 BELLBOY CORPORATION Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 120353 94 BRW ENTERPRISES Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 120354 5,126 DAY DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store 120355 1,032 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 120356 19,004 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store 120357 2,004 GRAPE BEGINNINGS Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 120358 8,958 GRIGGS COOPER&CO Transportation Prairie View Liquor Store 120359 21,255 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 120360 15,232 MARK VII Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 120361 266 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 120362 565 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 120363 3,148 PAUSTIS&SONS COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 120364 52 PEPSI COLA COMPANY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 120365 6,091 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 120366 841 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 120367 1,380 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 120368 6,972 QUALITY WINE&SPIRITS CO Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 120369 27,465 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store 120370 106 TRI COUNTY BEVERAGE&SUPPLY Beer Den Road Liquor Store 120371 184 WINE COMPANY,THE Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 120372 4,768 WINE MERCHANTS INC Wine Imported Prairie Village Liquor Store 120373 513 WORLD CLASS WINES INC Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store 120374 38 ALLEN,REBECCA Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons 120375 686 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC. Waste Disposal Public Works/Parks 120376 25,212 ASTECH ASPHALT SURFACE TECHNOL Sweeping Storm Drainage 120377 102 AT&T Pager&Cell Phone Police 120378 109 BLOOMINGTON PARK CATERED EVENT Miscellaneous City Council 120379 87 BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS Operating Supplies Fire 120380 1,456 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC Gravel Water System Maintenance 120381 110 BURGER,HOLLY Operating Supplies Ice Show 120382 953 C&T SYSTEMS Other Hardware Information Technology 120383 788 CEMSTONE Repair&Maint.Supplies Water System Maintenance 120384 20 CENTER FOR CROSS-CULTURAL HEAL Operating Supplies Recreation Administration 120385 395 CLAREYS INC Tuition Reimbursement/School Fire 120386 895 COLLABORATIVE,THE Dues&Subscriptions In Service Training 120387 69 DEGREE,BETH Operating Supplies Fitness Classes 120388 130 DON WHERLEY MASONRY,INC Equipment Repair&Maint Street Maintenance 120389 165 EDHLUND,ERIC Special Event Fees Adult Program 120390 149 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS Conference Expense In Service Training 120391 100 FREY,TERRI GEIGER Instructor Service Outdoor Center 120392 76 HAMMERSCHMIDT,RICK Travel Expense In Service Training 120393 529 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR Other Hardware Information Technology 120394 309 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR Operating Supplies Fire 120395 3,042 LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST Insurance Risk Management 120396 97 MANAGER'S EDGE Dues&Subscriptions Youth Programs Administration 120397 109 MANN,TRIA Operating Supplies Senior Center Program 120398 32 MARKET MECHANICAL,INC Cash Over/Short General Fund Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit 120399 80 MCFERRIN,TANYA Instructor Service Outdoor Center 120400 4,460 MED COMPASS Employment Support Test Fire 120401 8 MENARDS Repair&Maint Supplies Park Maintenance 120402 50 MFSCB Employment Support Test Fire 120403 21 MINNCOMM PAGING Pager&Cell Phone Water System Maintenance 120404 544 MOORE MEDICAL CORP Safety Supplies Fire 120405 3 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES Operating Supplies Fire 120406 22 NILSSEN,BETH Operating Supplies Ice Show 120407 41 O'CONNELL,JAY Mileage&Parking Fire 120408 268 OSI BATTERIES INC Operating Supplies Fire 120409 75 PAIN ENTERPRISES INC. Chemicals Pool Maintenance 120410 128 PRINTERS SERVICE INC Repair&Maint Supplies Ice Arena 120411 25 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 120412 4 SCHACHT,KELLY Lessons&Classes Fitness Classes 120413 63 STEWART-HESTER,RENEE Other Contracted Services Recreation Administration 120414 3,096 STREICHERS Capital Under$2,000 Wireless Communication 120415 107 TARPS INC Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 120416 239 TEKIELA,STAN . Recreation Supplies Outdoor Center 120417 68 THIELMAN,MARC Mileage&Parking General Facilities 120418 207 TIME WARNER CABLE Cable TV Fire 120419 4 TOLL GAS AND WELDING SUPPLY Operating Supplies Traffic Signs 120420 40 TRAPP,SUZANNE Instructor Service Outdoor Center 120421 10 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO Operating Supplies City Center Operations 120422 159 VENTURE PUBLISHING INC Office Supplies Recreation Administration 120423 505 VERiZON WIRELESS BELLEVUE Pager&Cell Phone Police 120424 2,922 WORK CONNECTION-BPARK Other Contracted Services Park Maintenance 120425 800 ABDO,JEANNE 1Th Other Contracted Services Winter Theatre 120426 93 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC. Waste Disposal Senior Center 120427 109 AUDIOVISUAL INC Other Contracted Services Communication Services 120428 1,361 BIAGGI'S Miscellaneous Reserves 120429 507 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Testing-Soil Boring Construction Fund 120430 519 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVI Other Rentals General 120431 202 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET Operating Supplies Youth Programs Administration 120432 564 ESBENSEN,GEORGE Video&Photo Supplies Fire 120433 490 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC Other Contracted Services Staring Lake 120434 5 KADLEC,EVELYN Program Fee Senior Center Program 120435 8 KLEVE HTG&AC Cash Over/Short General Fund 120436 1,253 METRO SALES INCORPORATED* Other Rentals General 120437 15 MN DEPT.OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY Licenses&Taxes Water Treatment Plant 120438 308 NETKNACKS,INC. Recreation Supplies Summer Skill Development 120439 7,443 PRAIRIE PARTNERS SIX LLP Building Rental Prairie Village Liquor Store 120440 9,430 PRAIRIEVIEW RETAIL LLC Building Rental Prairie View Liquor Store 120441 132 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER Postage General 120442 24 RUMFORD,JOAN Transportation Senior Center Program 120443 486 SUN NEWSPAPERS Legal Notices Publishing City Clerk 120444 12 SYVERSON,HARLAN Mileage&Parking Senior Center Administration 120445 15 UPS Postage General 120446 31 VE1TH,MICHELLE Other Contracted Services Senior Center Program 120447 45 W GORDON SMITH COMPANY,THE Motor Fuels Water System Maintenance 120448 84 WARNER,ALYCE Operating Supplies Senior Center Program 120449 2,044 XCEL ENERGY Principal Traffic Signals 120450 1,560 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATI Union Dues Withheld General Fund 120451 2,692 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR Garnishment Withheld General Fund 120452 401 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC. Waste Disposal Water Treatment Plant 120453 70 AUTO ELECTRIC SPECIALISTS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 120454 71 BECKER,DAVE Operating Supplies Police 120455 83 BOCK,FRED Clothing&Uniforms Police 120456 418 CASSADY,KEVIN Tuition Reimbursement/School In Service Training 120457 381 DOIG,LARRY Tuition Reimbursement/School In Service Training 120458 770 FORD,GARY Other Contracted Services Park Maintenance 120459 392 GE CAPITAL Other Rentals General 120460 3,016 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFI Board of Prisoner Police 120461 199 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE Tuition Reimbursement/School Police i 30 Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit 120462 3,150 MAPLE GROVE,CITY OF Other Rentals Police 120463 2,393 METRO SALES INCORPORATED* Other Rentals General 120464 918 MILLARD,ARIA,CHRIS Tuition Reimbursement/School In Service Training 120465 23 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH Licenses&Taxes Water Utility-General 120466 138 MINNESOTA PRINT MANAGEMENT LLC Office Supplies General 120467 209 MORROW,LYNN Clothing&Uniforms Police 120468 2,080 MTOA Conference Expense Police 120469 80 POGATCHNIK,MARCI Clothing&Uniforms Police 120470 3,000 POSTAGE BY PHONE RESERVE ACCOU Postage General 120471 1,500 RUND,LISA Tuition Reimbursement/School In Service Training 120472 554 SYNDPS DELICATESSEN Training Supplies Police 120473 40 TELEPHONE ANSWERING CENTER.INC Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 120474 1,150 TOTAL REGISTER Equipment Repair&Maint Prairie View Liquor Store 120475 150 US POSTMASTER-HOPKINS Postage Water Utility-General 120476 101,268 XCEL ENERGY Electric Street Lighting 120477 37 ACE ICE COMPANY Misc Non-Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store 120478 13 ALL SAINTS BRANDS DISTRIBUTING Wine Imported Prairie View Liquor Store 120479 92 AMERIPRIDE LINEN&APPAREL SER Repair&Maint.Supplies Prairie View Liquor Store 120480 335 ARCTIC GLACIER INC Misc Non-Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 120481 3,074 BELLBOY CORPORATION Transportation Prairie View Liquor Store 120483 3,341 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store 120484 9,788 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY Beer Prairie View Liquor Store 120485 128 EXTREME BEVERAGE Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 120486 263 GRAND PERE WINES INC Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 120487 2,479 GRAPE BEGINNINGS Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 120488 13,344 GRIGGS COOPER&CO Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store 120489 503 HOHENSTEINS INC Beer Den Road Liquor Store 120491 23,579 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 120492 9,667 MARK VIE Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store 120493 724 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM Misc Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store 120494 1,540 PAUSTIS&SONS COMPANY Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 120495 11,268 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 120496 464 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Misc Non-Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 120497 3,148 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 120498 10,274 QUALITY WINE&SPIRITS CO Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 120499 11,219 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store 120500 185 TRI COUNTY BEVERAGE&SUPPLY Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 120501 911 WINE COMPANY,THE Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 120502 923 WINE MERCHANTS INC Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store 120503 1,557 WORLD CLASS WINES INC Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 120504 100 BRAGG,ANNALISA Instructor Service Outdoor Center 120505 15 HEALTHCARE DIMENSIONS Training Supplies Fitness Classes 120506 447 HENNEPIN COUNTY l/T DEPT Software Maintenance Information Technology 120507 52 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Fire 120508 120 MANN,TRIA Operating Supplies Senior Awareness 120509 60 MERCHANT,HUGO Staring Lake Bldg Park Facilities 120510 183,612 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME Waste Disposal Sewer Utility-General 120511 582 MILLARD,CHRIS Tuition Reimbursement/School In Service Training 120512 23 MPCA Licenses&Taxes Sewer Utility-General 120513 100 OTTERNESS,RON Instructor Service Outdoor Center 120514 71 QWEST Telephone Water Utility-General 120515 830 STATE OF MINNESOTA Autos Public Works 120516 40 TRAPP,SUZANNE Instructor Service Outdoor Center 120517 276 WALLACE METRO PRINTING Printing Fire 120518 60 WHITE,LUKE Mileage&Parking Information Technology 120519 1,778 WORK CONNECTION-BPARK Other Contracted Services Park Maintenance 120520 3,251 XCEL ENERGY Electric Water Treatment Plant 120521 103 BERTELSON OFFICE PLUS Office Supplies Water Utility-General 120522 122 BLACK&DECKER,USPTG Small Tools Water Meter Repair 120523 1,133 BLACK&VEATCH Other Contracted Services Utility Improvement Fund 120524 134 BLACKHAWK INDUSTRIES,INC. Clothing&Uniforms Police 120525 706 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant 120526 62 BROADWAY AWARDS Operating Supplies Reserves i iI Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit 120527 445 CAMP RIPLEY MESS FUND Other Rentals Police 120528 5,625 CORNERSTONE Other Contracted Services Legal Council 120529 92 CORPORATE EXPRESS Operating Supplies Prairie View Liquor Store 120530 1,719 CUT LER MAGNER COMPANY Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 120531 18 CY'S UNIFORMS Clothing&Uniforms Police 120532 74 DAVANNI'S PIZZA Miscellaneous Communication Services 120533 8,252 DELL MARKETING L.P. Other Hardware Information Technology 120534 29 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL Canine Supplies Police 120535 3,806 FORE MECHANICAL,INC Equipment Repair&Maint Prairie View Liquor Store 120536 90 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC. Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 120537 548 GENERAL LABEL,INC. Printing Police 120538 35 GINA MARIAS INC Operating Supplies Fire 120539 135 HACH COMPANY Operating Supplies Water Treatment Plant 120540 394 HAMILTON,MICHAEL Other Contracted Services Softball 120541 431 HIGLEY,STEVE Other Contracted Services Softball 120542 392 HOLMES,TOM Other Contracted Services Softball 120543 6,677 IND SCHOOL DIST 272 Other Contracted Services Oak Point Operations 120544 461 INFRATECH Repair&Maint.Supplies Sewer System Maintenance 120545 767 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR Other Hardware Information Technology 120546 358 J J KELLER&ASSOCIATES INC Training Supplies Sewer Utility-General 120547 562 JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA IN Equipment Repair&Maint Water Treatment Plant 120548 336 MCGREGOR,RANDY Other Contracted Services Softball 120549 55 MENARDS Operating Supplies Police 120550 700 MINNESOTA HIGHWAY SAFETY&RES Tuition Reimbursement/School Police • 120551 6,043 MINNESOTA PIPE AND EQUIPMENT* Repair&Maint.Supplies Water System Maintenance 120552 77 NORTHWEST RESPIRATORY SERVICE Safety Supplies Fire 120553 72,576 RMR SERVICES INC Merchandise for Resale Water Meter Reading 120554 853 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION Other Contracted Services Water Well#13 120555 31 SNAP-ON TOOLS Small Tools Fleet Services 120556 781 3D SPECIALTIES Protective Clothing Park Maintenance 120557 383 A P LAWN INC Building Repair&Maint. Fire Station#1 120558 28 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER Equipment Repair&Maint Park Maintenance 120559 950 ALLMAX PROFESSIONAL SOLUTIONS Software Water Treatment Plant 120560 206 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI Training Supplies Water Utility-General 120561 566 AMTECH LIGHTING SERVICES Other Contracted Services Park Maintenance 120562 288 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY Office Supplies General 120563 847 ASPEN CARPET CLEANING Building Repair&Maint. Den Road Liquor Store 120564 458 ATHLETICA Operating Supplies Ice Arena 120565 1,285 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BA t IhRY Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120566 1,486 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC Equipment Repair&Maint Ice Arena 120567 160 BERG,STEVE Other Contracted Services Volleyball • 120568 172 BERTELSON OFFICE PLUS Office Supplies Water Utility-General 120569 111 BOYER TRUCKS SO.ST.PAUL Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120570 138 BRO-TEX INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120571 327 BRY-AIR INC Operating Supplies Ice Arena 120572 53 CATCO CLUTCH&TRANSMISSION SE Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120573 1,250 CE LASALLE&ASSOCIATES Other Contracted Services Charlson Area Construction 120574 2,989 , CEMSTONE Building Materials Park Maintenance 120575 451 CHEMSEARCH Lubricants&Additives Fleet Services 120576 656 CORPORATE EXPRESS Office Supplies General 120577 130 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120578 13,434 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 120579 488 D J'S MUNICIPAL SUPPLY INC Operating Supplies Street Maintenance 120580 1,041 DAVIES/NORTHERN WATER WORKS Repair&Maint.Supplies Storm Drainage 120581 1,132 DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC Capital Under$2,000 Fleet Services 120582 286 DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 120583 788 ELECTRIC SERVICE CO Operating Supplies Civil Defense 120584 129 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS Repair&Maint.Supplies Storm Drainage • 120585 768 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120586 8,447 ESS BROTHERS&SONS INC* Repair&Maint.Supplies Storm Drainage 120587 285 FACILITY SYSTEMS INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Maintenance 120588 63 FEDERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 120589 113 FERRELLGAS Motor Fuels Ice Arena 13D- Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit 120590 55 1.1KhS HYGIENE SERVICES Operating Supplies Prairie Village Liquor Store 120591 1,500 FLANAGAN SALES,INC. Landscape Materials/Supp Park Maintenance 120592 1,814 FORE MECHANICAL,INC Building Repair&Maint. Fire Station#2 120593 9,500 FOX LAWSON&ASSOCIATES Other Contracted Services Human Resources 120594 936 G&K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant 120595 3,823 GE FANUC INTERNATIONAL,INC. Software Water Treatment Plant 120596 2,475 GENERAL REPAIR SERVICE Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant 120597 73 GINA MARIAS INC Operating Supplies Fire 120598 543 GRAINGER Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120599 159 GRAYBAR Operating Supplies Street Lighting 120600 326 GREATAMERICA LEASING CORP. Other Rentals General 120601 150 GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN Waste Disposal Fleet Services 120602 1,245 GWS INC Clothing&Uniforms Prairie View Liquor Store 120603 363 HACH COMPANY Operating Supplies Water Treatment Plant 120604 18,549 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON Design&Engineering Capital Impr./Maint Fund 120605 10,668 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC Motor Fuels Fleet Services 120606 3,805 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 120607 348 HAYDEN-MURPHY EQUIPMENT COMPAN Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120608 22 HIRSHFIELD'S Repair&Maint.Supplies General Facilities 120609 1,292 HYDROLOGIC Repair&Maint Supplies Park Maintenance 120610 625 ITFRIUM Conference Expense Information Technology 120611 6 J H LAWSON PI FCTRICAL COMPANY Equipment Parts Fire Station#1 120612 271 J&J LAWN&SPORT Equipment Repair&Maint Park Maintenance 120613 190 JANEX INC Cleaning Supplies General Facilities 120614 112 JIM HATCH SALES CO Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 120615 573 JM OIL CO Lubricants&Additives Water Treatment Plant 120616 219 JOHN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA IN Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant 120617 450 JOHNSON,KAMARA Other Contracted Services Park Facilities 120618 2,930 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR Building Repair&Maint. Public Works/Parks 120619 6,702 LANDFORM ENGINEERING COMPANY Improvement Contracts Capital Impr./Maint Fund 120620 1,313 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 120621 499 MARS CO Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant 120623 871 MENARDS Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 120624 153 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 120625 413 METRO POWER EQUIPMENT Equipment Repair&Maint Park Maintenance 120626 690 METROPOLITAN FORD Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120627 12,740 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION Waste Blacktop/Concrete Street Maintenance 120628 417 MINNESOTA ROADWAYS CO Patching Asphalt Street Maintenance 120629 251 MINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY Capital Under$2,000 Capital Outlay Parks 120630 360 MORLEY BURNETT Equipment Repair&Maint Ice Arena 120631 773 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC. Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120632 400 MURRAY,JOHN Other Contracted Services Softball 120633 471 NATIONAL WATERWORKS Repair&Maint.Supplies Water System Maintenance 120634 1,432 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE Employment Advertising Human Resources 120635 12,466 NELSON DODGE-GMC Autos Public Works 120636 435 NO BUTTS BIN CO INC Repair&Maint.Supplies City Center Operations 120637 346 NORTHERN TOOL&EQUIPMENT CO. Small Tools Water System Maintenance 120638 197 OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN Operating Supplies Ice Show 120639 254 OLSEN COMPANIES Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120640 136 OSI BATTERIES INC Office Supplies General 120641 74 PAPER WAREHOUSE Operating Supplies Senior Center Program 120642 3,275 PARROTT CONTRACTING INC Other Contracted Services Water System Maintenance 120643 1,466 PERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC Other Contracted Services Cummins House Special Events 120644 235 PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULT Design&Engineering Construction Fund 120645 2,374 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY Equipment Repair&Maint Sewer Liftstation 120646 216 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN Equipment Repair&Maint Park Maintenance 120647 1,264 RAY,LEE Other Contracted Services Softball 120648 37 RCM&ASSOCIATES Operating Supplies Telephone 120649 52 RIDGEVIEW BUSINESS HEALTH Other Contracted Services Risk Management 120650 64 S Ii BARTLETT CO INC Operating Supplies Maintenance 120651 43 SCHMUKLE,MARILYN Operating Supplies Senior Awareness 120652 150 SCRAP METAL PROCESSORS INC Waste Disposal Fleet Services 120653 2,848 SHORT ELLIOT HENDRICKSON INC Design&Engineering Improvement Projects 1996 133 Check# Amount Vendor!Explanation Account Description Business Unit 120654 106 SHRED-IT Waste Disposal City Center Operations 120655 45 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL I Software Information Technology 120656 239 SPRI PRODUCTS INC Operating Supplies Fitness Classes 120657 58,986 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Design&Engineering Improvement Projects 1996 120658 213 STEMPF AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES I Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120659 585 STREICHERS Clothing&Uniforms Police 120660 993 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GEO Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120661 26 SUBURBAN PROPANE Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 120662 943 SUN NEWSPAPERS Advertising Recreation Administration 120663 413 SUN TURF Equipment Repair&Maint Park Maintenance 120664 290 SWEDLUNDS Waste Disposal Outdoor Center 120665 37 TESSCO Operating Supplies Wireless Communication 120666 455 TESSMAN SEED CO Chemicals Park Maintenance . 120667 4,494 TRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO Machinery&Equipment Capital Outlay Parks 120668 280 TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN MTKA Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 120669 290 TWIN CITY FILTER SERVICE INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant 120670 111 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO Lubricants&Additives Fleet Services 120671 232 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Clothing&Uniforms Fire 120672 466 UNITED CALIFORNIA FACTORS Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant 120673 299 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120674 38 US CAVALRY Clothing&Uniforms Police 120675 1,394 US FILTER/MI Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant 120676 1,293 VIDEO SERVICE OF AMERICA Video&Photo Supplies Police 120677 282 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC Equipment Testing/Cert. Water Treatment Plant 120678 97 WEST WELD Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120679 3,638 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Building Capital Impr./Maint.Fund 120680 54 WOLF CAMERA Video&Photo Supplies Assessing • 120681 1,221 ZEP MANUFACTURING CO Equipment Parts Fleet Services 120682 126 ZOELLNER,MARK Other Contracted Services Softball 1,399,037 Grand Total 131 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Director of Parks and Recreation June 3, 2003 DEPARTMENT: ITEM NO.: ITEM DESCRIPTION:Robert A.Lambert KID" C •' Director of Parks&Recreation Authorize Appraisal for Shuldhiess Properties Requested Action Motion: Move to authorize staff to obtain appraisals of the two Shuldhiess properties located at 9281 Riley Lake Road and 9291 Riley Lake Road, and to negotiate a life estate purchase based on a City appraisal for the property located at 9281 Riley Lake Road and to negotiate a purchase of the property at 9291 Riley Lake Road with the final negotiated conditions reviewed and subject to approval by the City Council. Synopsis Enclosed in your packet is a letter from Ernie Shuldhiess and an appraisal of his property on Riley Lake Road. Mr. Shuldhiess owns one of two remaining parcels within the proposed boundaries of Riley Lake Park. Mr. Shuldhiess is offering to sell the property provided he is able to reside on the property for the remainder of his life. The terms of the negotiation would have to address issues such as payment of taxes, maintenance and upkeep of the property, terms of the purchase agreement, and the purchase price The property located at 9291 Riley Lake Road is owned by the Shuldhiess family and is now being offered for sale. This property is also located within the proposed park boundaries of Riley Lake Park, and staff believes it is prudent to obtain an appraisal and make an offer based on the appraisal of this property. The Park and Open Space System Plan anticipates eventual acquisition of this property, as well as the adjacent parcel, therefore, this may be an acceptable method of eventually acquiring the property. Attachments: Shuldhiess Letter Appraisal &Aerial Photo of the Park&the Shuldhiess Property RAL:mdd 155 Riley Lake Park , ,. - ..... , , „.4,„--„. .. f } FJ .„.., ..„ .\\., o Y v,• +....� , hot• - • tl• ...,•_, tr''\. A �. ./ • ttn, L..:.. �..,� yn,g � — , „ / • t,• Shuldhiess Property . rA<��, �.' . , l _ mil ... . ' C i rJ': tom?~' . .. ::: , i_ �A � ... yy , FA y'� �� x; ,i to p : g 0,4:-. � t , 1 tc l !+� r. " z. North T • l36 t R•, ?Shuidhiess Property j • 4 • s r : N „ F i.4 s ti, * „ mi ,kk..,. isl • • 4i r, �,y� � ' _• ,��f J�'" 'n 'µ'i Ial,,�y� BIZ '„e'Ml', li a ., 14 . „ 'jny:^ j,l: '''.,�,x • • i.it = o. /,z • • t i 1 - .. „_....._ .. - 1 , • • , Wes' (. :. .._............. ka. ..,,. (,. y • ^ + ; s1111/ k%, ir • J$JC ♦ •,. ' .,., " ill" ^�v✓~;i »w 11 e �• ►r s F " iY t4.. . North T • Ernie Shuldhiess 9281 Riley Lake Rd. Eden Prairie,Mn. 55347 (952) 906-3798 14 April 2003 Dear Ms. Tyra-Lukens, From my understanding my property is in the plans for the future expansion of Riley Lake Park. Pm willing to sell it to the city on what they call a"Life Estate". I`ve had an appriasal done and you will find it enclosed. Please forward this to Bob Lambert if you are interested. Ernie Shu4dhi s • • • • • • • • 13. ' Complete Appraisal Analysis-Summary Appraisal Report Isrovetty D.scrIpnas UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT F'lt.xa. 02-53 Papery Mama 9281Riley Lake Rood Cho FrlenPrairie se+. MN Zmcox 55347 S :,.g.r o.aoralo•. See Attached Site Plan Cower Henrlevan !1 A.eesesesPard faa 19-116-22-34-0004 TarY..r 2002 RE Taps a 1.932.00 Special A..e,menus None - 9 Boneosr NA a...to.m., Ernie Shuldhiess O'—•-••+- n Owner I I Tenant I j•:aont J Pme.rlyo Eo ooms+.d IXj Fee Sirepl. I 1 Learleald Pml.at Tree I I PUO I 1 Condemner.(Hl/DNNA mar) HORS None Ma .0- Neighbae C ootiorProjectName NA 1.4.Re-eece I32-B4 .noreTca 260.12 T Sete larva 5 NA cm.a se.NA o..rnpd0a,and s amount&Menches aannoea.wnatowpadbyseller NA ' Lend.ncr.nt Douglas Krull Address 840 Central Avenue,Northwood,Irma.50459 - . Appraiser Thp tits R.cmitia.Rm Address 3609 Lyndale Avenue South ;-`,'2 0 Bloomington,MN 55420 -- Location Urban IINI Suburban jJ Rural Predominant shille family housing Present land ua r% Land tree chanRICE AGEge Bale ail 100 )lj Over75% Li25-73% j j Under 25% occupancy Pop) (y,.) One Famty 90 ONO LikelyElUkey ' Gmwg.nee ❑Rapid El Stable ❑Stow apw,er QO Lau 10 2.4 tam Uln processcesa Property values a InIncreasing ❑ r-Stable I I Declining [❑•iTenant 00 High 52 Multihmiy To; • ' • Dem.nd)supptY n Shonag. MI inbalance 0 I Over supply Vsoni(0.5%) Predominant ill Commercial . Marketing time n Under 3mos- n Semos. ri Over emos. nVacant(aver 5%) 00 27 Park 10 - N )tote:Race and to.racial composition of the neighborhood are not appraisal factor% t Neighborhood bounden,.endchancterislla: North:Lyman Boulevard/Riley Lake Road;East:Riley-Lake Road;South:Pioneer Trail;West: •I` Highway 101, . .j N Factor. that affect the marketability of the properties In Is. neighborhood (proximity to employment and magnitlea. employment stability, aope.l to market. etc 1e' The subject is located in a residential area at the southeast area of Lake Riley,approximately I block north of Pioneer Trail,.5 ;O• miles east of Chanhassen and 15 miles southwest of the downtown Minneapolis business district. The subject has easy access to lH nearby metro area amenities including employment centers major roads freeways schools shopping centers,lakes and parks. 4.: 1 Lake Riley Park is located to the north of the subject. • Ill' F'r • Market conditions in the subject neighborhood (Including support for the above conclusions misted to the trend of property values, demand/.apply, and marketing time i • - such an data on competitive properties for sale In the neighborhood, description of the prevalence of sales and financing concessions. etc): There is currently a strong demand for residential lakeshore property in the west suburban metro area. ' 7. i+: ' — — ii ;,r,jiaa Project Information for PUO. (If applicable)-I.the developer/builder In control of the Horne Owners'Aespclation(HLi Li Yes No lyt Approxlnel.total number of units In the subject project Approximate total number ofunits for sale In the subject project ' Describe common elements end recreational facilities: x Dimensions 60.3'x 385'x 70'x 335'(minus road) Topography Level to mildly sloping . .•,y Site area 18,126 SF Comer Lot Lives [Xi Nosire Good Specific zoning classification and description Rural ( I shape Irregular '•',i Zoning compliance El Legal0 Legal nonconforming(Orandlelhered use) u Illegal [J No zoning oraln.g. Adequate Highest&best use as improved: [Present use ❑Other use(explain) ,View Lake/Excellent Si Utilltles Public Other Of-site Improvements Type Public Private Landscaping Average _ , .1. Electricity ❑X Street Blacktop ❑ ❑ DnvevnySudace Blacktop _ .' ' 1 . Water 0 uner Gas Private cmwg Concrete I] ❑ u rn APPanteeseente Drainage•UUtilit --- ;'% Water ElPrivate Sidewalk None � El FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area Ely:. rJNo ' ' . Sanitary sewer Private Street not: Standard LX ❑ FEMA Zane C Map Dare 1:1 7-86 •,:1 ' ... Store,sewer X Alley None n n FEMA Map No. 270159-0010-C `' ? ' 1,:. -Comments (apperent others. ,es manta, encroachments, special assessments. slide areas. Illegal or legal nonconforming zoning us.. etc.): The subject site has approximately 60'of frontage on Lake Riley. There is a public road located between the house and the lake frontage,The r subject site was snow covered on the date of the inspection. The lot dimensions as stated are approximate. :D. GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION ' - BASEMENT INSULATION :E. No.of Units I Foundation Cgnc.Blocks Slab AreaSq FL 975 Rom ❑ • [$, No.of Stodn 1.00 Exterior Walls Wood Crawl Space %Finished ❑ 9r None Ceiling jie Type(DeL/AtL) Det.SF Roof Surface Asp.Shingles Boemem Full I celIng Uttfuished wens ❑ I Do,ron(Style) Rambler Gueere S Ownspts. Altuni)npp Sump Pump None Walls . Unfinished Floor ❑ I? Existing/Proposed Existing windowType Hmi Dampness None Floor Unfnished None Ell • • Age(Yrs.) 1950,52 Slormscreens x Settlement None Outside Entry None Unknown (� sit Effective Ail_(Yr,) 20 Manufactured House No Infestation None - • , :Al ROOMS Foyer LNing Dining Kitchen Den Family Ron. Rec.Rm Bedrooms a Baths Laundry Other Area Sq.FL p Basement 975 F' Level) x 1 1 1 2 1 x 975 Levet 2 • Finished area above grade contains: 5 Rooms; 2 Bedroom(,): 1.00 Bath(s); 975 Squat,Feet of Gloss Living Ana lR INTERIORiCondition HEATING KITCHEN EQUIP.�T ATTIC AMENITIES CAR STORAGE: i •.. Melerlals 10 Floors Carpet/Vinyl/Avg Type FA Retdgeralor I Hon.Hone ❑ Ftreplece(s)x ❑ None ❑ yf V Walls Drywall/Avg Fuel Oil Range/oven ❑X Slobs ❑ Patio ❑ Garage 9m can ,M TrlmlFlnt,h Wood/Avg Condition Good Disposal ❑ Drop Stair ❑ Deck Covered 0 Attached --^ • . , (- Bath Floor Vinyl/Avg COOLING Dishwasher X Scuttle X Porch E. Y K 0 ❑ 3-Season ❑ Detaa,ea 2+ _ '�; Bath w.ln nt,cm Fiberglass/Avg ca .) x Fan/Hood CIFloor ❑ Fence ❑ Buln.ln �_ ' :T Doors Wood/Avg other Microwave n Heated ❑ Pool Li carport -- -- :S1 Condition Good Washer/Dryer n Finished n n Orlo.w.y ', Ad.gtionel 'Wm.. (,peels, energy ,fru.nt hem.. etc): 10'x 13'covered wood deck at front of house, 13'x 20'three-season porch at front rd, of house, l0'x 12'storage shed adjacent to garage, ,O: Gandhian of lh. Improvements, d.pr,d.goo• (physical, functional, and external). repairs needed, quaky of construction, remodeling/additions, etc.: P Illy$i Cal • ,M depreciation due to age. Functional depreciation due to location of public road between the house and the lake frontage(this E•_non-through road is used primarily for boat access to Lake Riley and leads to a trailer parking area No external depreciation 1N was noted.The subject's interior is in need of cosmetic updating, ' - ti Adverse environmental•conditions (such as, but not flailed to, hazardous waste., Mac substances, elm) present In the Improvements, on the site, of in Me - `S Immediate vicinity of the subject propery, No adverse environmental factors within the subject's area are known to the appraiser. ' , F,.ddl.Man Form 70 0-03 12 CO. . PAGE 1 Oe 2 F.nnN M..Farm Igo.a-., • ,- Campbell Appraisal Co.,Inc. 13 Complete Appraisal Analysis-Summary Appraisal Report Valuation Section UNIFORM RES1DEN r1AL APPRAISAL REPORT Foe Ma 02-53 M-tATE75!-E VALLS .. ... . .. . . a 180.000 ;snows mt Coat Ansoach 'lash as. scow at =et eabn.l, C. 5'J4ATS2 REPRODUCTION COST.NEW-OFAPROVEMENTS see vans. seam teat oobMbn and for HUD, VA and FnstA, the sOseig 975 sq,Ftps 165=s 160.875 adnard rer.sang .enamlc Me of Eve papaw: Physical - _ r Sa.Et0s = depreciation due to age. Functional depredation due to CA-deck three-season porch shed= 26,000 location of public road between the house and the lake PGaBgeiCarpod 660 s¢n@s 20= 13,200 frontage. No external depredation was noted. o Told Estimated CostNew =s 200.075 R La. 20.0 Physical Functional Ent.mel Via_ Deyed.Non 40.015 I I =s - 40.015 Depredatedvaw.dtmaorenuma =S 160,060 - H Asls"vaa.dstatnnrevan,euss =s 5,000 INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH 345,060 =s 345,060 Remaining Economic Life:80 Remaining Physical Life:80 - • TESL I sumacs COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NCI • 9281 Riley Lake Road 3637 South Cedar Road 13840 Lone Cedar Avenue 20 Hill Street Adds. Eden Prairie Chanhassen !Chanhassen Chanhassen - - Morindtya5ubl.ct 6 Miles 16 Miles 2.5 Miles - - _ Sales Price s NA s 329,900 s 430.000 $ 417 000 - ritcelGres ua.Ara $ F)1 s 286.37 to s 255.04 01®s 304.16 fA - - _ Data andtor Our Files MLS MLS MLS _ VednatlonSouse inspection CRV CRV CRV ' VALUE ADJUSTMENTS - DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION I •(4 S AdluHm°nl DESCRIPTION I •(•)s Adjustment DESCRIPTION I•(-)s Adjustment - - Sale.orFln.ndnp Conventional Conventional Conventional .- Concessions None None None • Date dsatortime �10-26-01 +12,5006-1-01 +23,5001-28-02 1 +10,500 . • Location Good • Good Good Good LeasehokUFeaSiimple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple - - . ' sit. 18,126 SF 10,236 SF +7,90017,640 SF +500141,205 SF 1 -11,500 ' s View 60'Lake/Exc 70'Lake/Exc -15.000 90'Lake/Esc -45,000 50'Lake/Exc +15,000 - '' '. Design and Appeal Rambler/Avg(-) 'Rambler/Good -15.000 4 Level/Good -15,000 Rambler/Good -15,000 - • Cathy of construction Good Good Good Good - E Age 1950 1948 +5001973 -5,7501961 -2,750 Condition Average/Good Good " -5,000 Good -5,000 Very Good I -25,000 Above Grade Total i Bdmsi Bats Total i Bdmsl Baths Total i Urns: Baths Total i Bdmsi Baths ; , Cr Room Count 5 1 2 1 1.00 5 i 2 1 1.00 6 1 3 1 1.75 -4,000 6 i 3 i 2.00 1 -5,000 • M Gross Living Area 975 sq.FL 1,152 sq.FL -5,300 1,686 Sq.FL -16,400 1.371 sq.FL 1 -11,900 A Basement&Finished 975 SF 1152 SF • -2,700 1686 SF -10,7001371 SF -5,900 iR Rooms SetowGrade Unfinished 730FSF/.75Bath -8,800450 FSF/.75Bath -6,0001050FSF/None -10,500 • I. Functional Utility Good(-) Good -15,000 Good -15,000 Good -15,000 HealtnglCooting FA Gas,CA HW Gas,None +2,000 FA Gas,CA FA Gas.CA '0 Eoetgy Enkientttema NA NA NA NA Garages carpod 2+Car Detached 2 Car Detached +1,000 2 Car Attached +1,0001 Car Att/1 Del +1.000 • A Porch,Patio,Deck, Deck.3-S Porch Deck +6,500 3-Season Porch +1,500 None' +8,000 N Ft p's`s(s)°" None 2 FP's 3,5001 FP 2,5001 FP 2• ,500 A Fence,Pool,etc. Shed Heated Garage Jet Tub Jet Tub ' " None None Walkout -3,000 Walkout -3,000 ' s Net Art(total) • X ,- s i • -39,900 1 I • Ix]-is -101,850 1 1 • IXI•I s - -73.550 Adtuated Sales Mks - .. et Comparable s 290,000- s 328,150 s 343,450 - . Comments on Sales Comparison (Including the subject propettys mmpeibltity to the n.lgbbahood, etc.): Sale 1:Larger rambler located in Chanhassen, smaller lot with 70'of frontage on Lake Minnewashta,finished lower level family room,bedroom and.75 bath,2 fireplaces. central air,deck,heated garage. Sale 2:Larger 4 level split located Chanhassen,slightly smaller lot with 90'of frontage on Lake Minnewashta,finished lower level rec room and.75 bath,walkout.1 fireplace,central air,three-season porch,jet tub. Sale 3: Larger remodeled rambler located in Chanhassen,larger lot with 50'of frontage on Lotus Lake.finished lower level rec room, • office and bedroom,walkout,1 frre?lace,central airjet tub. ***See Additional Comments*** ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE No.2 COMPARABLE NO,3 Date,Price and Data NA NA , NA NA • soma,for prior sales V edthlnyear of appraisal Analysis of any current aoreemant of ale,option,or gsUng of the subject property and analysts of any prior sales el subject and compatibles Wilda one year 01 the date o1 appraisal ' The subject is not listed for sale and is not under contract as of the date of the appraisal. INDICATED VALUE ay SALES COMPARISON APPROACH • S 330,000 • .. INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH St Applicable)Estimated Markel RantS NA /Mo.x Gross Rent Re nt Multiplier NA a S A TNs appraisal is made Inl-as Is" u subject to the repsln,.herattons,inspections or conditions listed below Li to comptelton par plans and speettalions. • • conditlena el Apptiaaf: See attached Definition of Market Value,Statement of Limiting Conditions and Appraiser's Certification. - . E Final Reconciliation: The Sales Comparison Analysis was relied on for the Final Value Estimate due to the good sales data available o in the subject's area. • The purpose of this appraisal Is to sellouts the market value of the real properly gut Is the alibied of hes mood,based on the above conditions and the ean(gation,contingent 1� and(trotting conditions, and market value degnitton that at. anted In the attached Freddie Mao Rem 439tFaumte Mae Faint 100dB(Revised I• • • ' • • I (WE) ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE,AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT.AS OF December 4,2002 (WHICH IS THE DATE OF INSPECTION AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OP THIS REPORT) TO BE $ 330,000 1• APPRAISER, " SUPERVISORY APPRAISER(ONLY IF REQUIRED): {� I Signature j.t ye,,,ti A..eii, p l.__ signature I old Dld Not • Q Nam. Thomas R.Campbefl RM Nam. Weed newly • Dale ROAM S1g0.0 December 9,2002 Data Report Stead -. - State Certification N 4001417 sag MN State Centrationl Stile O&Sale License N Sale Or Sale License* Slate '- Redd,*Mee Fenn70 0.03 12 CH. PAGE 2OF 2 Fannie Mae Fen,1004 0.93 - Campbell Appraisal Co.,Inc. - 04^ 02-53 ADDITIONALCC. ;IEYT3- aona,.r or O.un.r Ernie Simldhiess -- pAo.VrAah... 928I Riley Lake Road car Eden Prairie co... Hennepin sties MN Zip Code 55347 cunt Douglas Kroll COMMENTS ON SALES COMPARISON The adjustment for design/appeal reflects the subject's flat pitch and gravel roof,which is considered to be a negative marketing factor. All three comparable sales have more typical sloping asphalt shingle roofs. A time adjustment of.42 percent per month(five percent annual rate)was warranted for all three comparable sales in order to reflect increasing values in the subject's area. • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • Campbell Appraisal Co.,Inc. lLil Frfe Na n2-53 F.t-FtI ,R►i'QDENDLTM:.--.: _ ---- -- 9arm..erorc.'a* ErnieShuldliiess Prodv Address 9281 Riley Lake Road — Prow*, — car Eden Prairie coarrry Hennepin Rote MN u.cao. 55347 . . t,e"derorarane Douglas Knoll -Pure-ate of theAppraisat. The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject property as of July 19,2002,as part of all estate settlement. Scope of the Appraisal •The appraiser has made an inspection of the subject property,including the interior and exterior of all improvements and the site " In addition.the appraiser has made a visual"drive-by"inspection of the subject's neighborhood in order to analyze iocational__ factors which may impact the subject's value and marketability. Comparable Sales have been obtained from the Multiple Listing _service and have been viewed by the appraiser(exterior only). Information obtained from independent sources is assumed to be accurate but is not guaranteed by the appraiser. The Cost Approach to Value and the Sales Comparison Analysis were utilized_,•, in this appraisal. The Income Approach to Value was not used in this report due to a lack of rental data in the subject's area, „Repottof.thia Rio r,yearsateshtstoryforr the subj(e�ct�'propertjt., - „_ •, „ • . __ •- Is the sublectproperty currently tieted7 • u�� Yes 'J No List Prim 5 NA_-_-_ _ ' lies the property sold during the odor year? El Yes I X i No dyes.describe below What is your estimate or marketing Clore for the subject property? I to 2 months Describe below the basis(rationale)for your<stmate1 1 Tjie estimated marketing period for the subject_property is based on the marketing periods of comparable sales in the subjec's -- ------- -- ---- — ----- -- .. r: .cNon;teat.piope"rtyjransfers. ._, _ .i'�•.,... ... . ,.. .:. : ..._.. _, :._- Does the transaction Involve the transfer of Personal property,fixtures,or Intangibles That are not real property? • •Yes•.'ai_ •• •- LjNa . If yes,provide description and valuation below NA .- - -._._... _.. ---- -._... - ----_:.. _..__..........._. ;<A;ddlllbnal:Cbn n ent ':-... _ .... . .-,. _. -._ .. ,.., Tlris a ppraisitl Foundation and com lies yith U.S.. , ' ' ___,_•_.ppraisal report is a Summary Rgport as defined by lhe•Board,of_The A p' P.A.P. `��� - : ' :_Aiidttl(9nat,,Ceittftcattoli .' =..' _ ••i ..1 I The acceptance of this appraisal assignment by the appraiser was not based on a requested minimum valuation,a specified valuation.or en approval of the loan AJr I..' 'YGy-:s.;�,t 1 The appraiser certifies that the compensation for this appraisal is not contingent upon the reooMng of a predetermined value or direction In value that lavers the cause el the client,the amount of the value estimate,the attainment of a stipulated result of the occurrence of a subsequent event 3 This appraisal has been prepared to conform with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal practice CUSPAP)adopted by the Appraisal Standards Beardot the Aporaisal loundadon,r7aoedt the Departure Provision,enfees otherwise stated below. fat 4 The appraiser has'disclosed within this appraisal report,or below,all steps taken that ware necessary or appropriate to comply with the Competency provision of the USPAP Thomas R,Campbell,RM is licensed with the State of Minnesota as follows:Certified Residential Real Property Appraise//____ fl4001417(capires 8-31-03), _— _ • Oslo December 9,.2UO2—_ Appraisertn —` (7� :,t •-.:••: Thomas R.C.ampb I.RM { • ::.5a. ReviewAPPralserlal- —.-__.«._—__--_._____.—..-_—_—_--._._.__—__.. r.� Farm 053 Copyright(c)1991,1992 Software for Real Estate Proiesslonals Revision.1/g2 Campbell Appraisal Co„inc. - ,y , - Iya rile No- 02-53 DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring In a carneeUtive and open market elder ab corxRbna reQu'ske to a far sale. the buyer and setter, each acing prudently knowledgeably and assuming the price Is not affected by undue stimulus. 1mpfcit In this definition Is the consurnreaicn of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby. (1) buyer and setter are typically motivated: 12) both parties are web informed or wel advised, and each acting In what he considers his awn best Interest (3) a reasonable Urns is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made In terms • of cash In U.S. defers or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto: and (5) the price represents the • normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions' granted - - by anyone associated with the sale. • • -Adjustments to the comperables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments ; • are necessary for those costs which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area: • • these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs In virtually all sales transactions. Special or -. • • creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by cemparlsans to rnencing terms offered by a third perry Institutional lender that is not already Involved In the property or transaction. Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concessions but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the - - - appraiser's judgment. - • STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS ANDAPPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's cetUticetion that appears In-the appraisal report Is subject to the following conditions: - ' - 1, The appraiser will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised , or the title to it. The appraiser assumes that the title Is good and marketable and, therefore, will not render any opinions about the title.The property Is appraised on the basis of it being under responsible ownership. • 2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of the Improvements y and the sketch is Included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the ' appraiser's determination of Its size. •. - 3. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management :' Agency (or other deta sources) and has noted In the appraisal report whether the subject site Is located in an Identlfled Special Flood Hazard Area. Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied,regarding this determination, - 4, The appraiser will not give testimony or appear In court because he or she made art appraisal of the property in •question,unless specific arrangements to de so have been made beforehand. - 5. The appraiser ties estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest end best use and the •• Improvements et their contributory value. The seperete valuations of the land and Improvements must not be • used In conjunction with any other appraisal and era Invalid If they are so used. • • - 6. The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such es, needed repairs, depreciation, the • _ • presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or teal — he or she became aware of during the normal research Involved •in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise staled - ; in the appraisal report, the appraiser has no kriowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (Including the presence of hazardous wastes, teals substances, etc.) that would make the property more or less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties, express or Implied, regarding the condition of the property. The appraiser will not be • • responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover - .. whether such conditions exist. Because the appraiser Is not an expert In the field of environmental hazards. the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the property, • 7. The appraiser obtained the information, estimates, and opinions that were expressed 1n the appraisal report from -• • sources that he or she considers to be reliable and believes them to be•true and correct. The appraiser does not r+""•"'-' - assume responsibility for the accuracy of such Items that were furnished by other parties. $ " E. The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. a 4 'r 9. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that Is subject to • satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that completion of the Improvements will- be • •_ performed in a workmanlike manner. - 10. The appraiser must provide hie or her prior written consent before the lender/client specified In the appraisal • report can distribute the appraisal report (including conclusions about the property Value, the appraiser's Identity • and professional deslgnellons, and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the • i . , appraiser 1s associated) to anyone other than the borrower, the mortgagee or Its successors and assigns; the mortgage Insurer; consultants; professional appraisal organizations; any state or federally approved financial Inslilulion; or .any department, agency, or Instntmenleltly of the United Stales or any stale or the District of Columbia; except That ' the lender/client may distribute the property description section of the report only to date collection or reporting • services) without having to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent, The appraiser's written consent and ,. approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relptions,news,sales,or other media. - • Freddie Mac Forts 439 6-93 Page 1 of2 Fannie Mae Form 10049 6-93 , • • L3 ,7a.'la 02-53 - APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees that 1. I have researched the subject market area and have selected a minimum of three recent sales of properties most • sender and proximate to the subject property for consideration In the sales comparison analysis and have made a - — dollar adjustment when appropriate to reflect the market reaction to those Items of significant variation- if a - significant item M a comparable property is superior to, or more favorable than, the subject property, I have made a negative adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales price of the comparable and, it a significant item In a comparable property Is Inferior to, or less favorable than the subject property, I have made a positive adjustment to Increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable. - ' 2. I have taken Into consideration the factors that have an Impact on value In my development of the estimate of . - - market value in the appraisal report. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and Information In the appraisal report are true and correct. - 3. —I stated In the appraisal report only my own personal. unbiased, and professional analysis, opinions, and - conclusions.which are subject only to the contingent and Itmit)ng conditions specified in this form. 4. I have no present or prospective Interest In the property that Is the subject to this report, and I have no present or prospective personal Interest or bias with respect to the participants In the transaction. I did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or the estimate of market value In the appraisal report on• the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties In the vicinity of the subject property. '. 5, I have no present or contemplated future Interest In the subject property, and neither my•current or future • employment nor my compensation for performing This appraisal Is contingent on the appraised value of the property. 6. I was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or '.'•r • any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the attalnnient of a specific result, or the occurrence of a •Z • subsequent event In order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal. I did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the need to approve a specific • mortgage loan, " 7. I performed this appraisal In conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice That were • adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were In place as .'-„.:1:, ' of the effective date of this appraisal; with the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does not apply. I acknowledge that art estimate of a reasonable time for exposure In the open market Is a condition In the definition of market value and the estimate I developed Is consistent with the marketing Ume noted In the neighborhood section of this report,unless I have otherwise stated In the reconciliation section. 8. I have personally Inspected the Interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all properties -f- • listed as com arables In the appraisal report. I further certify that I have noted anyapparent " . p pp p y or known adverse .i conditions in the subject Improvements, on the subject site, or on any site within the Immediate vicinity of the . . subject property of which I am aware end have made adjustments for these adverse conditions In my analysis of - the property value to the extent that I had market evidence to sul/port them. I have also commented about the .- effect of the adverse conditions on the marketability of subject property, 9. 1 personalty prepared aft conclusions and opinions about the reel estate that were set forth In the appraisal report. If 1 relied on significant professional assistance from any individual or individuals In the performance of the • appraisal or the preparation of the appraisal report, I have named such Individual(s) and disclosed the spectre tasks :. • . + ' performed by them In the reconciliation section of this appraisal report. I certify that any individual so named is - qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any Item in the report; therefore, - • It an unauthorized change Is made to the appraisal report,I will take no responsibility for it. .•• ' • SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: If a supervisory appraiser signed the appraisal report,he or she . • certifies and agrees that: I directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report, have reviewed the appraisal l' report, agree with the statements and conciuslons of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certifications numbered 4 through 7 above,and am taking lull responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report. • ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: 9281 Riley Lake Road,Eden Prairie,MN 55347 APPRAISEER�R:^^.' / SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (only if required): Signature:r,/t lr� 4•e„d•-.A Signature: • ^{ Name: Thomas R.Campbell,RM Name: Dale Signed: December 9,2002 Date Signed: State Certification Si: 4001417 State Certifications: or State License Al: or Slate License ti: . Slate: 1y1N State: Expiration Date of Certification or License: 8-31-03 Expiration Data of Certification or License: • DDld 001d Not Inspect Property • Freddie Mao Form 439 6-93 Pepe 2 of 2 Fannie Mae Form 10046 8.93 • • ILiy • • • ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION • I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in • conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. • • I certify that the use of this report is subject to the • requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to • review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this report, I, Thomas R. Campbell, have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. • • Thomas R. mp ell, RM • 1i 4•-or-- Date signed ' v d •. • • • • • • lL5 •PHOTOG'RAFRADEIENDUM. - , ... R. ....e' 02-53.. . - • Ernie Shuldhiess .- • _ p Adam.. 9281 Riley Lake Road ..... • -0 . y Eden Prairie Cnunly Hennepin fl. MN 7, .--=e 55347---- . ---- . L.....,.., Douglas KrulI ------- — - - . .1:,..''' -,-,g4r.e.,..• - '..Z.: .',„tr. "' ••••• :".1?..-----:.• •..'00....1'. -'• . * .- ., .-:.7if - ''. ••'•*,-.?:49611`• i.. .--, •••••Ci.41--..',,..--- ,... ,•••,-.4 . • . . . . t.";i:•..r ' . ., . .•'''''':. t -.,•7', :. ..;••;•t.',- . .....;;;;,w i , • . .k ,•tl?' • "*. - ,i ',....••e . • • . . . . : •,,,it, ,,Alt ••• .e t • . , :.• . .", ..___,.. , , • . r.,,,,,I.,,...... . . . . FRONT VIEW OF . .. . ... . I t- * •, -_„ i,I SUBJECT PROPERTY • •.• - ,-. 1,,r, • • .• ••••' . *. .. . '•-• : .„ .., . , . ....:. - . • • *4. . ;•::: •,: ; , ., .. , . - , . • . . • , •• • • :•/, :: : ' '1,:• .. '.• . '''.' :*. . . ' . .1., ...I.', • :. ' '•:."' - . ..... f.'.. ..?,„ . .•,, .....„••. • ' , ,..,...0,,'t..,:' : ....'; 'Cr'?"•'; ."I''' .'"' .. ,,I.• ..z14'....lib.---4 11:0-11., ' .... i. '•"`;',.,.t.;•:..••"1,,'f '' ...,..Y.. . "1... ..; :, - '•-,."'; . ,r.r..::4$.....'!•'''''.;,•--1".:',...,•,-..; ';;;'..';‘.4..,....r,.4‘'...;41:;v•-- 4 .; 1 •:.;"*.• ;••..c-. . • ' • .. il,_•,461,.. .•'', '4,PANt: 44:• f!I • ..•`.i:4gi':,.'‘4..;•!;., ' „1,•? i'.1..!:,17: .''',: . • . — . ..• il'''7'• ' 1-•-='. • ''' : .'. .•!,,',-?::in•;%ftz•n!'egir,•• ,r '".•1',' .'i''';';',..el • • „ ,,g I,f: , •• •• , .,, ;',"'"' • •.',e,'". • ":;',10s,,...,':',',1.,i.. , ... 1. . ....t• .... ••. ,, >1,- -••,14,1tE-,-• , .t SR.'' ..`.",.v .J'. , • 1•.-J:t ,,.....2,1.,`'' ,,.....9.;..... ....... , ',1..P•-•',..,•,-,.... , .7,..7,,-,---------.---:--.. :,...,'...g.*---- vons....•‘:--:•,- ,• . .• ;:Siii:_.,,.., ..:•-' -:- . , •.,.., ,•,.„, I..; • . . • ..... ....".:;- .. --..• . '-‘ - . "---'1'-'41:'•I'''' ' ' REAR VIEW OF i.4'."'Ir.. '''. .".: ••.:--.'... -• • 1 --1-14''''' 7:''." • 04 i-. . SUBJECT PROPERTY ... • . . ... /-''' ''.z".10 IL-'•,!-Xi..;;;',,:::.--A 4.:*.: .- ....--: '.-,.1.1:0- '''''-'', •-. • ' .:. . .. . 't ..e,gc.4P.,•,,,,,,,-,...:4.',,A:.• "' • . ' : .' ., ',1-.....-•'',Sk.t.."..":, :,..:,-..71 ,.. - --- - . ,Sgi ;4:j,„•.".-,..',- .:,'• "•.."".....:-..- f; • P' : . -' •`:',;•riP.r4IV.,77"V:-.4"', *-----' • 412 ••!?.. --'•-.. .-•.`-:'c4:.-...... . .: • . • •';',:l.t":$4(1P•41".'"'- .eau ...J.--—:;- .••••.;•:-. .•-_ -:. ...-,..4...-•,-,...4.,..\ 7, •,........ .••••-1=4 *- _ •- .-;:,.'•1"--'-'t-":---•-l'.'N .,,.. • • .,,,,: • _ , .,. • . ., . ,. _ . ; - •,, ;,.; t-..2 •,,. -- : •-si,',... • ',..'„. .i, •; , liFtIt'' ' §,4 k'''A'-• . . . • --'•,•,g':"{P *IX•,',-,...... -,--.7--CPI/ . . • . . •1;••,, .,,.. *.:!,-:','• •..ii ', ut pite IA. ...,,.,•,,,,p1o, ., . , fr64..v..•94...": .,... , . ,.., . . :...., • , • .- . ,• ).‘1, • . • • :‘•,,......,-;:-•,(,.•.;,...(.7,tc-'4 t,J:12;:tp",J,...,;'''.' t , • .• • • .. . • - '•' :.. : p•CP.,tiliE.ri'itilfN'''.'"'...''.• •::',";..q•'•';'"..'; I. .....it:. • '•-• . ' ';. . ' :...,.‘:::-1.',,:t.!t, V,:l.,': • '...i,.,:o...,1.:4).'',i.•',,•• ,-.(i‘,'Z.•.."' ... p.. •.- . • ' 0., •et,A:" ,• • STREET SCENE OF ,:.. . ••••I:'• . • . *,'''.• . .. SUBJECT PROPERTY •• • , •-"-",. ••,-, ;..,to,.,,•• 1 I , .1• .. . • . ,•,..,,ta..... • • • I...4 144.rgilik\ii 1 eigi 1..N1..• -i• it '' I ••, ...jai. %tfl,,.•' , I'•• • , • • ,•.•A••),.4 A...1;,,.,,,,,,m,r.is.,...- • ....-? ,,.:-.2..,...--•- ., . .. • :itiwv1).•il..•-. ..:-Asi,PP-5---.,r:5-Fr'6:'4.:. e. , ..4.'4 -,•-" ,::::...:1„.•...,.* . ' •;j1:1..:1:4.1--;JAllo.'''- -- pz.........i.. -..:/;:..•P .,\1• 'Ortt:p....4.•'`,....-.4''''`',''''• ' • • - . . . . • . • P.": ••'. .,..4. .•,t-- -, --i•k-.4,4-- -,... 4-cs-i.:-.--,-5.,,...;.:*...--...,.... ••,.. I,.•• •''...•.7,,,••••.r.`"•::.„:,14;,44•.!•.,.:J..1;irao••2.4. ,• ••.,•n ,.Nr.r.,,• ..7.,I:_.-,...„,..ir.... ..,tri..7...,a.• ;. , ^-1., . ..-:!,..,,...”:.'...'',-q.v. ,„..”':r..041.2•42-t•••`•` r.- 1.'7.41/47,„2.g.:',P:'.' CA...,:r1r,'::-.:.-',"-• ..., ... • .....:.-;,..,J•-7-.....-4+,0;144 •,....."ti.2'1,„,',.7: ,........r4.., ,,,,,,,,g4. ,,...."1„,..c-.1,.....-..........,,,-...:_, , . :' . , , :. ••::'.4 41:-...:4;:r6C:iggVV.1''.'.4.:, .....61.W..";f:.r.t.)..?!;::1%.4"7;.._S7,i''''''''. ',•'•:::.;FT.':',..„...r: : ;-,, 1 .. . . "' " - "'•'.,..."•9-A.1°;''b .! ' "'ala 7.04'•,• ... --.-''....•••- ...'",-..1. • -r..; .., . .- •:'•, :";•- .; ' •'.,.. ..'..?..-.7-'..z.V.‘7c....1- ..-'i6:. ..v2•4•7••;/,'.r4 V.... ••-•',Vct../-•;• ,..,:,.":-`,-.-....?.... ••,';.' , :..12..;:*.',,,2.4..:'.-.•,r,z,"A':,•.', ..' .,,,,,..‘„,,s, :71r•f.••4., " -•,o,,..0,1,,,;:i.14,0,,..i.'...-::,-.4.;',..,t.z . " ._ .... .:,1:;•':...•..:ax.:1..1•.;••-•.-...:n.......,77...r. `• ",' tlr../ 4',':.. . -'. t 4;4;7'.."'"4:'.---Al.i.:;.:,._,.-.. , • ' , .::',4;•','..;;;tri•:',ek:4:-.4'..4.rVir.*,,,,,_, ' ,..,.,...4.-4"i, ..T, P....,.,.,..,4 4.,‘:.**•.,1::r4-;'.'.*„ , .' , 1... 4'...- t.,:.:-•.vrt.:,,,-.',..+,11:21,r-,;'.P,+:4:1,...,e.' ,,4.',..i'.‘ ..-,'s -;•!5.,'7‘':''.4,1s?"';':::"•_.•••••,'",..• • ' _ .• , • p:'•' .•:-.. ..,,,..,',.,:,,,,,,I)-‘0,'",.......... ,:.".•,,it.--:-.,.*ar• -•.•-•.'''" 4"'''' .': • : •• .• 7 • Campbell Appraisal Co.,Inc. • 7 . „. • - ..._.. - /. ) Lib Fa...w 02-53 PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM - - _ - _ 3,„a..r«:,..... Ernie Shuldhiess F,emryAddrau 9281 Riley Lake Road - - - un Eden Prairie county Hennepin sate MN Locode 55347 L:w,..ccw Douglas Krull - ry + . 1 is�fy- ,y,�' GARAGE . _ ,xr' _,w�, • f"x.:r_=-ram''•= • :yi•" • k fit.:•.. '.. •� .j 2'r J.,. t i"'::.;'^ '' .`?. ' 7 ..... tY'r tv �,,t rarr .z} } ,may- .J!e o FL''• 1A0--it' !}..:T" !i 4 •"i:••.•t.- ,.*', i."..• .vim. •-'" ,P ::•:"•r' "z,r, sue- z n-_W i+::•. „�;^.. " `'- t,' STORAGE SHED • ' .pie;_=; 1""rii:�„,;,.:! R `b 't , s;ray t • • :: — Iti.X!'(~E ?". t ,.�rt9 i 4"i"i ...'.`.....,..,,,L.,- Ji::.'.;%?:` /.!:ii;':.• z. .ce'':' ... y .,s w- :% r fi-r}.. ' •2' .Y•.vl'L.1 • r4•,T _ -fir•, .i.',1 - '!'..•Sr•m••- • , '•e•` '' "`,rt+ • •..-- ,•I ... /L•, ti I V •' Wti ..ry TT. •j. v . �':.) '4::l.'.:y+.''`lr i' +S.'', :•• ti /Y • 'L: • '..• Y•i X j•:v;,•9 • • • °ik' p. ;u', , err �: otri+ ,.. ( '4 TA h;'`�v� VIEW TO WEST OF LAKE RILEY r..,.......'r?'::r;;,v .44...,I,,.:.4%',4.„0..=;,er;0,31:5`'r'. FRONT LOT AREA ,� • FROM • lit •,'4': ✓,'�� 1 •'ilj�1 ..S HI • _ .. Td• ti:•• 1is cle4x Y ✓••*,,,.Kal_.:i- • - a'; i.�"i'e ."nrt> ,," ,-=$?ifr y _ _ _-, ---..._-...r.._..•'_t ,...,.-.;,-._ F f_.,r..'..... .-.i.._..,..,- .. - _ • Campbell Appraisal Co..Inc. • y F M4 02-53 - - - SKUCRACER4121.1 a- Sew.:>o,....r Ernie SbuIdhiess 9281 Riley Lake Road car Eden Prairie s Rennevin sn. MN =occa. 55347 .orC..R Doualas Krull 1 � _ Sill-�? 2L— • 2 ► C4A. • • h G� 41h' i s • : - • ir • • • • • k_ I 1 ; FvLL .r _ • 6 4- • • Ll. 1 3 JMaJ Pa C C?`t .. • • Campbell Appraisal Co.,Inc. • I yq F..roe 02-53 - SITE PLAN - - - ssoow.«oNa.. Ernie Shuldhiess - _ p09.arAdo.= 928I Riley Lake Road car Eden Prairie ca.+r Hennepin sM. MN npco.. 55347 L....,arc«t Douglas Kruli • fir{. - V. • :i ll' i p. 4-ti �k' r i) . f,:i ,:;et,n - Last update:11/12/2002 at 1:00:00 PM ' METES / BOUNDS DESCRIPTION , COM AT A PT IN THE CTR LINE OF , 'TOWN ROAD DIS 321 6&10 FT NLY FROM ITS INTERSEC WITH THE NWLY LINE OF M AND ST L RY R&W TH DUE W 33 FT TO SHORE OF RILEY LAKE TH NLY ALONG SAID SHORE LINE 50 3&10 FT TH DUE E 339 7&10 FT TO SAID R&W LINE TH SWLY ALONG SAID R&W LINE 67 9&10 FT TH DUE W TO BEG. AND THE N 10 FT OF THE FOL DESC TRACT COM AT A PT IN THE CTR LINE OF TOWN ROAD DIS 221 6&10 FT NLY FROM ITS INTERSEC WITH THE NWLY LINE OF M AND ST L RY R&W TH DUE W 38 FT TO SHORE OF RILEY LAKE TH NLY ALONG SAID SHORE LINE DIS 101 FT TH,DUE E 301 2&10 FT TO SAID R&W LINE TH SWLY ALONG SAID R&W LINE . • • • • • • Campbell Appraisal Co.,Inc. • • • `9 - _ - ,"NO- 02-5 - LQC 1 C{1V_T4TAEi= - awlw.rrOmer Ernie Shuldhiess r.....00..>.. 928I Riley Lake Road car Eden Prairie ca ty Hennepin sar jyllj maeoae 55347 1-�'Ide,cres.ot Douelas Kral! - - • • • ,,,j r ,._rlfa • "tw Y4f Fj AF i.'} , �, J1 .1 I� per• `'I"I�� �`_ i,a; "p :r 1,/ I;_.1` . ��� 1 bw�< A!r '. •� 1 ~r�1 I�\ `1 F k ; a, • n 1! ` _. 1 .._. i •. f'7 f' `I^ •1 I I�fj� r@� ww•7 ra+ • f•- ••-•� 7:/L \\ }1INMIYASIITA , • I f Lwn '1� - r• '-.r• E ` _. Sep°.i' ' ':-�1-••• lnlr l.,r1 /�Itll- , �._ } • s�.� �� • r ' j:. K. i ......•I0r. ' �i' II .In 4 i 1 . •C} .i.j....., ...,',. . ,.....,. . : :. . . T.: . •.I144 .0. I, 1 ' u'�,-111M: • i 1 r. F 1 a a' --/..^.. •— — ,6..7Z. .......1 1 mil• ' u.Yr, —. __.... -1I _ ___- 7} • -1 `-] • I •'y -71 `I 1I ill 20 V _LlY'1l.Vyj� ,���r( ` i N .... 3 wK.' 1 , 4 1 • I v 'I •..I j z _ . _ ! t •• II.nIIAn N.ILYI mu or i- , .1 .•_•sI...•'Y 1 1 .,,,,..o. i z:',',.i 4 ....." 8 :‘,10, :.• . ..� •M7i �` • y �i___ManiY.rt ,w° /. 1 - I I ,.. •1 1 • C _ _I 11 .-.........-"se-........:. a WO • Campbell Appraisal Co.,Inc. ISO :a."a 02-53 PHOTQGRAPF1 ADDENDUM Sam..cke e. Ernie Shuldhiess .moartv Address 9281 Riley Lake Road city Eden Prairie c....,ly Hennepin SM. Jed Zi C d. 55347 - aea.* Douglas KruIl ` • ey J3 • s �;�s.y8 [�fit, .. ate,: COMPARABLE#1 "� l# t, a r;. _•, �� �e t' 3637 South Cedar Road s`w ' , lyi -� Chanhassen • __�. • • Y, .fit. - _ r • •lc p.' 1 i t•3;ti_ru - COMPARABLE#2 • • '�., . :•'� � i. •.y "" A�i `i e.'� a 4y'a.,::-...,',AZ 3840 Lone Cedar Avenue ,a;µ • :.�v' .•.� :,, 4 yet �' 1l 7.eir.f; t i, ,' r: Chanhassen r, .,1• :: }err,, • •= , e(.,. ro _ --• ,-i.:`2, •,:h'. s yr r7b:;. •A c.: ;• .,".. ;••'. — r 161 ., . . . :.„.......,:„.. ., , --._. .. _. . .. • • • • • • ill r;l;f c!v. ,"�itp``..' ie.;+fs.Ew"� YgS%~'::' 4v -=j\„•i' • t.�: �y� ��,' •�w .�f`•� fi •'• C;.%�*.;'rfit;;:: v COMPARABLE . , ,/{;P t' • .^ '••} ', ' '' �'t",k'?•>•r'y i .,`! :-"i• 20 Hill Street • • w;y• •Y• ,Ra _t•I• a g;.. . 1/44, ./ Chanhassen <' t A'` Y , "� '�WTI�i. f;. ;:n ; `'. •t, '+,'•��• - t , <' .. • ,S . , 'i! • ,1:;: t :ram ...:,.. ��~ -=.w.. , Campbell Appraisal Co.,Inc. • I51 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Director of Parks and Recreation June 3, 2003 DEPARTMENT: ITEM NO.: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Robert A. Lambert,Director •C • a Parks&Recreation Department Naming Park Site Requested Action Motion: Move to name the neighborhood park site serving the Riley Creek Ridge, Cedar Forest, Hilltop, Beverly Drive and Hennepin Village Neighborhood as Cedar Hills Park. Synopsis The philosophy for naming parks that the City Council adopted many years ago was to name parks after prominent features, adjacent roads or neighborhood areas that would indicate where the park is located as soon as the name is heard. Background City staff has referred to this future neighborhood park site as the Cedar Forest or Cedar Hills site. The park is located immediately northwest of the former Cedar Hills Golf Course. It's east boundary is Eden Prairie Road. Riley Creek runs through the site. The dominate feature of the site is the creek valley. The dominate tree cover of this property is not the cedar tree but a mixture of maple, basswood and elm on the hills and cottonwood trees along the creek. There are some cedar trees in the northwest corner of the site. Potential names for the Council to consider are as follows: 1. Cedar Hills Park(across the road from the Old Cedar Hills Golf Course) 2. Cedar Forest Park(one of the neighborhoods that will use this park site) -3. Riley Creek Park(the creek runs through the park site) 4. Riley Valley Park(the Riley Creek Valley is the dominant feature of the site) Previous Councils have also indicated that if the property was originally owned by a prominent Eden Prairie citizen a park could be named after that citizen. Based on early maps, it is difficult to determine the ownership of the entire park. It is clear that Aaron Gould originally owned approximately five to six acres in the northwest corner of the park; however, the majority of the park could have been owned by John Doulan, A. J.Preston, or a smaller land owner that was not listed on the early Eden Prairie maps. It is not clear from the maps who the original owner would have been. RAL:mdd SO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Director of Parks and Recreation June 3,2003 DEPARTMENT: ITEM NO.: ITEM DESCRIPTION• Parks&Recreation Xi It . C -3. Robert A.Lambert,Director Off-leash Dog Exercise Area Requested Action First Motion: Move to approve the off-leash dog exercise area proposal as recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, including future development of an off-leash area adjacent to Flying Cloud Drive south of Shady Oak Road, and on trial basis,in the hockey rinks located at Crestwood Park, Edenvale Park, Homeward Hills Park and Nesbitt Preserve Park. Second Motion: Move to deny the recommendation of the Study Committee to utilize the MAC property referred to as Cedar Hills Park as an off-leash dog exercise area. Third Motion: Move to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Three Rivers Park District urging their Board of Directors to strongly consider development of an off-leash dog exercise area within Bryant Lake Regional Park. Fourth Motion: Move to authorize staff to continue discussions with the MAC and BFI staff to determine if there is any feasible location on property controlled by those agencies for an off-leash dog exercise area. Synopsis After review of the committee report and input from the neighbors, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission made the following recommendations at their May 5th meeting: Move to recommend denial of Cedar Hills Park site as an off-leash area on a 7-1 vote. Commissioner MacKay suggested that perhaps either a smaller area within Cedar Hills Park might be•acceptable or it might be appropriate to consider it in the future. The other • Commissioners disagreed stating that Cedar Hills Park was inappropriate due to the terrain and the negative environmental impact on that property. The Commission approved the Flying Cloud site on an 8-0 vote. The Commission also approved the use of all four hockey rinks sites for one season and to revisit the "experiment" in December to determine if it should be recommended as a permanent usage. This motion was approved on a 7-1 vote. Commissioner Jacobus was in opposition as he opposed encouraging any increased dog usage in neighborhood 153 Off-lease Dog Area June 3,2003 Page 2 parks. The Commission also voted unanimously to request the City Council to encourage Three Rivers Park District to develop an off-leash area in Bryant Lake Regional Park. The Commission suggested the north end of the park in the vicinity of the old riding arena and recommended that staff continue discussions with staff from the Metropolitan Airports Commission and BFI to evaluate possible sites for future off-leash areas on their property. Background In 2002 the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission appointed an ad hoc committee to study and evaluate potential sites within the Eden Prairie park system that would accommodate off-leash dog usage. This committee was formed in response to a petition submitted to the Commission containing nearly 1,600 names. The committee started their evaluation in November of 2002. The committee met a total of seven times to discuss various sites and prepare the information contained within the final report. The final report recommended a 20 acre site within property owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and proposed for a neighborhood park serving the Riley Creek Ridge, Cedar Forest, Hilltop, Beverly Drive and Hennepin Village as their first priority site. The committee also recommended fencing approximately 2.5 acres on the southwest side of Flying Cloud Drive, east of Highway 212 and south of Shady Oak Road, and to consider using four hockey rinks as off- leash dog exercise areas outside of the skating season. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed the committee report at their April 7th meeting and directed staff to notify residents within the service areas of the five sites that would be affected by these recommendations and invite those residents to the May 5th Commission meeting to discuss the proposal. At the May 5th meeting over 200 residents attended the meeting. Most residents were from the Riley Creek Ridge neighborhood and were present to strongly oppose any off-leash area within their neighborhood park. A copy of the minutes of that meeting is attached to this report. A copy of the Off-leash Study Committee Report is attached to this memorandum. That report provides detailed information with rationale for recommendations for each site. Also, attached to this memorandum is an April 27, 2003 petition from the children of Riley Creek Ridge neighborhood that oppose the use of the park and a petition from the residents of Riley Creek Ridge, also in opposition to the use of the neighborhood park for an off-leash area. The major reasons listed at the May 5th meeting include concerns regarding safety of children, the fact that the City has not fenced children out of any other neighborhood park natural areas, and the concern over the environmental impact on the steep slopes, the vegetation and the wildlife currently using the 15 acres designated within that site. The residents pointed out that by denying the use of the site as an off-leash area did not deny dog owners from using the property as they would still be allowed to walk their dogs on leash in that area. It simply made that area totally accessible to all residents rather than limiting the use to off-leash dogs. 152-1 Off-lease Dog Area June 3,2003 Page 3 Recommendation City staff supports the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Commission and would budget for the cost to fence the Flying Cloud Drive site and construct a small parking lot at that location within the 2004 budget. Staff would further recommend installing cable fencing on top of the sidewalls of the hockey rinks to a height of six feet to ensure that no dogs would be able to leave that area. Staff anticipates this work could be completed by mid-July and would provide at least four months of use this year to evaluate the success or failure of allowing off- leash dogs in hockey rinks. Staff believes the additional fencing and signage for these four hockey rinks could be accomplished at less than$500 per rink. Staff further believes that the old riding arena site at Bryant Lake Regional Park would be an ideal location for an off-leash dog area within that park, and that large off-leash areas are an appropriate use for regional parks if those parks have appropriate sites available within their boundaries. Staff would further recommend that the City develop a policy that would provide guidelines for appropriate of leash areas that would assist citizens and staff in determining the feasibility of sites that might be considered in the future. For example, staff does not believe that land such as steep wooded creek valleys, bluff land, or wetlands that have been acquired to protect unique natural vegetation or habitat for wildlife should ever be considered to be fenced for off-leash dog exercise areas. Attachments: May 5th Unapproved Commission Minutes Off-leash Study Committee Final Report Petition from Riley Creek Ridge Neighborhood Children Memo Referencing Petitions Relating to Off-leash Dog Area April 5th Memorandum Letters and Maps to Residents of Proposed Sites E-mail Letters RAL:mdd PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 4 Barrett said he likes rules and he feels they help make decisions. One of the rules is that the basketball court be set back 30 feet from the property line. He asked if there is any way they can pick up 9 feet and keep the other basket. They need to be consistent and he agrees that they should move back 30 feet from the property line. Lambert said they could keep both baskets but this would result in a smaller court. Barrett said this would be better than having a single basket. Mackay said he feels they should look at the possibility of eliminating a tennis court. Motion: Barrett moved, Schaepe seconded, to go back to the original rules and keep the park open until 10:00 p.m. as well as honor the 30 foot setback and to recommend that staff consider keeping both baskets. Brill said he feels they are compromising to do something that is not in the best interest of anyone. They will have a basketball hoop but it is not an official basketball court and he does not feel this is in the best interest of the neighborhood and this facility will not be as popular as it has been. Schaepe pointed out that the compromise will result in a shorter basketball court but would provide them with a full court.Brill said he would like to see a proposal for a redesigned basketball court. Vote was called on the motion with all members present voting aye except Brill who voted nay. The motion carried, 7-1. Motion: Schaepe moved, seconded by Mackay, to direct staff to investigate turning one of the tennis courts into a basketball court. Mackay stated that should it be determined that a tennis court be removed they would not have to worry about eliminating a basket or having a shortened court. Vote was called on the motion with all members present voting aye. The motion carried, 8-0. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Off-Leash Dog Exercise Area Plan Review (continued from April 7, 2003) 1. Cedar Hills Park Site 2. Flying Cloud Site 3,. Hockey Rink Sites a. Crestwood Park b. Homeward Hills Park c. Nesbitt Preserve Park d. Edenvale Park I S6 PARKS,RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 5 Libby Hargrove, Chairperson for the Off-Leash Park Committee, presented a brief overview of the Committee's report. Hargrove explained that the Committee is recommending that Cedar Hills Park,Flying Cloud and Hockey Rink sites be used for off-leash dog exercise areas. Dennis Anderson, 9864 Crestwood Terrace, spoke in opposition to the proposed off-leash area located in Cedar Hills Park. Anderson said he also opposes the hockey rink concept but most particularly opposes the concept of an off-leash area in close proximity to a neighborhood with numerous minor children. Anderson stated that his job has required him to deal with numerous dog bite cases. This proposal is attempting to bring victims in close proximity to assailants. Anderson said he is sympathetic to dog owners who do not have fenced yards; however, when an area is created that mixes different breeds of animals with different temperaments you have an attractive nuisance. Anderson asked that the Commission give the children of Eden Prairie first priority. Barrett asked if any of the dog bite cases he has dealt with occurred in an off-leash dog park. Anderson responded that they did not but did occur in private homes. Allowing this off-leash area in the park raises the potential for a volatile mix. Rob Phillips, 9377 Shetland Road, pointed out that Hargrove stated that the Cedar Hills Park proposal would require minimum construction cost. Phillips stated that this proposal would cost well over twice as much as any other site. Hargrove also mentioned that the proposed dog park would allow different uses by many different people. Phillips said he feels this off-leash park would preclude the use of the park by minor children and would eliminate the use of that area by small children. The residents of the Riley Creek Ridge neighborhood are opposed to this proposed dog park. Phillips said it is their feeling that this area should first and foremost be utilized as a neighborhood park. Phillips asked the Commission to review their guidelines as to what constitutes a neighborhood park. The dog owners in the neighborhood are opposed to the proposed dog park. Phillips pointed out that there are 16 off-leash parks in the metro area. Of those 16 parks, the only one adjacent to and abutting residential property is the one being proposed this evening. There is also an aesthetic issue. This park is a beautiful and unique area and would not be able to be used by residents if they do not have a dog. Katie Boehm, 9360 Shetland Road, said there are over 100 kids under 10 years old in this neighborhood and they are worried about a dog park that will back up to the neighborhood. For the safety of the kids, Boehm said they do not want a dog park to be built in the residential area. Will Phillips, 9377 Shetland Road, explained that he and his friends spend a lot of time in the area proposed to be a dog park. Phillips said they are concerned about the dogs scaring away wild animals. For the kids' safety and the safety of the animals in the park, they ask that the Commission not allow a dog park in this area.Phillips PARKS,RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5,2003 Page 6 presented to the Commission a petition signed by the children of the Riley Creek Ridge area stating that they do not want a dog park in Cedar Hills Park. Rob Phillips said he believes the City and Parks Commission can do better with this land. Allowing a dog park will result in the park turning into a mud packed area. This is a very unique property.He asked that the Parks Commission consider other sites in the City. They need to put something in this area that people will benefit from 100 years from now. He asked that the Commission preserve the natural beauty of the park and to add to it. He suggested that they put in a neighborhood park that meets the needs of the neighborhood.Mackay asked how many homes abut this property. Phillips responded that there are approximately 15 homes that abut the park. Jan Ehresman, 9353 Shetland Road, said she was representing the families of Riley Creek and wishes to speak on the safety of the children in the neighborhood. In the short time they had between this meeting and when they were notified, they obtained signatures of 85 percent of the residents indicating that they are opposed to this proposed dog park.Ehresman said she has four smsll children and the neighborhood roster includes 113 children's names under the age of 18. This is not a place for a dog park. The proposed fence would be 10 feet from the property line of the abutting properties. This is a childrens neighborhood and they should not have to worry about dogs jumping the fence. Ehresman said they are not opposed to a dog park but are opposed to a dog park in a residential area. Joe Young, 16697 Stirrup Lane, said he has three major concerns. The first is safety. He asked which Commission member is willing to say go ahead and have this dog park so close to a residential area that there is a risk of a child being bitten by a dog. Another concern is increased traffic. With this proposal they can expect a substantial increase in traffic in their neighborhood. There is no question that people who can't find a parking spot in the limited parking available will park on Shetland Road and will cut through the residential properties to get to the park. This will result in an increase in the number of dogs passing through the neighborhood. This park not only • brings dogs to the kids but kids to the dogs by adding a proposed basketball court. The third issue is environmental. If this park is developed, they can be assured that the wild animals that frequent this area won't do so in the future. Tim Rawerts, 6650 Duck Lake Road, pointed out that the pervious item considered by the Commission was an issue of an easement not being 30 feet away from a park. He questioned how a dog park could only be 10 feet away from the residential property lines.Rawerts said he uses the City's park system extensively and complimented the City on their recent addition of a frisbee golf course. The City needs to remain progressive as it grows. Rawert suggested that they look at developing the dog park 100 feet away from the properties. Ie5 PARKS,RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5,2003 Page 7 John Dykes, 9329 Shetland Road, explained that his back yard borders the park. When he lived in Colorado his apartment complex backed up to an off-leash dog area and that park smelled. Gary Demee, 9425 Shetland Road, said he personally does not see himself using this park;however,he does have a small fenced area. Demee said one of the problems he experiences is smell. Considering the size of the proposed park and the shape there is no possible way that the dog owners can see where their dogs will defecate. This site is very damp and it will be smelly.With a park as large as the proposed park it would require a full-time employee to pick up the animal waste. Demee said he would suggest that they start with a smaller area or keep it further away from the residential homes. They should consider in the 5 to 8 acre range. The location and size are questionable and Demee said he thinks the Best Buy site is the best place to start. An identified resident from the audience explained that she wants an area to exercise her animals. She indicated that she has been in Bloomington and did not see any dog fights. In response to her question as to how high the fence would be, she was told that it would be 5 feet in height. Another unidentified resident from the audience said she believes that people have educated their dogs to be more social. She stated that she has a large yard but has a need for her dogs to see other dogs and allowing the dog to be social makes for a safer dog in the neighborhood. Anthony Kasbohm, 9258 Shetland Road, expressed his appreciation to everyone for their presentation and expressed his desire to not exclude anyone from using the park but to include representation of Eden Prairie. This would include the elderly, physically challenged and children. If the park is opened up with trails everyone would be able to use it. Dogs on a leash would also be welcomed to use the park with the owners and under control. Mark Costello, 16870 Cedarcrest Road, said this area does not have a neighborhood park and he was very disappointed to hear that they are proposing a dog park for this site. Jim Fernholz, 9324 Shetland Road, said he had a brother who lived in Colorado and used an off-leash park. Another dog attacked his dog and when he tried to break the two dogs up he was attacked. His brother required 48 stitches in his arm.Dog bites do happen. Kim Pearson explained that she does not live near the park All of the parks she has visited she saw one dog fight. It can happen and that is why security is of the utmost concern because families do bring children to these parks. 159 PARKS,RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5,2003 Page 8 John Wmter, 11428 Kensington Drive, said he would like to see a dog park in Eden Prairie. He does not have children and he has voted to increase taxes for schools. Winter said he would like to see parks for both dogs and children and it is important that dogs socialise with other dogs. John Walker, 9402 Shetland Road, presented a video of the Bloomington dog park. He pointed out the poor condition of the turf and all of the litter. Hargrove said the Committee did gather a lot of statistics on safety and have found that dog parks are not proponents for accidents. There are a high number of accidents in baseball and softball fields. Sports and athletics can and do cause accidents. Accidents are not occurring in off-leash dog areas. Hargrove explained that they interviewed all of the dog parks in Three-River Parks and in 19 years they have not had a child bitten. Safety is a huge concern and fencing is important. Dog parks are hard on the land and overuse is a problem. That is why acreage and size is important. Barrett asked if there is an age limit for children to be at the park. Children under 6 are not allowed and an adult must supervise children under 12. Bob Skinner, 8655 Darnell, said he is sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns. Skinner suggested that screening of pine trees between the off-leash area and the residences be provided. Skinner pointed out that the area that was worn down in the Bloomington park was within one acre of the entrance. The entrance to this area would be approximately'A mile away from the residents. Crain said they have been talking about 16 dog parks in the metro area and the photos presented this evening are of only three parks. He said this is a poor example representation of all of the dog parks. Phillips responded that they visited most of the dog parks in the area and did not consider any dog parks that were part of the large regional parks. Phillips explained that they did look at 10 different parks and the pictures are fairly representative of the different dog parks throughout the community. Gerst pointed out that the Cedar Hills Park site is very steep and it may be difficult to build a dog park in the steep creek valley and asked if there is any concern for erosion or run off. Lambert responded that one of the greatest concerns in any dog park is erosion. He has never seen a dog park in an area as steep as this. Lambert said he talked to Bloomington as to what kind of maintenance is required. The City did mow once two years ago when it first opened. They haven't had to mow since. Lambert said his concern with this site is its steep terrain and there will be some issues with the steep slopes. Schaepe asked what the proposed construction.material would be for the trail. Lambert said they are proposing that they just mow. He explained that they are not proposing to do any grading or change the terrain. Barrett asked staff to comment on the wildlife area. Lambert stated that this is along the Riley Creek Valley. It is a beautiful piece of property that has a wide variety of / 6d PARKS,RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 9 mammals and birds. The dogs will pretty much eliminate the wild life within the fenced area. Lambert explained that they are also proposing four hockey rinks to be used as off- leash parks. There were some concerns expressed by the Commission members last month that the fences at these sites are only 4 feet in height.Lambert said if these hockey rinks were approved for off-leash areas staff would recommend either restricting the height of the dogs allowed or increase the height of the fence. He suggested that they use one hockey rink on a trial basis and put in temporary fencing at approximately six feet to make sure larger dogs stay in there. Lambert said another concern expressed last month was the proximity of the off- leash area to the playground.He explained that the Homeward Hills Park does have an area between the playground structure and the hockey rink. At Nesbitt Preserve Park the playground is a couple hundred feet away from the hockey rink. When Crestwood Park is completed the playground area will be about 250 feet away from the hockey rink. David Puelston, 7183 Sunshine Drive, pointed out that there are soccer teams using the hockey rinks at Edenvale Park for soccer practice. Puelston said he is concerned about dog feces and health problems this may cause if the feces is not picked up by the dog owners. He stated that he would prefer to see this hockey rink set aside for inline skating. Once the rink is used as an off-leash park it will be difficult to get it back for inline skating. Puelston pointed out that by converting these areas to off- leash parks would be an invitation to residents of other communities resulting in more congestion. In response to a question from Barrett,Lambert explained that they have looked at the hockey rinks to see how difficult it would be to put up temporary fencing. They anticipate that it would not be too difficult or expensive to increase the height of the fence to six feet. It would be something that could be put up and taken down in a matter of a few hours at little cost once it is constructed. To put up temporary fencing would not be a big issue.Lambert stated that the dog owners would be required to keep their dog on a leash from the car until they get into the hockey rink. There are currently hundreds of people in the park system that are walking their dogs in the parks unleashed at this time. They are trying to find a place where people can have their dogs off-leash legally.Lambert pointed out that staff's biggest concern is erosion and care of the areas. Lambert said they would like to find areas that are relatively flat and not causing problems with neighbors, where no erosion or disturbance to wildlife would occur. Barrett reminded staff that the motion made last month asked staff to contact the Three-Rivers Park District to determine whether or not they would be constructing an off-leash area in Eden Prairie.Lambert said they did talk to them and they «( PARKS,RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMNIISSION May 5, 2003 Page 10 indicated that they are looking at an off-leash area at Bryant Lake Park where the old horse stable used to be. This would be a large site that would be designated as an off-leash area Wit is approved. Lambert indicated that they are also looking at three other sites throughout their park system. Lambert pointed out that the Three-Rivers Park District operates very much like the City Council and this Commission.When they receive input from people they do try to address those issues and concerns. Barrett asked if it would be appropriate to forward the petition they received for an off-leash park to the Three-Rivers Park District. Lambert said it would be more appropriate to forward a letter to them explaining the petition and issues and concerns from the people. This letter could also inform them the process that has been followed and what the recommendation is. Jacobus said he feels mixing off-leash areas and people parks might prohibit people from using the parks. Having an off-leash area in the hockey rinks may be easy and inexpensive but he has a problem with the perceived danger of attracting dogs to an area where kids play. Jacobus said that Cedar Hills Park has been designated as a neighborhood park and he has trouble with the mix of dogs and children. He thinks children should have a priority over dogs. Barrett pointed out that this Commission does represent all of the people in the City that are both dog owners and non-dog owners. The non-dog owners also paid for the hockey rinks. Jacobus suggested that they start with a small site that won't bother anyone and go from there. He stated that Cedar Hills Park is one of the most beautiful sites in Eden Prairie and he questioned whether or not they want to turn that property into a dog park. Mackay questioned how long it would take to put parking in the Flying Cloud site. Lambert said they would propose a gravel parking lot for approximately 10 or 15 cars and then they would fence the area. The total cost might be in the $40,000 range and is not in this year's budget but if the City Council directed staff to proceed with this off-leash dog park, staff would reassign money from other projects. Brill said he is a life long dog lover and has been to dog parks before and has seen some of the things that have been going on. Brill said he understands both sides. The Cedar Hills Park site is a nice piece of property, however, he doesn't think that should be the ultimate and end use of it.Brill said he does not feel that safety is the number one issue. The issues are noise, loss of wildlife, aesthetics, erosion and smell. The Flying Cloud site would be small but is something they could use and manage. Brill explained that using the hockey rink sites is a progressive idea and is a good option. Crain said he feels one of the parameters is the location of the dog park being away from residential properties. In looking at the other sites it appears that the proximity to residential areas seems to be the real critical piece. Mackay said he agrees that the /6D- PARKS,RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 11 hockey rinks are a progressive idea if height is added to the fences or dog size is limited. Mackay said he is concerned with the Homeward Hills Park site. The dog owners have to walk through the playground to get to the hockey rink. Mackay suggested they consider putting an off-leash park in Cedar Hills Park away from the homes near the parking lots. This area will not be ready for a couple of years while the hockey rinks would be ready sooner. This would allow them the experience to build toward a plan that might include Cedar Hills. Gerst said he does not have a problem with the Flying Cloud site and would recommend going ahead with that site. Gerst explained that in general he is in favor of a dog park and he would suggest they use a hockey rink as an experiment. He does not feel that they necessarily need to do all four rinks this summer but should try one and at the end of the year review the use of that rink. With regard to Cedar Hills Park, Gerst said he agrees that it is one of the prettiest parks in the City and he does not feel that a dog park is the best fit for this area. Gerst said he would also recommend that the City push the Three Rivers Park District for an off-leash dog park at Bryant Lake and to also look at MAC for another site or even consider an area at BFI. Jacobus explained that he is not nervous about the dogs once they are in the hockey rink but is more concerned about drawing more dogs to neighborhood parks. He stated that he is against having dogs in parks that are designed for kids playing and participating in sporting events. Schaepe stated that he also agrees with the Flying Cloud site. It is an industrial area and is ideally suited for this. Approximately 2,500 letters were mailed to residents and they only received 4 or 5 calls. He said he agreed that they should try the hockey rinks on an experimental basis for this year. Schaepe said he too cannot see Cedar (Tills Park as a dog park and that site is not appropriate for such a use. An unidentified person from the audience asked who would enforce the requirement that dogs be on a leash until they are in the hockey rink. People do go to that park to play and have nothing to do with dogs. Lambert responded that any dog owner can go to any park in Eden Prairie as long as their pet is restrained with a six-foot leash. There are people who currently break the law in parks throughout the City. Staff feels that if off-leash dog parks are provided to those residents, they will be less likely to have their dogs run unleashed in the parks. Motion: Larson moved, Jacobus seconded, to recommend approval of the Flying Cloud site as an off-leash dog exercise area. The motion carried, 8-0. Motion: Larson moved, Mackay seconded, to recommend that the Mayor write a letter to the Three-Rivers Park District to urge them to support an off-leash dog park at Bryant Lake Park. The motion carried, 8-0. /63 PARKS,RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 12 Motion: Barrett moved, seconded by Schaepe, to approve the hockey rinks at Crestwood Park,Homeward Hills Park,Nesbitt Preserve Park and Edenvale Park as off-leash dog exercise areas as per the study report for the forthcoming season and to revisit this use in December. Jacobus asked if the surrounding neighbors had sufficient time to respond to the letter sent informing them of this use. Lambert responded that the notice was sent out Easter week and it was also in the local newspaper. Crain asked if they should look at each rink and its location to play structures. Lambert explained that residents can walk on those trails with their dogs on a leash right now and they will still be required to have their dog on a leash until they get into the hockey rink. Mackay said he has concerns about increased dog traffic. Lambert responded that if the City Council approves this proposal, there will be five off-leash sites in the City. Having five or six sites will make these parks more successful than having just one. All sized dogs will be allowed at these sites and the City will construct higher fences at the hockey rinks. Jacobus asked if they were asking for trouble by allowing all types of dogs. Barrett said if there is a problem at a particular site they can shut it down. Lambert explained that the owner is still responsible for any damage to any other dog. There are issues and they will be using these sites as an experiment. The investment being made to increase the height of the fence is minimal. Gerst asked if they need to address the number of dogs. Lambert explained that this would be difficult to control. This is something that will probably take care of itself. Vote was called on the motion with all members present voting aye except Jacobus who voted nay. The motion carried, 7-1. Motion: Barrett moved, seconded by Jacobus, to recommend denial of the request to utilize Cedar Hills Park site as an off-leash dog exercise area. Mackay said he thinks they should consider using a portion of this site for an off- leash park. Vote was called on the motion with all members present voting aye except Mackay who voted nay. The motion carried, 7-1. Motion: Gerst moved, seconded by Barrett, to recommend that staff continue investigating other possible sites in the City for an off-leash park area and to investigate possible sites with MAC and BFI. The motion carried, 8-0. B. Cedar Hills Park Plan Lambert explained that the Cedar Hills Park plan did include an area for an off-leash dog park. That dog park will now be eliminated from this plan if the Council supports the «y B 1 ' f /1(9-ti iOn .2141/9t'iba? *a, 30044-4 OP R wqni- eti?:1 1).wit4-• oc4//' a19.45or/40004 t6arg.., _ 100 u). aP'a- ta7 6/..--e4r5 6/ 40i-,=111 � �o�/�oGo'- Pwr� C,Vaul� be ah_541, 49,4,. f=1/4,,., 740 P/11" Pte.- 0 5 & I ke, ni5 Gire,o l s heg( 6311I '74170 akilloir-;ii 01-J Rdey- R 615.‘L. 1 6 5 ,..=.., - _ . 1 , ,--''_., , .,:.,, -- ,......'-4. i .404a ' 4 i I- lj • i " „..... , -..". t.Ye...-. ...4...'• I • k ,..." ...___ J-----' s....... .....t.. „...P.1 1 • '1'-t" 1 ...,--"-.1 "r L...., - .,...,t. ' '....4......, '''..' - .7 ‘i''''''''-,-• 11 .,.........--- N.- ... i a( r, - .k. -.1 '"'' - I 74 I .,•-...r.‘ ''''''S t.P."...... )./....,___ . -----"--:----,,-•• :--.---'1 r:.--;`-',',*...-,1r-_,;;;;1 .i. _7:-7,1":,7-1---,'- ...„,--::...--„..-- • ,_:.,,,,,:`.-",,:,:-.-..---.:----',.):7*-'-,..7;4,-.;-,..%-__:-.... ..-2,:--'-";----:,'..-.' ...-... ) •-- .:- ::-,.'-. -),-,'„. . ., , . „ ..:' I - _„,...-...t-,J---,,..-:,,,,,,-i.). ,,,.:-.7,1cr. _ z...,,..• _-- . ,,1,.:)'-‘ -- fil -„`-,-,11,:. , ..-;,;::: , '•-•-.. -," ..,),'-.'''':,•',4.--''•• ,._, .....-.414 4.-''''... ...'••7- q .,-„,,,,,,,-,4,„;„ ,.;,, ,,,.,_!. .. .r-.:,. )..,„,i,. .,.,,r. . ' i.:,•',. ,- -,.-$"2.., 1...-;!.1":-- '' ''gy*4--'''• ' . ..- .. .....c•:. :.',1.‘;..' ,.-' ''. ..,'''.4 '''' • ' - --"•••••".. .•"•—..., ' ' '•"'C.''.i.,!,•4•'.; '... ''''";--".„,„„- -- -..........,....4... .,,,_,4,, IP , , ........7--.., -',: 4.:..;,,,,....1.,%. j.7.•''' $17..- -,.......':-.•••:-.1r4.. ...44.:7434;;Y417/4•11:'.it:''i ' - - ..'1- -..t1-•- ir.- 4:•'1::"" :'4/ ' ..- ...... --'."".."--- -*•,:-----,4.. 1 i i 1 l' ,zilj 7 . • t .,i. 1 ...-7, •. ... I (..x . .,.... . ... ,.. ....,-; r-. r) Q•17---N, . :. /, .: . ,.., , 1....-•,..• „...........• ... :. : k.....,.4 /; •••‘• •\.st '.,, '? J '-,,• 7,- • 1.-- ,,.• t / . . 1 S loc.. i.4•••• 4, .., . .. 1.• • •,.,., . . , ,.... • ....„: ,....• \ , , ...,,, . • , „.••,: ,.. t , , t 1.,., , 1 ' - ' k_.. i. ,,. ',,- - '-- — ...1 . .. ik.-1 . . , • ..f .4.1.,, .. . . ,... I btt.'4. .---- ‘ . .....,..... .....i. 1 ' I II 1(' ' I 2 II kik:04- ;Q.,'r k . . Nt r'N t, ,. -..-----(..__-\.("\---- .,c .._..ve........ / .1. -'i.-'" k \,..,..._._.......-,L_...,...*-- --;arc, I 1,11‘;‘•'r's IN \\,, . / 1. . ...............--........_ . ................. ... _.,. /' ...• : N '..,... .., AN \ m...... Aga'.44'74.‘ e:• Ip/5 'en41. 61t . ... .5. 71/ VI? V.,... 1::‘, i • L 4 i • • ;' • t C..... (9.... -.) ki\\ e3, ...,. • \z \ . Cf.' • ...A. ti. , ' v• ..,.. •T to:S.'6 C0.../ C.L.-I c1.,(: 0. ---1„-- ---- .... . ..1.. e•,..".4. • na....46u, 1 4 ..• /. ''''...2/Zi...f.... .=,,,., ..i................icht.4"*„...r.f......-4erIr,, ......4<r"""`•.••••=•,....... f*jj...11 la , : c ''' ' . %.........0"/ • %.,...)--• < I -:.•:-::::.-- 1 E....7- p : ---.. - :i: 29 ,,....., i.,-, ..t....„ ,fl ( )f ..(7 i .....,. .........,..? ,.„..:;-..) t ..- • , • / ____,...,d L a ....../kr -... - ‘. 4.....,; -J if i / 'If , 4 '' , ...4 •••,......• i . •i . ' ,......v-- w_.-- t , Li,/4 etearc •• •- _ /66 ....I • r ., -..I I , . -1 i •' s.4.:A '..L.,'" Nr.4 40.• „.,.. i ' - _ -.1, ‘; re1/44-\ d•->,' '1..odir-i• . 4 1.)___I """) 7-21 -41:47#' ' 0 -*)i 161-.1 . t‘ if) 1)17.67Ar -- i - -31 i / -..,,..„,./...., . ,-)• ,...., c , .. ., ... ) ‘....1 ,...,0 fr.•1 . . - . 36 , - iv/ : •P ., , t 0 r 0 y - ,'....'=4i'-'w'''''''' . / 7 I .' ' 4, _..., ,,,,,,,.., f,., • L /),1 ... ),A"trailEgi.,_ ...,-i ..., 0.40.. .. ... .....,..___: 4- i . 1 i •, .''''' '''''-='"-'''''''''''r'''S.:"'"''''...1,,,,,,,,..N.,,,, ‘I . % ke•-•b-,.01.:r•H'-r-,1)it:L• gt „ •y ‘7\....1\...4.... .• I' v 4'. V..., • • • ' '14••=., • ---- . 'S! ii .1-'5,:: .-;,':i.'•'. Ar":-.. •-"' . ... , --- . r -.:..- ,•'...',. r,.---;- ". - .. .... . . , . . . .., I t-4 4-4 ,z„.: • . .= IL :.• . , _ f.•••,.'4 '... !,i.....s. _ '• „:,...;-'; ! i' 1.! f--77 ;..,;1 1. , .4..' ,. ,... •.. t ,.....---- .7 . ,,7 .1.....' i . . ' e 1. •., L iptiwtr,a, ... ,. . .„ . ,--,-y.. .... ,. ... ...,,......_,.. . ..... t..., ., ,...... , . ,,it ., ,. ..: .-,..„.-,,,.:,,,:ii.,,, ,....,. , , f., • --: . ,,, ....„ ,...L.k.....(... .- ... 45(.5-e,_ „,...-.. ....., :,.,.....ti 4,.. , , . , ....• . ,.. ,.. ..., ,,,• •„....„,.,.. .,, " . ..5,5 1 , ... .. . .: : :••.....,„_,.. , ..„ . .„ ,-/- „. ,. ,. ..... , . ... ... -7 1 ... • . t-.- .'',...•. , ' . , . .. - • • . 'IA', r• 1 .... • ,..., g,,,, ,,•,:. _ . - • . /6-7- ....... ,. .... t.f- (..... -----„, .., _ -....._,- ; i r , . . ,,, ,./ . ._.. . ,....... . .„ . i .. . (...c (---1 • ii6A '.' ,'' 4-''' . ., -- _,_ _....•.. ".- - _-. i r—_-_. ,••---, 4, . . .......--.., c..r.".7.--) / 1 „:„•-•:-..., ,e!" ,,,..(7..-• . / t ' ' ' ( /1-'''---.-k.„...(...,'..,frfi:,./2 •-..-,r . •,,, ., L.C. (sC—; ' . i ........• . .,. : -.,, ; ....„ 4 ',./.-1., ' li i 1 ' . . • 1{VD17.--s9 , (qt....,:\:\ N 1 . .1' • -,..' .• ( . . ? c. • . .. • 4....... ., ,,, : !..,. . . . 'Roz.k...... ...._...7 ,,r.... , 2 -,, 1...- • N4'‘.----'•••••-- ( .k.--- .-1-t e"—.;.,i, 1,:,) „, • 1 :-4. 1 ,,,,)•-•-• • 7...--...: ---1 ;''''N.`(..."., l f k .. I k,..._,/- - '.., '`,,, I " . . .,, . . —7 )-2. , i 01/11/11Pb ,...,-- -• (LI . T., „. ,.. _. .. .. .. _ . ) . • ...„.. t :.•• .,„ , „....... -..N• ff-, ,. .,. .....„,!, ., L... ., , ,•• - ..,:. .. , , •\ , „., ,„ , ..,„ .., •,,..„ ,., t ! , ,,,.,...• , ..,,,,.,..,- ,,...c, 7 7 . . 1 c..1 . . . .3 (...........1 \ . . (........`,2\. , . . . L'1, . •t • '..7"") (L:3 c(...c,. ---,-7 /6..fe. . . MEMDORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council 0 From: Bob Lambert,Director of Parks and Recreation Date: June 3, 2002 Eden Prairie Subject: Off-lease Dog Exercise Area Petitions PETITIONS FOR AN OFF-LEASH DOG AREA The City received a petition with nearly 1,600 names(approximately 240 non-residents)petitioning the City for an off-leash log exercise area. PETITION IN OPPOSTION The City received a petition with 79 names from the Riley Creek Ridge neighborhood opposing the use of their neighborhood park for an off-leash dog exercise area. A copy of both petitions is on file for review;however,due to the lengthy nature of the petitions(72 pages in the petition for off-leash areas and 79 pages in the petition against),the actual petitions are not included in the packet. RAL:mdd 161 MEMORANDUM To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission - ( ) From: Stuart A.Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources (._ Through: Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks and Recreation Eden Prairie Date: May 5, 2003 Subject: Supplemental Information—Resident Responses to Letters Regarding Off-leash Dog Areas of Hockey Rinks and Proposed Off-leash Use of Other Areas Staff sent out nearly3,000 letters to the residents around the four neighborhood parks, as well as the residents adjacent to the potential off-leash area on Flying Cloud Drive and the proposed Cedar Frills Neighborhood Park. The following breakdown indicates both phone call response and e-mail response the staff received in relationship to that letter. The phone calls either came in via voice mail or were individuals who talked directly with staff and indicated that they were unable to attend the meeting but wanted there input recorded. In addition, several people indicated that they were also . unable to attend the meeting but chose to send in e-mails for specific sites and those are attached to this memo. Cedar Hills Park—220 letters mailed Phone Call Response In Favor 0 Against 5 E-Mail Response In Favor 0 Against 0 Crestwood Park—513 letters mailed Phone Call Response In Favor 2 Against 3 E-Mail Response In Favor 1 Against 0 Edenvale Park—560 letters mailed Phone Call Response In Favor 0 Against 2 E-Mail Response In Favor 1 Against 1 Supplemental Memo May 5, 2003 Page 2 Flying Clond Drive Site—143 letters mailed Phone Call Response In Favor 1 Against 0 E-Mail Response In Favor 0 Against 0 Homeward Hills Park--771 letter mailed • • Phone Call Response • In Favor 0 Against 0 E-Mail Response In Favor 1 Against 0 Nesbitt Preserve Park—740 letters mailed • Phone Call Response In Favor 0 Against 1 E-Mail Response In Favor 2 Against 1 Total Responses 21 • Area Maps Park Commissioners requested that the staff supply maps of each of the neighborhood parks where off-leash use of hockey rinks had been recommended by the task force. Attached are aerial photo maps with the various park facilities and amenities labeled. The Snap for Crestwood Park however is not an aerial map since that is too new to have aerial flight information for. .Attachments: Copy of Letters Sent Regarding Off-leash Use of Parks, SAF:mdd • • 3` • • April 8, 2003 . TO: Cedar Bills Park Area Residents Dear Property Owner: Recently, the City of Eden Prairie completed negotiations with the Metropolitan Airports Commission for the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport. As part of that negotiation,the City and the Metropolitan Airports Commission agreed to a long term lease agreement for 42 acres of land located on either side of Riley Creek, west of Eden Prairie Road. A map of the proposed park and its designated uses can be found on the back of this letter. You are invited to attend a meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission • to comment on the proposed park plan at their May 5, 2003 meeting. You will note the park plan provides for a northern and southern access point. The southern access point is the main park entry and will provide parking for 42 cars. There is a soccer field, basketball court, and playground area. The northern access point will provide a small park shelter on the tdp of a wooded knoll and parking.for approximately eight cars, as well as...a secondary parking lot for 14 parking spaces, which would be the main parking lot for entry to an off-leash dog exercise area. The off-leash exercise area encompasses approximately 15 acres • within a five foot high fence and approximately one mile of soft surface walking trails. There is an eight foot asphalt trail connection from Shetland Road to the main park area, as well as a connection from that trail to the off-leash dog exercise area. There is an additional proposed access to the off-leash dog exercise area from Valley Road to the north. There has also. been a request to consider the off leash dog exercise area as a disc golf course. Commission members will be discussing the merits of the various proposed uses at the May 5th meeting. You are invited to attend the meeting and provide input in that discussion. If you are unable to attend the meeting, but would like to provide a comment oh the'proposed plan, please feel free to contact Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural "esources, at 952-949-8445. Stuart will forward your comments to the Commission for their consideration. Sincerely, • • Robert A. Lambert . Director of Parks and Recreation RAL:mdd - Cedar Hills Park - CONCEPT PLAN CIA► FIRRI!' f,'illeif/ .n' •,,- sr - _"-. Yt 1 —a;} �A- -- , 411/ 1 / ' r _ - Landscape SArehltel • ��` r : .. \ t l ".:r, ,',6 . {— i w..p.m rxnr au.r .h%�.;-.... r�' '.�r• ' •^��T� �1 • \ j ` • .ril ~1,---,c s"`•• •\� °��'''i""�' •r'{r 1:_ 'r•`�-fix o>°`:, u,.x'iac's„'i-m w., .1,1.3 • ,..-7"- i LI tl..,•z10. 0�IMNIF � � Cl, \�' � I. 5 •r^P.. e.r/r r--.* y 1 r � 'r_. ., i �Ill� \'' �\ GWED-413-EA \ ,\S� \��• ` \ L...s�._�I Y,.• 7Ice 1 / X. i a fil g•.;\;,,1� ' \ pa ;a j j N\ss. — ,,, - i-• — )s .) ; -4111E PPE li.---......; \. ... 7,4011.1k i rt.' ' /# ime. f _ } r l'�o j tE ....> f!; ®� © �'��, i ,; ;• `F \`___L •,., :1-.4....•—•:,h,. ..r " ��0 i 7 f'7,,'Ja ;r CEDAR'+'}1 '� �'��r ' .`;j.. li";.1,,, /r, „ r' ''.•^ ♦Y`mKING,$PA - / FOREST O.w , �, t !if j '*'_ .,,\�- a .`- t 1-;.?" •::.,�-- ! lt ../ ..6 r' �, -.�� fc (/ • �,`� �--�",,,N��n V fit' , -:.._ ' „ �,ER PARK • �� r• fr �.� ■ , ,. ►1)'': !� ; I `! /jfJJf ..•;„i► 10 4 3F+ , Fry ✓ .lrr : ' ri,. ``i �. �� `to l•7q( .JA /l i�//���% fr•.Sra- T • I '•`%F �r .7 ;i A 11 r 1, rt j /�.,- �r,/rlilliN � f / '��1' i"'' .� ,�-.-��,,� #a'�'•` i ; /i 3'1%%F ®EPI PflA•,,. � ' � /,pry �ptG' ` r • r'"r )\" ,tr• :1, .. li' � y� ir' r r�/'�/ �q $p7A�� * `• • ia'r Jli-- ---.:� "`�•-• w: \L L� Q � \i! ) ( r. t r r,%r,/- i i i'fti'_ --i ,/• '.%�'�,,j r POND i:�^��w� f \ \:• 3. 1. 4}; 7-- J rf/ r f'ri': % c ":, \� _-' t` •� ,. �J \�\ \\\\ \\' .y. `\ /yyrty^7 aMIf�( r . ."•- 5>�''i •• k' Y • ��� \\ \�\� ���• '1..y\�• �Mi`lil•�Yl ^FIIIIt / ' _ ;.,r I. I 1,'= \, 1 \\b ��•\\`�-„Ik*�` .44 (I! ',( . 4 /. !EPL c a� '!.•\\�` '.`\ \\��\ �L c��: �1 'F� /7 �� �3iafNQ ' `^gi ,tiS ••-I `"tea -a^•' 1 `\, ..\ • \�\ ft, V 1 }(t jl i t--"=�••�.��� "'�+�•-'_`^�" ?-}��•• •:� \ \tom_- . r. . \ � ,iu qiL •• ••-,, .„ ,,.•,y, : ( '/ 1 � �..: :. ;. ; - f/ r�� 1 ��= I n K.� A! J ,s �� ;�::,. � V ,firf,-,,'�, {{ ��'( f l``fC�� 1f r• ! ) }. 1 I tr y3 r ral 1 i ,�•,W try/./ P GR . 9 i.v„k. fit�, 7/>rif , t,( t y.' , /;. (r� 1 f1,i° •f �' .,-/./. ;It ,iiiplit -, A�`\� f '/be t • 111` \s.,y:f 1 � ! • N•,:../-•,• ;Y„M., /.///•/!�� N a J `V�`•__ _ .L'"' �i �•, f�• �I,• it\ .c•1"I ,fir 'y �;' rr ,�-,%:%'r'%_,,�•,�`'"' t „ �� .`'.�,�� ._._�.o.,rr.�5 � ; 1l ,•,..�,. \.\\\ `\ Sl E r.: ? „ =�:a;,;,,p;'r,, / .. ,''trlc•' +' '"�.^ M�i� a a ) S °tij,�. 1 \`\,C,;' \ ti�' t \ ., .... `; Na° '"'•• •:.,•',.r•. '.,'r669,Fr.,,A. .r"\p'�\. .'�„'...t. .. yeelli riisiYsr�MMbters1in'aW1�fl�iLr''_.....�."„ t\ -y,�`{•+�. ).,),,, li`\ L ir F'i 1 . .t 1.11\ \. o\v.\\\ Sml• In /u/ 0 100 200 300 1 • • • • • • 173 • April 8, 2003 - . • TO: Residents within the Service Area of Crestwood Park, Edenvale Park, Homeward Hills Park, and Nesbitt Preserve Park• ' Dear Residents: Recently, a Citizen's Committee was appointed to evaluate potential sites for designating off- leash dog exercise areas throughout the community. On April 7, 2003, the committee submitted its report to the Parks, Recreation and -Natural Resources Commission. One of the recommendations was to designate the hockey rinks located at.Crestwood Park, Edenvale Park, Homeward Hills Park and Nesbitt Preserve Park for use as off-leash dog exercise areas from March 1st through November 30a'each year. These facilities are presently not used for any other use during that time period, and it would be a place people where people could allow dogs to run off-leash within a confined area. The hockey rinks have sidewalls and gates that are four feet high. • You are invited to attend a meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission on May.5, 2003 to participate in the discussion of this proposed use. A final recommendation will be submitted to the City Council in June of this year. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission meets at the Eden Prairie City Center, 8080 Mitchell Road, in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. If you are unable to attend the meeting, but would like to comment on this proposed use, please • feel free to contact Stuart Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources, at 949-8445. Stuart . will forward your comments to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Commission for their consideration Sincerely, Robert.A.Lambert Director of Parks and Recreation RAL:mdd • I7y 41 3a x ',15011 V� £ x 5•1— 2.1 o. x �x��x� ),i k 65.i P.6B S tIS )• ) )/ as s lz 13 NC: ` ) )u I 4 • ai ) ) ! ))I �L i i° I� 1' CO al IJJ. 111 • • 'VL•lfi1 �■ l� iY I� I II 7�.. co .. I n,. ,.' . ai _ e• . 0 . €.I 1 . It I Ir,el .=c'in at I oIII�. Io ' IIu. I il• 4.1 -32 00.061. Cti � is "41, 0.......; 4. {zt rt. ..., . . . . ,,, ,..... • c 1111. I .11 � n 4,. � I I.1 Iea f;II. 1 i• • _ ill: 1 '1 sY,. I 1 .S...............f . P 1 / / 1n • , A, .LSS,QZ.68 SLi it 1 ♦.:. co ., J ^N Ed envale Park • , ish•' - - - .F ^Y i ,_ - ' f l .1 1 .tom ,. ::-.i.-.: '-,',.3.: ' - '''''- '..'7,'• , -",:, ' •_' , .. - ._•_ - , ', --,'- - --4•• , - .''''. 1iY-- 1. ' - { ' a 1 1 - • I 111 S 1 ra r Kr L i - •r s North ÷ • I -16 Homeward Hills Park . _ • _ . _ . • _ • _ , . . • _ • , • _ . . . • • •• . . . . . . . . � •• is �'.y 'I .�,` � ��', , ,j • • . _ • • . • . • • _ _ • _ . . . North T • Nesbitt Preserve Park ., . . . . , _ ., . . . • • . .. . . • • --„,• . • ..,.... ...• „- ...,.....- . . . -‘:„ :.:... ... • ..... .. „7.„ ,:-.,-.....:,-„.• , , -, • . .'. • •• f • is - _ 'i. . • •• - •- • i i lk�•,%. <::. 't' • • . • - _ _ . s�i• •''.••;'^ •i {, ;4 T' ph 'J,i. °"^V, - - - _ t. .t" ,'sa r' iy;`i tr. is _ { }f 11 S� �• 44 ` • n•f 1'Ji. •ii,.fi ri1S - 4�� .� '• .K�. _ - �.. y!, Sc : , • • .',,...12 { K~ t 9;., 0_ I .1.. +4 i:t1'• t, •1. 7 "�'•A Yij ' • • • r • o ��. • <l 'i— •f ib' lit.- 1.-"'"yi-ir- _ ' •_ _ - , • t ---' : _ —_ - ' ` • • q _ r North 1 • 0= .y .• ,,, O a a :n fJ..-. • z nJ 0 m _ n ..r.� . %ate a 0'50. 5 = ....I-5.. n;3 -' c= ,0. • E� t°--- -- cyaaaczv0 a-.0 . � I- y30 oU � � o o ' 0'� nm� ogoII°0a aU0 Du' _�gy ; o • �C oa " a0ioi cOsj0 yaEaO'yocsw �Cly mGona, c>Joo� ^oa7 lLãiillllfl 77: .-- m `"�� 00�^ `� � m-^ G � cTh �` n ca 4. 0.o.,o aUi .O �g w n.o o?d!iflj1flui a" 0 'a�3n a c ^Y" o t.' hA o p O ,^7 7� �� C.,� pr. 0 rom a'y. `ay Q � "O•�� p• �y .�y� za aiO3C7� Oaio _ t� _ o :a' c cJ 3 o :o. a >.� q y' a.^. o ,, ., O ,t,s-• cs c m O. -s p,o xr . aUo .C � o s ?0c oaten ^ an� ai0 0 0 0•o•vo�G-0. �0.. m .:gA- ano0_ tn - U p. 0 0 003. >, 8 oLO = a„Td ' 5.oCIoo o<40O >,c a.,IIiiI Er c.'• a' a A 06 U. m C�.> �= m x� c°.o�� o o. : y �� o a� a+. U twU a c t� c t' 3 0 • w� cs c�c a . p..O 3�«0 cJ b O as o a. of .. .:y..::ft, • ?. -":,_ ,':,:. a•7::w.....G m p 0 O '"•"' 0 a) rn ¢,•O 0'0 ^ w.b .• �c F�: '"�--r.ic: _.`•,'_ ..:1.:?'1,s"T�.' ss.:.li ^'•4."^ of'�7 O.+ y 0 O �.. - h.:;`. ;,r•� •.,,i-'�.:.i• xc.:•t,,s+m%f t-••:. i:. M_i..: m II o .0 up 3 e.� _ -,t.,-,;1,;...►`I: r`,c.1,'.,5•.•.`'i}'r :'T'`,•n-=: g`t"'_FV!.._.+;"1 _ , e-,r.„:'�'O et U cn'vyi Z y' co c�+. d _O p .• I.•.fib - 0 d U O .:c';xi-'-;..: -� _ _; `.`•�... fli 5 C y 5 �. n Q 0 CU �' ',d - a .:��iT r.'.f.-'r,' r-,;�''=' ^,�`,'' `' -L• g 'w7 „T C X). .� {�S1 z ;YR�_ r.u.:"-.,:', ,,r7.:�;`F,;..'' M''!r% v;<»+9 .�'-," g .8'LI o 0 ++ ;Si O ., p 8 cff.„' et �17)• „e.r. ss,.tr•: .:_y;,... .- s O m m y O a'U m -. m� +-' al 0 0 en�. f 4':.;Y,c < ..,,.y',. •, Mtf;',: ..; = < L'a *'] q '� 'r-'�+ ..,-a id to 'C U 0'O .d O W ,t_�a''- ;; i=`�1Y...L`= .!� s�-L' :..: `ir.A�,:rt:: 'a toy cd. N a y N �. '^ CAC y '", .�O L:'O'• cn ^•?.71:%;; -' .x:'..- i. _�;&`- ,•.-Qc.,-r,,f:• -c,y i w y cm o'p.� 0'C cca '- . c.) a o aa ca•-• cC o .. p y o r am_:-:=>.--,N ;.,.•,. ••'.a ' --;:d: • ,, :a.0 o p v3 a3 ,.. •o m 0 a) a�+ r� m ,n .. ,. --:^,rid:`^i.,1tt._y..,',--.`.:4;;Tx:,1.r.f..t':•**.'.1 ,:4 : '7t;•'a,''! • p '�. .0 Ow.+ , .O. UU' �0 y�+.O',.. p'0 N.. G"G,II Ci :f' : •;!''-r''-V�rC-,,'°7 r�.5yy-:.�. ...s� r a ,�%.7 oy1 ^' W N pp co_ a) i. «! `.-G a. .�, y r-, ;fit-1'. E•; g..:„, 'c.-r•ceE.'S'4E+.'' ,'-'0 0, ° a� tw o -sue - a� 0 4,_ co y. • y' ;.:�?r`�'r 4' (R _ -•s. 1,. r.•l. .� m y o c� 0 y a b P. n • r+,.'3i,I"�f .,�'�� •V':'3 - i :, 1. �._=:V-t.;y•., `;i?' y"4 •N' '�.O ".a.d4'+'•'•> O be'b m O 0 N >, .n O 4 �� esx,1. "?+a�' t i 4... s=.' .. U a o >_ U a y two at >.`n - '"i^t x�R },; r'y,.1 Wit';:+Pta �' . y W p p [Tn to is -r"^7 tK .... ,, . ,,• 'h: 'u.'7"r a� 01 O N at s. O w _ :� �;., � � 1.�,e.,r_...-�1=;�-:'' �° �:�:j,~�;','.;���s;^s,•r,`r. � p„s� o � o 'ct� � �':�•O 1� COo ` �`~` ^t'G '{.`'. j+�.31>. '.'. ,.� - .r.•' mN �.4. Q. a �,- .[�-a CJ I' ;'_° •,,arm' Y:'t,,-r 4 ,:.:Txa± r!-y.. ;P:..?:•;y�+-4r,-,,,4*,�. s.%.., ' :ixr,•".'�;+"wai^'1; •r y';,'lt+'.H`rl`'-"•.•,a: �.."'. y,.. 0 a , 0 "uy 1 t.: V :,it;' - nymr;, stt;;, = :e f� , v; Ri >•• a�'� ,,.0 t.• O. y Ti m a ..a.Ck't;,•NCAe' ',I, -t•-- s i _ ,r .24.11.'rN•S O > "i as.o O -4 GO c4 U n ... i ';.1.,,,, �_. r .,,,m,.,vq •J-S;. v, y °o y ,.[ ..,�0 -o.` �y - as 0 0 0 rn= :::r:'•- Y; -:+r1 u... •'. `:'tier _1:r,t„R-1`,;1 C'y 0 GOO cn.c,��L' to O .0 0 w >.� r. y .;.,==..,�'• ' -,'.`•.'"., _ '4,... '••',7,.�tS: .= rN cJ o >+ a p O .y-• +a '00 try O U 5 l I>t rH 3 ti?f'_ .r.5Y r,'",,q u, '� .d y t-, a)^ O o-o ra- n.5 0 0. a' La'. O'C,( ,a 8 la ,1 �.(,F.. i; ';; t4,€; �! s. t i i a)w a]O P O N • • I• 111-17i:".:i..�•.`{,:•..'A-n• ,F'.G iA t„? m+ 1-.' fp. bn,h) al �u O 4] 49 m-r,p . •'Y.0�c,;�:1 '. fF'aa.;•,• :a.gc7;F,: : ,v, t a+.:n c0 bA �'+� cd �-, 4�-,y-, w r. y A r�i ',••"'-u::=3x,1"y.; r rt.; r; r_S;iirGaYr t J,,;r `; .0_ "'�'OC a0 --, •o m moan ai '. vt c2 _0 �;. m g o. . . ill . .1t,,,.,.�• .::ate_y'ii...aµ,.,::- ' -e'•"- 'y.3- ,.t7-ti.-I' 04 a) m 'y'-'U v, O c. y0'. cv,�f ca' O c.7 r.,'' �• ;,�'; „s•;G-. ,t'.�o-��• ,.e,,� .",,y'.?•;L,t ;•i:]y.1+.J bq•Q) .� " q to c0 0'•...4E1 .F .,.4;Y. }tr i d„'.:• ^',�C'de=...Yia'�'ay irl n, t''`�it.y. 7.5:.- 8 cd D 0 ai 0...0 q' U� . , " 4 i47',.,'Ol• e�=mr4�r;....1 i 1 ,++ y a. .= h ,nit 0,`.'� m•�ram-' sy.,.t0 U'a H p'�� R.�am 0 0 ai o 0 H 0 a0GOO b a) >.w.�" co j...,` ': u 'ja,"' 3 ,h; •" §ems p C7 0 0 at w a� .''f,9k:.:: '��$d•.''..c"'y�i;'Ya{�Y7.':^?E`a';i' i:r`��.,'` y p` a� �: y �' ow O E-� o ci �'C R, . lit ++ AV10 ?LVM S-I1 aM va c70 a0-.a+ o R.9 w o o .oc'.� ° t GO AAA - " �?. D yw o CIAO n n d . � OOEta yy " 'fl w EJ • o .° nqai . � qq comea - + � 0a .ti0; ' . • ' aa0,0 a >y w 627 y o �x � Ja Casa10�m � $ ' o iti •-••• 0 an 004 wU - 0 ' a biz,. a). 0 doava0ai a y 000 ya g a . I ? 016 IIa . 3 `' °_ 0 •❑� ai o Gam _ 03 CD w y CC eN 0 0a' to 5.Acn- 0y,0aYR yn '� x m� ca-._ w P.+. 7 C].3 • 0 x 0 2 ,� E3•� O-0 rq ,O,ri hOw�. [ a uii 8.- . c' ' >, - `., r ca3 a) o !3. va ClrO . RNA s >_ "Sa. on . y t 0;;tanp.0 0.2 3�0.;.', o 0 al p'Q o .,�d:4Y _C «;t� :�o E - b_A.� y N p•G caa~ , U y 0' *�' d , ,_ :>..ay' p, O . 1 ° v ��$ e�® c'j in ,'7.. •+'�w c� .^l- m m c�C c�a O G�, of c7 ,�i • .;-- .:..a� O N .-%0.0 a�'C •-. y .7 L,'TJ WV,{-,'cV tc1 ▪ y.0 0'N Q) N GA''-' •U +'7 a i Oj .4q-,-, )..+-', a?; u0 ai w °° • c3 8•5 0 w +� `td O , 0 au• '0 . 0.in a>i , g Ly y O +Cl a� 04 o'ra v^, ' ;-,q_, O C4 G, o. a, C 5 v GOO c�a pro >d o y en ,�{'d u 0 U cu- 0 U -, o ai z, o a' o m ,a;•.a ' -d c� 5 H ua m � 1 ,, 1 a' '+ o� y.v >. P.cc .a 0 8 . �`� a! 0-0 " ? o •cq•4 O c`, sz�:' m 0 ..,4 0 }' y x m c'� a� a)a m a� P.w bn q 0 0.> 0 • . u, 0 b; U. p. co'C a� Ey cn o 0 0 wt.") y y 2 p, e 0 o bD •>' GOO O O N U' v�. ..+ O a7 O II, U cp N o'� DDT.n bOD 'd ¢,N•c • U O.''-,U I • cci q '.,•^ 0.0 >- a' ® y U 1 q as o ca o m '. m `" ,:-, 0 o q at.9 ' a0i �p 0 m ')Pq '.. q ooZ ,. o Gn,. c7 d o a :o.'yy o']. aT3 v a. <� U N-• '., r L o n cC'bA + cd� Qa U" O C. C F «J ,�,' Q fi, 1 0 ) . 0.. t-t,'" io,L'a > c a .' 0. ' to ' a) c"'O m aN(�.) . `�3 >,a'.�'y 3.a, m �' �eT�� yn� 2 � aAo >~ � Gn ' t� ot� `�gaa� � � � ma3 „; f�� a' - abia �a� o ^i^'• O N •�.-, 8 , o ++ o 50, 0 o tr 0 y. o p O G,G.'. E' p,:-? y p o t7+� b d. C7 m o u �... r� a ai m m y ?r �a3i pw t1 �' y�o p r::'<clu bDaGn 0-, ,.... >,m= Ito p. Gn'� Gn aa. 3 o 'y"-' 2'b.�.0 p tac°-.- .2o•N 3- 0.0 azI. - . a) ,'., m• •0' 0 a) U .� N ,0 ., .,._. . 2 0 .C:u.^-.,yi, 3 - as 0 ' a ''. .-b ai c' [' i] GA y A . a >4 °: m 0• opo � m aAe y+.'a y 0 O' a' ' y a'cn"' O C� o A m P.W ,-a•ct .�-. �i 0 O'.y 0 a.'d' u' 0..,U O m ,7.5 G3.ti. .Q - U ?.U rW. -c.-2.4 "RI7:1m ot-� 9• o� >o q'd � A.m r3 >, 5) 8„0bi) Iil. p - i ai c. G ` ai m �� p - a' ` U cn a' o y o o cn a>.y [ �i p, t7 y o d Ls..' a> ,e a: or. '00o �� 0 m N 0 U •d E4 at•5 y. o bn Gn- ''�a"'it �07 '.6g 1-E 'a3 `-, U al 6 0 c� x a''� o cd� v' y -cai ��., �y '00 ciah� t�r�-, ybo �.]�' .� c� 0cu - >, •. ..;-,.mU w 'd•sq7 O ;0 O a, O 0•D,GO 0' a.O • vy y o' oa' a[i^ .�n A. ° ate' 8 a0Gom 0 �''' -o b `. o om •a roP.� o `-� • c ,- 0 d.• .A ^a, T• � �.4 Co oA•.°' "10 ' � � p .d.6 w 0 ,--F:�r=. y zi 5 0 0 0,v 3 p n y a Fs „'0 m a.� o �000 >v- ,.0qt. I c t�a.0 a.5-^°a O m.�.0 R y as y q R,p•�a. 'c7'm >+>ty q w at `a U p O l3.µa..u m atti v' �" U R 0d .;.. >•.. >,ai 0 C 0 ,. >-, 0 T��"' ia yOw 0 2•a'Vya � m a' F��, O ,.; ' � ycyyn 0� cd� � 0'wGtt 1y Np m} . ° a) 00� ,'.0. SS�7 w00 0 `9' of A'C) c° AQQ� 8o�qa414 gE c-�.'.:' n 6 O-..,•..b.--, a' 53 =.4 AO, W ■. c:y O 0 t. y s.. +' m t'+�O a) a,U m' w d, , '3.2 Q • 0 1 A �m � ... 0 q a. C1 p yo+. G1 w .' � a'r� a o - 0 Imo.. . r. ooy � m '°raw o o.�. °� Bob Lambert-OPPOSED TO DOG PARK Page 1 From: "Dave Kuhl"<DKUHL@mn.rr.com> To: <rlambert(rl�edenprairie.org> Date: 5/3/03 9:49PM Subject: OPPOSED TO DOG PARK Bob, I would like voice my opposition to placing the proposed dog park near any residential area, especially on the MAC property. My home is located on the east side of Shetland Road, butting up to the MAC property. I purchased this property with the assumption that the land would remain in a natural state. This MAC property is wooded and full of wildlife including deer, fox, squirrels, birds, and some animals that I am not even sure what they are. This area is peaceful and beautiful. My former home, since 1974, was on Crestwood Terrace butting up to the Riley Creek ravine .... also a fantastic nature area. I would not have picked this Shetland Road location for a new home if I had any idea that the future use for this beautiful area would be a dog park. The character of this land will undoubtedly change if it is fenced off and left for countless dogs to run around in. And I am concerned about the future resale value of my property. Bob, please work towards locating this dog park in a commercial or industrial area where it will not affect the lifestyle and property values of any Eden Prairie residents. Regards, Dave Kuhl ISa Bob Lambert-Proposed Dog Park Page 1 From: <dianewilkins@netscape.net> To: <sfox@edenprairie.org>, <rcase@edenprairie.org>, <pyoung@edenprairie.org>, <jmosman@edenprairie.org>, <sbutcher@edenprairie.org>, <dambert@edenprairie.org>, <ntyra-I u kens@eden pra i rie.org> Date: 5/2/03 12:39PM Subject: Proposed Dog Park Dear City Council and Park Board Members: Thank you for taking time to read my email regarding the proposed Off Leash Dog Park adjacent to the Riley Creek Neighborhood. I am writing to voice my opposition to this dog park. As a resident of the Riley Creek Ridge neighborhood and a mother of two small children, my concerns are focused around safety and and environmental factors. Any dog off a leash presents a potential unsafe situation.Also, people do not always clean up after their pets. This creates an unclean enviomment where diseases have been know to spread. Our vet recommended our dog be vaccinated for a virus that the University of Minnesota tracked back to a "Dog Park". Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion, and please take my position into consideration for your hearing scheduled for May 5. Sincerely, Diane Wilkins Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days! http://free.aol.com/tryaolfree/i ndex.adp?375380 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 CC: <rphillips1 @mn.rr.com> I3 ) Bob Lambert-Please read this regarding my concerns with the proposed off leash dog park in Eden Prairie Page I From: John Walker<jwalker@exlar.com> To: "'ntyra-lukens@edenprairie.org'"<ntyra-lukens@edenprairie.org>, "'jmosman@edenprairie.org"'<jmosman@edenprairie.org>,"'pyoung@edenprairie.org"' <pyoung@edenprairie.org>, "rcase@edenprairie.org'"<rcase@edenprairie.org>, "'sbutcher©edenprairie.org'"<sbutcher@iedenprairie.org>, "'rIambert@edenprairie.org"' <riambert@edenprairie.org>, "'sfox@edenprairie.org"'<sfox@edenprairie.org> Date: 5/4103 7:44AM Subject: Please read this regarding my concerns with the proposed off leash dog park in Eden Prairie To the Mayor, City Council Members and Park Board Members: Ladies and Gentlemen, I am the owner of an active Labrador retriever, and resident in the Riley Creek Ridge neighborhood in Eden Prairie. When we first received the letter regarding the proposed dog park adjacent to our neighborhood, my family and I thought it was a good thing, because,we used to live in Bloomington, and in our minds,we saw an area like the Hyland Park Reserve,with dog walking trails(on leash,foot paths) and the specific intent to preserve nature and offer the beauty of the wildlife as one of the wonderful aspects of using the park. We walked our dog there constantly. It is an on leash park, but is definitely as asset to Bloomington. Thankfully, one of our neighbors convinced us to go back to Bloomington, and look at the off leash dog park South of Old Shakopee Road. I am very glad that we did, because it has totally changed our minds. This is no asset to any city. I PLEAD WITH ALL OF YOU TO TAKE 30 MINUTES TO GO LOOK AT THE BLOOMINGTON OFF LEASH DOG PARK BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY DECISION REGARDING A SIMILAR AREA IN EDEN PRAIRIE. The Bloomington site is a complete eye sore. The ground is worn down to bare dirt, dangerous holes have been dug everywhere,garbage is strewn about, bags of dog waste are tied to the fence, broken plastic lawn chairs laid around the area. I can't imagine the disappointment in taking a beautiful area, like the one adjacent to our neighborhood and destroying it in this way. I would love a place for my dog to run off leash, but not at the expense of habitat for deer,wild turkeys, • pheasants, fox,wild flowers and many other beautiful elements of the wildlife that we have here in Eden Prairie. I would not want to see natural habitat of any kind destroyed for the addition of a dog park. For that reason, if off leash dog parks is something that Eden Prairie feels it has to provide, I feel that the hockey rink proposal, while not only being far less expensive, presents an alternate use for areas that are already void of wildlife, and are already contained with fencing. The cost estimates for the fence alone around the Riley Creek location are in excess of$80,000. Add to this the additional costs of the other proposed park items, and you have a lot of explaining to do to the families that now have to pay to get their children bussed to school, because as a city we could not afford to offer that service without charging for it. I love my dog, but my child's education will come before my dog's freedom to exercise off leash. Also, one more soccer field and a basketball court are • unnecessary in this region of Eden Prairie. There are many basketball courts that go unused most of the time (staring Lake, Dell Road, and Eden Prairie road to name a few that I pass all the time and never see in use), and there are more than enough soccer fields in this vicinity adjacent to flying cloud airport. I P- Bob Lambert-Please read this regarding my concerns with the proposed off leash dog park in Eden Prairie Page 2 In addition to the high cost of the Riley Creek Ridge site compared to the other sites, if the dog park is put in place here,you are going to have about 80 households of Eden Prairie dealing with a significant reduction in their property value if this park looks anything like the Bloomington Park. None of the other off leash parks I have looked into are adjacent to residents property. Penalizing our neighborhood in this way in unwarranted, and unnecessary when there are other options for providing of leash areas for dogs that do not impart this type of penalty on anyone. Our neighborhood has well over 100 children under the age of 10, and my wife and I are expecting our first child. The danger posed by a park of this type directly adjacent to our street is a very large concern of all of ours here in Riley Creek Ridge. We visited the dog park in Bloomington, and several of the dogs were poorly trained, and even if they were not a risk to bite a child, could easily knock a child over due to the nature of their behavior. Restricting access to certain ages of children in the park will not prevent the danger. In the first 20 minutes that we stood in disgust at the appearance of the Bloomington dog park,three dogs ran out of control outside the dog park. With 100 children living adjacent to the park,with access to the paths and entrances,we are asking for trouble. • I have also not found evidence that any other cities have installed off leash dog parks directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods, let alone, adjacent to the back yard property lines of some of those residents. It will be difficult to prohibit someone from allowing their children.to play in their own back yards, and the potential for a small child to be drawn to the fence by the running dogs, and getting bitten when reaching through the fence is extremely high. The proposal that the park area includes that which literally boarders residents property seems absurd to me from a safety standpoint. My property does not boarder the proposed site, but in just 6 houses across directly the street from me,there live 18 children who will have a backyard property lines adjacent to the fence and the site. The increased traffic an non-resident parking on our street will also pose an additional danger to our children. Our street is a long hill, and non-residents regularly drive too fast today. We have had several near • misses with children and non-residents driving too fast. Those non-residents presence in the neighborhood is infrequent. Now, with trail access to the park from our neighborhood,we will have increased traffic of drivers not familiar with the area, and an increased presence of dogs, off leash, in our neighborhood heading into the park. There will also be the intrusion and congestion presented by non-residents parking on our street. Saying that dogs will be kept on leash until they are in the park is an argument that can be defeated in less than 5 minutes at the Bloomington park. Dogs were regularly off leash outside that park. The Bloomington area is a flat site in•amongst an industrial region of the city. Surrounded by warehouses and other similar buildings. The ground is worn down to bare dirt. The Riley creek site has a great deal of elevation • change, and the area, obvious from its name, drains into Riley Creek! If the ground in this area is even remotely worn to'the same degree as the Bloomington park,the erosion and run off implications are serious. I would encourage the council and the board to take a serious look at this issue as well before potentially damaging this area. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this message. Although as a 1'c63 Bob Lambert-Please read this regarding my concerns with the proposed off leash dog park in Eden Prairie Page 3 resident of Riley Creek Ridge, my concern could be seen as a selfish effort to keep the dog park away from my neighborhood, I feel the issues are significant, and urge you to consider more than just the desires of the large group of dog owners who want an off leash park. As I stated earlier, I am also a dog owner,and loved the idea. That was until I saw the absolutely horrible conditions at other off leash areas. Please do not destroy the beautiful area of wildlife near Riley Creek. It is currently an asset to Eden Prairie. Don't make it a barren waste land strewn with garbage, holes and bags of dog waste. Sincerely, John Walker 9402 Shetland Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (952) 937-5721 ICI Bob Lambert-OPPOSED TO DOG PARK Page 1 From: "Dave Kuhl"<DKUHL@mn.rr.com> To: <rlambert r@edenprairie.org> Date: 5/3/03 9:49PM Subject: OPPOSED TO DOG PARK Bob, I would like voice my opposition to placing the proposed dog park near any residential area, especially on the MAC property. My home is located on the east side of Shetland Road, butting up to the MAC property. I purchased this property with the assumption that the land would remain in a natural state. This MAC property is wooded and full of wildlife including deer, fox, squirrels, birds, and some animals that I am not even sure what they are. This area is peaceful and beautiful. My former home, since 1974,was on Crestwood Terrace butting up to the Riley Creek ravine .... also a fantastic nature area. I would not have picked this Shetland Road location for a new home if I had any idea that the future use for this beautiful area would be a dog park. The character of this land will undoubtedly change if it is fenced off and left for countless dogs to run around in. And I am concerned about the future resale value of my property. Bob, please work towards locating this dog park in a commercial or industrial area where it will not affect the lifestyle and property values of any Eden Prairie residents. Regards, Dave Kuhl Bob Lambert-Proposed open dog park near Flying Cloud airport Page 1 From: "Richard and Jeanette Volz"<jvolztmn.rr.com> To: <sfox C edenprairie.org>, <rlambert Q edenprairie.org>, <sbutcher c edenprairie.org>,<rcase edenprairie.org>,<pyoung c edenprairie.org>, <jmosman 'dLi edenprairie.org>, <ntyra-lukens edenprairie.org> Date: 5/3/03 6:54PM Subject: Proposed open dog park near Flying Cloud airport Dear Community Representatives: I live at 9374 Shetland Road in EP (Riley Creek Development). I received a notice and read in the paper of the proposed sites for an off-leash dog area in ER Although an off-leash area may be needed,the Riley Creek area IS NOT the place for it. I took the time to see the closest off-leash area in Bloomington and what I found was shocking. It is set in an industrial park and has been destroyed ecologically by dogs. The trash bags for feces and misc.garbage blowing in the wind cosmetically give the appearance of what you'd find in North MPLS. This is not community I have spent years helping to build. Our neighborhood is a quiet, clean,family oriented area with+125 young children.Here are the 3 key reasons this site does not work: Safety: My first concern is for my children. I have a 5, 3, and 1 year old. The increased auto traffic and animals roaming in an area, not controlled by their owners, is terrifying to me. When we were at the Bloomington site,the owners sat and socialized while their dogs ran, barked, and tore up the area. With the terrain change in the proposed area, none of these owners were in physical shape to keep up with a roaming pet. Any breed of dog,trained in varying degrees, roaming in my back yard is not worth the safety of my children. An off-leash facility in a residential area is not acceptable for the liability it brings. Environment: The Bloomington park is a environmental eye soar and its only redeeming quality is that it matches its industrial park setting. Our area is environmentally diverse. The beautiful vegetation that prevents erosion into the river would be lost as the dogs trample/dig it up. This nature area connects us to the river valley and allows wildlife to flourish. The other day my kids saw a flock of wild turkeys moving through the brush. The birds, deer, turkeys, pheasant, etc.that co-exist with us in this area would vanish. It would become the preverbal fox hunt as barking dogs pushed out the wildlife. Although EP has a lot of man-made parks, we lack nature areas that haven't become soccer fields, jungle gyms, and bike paths. I don't doubt this is the most beautiful site it's taken nature 100's of years to develop it. Let's not take 5 yrs to destroy it as Bloomington has done. Please reject this as a potential site. Suitability(cost and scope): The shear size, and the adjacent/existing land use, calls for a better plan than an off-leash area to be utilized by the minority. The cost of a fence to surround the area alone puts this into financial default. I am amazed that in these tough financial times,we would consider a massive investment for the minority when the majority are seeing cuts in fire/police services, school buses, libraries, etc.. If we, as a city, can't stand to go another day without an off-leash park, please select one of the other sites. This would be more fiscally responsible, address the implied need, and be less impactful to its surroundings. PLEASE VOTE"NO", ON THIS SITE, FOR A OFF-LEASH AREA. 1Uo Bob Lambert-Proposed open dog park near Flying Cloud airport Page 2 Sincerely, Jeanette and Richard Volz 952-934-9393 I Bob Lambert-Re:Proposed Dog Park Page 1 From: Stu Fox To: Bob Lambert; dianewilkins@netscape.net; Jan Mosman; Nancy Tyra-Lukens; Philip Young; Ron Case; Sherry Butcher Date: 5/5/03 10:03AM Subject: Re: Proposed Dog Park A copy of your email will be given to the park commission members prior to the meeting tonight. >>> <dianewilkins@netscape.net>05/02/03 12:37PM>>> Dear City Council and Park Board Members: Thank you for taking time to read my email regarding the proposed Off Leash Dog Park adjacent to the Riley Creek Neighborhood. I am writing to voice my opposition to this dog park. As a resident of the Riley Creek Ridge neighborhood and a mother of two small children, my concerns are focused around safety and and environmental factors. Any dog off a leash presents a potential unsafe situation.Also, people do not always clean up after their pets. This creates an unclean enviornment where diseases have been know to spread. Our vet recommended our dog be vaccinated for a virus that the University of Minnesota tracked back to a"Dog Park". Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion, and please take my position into consideration for your hearing scheduled for May 5. Sincerely, Diane Wilkins Try AOL and get 1045 hours FREE for 45 days! http://free.aol.com/trvaolfree/index.ado?375380 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 for FREE! Download Now! http:1/aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adr?promo=380455 CC: rphillips1@mn.rr.com IFS* Bob Lambert-ACTION REQUIRED Page 1 From: "Alina Kasbohm"<Alina.Kasbohmcgenmills.com> To: <ntyra-lukenscedenprairie.org>, <jmosman@edenprairie.org>, <pyoung@edenprairie.org>, <rcasetedenprairie.org>,<sbutcherredenprairie.org>, <rlambert@edenprairie.org>, <sfox c@edenprairie.org> Date: 5/5/03 12:16PM Subject: ACTION REQUIRED Re: Tonight's Meeting I would like to respectfully ask your consideration in voting"NO"to the proposal of a dog park section in the proposed Cedar Hills Park. Rather than having this,we feel that it would be more beneficial to all if we could have a walking/biking limestone or natural trail throughout this area. Here are the benefits: 1. Cost of installation would be minimal. 2. Cost of materials would be minimal if kept in a natural state or woodchips or limestone. (Immediate savings to the city....no need to spend $80,000 on a fence or to monitor funds for it's upkeep) 3. More citizens could benefit from the land instead of just the dogs or those with dogs. 4. Less liability to all since the leash law would be enforced. Likelihood of lawsuits is reduced. (Immediate savings to the city) 5. Less maintenance. The"pick up after your dog"law is enforced. 6. Land is maintained in it's natural state. 7. Cost to maintain trail would be minimal. 8. Wildlife is undisturbed and not driven into smaller areas. • 9. Everyone would have full use of the trails year round since they would be perfect for cross country skiing, snow shoeing, hiking and walking of dogs. 10. More esthetically pleasing. Additionally,we would prefer not to have a Frisbee golf course in Cedar Hills Park. There is one already like this near by. It would be preferable to keep the grounds in a more natural state without having to cut down trees. This would also allow more people to use more of the park rather than just designated areas of the park. By keeping all areas open to all people, our main desire is to have a park that will be used, shared and enjoyed by a greater populace. Thank you for your consideration and for allowing us to share our opinions and desires. Sincerely, A. Kasbohm 9258 Shetland Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Bob Lambert-Dog Park Page 1 From: "Scott Newgaard"<scott.newgaard@nwa.com> To: <rlambert@edenprairie.org> Date: 5/5/03 8:32AM Subject: Dog Park Dear Bob, I am an Eden Prairie resident living on Shetland Road in the Riley Creek Ridge neighborhood. I understand the MAC land to the east of our street is a potential site for a proposed Dog Park. The land for this proposed site borders a residential neighborhood and would directly border the backyards of 15 of my neighbors. As a fellow dog owner, I can understand the need for more off-leash Dog Parks but I feel that this type of facility would be better suited to a more Industrial location where families with small children would not be impacted. A Dog Park on our dead-end residential street would certainly increase traffic and cause potential parking problems as well as expose dozens of small children to the known risk of transporting dogs to and from the park. Most current Dog Parks have Warning signs posted to caution small children to beware of strange dogs in and around the park. • Since there are other potential sites available for a facility like this, I urge you to consider the locations in more Industrial areas where exposure to small children,traffic, and parking issues can more easily be addressed. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this matter. Sincerely, - Scott Newgaard 9308 Shetland Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 /cO Bob Lambert-Re:Dog Park? Page 1 From: Bob Lambert To: Kristine Mock Date: 3/20/03 5:12PM Subject: Re: Dog Park? Dear Kristine, The City of Eden Prairie has been working with a citizen's committe to evaluate the possibilities for one or more off leash excercise areas for dogs for several months.That committee will be submitting it's final report to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission at their April 7th meeting. If you are interested in volunteering to help this group with this project please contact Stu Fox, Parks and Natural Resources Manager for the City and the staff liaison for this committee. His telephone number is 952-949-8445. Sincerely, Bob Lambert, Director Parks&Recreation City of Eden Prairie >>> Kristine Mock<mockingbirdkookoo@yahoo.com> 03/20/03 04:43PM >>> To Whom it may concern: Hello, my name is Kristy Mock. I am a current resident of Eden Prairie, MN. I am contacting the City of Eden Prairie about the issue of a dog park in the area. I do not know if there have been many requests or inquiries to you about one of these such parks, but I can tell you from experience that dog owners are completely in favor. Non-dog owners also favor these parks because of its enclosed nature. Dog parks are great additions to any city or town at a surprisingly minimal cost. I have a B.S. in Park, Rec, &Leisure Services and Geography. I have worked for the City of Burnsville Rec and Facilities Dept., and I was responsible for the design and implementation of the Alimagnet Dog Park in Burnsville. I was responsible for all aspects of its creation, including site approval, budgeting, fundraising, advertising,the recruitment of volunteer groups, installation, and the Grand Opening ceremonies.The Alimagnet Dog Park is affiliated with MN Valley Humane Society and was featured on FOX29 news. If in the future, a dog park in Eden Prairie becomes a feasible project, and the city is in need of an experienced person to coordinate this endeavor, please feel free to contact me to discuss any of these issues.Thank you. Sincerely, Kristy Mock18194 Settlers WayEden Prairie, MN 55347(h)952.906.7608(c)612.875.0787 Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum-Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! CC: Stu Fox • • Ic I MEMDORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council 0 From: Bob Lambert,Director of Parks and Recreation Date: June 3, 2002 11111111.1 Eden Prairie Subject: Off-lease Dog Exercise Area Petitions PETITIONS FOR AN OFF-LEASH DOG AREA The City received a petition with nearly 1,600 names(approximately 240 non-residents)petitioning the City for an off-leash log exercise area. PETITION IN OPPOSTION The City received a petition with 79 names from the Riley Creek Ridge neighborhood opposing the use of their neighborhood park for an off-leash dog exercise area. A copy of both petitions is on file for review;however,due to the lengthy nature of the petitions(72 pages in the petition for off-leash areas and 79 pages in the petition against),the actual petitions are not included in the packet. RAL:mdd