The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council - 02/17/2004 AGENDA JOINT MEETING OF THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL &EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL BOARD TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 17,2004 CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ron Case, Jan Mosman, and Philip Young CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Police Chief Dan Carlson, Fire Chief George Esbensen, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, Parks and Recreation Director Bob Lambert, Communications Manager Jack Sheehan, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder Lorene McWaters Administrative Services Center, 8100 School Road • I. DISCUSSION TOPICS (5:30-6:30 p.m.) • HeartSafe Eden Prairie Project • Joint Diversity Initiative • Playground Project at City Center • Future City Development and Demographics • Eden Prairie School District Strategic Plan Council Chamber, City Center, 8080 Mitchell Road II. OPEN PODIUM (6:50-7:00 p.m.) III. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 17, 2004 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, 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 TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 3,2004 (p. 1) B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 3,2004 (p. 4) VI. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT UPDATE VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST (p. 10) B. AWARD CARPET REPLACEMENT PROJECTS 1 AND 2A TO FLOORS BY BECKER'S INC. (p. 11) C. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR CHARLSON AREA IMPROVEMENTS PHASE IV (p. 13) D. AWARD CONTRACT FOR WATER PLANT SOLIDS CONTACT UNITS RECOATING TO RAINBOW,INC,I.C. 04-5608 (p. 16) E. APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT WEED INSPECTOR (p. 17) F. CHANGE SECTION 8.2 OF RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR PLEASANT HILL CEMETERY TO PERMIT GRAVE MARKERS OF 12" BY 24" FOR SINGLE MARKER AND 12" BY 40" FOR A DOUBLE MARKER(p. 18) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 17,2004 Page 2 G. ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION FOR 2004 HENNEPIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT (p. 20) H. APPROVE WAIVER LETTER RELATING TO SUMMIT PLACE APARTMENT PROJECT (p. 25) VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER PART OF ROLLING HILLS SENIOR HOUSING,VACATION 04-03 (Resolution) (p. 27) B. HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITE C AND D REZONING by Pemtom Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 64.9 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 11.99 acres,Zoning District Change from R1- 9.5 to RM 6.5 on 11.99 acres, and Site Plan Review on 11.99 acres. Location: North of Highway 212, east of Spring Road. (Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change) (p. 31) C. BROOKVIEW RIDGE by David and Patricia Smith. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.56 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.56 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 4.56 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 4.56 acres into 4 lots. Location: 9780 Brookview Circle(Resolution for PUD Concept Review,Resolution for Preliminary Plat, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change) (p. 49) D. MICRO-EAR TECHNOLOGY by Gavic Construction Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 35.55 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 35.55 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 and 1-2 Zoning Districts on 35.55 acres, and Site Plan Review on 11.21 acres. Location: 6426 Flying Cloud Drive. (Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment) (p.68) E. LAMETTRY TIRE SHOP by Richard LaMettry. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.22 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.22 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.22 acres, and Site Plan Review on 1.22 acres. Location: East of Plaza Drive,west of I-494. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review,Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change) (p. 77) F. BRYANT LAKE HEIGHTS for 7012 and 7014 Willow Creek Road. Request from James and Raynelle Perkins and Stephen Longman Builders,Inc. to amend that certain Developer's Agreement entered into on or about August 3, 1999 between the City of Eden Prairie and James and Raynelle Perkins with respect to Bryant Lake Heights. The Developer is requesting the following actions by the City: Amendment of Exhibit C,paragraph XIII of the Developer's Agreement,by deleting the requirement that all structures on Lot 1 and 3,Block 1 be removed prior to issuance of any building permit for Lot 1 and Lot 3,Block 1,Bryant Lake Heights. (p. 87) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 17,2004 Page 3 IX. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS (p. 97) X. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS XI. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS XIII. APPOINTMENTS XIV. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR 1. Request from the Eden Prairie Baseball Association to Share Costs for Field Improvements (p. 105) 2. 2004 Park Bond Referendum (p. 116) D. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 1. Methods to Address TH312/212 Underpass at Riley Creek(p. 126) 2. Proposed Layout For TH 212/Th312 Improvements From CSAH 4 to Existing TH 212 Near Carver Co. Road 147 (Resolution) (p. 132) E. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF F. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF G. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XV. OTHER BUSINESS XVI. ADJOURNMENT UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/FORUM TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3,2004 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, Jan Mosman, and Philip Young CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Police Chief Dan Carlson, Fire Chief George Esbensen, Public Works Director Eugene Dietz, Parks and Recreation Director Bob Lambert, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Stu Fox, Communications Manager Jack Sheehan, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder Lorene McWaters Heritage Room II I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Tyra-Lukens was not in attendance. Councilmember Case served as Acting Mayor. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. CEMETERY MANAGEMENT ISSUES Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Stu Fox said the City recently received a request to install a monument larger than current regulations allow at Pleasant Hill Cemetery. The request is for an 18"x34"marker. Markers are restricted to 12"x24" for a single grave or 12"x30"for a double grave. Fox noted that Council has granted two exceptions to the regulations over the past two years. The most recent exception was granted in March 2002, and the approval was contingent on the requestor escrowing an amount equal to the cost of the marker and installation. At that time, Council requested a workshop on the topic of cemetery regulations. Staff is currently recommending Council consider two options for modifying the rules and regulations for Pleasant Hill Cemetery: Recommendation 1: Increase maximum length of monument markers by six inches for both single and double markers (Single markers 12"x30" and double markers 12"x36"). l Council Workshop Minutes February 3, 2004—page 2 Recommendation 2: Keep the single grave marker size as currently specified as a 12"x24" and increase the double marker size to 12"x40". Fox noted that Recommendation 2 matches regulations at"Eden Prairie" cemetery, which is not operated by the City. Fox said current rules and regulations were in place when the City took ownership of Pleasant Hill in 1986. He has researched regulations of nearby municipal cemeteries and found that the size of markers allowed varies from city to city; however, all of the cities indicated that although they have received requests for exceptions, none has been granted. Acting Mayor Case said he would like to discuss the specific request at tonight's meeting, then later have a larger discussion,possibly involving a study group of Council Members, staff and residents,to address people's expectations of the cemetery. Case also suggested the decision on the marker request be postponed until a meeting which Mayor Tyra-Lukens is in attendance. Butcher suggested having staff gather information for Council and keeping the discussion within the Council. Mosman agreed some sort of discussion is in order since the cemetery is, in essence, another of the City's many open spaces. Lambert said that when the City took over operation of the cemetery,the main consideration was whether or not it would cover its own expenses; however,he agrees the cemetery is an open space and should be addressed as such. He said that if Council changes the size of stones allowed, he strongly suggests they not consider further variances to the new rules. Fox said one of the primary reasons marker sizes are regulated is for uniformity. In addition, maintenance is more difficult if there isn't a certain amount space left around a marker. Large markers are susceptible to cracking when nearby ground is disturbed for placement of a second casket in a double plot. If a marker is damaged during the digging of a grave,the City is responsible for repairing damaged markers. Fox said a 40"marker is a reasonable size and should not increase the risk of cracking under normal circumstances. Butcher said she likes Recommendation 2, since it matches Eden Prairie's other cemetery. Mosman said she initially favored Recommendation 1, but agrees that Recommendation 2 makes sense since it matches the City's other cemetery. Case said he will raise this issue, including the possibility of setting up a study group, at the next Council Meeting when Tyra-Lukens returns. Case said he would also like to look at upgrading the fencing around the cemetery. Council Workshop Minutes February,3, 2004—page 3 IV. UPDATE ON HENNEPIN COUNTY —COMMISSIONER LINDA KOBLICK Linda Koblick said she has been a Hennepin County Commissioner for 13 months. One of her goals is to visit with the City Council of each community within her district. She said she strongly believes in local control on the County Board. She said much of her work on the Board involves health and human services and she is very involved with various intergovernmental initiatives, including one that helped ensure the Ridgedale Court was not eliminated. Koblick said she is always looking for opportunities for new collaborative efforts with cities. She is a member of the Suburban Partnership Task Force, whose goal is to learn what communities need and find ways to fulfill those needs. Koblick said she has been following the stadium process, and feels Eden Prairie offers the best site for a stadium. She said she also approves of the City's strategy of not identifying a revenue stream. She said that while she knows there is great interest in a stadium, she hopes that discussion does not eclipse other important core issues facing the County. Koblick asked if Council or staff had any questions or comments. Fire Chief George Esbensen explained a current initiative designed to allow the City to gain control of its own PSAs. He said Representative Thiesen(Richfield) sponsored the initiative last year and plans to reintroduce the issue again this year. Mosman said she has heard that the County Home School may be sold for development and that Glen Lake Golf Course is in jeopardy. Koblick said she personally does not support closing the Home School and would work to avoid closing it. Case thanked Koblick for visiting with the Council. V. OTHER TOPICS Council Chamber VI. OPEN FORUM No one was scheduled to speak at Open Forum. VII. OPEN PODIUM No one requested to speak at Open Podium. VIII. ADJOURNMENT 3 V ,13 , UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 3,2004 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, City Planner Michael Franzen,City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Theresa Brundage I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Councilmember Case served as Acting Mayor in the absence of Mayor Tyra-Lukens. Case called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION Case reminded the audience 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. He 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. Case 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. He said 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 MOTION: Young moved, seconded by Mosman,to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0. V. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,JANUARY 20,2004 Li CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 3,2004 Page 2 MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Young,to approve the Minutes of the City Council Workshop held Tuesday, January 20, 2004. Motion carried 4-0. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,JANUARY 20,2004 MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Young,to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday,January 20,2004. Motion carried 3-0.Butcher abstained. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. APPROVE 2ND READING OF AN ORDINANCE NO.4-2004 AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 2.30 AND 2.32,RELATING TO ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING B. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-22 AMENDING FEE RESOLUTION NO. 2003-172,RELATING TO OAK POINT POOL RENTAL C. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-23 AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO PURSUE ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS,I.C. 01-5525 D. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-24 ADJUSTING THE 2003 BUDGET E. APPROVE LAW ENFORCEMENT MUTUAL AID PACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND SCOTT COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE F. APPROVE THREE-YEAR MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH HONEYWELL FOR MAINTENANCE OF AUTOMATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR THE WATER UTILITY MOTION:Young moved, seconded by Butcher,to approve Items A-F of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITE C AND D REZONING by Pemtom Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 64.9 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 11.99 acres,Zoning District Change from R1- 9.5 to RM 6.5 on 11.99 acres, and Site Plan Review on 11.99 acres. Location: North of Highway 212, east of Spring Road. (Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review,Zoning District Change) City Manager Scott Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the January 9,2004,Eden Prairie Sun Current, and sent to six property owners.He said this is a continued public hearing from the January 20,2004 meeting and the developer is requesting a continuance to the meeting on February 17,2004. 5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 3,2004 Page 3 MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Young, to continue the Public Hearing to the February 17, 2004 meeting. Motion carried 4-0. B. VIKING COLLECTIONS PARKING by Kloeckner Limited Partnership. Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 4.42 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.42 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 4.42 acres, and Site Plan Review on 4.42 acres. Location: 7500 and 7544 Market Place Drive. (Resolution No. 2004-25 for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment) City Manager Scott Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the January 22, 2004,Eden Prairie Sun Current, and sent to 24 property owners. He said this is for a 158-space parking lot on a 1.66-acre site located to the southeast of the Viking Collections building it is to serve. The Community Planning Board voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the project at its January 12, 2004 meeting. The construction of the parking lot will require a PUD waiver for off-site parking. Franzen said that Dan O'Brien is in the audience representing the proponent. Butcher asked for explanation of the dissenting vote. Franzen said it was a 7-0 vote to close the public hearing, and the vote on the zoning was 6-1. He said the vote against it involved concern over lack of sidewalks. Franzen said the majority of the board felt that since it is an office park,they weren't as concerned as they would be if it were a commercial development. Butcher asked how Staff feels about it. Franzen said Staff is comfortable because it is an office park situation and not a commercial district with higher traffic volume. Case asked Franzen his opinion on how quickly it will develop. Franzen said he would expect probably 5 years. MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Butcher,to adopt a Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 4.42 acres; and approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and Zoning District Amendment within the Office Zoning District on 4.42 acres; and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Board and Staff recommendations and Council conditions. Mosman withdrew the motion and Butcher withdrew second to the motion. Case asked for comments from the audience. There was no public comment on this issue. MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Butcher, to close the public hearing and adopt a Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 4.42 acres; and approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and Zoning District Amendment within the Office Zoning District on 4.42 acres; and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement • CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 3,2004 Page 4 incorporating Board and Staff recommendations and Council conditions.Motion carried 4-0. C. VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN THE BIG WOODS 3RD ADDITION,VACATION 04-01 City Manager Scott Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the January 15, 2004,Eden Prairie Sun Current, and sent to one property owner.He said the property owner has requested this vacation to allow the construction of a pool and appurtenances encroaching into the dedicated easement area. The property owner will dedicate a revised scenic easement to compensate for previous oversights in the dedication of easements.Neal said Staff recommends that Council hold the public hearing,but refrain from final action on the resolution because consent has not yet been received from the mortgage company. Dietz explained that there was an oversight on the recording of a conservation easement on the properties, so a compromise has been reached in that the City would vacate a drainage and utility easement that is ordinarily placed on the property in the same location as a conservation easement. He said the drainage and utility easement exists,but the conservation easement to preserve trees was not recorded prior to the property being conveyed to the present owner. So, a portion of the drainage and utility easement will be vacated, and the homeowner will then dedicate a conservation easement over the westerly 30 feet of his property. Butcher how it happened.Dietz said this happened at a time that the City was allowing the developers to record the documents but that process has changed. Case asked why the conservation easement could not be put on the plat. Lambert said you can't file it on the plat,but it can be filed on the property.Rosow said on the physical plat, state law prescribes what types of encumbrances(easements) can be physically memorialized on the plat and a conservation easement is not one of them. Rosow said in this case,it is unsure why the conservation easement was not filed against Big Woods. There were no comments from the public. MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Young,to close the public hearing and adopt the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements in The Big Woods 3`d Addition. Motion carried 4-0. D. VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN BELL OAKS ESTATE 8TH ADDITION,VACATION 04-02 (RESOLUTION NO. 2004-26) City Manager Scott Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published in the January 15,2004,Eden Prairie Sun Current,and sent to one property owner.He said the property owner has requested this vacation to allow the construction of an indoor sport court. The applicant is the owner of all parcels identified in this request and has also applied for an administrative combination of the parcels. CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 3,2004 Page 5 There were no comments from the public. MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Mosman,to close the public hearing; and adopt the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements in Bell Oaks Estate 8th Addition. Motion carried 4-0. VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Mosman moved,seconded by Young, to approve the Payment of Claims. The motion was approved on a roll call vote,with Case,Butcher,Mosman and Young voting "aye." IX. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS X. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XL REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS &COMMISSIONS XII. APPOINTMENTS XIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER Neal said it was requested at the last meeting that Staff look into issues with Flying Cloud Airport. He reported that the mayor and staff members have been invited to a meeting at the U.S.Attorney Heffelfinger's office in Minneapolis on February 17 for a review of the draft of the Homeland Security proposal that the Metropolitan Airports Commission has put together for Flying Cloud field. Case asked if there would be a public role in the process.Neal said he could not envision it and he believes this is because they want a sufficient level of confidentiality. Neal said other issues regarding the airport will be presented to the Council on February 17, 2004 Council meeting. Butcher asked for a definition of scheduled flights.Neal said there are charter operations at Flying Cloud,but not a scheduled passenger service.Rosow said the airport needs a certification from the FAA to be able to offer regular passenger scheduled flights and they promised not to seek that sort of certification. C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 3,2004 Page 6 E. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF F. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF G. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XIV. OTHER BUSINESS XV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mosman moved, seconded by Butcher,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Acting Mayor Case adjourned the meeting at 7:29 p.m. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar February 17, 2004 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Police/C.O.P. Unit Clerk's License Application List VI I , A. Christy Weigel 1�C These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. Cigarette & Tobacco Products Wadsworth Old Chicago, Inc. DBA: Old Chicago AD Eagle Mobil Inc DBA: Eagle Mobil (New Ownership) New Liquor License—New Ownership Licensee name: CSM RI Eden Prairie, L.L.C. (Formerly: Innkeepers Hospitality III, Inc) DBA: Residence Inn by Marriott Minneapolis Southwest /0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar February 17, 2004 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Office of City Manager, Carpet replacement projects 1 and 2A 13 Facilities Division/Paul Sticha Requested Action Move to award carpet replacement project 1 and 2A to Floor's by Becker's Inc. for the total of $41,143.93. Synopsis The Facilities Division consulted with United Properties Design Division on replacing the carpet through out the Common Areas (Garden Room entrance and City's contractor's entrance and stairs adjacent) and the 9-1-1 area of the City Center building. We developed a plan that allows for maintenance of the operations of all tenants at all times. The carpeting showing the most wear will be replaced first. These two projects cover the most heavily used sections of the City Center. Background Information Staff consulted with United Properties Design Division to create a design a carpet layout that will enhance the interior of the City Center. Staff advertised for the required two weeks for quotes on replacing the carpet in the above areas. Two quotes were received, one of which was eliminated because the company did not meet the advertised specifications. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Request for Quotes for Carpet Replacement The City of Eden Prairie is accepting quotes for replacing carpet in the common areas and the 9-1-1 Center at the Eden Prairie City Center, 8080 Mitchell Road,Eden Prairie MN. Quotes will be accepted until 4:00 p.m. on Monday, February 9, 2004. Replacement includes the following: • Demo and total removal of existing carpet,per specifications. • Total preparation of flooring for installation of new carpeting per manufacturers specifications. • All work to be conducted during normal business hours except the 9-1-1 Center that will require an early morning shift starting at 4:00 a.m. • Carpet selection and installation specifications can be acquired at the Eden Prairie City Center main information desk during normal business hours 8:00 a.m.—4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. For inspection of the site please contact Facilities Supervisor Marc Thielman at 952-949- 8360. Send quotes to: City of Eden Prairie,Attn: Carpet Replacement Quotes, 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. • �a CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: February 17, 2004 SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 02-5566 ITEM NO.: Engineering Approve Change Order No. 1 for Charlson . C . Mary Krause Area Improvements Phase IV Requested Action Move to: Approve Change Order No. 1 for the Charlson Area Improvements Phase IV in the amount of$15,105.87. Synopsis This change order is the result of extra work to install storm sewer in the phased project maintaining minimum pipe cover requirements and to provide safe traffic conditions within the project area and to add a valve to an existing fire hydrant. Background Information Changes in the vertical alignment of storm sewer and watermain was needed due to the actual elevations of the existing Williams Pipeline and watermain encountered in the field and the requirement to provide minimum cover over or under those public utilities. Concrete barriers were installed to protect the in-place storm sewer along a portion of Eden Prairie Road throughout the winter until the final grading and construction is completed this summer. The valve was added to an existing hydrant at the request of our utility division in a location directly adjacent to the roadway for maintenance purposes. Attachments Change Order No. 1 I3 Fit t4 CoNsuLnnc Gaour.INC. SRF No. 0003726 January 9,2004 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 PROJECT: CHARLSON AREA IMPROVEMENTS PHASE IV CITY PROJECT NO. 02-5566 CONTRACTOR: S.M. HENTGES AND SONS 650 QUAKER AVENUE P.O. BOX 69 JORDAN, MN 55352-0069 WHEREAS: Concrete barrier was installed along Eden Prairie Road to protect the in-place storm sewer pipe and to provide safety for oncoming traffic, and; WHEREAS: In order to maintain a minimum cover over the water main, the storm sewer pipe was raised along CSAH 4 between Catch Basin 352 and Manhole 351, and; WHEREAS: In order to maintain the minimum two feet of cover over the Williams Pipeline, the 36" RCP storm sewer was raised along Eden Prairie Road between Catch Basin 216 and Catch Basin 214A. This included salvaging and installing storm sewer pipe and two catch basins and; WHEREAS: At the City's request, a 6" gate valve was added to an existing hydrant on Charlson Road, and; WHEREAS: In order to maintain a minimum cover under the 48" storm sewer pipe, the 12"water main was lowered between Catch Basin 334 and Catch Basin 335. THEREFORE: In accordance with the terms of the Contract and the attached plan sheets, you are hereby authorized and instructed to perform the improvements as described above. Page of 2' Charlson Area Improvements January 9,2004 Phase IV—Change Order No. 1 ***INCREASE*** Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Price Estimated Amount Quantity 2533.603 Concrete Median Barrier Design 8337 LIN. FT. $ 13.00 270 $ 3,510.00 2502.605 Raise 21"RC Pipe Sewer LUMP SUM $1,030.05 1 $ 1,030.05 2502.605 Relay 30" RC Pipe Sewer LUMP SUM $4,606.25 1 $ 4,606.25 2504.602 6" Gate Valve and Box EACH $ 961.38 1 $ 961.38 2504.603 Lower 12"Water Main LUMP SUM $4,998.19 1 $ 4,998.19 TOTAL $15,105.87 CONTRACT SUMMARY: TOTAL INCREASE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $ 15,105.87 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $2,549,106.03 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $2,564,211.90 ISSUED BY: / S CONSULTING GROUP INC. DAT ACCEPTED: Viet/ S.M. HENTGES & S NNS DATE APPROVED: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DATE H1Civill04'137261DOC13726 Change Order No.1.1-9-04.dx _Page? of 2- 15 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: February 17,2004 SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 04-5608 ITEM NO.: Utilities Division Award Contract for Water Plant Solids }}�-�-- Ed Sorensen Contact Units Recoating Project Requested Action Move to: Award Contract for I.C. 04-5608, Water Plant Solids Contact Units Recoating to Rainbow, Inc. in the amount of$87,680. Synopsis bids were received Five bids were received for sandblasting and recoating two primary basin units and ceiling recoating over same units and two additional units as follows: • Rainbow,Inc. $ 87,680 • Thomas Industrial Coatings $133,771 • Champion Coatings,Inc. $158,600 • TMI Coatings, Inc. $278,400 • Abhe&Svoboda,Inc. $280,700 The low bid of$87,680 is 51%below the engineer's estimate. Background Information The two solids contact units were last-repainted by contract in 1982. Each year following the units were systematically cleaned and touched up partially to completely to extend the life of the paint and structure. The precast concrete roof sections over each unit need modest repairs and repainting. This will be done over four units. The engineer's estimate for this work is$180,000. Staff recommends that the project be awarded to Rainbow,Inc. in the amount of$87,680. 16 - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar February 17, 2004 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Through: Robert A. Lambert Director of Parks &;ecreation Appointment of Assistant Weed Inspector . From: Stuart Fox; y anager of Parks and Natural Resources Requested Action Move to: Appoint Jeff Cordes as Assistant Weed Inspector for the City of Eden Prairie. Synopsis Each year the City of Eden Prairie is requested to appoint an Assistant Weed Inspector for the City under the requirements of Minnesota Statues, Chapter 18.80 and 18.81. The responsibility of the Assistant Weed Inspector is to enforce the local and state weed ordinances. Jeff Cordes has been doing this inspection work for the past several years, and he is familiar with the City ordinance and state law. Under State Statue, the Mayor is the City Weed Inspector and appointment of an Assistant Weed Inspector thereby relieves the Mayor or City Council of those duties as required by Minnesota State Statue. SAF/bju 13. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar February 17,2004 DEPARTMENT: c / ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Through: Robert A. Lambert Director of Parks &Recreation Recommendation to Modify the Rules and .F. From: Stuart Fox,Manager of Regulations for Pleasant Hill Cemetery Marker Parks and Natural Resources Monument Size Requested Action Move to: Change Section 8.2 of the Rules and Regulations for Pleasant Hill Cemetery to permit grave markers of 12" by 24" for single marker and 12" by 40" for a double marker. The requirement for flush markers would remain as written in the Rules and Regulations. Synopsis The City Council discussed various options for modifying the size of cemetery markers at their February 31-d workshop. This discussion was prompted by a request from Ralph Gracza who requested in writing that a marker larger than currently permitted be allowed in the memorial of his wife. (Request letter attached.) Since this is the third request for a larger monument to be considered at the cemetery, City staff and City Council members discussed the various options at the workshop. Since the regulations at the other public cemetery in Eden Prairie, Eden Prairie Cemetery, is that single markers are restricted to 12" by 24" and double markers are 12" by 40", staff and Council members agreed that a change in the double marker size would be acceptable. Background The City Council is responsible for Rules and Regulations at municipal cemeteries under State Statue. Any change that is done to the Rules and Regulations would be effect as the date of authorization by a Council vote. Future requests for a monument change could come back to the City Council; however, staff feels strongly that with this size change and a review of the marker sizes at the time of lot sale that future requests should be rare. Attachment: Letter from Mr. Gracza SAF/bju Eden Prairie City Council 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 November 12, 2003 Attention: Stuart A Fox Manager of Parks &Natural Resources • Subject: Size of headstones • As suggested by you in our conversation on November 7 in the City Hall, I am petitioning the Council to change the present 24"x 12" size limitation in the Charter of the Eden Prairie Cemetery, that was inherited by the city some 16 years ago. Specifically; in the middle of the 42"vault lot a marble plate not larger than 18" x 34" is petitioned suitable for the inscription below: 1928 -2002 . Margaret Ann Young Gracza Daughter, wife, mother, teacher; artist, writer enriched our life Psalms: 38:21 And I will dwell in the House of the Lord forever Sincerely yours Ralph Gracza -7 � 15151 Victor Lane Minnetonka, 55345 952-934-9622 graczar@minn.net www I.minn.net/-graczar CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent February 17, 2004 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Public Works/Leslie Stovring Annual Hennepin County Recycling .6-, Grant Resolution Requested Action Move to: Adopt Resolution for submittal of an application for the 2004 Hennepin County Municipal Recycling Grant. Synopsis The City of Eden Prairie submits a Residential Recycling Grant Application to Hennepin County on an annual basis. The majority of these funds are distributed to residents with individual service as a recycling rebate on their utility bills. The funding is expected to be slightly less than 2003, which was $150,994. Hennepin County has requested a current Resolution in order to process the Recycling Grant. A copy of the Resolution must be on file with Hennepin County prior to distribution of the Recycling Grant funds to the City. Attachments Proposed Resolution Grant Application Form aO CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2004- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE 2004 HENNEPIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT APPLICATION WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.551, each county must develop and implement or require political subdivisions within the county to develop and implement programs, practices, or methods designed to meet its recycling goal; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires each city to implement a recycling program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and WHEREAS, the County has adopted a Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy for Source-Separated Recyclables to distribute funds to cities for the development and implementation of waste reduction and recycling programs from January 1,2000 through December 31, 2004; and WHEREAS,to be eligible to receive these County funds,cities must meet the conditions set forth in the"funding policy." NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council authorizes the submittal of the Municipal Recycling Grant Application for the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Programs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that as a condition to receive funds under the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy the City agrees to implement recycling programs as committed to by its submission of the Hennepin County Municipal Residential Recycling Grant Application. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council February 17, 2004. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor SEAL ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 2003 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING FINAL REPORT 2004 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT APPLICATION Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program January 1—December 31, 2003 City of Eden Prairie PART I. 2003 EXPENDITURES A. Program Administration $ B. Recycling Promotional Activities $ C. Waste Reduction Promotional Activities $ D. Collection Curbside $ Drop-Off $ E. Curbside Collection Containers $ Total Expenditures $ Revenues from Sale of Recyclables $ PART IL 2003 TONNAGES (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY. PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL TONNAGES WHERE AVAILABLE.) A. Residential Source-Separated Collections Curbside Drop-Off Multi-Housing Total Tons Mixed Fibers r Newspaper r Corrugated Cardboard ✓ Office Paper r Mixed Paper/Junk Mail r Magazines ✓ Boxboard r Phone Books Metal r Alum.Cans &Foil ✓ Steel&Tin Cns ✓ Commingled Cans E Scrap Metal Glass r Food&Beverage ✓ Other Glass Plastic 1 PET • HDPE r Commingled Bottles Other Vehicle Batteries Recyclables Textiles Carpet Household Goods Appliances a'D Totally Commingled (One Sort) Other Other Total Tons B. Number(#) of Households(HH)with Curbside Recycling Service Available as of January 1, 2004: Single family (1-4 units) Multi-family(5 units and above) + Total households with curbside recycling service available C. Methods Used to Determine Number of Households with Service Available (check all that apply): Property Tax Records _ Utility Bill Records _ Building Permits _ Other(specify) D. Average Pounds of Recyclables per Household(HH): . Avg. lbs./HH (Total Tons/Total#of HH)*2000 Part III. PARTICIPATION IN OCTOBER 2003 Number Of HH With Curbside Number Of HH Setting Out Week ParticipationService Available Recyclables Rate 10/06-10/11 10/13-10/18 10/20-10/25 10/27-11/01 Totals Part IV. DESCRIPTION OF RECYCLING PROGRAM(2003 Actual/2004 Planned) Please attach a brief description of your city's recycling and waste reduction program,including materials collected for recycling. Include information on promotional activities done in 2003 and planned in 2004. Note any major program changes from previous years. PART V. RECYCLING PROGRAM INFORMATION 2003 A. Method City Uses to Fund its Portion of the Recycling Expenses: General Fund: Yes _ No Utility Bill: Yes _ No _ Monthly charge on resident's bill only: $ B. Curbside Collection Contractors: Organized Open Does Contractor Commingle*? 1. Yes No 2. Yes No 3. Yes No 4. Yes No 5. Yes No * Commingling is collecting different materials in one bag (e.g.collecting metal cans,glass and plastic in one container and all papers in the other). a3 C. Contract Dates/Term: D. Contractor's Recycling Collection Cost/HH/Month: $ E. Collection Frequency: Weekly _ Bi-weekly _ Twice Monthly F. Refuse and Recycling Collected Same Day: Yes — No G. Contractors that Collect MSW at Municipal Owned Facilities: 1. 2. H. MSW Disposal Facilities that are Being Used by Contractors Listed in Item G: 1. 2. I. Municipal Ordinance Requiring Recycling by: Single Family Residents: Yes _ No _ Mulit-family Residents: Yes _ No _ Businesses: Yes _ No _ Part VI. SIGNATURES Mayor or City Manager/Administrator/Clerk Date Recycling Coordinator Date DL4 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar February 17,2004 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development: Waiver—Summit Place Senior Project David Lindahl , VI Requested Action Move to: Approve the attached waiver letter relating to the Summit Place apartment project. Synopsis The owners of Summit Place are asking the City to waive a requirement in the Project Management Agreement relating to how tenant incomes are verified.The waiver has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office. Background The Project Management Agreement outlines the obligations of the developer relating to rent restrictions and calculations,Tax Increment repayment,as well as various other terms. Summit Place is a 320 unit senior rental project located at Flying Cloud Drive and Fountain Place Road immediately south of the Eden Prairie Center. It was approved in 1999 and opened in 2003. Attachments Waiver . 0The City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road•Eden Prairie,MN 55344-4485•edenprairie.org•952-949-8300•TDD 952-949-8399 February 17,2004 SC Minnesota Properties, LLC 3601 Park Center Boulevard, Suite 210 St. Louis Park,MN 55416 Re: Amended Project Management Agreement("Agreement")dated December 18,2001 by and between the City of Eden Prairie("City") and SC Minnesota Properties ("Developer") concerning Summit Place in Eden Prairie, Minnesota("Amended Agreement") The undersigned hereby certifies that for the calendar year 2003 for all current and committed to tenants, the Developer shall be deemed to have complied with its obligations with respect to income (except as provided below) and rent limitations, as specified in Sections 4.2, 4.4 and Exhibit B of the Agreement, and,to the extent of any actual non-compliance,if any, such non-compliance is waived for such calendar year. Further, the Developer must provide income verification in the form of a rent roll containing the following information: the name of tenant, unit number occupied by tenant, tenant's income, year of certification, and percent increase in tenant's income. The developer shall be deemed to have complied with income verification for tax increment financing purposes,provided that the 20-50 test of Internal Revenue Code Section 142 is met, and is not required to provide additional verification as required by Internal Revenue Code Section 42. Sincerely, The City of Eden Prairie By: Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor By: Scott H.Neal, City Manager DC CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Public Hearing February 17, 2004 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation 04-03 ITEM NO.: Engineering Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements 1 /' Dave Olson over part of Rolling Hills Senior Housing A • (Published 01/29/04; Sent to property owners) Requested Action Move to: 1. Close the public hearing and • 2. Adopt the resolution vacating part of the drainage and utility easement over part of Rolling Hills Senior Housing Synopsis The property owner has requested this vacation to enable the combination of Lots 1 and 2, Rolling Hills Senior Housing. The City Council previously authorized (10/01/02) a PUD Amendment, Rezoning and Site Plan Review based upon a one-lot proposal. A skilled care center has now been constructed and is physically connected to the senior housing building, crossing the common lot lines between Lots 1 and 2. Ownership and financing concerns have prompted the owner to combine the lots through a replat. The new plat will be presented to the Council soon, and will include the rededication of any necessary easements. Attachments Vacation Drawings ai CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT OVER PART OF ROLLING HILLS SENIOR HOUSING VACATION 04-03 WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has a certain drainage and utility easement described as follows: Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the Eden Prairie City Council at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 8080 Mitchell Road,Eden Prairie,Minnesota,on October 21,2003 at 7:00 p.m. to hear all persons present upon the proposed vacation of the following described property: A Drainage and Utility easement as platted within Rolling Hills Senior Housing recorded in the Office of the Registrar of Titles,Hennepin County,Minnesota, described as follows: That certain drainage and utility easement lying 5 feet on each side of, adjacent to and parallel with the common line between Lot 1,Block 1 and Lot 2,Block 1,Rolling Hills Senior Housing; except that part thereof lying southeasterly of a line drawn parallel to, and 10 feet northwesterly from,the southeasterly line of said Lots; also except that part lying northwesterly of a line bearing South 41 degrees 38 minutes 22 seconds West and drawn from a point on the most northerly line of said Lot 2,distant thereon North 82 degrees 46 minutes 50 seconds East 38.90 feet from the most westerly corner of said Lot 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 17, 2003, after due notice was given to affected property owners and published in accordance with M.S.A.412.851; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said drainage and utility easement is not necessary and has no interest to the public,therefore, should be vacated. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. Said drainage and utility easement as above described is hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 17, 2004. ATTEST: Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor SEAL Kathleen A.Porta,City Clerk a$ VAC 04-03 LOCATION MAP w r I 27S o / •t�•� 3 �' " NORTH / 4 (13) `4 h Eby `��y' g 4 "3t iSl $N 17 oarC / e a .11' ) .. s N6559'302 S� )• t d• 2 7��79 a �'? '1 ! 1. ..eJ ,J3 ey 12422 .. (12) ^ nw ,Ik. ,: 'Sri.,: / -. •a, :,� •JJ <9 9! t 9fts.. : 2 0 0 d ` `. " 4 by>076. ..4 C'6•.4�/C �,44.3,'ou." (36).hry J 3 32919.-3 t I 7 / .:.23.1(t4):•5 ,„ .. -•o k Ho 290 n '6.• z n ?, w„'• ri$$''a(15B>,. ..D(29)� 'Op 1`ir+a q 1J</e D D D n $ /?f 4.'/6(16)a '6 •2 )? _ _ .,, (35). [ ° R[IE. _ "fie . ,�26 :�{J <a> . + ,s , 7?s �: .,a , \'4t s !? N8559'32W (s) M ry' tt(34.°"' 4 z.•r, 's (3o)•e et,"'n ':,7.11 • 1 sot - ? 3D.43 •1 `.R > a' „ry!� M1q '•B 1 x 4Z/ c (17) ?e • 1 <e, `(27) OL C o' ?pp,. hµ �1 n P 0�':• s)J,!JS,�.•.` R-'�yA e3pJ ��(35)�o ^' •^38)q^' (3) ' aDJ?A 3 ,(fI 1 • 2 h 69- 1 h I�Po„O4o RAJ•A • Sy a,,, a. n� �p I 7 ^.^(18), q �t «i ^ ? 'pJ l3�(26) 2p.199 4 � O�JSsp•• a� "," I F'�/ d r' 4'J7,9,>>,f ^93 ',•i,OL 0 J> n •4ae 7>89 e (20)36.0-•" 25 36)r w„, I. '4 -0? 6/ N66'00'26T e" 7^' t44.)aj� 10,)e''$`� )ep �S�x.^ z�a�� a ;Ai I. a wg ) (32) Noss�9 ry o m 2 . ?J,-,45• ,e 23 3 oe Ge.s> £JDJ p. / 'r,4 ?$ y1.4:, .-/ OO/ st?,JJ (281);s>JJ J5,• 0.G 0OG>; (224 ?9 b oti 04 , sC ;0 C9 'a) y • •121.03 U' `<, < N (3 0, 1 YJ/ '10 9 (22)2652,, 1p N "6654 N240709�Y n- . ?a y// 'S'S ?>6•p33 72 < •4� ./ 0w * _ 1{ 361 2 'ar ,��'�)�..: pr6Y50 51. 4 1 '!1J 129., d.el•• 39. 9.63 1 '32'42'6 yq7 4635 Rom'^Q _+, F72�.: :_. 44 �. 639•{3 N3S32'42'E q• Y 1 ti 3424 492.7 N69'49.31'W a 6456 _:,•72 6r +1t. ��C,M 'OspJ 0" IQJY -- 62 ,R.10a6 60313'57V o R. "66 O 3 Q ---N SITE'I'1 r.;P(147-1$4) . _ ; 0 6 4 • 7'ryh �p�` 0//47 PcX- ap „ 5 R .7 '1 P6 ^15n`~ ` 577.ea �- • __ �0� ( y e1 FL^\ az st, �J65 p `ry az 223.02 2632 Na a_-775 1 QC� 6h. QQ'( 02 37.0 f 62 90.58 NB510'44T 3•,J > • '•"36.74 k' J," D T-jyk �� "M N ^'® 2 `(i G�CO4 ' - 43.08. 4.�94.::=� 8151 1D'.9 R.50 • v, 3675E 2 E• 6 �.,��' 1. >T•1j8� n - b136 Nfe 29'48' 4 30,20 2 2 (13) , O ,a(16'.,-170`�', 16 , N86'3B'20'E 192.1 1 3', <o.1 136 (45) N `1 s,...9,13fi N 4 r!? d (228) N N r W' tk �yti (138 n_ -_.,40.58 - �� O• ®s v136 136 .-- OUODT A 3" 1 NBB'10'MT N� '•• /R.1937.86 58736'39T 6 ` 1'�� O® -• (54) • 231.52 375 442 173.96 N89'36'39'W 419.42 N8722'3219 250.23 wo ��,: 828.08 580'56'3114' -.•:'• 67.72 • (35) (38) (42) (43) (46) 50) 1°35.4 (54) 2 f(56) f„ • 16° 1111 ere -/ 7p.5.r:.... © (39)am, (47) R.5• ( ) 22 �S ^ryif 17 r10 4, 1 14 iANNON Nit'40.39�v.........._ !{'.� 9�(37) 17 m� 7�(51 S1�($3) ,.2D ($7) 25 124 l(58) ?� 7ti (19) (20oIB 0 a 9Q(4, NIvis ,ig, k w ) 17 CT) z • ¢ .5...00 126.66(40), (49 (52) ' 4'� rs?J rS5 - (18) T D•1 ,�} ^ Z `A/ 31. ' i 119 Da�(� 17263( )' ) 2%4. CT e`, 494...J 4 n 9 ,": 19 OL A 1 DR) `• . • N 1 R.392.2a P ,?1RIAG i 257 nl Q. 1 V r NN 1I3.8 .� 9, 24.2 "' +Db /d 111.45 17p•07 R.71261 R.125736 res (34) e0J nm9 t5 S __ n 12422'D 27 7)a 80 i 223 r 9. 4j•es(B6) (63)'(82) 7653(78) (74) 70) J re z!w (17) 4r I'^6.94 20 kl ((, • .4-..- n P _ ( (67) rQy J reJN7'30'09'E 1303D 39.07:M1 (u.) ^ � u O�,r� i OO ®4 "4B ��' �� •�7T51'2a•E S3,J. N86'S3'22'W e - 172.49 i R 4, IZ a: (81) 79 (75) (71) N ,4p.28 ?• 16 ul =' e`'.6 24 �(l� �� , .(� �� Si(77) � SE ( 9D.2B o/4, 110 955 ¢'' (23) n ' `v- (14) �`� • 3• _ (BS) (84) (69)oh m 9 (12) m 74 39.5 24.83 2_5 25 120 90 324.8 Sar y (80) (76) (73) (72) '^y (71) tt m' 12 13 0 0 O 0'-°(13)C�(14) =(15)= O' Z(24) n^ 1 ry �� ce MO THRIAR RD ADD DPI 44 =b 1w • 12D,a �G 2 a- a 33 za (. \ • y 467) (so) (s1)(s4) Ds) (96) (ss) (toz a •R. 4331r 20 1,450.0. 95 5,i 60.44•: ''V. (5) 3co r !ow (96)�� ( ) ) 120.1: 1 1a9.89 seC2a1Dw ..Hi T/048 >aao(10) .09) 5 100 (}7(101 '' 5 7DDs 4 a s LANOODME m� ii(93) �� T. "1 7 G 4 c8i•"d(7)N r"Ii(6 n 3 g 1 r:..:2 ^ 25 I n(6 4 (92) (97) (g) 1�p )-0?5) 2 -n, d•c:'n 9:.. t+A•64 it2.42 2D4.31 ,Ti b� UV Il WJ M° W (4)- (3) 3 1~ 3 1 Over 275,261"o.SCOTCH PIN Es., QF 16 () ` 681.17 589'07 0TW 8Q N R. F?/ 9`(S 71G.74 104.61 as I 70 70 75 75 26 Z•{. (107_ (2, •."� ,03r.i' 1Ta 143.36 ' 0 �..'• N1.50.30 OL C (28) 27619 5673-' 7s ~ _ 73 n T SLID 1D-29-69_ EAST 79935 2992•r;•.• 60.02'., 74� J,n,,1 (10.. .-1D1.0.'n 85 -FRAM L-6 x D I aD 108.01 - 5a ` 55.2 m 752 75.35 5.85 ,G�' •-•- :.413 EAST 335.12 "1- P OUf1DT A 5s 7051 T. >p.3 "'rC N8D'0707•E ^ p 1 ' 7p,05 9653 1¢D Sfi.82�-- IL7.62 500 137.63 40 40 10 ^ we' 9 a 4.. 12 11 10 41 9a-w 7 6 4 4 4 • _ i 7a6.94 00 69 _ () ()n ()_ 1 a( ) 11 10 (7) 3 n '33.a Adp (73) n o 76 o z z �. 70 (,� J ( ) ' Off^ (8)0 - O- (z) 77 r, z5 1l� �O 117 a 9 1D , in 147.52 fo ��51 ' O.O ^ )1• • ' 7 `�' 'pa• O J��a 'ts)dN 7D i ..:� 69.5 693 693 89.5 5 (4 ) 1 ^ 20 _(69)tto) o (72)n 2 �.� g �r30- s(58) 13 1 "WINDROW DR d.1a3o's7• G9s •:�•33 (10)=' , n=i47.)..9 4) (BA o r 7731+ 36222 43D ACM (71) 14749 ,^,o J)1 n ,f1 13, (71), N'04" D<J. g, (12) ,Pi LT ryS51532L 1.9724 t 69 R�1 ,�,M abt2 ( �FS1Li::4'N i1.� 140 3 n -I 13751 d' , _ >i 7 o• 7osL u a'+r 130 50 1),0 49.92 (75) 1 P a 12 \Qr`.. (67) 1•tr• ' • , :4G 70 i 7 >3 ", 167.52 2e.23i` 264-4.72 RE ,e,15?"'' D9 • • ' titi/ /+ _ tr/ /./ / i \ / /Z / alp / 8 / / • � N./ / II 11: I o / o f� o • / a / '. , ' \ / / / ." y , - / ,e / ` / , . "i• i 2..-1-.. . / - • ,C ` / `-. / O / :1, O `er\ ;•,, en 1\ ciz.> /1*.,„ ,.$ 7,<",,.. ,rt P 1J, I `C. P� ;,' I gin, t ,` 7 /i � arrazrw "\ ! `V \ f \ -� cam$' , ,..,:\ S T \ rIt F 'ss L, 2 • CA \ u �"s: fly \ ,a' •• 3 I _ _ I ! \ •` ''!•!o"sip�` i' \- �. 1 i S •\• ',\ W i_ I \ i >' \ a,, \ te ' \�_ __ J 1 \ / i �41 "•/toss,- ` 3\\ s\ It c.p\ _' __�aa I \ \ ,.. ��n t_, ,\ _ 1._ .._._ tv •`> \ \. _..0"\.— C.- \ - ; . • • t 1 ?reserve 1 `y' \ 1g i 1 - 3oH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 02-17-04 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: � Planning/Michael D. Franzen Hennepin Village Site C and D Rezoning •3 Requested Action Move to: • Close the public hearing, and • Adopt a Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 64.9 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and Zoning District Change from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 on 11.99 acres; and • • Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Board and Staff recommendations and Council conditions Synopsis This is a continued item from the February 3,2004 and January 20,2004 City Council meetings. This project was published for the January 20, 2004 meeting as a request to rezone of 113 lots from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 with waivers for lot size and setback The developer has modified the request to rezone 84 lots from R1-9.5 to RM 6.5. Community Planning Board Recommendation The Community Planning Board reviewed a request to rezone 113 lots from R1-9.5 to RM 6.5 at a public hearing on December 8, 2003. The Board voted 8-0 to recommend the following. • Approval of a rezoning from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 is for 40 lots in the west portion of Site C. • Denial of the rezoning from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 for 29 lots in Site D. • Denial of the rezoning from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 for 44 lots in the east portion of Site C. The Board believed that single family should be retained in the planned unit development and that rezoning should be phased in order to allow time to evaluate how the new product is selling.. 31 City Council Agenda Hennepin Village Site C and D Rezoning Page 2 Background Information: The modified request allows the developer time to evaluate the acceptance of the new product type. With some additional time,the developer would be better able to determine the number of lots to be single family or multiple family for the balance of the planned unit development. The project requires the following waivers in the RM 6.5 zoning district. • Lot depth from 100 feet to 90 feet. • Front yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet. • Rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet. • Side yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet on one side. • Side yard setback from 10 feet to 7 feet on one side. Attachments 1. Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept 2. Staff Report dated December 5, 2003 3. Community Planning Board Minutes dated December 8, 2003 HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITES C AND D REZONING CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITES C AND D REZONING FOR HENNEPIN VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Board did conduct a public hearing on December 8, 2003 on Hennepin Village Site C and D Rezoning by Pemtom Land Company and considered their request for approval of the PUD Concept plan and made its recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on February 17, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Hennepin Village Sites C and D,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 stamp dated February 5, 2004. 3. The Community Planning Board met on December 8, 2003 and made its recommendation to the City Council. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 17th day of February, 2004. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk EXHIBIT A PUD Concept- Hennepin Village Sites C & D Legal Description: Blocks 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11, and Outlots D, E and H of Eagle Ridge at Hennepin Village One. �-1 STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: December 5,2003 SUBJECT: Hennepin Village Site C and D Rezoning APPLICANT/ Pemtom Land Company OWNER: Pemtom Land Company LOCATION: South of Flying Cloud Airport, east of Eden Prairie Road, and north of Highway 212 REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 64.9 acres 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 11.99 acres 3. Zoning District Change from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 on 11.992 acres 4. Site Plan Review on 11.99 acres Area Location Map - Hennepin Village Sites C and D Rezoning Address - N. of Hwy #212, and east of Spring Road I I '% ' Eden •Prairie.Road. .- I ► . •io�ne°er ray ..i r r. . --1 �\4 , ran S' : isR�a p :.9 ... . .: ...../..,.....-.3,:,.;„,,,,. ..::::„.....!:.. ...:,..:.::,...,:!..:i:,....../j....,;,,,-rztr....7}rf-i.-,-Ii,,,Ayil ),•:. ...:::•,..,.. .;••,"..,',...::::::.:1:::." .. , ::.: .• , ••.• i•.•,..•;,,•-:•7:...:-.... ...,..•.•. :1 l 1. 4' I ll { S + SITE. 'AREA .:..::::.. .:•!..::::::::::::.............i.::::::•.:::::............ .....: ..:._2.- .........:::••••••,:::::••;•::::::;......:,:. ::::-ir,-;• ....,......... II L r. f 1.. r r ;: --,1,--...1.1.....14.....!...::::!:::•:.!,...:•••„;;; !!;•;,Y,../..!..1:J.....•.::...:;,:...,.,••:/:1_,A,,:;,:•••••':::::.......L.,....;.,;;,.-:::-.4!....744-4'--Tii.-;:.'7.;..:.,.,-;-....;.,......,.......r-..„.-......F.:.„,....„.•.,::::::„.„.,..„...,....„:„.•,....:„.,......:,,,;_.„:::•:,,,r: ' . ,„„.... „,..„.,...,:::.:........:.:::,.:„..:: •:..... ..... .....::,,......::„.••:;• :::,•,.:, , •:•:. :. -..-,....,„„:__.:_.,..-.7,-: -..... ::„....:: •:::•••••••!, :,....• ,:,•,:.• ,.,:...,:::,..„. .....,...,:•........ .......:••!:,..::.„..,..::•.,.... .....:.•.., ....,•..... .....:-...„ . ..:.,.,:•••,.„...„.::„.:,.....„,:..:• ••••:,...,...„.........,, •.• ,....„,„,..........„ .„.. .....„......„:. •,........„,:,• ......... ..........::,:: .,•:.•"•:,,4•....„,_.„..:::::..:‘,...,„• •.•••:;.•:• . ••... :_„......,•:•••• •.. . ...„...::...:•••.....„, ,....,:„...:,•,..:„......?,.".::• •::•:•-„,,....:...:............:,„•,..,:.•:„......, ..,.,...,...::,.:::„......„ ,.. • .• ••••••....:•,•:::: ... •••••• .: •........ .• .... ... ....:, .::: ;.,i,y .,..... . ,.. .J „,.., .., .... , . : ...„.. , :r.,',;. ..; :;;; Highway #21.2 I... .:. . : ..:., :. • = Grass Lake � o Scale Staff Report—Hennepin Village Site C and D Rezoning December 5, 2003 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The approved plan for Site C and D is 443 housing units with 330 townhouses and 113 single family homes. There are four amendments to the approved plan. • Rezoning 113 single family lots from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 Multiple family buildings are not permitted in the single family zoning district. • Change in housing mix The approved plan is 113 single family homes and 330 townhouses. The proposed plan is 113 two and three unit buildings, 330 townhouses, and 0 single family homes. • Change in open space The zero lot line set back reduces internal open space between buildings by 1.16 acres. • Change in architecture • The two and three unit building product has a different architectural look than the two story single family home. The project was advertised as a rezoning for all 113 single family lots. The developer's narrative indicates that if the City is not amenable to developing a mixed use zoning district that would allow both multiple family and single family,that the request would be modified to rezone 40 single family lots to multiple family lots in west portion of Site C,withdraw the request to rezone 29 single family lots to multiple family in Site D,and withdraw the request for rezoning 44 lots from single family to multiple family in east portion of Site C. The City cannot create a zoning district for this project only.This would be a spot zoning and would not likely hold up to a challenge in court. If the City considers changing single family to allow multiple family or multiple family to allow single family,the city wide implications must be studied. There are vacant single family lots scattered throughout the community in established neighborhoods. Building a multiple family unit would be inconsistent with neighborhood expectations. Also existing single family homes could be converted to multiple family. Allowing single family in a multiple family zoning district may not have the same impact,but may be contrary to the purpose of multiple family zoning. Higher density zoning typically provides affordable rental and ownership housing, and workforce housing near employment. Higher density housing is typically located near commercial,office,and industrial areas.It would not make sense to convert existing high density areas to lower density. The adjacent roads are built to accommodate higher traffic.This may also create pressure to convert low density areas in other parts of the City to multiple family. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS The project requires the following waivers in the RM 6.5 zoning district. 3� Staff Report—Hennepin Village Site C and D Rezoning December 5, 2003 • Lot depth from 100 feet to 90 feet. • Front yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet. • Rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet. • Side yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet on one side. • Side yard setback from 10 feet to 7 feet on one side. The zero lot line setback for the attached units displaces 1.16 acres of open space between the buildings. The private open space is an important part of the approved plan for visual transition between the buildings. Twelve lots would have to be taken out of the plan in order to retain no net loss of private open space. DRAINAGE There are minor changes to the grading and drainage plans. LANDSCAPING There are minor changes in the location of trees. SITE SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS There are no changes to the approved plan. SUMMARY On December 2, 2003, the City Council approved a rezoning of 33 lots from single family to multiple family for Site A. Twenty seven(27) lots, or 45%, will remain single family. There are two options for the Board. 1. Reaffirm the approved plan for Sites C and D. 2. Recommend approval of the request to rezone 40 single family lots to multiple family in the west portion of Site C. Accept the withdrawal of the request to rezone 29 single family lots to multiple family in Site D. Accept the withdrawal of the request to rezone 44 single family lots to multiple family in the east portion of Site C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the request based on the following. I 3U Staff Report—Hennepin Village Site C and D Rezoning December 5, 2003 • Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 64.9 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review on 11.99 acres • Zoning District Change from R1-9.5 to RM 6.5 on 11.99 acres • Site Plan Review on 11.99 acres This approval is subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated December 5, 2003 and plans dated December 5, 2003, and the following: 1. Rezoning is for 40 lots from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 in west portion of Site C. 2. The request to rezone 29 single family lots from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 in Site D is withdrawn. 3. The request to rezone 44 single family lots from R1-9.5 to RM-6.5 in the east portion of Site C is withdrawn. 4. Prior to Final Plat approval, the proponent shall submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District 5. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall install erosion control and tree protection fencing at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Forester. 6. Prior to Building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. B. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. C. Submit a landscaping and tree replacement bond for review. D. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. 7. The following waiver from the City Code are granted as part of the Planned Unit Development District review in the RM 6.5 Zoning District: • Lot depth from 100 feet to 90 feet. • Front yard setback from 30 feet to 10 feet. • Rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet. • Side yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet on one side. • Side yard setback from 10 feet to 7 feet on one side. 3� Planning Board Minutes December 8,2003 Page 2 The owners are requesting a continuance to the January 12, 2004 meeting. Franzen stated this item had been before the board previously. The proponent had been directed to reduce grading and tree impacts. They need additional time to review it and are asking for a continuance to the January 12 meeting. MOTION by Steppat, second by Koenig,to recommend a continuance to the January 12, 2004,meeting. Motion carried, 8-0 B. LAMETTRY TIRE SHOP by Richard LaMettry. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.22 acres and Site Plan Review on 1.22 acres. Location: East of Plaza Drive,west of I-494. The owners are requesting a continuance to the January 12, 2004 meeting. Franzen stated there are two reasons for continuance. The developer is out of town and the building needs to be redesigned to address screening of the loading area and mechanical equipment. MOTION by Koenig, second by Nelson,to recommend a continuance to the January 12, 2004, meeting. Motion carried, 8-0 C. HENNEPIN VILLAGE SITE C &D REZONING by Pemtom Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 64.9 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 11.99 acres,Zoning District Change from R1- 9.5 to RM 6.5 on 11.99 acres, and Site Plan Review on 11.99 acres. Location: North of Highway 212, east of Spring Road. Dan Herbst of Pemtom Land Company presented the project. He stated when trying to meet submission guidelines for the November Community Planning Board meeting he was unable to get all the information together in time; as a result,he presented Site A separately from Sites C and D. He displayed a map of the area and stated he is requesting a rezoning of 113 single family lots to RM-6.5,multifamily. He said they are planning on using the same architectural elements in the multifamily homes as they have used in the single family. He stated there is no request to change the density,they are merely substituting twin and triple homes on the single family sites. He said another request is to change the city code to allow an intermix of multifamily and single family homes. He said the twin homes and three-plexes will have most of the living area on one level, the landscaping and streetscape will remain the same although there will be a loss of 4.6 acres of green space.He asserted they are anxious to get the homes built and sold. 116 Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2003 Page 3 Franzen stated that staff is recommending approval based on the narrative from the developer which stated that if the mixed use zoning district is not in place they will agree to the 40 homes converted to multifamily. The developer has reaffirmed his initial intention that the board should act on all of the lots. He said there are questions that need to be addressed such as whether single family housing is an important product type and, if so, where it should be located. Another question would be how many single family homes need to be maintained as part of the development. Brooks stated that in the original plan there were 760 lots. He asked what percentage are proposed to be single family. Herbst responded that of Sites C &D approxi- mately 28% are single family with 83 in C and 30 in D; Site A now has 27 single family lots. Brooks asked the square footage of the multifamily units. Herbst responded approximately 1,100 - 1,300 square feet. He said they would have basements with ingress/egress windows to allow finishing the lower level. Nelson stated the letter said the houses were to accommodate work force housing and asked Herbst how much the homes will cost. Herbst responded they start at $265,000 and the final price is approximately$325,000. Nelson asked if there are any priced as work force housing. Herbst responded they are workforce housing. Nelson asked if he would leave single family homes in Site B. Herbst responded because the topography is so severe, they have already done a great deal of grading which did result in loss of trees. Nelson stated she is concerned about the loss of the single family housing and she suggested possibly designing Site B with single family homes. Herbst stated he hasn't explored that possibility since he is now unsure what type of single family house would sell. The multifamily homes are selling well with 70 sales out of 144. The single family sales still remain slow. Nelson asked Herbst why he took out the green space rather than removing a home here and there to preserve the green space. Herbst responded that he can't afford to lose any of the homes because of increased costs due to infrastructure and higher assessments. Steppat asked Herbst if he was of the opinion that no single family home design will sell. Herbst responded that he needs to keep the project going and single family homes aren't selling currently. He said the consumer is wanting single level living areas which these townhomes and three-plexes will provide. Steppat asked if Herbst had considered going with the original plan and redesigning the single family homes with single level living areas. Herbst responded the footprint is too small for a larger home and he is trying to accommodate consumer demands with the least amount of change to the plan. Foote stated the single family home element design was what intrigued him from the beginning with this project. He said in Site A 33 are changed. He asked if the developer were to stay with that proportion on Sites C and D,what kind of hardship Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2003 Page 4 that would cause. Herbst responded he was afraid it wouldn't work and they would have to come back before the Board; they would rather have all the lots changed to multifamily. He said all three products could be offered and demand would be determined by market demand. Foote asked when the homes would be completed. Herbst responded they are behind on the single family homes, Site A should be complete in 1 1/2 years and then they will start on Sites C and D. Herbst stated it is a bad time of year and if the pace picks up they could build more single family homes in the multifamily district. He said the change in code allows flexibility in types of homes built and he wouldn't need to come before the Board again. Foote asked for staff input regarding this overlay zoning. Franzen stated the City can't spot zone. The City cannot create a zoning district for this project only. If the City considers changing single family to allow multiple family or multiple family to allow single family, the city wide implications must be studied. There are vacant single family lots scattered throughout the community in established neighborhoods. Building a multiple family unit would be inconsistent with neighborhood expecta- tions and existing single family homes could be converted to multiple family. He stated the easiest way to go would be to change the code to allow single family in a multifamily zoning district. Franzen added that if the area is zoned multiple family it will be developed as all multiple family, since the developer will not make a commitment to build any amount of single family. Koenig asked the developer what the difference in square footage is between the single family and multifamily homes. Herbst responded the two story single family homes have approximately 1,800 square feet which includes both the upper and lower levels; the multifamily has 1,200 - 1,400 square feet. Koenig asked where the square footage is lost. Herbst explained with the single family the upper level allows for additional bedrooms. Koenig asked whether the price point would change with the multifamily homes. Herbst responded the one story rambler style is going to cost about the same. She asked with the single family, duplex and tri homes mixture how that would affect association dues. Herbst responded nothing changes everyone would pay the same. He explained that there will be differences between the single family and multi family. Koenig stated it didn't make sense that single family homeowners would pay the same rates for association dues as multifamily homeowners. Nelson asked staff to explain the front yard setbacks that have been agreed to initially with this development and what they would be without the waivers. Franzen responded that in this development, the single family homes have setbacks of 10 feet in the front, 10 feet in the rear, regular setbacks would be 30 in the front and 25 in the rear. Planning Board Minutes December 8,2003 Page 5 Nelson asked how close the homes are to the airport flight path. Franzen answered they are not in the safety zones and none in this site are located in the 60 or 65 noise contours, although a portion of Site A is in those areas. Nelson asked what typical setbacks would be for multifamily housing. Franzen responded for RM- 6.5 it would be a setback of 30 feet in front and 20 feet between the buildings. These buildings have 14 feet between them. She asked what the City was getting in return for this product as opposed to what other developers have provided. Franzen responded there isn't anything out there with this size floor plan. Other developments offer larger homes (1,500- 1,800 s.f.)with an equal amount in the lower level,with some plans at approximately 4,000 s. f. and costing between $500,000- 600,000. Franzen said the City is getting open space dedicated, common space, a trail system, and diversity of home types. He said it's important to look at the homes and ask if they are a better design and if the waivers weren't granted the City wouldn't have all these items in return. Nelson asked staff the minimum width for doorways in the single level townhomes would measure. Franzen responded he didn't know about interior doors but the exterior entrance and exit doors need to be at least 36 inches. He said the interior doors would be a minimum of 30 inches and would be 36 -42 inches for handicapped accessibility. Nelson asked Herbst about the door widths. Herbst stated he wasn't sure about door sizes. Nelson asked how many stairs there were from the garage into the house. Herbst responded there are 2-4 steps. She asked how many there were on the front of the homes. Herbst answered that there was one step. Nelson said that she would like to know if the homes will be handicap accessible to those who would want single level living and until she has those answers, she can't agree to the changes. Stoelting asked where the single family housing is currently located. Herbst displayed a diagram and showed that they were in Site A in the center of the site. Steppat asked how many of the single family homes had sold. Herbst answered ten with some lot holds. Steppat stated he is troubled because the project keeps coming back to the Board. He said there are people who have bought single family homes in the development and they have certain expectations. He said even though it does seem as though the single family homes are not selling;he said he was not in favor of mixing single family and multifamily and would want single family retained in some areas of the development. Brooks asked what type of grading could be done to allow a different type of single family home on Sites C and D. Herbst responded that curb cuts and grading has been done and utilities are installed; it would be very difficult to make changes. Brooks asked if multifamily were already built. Herbst responded they had been built in some areas. Brooks stated that he saw the need for changes in Site A. He 93 Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2003 Page 6 said with the scope of this project it's difficult to deal with it as a whole. He stated he would reluctantly approve the request because it wasn't good to have the property not selling. Sutherland asked Herbst how many levels were in the current multifamily homes. Herbst responded the Carriage homes are three levels and the Heritage homes have a walkout with bedrooms on the lower level. Sutherland stated that Herbst indicated single family isn't selling because it's not single level yet the multifamily homes are selling well and aren't single level homes either. He asked why Herbst believes that the single level multifamily homes would sell better since he hasn't built any of those particular homes yet. Herbst responded that there are similar developments that are selling well and it's a new concept which is consumer driven. Sutherland stated his concern was the risk involved. He said single family didn't work, perhaps the multifamily might not either. Herbst responded there are no guarantees. Sutherland asked Herbst if the area was still just an open field,would he still build multifamily. Herbst responded he may have come up with something different. Stoelting asked if the request was originally to withdraw the rezoning request on Site D and the eastern portion of Site C. Herbst responded the original plan was to rezone all 113 lots to multifamily. He said if that didn't work, a portion would remain single family. He showed the site plan and stated the product will be • unattached and mixed with multifamily. He asserted the streetscape would be very attractive with the multifamily and single family homes mixed. Stoelting stated they would need to modify the zonings in order to intermingle single family and multifamily. Franzen said the proponent can ask for a code amendment or work within the requirements of a particular zoning. He stated if he were to petition for a zoning code change it could be a mix of single family and multifamily. Stoelting said he would be agreeable to a phased approach toward single family housing rather than eliminating it. Herbst responded he didn't want to eliminate single family altogether. He said the Ryland Company feels strongly about the project and he would be willing to return for a code change. Foote stated he would have been reluctant to support the project had this been requested at the beginning. He stated he doesn't want Herbst to come back over and over. Franzen asked Herbst if Ryland thinks they should do a certain number of lots this year or do a certain number next year. Herbst responded they don't have a certain number and current homeowners don't seem to be opposed. Koenig asked what type of housing would be going in next to the open space adjacent to the park. Herbst responded there will be 52 townhomes in the$500,000 range. Koenig stated she is not against a mix as it will allow for variety but doesn't agree with single family and multifamily intermingled as people in single family homes won't like it. She said the development will look very different and appear 111 Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2003 Page 7 much denser because of less open space and this is a real concern. She said she is very confused about the Council's action to remove single family and replace with multifamily. Koenig stated she is concerned it will remain all multifamily or just a small number of single homes will be placed throughout the development. Nelson asked if there is a way to guarantee certain sizes of interior doors. Franzen responded there aren't requirements in the zoning code but there would be in the building and fire codes. Nelson stated she believes people are not attracted to the area because it looks like a multifamily development. She said if the zoning is changed, she is not convinced there will be single family homes built there. She stated the single level multifamily homes need to provide amenities for people with needs for one level living. She commented that if there was single family housing near the entrances,more interest might be sparked in the development. Koenig stated that the new units aren't family friendly. They're small and geared toward empty nesters. She said she's not comfortable with it. Brooks stated that the challenges are that the curb cuts, sewer and utilities are in and because of this it confines the developer to what's existing for building pads. Foote stated Site D could be totally redone to accommodate single level single family homes if Herbst chose to do so. Herbst stated the single family houses will not be adaptable on the perimeter of the site because of the alleys..He stated in order to fit in the site they would have to move the garages into the front of the homes. Stoelting stated Site A has a mix of multifamily. He asked if Sites C and D should be done similar to Site A allowing for single family housing. Herbst responded they would like to do a mix and if they can't they would want to do all multifamily. Steppat stated he is not in favor of a mix of single family and multifamily on the same block. He said he doesn't favor setting up block by block and would prefer all multifamily and a separate site for single family. He said he believes there is a large population of empty nesters who need this type of housing. Stoelting commented that the recurring theme he's hearing from Board members is that they are not in favor of a mix of single family and multifamily on the same block. He asked members if they would be comfortable with not intermixing and how they felt about single family eliminated altogether. Brooks stated that if this is how the project had been presented originally,he would not have supported it. He said he's a little more comfortable with the project but doesn't like the mixed housing. Planing Board Minutes December 8, 2003 Page 8 Nelson said she's okay with single level housing but is not comfortable with the project and has not been from the beginning. She also would never have agreed to it if it had been presented this way originally. If the single level housing is done correctly it would be marketable. Foote stated he doesn't support intermingling of single family and multifamily on the same block. Steppat said he doesn't support intermingling but would be okay with sections of single family and multifamily. He said had this project come in originally this way he wouldn't have supported it. Koenig stated she didn't support intermingling or all multifamily housing. Seymour stated he appreciates the complexity of the site. He continued the market and dynamics of Eden Prairie have changed and there are just a few bits of developable land remaining. He thought that originally they would be developed differently and was disappointed about the lack of single family housing in this development. He said it's important to get it developed and not let it sit but he's not in favor of intermingling the multifamily and single family. Sutherland stated that intermingling did not make sense. They need to look at an incremental approach which is something that has not been tried. He said in looking at Site C there could be a change to multifamily on the east side. Koenig stated that they have ignored Site B and asked what the plans are for that area. Herbst responded that the development of Site B will be a couple of years out and he's not ready to commit to that area currently. Koenig asked whether Site B would consist of multifamily or single family. Herbst responded there were originally 180 homes and now there are 167. There are 51 single family, 64 Heritage townhomes, and 64 Carriage townhomes. Koenig said the state of the economy is a factor and it's important to look at the long range since single family may be selling better in a year or two. Foote stated he was not happy with the lack of single family homes and reduction of square footage which means there will be no families in this development. He said he hopes the east side of Site C can incorporate single family. Koenig stated that when the development was originally presented, it was with single family homes aimed at families. She asked staff if there will be an affect on traffic numbers with a mix of multi and single family. Gray responded there would be very little difference in traffic. Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2003 Page 9 Stoelting stated the consensus of the Board indicates they don't want to mix single family and multiple family on the same block. He asked if Herbst could look at a middle ground with Site C. Herbst responded they could rezone and then wait and address the site later. Foote stated it sounds like a good approach to take the one section at this time and asked if that would be acceptable. Herbst responded Ryland would not like it as the homes are consumer driven. Nelson agreed with Foote that she would like the eastern part of Site C to be returned to single family. She stated there would be enough room to allow a house that would have some first floor space area. She suggested two or three architectural designs that differ from those not selling. Stoelting suggested a phased approach in that the western portion of Sites C & D would be changed and the eastern side of Site C would not be. He asked the board for input as to a phased approach. Sutherland stated that he would be for an incremental approach on Site C. Seymour stated he would not be opposed to increments. Koenig said an incremental approach would be good. Steppat said he would support an incremental approach. Foote agreed that the incremental approach would be good and the Board can look at other areas in the future. Nelson stated she agreed with the incremental approach and would like a full building season to pass before bringing the project back. Brooks agreed with increments. Koenig liked the idea of a variety of single family homes and placement of those homes on the perimeter of Site C. MOTION by Sutherland, second by Nelson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 8-0 MOTION by Sutherland, second by Foote, to approve the request to rezone 40 single family lots to multiple family in the west portion of Site C. Franzen said the Board must make a recommendation to the Council in regard to the remaining units. Li Planning Board Minutes December 8, 2003 Page 10 Foote stated the motion should indicate they are for the rezoning of 40 lots in the western portion of Site C but not in favor of rezoning the remaining lots in Site D. Stoelting read the amended motion as move to approve the request to rezone 40 single family lots to multiple family in the west portion of Site C. Deny the request to rezone 29 single family lots to multiple family in Site D and the request to rezone 44 single family lots to multiple family in the eastern portion of Site C. Foote seconded. Seymour stated that the developer can still develop the sites as proposed earlier. A vote was taken: Brooks, Foote, Koenig,Nelson Seymour, Steppat, Sutherland, and Stoelting voted aye. Motion carried,8-0. Herbst responded the Board has looked at it hard and feels the project is challenging. He said they're looking at unique projects with the hope of being flexible. Koenig told the developer she appreciates the open space and park space fees. VI. INFORMATIONAL MEETING A. INFORMATIONAL MEETING—KLEVE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT by Dennis Kleve. Request for Informational meeting to discuss a Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial,Rezoning from Rural and I-2 to Neighborhood Commercial,Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan Review. Location: 13075 Pioneer Trail. Dennis Kleve presented the project and stated he is requesting a change in the guide plan from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.96 acres in order to build a 25,000 square foot retail building. Franzen stated this area is a collection of different land uses built at different times and the conditions of the properties vary. Many of the sites were built prior to current zoning and are non-conforming. The change in the guide plan for this site could be the catalyst for other sites to improve or change to other appropriate and compatible uses. One of the questions would be whether there is a need for rezoning in this area and whether a change from industrial to commercial would fit in this area. He said notices were sent to surrounding property owners although it was not required. Chuck Scheberger of 18014 Valley View Road stated he has two properties adjacent to this area. He said they aren't opposed to retail but has concerns regarding additional traffic,parking needs and adequate lighting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 02/17/04 SECTION: Public Hearings DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Office of City Manager/Planning Scott H. Neal Brookview Ridge Scott A. Kipp Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.56 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.56 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 4.56 acres; and • Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 4.56 acres into 4 lots; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Board recommendations and Council conditions. Synopsis This is a four lot single-family development to be rezoned R1-22. Community Planning Board Recommendation The Community Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at its January 26, 2004 meeting. Background Information This project was first reviewed by the Community Planning Board in September for five lots using a shared driveway to Hennepin Town Road. The Board continued the project to reduce tree loss and provide access for all lots to Brookview Circle. The current plan is for four lots each taking access to Brookview Circle. Tree loss has been reduced from 42% down to 26%. A waiver is requested for a 0-foot side yard driveway setback for Lot 2. Code requires a 3-foot setback. The waiver is reasonable in that it maintains the driveway for the existing house on Lot 2. Attachments 1. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 2. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 3. Community Planning Board Minutes dated September 22, 2003 and January 26, 2004 4. Staff Reports dated September 19, 2003 and January 23, 2004 1-1q BROOKVIEW RIDGE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF BROOKVIEW RIDGE FOR DAVID AND PATRICIA SMITH 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 January 26, 2004, on Brookview Ridge by David and Patricia Smith 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 February 17, 2004. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Brookview Ridge,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 stamp dated February 6, 2004. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Community Planning Board dated January 26, 2004. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 17th day of February, 2004. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 50 EXHIBIT A PUD Concept- Brookview Ridge Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Creek Ridge Estates,Hennepin County,MN BROOKVIEW RIDGE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2004- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BROOKVIEW RIDGE FOR DAVID AND PATRICIA SMITH BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Brookview Ridge for David and Patricia Smith stamp dated February 6, 2004, and consisting of 4.56 acres into 4 lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall,is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 17th day of February, 2004. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk • 5D Planning Board Minutes September 22,2003 Page 9 D. BROOKVIEW RIDGE by David and Patricia Smith.Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.56 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.56 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RI-22 on 4.56 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 4.56 acres into 5 lots. Location: 9780 Brookview Circle Perry Ryan of Ryan Engineering presented the item. He stated the site is guided low density and they are asking for R1-22. The tree loss is at 42% He said they reviewed several concepts regarding tree loss and they felt larger homes may reduce tree loss. He said that they have put together five concept plans, each with changes in access to the property. He stated Concept A was the concept plan in place when the development to the north was laid out. He compared the various concept drawings and said all of them were at an estimated 35%tree loss. Ryan stated the house styles were the most challenging because of the unconventional architecture. Most desirable architectural style would be to access the homes on the north side of the road to have a traditional walk out unit. He stated they were proposing Concept E and the staff report is based on that plan. • Franzen stated there was a development approved in 1981 called Creekridge Estates which consisted of lots with a minimum size of 5 acres. There was a plan for a subdivision that showed how the area would be developed if sewer and water were available. At that time, there was no tree ordinance. In 1990,the code was developed to determine tree loss and mitigation. The average tree loss for residential developments is 35%when the development includes installation of public roads. When private roads are considered,there should be considerably less tree loss. Steppat asked about the concerns regarding the access point on Hennepin Town Road. Gray responded that access point has been reviewed for site distance and is adequate. He said Hennepin Town Road is a 40 mile per hour road and he didn't think that was going to change. Ben Roy of 9785 Brookview Circle stated he thought this was a good development and doesn't want to see individual drives going up to each of the lots. Vicki Hegedus of 9825 Brookview Circle stated she was disappointed they are developing the lots at less than 2 acres each. It's a unique area and are against having one lot so small isn't good. Maureen Groth of 10571 Estate Drive said her home abuts the site and where Hennepin Town Road and Bluff Road intersect the road is very steep. There are I Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2003 Page 10 traffic problems and access off that road would be dangerous. Brookview Circle is adequate for that number of homes. David Smith of 9784 Brookview Circle stated the street is unique in that it is private and forested on both sides. He said the neighborhood would like to preserve the feeling of a country lane. The issue of percentages and dealing with trees is confusing. Putting in a driveway along the north end will preserve the character of the neighborhood. They will be able to look out at the country land below. The slope of the land makes it difficult for building but is beautiful in its natural state. Hennepin Town Road has traffic that travels too fast and adding another access to the road could cause more problems with traffic. The solution isn't whether there's another driveway on the road, the issue is traffic. The neighborhood would like to see the natural state of the area preserved and Concept E does that and they feel it is the best plan. Stoelting asked staff to address the traffic issue concerns with Concept E and also tree loss for each concept. Gray responded because this is a relatively small project, traffic volume is not a substantial concern. The issue is whether there is significant traffic on Hennepin Town Road. There could be enforcement issues on that road and there will be mitigation in the future when the 169 intersection improvements take place. Within five years there will be a reduction in the traffic resulting from the changes with 169. Stoelting asked whether it would be better to put in another road rather than using an existing road. He asked staff if there were safety concerns. Gray responded if they could utilize the existing street that would be preferred. The subdivision has large lots and they will need to take access from Brookview Circle. It's difficult topography and the question is how to respond to public safety and if the driveways aren't off Brookview Circle this could present problems. Fox responded that the tree loss figures include only significant trees. Since 1986, projects have been evaluated regarding tree loss and this resulted in an average of 35% maximum tree loss in a project. He said when staff looks at a plan to evaluate tree loss, it's based on what's presented in the plan taking into consideration the grades, and topographical factors. The initial concept plans for Brookview Ridge involved mass grading and the more recent plan shows retaining walls. The retaining walls in Concept E which range from 6 to 15 feet in height will bench in building pads to reduce the amount of grading which in turn will reduce tree loss. It's important to make sure the walls are stable and won't collapse resulting in additional tree loss. He said sewer and water connections aren't available on Brookview Circle and they will need to determine how to get them to the site due to the steep incline to the homes. The NURP pond was not addressed and there is one in the corner which takes out a mass of trees. Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2003 Page 11 Nelson asked if any of the plans have the private drive up where Concept E does but rather than out to Hennepin Town Road connect with Brookview. Ryan responded that Concepts B and C did Nelson stated if the road was a dead-end, the homes could front the rear walkouts. She stated having one entrance rather than two is better for traffic. Brooks asked the price point of the homes. Kaufman responded they would be in the $700-800,000 price range. There will be a large number of trees lost. It needs to be compared to other sites. There is no other alternative than to eliminate lots. Brooks asked due to the unique characteristics of the site if it would be possible to consider fewer lots. Kaufman stated have reached a point that they are comfortable with this number of lots. Brooks asked if they had estimated tree loss if they removed one lot. Kaufman responded there would still be as much grading,just one less house footprint and the number of trees saved would not be significant. Seymour asked if there are fewer safety issues if lots access Brookview Circle rather than Hennepin Town Road. Franzen responded yes with the plan as proposed one issue is how do emergency vehicles locate a house if the addresses are not in a normal location off Bridgeview Circle. In terms of fire protection they are not going to park a rig near a burning building but will park as close as possible. there may be a situation that requires sprinkling systems in the houses. Foote stated he like the R1-22 zoning. The large lots fit well. Is it possible to access these lots with a driveway from each lot onto Brookview. Ryan responded it is possible and shown in Concept A. Foote stated he doesn't like the idea of allowing access onto Hennepin Town Road. Koenig stated she would like to see a plan that shows less density. Because the site is so steep and heavily wooded, there will be a huge difference in tree loss. Would like to see a plan for fewer lots. In terms of access she agreed that access onto Hennepin Town Road doesn't seem like a good idea. Steppat stated there is a difference between the proponent, neighbors, and staff regarding access and tree loss. He said he would support continuing the item to another meeting. He said he liked Nelson's suggestion of an alternative access since less tree loss would be desired. Nelson agreed with Steppat that the item needs to be continued. The Board needs to look at other options and there's work to be done with the site plan. Diana Johnson of 10583 Estate Drive asked why they would want to put in a private drive which would be very obtrusive to Pine Estates. There's only three driveways in Brookview Circle. Access should be from Brookview Circle. 55 Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2003 Page 12 Foote stated he agreed with the resident's comments and in regard to a dead-end road he would want the City's Fire Marshal to review access. Koenig stated she would like to see a plan with fewer homes. MOTION by Brooks, second by Koenig, to continue to the October 27, 2003, meeting based on the recommendations for Option 2 of the staff report dated September 19, 2003. Motion carried, 7-0 SG Planning Board Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 2 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BROOKVIEW RIDGE by David and Patricia Smith. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.56 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.56 acres, Zoning District Change From Rural to R1-22 on 4.56 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 4.56 acres into 4 lots. Location: 9780 Brookview Circle Perry Ryan of Ryan Engineering presented the project. He stated they had modified the plat which now consists of four lots with 26 % tree loss, down from 40% and the average lot size is 49,000 square feet. Franzen stated the last time the Board reviewed this project they asked the developer to reduce tree loss,the number of retaining walls and provide access to Brookview Circle. Staff is recommending approval as all of these items have been addressed. MOTION by Nelson, second by Koenig,to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 7-0 MOTION by Nelson, second by Koenig, to approve a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.56 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.56 acres, Zoning District Change From Rural to R1-22 on 4.56 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 4.56 acres into 4 lots, based on plans dated January 20, 2004, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated January 23, 2004, to the City Council. Motion carried, 7-0 Koenig told Mr. Ryan the resubmitted plan is a big improvement over the previous one and she is pleased to see the access to Brookview Circle. 57 STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board THROUGH: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner DATE: September 19, 2003 SUBJECT: Brookview Ridge APPLICANT/ OWNER: David and Patricia Smith LOCATION: 9780 Brookview Circle REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.56 acres 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.56 acres 3. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 4.56 acres 4. Preliminary Plat of 4.56 acres into 5 lots 5W - Area-Location Map - Brookview Ridge . 9780 Brookview Circle ,. . .:. i.,.6,,F KM,47iri alit .. • e' ,.-4 41t, p,'44,,,*••:,‘„,,1114.1..,.14,114,,,:,if 1:,:ii,4...,,,....,.. if,,,„4., .EI -isr„ ,•cr.•-$,* y •1,-4-4- ',-,, k- .:06,•,..,.1. -40, 1,- -it,c,..“1,p4,,,,,01,,,,r,„..1,,v,,,,,,„,10.:., • , , :-. , '1.41,,,;•' '',4'..• ,11 1,' i ,,,r.v„2.:),,F,-,,i;.4 •,',,,Ir4lriiPle"if•-41'1'0:IV Evrf.,,i 4111 '704,,,,-1. ,-,,,, ,,,r*A,,iiri,„,,,,No, „,,,, .r,,' -I!: •,Agovimmiontionsiip:::,-,11,1i-01:q-.1,11 ,-xt. ,4,,.,,,,te t,„, .,..veil •"' 111.1641tir. .1 ii,....:46 il '1:,,. 1-'An .4 j ..,..4.14' 'k 4.1.1iiilt;N:ii.V:110,dk' y 1 .. 'Ii.,.1i,liTh....iii,.!1!:1,1111:0,1Vd!!;1'r:..1;,"•'-,'.14-lefilii, • '.rt, ',I. --14-:' ,,,,,-- •••.,.;NAIL If .,:t•,..,_is:.:,f,„4',..•:..-... ,„„;..,titt,4--,-,,,,,,„:4;04, tnsi,..i.ir• A, .•..--„io..,:!!!:,.-,.:,r,111,,,,,,,,E.,,,..,,,,-.-....,..,..,..;.,•7...,............;.__ . 'J• I"1,, ,,.1 '1]'1,',,L'''..:.9:4Pii•!'41,;','"•4::.,rNiAtic...1fArt.,•igror!,• :1,11, tf , ,:, . .•,,.,a.irl,, 1,, rokilF44114111.4'i,,,, •a.z.;• /,":„,-... :,Yr.••f'S.' i ;.:::S. , 1.lehiolgill I,...Let 4,1•1, 7•1,'4',,,, :,. :• ;IR Of 14,- ''It , --14 ,,igifiL:lifl•qtk '4' •,•''''.;•,=-14', ".:111711 1,151'Mpahr, ,Okii,tigilill-ileg.ge..',„ 41, toilil,' f,'• fili. 1 III l'14 it!,.1;iii,.•,. 1,1,'.10,1 i • gift Op .„. V,'11 1 , ailLA'+..: ' ..., R. '• OtigiN 144101 VI' 41-"i: 1:gigt „ -7.,ifk."•frif7J.Priiiiiirjl,Iflo 4'1:410449k fr '. 4.1:4'.i'llfar,-, •,,_-0" .N, -i,, .,., .,,,..' ,411 7." ' lit, ''-''I''' i "''"1 l'I'41N111i1111H11iPiiiii1gill!!!Pagi iliAkiit • rif ,,,,,41,., f,q,, ,-.. i ,,,,,,fr li.,..re" ..:1;,..,,,I, , . ..,," , ,11,..v,,,sv: ,..„., .. ,,,-, v.1111.lEi ; • i,i•1 1.i.-; .!, !:Iiii ili 6 440' '''r.' , VI rig& .' '14. il . • '5 . .' 1.11,,,•14,6I " I• '1'..MAW illa.. .r Ili',1:Xli "".• iiii1',or k,l,, •,i.1 i- ,t ••t.t"' fi,,• 114,.1 • i'L,Nli,."liv,,,,.i ,pir :,V 4, ,,,,,., .hq tiiiIIIVINA,_,ItivEkk A,I.-TALI ti4i.-1.;•..• ..4-.•,11 .. .i,.... - .,.,..11" ,.2.i,if',1,14' U.'.P.A, , rPiltr ' p, "r'' '411 11: 111k°'11.'11;114\ 1".1t.'1.11'64' 'I''..°';'1111:'1 1.! If ;11 N."‘-'4(' " • 111 '''I'P "11"1:"i'lqiiilligrifil00:11114115.1:,1 f!1•41,121` '''l:VA:il';,1;',Iig4'1,1!,f,j,V.,,',Ii.A1,411,,,:' 100,11„,,Aii;.i,la;,i1;.4•41- inr 41,. ,.gip et ‘,,„ ,,,i.iiii9-•,,...li.,,q,,,r4 ;11.,..,?1,,,,•;,,,..,,F„,,,,t,,1.4,4„.124.-0,.:,76EF7.7.....11;;P:;,i:irg!.,,E.Iy.i.i.,--;,,t4:,,,77_,..4:;211 itAFA.,40,14,.,,'..1,,,.:1;10,kfit".•i.,:ii,lk„•r,,,,,I,:),6,1144:itir,I,Jiii,d,!flY,,1„;,1.1:,,,,:14,1,14.111. ''.,'... .,:tili4.4.19 11,.;,,a„.!;ill!10,,A•h'-.:',', Skill,;;;Al.,,ir0,110:4;ri:, .:ral.,‘'elik.:F.1110 tT---;-±N,F.',:,' ...Ali 6"."1 :4 14311417 Mithi''.1.1...41"Ra.1,1;LiVig1116115xia:0!1iiptggV iilifilt11110.a$10.-0,:',;1q4,:j„.„:111,.„,.:,,,,,o;•„,„;.,„,,,,,pi*,;,;404.14,..!oviiit.1,0 t4s411.176;i041094Roio Ntr,r.,11,4iim;;!;Noikiidtri,11.60krilctio44141,,,likiiR111,41,0091A,.°11,4101 '''',.-Aq,t Ag,;V:illaNforiPigklqiikdo', hi:.01111enerzyuk;moiNEE:04,thhk"'-01141F,';04';g411010,31,,,!,izil elPF4'-iriq 10.44iftl•tnimigtrmitrri artr,;,:oi.rv,m14,,;„,iiiiti,;N;;A:i14:4;;•31:414,11i„,%;;;;70;:„....;;i1,,51,P, .03,„i.t• ""' ' ••;•,,• - • .•• „,;,%,t,ipzeilipolii.triiikiont;11141;:iilvm,01:;,,;;;Iipi 0:::::.,,,,,10411,riv,, -it.„.,41;ii1„111,.jol,N,;1t„„„1.1411,ig,paelimi,21;441,14-Rix,•,,,.; ll::,.ft.',:t.grk::11.i!iipi:a g;,.flialic.ilisriiiiii LiollEpi:li igatidlii6 horibrdpip.F..11....),0101,„%ro..04.0940,0.1:i , sor.115,1iit 6:•Rvitilliii,1* 1001_ ..,:L9:011L411,1:11!„!IiiiiiiI;LP.A,laRi tireAtIll .•,,?1?Millili tRittriii iegiiiiiii!iii$,*41,0.PagqiiAl'Aii;i11 011.:61-101,11,411P,aiAli.iii 6';..'. .. . t I.;. .:..:;:.- ';.'4,°L.....H!ItIT4F411°1:41!°!:;1"11 n111114110'1'11:Wifig MIRAWli itntApil lithWiiratkg.16;Pal lkoMhilliLli141:.,•roAigli i / \ i;;:'..ii14:14.,i.16.-.:-,,,..10.,,k,,,,,,..,,,•,,,,iii.,L,g,..11„,vol,':2;.-gpii!-111V4ULf.:211iii1111 ipilliiii62.i.,o ogum- , • — ,, -.,,',71-...,,,.:.'.2„ •:',4.,,,;;;.,,r r,I, ,.., ;.4,,,._.,,,..,,.0.i.m.,,,,,,,..1,,„i.,,,,v4: ',,,,,:4'11,',F1.-.,'''NeIT'''f'1,AFeChK.11.'57.ftVAtj:.4:R,:::,-0.Ygr. qmv!r_k1T.Ipipmewmuortgyo littlyol!. .1,1:_AE.,4131q6AillrirqyalOr01111,001p.'hil'illiiiik'EirlMili::',1:ii!i114.:Ilikit,liglijil:iblif,!1":f.:11011111.1114:1.1!1:1115iiiiiilwil;1111:11.,111:1H!!rliti1401111111.,4110011,110,..h.A..,!lijd ilt.11,j1,11,0,,Q11,1,111fi b4:41111killifillii.:`1",r-iiiiih.riii.,4,iratiiilit%1110.1,,,11'14 IL i411111111,111M,Q101:91111117,"Eiliaiil!ligr qqiingq:41:04,!Imi:E0:1,,gm,„0,law To.R.1.14.1.4001510114p,',. -4:sigo',81 itT ir, Isrvi.5,,J1.0:,•,,iooti4i1EIAA,,,mi,!•;:i0,• vr.,,!...,,,,,,,,!,,.!,,,,..,!y. ,,t , .,ii,til..0;,&.filtimgrtoolow,-..iplifIra, e,zo,i1.11,41,4E0§,J01,71.1,-„illiopit.,:,,,f.1,!-T. Ikr, I ti• .fi ',11 i•e•14,1.1%tii,gratIligr,41'410,116:4 gi,..%lii,,,v,'i'i,..r,',7-,'11',,,T,,,1,11,,•14,1,,,,,',,,A,l'1,,11'41.1A12117M,Ri:1".•'41:,:ri,Ilimo"Al]t,i,r41,,,,i,2,,N. ,,,,I.,.:61,,,,,4141.,ki,,,:iiip,wiv li;•'1441k .•'.,.i.;:.,n1,,,,:,...i 11;11.1FArp,,opr,..,91•11,••••Pih,e.,i Dr-"1:44.1l:•":1''';i1:•raigtaViIigil'•!1!1•*11Pil 1111i101'.1)414111110,61:iirifil1EiliiiPeg..V11,144.TIFt'iNK,44,141:04110144tir.aa,141411,4.5.1A10,tpiklitilipavoi i!i•II•,q,:q.iii"ilh,vo'hir,r, 4q•:11'Xiii?•$R1i:;1!Iligithilt:Ii'Z'Aii!:Ir'F,TIOIRE1001145,0,110t:N:111001'.$1.111;1114 1.IP'4101101V1::1:60:11.',111kriggrait.g'Ziper,40,P,0001,11V110'15Pik01PO' V.:.'•rkilikiliipiggil::•:•Ri•airlf4I111k1P0111g:03411RPRIVI,44'44,iiilii111001. 41,r111:4111;1094reliipeei4k,1111pidijre'''lir.ifkiliN144114.01.4 iiIiiiiiiilaNW4411101111411111NIVA;hg,l'iliNtil,44"4„,"ki.,06,..tPlitt,H111Millit111,4' '''' t-ii.,fingOni,1•C14e°°N' •' 14.1410 '11.3461ii!'+.1:1111,11,1236rik,R41104-41b p .-V1101,1144 l'fitiiiliikankrt'-.'::. ,1 '4,1g.it,siy.ii,!.'111illilit,Irg,111141:1 . 35T'..Vigq7.457it".!Eit•ftifii-RS itir iltA;Igli;ie.:41.1rE.W.i.%peNli i 10 1q11111111,11EMI:,;'..q.ALI vg:ii.kibillii9,,i,,,0$011.1,4501.11:iyerti.:., /3...,Lirgroir57,..!'A,75,1')WIWNJOirripq...,,,, '''''^04;11i1161,, §.0r.:1:2].:idit..:v41'....mi:g,!1:011Eifir:i;lAila Akivir.dgifoli:Y.:v,Iligig:M;Liesiiliriii'4:::af.. 0,.Eq. i'ILUdhitgpoolllirlvii'olP.ip.-1. •;,:i?.•;i:TIIPHitolitdinTaiIiinvigniiiigim!ImIkiill'il;110,;1411i,iiiPpitOtRINisimikcovirgiRk iirgrAfIle.viii.Vci..7.0•VIP!..wiltitilipli,,ltif,h iim00:0414p.O.,"lifOillrovwdr.'aHrli: ,11,bcjIiiipp.f:RillkrA:14.11.0ko.:04911i0:114 1 :1:;1110 i.i,,,,,,,„1.:10:41•,:,Eitv,,gui,..ipl-,,.:041.0,rliitio)...,,,p,grfti.,,,ii;4,..,%"*.ripp.10.*,"litipirep:vitgiuto43k,141120Voliviiivoill:'rT ii1,::P:i172.',,r1,11.2v0I ii ,.",),,LA,g:,,,,,.,..,:„..i:m4,.A.--...zeiti: :,.,,I,,,,1/4...:.,,,_:,4, .0,,a,•,,,.,0•,.1•41,:,,,,,,tigval.14,,,..„ja,„,,I;i..„03,,,,,,4,, ,v,r...,,.N51-olliv:*•ar.lit,91.4..4:11:111,4, tea. •.0..,..,.,,,,112i,i Wtrieitl:•;,:lti,!!.:':ilif......i'14`"Mlittit?:t1110011iiiir,1,44 iTifit,PIN..1.i0. ,.:1111F,4,Wrifttp,.004;40„,i14.1,Tipp .,„.:,iir;'..1112.1,Ro„,v.pijagagtg:iNgiirt iliki •Ittvti,,, 1?,,..?!,11.;t11.11).1,L14.41,1pou..111rilittirijal FieRIA\,411).1:viii1;!kr:liptilliiiiii:?!14sipitil4,,ilh'filliliiii041.114;,1,,..4.1:11:1'11141111 itli11:064.1.•ioilkolIC6.1:1....1.01.11.2.11.;1;',7:::4;illiniligq,...?.j.p.ii...5.0iiiiitliliiillii00.111:11.L1.1.'"P;t4rgri:V11.44.111,41rlie...;,,.t.14 rigkiLlig:tkdiril,ilrlq:1;!r.,ffriNprg.'44,10,;'0,1.1.,‘,,.,,;ii,,s,'•,A,,,L1,,,,,'1!,:li*.,300,1kiiiifikleviltbilmtriiii,4,4 1 rittitem lili if.021,%••Piii,,I,Ppli,...'•gtii.,Iliy,',3413'4,T,.10$4,1111'.41,14_,,,Hiliniiii;144,1,',i'ffitlig Ail!,,,K:k,:g tatta1/41,111111:4SUNSANYAMMERhigilil FlingkVii 'II.'"Ilild-:-''II'lli;e'tr7t104:114Mnignl'a:I'I°.,114,":'11411;: ti''•''firet*A11,11'"ilii];1141.411,10191.5151121:ElEili.41,ii:11iPilgi14711it.,!•.:1r:A:.:;.?.::z.,,,;77:•• Ittiigr1414141"111rait'2.'"r:'Ilreird314174g4m•'.1110'14'141111•11114.1:;Li -Felliili10„01.':•••.0 YlV1,01$,IA,,tils0i,iirf.iirKNropii,vaprogpi[o.weiligeolo,,Ltoky: Iti.r4r to A 0:4)groi,,,F.ilmiFiwiLdrili,:1:$,,iotiooliikaloYiipaig III 1;4 00,01:Igi,Aiiiitillorp....Aiaiikomilfo.,i'lbrilqitlikiiirmitrol! L0iiiWkiihr NORA''ll .111P1Ifiriti„i''"AtIllgeig,' 'N'0114 01,411111tIrtgliMilili11,11",-.„0,1,41,1q0,149.4021;.04.444,!;!?.+4,4*.F,i!! NIII:1 111,1,0,910V11',104,1,0nriclilpirjfiltik11,41m;Pa01411101:111 10,:big:110 wr,„4„torftm,f1,.1.11A,Lvir,,414114 "jaii.,,,gtitm,PO4..iiiiii„r' li,14:kly.zi 4.:i.g.r.,..,,,...,,,.1,41,Aff.,..J„,,,,,1....0,,,...04Ntik,,a4k.,;;.,.,.,,,,Atratog. 0.1,10,io..,,,,o,p 10110fil.i'l :14111,M*Ii:,:111,.„1411.4:101F,,,V,,,1140•4':I.1.•PiTiiK411111 PI oi ilmilig P,•ii 1,14.?1,01FOrrwititt,i,11,q01.:!il wirillEILINA141;11"rtit„.1.„.grliktilipiiplopiliprell.,'.:fiti5la#1111.:00'.'.1111g11,14.4;54101,i 111401,.1111AriiiWitt04!!11,1•14"0:411111444.g 141"•114;44N043111.610i1111Ri',IlifilVA10111:11100.441,110.1„gid;111Ntlit.ilii.011•1;1ibi0111R,475110lhrr,11pAir,:,,EIIII:1•11101-0;111,"ilifiji;I:i•ak::11,ii,ir.';,!;i":idigii,00,ANli111.0" 1111/4115fiate:01111,0k:EplotiTm-i hor!qjwill!,.-431,..01:1 01,041:0!1i1111101alkt-Miqj•501.1110:41.114411i1il'Alliik.41414•EiN11411,11',1•V?„41:111,1-cop,„1,111:1:01t„LvIip,,,,,V i 111:111101M'ILii'42•11011'011:1•"11itirallt;!;'1"giill'Y'lrii111Mill'IR1111:415.16:%141111618100111::ii.Hiqlii1 710.iligiikitallirAhlgariati*,09111'ililil'ir,1tAll'a, •ni'.1,",0:0guir'l-Pft111 .41'i''""'''''''11P11$1•1;1,11111:NP.:1•1AR.02.114141!-F-.2-ragv:.1,;,—,-,,.giiiiimrt,"0,Viiy.1[1,k!J liaa-,idilmfgiinfili!..4,,gptpil,i,„,milliiik.i•A•prigliiii1;nyffr,,Ipv ' ''''-'1'"m111i*'1111m5- '41.1,240 .-42,0491004'AiNto:1140m4 .1PAWIY:i.gpvt'V'44 :1,144'.12.'AOPekrigIPNITI4 ''''''''i,4,1i;'.•,h,mii.,41hz•limilf:',':II,'';:1'-.i!!i7,...ba"Eli;1;:Nrifigm.19:4n p,,•514 ,1:4!!.-9,41ilit r 14,4,:-01-::•,:4 T,,..1110114:1 111,.!•:!....-04, 1 :hir,T•4,:hiNi,111:q.:•;,.,•;p.1-1,•;,r•rdlithAJ.:.i:.,,,,,i, tt5n1S05114Mr-BIZA''•!!iiiiiE•1,;"'•:',i!i1‘•j .151;i0p;Bi,,,!::::mTiiiii!i,:g.,,,.!.,4„.„ i•Oi":•!•'Se•Y11.V.::-':::03!:',',.'•"::'"iligiellg'ili!il,:'..":-'1:g.:3i:1151'11.-11.R141111111,.911'11dii'iti!iadilidi,011iihRil',11'44119.NIrr,:•:,iiiTiNF.I'lli:1111111111111161111.!;!illii:1,:1411111141:,:q.!ti!;1:1::;i,I,L4,1ililltti':iilit -.".1,11',21.0.':g!'"••T:ii24:-.L.1.'•:',-.Eft'i"i01;',..k.:.1;:.4.114.1.1.44g!!!gi ijili11:1F.il:ti,!RtiailirilIlllily:ipin0011,til ;:11,bli•ifigii,l'Aidb2M1V;t614.11Taw•biLl,-1•-•110.1^,111" - .—-..-. -—---_-.. _ --..:‘,:1•,,p 401101CiiitipkiNaglIt.:111,11,g"---"- b* 7,-,..,....73777.7.777:!,r.. , Fre ..igegt,17., qnrga:PiA10111111,0 • .,t,.4.:,!,,iii,.:...,:..,iu.;plohil.yiiimal.m011.0211.iETNAN,11111[1.&,„ -..,.,, :.4.,Ah i.jilijelt4.!1.010011!..e.'!..-gi. i141111111,killqiiJi:i1;!..3.qii,opki:gpr., IL\ 2. .Z,.. ,1!,PrIlirlIC:i%....Ht0.1:40111MIL..',;:ilrgiiiHkeliggillii ktiLllikieer.10.1,, f.i'...;12:040**-beik".it-14V:,•' '_1114-70144111FrEi.-3,411 4.1:Z4.,..,,,,,, ti ,,,o,F,,,I .;11,1Klifill,•Att?.,iv:-2'.i.A.,..1,•;.,,,!."t•!!!!-.F4-••...ii,,I,P,117-41::.7,4174, :i,::,*11;::.:: ::•:171.,,,, • -r•Piii,ill,o).• 74,1t,4645:2: ::.-',Ii.;...;,i,.ligili',..,611itol; Ii!::20e.,,,P.:keiA4 polvA,R,,, -1 •'r,1,.01I ,„kpl,,,A0-:':11,..RIVery tem mi:u1• iliv tio0;iii...:„ :1::.:':.ill,.A.,:..:',..i',' r',1•,•11:.,.4,,,,:i i'•'•-•:' 41-41,try.:.E..pr ii:i•I!!-.101,i11Vit'',.: ''..li:AVVYr•i:::A1?;41:4•igl'!.1:;i !.r;•-:,1A'-'1":1'4,•-'544•?_,i,g'4,7'z's;1.„`-,,,,;'''''',.,'1•`':::1.=.1:::11:0ift.e*LI-*,:ifarr," i'''1:lr-9:k:q:'I'Z%stk:':1'1?'rlk$1•':1-:'r.4K•t9VPIOM,-RlirfP41T'rqMr$10:VIT'MR,, i ,-;,7n,;1,, 7;;T.T141iWir 11.q?..iilt7.11111,011';•!".N...,: i1i':',i101,!..11f:r.":!"1?,:•1,0tri:;'.1716r,1,,,,.f,0.114,!'gkcjilg - 'Ai'111.r:i"il'il.i.r,,.1:3.alrj!:41:•';j:':•11,':':',1'ejAill'Ail :''',4:„..!40•0:1A,1';:•••:P114,4,.;:-11-:'4,4(1,11:?111 A11-C"liql1Firi."4•''.P,"g'.1,415gE'..i'.7,11:tIP4i.,11dill,,:ifill't11051:'•:11 11114.1,.'.1.i114b,g,,•,1 :111'441 -:.';:1:::','F'''''1:ikil'-'''''•::•:4'..1:•••':,1•';:i":1!;Ig11114i1r:b11,4111AM„.1101114i:i,'"'i•!..41:;;;'14:05,4 I15:V41 itr•fii;?1ali:41-4"1•1'i„.1h:::!111'.,'"1,•:f,1';':'.10,44.410;r4F'4,11•It ' 3.11','.1.....k..e'.11 ].'..1:1111:7'ile,ii:.!•1:a;.i.:'.;,2,s,,:,•4111•:•,,,•:',..c,•,.."014141.1,i.jaa.-42.10L.4p..skvtil.,v,I,A,111:•,,- ''.4-11i:41..ki.i10,1.7,4er,,,,,,--f.,X4f1,11,-Vt4j1.4.4%.•ii'.-.1'11'."...14.„'''-1„,-4.i„_Htity't1L '4111•r"lit:11,:"FU.A0W•',1,1]'1:'A';'::::141",:•••1'::•e1V45,-Rik.-'1,41.,'"4.&11-Wi13.-1X1:1-4tPliti:rate•.;;E:r.:-;•-•,1572,fre„t,..„._',11-1:1.41:1:e'111141.?'IkSitie'''''116'1:868.1-67,1'''' ' A"•"'-a,..".,.":.E'ettlia. r•t1Y1'-i"i.k.%-ti:41.7:4[4:11-?.0L-412Affilgr.A..?.‘iltrif.M14.`11:;',4-41,4'F.1:"1.._•;":;',.:,,.11'4174.4 .1"''''.7.4:!ii.".f)111.r4.7131114.1,„',;:.;,, ..t.„,...".,,,,,,,,. . :•,,.,,,,,,,....-t-Jr.:J..:•v:.4i.i•Tii-,:•-,..-2,1,11,•7•,,R.,,,m,t,":1:......1.,,,T,--4,,...!•'...,;!•1::•••••:,,ii,A,,,,,,..,,:txt,4.1.....,,.,,;:i..,... .,•;.:1,.-.r.,-..-:,',,,...i.,t.,•,.,pi..--.*-..,4 &..,...,-,-,..v.„,.......•.:ih.,,,,%:•,m., -•!-''..!riV "_t..-.'.]:'.1P.'7fli,.,,',.f.s,•••44'is'f:•!i,.:4.iii.:;;;.t.,,,,:: 4;Ni•i,i.:-1.'•f'...,:-..i. i.tli:il,,zf',•-i.....§.;:g2.,.,1-t...a,P;A:i!)....,i-,.• "''''.•..--- 1 ..*;i':1'.-t.:1:L%:,',V,.(1••,1:;:,:,-,,'Ac•:„..••!.:.•,.,11.1.,:,..-...,,,..,..,„.••,.0...:•, ,.-.... ....„... . Staff Report—Brookview Ridge September 19,2003 Page 2 BACKGROUND The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows this site and adjacent property as Low Density Residential for up to 2.5 units per acre. Surrounding zoning is Rural and R1-13.5 to the north and Rural to the south and west. The property abuts Hennepin Town Road to the east. This property is one of five Rural lots platted as Creek Ridge Estates in 1982 when the minimum Rural lot size was five acres. A future subdivision concept, based on City sewer and water, showed a total of 16 lots. Three lots were shown for the proposed site. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposal is to rezone the 4.56 acre site from Rural to R1-22 and subdivide into five single- family lots. The existing house will remain. Density of the project is 1.1 units per acre. All lots exceed the 22,000 square feet required for the R1-22 zoning district. The average lot size is 39,742 square feet. The lots meet the dimensional and frontage requirements of the R1-22 zoning district. GRADING AND TREE LOSS There are 1,663 diameter inches of significant trees on the property. According the City Forester, a total of 702 diameter inches of significant trees will be lost due to the development, or 42%. Tree replacement is 392 caliper inches. The average tree loss for single-family subdivisions is 35%. UTILITIES Sewer and water is available to the site from the development to the north. Due to the lower elevation of the property, a pressure sewer system is required. A NURP pond is proposed at the southeast corner of the site. ACCESS The easterly three lots share a private driveway taking access to Hennepin Town Road. Although site vision distance is acceptable at this location, all access should be from Brookview Circle. Brookview Circle is the public street designed to serve the development. An additional access on Hennepin Town creates another point of conflict on a 40 mph road. CONCEPT PLANS The developer prepared alternative concept plans, three with seven lots and two with five lots to show how the proposed plan represents the best way to develop the site. These plans compare Staff Report—Brookview Ridge September 19, 2003 Page 3 development impacts on the property, including, but not limited to, grading, tree loss, access, and driveway grades. The staff review of the alternatives is somewhat inconclusive, since the alternatives compare different lot totals and contain grading inconsistencies. It is clear that the site cannot support a seven lot plan. The proposed development plan is not appreciably different from the proposed alternatives with five lots. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS Planned Unit Development waivers are necessary for a 0-foot side yard setback to driveway for Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. The code requires driveways be at least 3 feet from a side lot line. These proposed waivers are the result of maintaining the existing house and driveway for Lot 2, and for a proposed shared driveway to Hennepin Town Road for Lots 3, 4, and 5. A PUD waiver may have merit when it results in a better environmental design than under the strict application of the provisions of the code. The waivers should not be considered for the following reasons. • 42% significant tree loss for the development. • A significant amount of tree loss is associated with the construction of the shared driveway for Lots 3,4, and 5. • An additional access point to Hennepin Town Road creates another point of conflict on a 40 mph road. • Brookview Circle can provide direct public road access. CONCLUSION 1. Does the plan as proposed represent the best environmental design given the steep slopes and wooded cover? 2. Should additional access be allowed to Hennepin Town Road rather than using Brookview Circle? Although no action was taken by the City Council on the future subdivision concept for Creek Ridge Estates, it represents one option of how the land could be platted when sewer and water became available. The larger lots, with direct access to Brookview Circle, were an indication that steep wooded sites need to be larger to accommodate homes and still retain the character of the land. 61 Staff Report—Brookview Ridge September 19, 2003 Page 4 The staff calculates that 42% of the significant trees will be lost to home construction, utilities, retaining walls, and driveways. Projects with shared driveways should result in considerably less tree loss. This suggests that the lots may need to be larger in order to allow more room to site the homes and driveways. The waivers for shared driveways as proposed do not result in a better environmental design. The staff would recommend an alternative development plan that reduces tree loss and provides all lots with access to Brookview Circle. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Option 1 Recommend approval of the following request: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.56 acres. • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.56 acres. • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 4.56 acres. • Preliminary Plat of 4.56 acres into 5 lots. This is based on plans dated September 15, 2003, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall revise the tree replacement plan to show 392 caliper inches of tree replacement. 2. Prior to release of the final plat, the proponent shall submit detailed storm water runoff, utility, and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District. 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. 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 for 392 caliper inches. B. Pay the Cash Park Fee. 6D Staff Report—Brookview Ridge September 19,2003 Page 5 Option 2 If the Planning Board believes that no compelling reasons have been made for supporting the PUD waivers and that tree loss should be significantly reduced,then the appropriate action would be to continue the project to the October 27,2003 Community Planning Board meeting and direct the proponent to develop an alternative plan that reduces significant tree loss and provides direct access for all lots to Brookview Circle. Staff recommends Option 2 STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner DATE: January 23, 2004 SUBJECT: Brookview Ridge • APPLICANT/ • OWNER: David and Patricia Smith LOCATION: 9780 Brookview Circle REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.56 acres 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.56 acres 3. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 4.56 acres 4. Preliminary Plat of 4.56 acres into 4 lots Area--Location Map - Brookview Ridge - 9780 Brookview Circle • e. r r 1.;:r.• -..-"-,1T--.--';:r-.:Ai,t-1*--•" Ar4r.rx-pr--=k 7.4alti vt-tv, ,,,,,.., 1-1144.."'t, ` - ., tr Iv, :�•, -2yr'. :▪:r. 4.44P74;." "' o:.j= _ ',,J i�hr 't_y'._. 3„Gil°ll`r'9! .. -x �.-�r• it k I (r4 Jr I�.V 1. � �91:.+. - T!' z 17 !O .":,')y L. •. .s a __ _ Y yh"}!! a f f.. k '`-k• Tr',-'s 'J'!--. '.�-.k`+�:� � t*'�s � u,'ll ld 4y41u _- -_ _ _" - 9kn 4- �yJ_ '..,�a'�,r-�'.• :E3 .n;�y i fir, iym :-: 43"4� -..t_ .-1 �� + I' 1 F_ _ y ::''511LL F. l£ I• �ilit:r'1._ 11•b:•' �4 L.p1 sfie�fi�_ �r_tv� 1: "1E e _�i€_{ 1.. ,S-6;'jj• - ;,..ar - p' "„ '':�h:i., k I yi1. tr 2 ; {rrg Sr;�� t 54-.. • �'!.{t �E,'"'-.i: �t ,.9"ka 1 1f ge "r "� j r t ,1h,lt r{' 'F .E::�'l:'�. �.'Y`3 tX-[ -' �F r 4�;f[r{a • a S y,� o,rit {'P'4 to 4 Sly ,1 s+• _.-.5,4'.� ;•" 7,1 k7'lrap 'F VXi c E '.:.,. '9"4.1...' lc, i � I �r�. :� , - s�" , . , , ,:'; f ':- 7.r,�4 ; ;; _`1 ," . :' 3 Hel:nnlep,rni': _'�. x"r._ ,.. �?I.:' r � �� .R:.�i �: � :_., --- a R 1 .; -._...t E '`1 .=i::el:i�i<i= iE_ _==N_= ;:! 'CjS " E,..s.'rt , v'.. `'' 21 t ly'.%. 'r::'';a.�'-rs `ti '.engt�?;kk'.i- r'd:' �'!. '4.'=_ .: _ ---_ - -_ _.._ ,�. .._=. g,x .��k,?w,i9r;Ft �. ': _. ..A`' S:. �.119iz': - .::k- - _.: 'r.''i• i,'. :.,J.; - __ _:.u.a..:F..� 3'd= ___.:.. '12.ii?. _v'S_:�.. �r_, ��-'T.�:u'4_ 4,:,,-C. .k... .a_4.�`r: '4�. . :..li�'.-3:-�F..�.'_:..:i:.�.::' - :::r.9;>:s7:9:n�..iE.: .....:::::.r J(� ..44?E;1�i:d �.. -' �. _,:' :I'.7's�.:-'.�i•.-lf:: -�.;k9•- � "� .�'�. 'Fv:::_ _ __ _ ___:::.,i.r.n.x .... f k hT _ �'. _.:F.:_':� :1,`}.__.�.,x °a'�:F.. - - - ''i.i�_:L 12J_:'u.� .�.ic.:.i:_Y-..: ve' -- a''y`. -:.:14 '--.:.:cac{,::_...�:F,. r.- AF.x :1:`y: yy _ 'la-J;''--rt:'eiaa:_nu.me�yo. .i.._:e '.... ., ....:� - ....r_- - __ - -..r:#R... eh_.IY:,' __ a..��''4,:' :� .a-.. .]i=:i-.- '�.ci`_� :'.i TF-::�:..., ! _�:� :..5 ��:....r:..:.:... .. ... ��.__.. _: :...... .r._. ._._.._x.....,....._.....E .k'� - .a.F.,_. �'' ._{u.s'i-:.i:�,::_.2.. ..:Cs. ....'... ,=�iolj::.;_�'ti"lJ., ::::q_. _ .....i..' :.,: ':i gip:.: t:l::'i Road ........::. .. .:t- :. ._...:.R _............. .. •.-__ __ ... _ ...._....... :.-.. =tee.,=_:.._.._ ..Kti>R..+wc�,rr•fi...FcA�-_F.,e�.:�:r:.rx,..-,t`a:?:'� .._...._...._._........._.__....-- -._-. '_- -'-..:_r,..+.:Y.=_.r -i-r_4 .: {'_rig - ',ice - . _ _...v............._-........_:, r-_:......' 1_.... -rv- ..._. zr_.. _. -.,1. - �'+� ' , :.._.-...__... _..__........... ..:_' - :r^':s�,::!_'� _ �� gin:'. I. .__......._...._..___. .._......xY..._...... ._._. .,_ _.. '. ._ �C�_. <-_.:.:�� - '',.+:�rP .'li e..t�': - v:l.r. ....... .......,va.;.....__. �5-.< ST..-'. .i=c..i:�___:�-:� �ii'.:`.•:$cx''.:F•.x_�1 ' ...ice. .._:._. :_.:•.'.<-. -_- - - .K,.�. i....h..._....... ...r,... -.....:.....:....>I`.<.:,: rt'....-I..iS'_ .'_ :J. - - ,1l.r'v'. - .'.;:'n.::i '.�.: :�i.r: :.r:._.. ..._rx....... --.._:._ ....,_. .'�... . _LE_. �_..}..�.:..1......: - d:'�:,�.__- 4ik..A::w�',::: � - kn -......_9:.... ___.-.............. .. ik..._..,..._x 1._._. _ �v'i I•s::-;!Vim'!' _,.._� ..., ._:. �. .dil_:::r.;':;: ..:5 - :,n.:4 :iz ''•::::'.,i=• ,t:: '.•_,,._:at 5. ,..ak..;' _'. ...._... .' .:o-;7.. .i 'i i.x..d-;:::- ...: _x.4_.. .-.:.,._r=".. ...... ..... r .. '.:� . 1 : � �:it:�x+'. .;q�`' ..r.ce•#E r�.'sr t{t?� 7�,: _!:.�.:�s .....V-'�.:;_, �.-..._...3_=-.:...,z:,�'x�'! :c_. -��q.�..�rr_'.,:. .F,.._I"r.,`kr--.x�;4 ti�',. WJ."" sJi.__1 F::. J:a::ra�: :'.:_--v:kL-...::. ,r = __ _ _ _ 9- ....:-.'._..,._ r�-_.. :. _'▪��__...b-��:::.F.,::.,.,:.._;:_� =�:ic":_--ca:* _ _7 x _ SIP: ......_.:..:. :fix v:::...ai. ''x 1 •1 ,�.:_!:F- _- i.'__._ .,A'x. ....._:tr ,_S.R K:. _ram- :q+.�i:�__'4o_:N.1F';:" ^I. _ _ {:! i,�i1f:�ri'��,5-• :':i.,'. ..:�R:::r._�:� •3:.h'�-..:�':a r�'::F:"c _ ax'F _- ate..+ ::,-u:P._:-.:.1. !.i°!....'[1y"?{.i' - -4�:'- <�•","1"1 v .-.r....:.:1•:r:,r:r:::._::...._..k. .. ..:h�: Er::,.. __�k.:.^: _ .:r%':r"'�y..t:? - +59:,. ?:i�'1,.'Prx<'_:is::y„'..;`s ....F!....._._._... ::._,I... -:_ ter:= ':t•,. - F::'-�fi" - - - _ S;k ,_.._.._.....,-...._� =r'_...__:.x ;'.� ..: ..:...= rCR�4�_r+.�E_.'_�'.k.':.'r`:�.:' �._ ;'j 'r[r;' ::i - ,.F��:>�,:'x�:: - ::,• r!'C-�.:._�e.t:_ .)._._.▪Pf._f-p..._. _ ... �-. _:.�!�:.:�..fa.�.:f.. - �:+i: =��' ��. :..u: .. !#>5.rt:l .-'k .. ':._ k. ...tl' �Ft.-."•x:+i::.�:'^ i,'iu,N t'tr.�-..>'il:'.hF - _''1., . �. _•.v.::k.`:�-'!_-,. - _:kS-:i. '-' v T..R�!:=.;y5y _ -y ..:H"..., 'i "s�s�S' til.._� : ..[_�..t:�.k� =-3.. < 'is F.w� -- -_- - ..._r. t a9_ -._fix .. _ �. .- g `.K. ..,- .�_ :.�..r'.•-.,::::..; ,�.T.:.:,,. - - - _ r.. . . � � �� . .�. .. . .. .3--- r..: :x, . . . : __ _ to-W= � ,.��__.:, .......� .1 a:_ _ii .. .. Y`5..{ 4. ,x..a r... _.'....e':.....i i,. ..i.,e.'.,.l:.L�� - -- -- ... :t:- ...�el�.. t'o.�.ku: , "R .... "S' _.,: .:.,,. .r_ ;S'i,,T,.,�. Ir.i.,.--:-y'a:,ma's'}' I:g .'.,�,� __-_--__ __-____ _____ _ : .': _ is a .:.. : .. ._ Y lx. ' _ _=r_-_= _-__- - - mil x..Y<>........ � aF•.. rF_�-t�,l (.��4.;1�1' �p.[. .•_ .._�`u,_n. :�:. 1:..,_..x,�'k. .:,�. r._.. s-, :-;�<�t;_' � �= - +:'1-7 ..f::: :: :...-1 agi.,:, .E-'E:,!1:r.yy F'r..':.._,,,. ..,. :,,,it�5ir.'itti - - Ny,, _ <.1,'. !_� � ._.:'�.. .t�.a. r '1 rx.::,,..E..,, ...:4tr`U' .:'�+'in =`_$-A.: ''.�_t_�,�: :::i� '"'�+I;w`r• .I�i;'� .i�:'rsk" '�.".[: `.� .,.t'_ .. -.1.. :,r:.:lr -!y._ ,, € •rt:':,: .k k - a:ar:x`' r .}, �:rt.y.`. 4 '.fix _- 9''!k:.. 5r. -r'...::u4,.d'i, _''K `� 4.-7 -.:'7. c: :. -a '.r.'_. !;; - :�::��:. � :�:.,:- .r .� ,::k .:_ ..,�-� - - .1.N � :_ *�• ,�y.� - .Y I;y-€�'r,:4-{;.";` r.3 ?y. !:,_tzs ....� -::�:� x;e::(. c.ei,�ij• �t.,�,a �' - !` x'..I+�' =b��.'!"'^.':v:= '..3.r:..:. �.�i Y......a:•., _ .n.r=..'{;.a k_ ;gip .. ,fir ^'.i.: a.'._:':r 5�?p":1_'.s:l:.. It 4 -...k .. x,,:.__ 4 ..'41 q,.A.,-. .::F ::..r•.:?`e''' ,t�;7a+a.:.:::.:!'.:J4 :_ :::k ;... .... :i` .qt„>- .r:.,,,:4'; ...._ .... __r.J^ ,.:.. _ ...i.-:.�1...._..._x-.r.:'-N f'ALA:': 41 . --.. ,,F:,:.:I:..... +.'.w"".:Y ' ..:_1....i `�'' R _:.x ,k ,._''A._>....,"a'`FS?4{n„:•:M1. ' .::14.11. 4;.y'1. _ :.•-:1,:-4? i �'':: '. � ,Y 5,:._.._,�.. ...:':�-�: lid.. :a'ti- ;�c:�,l l..-. .-:I.!ry.l�':. :!I:}_' .d.;.. 1.,...}: .-._.gf' ,: ' _,k,..... .. _ _'k..1V ,_..I._.'!..k i. '. - ,t.r..:5'._ ear r'=i;:`..i �'[4'''. 1�:�•.-19�:k�,x- ..:.,_-,:.,..j_... .:.�. ,'C:Y.,s, :r .r. .'9• -TM� - •�. i=! �'ik.,. _::r1�i:�'�:.. ,I�:I:� .'�:`':; ,.r'.ra._ x... ...N.. _ ...5x.,..f,F-_ki::_p c.•::l� lis1F:�E',.:'!^. - :G:.1:'.., 5_C" - .:E:;."F1�5i:Fv" - _ .__.......I..x ten. j1._� .__.. ... a!-.. --._.':(:-e`:r..i�. _ _ _ _ n�: ._... , ,_?2r_-!.'rr. .s_ _ .C�,q[[.= r_.t-,. ..I.._.. ... ........�._,.._-..:-I.:�t'=pie- �AijRc �%.+.',`! r s, .'.�_,E:..<_. -mil':. ._': .--.k.:._:._. ..'.,:._.._.�..._........r,.,..._..x - '!ik-�`'- - _r�:.��r �.:.... .:v:..'Y.. :ilk.'......�::_..: ..Y.. ., .4 ....- ... .,... - k�Ji-:: _-��'�•' -_ - - _ ii . ...._..__.:._. .':.._. ._._ :.:.._.�.'...:._1.- �:::�.!::.r:.:is::�;ii:_'%!_ '��'!iYe'?:. ''J-'�!'i.�'�'= .Y4 i:esi_. 1 ::k .::. .. oad: ��S a - �Na Staff Report—Brookview Ridge January 23, 2004 Page 2 BACKGROUND This project was first reviewed by the Community Planning Board on September 22, 2003 for a five lot single-family subdivision using a shared driveway to Hennepin Town Road. The Board continued the project for the developer to reduce tree loss and provide access for all lots to Brookview Circle. The Planning Board ultimately closed the public hearing on January 12, 2004 following a number of requests by the developer for more time to prepare revised plans. A new plan has been submitted for a four lot single-family subdivision with direct access to Brookview Circle. A new public hearing has been published and notices sent to the surrounding property owners. The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows this site and adjacent property as Low Density Residential for up to 2.5 units per acre. Surrounding zoning is Rural and R1-13.5 to the north and Rural to the south and west. The property abuts Hennepin Town Road to the east. This property is one of five Rural lots platted as Creek Ridge Estates in 1982 when the minimum Rural lot size was five acres. A future subdivision concept,based on City sewer and water, showed a total of 16 lots. Three lots were shown for the proposed site. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposal is to rezone the 4.56 acre site from Rural to R1-22 and subdivide into four single- family lots. The existing house will remain. The density of the project is 0.88 units per acre. All lots exceed the 22,000 square feet required for the R1-22 zoning district. The average lot size is 49,678 square feet. The lots meet the dimensional and frontage requirements of the R1-22 zoning district. GRADING AND TREE LOSS There are 1,663 diameter inches of significant trees on the property. According the City Forester, a total of 428 diameter inches of significant trees will be lost due to the development, or 26%. The previous five lot plan had 42%tree loss. Tree replacement is 146 caliper inches. The tree replacement plan shows 140 caliper inches, and will need to be revised. The use of retaining walls has been reduced from the five lot plan. UTILITIES Sewer and water is available to the site from the development to the north. Due to the lower elevation of the property, a pressure sewer system is required. The sanitary sewer will be extended to serve the adjacent property to the west. A NURP pond is proposed at the southeast corner of the site. Staff Report—Brookview Ridge January 23,2004 Page 3 ACCESS Each lot has direct access to Brookview Circle. Driveway grades do not exceed 10%. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVER A Planned Unit Development waiver is proposed for a 0-foot setback for the existing driveway serving proposed Lot 2. The code requires driveways be at least 3 feet from a side lot line. The waiver is reasonable in that it maintains the existing driveway for the house on Lot 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the following request: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.56 acres. • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.56 acres. • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22 on 4.56 acres. • Preliminary Plat of 4.56 acres into 4 lots. This is based on plans dated January 20, 2004, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall revise the tree replacement plan to show 146 caliper inches of tree replacement. 2. Prior to release of the final plat,the proponent shall submit detailed storm water runoff, utility, and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District. 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. 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 for 146 caliper inches. B. Pay the Cash Park Fee. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 02/17/04 SECTION: Public Hearings DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Office of City Manager/Planning .� Scott H. Neal Micro-Ear Technology SEEL Scott A. Kipp Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 35.55 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 35.55 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 and I-2 Zoning Districts on 35.55 acres; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Board recommendations and Council conditions. Synopsis This project is for a 30,280 square foot building addition and a reconfigured parking lot. Community Planning Board Recommendation The Community Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at its January 26, 2004 meeting, including a front yard parking setback waiver from 75 feet to 50 feet for 15 existing parking stalls along Flying Cloud Drive. Background Information Starkey Laboratories owns three separate buildings on separate lots. The most northerly building will involve a demolition of 22,580 square feet to be replaced by a new addition of 30,280 square feet. The waiver may have merit considering the total green space on the lot and the placement of existing conifer trees that screen the parking. A Travel Demand Management Plan has been developed for this project. Attachments 1. Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment 2. Community Planning Board Minutes dated January 26, 2004 3. Staff Report dated January 23,2004 MICRO-EAR TECHNOLOGY CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT OF MICRO-EAR TECHNOLOGY FOR GAVIC CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Board did conduct a public hearing on January 26, 2004, on Micro-ear Technology by Gavic Construction Corporation and considered their request for approval of the PUD Concept Amendment plan and recommended approval of the request to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on February 17, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Micro-ear-Technology, 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 Amendment approval as outlined in the plans stamp dated February 6, 2004. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Community Planning Board dated January 26, 2004. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 17th day of February, 2004. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk EXHIBIT A PUD Concept-Micro-ear Technology Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Research Addition,Hennepin County, MN Lot 2, Block 1, Research Second Addition, Hennepin County, MN Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Claredon Park, Hennepin County, MN And, That part of the North 10 acres of the North East 1/4 of the South East 1/4 of Section 1, Township 116, Range 22, except roads, which lies Westerly of a line parallel with and 40.0 feet Westerly of the following described line; beginning at the North East Corner of Section 1, Township 116, Range 22; thence South 87 degrees 24 minutes 02 seconds East a distance of 88.5 feet; thence South 00 degrees 45 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 2750.28 feet; thence South 89 degrees 14 minutes 18 seconds West a distance of 136.0 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 00 degrees 45 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 373.78 feet; thence Southeasterly along a tangential curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2864.79 feet (delta angle 17 degrees 27 minutes 15 seconds) a distance of 872.71 feet and there terminating. For the purpose of this description the East line of the North East 1/4 of said Section 1, shall be designated as having an assumed bearing of North 04 degrees 19 minutes 05 seconds West. Hennepin County, MN —/c Planning Board Minutes January 26, 2004 Page 3 B. MICRO-EAR TECHNOLOGY by Gavic Construction Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 35.55 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 35.55 acres. Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 and I-2 Zoning Districts on 35.55 acres, and Site Plan Review on 11.21 acres. Location: 6426 Flying Cloud Drive Scott Nelson of Starkey Labs presented the project. He stated they are planning on closing their St. Louis Park location and consolidating their corporate campus in Eden Prairie. As a result, they will need additional space. Jim Gavic described the project and stated the southern portion of the building will remain as it is. He showed the site plan of the proposed project with an existing entrance to the building which will be retained for the new facility. He said there is an 8% increase in the building area and a small increase in the impervious area on the exterior. He displayed a color rendition and the floor plan of the proposed facility. He said the new building will house Micro-ear as well as offices. He stated there will be a second main entrance to the building to maximize movement between the three buildings. Gary Brown stated there was a roadway on the rear of the building linking the two parking lots. He said years ago it was taken out and they are showing proof of parking in the front. He stated water runoff will be directed towards Flying Cloud Drive and then into the ditch along Washington Avenue. He stated in front of the building there will be a turnaround which will allow for a bus drop off area. He said one of the issues was a request for a waiver regarding setbacks for parking which involved a setback along Flying Cloud Drive which as the road curves is reduced from 75 feet to 50 feet. He said if the waiver is not granted they will remove some parking stalls to eliminate the intrusion into the setback. Franzen stated staff is recommending approval according to the recommendations on page three of the staff report. Steppat asked how many more employees will be at this site after the consolidation. Nelson responded 330. Koenig asked whether the proponent will take care of the maintenance of the rain garden. Brown responded the rain garden will collect runoff and it will flow out through a drop curb. Stoelting stated that according to the staff report, the 50 foot setback is not supported. Franzen said there was a plan approved in 1996 which showed additional parking at the required 75 feet setback and for some reason it was not built that way. Stoelting asked how the proof of parking works and what governs whether to go forward with the proof of parking. Franzen responded the standard agreement states Planning Board Minutes January 26,2004 Page 4 that if the City determines that proof of parking needs to be built notice would be given to the owner. He said most businesses want to take care of the parking shortages quickly. Staff has never asked any business to build proof of parking. Koenig stated she was very impressed with the traffic management plan and they seemed to put a lot of thought into it. Seymour stated the plan seems confusing since the proponent has proposed removing the 15 spaces in the plan. He asked if the Board is to vote on the waiver to leave those spaces. Stoelting responded it was,the proponent is asking for a waiver for the 15 spaces. Franzen stated the proponent is asking the board to consider the extra green space and trees as a tradeoff for the setback waiver. Stoelting asked if the board would like to see the 15 parking spaces. Brooks stated he would like to see where the spaces were and the tree loss. Brown showed a map indicating where the parking spaces were located and said they didn't want that issue to hold up the request so they left them in to prevent having to resubmit. Steppat stated he drives by that area quite often there is good screening and is perfectly comfortable with leaving it the way it is. Koenig stated she was comfortable with granting the waiver. Seymour agreed that he was comfortable with the waiver. Foote stated there is plenty of screening. Nelson stated that the screening is adequate and she doesn't see a problem in this particular situation. She said she does not like to reward companies for this type of thing but this company did not originally develop the property. Brooks asked staff if there is another reason other than that the original plan called for the 75 foot setback that staff is against leaving it as it is. Franzen responded that would be the reason. He said there seems to be a lot of green space and with the averaging of the setback and the green space existing could be reasons to support the waiver. Koenig stated she agrees with Nelson and doesn't believe in rewarding proponents for going against a plan but since they weren't the original owners she didn't think they should be penalized. MOTION by Steppat, second by Koenig, to close the public. Motion carried, 7-0 MOTION by Nelson, second by Koenig,to approve a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 35.55 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 35.55 acres. Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 and I-2 Zoning Districts on 35.55 acres, and Site Plan Review on 11.21 acres,based on plans dated January 16, 2004, subject to the recommendations of the staff report with the exception that the waiver of 15 feet to the front parking setback be allowed and shown on the plan prior to the January 23, 2004, to the City Council. Steppat stated it's nice to see an Eden Prairie based business growing. STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner DATE: January 23, 2004 SUBJECT: Micro-ear Technology APPLICANT/ OWNER: Starkey Laboratories LOCATION: 6426 Flying Cloud Drive REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 35.55 acres 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 35.55 acres 3. Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 and I-2 Zoning District on 35.55 acres 4. Site Plan Review on 11.21 acres • Area Location Map - Micro-Ear Technology Address: 6426 Flying Cloud Drive • - .`c!'fr+f•r . ..,''�:' .e ..•:: :..f, ;?'' !r.l.;i..:u! a+'. .ru,a.W.;ry.I1.5;.:_':...:':�.:::4 ,.Ar. ,:«-.: '...;rr.',..:.'L::...i:r:.;'' !:'�/ .,. : p!w•r:, •:.:.,:,'...: =' ::. r!"•.�r.4 ; .i�SCE'i q(''. I{:,y/:•irce:: _,L ,i...s :.; � .i. 'p.,!r'.i.L , WR.'.i-:.S ( ! �:(;:t�' G "'. `1!E, :yk:a xr• . ,.r :.= • r ... '. lL i: , ' ` , : ' ...:i:.'k•:.T',i:C�.. .+'r'S"� ,r?,r;^1^a- y^ih is RS,.k�:f;.'. .,! i-� . ;',._,: : 4 � , I =4 : .I Y!:. ::i"=.'' _ :;, r'K=_:-'s �" ::y:i'.:3E WI . SI s r r' �r::0 Ex d� * ','J:i _''' .Fying,p_loud;Drive; W ,':.;'w-"5 ° � . �Ir• , �'. �.x� JL �, ti.r:lN' .N ..��„.' `:r.l I+!i:.C.,l '�,',Ir : :x i�.;F 1�iw.,.t a ,NW,' "x ' '1k' , a Yf';'ir :. is r r :" ,�j .. ' .. b;� {...L!,:r' .$,r. , • NL �:r•. ::xxe k+W„p.5k- 'i!$qi' a: �a �a c `�=R " K • ..::.... .r6::;,:I;x!.:. t fIr.N�..^,:...r: a iltrttt!,.;ijA:: ., .-J s• �#:'i ' Ita,;;!.''. s3..rr• :.i�!::.. : .i ,. :.:::.:,.:.:..:,r.1,:;. .:!.':!.:.�....1 ...: d1�r. ::.::.t..11:x : ,sna:.n,: r:Fi.;:'•0, r •�:':l::�i : '� ?•raI ! 7`:::r! l'+,,.J .,...rr::: .. ....am,,.,. /.::.....:•rNrr,,:,�*.,..:;.,.r . ,,+"I n 7,rg: �..,BT:!..Lx,"L 'd .L4.;, a;i;i:.r,trr. .,?";7l1{.l i,''I:.0';': ';:.. ar=_':Fr! F.:,_� ..!."?..rL;: ]kJ..,_ :�. � !m .I, ; L .,.. a :rN.:n ,.11_...?':,.:L,I.:!p.., t !Nk.f :,11;!y a C s:'...•i ax< '.'.1,, . � $1; '" „'Lr :ik. L ,r v.:':rv. :I'il,l " ;9 vrk'-,i,Lrtf ,,iikkx,i k9k'� �r''4 _ -- , : .. c,:.....x.,.�i�' Y: 'k�i�`x�tC.•a�ir "'E: Y .d ' . ':\Fl"F ��'• E u. . la ihN k •,.._ :._.. .. .;'"- ��:.:••.^:v.a•f..,:ys...�y;7. .rt�f;.sm s:<,.L. „•'��" hJ '.G..:i.'!;�•ti:., :�... ....�.. ter• - 1 � ss .:.i::-.::.!. .._.,. �� .. :. .... ..,_..fie. .,.�'F'.9.. .•'' .�I.:.:: .....: .....��. .::� .:: I / .:u:,... :• / :XG"= f:.��. i: p..1. .r. .. . . , n.:ak,.. ....:e...a /" .. .. .. , :.: , +' r •: �•I f ! •..., 4 .:1.,� ••�-,,r •.Y`I,hl'Mr. !i r L rt E'N!'! I -,7, I �!,'x J/ ,,;:.:,.,� ';t; y,.;•F �'W. �'• frr``y ,^n"'G.'I' Yr ,y;l ' k 'd'}: `,,.,1 ' ,Washing on ! li I r. '✓ ...,r !r�' .,.:. R{4 1 4-.,«_�V'! '41 1 -'F,!n` t1,.:. ��ii::r, �I �1...,Ei:.a...;.;.a. - +r '......_.,:, :....,,,,,n, r' ,.r !rr:1R9A_e67 ,..... ar^J iii ..;,.: r„ 77,-g:-:a•.:Ir<'. is .-'.:.„;':!•: •i'�.,. �..-•':-�: :...r... .. r ......._..rA,..4`GMa: '-?:.m�I:Yf,;p:•�:�' ':.ar'.'••°`:hi"; :: ,��.w:,re":i: ! '.:' �...:".•a„.,r.,.,:.::..r.� ,,.cr',r.l,l.§::;:::,:,' ht;`:,+ xri.h:. :L �i xr�:!N.d�. ... ::'.:.' x��:..e;:;!"1:' ,.I;',.,........ r:!.;.r.. •,+P•.�� .:.fi',:.•''.f.:, x ��#%;!�'n.';•�:,•°:ii, ,xX+' ':�r•. ......,.::......a: � �..r.: . ...�.,.•�: r�i_s;:�s r„ Iln::'�1":. "b:.>r^•.,;:L rll.. ._............:. ; .. .ry'+' r ..,r'�3',6 G r:r...:x.....F 11 .,r..r r:..:.xr G. L! .... .''. it?.; ,:..............r:.::,::-.. �::,..... ..r..:., , ... ,..!. I L: ..r..... .... .... .....r.x: !^:y:fli'` Ili'., is (`.:r, ... ,.,::.:::.:r ,r.... ..:c..YJ,r,...11ll;,..,.. ,J ";i,ii:i;:.r.. 3 h .. .... ... ,......:L....r...:.. ........:....r...,!....dlIk '.,..;. « :I!GS�� !i�+'r. irr:,,' :��'. /., ..i!'llr g7:!.eL., ;el.rid;:_.:"..,�1.. i 5 r. .... ' ! 1.�.� i.�'1 i ,mar,. ,.1.. � 'R'' i.:.,•:'Iv �.'��:.,.;•": :(;9ilfi!':ilaF:.j I'.f: t!n._ :,.,! .. "N _vl..r. ,. .,rh ..;f,;: 4 '�.. fr':'•f,:'r.T7.^' "F' :A"f- r.. .. .�' ,i. •1 ,r!)r:_ L. ` .- r:: 3.Jrn.xk..". ..-m.r. FE..I ' 1w:NX..p P: h '•'•," fix`.r: to 6rr4:1-,Nti_ _is+ i. �Ir:: re9x:u'xk�•t.J 3{-' 'rrl r5ki '',;_'Y}�.,y'r��-�•.W.i{;�}� ,rk' K4n!."•I � �',. k nP .:!.. .• :a_r�.. - ; " r 'IA', I f i0:: s , a,,; 'T'"'FI I r u i r 'f ? 1:-'�a�„!.; 1 A 1 k I ,, k I S �.�,)5r L M I ry..wl ,�1$}x. y,. ,, h cl,, i;liill'11'• LI•a{ f ri' 9 :..r'i ri k M1 a 4 d t:I1a.".: x. I '•I. : i' :', � /.r sL{ • I "Y 41i f t iy h'�'i�l fi, r � k L nl. r!r1rY 1 YI !'T..h r,.r...x:r''.rr:r=:Ji. �y;,:,., fir,. -,,,^.Wj '^"1 - I A k, {P.t, ,J¢•, �� Y ti • T ..�...-: :•,::.a :...A.,.I_ ::r,:: '_,. .._�,{,;:', k:%ik� .! : .. .'til:5...i _ 'v�' ,� ,:+.p;j.,�'v.+Fu�./+r.n_:r.r � ifii ,-�:� r.�F'` 5. '�'� .":i • -3� ru-,: ., �: N:.: •' '4 ' i,F`�'�, :N � "Exr.: ��f,L_:Y al. ,:-. .,,.4..". F:is .. ..... Yii�k';sdx. _-:'"Cp P. .�1 fi',:'j.:l M1,,!'!.:!_ --•9'..r..!�s;:;i. e.7:: ..iir :.�•�._.:.' ,.rr:.a=.f�Z-..:.,G�� .��y:.Y -" •3.-f.:`.'•_ :, ?�'..;r: R�.::..•• ..YNxri,f,:,i.:i5 i�!:!.r::e.,:.w t_,l,y'i;','a ._I. .r.:::.;..!,;:xl;url1�.�:y:�'.y;•,,.Yi4lId,,e.1/. :11,?'r,itf•;5,:+.::k:ylii:! 'r ..'I.i.!::.lf h 1:,f.' xu .� • 1 ^T"° Y �� T'^'1<,'�I 5 1' �• r r,l �y�Lirt,�� 1 t,'� 'k R•' , I k a1' J ' #Y �G;;iipk'�,x �1. : E 'k' +kNWix„F. 1 i _ i'4 q 'I...4ft .r ;t 4; 'S 11 F 1,� k'1 ,'t4�7.'r iki! k,l 13"k x '.a I' / ; „.-uF p..'S LI•.{.� 4' E G!; � F L r/f-:.r .. _.. f,a ,. Y d{;•Grx �� +k', v '.y�,y' w nx �7'k I ( r • ..'ti'"''r'',r rt ter. ....•. NN?r�;,u 5.°�'�r.l'y��.=�"__!IfR• :�r,la' •:'� h4.� 'Jp:''ri--- "..I��i�, L'1' �'rL pq - - F _ . ._...{.i i''J;':.�.-:_;:!!=u:,n, '1`.. k:'Am +T��}L'aa _- 3 1 3'^ rfl .� :y.a.rt:-:r .......: +�.w.l.,..dn� ..,`� "fi,`!':�"• .�I::.+e�:.;__L;;a"-r:.l i;,,; _ . .i::i.! ..._.,....r.:(...::.....,xW .. Ylv:�ai Fr ..L... 'i%{" vY' `.Te,r,,y'4 r:...lr.!... .:�...•..: ..I, ..., F.N.. .':G:::�':;.:, ::.:.'?'�,::i _ r.�.{ 'iY�?"� ��: ::................. kN,... .r; ,n. �.......I......r:..:...,.r+ :.x:N.!�1"rpy'. �::r 11:,r - - /....,......I .I .r , I .... .......:.. rr,.... +'„ !,,, `' •�:.. hrr: s:-!i:q!�".":�," i:1.': - -i."+,i- ` yy :fir- .,:.:.i.+.. :1xr:.,:!.: ..,1:, rM, .::.i...:.:..;.:I!'^,r...l,...:^.iIiiii,,- .f�l1pa.f;, ..t-...4.0,..lar.. `!:.r.: yy,,.,$.+,' .1 i.i. - tt,, .....k....:.......: ........h.!.:..I r :F. x�. ... i?.. ,.. i T rl !!..,. .". .... Ntl:t.J....ix. +':Iw r.r�'`II r:..!:...:a:., ^tl;r..l. ...r..r, rC..:::.a:. .{}) .1r..-,::....�:.,;... L ..,.,.x .!:M1: `fir%'; - .. ...L,...., s......d...J 99 rr J, xa A ... .7 .,,:r:,i. �:. :, ....:. .. I'Lr.. :. 1'!''b:' ..I..,.r... .1. . .......... Pfkr...: 1.. ; !;,!'.. .... Y,:P•L:a. ..,.. �i�;::r `.' :.;'" !..'Y .,..., :: N.I.k1 .......M: ..: iral!ul�Ar'a ..,.x,..d. ..«::�.n. . J, f'a.. i1 b7Lx: :,,: /(.L x L. ,.i._.....d,r: ;,x.a,: a l r.,,,.,,....:,.u. ,x.L ..x .. .: r. ;... :'.n I i,i'' �:I:vl: .:...........I �r xlx,G .: .. ........,.,(..:�.. ,..,,•:.r.:!.1+l�,r:•:. .I.I!.... I. „!.. I'r �a.. k..rr.....1.. 6:.r.,.x:.,.,.. rn r>U'.•w...a:x..... ...I. .... :. ....... :4�. �.�.. :�r. i , ........r ....:. n:.r..$,�a''.,y, r u'Ir:l.!r.:.::r: n y m`r .rr,.,. , ... ..f.rl.:.:..:i�. "h� 'i,'� ,'�'1!,. r.e...,.?,,I.i.a. ..L. .I[ if , ..5C.:..,:_,plop - r..... I. ..I..r.. ... .. ,....._' .. .r ..... ...... ... ._. ...L r,8t:1 :.:F.urr:'I ?:u :'.II .k _ rr. t.IY x....,.,.r rk:tr I.N,I k.lr l.1�.1 � r r ,1 •' 'I. ...:...: d... -'�r�:i.� ... .. .....i R!_...-.... .'I.,IIC. I..l.., .!a Ixr I,:..:.. .. ,x!(. ...-x.:. �. alr .i:is I �' ....._._...P.!v �ar'::�:..,.!.:F.,:`., ,}.a:.... :.r:v„.,.Y!� +:'•^:`^Nr..::�r.::r.•t:n.,.r ..L.:..I. ix .4... ,.:....:r M"1.'i' .lJ;�1:�1,�: ;.k'R�cF�;: :-r.:,_,!.:.....1'C ui.kr,._.., r:_�r.��::L ..«:..r:.f!3;.�... a:4.:.. .i. .� ;Ln$kn a-Y ak.G'r . '!F;C;rxa,rrz;:. . .,a«.vl .r!'_., SA�.N. ._.....:..r!b:_va .n:x`�.:--.: '.r��r .'Y. v....r. :r kaiT.•i alryt I'h: "' d!r",,Ax.,-�s...:.'!.,..J,:..R. ti' ::Ji:n r,\.x",{"�r[� .e4... .0 r. ' .. �:,I L�°rx,.{1: .__. ,r xL'"ki::-:._�,... ta:._!! __ L1', _ 'r ':',.,,ftre�'�I:'ej:_�: .. :'','�,:.:-�':: .:z::_.:,:w+..,,.sr... ,^r::Y-:ar.rAk,r Sr.,.x 'i:. F;MI:!.,r',.�y''•'a.::: y'h. ..,:y F:" / n I' _ .:. .::..,....: Irv:::_-:.. r ...': r.oL:. ,.:,,::x_.•,-,,,,,,..!.., .k::',5 ?_...,r T.1=eY. , ..1•':k i'`r' _- -�..... .,t r .f .''i s�+1 k L h�'!::':��:;;,s«: ..YYtr� :i "i•!r.i-,•.: KF?.€sY:iL::'.'.:;[::"'::;, Li•.�_: --, :r,: I!i;:.,:' : I..... , 1,.,.:...� .. . � fi.a a „ 1 &�l,ME � r.;!!„' .,...@.i,.,..:,;::^itn:,t'-y::,.., !:..Y�d 1 r rx d'IxYN:.i �� It�; �:., .: ��:!�.- .71:, ,!.. .4!:k. 'e..:::a. . ..,4..a�, '": !�`!t'� `4P,'r;!'i! ',R,!,.... :!:(:'�(.".:`a'Ir✓k:, ..-:. ,!::1..::'r r.,..Y:.. •:,.t..p.::...v_�,.��1.:;.......::::::... . ...�'.. eh:4�'1' !':l,r .rl.. �., r'..::.....I,,..r�,..:::!,. r .,..a.Ir 1'1,,:.::}...... ...:....!•.NI. r•rk......,.,I 1.::'Y,!:.?(:.�:::: I.I' � :�"lyl'ri' ..1.., ...0 r...r �... ...�•rl. r ;.a+...,. ...:i..,,.:... ..r.x. .tr.r,lll:,: i:i!1 .:1.":I. i:.j' I,.i:l:i:.u 1•� i }:: ::.�::...•�. •..:.:..�..:!.�.:I Ir ...... :...,. .£.v....:..:.....:.,:.: et..k::..:ii..,'i•I::!!ii rLr:�!., .......,!ire.. ,..I. '::'.I;!�' r+:..:._... :.... ._... k. }... .... .:,,r..,/.,.- .r... r.d:l..r. :. ..I: '::1.1 "".lid:.':' f, :e......:.. ., n ......r.:. � �.... .ur r.:,..v. .x...:::.r: r. ..: ` i'll r :a•I y ; n R' a.i.,:,,.... ,p.• ". k h-,i.:_ ,., v ":F.J. °:ti.}' ...�'..3:'='_ !a!N:.• �:1rd' .;•�5'r:'�sr:. • `..;f':: ,k;:.. a'e:M, P6iF'�4•`:�I:!G'i� �' •!.�"i�fi..h�3�:�.�, ,y�='';d :-.^. !s:','_y: .Y.;/ .I r .. ,% .,, , ..a •.N4tr ,;•4 :,E, .:rT1:�sr :!`r" 'i;sx.:.,;.. ;- :S':- i. I k 1!` �. ii., f `.,rz,. r k x !!..'d 1! �' r.,� x !` F`! !Y ;: .:ii' i,^ ; .k r:1,i�,li'a- ::'ill!re�"kJ" p1! ,.. tl Yii,?,y�al,V-'Y i iL'k k I 1 I 1 • 1 ': S y I .F .Y!1;.,,.''.'„ _ ,r , !•y`••r;J ' ...E: __r..; _yj;.,;:r, ;�i't s;r,.k__J,. `J.• •:'i:::,::....h'!:...., '..!!•... .r'.!...: .:..._ a..,1 a2=:is:i'.. ' Y!"..:. - k:1e a:....,.!I.. JI�,'1!' r,I: , F_1 / t.,r ., rr r. .... . .. ....... ...... A r':.. ..........7.: .. i. .r!� 11 i:nr;��: .i..... ..... ..jI ...r ...... ..... f .,.. .. !...... ..a ....._.._.....r.�,ll.... .. ...........a.. .. ,...a. Ir.:::://.....rk a.,:=,..r.:f..n .. .. h. .: ... ...1.�..., iLL' 4.2( ....1i.n..1'1'1''''.4'.! ............... ...I _...._.. .._ .. ........... r 5... ......._..A ........._ ..._,i:+:. ..a._ :r+•^•:::^'r=:b' y;mrari•;: `�: '�`!:i<' J 4` ...' ''':•J:'•••••••::::-''''''';77•9:',74=-tt. 7. .Hi,•7:.::;.;...;;......d:.':.• I i 1 . ) _ No Sca G3 � 7 Staff Report—Micro-ear Technology January 23,2004 Page 2 BACKGROUND Starkey Laboratories owns three separate buildings on separate lots. These properties are zoned I-5 and 1-2 Industrial. Surrounding land uses consist of Industrial. A PUD waiver was granted in 1996 for a 0-foot setback to parking for a portion of the sites original parking along Washington Avenue. SITE PLAN The plan shows demolition of 22,580 square feet of the most northerly building,to be replaced by a new addition of 30,280 square feet and a reconfigured parking lot. The base area ratio and floor area ratio is 0.20. City code permits up to a 0.30 base area ratio and a 0.50 floor area ratio. The building meets City code for required setbacks. The reconfigured parking is shown to meet the required setbacks. However, a PUD waiver is being requested to maintain 15 existing parking spaces along Flying Cloud Drive that currently do not meet City code. This is discussed under the PUD Waiver section. Parking required for the building is 278 spaces. The plan shows 287 spaces, of which 68 spaces is proof-of-parking,meeting City code. Combined with the other Starkey Laboratories sites, a total of 1,037 parking stalls are provided. PUD WAIVER The proponent requests the following PUD waiver for the project: • Front yard parking setback of 50 feet for the existing parking along Flying Cloud Drive. City Code requires a 75 foot setback. Staff does not support the proposed waiver since the 1996 approved plan complied with City code. The parking was constructed inconsistent with the approved plan. GRADING AND DRAINAGE No significant trees will be lost due to construction. Drainage for the property will be maintained in the current pattern through existing swales and turfed areas before discharging into ditches along Washington Avenue. A new rainwater garden will be constructed to pick up the minimal increase in impervious surface proposed with the project. `75 Staff Report—Micro-ear Technology January 23, 2004 Page 3 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT A Travel Demand Management Plan has been developed for this project. ARCHITECTURE The building addition meets City code for exterior building materials. The addition and tree mass screens existing rooftop mechanical equipment. Lighting for the building and parking will be down cast cut-off fixtures. LANDSCAPING A net gain of 7,700 square feet of new building is proposed. This requires 24 caliper inches of new landscaping. The plan meets this requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the following: • Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 35.55 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review on 35.55 acres • Zoning District Amendment within the I-5 and 1-2 Zoning District on 35.55 acres • Site Plan Review on 11.21 acres This would be based on plans stamp dated January 16, 2004,this staff report, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. B. Install erosion control at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City Engineer. C. Submit a final TDM plan and surety for review and approval. 2. The PUD waiver for front yard parking setback from 75 feet to 50 feet is not granted. 76. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 02/17/04 SECTION: Public Hearings DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Office of City Manager/Planning Scott H. Neal Lamettry Tire Shop E- • Scott A. Kipp Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.22 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers, and Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.22 acres; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Board recommendations and Council conditions. Synopsis This is for a 10,888 square foot tire shop. Community Planning Board Recommendation The Community Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at its January 12, 2004 meeting. Background Information The plans have been revised according to the staff report recommendations. All trash will be stored within the building. The plans show mechanical equipment screening. Two wetlands exist off-site and adjacent to the property. Waivers are requested from the required 25 foot wetland buffer and 15 foot structure setback to these wetlands as follows: 1. 20-foot wetland buffer and 0-foot structure setback for the easterly wetland. 2. 5-foot structure setback for the northerly wetland. These waivers may have merit since the lot size and configuration makes it a difficult property to develop, and that most of the wetland area is within the base of the drainage swale for Highway 5. The buffer areas will be planted with native vegetation. Attachments 1. Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review 2. Staff Report dated January 9, 2004 3. Community Planning Board minutes dated January 12, 2004 17 LAMETTRY TIRE SHOP CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF LAMETTRY TIRE SHOP FOR RICHARD LAMETTRY 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 January 12, 2004, on Lamettry Tire Shop by Richard Lamettry and considered his 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 February 17, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Lamettry Tire Shop,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 stamp dated January 28, 2004. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Community Planning Board dated January 12, 2004. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 17th day of February, 2004. Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk 7 EXHIBIT A PUD Concept- Lamettry Tire Shop Legal Description: Outlot A, Menard 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, MN 71 STAFF REPORT TO: Community Planning Board FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner DATE: January 9,2004 SUBJECT: LaMettry Tire Shop APPLICANT/ OWNER: Richard LaMettry LOCATION: East of Plaza Drive and west of I-494 REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.22 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.22 acres. 3. Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.22 acres. 4. Site Plan Review on 1.22 acres. Area Location Map - Lamettry Tire Shop East of Plaza Drive, West of 1-494 I• Plaza �• .:' �+'�' e:+9.:q•:i. ;..,,. .., 4:'4,q.'.:ri�e.3i �,�.'va'.�j"��'�� - -+r4'"d�i1'.i'•:<!'!::.:;:�' __ • •r ! •• ••• •':•:•• ::•. I' I' :'I.il:.!I.. ilii :r :.;I!;iiE'::.'.:;:: . • • • • ..r:. ::-�:::.: _. _r.l.:I:.•�.,;_r._.:n ..,... ....._:._._ ....I:II:iC:;�:':�'.:':`!=i':Fdiiirl:�::��'�!:::::'::�::::=.1': . r. .. 1 ...n:...•:,,...._..: _I.I!.::r:.:::.. 1 ;::•.,;:::.:: f.i';!:ilr:.:r �!i!;I�:r,;: ...:.... ..J... ... ......... .... .......:..:.. i.. ..::�:::.:..5: ........... r:1.:.1�!.:.:-i:::..;::. r.•Is:..,d:::ii�2-r::.:e:i:F.:.':.�: i. ..:li:'�:'�~.. .............. I. _,: .... .......:............I�Ill�.r..+:::.:::::.::.::�:.::.II:.::::.:.::,.......�1.1••.:I....:.:c�+n::.::.�:.::.•;. _:..; ;'•1.:1•!ee::�:i:::'"i:�. ........... .. ... , r_A_...::�.:.:�a ,y. ':�:�:..':��!P�•" - .ri r• - .e xl"r r.{__.....:.:��.-�._:.i,.. ...I...:.:,.:;. .r,4•_ - _. .,i ':.::i:;.:.1'I,.'-_i':=*_i rC:r.lr i!ui2_;3!-....; •:::?•-�- — - — — - :.,:;YI:.i!: .::,i'::��_ ........::: _ i•.: ;: �.-�.e.i. ��:e:-'::: .a:e�:.i;:•'_�::-�i:aq.}:ii :'!`_�. :-'.z:!i:i':::�?i!:I;:«_.=�li.r:.r. ...:............. !.is ..... ... No Scale —_. _. _ . I Staff Report—LaMettry Tire Shop January 9,2004 BACKGROUND This site is currently guided Regional Commercial and zoned Rural. Surrounding land use is Regional Commercial and zoned Commercial Regional Service. SITE PLAN The site plan shows a 10,888 sq. ft. partial two-story building. The Base Area Ratio is 0.16 and Floor Area Ratio is 0.20. City Code permits up to a .20 BAR and a .40 FAR in the Commercial Regional Service zoning district. City Code requires 10 parking spaces plus 1 space for every service bay for a total of 19 parking spaces. The plan shows 48 parking spaces. The building and parking meet required setbacks. The existing sidewalk on the east side of Plaza Drive will be extended to the south adjacent to the property. GRADING AND DRAINAGE No significant trees are located on the site. An on-site pond is proposed along the front portion of the site. WETLANDS There is a moderate quality wetland and low quality wetland located off site but close to the property. City code requires a 25-foot buffer together with a 15-foot setback for a total of 40 feet from the wetlands. This requirement is met for the moderate quality wetland. The proposed project meets the setback from the low quality wetland,but not the 25-foot wetland buffer,and will require a waiver to a 0-foot buffer. Reasons to consider the waiver include: • The wetland is within the base of the drainage swale for Highway 5 • The lot size and configuration makes it a difficult property to develop UTILITIES The building will connect to existing sanitary sewer and water services adjacent to the site. A portion of the building is shown to be within an existing 50-foot wide sanitary sewer easement. 1' Staff Report—LaMettry Tire Shop January 9, 2004 This easement is proposed to be vacated. ARCHITECTURE City Code requires buildings to be at least 75%face brick and glass,and compatible with materials, colors, and construction details with other buildings in the area. The building is 75%face brick and glass. Colors for the building and service bay doors should be earth tone. A trash enclosure must be provided on site constructed of face brick to match the building. No rooftop mechanical equipment screening is proposed. A four-foot tall parapet wall should be constructed completely around the building to complete screen all mechanical equipment. Lighting shall be down cast cut-off fixtures. LANDSCAPE AND TREE REPLACMENT Landscaping is required based on building size and height for a total of 54 caliper inches. The required tree replacement is 21 caliper inches. The plan meets the landscaping and tree replacement requirements. All landscaping shall be provided with an irrigation system. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the following: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.22 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.22 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.22 acres • Site Plan Review on 1.22 acres This would be based on plans dated January 6,2004,this staff report,and the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review, proponent shall revise the plans to: A. Show a trash enclosure constructed of face brick to match the building. B. Provide a parapet wall four feet in height completely around the building to screen rooftop mechanical equipment. 2. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall: `63 Staff Report—LaMettry Tire Shop January 9, 2004 A. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. B. Install erosion control at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Provide a landscape surety equivalent to 150% of the cost of the landscaping improvements and mechanical equipment screening. B. Provide a landscaping irrigation plan for the property. C. Submit detailed building plans to the Inspections Department and Fire Marshal for their review and approval. D. Submit exterior building material samples and colors for review, including service bay door color to match the building. E. Provide recorded evidence that the utility easement that underlies a portion of the building has been released. 4. The following waiver has been granted for the property through the PUD: A. Wetland buffer of 0 feet. City Code requires a wetland buffer of 25 feet. Planning Board Minutes January 12,2004 Page 3 B. LAMETTRY TIRE SHOP by Richard LaMettry. Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.22 acres and Site Plan Review on 1.22 acres. Location: East of Plaza Drive,west of I-494. Darrin Botts presented the project. He stated it will be an automobile center and will be located at I-494 and Highway 5. He stated the business will be accessed from Plaza Drive. Franzen stated this project is a permitted use in a commercial zoning district. He stated there are two items that need to be revised prior to council,the trash enclosure constructed of brick on three sides with a door and a parapet wall to screen mechanical equipment on the roof. He stated the edge of the wetland delineation needs to be shown on the plans to demonstrate there are sufficient buffers to the wetland. Foote asked staff if there was concern regarding sight lines because of the curve of the roadway. Gray responded sight lines shouldn't be a problem,if the business were located on the other side of the road it would be more of a concern.He said this type of business isn't a huge traffic generator and it is very workable in this location. He stated there are areas on the curve of the road that are more sight restrictive. Koenig asked why the proponent has provided for 48 parking spaces when the city only requires 19 or 20. The proponent responded during the early part of the project the calculations were based on the future square footage of the building. Koenig asked staff if they could require proof of parking rather than putting in that many parking spaces. Franzen stated staff is open to either option but if the number of spaces are limited it would be more restrictive to future owners of the property. Koenig asked if they could delineate the wetland permanently so there is some type of marker. Franzen responded there can be and this is usually a standard marker. She asked whether there will be a cash park fee. Franzen responded no, since the project is not a subdivision. He said the park fees would have been paid at the time of the development of Menards Addition. Stoelting asked about signage for the development. Mr. Botts responded there is signage on the east side of the building located above the doors. MOTION by Steppat, second by Koenig,to close the public hearing. Motion carried,7-0 MOTION by Steppat, second by Foote,to recommend approval of a Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.22 acres and Site Plan Review on 1.22 acres,based on plans dated January 6,2004, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated January 9, 2004,to the City Council. Planning Board Minutes January 12, 2004 Page 4 Koenig asked for an amendment stating the approval is subject to the additional recommendation that the wetlands be delineated with standard City markers. All members voted in favor of the amended motion. Motion carried, 7-0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 2/17/04 SECTION: Public Hearings DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Planning/Michael D. Franzen Amendment to Developer Agreement Perkins , Subdivision Requested Action Option#1: Withdraw Option (with proponents consent only) MOTION: Move to close the Public Hearing, and with the consent of the proponent, return the plans to the proponent without prejudice. OR Option#2: Approval Option MOTION: Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Staff recommendations and Council conditions OR Option#3: Denial Option MOTION: Move to: • Close the public hearing. MOTION: Move to: • Direct staff to prepare findings supporting denial by the City Council to be adopted at the March 9, 2004 meeting. Synopsis James and Raynelle Perkins, and Stephen Longman Builders, Inc., want to amend that certain Developer's Agreement entered into on or about August 3, 1999 between the City of Eden Prairie and James and Raynelle Perkins with respect to Bryant Lake Heights. The request would amend Exhibit C; paragraph XIII of the Developer's Agreement by deleting the requirement that all structures on Lot 1 and Lot 3, Block 1 be removed prior to issuance of any building permit for Lot 1 and Lot 3, Block 1,Bryant Lake Heights. James and Raynelle Perkins have submitted a"Confession of Judgment"to guarantee the removal of the structure on Lot 3,Block 1, on or before September 30, 2004. An escrow of $15,000.00 dollars will be given to the City. Stephen Longman will be the contractor to remove the structure. There are two reasons why all developer agreements have the provision requiring all structures to be removed before a building permit is issued. One is the removal of structures. The second is that the responsibility for the removal of structures is placed on the owner/developer not City staff. While the Confession of Judgment indicates a completion date and surety amount, there are no assurances that the owners will move out of the house and the contractor will complete the removal of all structures by September 30, 2004. If this happens, additional staff and City Attorney time will be required. The City will also have to get a court order in order to proceed with the removal of structures. Staff recommends Option#3. Attachments 1. Letter dated January 26, 2004 from James W. Perkins 2. Confession of Judgment dated January 27, 2004 3. Letter dated January 26, 2004 from Stephen Longman Area Location Map - Bryant Lake Heights Address: 7010 and 7014 Willow Creek Road • ........... ..:....:::.. . .................. .. ............................. .... ........ .... ':.:£.:is .. r .. ., _ r :F r F 1 .. I S:f :!1 ................. ....:.:::..:.::. ........... .... ... .................... ................................ ..... .. ........................ .... .............. ............... .. ........:.. :::.::..:.:.....::. ........... .::;;.:::.. .. .....:.:.:.:: .:..:'::::r:;. ::.... .... .................... ................ .....::.. .. ........................................................ .....................:............ ................ ...............................................................:;;!: ..... . ........ .: i5\ii' . ................... ........ . ...... ........... .. .... . ...:: ........... j ..: .::..._..... ..... . ..... .: ... .. : willow Creek Roa ... .. :..... ..:: ....... .. ... :..:::...... .. .............. ..:...... . ...:..::: . :. .. .... ..... ...:::. ................ .......::::::: ....:. .. :!:. . ... ..:. .:..:.... '!::]i:i:iei':':.::::::: .. .::::::..::: ..::.:::::- : ::::�:::!!:L�:i�i::�:�':e:::i� ,:;!..v;, ..................... .B;:: -,...::::::::::: ::...:-.-..:. -..-:-:-.1. ant Lake 1 ;......... : . ..,..1..,.......;.i..,..„.,,...:.:::,,:;-i..-a; - , No Scale • JAMES W.PERKINS 7010 WILLOW CREEK RD, EDEN PRAIRE, MN 55344 January 26, 2004 Mr. Michael D. Franzen City Plann,er,Community & Economic Development Dept. City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Rd. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 I would like to be on the City Council agenda February 17, 2004 to present the Confession of Judgment regarding the removal of the structure on Lot 1 Block 1 Bryant Lake Heights. I believe this judgment will satisfy the developer's agreement, in that it guaranties the removal of the structure at a time certain in 2004. This would allow permits on Lot 3 that meet City code. 2,\510,>10, James W. Perkins 90 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. Judge: City of Eden Prairie, CONFESSION OF Plaintiff, JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS, vs. JAMES W. PERKINS AND RAYNELLE F. James W. Perkins and Raynelle F. Perkins, PERKINS Defendants. Defendants, James W. Perkins and Raynelle F. Perkins, do hereby admit and confess equitable relief in the form of this judgment and a money judgment in the form of this judgment to Plaintiff, City of Eden Prairie, in the sum of 150%of the attached estimate bid for the tear down and removal of the structure that is currently on Lot 1, Block 1, Bryant Lake Heights,property owned by Defendants, James W. Perkins and Raynelle F. Perkins. Defendants Perkins further admit and confess the facts of which: 1. This Confession of Judgment is a term of an amendment to the Developer's Agreement between the City of Eden Prairie, Plaintiff, and Defendants, James W. Perkins and Raynelle F. Perkins, dated August 3, 1999, approved by the City of Eden Prairie. 2. The terms of this Confession of Judgment are: 1. That upon the application for construction permits of Stephen Longman Builders, Inc. for construction in Lot 3, Block 1, Bryant Lake Heights Plaintiff, City of Eden Prairie,will immediately issue construction permits within the rules and regulations of the City of Eden Prairie for the construction of a home on Lot 3, Block 1, Bryant Lake Heights; 2. That the Defendants, James W. Perkins and Raynelle F. Perkins, i have contracted with Stephen Longman Builders, Inc. for the transfer of Lot 3, Block 1, Bryant Lake Heights the transfer of which was taken place but which includes an escrow for tearing down the house structure on Lot 1,Block 1 in the amount of 15% of the contracted amount, and Stephen Longman Builders, Inc. has contracted for the tear down of said structure. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of said contract and escrow. 3. That the Defendants, James W. Perkins and Raynelle F. Perkins,by this contract of Stephen Longman Builders, Inc. shall tear down and remove all of the structure on Lot 1, Block 1, Bryant Lake Heights, on or before September 30, 2004, or the City of Eden Prairie, Plaintiff, shall recover from said escrow account deposited by Defendants Perkins in the amount of 150%of the attached bid estimate for the removal of the structure on Lot 1, Block 1, Bryant Lake Heights; and 4. That the Defendants Perkins confess judgment for equitable relief for the purposes of the Plaintiff, City of Eden Prairie, entering upon the property at Lot 1, Block 1, Bryant Lake Heights, if the condition above of the tear down and removal of the structure on Lot 1, Block 1, Bryant Lake Heights, is not completed on or before September 30, 2004,to tear down and remove said structure. This equitable relief shall specifically include, but not be limited to, agreeing to a District Court Order that a contractor under the direction and control of the City of Eden Prairie or the City of Eden Prairie enter upon said property and remove physically Defendants Perkins, their personal property and tear down and remove the house structure agreeing to an Order for Restoration of the Property; and Defendants Perkins confess judgment that Defendants Perkins shall pay all reasonable attorneys fees and costs of the City of Eden Prairie related to any such removal and Orders; and Perkins specifically confess judgment and agree that they shall have no claim against the City of Eden Prairie for the value of personal property or claim for the value of said house structure or have any claim against the City of Eden Prairie as a result of this Confession of Judgment, any of its terms or any activity based upon its terms. qD • • • 3. Plaintiff City of Edcn Prairie,agrees not to docket this judgment-until There has been a default in the condition required to be done by September 30,2004,as above-described,and Plaintiff;City ofEden Prairie,further agrees to give Defendants, hum W,Perkins and RayneJie F.Perkins,at the address of three days written notice,postmarked to govern of said default before filing this Co nfeseice ofhudgment If said default is not cured within said torte days,then the City of Eden Prairie,Plaintiff,may by Affidavit site the facts and circumstances of the default, the amount owing he ceder,and the fits contained herein,and may file this Confession of Judgment without further notice to Defendant,James W.Perkins and Raynelle F. Perkins,or Counsel_ in the event,PlaintiM City of Eden Prairie,foes this Confession of Judgment as aforesaid,Defendants Perfdtts agree that the amount of the judgment to be entered against Defendants Perkins will be: A, Equitable relief by an Order of the Court allowing the City of Eden Prairie or contractors of the City of Eden Prairie on the premises of Lot 1,Block I,Bryart Lake Heights,for the purposes of tearing down and removing the structure on said property;and B. Plaintiff City of Eden Prairie,shall be reimbursed for all costs associated with tearing down and removing said structure on Block 1,Lot 1,Bryant Lake Heights,from the escrowed account of funds; and shall be reimbursed for any and all reasonable attorneys fees and costs. 4. That Defendants Perkins do hereby authorize and empower the Court above-named to eater judgment against Defendants Perkins in favor of Plaintiff,City of Eden Prairie,in the matter above scribed of equitable relief and a money judgment as appropriate. Dated:\--,371'21-‘61 v � J es W.Perkins Dated: I " 7- F.Perkins • • • q3 VEIIICA` tal STATE OF IvIil'NNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) James W.Perkins,being first duly sworn on oath,hereby ��eiu and he has r the Sys and states that he is the contents thereof,and that the same�foregoing f his o3�rn� of,i'uigxueet and knows the rmati�and brie and as toknowledge,exceptiea to those matters stated on f, s matters he believes them to be true and the above is the true sib*flames W.Pins. al . W.Pens Subscribed and sworn to before me this R./-day G%c,u.� 2404. ■ �s JEFFREY H,OLSON A �' '�' NOTARYPUBLIC-MINNESOTA 1C - •. a ;:..My�r�•��s.lan.s1,2o0.5 • • • q1j WWI ICALQUI STATE OF MINIgESOTA } COUNTY OF HEiEPIN 3 Raynelle F.Perkins,be ig first duly sworn on oath,her deposes and states that she is the Defendant herein and she has read the*rcggotng Confession of Judgwent and knows the scents thcreo£and ihat Ow same is true ofher o n.knowledge,exapt as to those matters stated ao informalion and beljet and as to such mattes abc believes them to be and the above is the true signature ofRaynelle,F,Pins Ra gibed and sworn to before me this of— " ■ - • -> K,JEFFREY H.OLSON f '"-` -" NOTARY PUBLIC—MINNESOTA My Comm.Expires Jan.31,2005 C , . 15 STEPHEN LONGMAN BUILDERS INCORPORATED Mayor and City Council City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 January 26,2004 Re: Amendment to the Developers Agreement Bryant Lake Heights Honorable Mayor and City Council, This is a request to amend the Developer's Agreement to allow building permits to be issued for Lot 3 with the clear understanding that by a date specified the Perkins will vacate the house on Lot 1 and that the the house will be immediately torn down. Mr. and Mrs. Perkins have agreed that my company will perform the tear down and removal. Thank you in advance. Sinci Of4344\ Stephen Longman President Stephen Longman Builders,Inc. • c.c. Joel A.Seitz,Esq. I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Payment of Claims February 17,2004 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Management and Budget Payment of Claims Sue Kotchevar Requested Action Move to: Synopsis Checks 127255 - 127633 Wire Transfers 1949- 1954 Background Information Attachments City of Eden Prairie Council Check Summary 2/17/2004 Division Amount General 195,047 100 City Manager 445 101 Legislative 9,070 102 Legal Counsel 5,625 110 City Clerk 120 111 Customer Service 12,388 112 Human Resources 1,657 113 Communication Services 1,810 114 Benefits&Training 1,192 115 Risk Management 71,555 116 Facilities 17,682 117 City Center 3,967 130 Assessing 1,564 131 Finance 3,030 132 Social Services 19,065 133 Community Development 150 135 Information Technology 85 136 Wireless Communication 2,329 137 Economic Development 119 150 Park Administration 994 151 Park Maintenance 6,134 153 Athletic Programs 1,342 154 Community Center 25,443 156 Youth Programs 457 157 Special Events 140 158 Senior Center 1,561 160 Therapeutic Recreation 17 161 Oak Point Pool 9,632 162 Arts 2,881 163 Park Facilities 120 180 Police 9,748 184 Fire 8,464 185 Animal Control 421 186 Inspections 122 200 Engineering 426 201 Street Maintenance 15,462 202 Street Lighting 889 203 Fleet Services 40,683 308 E-911 6,495 311 Grant Fund 34 314 Liquor Compliance 5 410 Improvement Bonds Pre 1990 337,920 412 Improvement Bonds 1991B 294,870 415 Open Space Debt 1994 133,246 418 HRA 2002A Lease Revenue Bonds 820,538 421 2003A Park Bonds Refunding 370,209 422 G.O W/Sewer Refund 2003B 606,156 423 2003C Open Space Bonds 22,795 424 G.O.Improvement Bonds 2003D 403 502 Park Development 2,433 503 Utility Improvement 35,242 506 Improvment Bonds 1996 27,953 509 CIP Fund 46,729 511 Construction Fund 21,643 513 CIP Pavement Management 1,520 601 Prairie Village Liquor 81,360 602 Den Road Liquor 126,552 603 Prairie View Liquor 74,339 701 Water Fund 144,899 702 Sewer Fund 22,696 703 Storm Drainage Fund 8,055 800 TIE 115 803 Escrow Fund 6,884 Report Totals 3,664,924 9( '' • City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 2/17/2004 Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit 1949 9,623 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 Deferred Compensation General Fund 1950 25,253 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE State Taxes Withheld General Fund 1951 14,718 ORCHARD TRUST CO AS TRUSTEE/CU Deferred Compensation General Fund 1952 125,543 WELLS FARGO MINNESOTA N A Employers SS&Medicare General Fund 1953 428,116 WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA NA Principal Open Space Debt 1994 1954 2,157,618 US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSN Interest HRA 2002A LEASE REVENUE BONDS 127255 356 AIM ELECTRONICS Repair&Maint.Supplies City Center Operations 127257 1,191 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY Office Supplies General 127258 450 ASCAP Licenses&Taxes Ice Arena 127259 762 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC. Waste Disposal Maintenance 127260 21,500 CE LASALLE&ASSOCIATES Other Contracted Services Construction Fund 127261 233 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES United Way Withheld General Fund 127262 33 DUALE,KHADRA Video&Photo Supplies Housing,Trans,&Human Sery 127263 81 EARL F ANDERSEN INC Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 127264 377 ECOLAB INC Building Repair&Maint. Fire Station#3 127265 64 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC Postage General 127266 909 FORE MECHANICAL,INC Building Repair&Maint. Fire Station#1 127267 26 G&K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL Clothing&Uniforms Street Maintenance 127268 770 HOME DEPOT/GECF Repair&Maint.Supplies Senior Center 127269 1,680 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATI Union Dues Withheld General Fund 127270 50 KRENZ CONSULTING Operating Supplies Winter Theatre 127271 609 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant 127272 60 LANGE,RENEE Other Contracted Services Volleyball 127273 3,594 LANO EQUIPMENT INC Other Assets Street Maintenance 127274 229 LIMBERG,KRISTY Clothing&Uniforms Winter Theatre 127275 580 MEDICINE LAKE TOURS Special Event Fees Adult Program 127276 469 METRO FIRE PROTECTION Fire Prevention Permits General Fund 127277 100 MICHURSK1,JUDY Refunds Environmental Education 127278 2,906 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR Garnishment Withheld General Fund 127279 158 MOORE MEDICAL CORP Safety Supplies Fire 127280 249 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INSURANCE Life Insurance EE/ER General Fund 127281 74 NESBITT,DENNY Mileage&Parking Inspections-Administration 127282 160 NUR,ZINA Miscellaneous Housing,Trans,&Human Sery 127283 500 PERIMETER PRODUCTIONS Other Contracted Services Winter Theatre 127284 646 PITNEY BOWES INC Other Rentals General 127285 23 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 127286 289 PROP United Way Withheld General Fund 127287 244 QWEST Telephone Edenvale Park 127288 2,041 ROTO-ROOTER Other Contracted Services Sewer System Maintenance 127289 34 RUMFORD,JOAN Operating Supplies Senior Center Operations 127290 2,636 SCHARBER&SONS Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127291 390 STREICHERS Equipment Parts Wireless Communication 127292 28,776 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR Building Capital Impr./Maint.Fund 127293 779 TKACH,GEORGE Capital Under$2,000 Senior Center 127294 6,092 TKDA Other Contracted Services Water Utility-General 127295 7,618 TRAUT WELLS Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 127296 10 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO Operating Supplies General Facilities 127297 403 U S BANK Paying Agent G.O.Improvement Bonds 2003D 127298 294 UNITED WAY United Way Withheld General Fund 127300 24 WALMART COMMUNITY Office Supplies Senior Center Administration 127301 12 WILLIAMS,SHARI Program Fee Special Events&Trips 127302 153 ZEP MANUFACTURING CO Cleaning Supplies General Facilities 127303 100 AULT,SHANNON Refunds Environmental Education 127304 100 BEARD,MICHELLE Refunds Environmental Education 127305 1,550 BELLBOY CORPORATION Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store 127306 278 CENTERPOINT ENEGY Gas Crestwood Park 127307 99 COLLIERS TURLEY MARTIN TUCKER Operating Supplies Assessing 127308 175 DEGREE,BETH Mileage&Parking Aquatics&Fitness Admin 127309 3 DILLING,LORRAINE Program Fee Senior Center Program 127310 1,200 EDEN PRAIRIE HOCKEY ASSOCIATIO Other Contracted Services Park Acquisition&Development 127311 150 ELLIS,MIKE Refunds Environmental Education 127312 6,495 EMERGITECH,INC. Software E-911 Program 127313 114 ERNST,DOUGLAS Clothing&Uniforms Park Maintenance 127314 55 ESCHELON TELECOM INC 09Equipment Repair&Maint Telephone Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit 127315 100 GETCHELL,JIM Refunds Environmental Education 127316 407 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Licenses&Taxes Concessions 127317 115 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER TARP TIF Revenue Heights at Valleyview 127318 100 HORNSETH, JANE Refunds Environmental Education 127319 165 IAAO Dues&Subscriptions Assessing 127320 445 IIMC Conference Expense City Manager 127321 122 JETER,KARA Training Supplies Fitness Classes 127322 7 KJOS,MICHAEL Program Fee Senior Center Program 127323 270 KOTSONAS,GEORGE Other Contracted Services Senior Center Program 127324 9,019 LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST Insurance Risk Management 127325 450 MAAO Dues&Subscriptions Assessing 127326 100 MEGER,LEONARD Refunds Environmental Education 127327 100 METRO FIRE OFFICERS ASSN Dues&Subscriptions Fire 127328 548 METRO SALES INCORPORATED* Other Rentals General 127329 74 MINN ST ADMIN ITG TELECOM SERV Software Maintenance Information Technology 127330 309 MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC OF REAL Operating Supplies Assessing 127331 10 MINNESOTA DEPT OF LABOR AND IN Licenses&Taxes General Facilities 127332 5,082 MINNESOTA PRINT MANAGEMENT LLC Office Supplies Sewer Accounting 127333 85 MINNESOTA REAL ESTATE JOURNAL Operating Supplies Assessing 127334 2,930 MINNESOTA TROPHIES&GIFTS Operating Supplies Fire 127335 1,581 MITY-LITE INC Operating Supplies Cummins House Special Events 127336 100 MONK,KAREN Refunds Environmental Education 127337 2 MOORE,CAROL Program Fee Senior Center Program 127338 10 MRPA Conference Expense Parks Administration 127339 6,494 NILSSEN,BETH Instructor Service Ice Arena 127340 195 NTC Conference Expense Parks Administration 127341 312 PELTIER,JAMES Operating Supplies Fire 127342 143 PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULT Design&Engineering Construction Fund 127343 156 PITNEY BOWES Postage General 127344 13 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 127345 15 REAL GEM Special Event Fees Senior Center Program 127346 30 REHARD,LINDA Program Fee Outdoor Center 127347 3,443 RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE CO Disability Ins Employers General Fund 127348 100 ROLF,KURT Refunds Environmental Education 127349 4,285 ROUSE,SUSAN Clothing&Uniforms Ice Show 127350 75 SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA Special Event Fees Adult Program 127351 554 SIR SPEEDY Postage General 127352 405 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT Deposits Escrow 127353 53 STEIGAUF,ANDREE Training Supplies Fitness Classes 127354 94 STOVRING,LESLIE Mileage&Parking Storm Drainage 127355 35 SUMPTER,CAROL Program Fee Cummins House Special Events 127356 306 ULI Operating Supplies Assessing 127357 181 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEVUE Pager&Cell Phone Police 127358 52 WAYTEK INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127359 140 WERTS,SANDY Mileage&Parking Special Events Administration 127360 159 WEST WELD Small Tools Fleet Services 127361 637 WESTACOTT,JOEL Mileage&Parking Communication Services 127362 911 WILSON,JOIN D. Tuition Reimbursement/School In Service Training 127363 58 ZEIIRINGER,MONTY AND ELDORA Program Fee Senior Center Program 127364 93 AMERIPRIDE LINEN&APPAREL SER Operating Supplies Prairie View Liquor Store 127365 156 ARCTIC GLACIER INC Misc Non-Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 127366 4,297 BELLBOY CORPORATION Operating Supplies Prairie View Liquor Store 127367 5,895 DAY DISTRIBUTING Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store 127368 3,288 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store 127369 11,479 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store 127370 2,975 GRAPE BEGINNINGS Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 127371 15,726 GRIGGS COOPER&CO Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 127372 680 HOHENSTEINS INC Beer Den Road Liquor Store 127373 40,105 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store 127374 3,686 MARK VII Beer Den Road Liquor Store 127375 447 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 127376 1,076 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 127377 7,103 PAUSTIS&SONS COMPANY Wine Imported Prairie View Liquor Store 127378 23,847 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store 127379 856 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 127380 1,848 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 127381 8,518 QUALITY WINE&SPIRITS CO Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store 127382 15,933 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer /O° Prairie Village Liquor Store Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit 127383 2,936 WINE COMPANY,THE Wine Imported Prairie View Liquor Store 127384 7,436 WINE MERCHANTS INC Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store 127385 3,395 WORLD CLASS WINES INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 127386 150 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Dues&Subscriptions Community Development 127387 500 ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT Deposits Escrow 127388 259 BLOOMINGTON,CITY OF Kennel Services Animal Control 127389 10 BOLDENOW,MARY Lessons&Classes Fitness Classes 127390 109 CRACAUER,CLIFF Mileage&Parking Fleet Services 127391 61 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVI Other Rentals General 127392 79 DENNISON,TREVOR Parking Permits Parking 127393 1,122 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER Miscellaneous In Service Training 127394 265 EDEN PRAIRIE ROTARY CLUB Dues&Subscriptions Parks Administration 127395 60 FBINAA Dues&Subscriptions Police 127396 10 FOSTER,MARJORIE Lessons&Classes Fitness Classes 127397 25 GREENINGER,KAREN Program Fee Special Events&Trips 127398 2,608 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFI Board of Prisoner Police 127399 1,596 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Board of Prisoner Police 127400 30 HURSH,PAMELA Program Fee Winter Skill Development 127401 97 KALKES,JAYNA Mileage&Parking Human Resources 127402 80 KLOECKNER,LINDA Operating Supplies Prairie Village Liquor Store 127403 5,671 KMC TELECOM HOLDINGS INC. Telephone Telephone 127404 66,492 LEAGUE MN Cl11bS INS TRUST Insurance Den Road Liquor Store 127405 108 MARKS EDEN PRAIRIE BP Equipment Repair&Maint Police 127406 17 MENARDS Operating Supplies Water Meter Repair 127407 40 MINNESOTA CRIME PREVENTION ASS Dues&Subscriptions Police 127408 5 MINNESOTA PREVENTION RESOURCE Operating Supplies Liquor Compliance 127409 1,385 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP Electric Park Maintenance 127410 25 MSANI Dues&Subscriptions Police 127411 75 MSSA Dues&Subscriptions Engineering 127412 40 OBIAZOR,LAURIE Fac.Rental-P&R Skating Rinks 127413 102 OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 127414 121 PETSMART Canine Supplies Police 127415 364 PETTY CASH Mileage&Parking Economic Development 127416 3,000 POSTAGE BY PHONE RESERVE ACCOU Postage General 127417 533 POWERPLAN Improvements to Land Capital Impr./Maint.Fund 127418 189 PRIMEDIA WORKPLACE LEARNING Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 127419 108 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 127420 20 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER Postage General 127421 14 QWEST Telephone Purgatory Creek Rec Area 127422 11,013 RMR SYSTEMS INC Other Contracted Services Utility Improvement Fund 127423 6,232 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES Other Contracted Services Housing,Trans,&Human Sery 127424 350 SOUNDS GREAT Special Event Fees Special Events&Trips 127425 8,000 SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTAT Dues&Subscriptions City Council 127426 10,575 STANDARD INSURANCE CO Life Insurance EE/ER General Fund 127427 2,060 TEENS ALONE Other Contracted Services Housing,Trans,&Human Sery 127428 244 TKDA Other Contracted Services Utility Improvement Fund 127429 1,871 US POSTMASTER-HOPKINS Postage Water Accounting 127430 1,500 WATERISAC Other Contracted Services Water Utility-General 127431 74 ABLE HOSE&RUBBER INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant 127432 97 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC. Waste Disposal Den Road Liquor Store 127433 5,625 CORNERSTONE Other Contracted Services Legal Council 127434 65 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET Operating Supplies Senior Center Administration 127435 25 ECCLES,ANN Program Fee Senior Center Program 127436 209 EDEN PRAIRIE ROTARY CLUB Dues&Subscriptions City Council 127437 199 EXERCISE ETC INC Conference Expense Parks Administration 127438 15 JOHNSON,PAULINE Program Fee Senior Center Program 127439 124 KIRCHMAN,GLORIA Program Fee Senior Center Program 127440 27 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC Small Tools Sewer System Maintenance 127441 13 MCKENNA,DON Program Fee Senior Center Program 127442 36 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP Electric Sewer Liftstation 127443 2,403 QWEST Telephone Sewer Liftstation 127444 185 ROTO-ROOTER Other Contracted Services Sewer System Maintenance 127445 6 SCHNEIDER,RAMONA Program Fee Senior Center Program 127446 15 SCHULENBERG,TAMMY Program Fee Senior Center Program 127447 10 SHERLOCK,MARIBETH Lessons&Classes Fitness Classes 127448 6 STAR TRIBUNE Misc Non-Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store 127449 10 TOMLINSON,TERRI Lessons&Classes Fitness Classes 127450 92 ZANGS,JILL Lessons&Classes //`j( Oak Point Lessons Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit 127451 78 AMERIPRIDE LINEN&APPAREL SER Repair&Maint.Supplies Den Road Liquor Store 127452 52 ARCTIC GLACIER INC Misc Non-Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 127453 3,888 BELLBOY CORPORATION Operating Supplies Prairie Village Liquor Store 127454 4,148 DAY DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store 127455 1,603 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 127456 7,223 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY Beer Den Road Liquor Store 127457 600 EXTREME BEVERAGE Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 127458 439 GETTMAN COMPANY Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store 127459 788 GRAPE BEGINNINGS Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 127460 7,801 GRIGGS COOPER&CO Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 127462 24,497 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 127463 4,431 MARK VII Beer Den Road Liquor Store 127464 302 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store 127465 110 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 127466 4,325 PAUSTIS&SONS COMPANY Beer Den Road Liquor Store 127467 6,994 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Transportation Den Road Liquor Store 127468 464 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Operating Supplies Prairie Village Liquor Store 127469 2,885 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 127470 11,112 QUALITY WINE&SPIRITS CO Liquor Den Road Liquor Store 127471 13,728 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store 127472 83 VINTAGE ONE WINES INC Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store 127473 2,829 WINE COMPANY,THE Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store 127474 1,727 WINE MERCI-IANTS INC Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store 127475 1,286 WORLD CLASS WINES INC Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store 127476 2,150 ARCH PAGING Pager&Cell Phone Wireless Communication 127477 150 ASSOCIATION OF TRAINING OFFICE Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 127478 946 BIFFS INC Waste Disposal Park Maintenance 127479 160 CASH COMPANY Deposits Escrow 127480 12,597 CENTERPOINT ENEGY Gas Fire Station#1 127481 2,511 FAMILY&CHILDRENS SERVICE Other Contracted Services Housing,Trans,&Human Sery 127482 4,774 FAMILY HOPE SERVICES Other Contracted Services Housing,Trans,&Human Sery 127483 5,819 HENNEPIN COUNTY Deposits Escrow 127484 12,835 IND SCHOOL DIST 272 Other Contracted Services Housing,Trans,&Human Sew 127485 252 1TE Operating Supplies Engineering 127486 34 KINKO'S Printing Fire Cert Grant 127487 300 KRENZ CONSULTING Other Contracted Services Winter Theatre 127488 119 MINNESOTA MULTI HOUSING ASSOC Conference Expense Water Treatment Plant 127489 199 NATIONAL SEMINAR GROUP Conference Expense Water Treatment Plant 127490 8,553 PRAIRIE PARTNERS SIX LLP Building Rental Prairie Village Liquor Store 127491 2,070 PRAIRIEVIEW RETAIL LLC Other Contracted Services Prairie View Liquor Store 127492 94 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 127493 1,860 RICHIIELD,CITY OF Operating Supplies Fleet Services 127494 58 RUMFORD,JOAN Program Fee Senior Center Program 127495 7,218 SERVPRO OF MINNETONKA&CAROL Insurance Claims Sewer Utility-General 127496 290 SPECIAL OPERATIONS TRAINING AS Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 127497 200 WASIIINGTON COUNTY SHERIFFS DE Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 127498 79 WOLF CAMERA Video&Photo Supplies Fire 127499 120 ZILKA,AMY Other Contracted Services Adult Program 127500 819 AMERICAN RED CROSS Recreation Supplies Pool Lessons 127501 558 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI Training Supplies Water Utility-General 127502 336 APPARENTLY GRAPHIC LTD. Operating Supplies Fire 127503 1,233 ATHLETICA Advertising Park Acquisition&Development 127504 277 AUTO ELECTRIC OF BLOOMINGTON I Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127505 1,111 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127506 194 BDS Equipment Repair&Maint Fire Station#1 127507 540 BERENS,PAUL A. Other Contracted Services Ice Arena 127508 470 BERTELSON OFFICE PLUS Office Supplies Water Utility-General 127509 267 BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS Building Repair&Maint. Fire Station#2 127510 336 BOWLBY,ROD Other Contracted Services Basketball 127511 2,591 BOYER TRUCKS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 127512 973 BOYER TRUCKS SO.ST.PAUL Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127513 107 BRIN NORTHWESTERN GLASS COMPAN Building Repair&Maint. Prairie Village Liquor Store 127514 155 BRO-TEX INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127515 3,408 CARDIAC SCIENCE INC Operating Supplies Fire 127516 4,744 CARGILL SALT Salt Snow&Ice Control 127517 136 CATCO CLUTCH&TRANSMISSION SE Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127518 308 CLAREYS INC Operating Supplies Den Road Liquor Store 127519 555 CLARKLIFT OF MINNESOTA INC Other Contracted Services/Q"+t Water Treatment Plant Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit 127520 38 COPY EQUIPMENT INC Operating Supplies Assessing 127521 1,529 CORPORATE EXPRESS Office Supplies General 127522 6,749 CUTLER MAGNER COMPANY Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 127523 725 CY'S UNIFORMS Clothing&Uniforms Reserves 127524 253 DALCO Cleaning Supplies Maintenance 127525 9,360 DALCO ROOFING&SHEET METAL IN Building Capital Impr./Maint.Fund 127526 126 DELEGARD TOOL CO Small Tools Fleet Services 127527 30 DEM CON LANDFILL LLC Waste Disposal Fire Station#1 127528 190 DNR SCREEN PRINTING INC Clothing&Uniforms Maintenance 127529 9,397 DRT TRANSPORT Other Contracted Services Lime Sludge 127530 903 DYNA SYSTEMS Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant 127531 5,129 EARL F ANDERSEN INC Signs Traffic Signs 127532 377 ECOLAB INC Building Repair&Maint. Fire Station#3 127533 729 EDEN PRAIRIE APPLIANCE Capital Under$2,000 City Center Operations 127534 952 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127535 699 ENGINEERED ICE SYSTEMS Equipment Repair&Maint Ice Arena 127536 6,964 FACILITY SYSTEMS INC Capital Under$2,000 Furniture 127537 162 FASTSIGNS Operating Supplies Pool Operations 127538 380 FERRELLGAS Motor Fuels Ice Arena 127539 500 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MN Tuition Reimbursement/School Fire 127540 290 FORE MECIANICAL,INC Building Repair&Maint. Public Works/Parks 127541 963 G&K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL Clothing&Uniforms Park Maintenance 127542 3,969 GARTNER REFRIGERATION&MFG IN Repair&Maint.Supplies Ice Arena 127543 185 GE SUPPLY LOGISTICS,LLC Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant 127544 1,520 GOODPOINTE TECHNOLOGY CORPORAT Design&Engineering CIP Pavement Management 127545 492 GRAINGER Repair&Maint.Supplies Water System Maintenance 127546 96 GREENMAN TECINOLOGIES OF MN IN Tires Fleet Services 127547 94 GS DIRECT Operating Supplies Engineering 127548 393 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC Other Contracted Services Park Maintenance 127549 79 HACH COMPANY Operating Supplies Water Treatment Plant 127550 92 HALLOCK CO INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Park Maintenance 127551 8,941 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON Design&Engineering Improvement Projects 1996 127552 1,642 IIARMON INC. Building Repair&Maint. Fire Station#2 127553 19,752 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC Motor Fuels Fleet Services 127554 2,288 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 127555 456 I ELLERS CARBONIC WEST Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 127556 452 HENRY,PAUL Other Contracted Services Volleyball 127557 1,362 ICI DULUX PAINT CTRS Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant 127558 15 IDEXX DISTRIBUTION CORP Operating Supplies Water Treatment Plant 127559 162 ITS A KEEPER Employee Award Communication Services 127560 512 J J KELLER&ASSOCIATES INC Training Supplies Sewer Utility-General 127561 256 J&R RADIATOR CORP Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 127562 148 JAMIESON COMPANY,THE Recreation Supplies Volleyball 127563 2,300 JANEX INC Cleaning Supplies General Facilities 127564 167 JOIN HENRY FOSTER MINNESOTA IN Equipment Repair&Maint Water Treatment Plant 127565 90 JOHNSON,KAMARA Other Contracted Services Park Facilities 127566 168 KALLIN,LAWRENCE E Other Contracted Services Volleyball 127567 3,000 KERN DEWENTER VIERS LTD. Audit&Financial Finance 127568 11,469 KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC Improvement Contracts Improvement Projects 1996 127569 90 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR Building Repair&Maint. Fire Station#1 127570 87 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT INC. Safety Supplies Pool Operations 127571 4,221 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127572 2,013 LOVEGREEN MECHANICAL SERVICES Building Repair&Maint. Water Treatment Plant 127573 218 LUBRICATION TECINOLOGIES INC Lubricants&Additives Fleet Services 127574 1,136 M R SIGN Signs Traffic Signs 127575 781 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127576 741 MAXI-PRINT INC Printing Police 127577 325 MAXIMUM SOLUTIONS INC Conference Expense Parks Administration 127578 631 MCNEILUS STEEL INC Miscellaneous Fleet Services 127579 315 MENARDS Operating Supplies Street Maintenance 127580 197 METROPOLITAN FORD Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127581 154 METROPOLITAN MECHANICAL Building Repair&Maint. Ice Arena 127582 37,825 MID-CO AN INC Machinery&Equipment Water Treatment Plant 127583 510 MIDWAY INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO IN Equipment Repair&Maint Fire Station#1 127584 720 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127585 20 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES Protective Clothing Fire 127586 1,772 NATIONAL WATERWORKS Merchandise for Resale Water Utility-General 127587 1,560 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE Employment Advertising / 3 Human Resources Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit 127588 4,320 NATURAL REFLECTIONS VII LLC Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 127589 1,517 NORTHWEST BUSINESS SYSTEMS Equipment Repair&Maint Telephone 127590 53 OSI BATTERIES INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127591 186 PAPER DIRECT INC Operating Supplies Winter Theatre 127592 5,525 PARKOS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Building Capital Impr./Maint.Fund 127593 472 PEPSI COLA COMPANY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 127594 8,217 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY Equipment Repair&Maint Water Treatment Plant 127595 2,208 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC Equipment Parts Sewer Liftstation 127596 168 RAMOLA,ALLEN J Other Contracted Services Basketball 127597 160 REED CONSTRUCTION DATA Legal Notices Publishing Water Treatment Plant 127598 52 REHAB SYSTEMS LLC Operating Supplies Pool Operations 127599 225 RETROFIT RECYCLING INC Waste Disposal General Facilities 127600 68 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127601 31,359 RMR SYSTEMS INC Other Contracted Services Utility Improvement Fund 127602 61 SBC PAGING Pager&Cell Phone Sewer System Maintenance 127603 60 SHRED-TT Waste Disposal City Center Operations 127604 300 SIERRA CORPORATION Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127605 2,822 SIGHTLINE DISPLAYS,LLC Building Repair&Maint. City Center Operations 127606 7,543 SM HENTGES&SONS INC Improvement Contracts Improvement Projects 1996 127607 284 SNELL MECHANICAL INC Equipment Repair&Maint Ice Arena 127608 1,120 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING- Advertising Communication Services 127609 488 STATE CHEMICAL MFG.CO.,THE Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant 127610 48 STEEL PRODUCTS&ALUMINUM INC. Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127611 1,741 STREICHERS Repair&Maint.Supplies Fire 127612 6,156 STS CONSULTANTS LTD Other Contracted Services Storm Drainage Projects 127613 145 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GEO Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services 127614 347 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC Tires Fleet Services 127615 145 SWEDLUNDS Waste Disposal Outdoor Center 127616 2,018 SYSTEM CONTROL SERVICES Equipment Parts Sewer Liftstation 127617 63 TOTAL REGISTER Operating Supplies Prairie Village Liquor Store 127618 27,890 TRAUT WELLS Equipment Repair&Maint Water Treatment Plant 127619 410 TWIN CITY FILTER SERVICE INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant 127620 109 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO Lubricants&Additives Fleet Services 127621 674 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Clothing&Uniforms Police 127622 337 UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECIINOL Signs Traffic Signs 127623 552 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC Operating Supplies Traffic Signs 127624 135 US FILTER/JWI Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant 127625 4,782 VALLEY RICH CO INC Other Contracted Services Sewer System Maintenance 127626 181 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC Operating Supplies Water Treatment Plant 127627 2,306 WATSON CO INC,THE Merchandise for Resale Concessions 127628 2,486 WM MUELLER AND SONS INC Sand Snow&Ice Control 127629 97 WOLF CAMERA Video&Photo Supplies Assessing 127630 318 X-ERGON Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant 127631 2,612 YALE MECHANICAL INC Equipment Repair&Maint Water Treatment Plant 127632 481 ZEP MANUFACTURING CO Equipment Parts Fleet Services 127633 902 ZIEGLER INC Other Rentals Street Maintenance 3,664,924 Grand Total IO1-4 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Director of Parks and Recreation February 17,2004 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Through: Robert A. Lambert Director of Parks &Recreation Request from the Eden Prairie Baseball )(I V C From: Stuart Fox, Manager of Association to Share Costs for Field Parks and Natural Resources Improvements Requested Action Move to: Authorize improvements at seven City baseball fields at a cost share of 50% expenditure for the City; and 50% expenditure for the Eden Prairie Baseball Association as per the request dated January 12,2004. Synopsis The Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed this request at their February 2, 2004 meeting and approved the cost share proposal with a unanimous(7-0)vote. City staff has been corresponding with board members of the Eden Prairie Baseball Association in the past months to determine improvements that they would like to have done at baseball fields in 2004. Staff has prepared a list of the estimated costs to improve the various baseball fields and submitted it to the Baseball Association. The Association has indicated they are willing to share in the cost for making these improvements in the amount of one-half or 50%of the costs. Staff has proposed to make improvements at seven fields at an estimated cost of$27,000. The Baseball Association has indicated that they would fund one-half of the cost or$13,500 for the 2004 construction season. Background Information The City has partnered with the Baseball Association over the past few years to make improvements to baseball facilities throughout the City. As an example, in 2003 the City completed $32,000 worth of improvements of which the Baseball Association paid $16,000. The majority of improvements centered around the player bench areas and repairs to the backstops. The Baseball Association also paid for 100% of field improvements at Hidden Ponds Park to extend a net above the existing backstop, thereby improving the stoppage of foul balls. In addition they paid for the installation of an aglime warning track and a permanent six foot high chain link outfield fence. The City has partnered with other athletic associations to make improvements throughout the park system. The contributions by the various associations has been for mutual benefit; namely the improvements are done so that the youth associations can better utilize the athletic fields and City benefits from having to only spend a portion of the total expense to make these improvements. Attachments: Letter from Baseball Association Cost Estimates SAF:bju Cost Estimate for Baseball Field Improvements Proposed for 2004 Eden Valley Park— 1 field • Concrete pads under 2 player benches $3,500 • Fabric for backstop repair $200 $3,700 2. Forest Hills Park— 1 field—east • Concrete pads under 2 player benches $3,500 • Fabric for backstop repair $400 • Replace timber edging $500 • Bleacher—3 row $500 $4,900 3. Prairie View Park—2 fields • Concrete pads under 4 player benches $7,000 • Fabric for backstop repair $400 $7,400 4. Eden Lake Park—3 fields • Concrete pads under 6 player benches $10,500 • Fabric for backstop repair $500 $11,000 Estimated Total $27,000 G:\Brenda\Letter & Memos\Stuart 2004\Request from Eden Prairie Baseball Association to Share Costs for Field Improvements for 2004 memo.doc /06 Stu Fox -q om: Stu Fox bnt: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:58 PM To: 'Tom Siering' Cc: Robert Lambert; Doug Ernst Subject: Proposed Baseball Field Improvements for 2004 Tom, Bob has asked me to review the list of field improvements and the money available to pay for the work. I would suggest that items 7-10 (Eden Valley, Forest Hills—east, Prairie View—both fields, and Eden Lake—all three fields)be done for 2004. This would include the installation of concrete pads under 14 player benches and an enlarged slab on the fields where you have a storage box. The City would replace the backstop fabric at these fields as needed. I estimate that the cost would be approximately$24,000 for the contracted concrete work. The city will have expenses that will include the manpower, equipment and materials to restore the bench areas after the concrete installation.This will add about$3,000 to the project,making the estimated total $27,000.With a 50/50 split the City and Baseball Association would be responsible for$13,500 in expenses. I am recommending the 14 pads because last year we put concrete pads under 12 player benches, so we know how long it will take to do 14. We have a large number of park construction projects scheduled for this upcoming construction year and I don't want to over commit the parks crew and not be able to complete and restore the fields properly. The work would begin after the baseball season ends and that gives us enough time to restore and seed the areas prior to freeze up. The last phase of the field improvements, Flying Cloud fields (seven fields),would be done in 2005. There are 14 players benches at that facility and therefore the cost and construction timeframe would be approximately the same. If you agree with the proposal of doing seven fields (14 player benches)with a 50/50 cost share of$13,500 each for the 2004 season would you please confirm this in writing. I will take the Baseball Association's written request to the Park "'',ppmmission (February 2nd) and the City Council for authorization to partner with the Association for the 2004 -. provements. • Stuart A. Fox Manager of Parks and Natural Resources City of Eden Prairie 952-949-8445 Original Message From: Tom Siering [mailto:tom.siering@ebf.comj Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10;11 AM To: Robert Lambert; Stu Fox Subject: Just so we are square, how big is the appetite of the City for 2004 field improvements? If we do items 7-12 on our list (pads at Eden Valley, FH,PV,EL,FC, Oak Pt) it is $56.4k or $28.2k each. Is that OK w/you or should we scale back? - Please advise.Thanks, /1o1' eden prairie 11 aseball as ociation f% January 12,2004 Mr,Bob Lambert Parks and Recreation Director City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Dear Bob, • Pursuant to our ongoing partnership,the Eden Prairie Baseball Association(EPBA) • proposes the following field improvements for 2004: Items"7-10"Cement pads and any applicable fence repair at: Eden Valley Forest Hills—east Prairie View-both fields Eden Lake-all three fields The improvements will be completed on a timetable and by construction companies of the City's choosing. The EPBA is.willing to fund half of the cost of these improvements(approximately$13,500), contingent upon the City funding the other half. The EPBA is willing to fund its obligation immediately under this proposal at the City's direction. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Thomas Siering President Eden Prairie Baseball Association 16526 W.78�'St.#326 • Eden Prairie,MN 55346 j IQ� • • • eden ' -prable as ®c ion d • • February 15,2003 Mr.Bob Lambert Parks and Recreation Director City, of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,Mn 55344 Dear Bob, Pursuant to our meeting of February 12,the Eden Prairie Baseball Association(EPBA) proposes the enclosed field improvements.The improvements will be completed on a timetable and by construction companies of the City's choosing.The EPBA believes these improvements are necessary to bring these fields up to playable condition. • r, This proposal is predicated on the City paying half of the actual costs of the improvements, with the EPBA providing the other half. The EPBA is flexible as to the liming of these projects and would work under 1-5 year plans.The EPBA is willing to fund its obligation under this proposal at the City's direction. • Thank you for your consideration in this matter. • Sincerely, Thomas Skiing • President Eden Prairie Baseball Association - 16526 W.78th St.#326 Eden Prairie,MN 55346 • • JO • EPBA PROPOSAL TO THE CITY 2/24/2003 • - . DESIRED PRIORITY FIELD - . WORK COST COMMENT 1 FRANLO A;D;PART E $5,600 AGLIME BASE •" zoo: - 2 HIDDEN PONDS A;C $4,800 • 8-Pfe1ds " 3 GRILL 2 A •$4,000 a s si 3 000 4 MILLER 8 A;B $3,500 : - 5 WILLOW.. A $6,000 THINK B SHOULD BE CITY'S D� • L6 PRESERVE 1&2 `. A $8,000 THINK B SHOULD BE CITY'S 1, . - 7 EDEN VALLEY A $4,000 THINK B SHOULD BE CITY'S. zoo 4 8 FH-EAST SIDE . A $3,400 THINK B,C,D SHOULD BE CITY'S 14:d6s 9 PV 1&2 A- $8,000 THINK B SHOULD BE CITY'S es ' 2 1,00 10 EDEN LAKE 1-3 A $12,000 THINK FENCE WORK SHOULD BE CITY'S 11 FC 2-8 . • A 2 i,00U NK OULD BE CITY'S 12 OAK POINT A $8,000• SCHOOL PAYS FOR WING FENCES (scoot...biS7. 13 MILLER 1-3 DUGOUTS TBD PRDPer ri), • TOTAL $88,300 • • • • • • J • •- I /6 . . Cost Estimates for Baseball Field Improvements Prepared by the EP Park Department Staff The Eden Prairie Baseball Association (EPBA) has requested baseball field improvements at several parks by "field priority" in the February 15, 2003 letter to Bob Lambert. The specific improvements that are being requested by the EPBA are listed by a letter following the field name i.e. Franlo "A" means concrete pads under the player benches. In the following list the bold italic indicates the improvements that the EPBA is requesting be done during the 2003 construction season. The actual cost for these improvements would be shared 50/50 between the City and EPBA. Note: There are several additional items listed for each facility however only the bold italic improvements are being considered for 2003. 1. Franlo Baseball Field A. Concrete pads under players benches Cost=$4,000—8 feet x 30 feet x 4 inches thick B. Warning track needs additional aglime and turf edging done to it. The fence has areas that are bent and bowed in. The entire fence needs retying and a middle and bottom rail should be installed(fence length and height 550 feet x 6 feet high). Cost=$5,500 bottom and middle rail installed $250 new pieces of fabric installed $800 additional aglime hauled by city crews $875 heavy duty cap installed on top of home run fence $625 economy cap installed on top of home run fence C. If the backstop is going to be moved back it would require some additional grading along the left field line. A new backstop and wing fence would have to be installed. The new backstop and wing fences would be similar to Grills#2 Cost=$8,000 black vinyl D. Option 2 would be to leave the backstop in same location and repair it. There is some fabric that should be replaced and canopy needs repair. 6 feet x 20 feet x 9 gauge piece and 6 feet x 20 feet x 6 gauge piece Cost=$600 E. New batting tunnel similar to Flying Cloud#1 • Cost=frame made in-house$2,000 materials, aglime base$1,000 materials,net$1,700, electrical power needed?'Currently there is no electric service in park except for irrigation system. F. Bull pens could be constructed off to side by just building a mound and installing a pitcher plate and home plate Cost=$2,000 done in-house /rr 2. Hidden Ponds - A. Concrete pads under players benches Cost=$4,000—8 feet 30 feet 4 inches thick B. The extension of the backstop would be a netting and pole system similar to Flying Cloud#1 baseball field Cost=$3,000 C. There is come repair that needs to be done to the backstop in addition to the netting. Replace 6 feet x 20 feet x 6 gauge fabric and 6 feet x 20 feet x 9 gauge fabric behind home plate and retie other fencing Cost=$800 D. . New homerun fence and warning track(size 505 feet x 6 feet high) Cost=Warning Track$5,050 New chain link fence 6 feet high$14,140,black vinyl 3. Grills #2 A. Concrete pads under players benches Cost=$4,000—8 feet x 30 feet x 4 inches thick B. Tall netting along woods (30 feet high x 155 feet long) Cost=$6,200 Note: If this netting is installed,there would have to be about 20 trees and `.3 stumps removed and some dirt leveling and seeding done along 1st base out of play line. Cost=$1,000 4. Miller Park#8 A. Installing gates on the cages would require some changes in the location of the electrical outlets on some of the cages and redoing some of the fence. For equipment access it would be best to put the gates on the ends of the cages where possible. Cost=$1,500 each (8 feet x 10 gate 10 feet wide) B. Paving surface of the batting cage would be done in-house Cost for materials=$2,000 Note:If the paving were to be contracted it would be quite expensive because of the large amount of hand labor that would be involved. 5. Willow Park A. Concrete pads under players benches • Cost=$3,000— 7 feet x 25 feet x 4 inches thick B. Backstop fence needs retying and some posts on backstop and wing fences are heaving out of the ground and need to be reset -J Cost=$600 J�� • 2 • C. Extending the backstop higher would be done similar to Flying Cloud#1 netting and post system Cost=$3,000 6. Preserve#1 A. Concrete pads under players benches Cost=$4,000—9 feet 30 feet 4 inches thick Note:Players bench on 1st base side.of field has to be moved away from the wing fence before installing pads under benches B. Backstop needs new fabric behind home plate 6 feet x 20 feet x 9 gauge and six feet x 20 feet x 6 gauge and other fencing needs retying C. Remove and replace outfield snow fence(400 feet) Cost of posts and fence=$350—installation done in-house 6. Preserve#2 A. Concrete pads under players benches Cost=$4,000—9 feet x 30 feet x 4 inches thick Note:Players bench on ls`base side of field has to be moved away from the wing fence before installing pads under benches , B. Backstop needs new fabric behind home plate 6 feet x 20 feet x 9 gauge and six feet x 20 feet x 6 gauge and other fencing needs retying C. Remove and replace outfield snow fence(400 feet) Cost of posts and fence=$350—installation done in-house 7. Eden Valley A. Concrete pads under players benches Cost=$4,000—8 feet x 30 feet x 4 inches thick B. Backstop and wing fences need some fabric replacement and retying, 6 feet x 20 feet x 9 gauge section of fabric C. Extension of the backstop higher and wider would require a new backstop 26 feet high and same width Cost=$9,000 block vinyl, galvanized would be less 8. Forest Hills #2 (east side) A. Concrete pads under players benches • Cost=$3,400—8 feet x 30 feet lst base side, 8 feet x 22 feet 3rd base side B. Need to replace lower piece of chain link on backstop and retie other fence Fabric size 8 feet x 30 feet x 9 gauge Cost=$500 C. Timber edging behind backstop needs to be replaced Cost=$500 /13 3 D. Have extra three tier bleacher in stock for this field E. New snow fence and posts 380 feet Cost=$400 9. Prairie View#1 and 2 A. Concrete pads under players benches Cost=$8,000—8 feet x 30 feet x 4 inches thick(pads on both fields) B. Some repair needs to be done on the backstops Cost=$200 • 10. . Eden Lake #1 A. Concrete pads under players benches Cost=$4,000— 8 feet x 30 feet x 4 inches thick B. Backstop and wing fences can be retied Cost=$500 C. Replace snow fence and post on outfield, 427 feet done in-house by work corrections crew Cost=new posts $100, snow fence$350 10. Eden Lake#2 A. Backstop and wing fence can be retied Cost=$300 B. Concrete pads under players benches Cost=$4,000—8 feet x 30 feet x 4 inches thick • • 10. Lake Eden #3 • A. Backstop and wing fences can be retied Cost=$200 B. Concrete pads under players benches Cost=$4,000—8 feet x 30 feet x 4 inches thick 11. Flying Cloud Fields 2-8 • Note: Players benches on these fields are much smaller than the ones on all the other fields. If these benches are not sufficient, they should be switched over at this time. The ones the City installs are 16 feet long. A. Concrete pads under existing benches • Cost=$3,000 per field—7 feet x 26 feet x 4 inches thick B. Concrete pads under new players benches Cost=$4,500 per field—8 feet x 32 feet x 4 inches thick 4 • C. Fence on backstops and wing fences can be retied at a cost of about$100 per field material costs only; labor costs would be.extra if contracted. 12. Oak Point A. The Eden Prairie School District owns this property. Any improvements or changes will have to be coordinated with them. 13. Miller Park Fields 1, 2, and 3 • A. Adding batting cages to these fields would require additional electricity to._ be installed. Cost for additional electric approximately$2,000-$4,000 per field depending on where the power can come•from Cost of batting cage=$4,500 each B. -Constructing dugouts on these fields would require additional information to get pricing 1. Electrical? 2. Material? 3. Size? 4. Additional Storage • • 5. Seating CITY COUNCIL AGENDA • DATE: SECTION: Reports of Director of Parks and Recreation February 17, 2004 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Robert A. Lambert 2004 Park Bond Referendum Director of Parks & Recreation Requested Action OPTION 1: Move to: Authorize staff to prepare a resolution authorizing a General Obligation Bond Referendum to be held on May 11, 2004 with the following question: Shall the City of Eden Prairie issue and sell it's general obligation bonds in an amount not exceeding $21.5 million to provide funds for development of land and facilities for its program of public recreation? OPTION 2: Move to: Authorize staff to prepare a resolution authorizing a General Obligation Bond Referendum to be held on May 11, 2004 posing the following two questions: 1. Shall the City of Eden Prairie issue and sell it's general obligation bonds in an amount not exceeding $11.96 million to provide funds for development of an outdoor swimming pool and the necessary Community Center and site improvements to accommodate that facility? And 2. Shall the City of Eden Prairie issue and sell it general obligation bonds in an amount not exceeding $12.25 million to provide funds for acquisition, development and improvement of land and facilities for a program of public recreation? Synopsis The total amount of the two questions posed is $24.21 million, whereas the total amount of the single question is $21.50 million. Approximately $2.71 million of improvements to the Community Center must be listed in both of the single questions in case one of those questions failed. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission discussed this issue at length and voted unanimously on a 7-0 vote to recommend the City Council consider a single question bond referendum. They believe the multiple questions, and the need to request $2.71 million more than is necessary when asking two questions is confusing, and would be difficult to explain to all the voters. iI� 2004 Park Bond Referendum February 17, 2004 Page 2 Furthermore, the Commission believes that all of the items listed on the referendum are necessary in order to continue the investment in the park and open space system that has helped this community retain its property values. Background Information In order to summarize the allocation of money for each of the questions posed above, staff has attached the breakdown for cost estimates for the Community Center based on each individual question: a single referendum question, the pool only question, and the Community Center/park improvement question. POOL COSTS FOR BOTH QUESTIONS In both the single question and pool only question, City staff is anticipating the expenditure of$7.3 million for a swimming pool,plus an additional $1.3 million for site work that includes preparing the site for the swimming pool, eliminating the two softball fields and relocating the baseball field, providing an access road between Eagle Way and Valley View Road and doubling the size of the parking facilities at the Community Center. COMMUNITY CENTER COSTS INCLUDED IN VARIOUS QUESTIONS Staff has also included $1.8 million in the referendum for making necessary improvements to the Community Center including deepening the existing pool and replacing the direct Freon system for rinks 1 and 2 with an indirect ammonia system. This cost is included in all the proposed questions. The design for the Community Center improvement totals $8.25 million (including the Community Center repairs) in both the Community Center/park improvement question and $8.9 million in the single question that would provide funds for both the pool, the Community Center and the park improvement projects. (See Scheme I and Scheme II for differences in Community Center improvements.) The amount designated for the Community Center improvements in the "pool only" question would be $3.36 million including the Community Center repairs. (See Scheme IV.) PARK IMPROVEMENTS COSTS INCLUDED IN BOTH QUESTIONS The single question referendum and the question relating to Community Center and park improvements both include$4 million for park improvement projects, including the following: 1. Flying Cloud Ballfields $1.3 million 2. Miller Park Softball Complex $0.3 million 3. Miller Park Soccer/Football Complex $0.3 million 4. Land Acquisition $1 million 5. Miller Park Baseball Field Stadium/Concession and Restrooms $0.5 million 6. Trail Construction $0.6 million f �� 2004 Park Bond Referendum February 17, 2004 Page 3 The City Council must decide if it wants to add money in this referendum for assisting the Hockey Association and Figure Skating Club with the construction of a third rink addition to the Community Center. City staff anticipates that a development of a third rink would cost between $2.825 million and $3 million including site work and relocation of the parking lot on the west side of the building, depending on exterior finishes. Staff also anticipates that the City could sell a maximum of $1 million in revenue bonds for funding assistance. The Hockey Association has raised approximately $1 million in commitments toward funding a third rink. All indications are that most residents would not vote in favor of a third rink; however,that may change if residents are aware that the participants would be paying for approximately two-thirds of the cost of the facility with donations and fees that would go toward paying off revenue bonds. This is far more than any other users are paying toward the facilities they use. Considerations If the City Council is more comfortable with two questions rather than a single question staff would recommend that the Council commit to the voters that the Council would only sell a maximum of $21.5 million in revenue bonds if both questions pass. SINGLE QUESTION REFERENDUM OF $21.5 MILLION FOR POOL / COMMUNITY CENTER/PARKS/TRAILS 1. $7.3 million Outdoor pool 2. $1.3 million Site work, expanding parking,improved access 3. $7.1 million Community Center 4. $1.8 million Community Center repairs/replacements 5. $4 million Park acquisition and facility and trail improvements Total: $21.5 million ONE QUESTION OF $11.96 MILLION FOR OUTDOOR POOL AND NECESSARY COMMUNITY CENTER EXPANSION AND REPAIRS 1. $7.3 million Outdoor pool 2. $1.3 million Site work, expanded parking and improved access 3. $1.56 million Community Center expansion to accommodate pool 4. $1.8 million Community Center repairs and replacement Total: $11.96 million I 11 2004 Park Bond Referendum February 17,2004 Page 4 SECOND QUESTION OF $12.25 MILLION FOR COMMUNITY CENTER IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS, PARK FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSERVATION LAND AQUISITION 1. $6.45 million Community Center improvements 2. $1.8 million Community Center repair and maintenance 3. $4 million Park and trail facility improvements and land acquisition Total: $12.25 million Attachments: Cost breakdown for Schemes I, II, &V Ice Rink Repair and Addition Study Schematic for 3rd Rink Schematic for Schemes I, II&V RAL/bju 119 DELANO ERICKSON ARCHITECTS 10700 HIGHWAY 55,SUITE 308 PLYMOUTH,MN 55441 (763)544-8370 EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER/POOL COMPLEX Architect's Cost Estimate for Referendum Question February 6,2004(Revised February 9,2004) Commission No.0402 To determine appropriate referendum costs and allocation to options to be included with one question, two questions and/or no question being passed,we have looked at five scenarios as illustrated by Schemes I,II,III,IV and V. Scheme I: This is illustrated by the study we completed a year ago(dated March 3,2003)which envisions a pool complex,expanding existing community center and new/expanded parking,entrance and ball field site complex. The cost estimate of$16,500,000 for those components is still relevant with the addition of$1,000,000 to$2,000,000 to replace Rink One and provide for repair of Community Center. Cost Estimate—Scheme I Total area: Remodeled: 13,000 s.f./New Construction: 45,000 s.f. Demolition $ 105,000 Remodeled space—9,000 s.f.@$70 630,000 New construction—first floor area—17,500 s.f.@$110 1,925,000 New construction—second floor area-13,000 s.f.@$100 1,300,000 Arena seating/rear upper access/team rooms 375,000 New multi-use gymnasium—8,000 s.f.@$100 800,000 Play space—2,200 s.f. 240,000 Walking track—5,000 s.f. 260,000 Pool seating and Rink II hallway 140,000 Total Construction Cost(average—58,000 s.f. @$99.55) $ 5,775,000 A/E fees and expenses $ 400,000 Contingency— 10% 575,000 Furnishing and equipment allocation 350,000 Total Budget Estimate $ 7,100,000 Cost estimate—Community Center Repair Rink I and II ammonia system $ 942,000 Refrigeration and Zamboni and storage—2,500 s.f. @$52 130,000 Reroof older Community Center 220,000 Deepen pool 300,000 Total Construction Cost $ 1,592,000 A/E fees/expenses $ 92,000 Contingency—10% 116,000 Total Budget Estimate 1,800,000 Pool complex(from PSA) 7,300,000 Site redevelopment 1,300,000 Grand Total Budget � $17,500,000 p'gs Scheme II: This is illustrated in Drawings 11-1 and 11-2 which remodels and expands the community center to accommodate present and future needs with allowing for a future pool and minimal changes in the parking area. This concept envisions the pool complex not passing until a future date,however, locker rooms,which are needed now,are sized for a future outdoor pool. This approach minimizes demolition and increases area,keeping two racquetball courts in their present locations. Cost Estimate—Scheme II Total area: Remodeled: 15,000 s.f.I New Construction: 37,700 s.f. Site work $ 90,000 Demolition 105,000 Remodeled space— 11,000 s.f.@$70 770,000 New construction—first floor area—11,000 s.f.@$110 1,210,000 New construction—second floor area—12,200 s.f. @$100 1,220,000 Arena seating/team rooms 375,000 Multi-use gymnasium—8,000 s.f.@$100 800,000 Play space—2,200 s.f. 240,000 Walking track—5,000 s.f. 260,000 Pool seating and Rink II hallway 140,000 Total Construction Cost(average—52,700 s.f.@$98.85) $ 5,210,000 A/E expenses $ 365,000 Contingency—10% 525,000 Furnishing and equipment allowance 350,000 Total Budget Estimate $ 6,450,000 Cost estimate—Community Center Repair Rink I and II ammonia system $ 942,000 Refrigeration and Zamboni and storage—2,500 s.f.@$52 130,000 Reroof older Community Center 220,000 Deepen pool 300,000 Total Construction Cost $ 1,592.000 A/E fees and expenses $ 92,000 Contingency—10%(remodel locker room) 116,000 Total Budget 1,800,000 Grand Total Budget $ 8,250,000 Page 2 I I Scheme V: This is illustrated as Drawing V-1 lower level plan which shows Community Center addition of lockers,concessions and lobby,and outdoor pool complex with minimum Community Center remodel to properly control pool and Center. Cost Estimate—Scheme V Demolition $ 105,000 Remodeled area: 3,000 s.f.@$80 240,000 New locker rooms-9,000 s.f.@$110;lobby,toilet,concessions 990,000 Total Community Center Construction $ 1,335,000 A/E fees and expenses $ 90,000 Contingency 135,000 Total Community Center Budget $ 1,560,000 Site work from 2003 report(includes baseball and skate park) $ 1,300,000 Total cost of Scheme V outdoor pool complex 7,300,000 Community Center Repair 1,800,000 Grand Total Budget $11,960.00 The foregoing will be reviewed and the best approach determined for the referendum questions. Pau 3 as Summary We feel the easiest approach to understand is the single question of Scheme I. If two questions are asked, Scheme II, along with the pool complex, Question 1 illustrated in Scheme V,is appropriate. Summary of Referendum Options 1. Single question includes the following: Scheme I Community Center $ 7,100,000 Outdoor pool 7,300,000 Community Center repair 1,800,000 Site redevelopment 1,300,000 Total Referendum $17,500,000 2. Pool question includes the following: Scheme V Community Center $ 1,560,000 Outdoor pool complex 7,300,000 Community Center repair 1,800,000 Site redevelopment 1,300,000 Total Referendum $11,960,000 3. Community Center question includes the following: Scheme II Community Center $ 6,450,000 Community Center repair 1,800,000 Total Referendum $ 8,250,000 4. With no Referendum Community Center upgrade includes: Scheme IV $ 2,870,000 5. Third rink options include the following: a. Outdoor rink with parking lot $ 825,000 b. Enclosed arena with above rink(+2,000,000) $ 2,825,000 3 DELANO ERICKSON ARCHITECTS 10700 HIGHWAY 55,SUITE 308 PLYMOUTH,MN 55441 (763)544-8370 ICE RINK REPAIR AND ADDITION STUDY Cost Estimate February 9,2004 The following ice rink options range from absolute minimum up to and including third rink facility: 1. Repair Rink I with existing Freon direct system Demolition $ 50,000 Replace floor and connect to existing 318,000 Total construction $ 368,000 A/E fees 25,000 Contingency— 10% 37,000 Total Budget Estimate $ 430,000 2. Redo Rink I with new ammonia indirect brine system,including new Refrigeration room and Zamboni/storage Demolition(includes interior) $ 60,000 Replace floor with brine and new ammonia refrigeration system 613,000 Building addition 130,000 Total construction $ 803,000 A/E fees 57,000 Contingency 80,000 Total Budget Estimate $ 940,000 3. Redo both Rink I(concrete)and Rink II(sand)with new Ammonia indirect system and building addition Demolition $ 50,000 Replace concrete floor,Rink I,and refrigeration 672,000 Replace sand floor,Rink II, and refrigeration 220,000 Building addition 130,000 Total construction $1,072,000 A/E fees 73,000 Contingency 125,000 Total Budget Estimate $1,270,000 -Page-l. aau Ice Rink Study 4.a. Add third rink III to above system as an outdoor facility, including skater and Zamboni access to Rink II team rooms, and relocate parking — see Drawing R-1 Parking lot site work $ 80,000 Demolition/site 50,000 Concrete rink with dashers 250,000 Connection to existing building 30,000 Refrigeration system 296,000 Total construction $ 706,000 A/E fees 49,000 Contingency 70,000 Total Budget Estimate $ 825,000 4.b. Arena enclosure and team rooms option for above—approximately 120 x 220(26,500 s.f.)—see Drawing R-2 Team rooms and interior $ 120,000 Building shell(masonry/precast) 1,060,000 Mechanical and electrical 530,000 Total construction $1,710,000 A/E fees 120,000 Contingency 170,000 Total option budget $ 2,000,000 4. Grand Total Third Rink Arena Budget $2,825,000 agc2 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: ' SECTION: Reports of Director of Parks and Recreation February 17,2004 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: Robert A. Lambert /0 Methods to Address Security Concerns for the X 1 V. ID` { Director of Parks &Recreation TH312/212 Underpass at Riley Creek Requested Action Move to: Approve the proposed commitments to trail design and trail security that would be the responsibility of the City, and direct staff to request the Minnesota Department of Transportation to consider providing a break in the arch at the median and provide security cameras at both ends of the tunnel. Synopsis On January 20, 2004 the City of Eden Prairie received a letter from the Bearpath Homeowners Association expressing concerns regarding the underpass that would accommodate a trail crossing under Highway 212. On January 28 the Director of Parks and Recreation meet with Joe Stoebner, a representative of the Homeowners Association, to discuss Homeowners Association issues relating to the trail and its proposed underpass. Alternative trail locations were discussed as were a number steps the City could take to address Homeowners concerns. At that meeting staff agreed to recommend the following: 1. The City will request MNDOT to consider the feasibility of providing a daylight break in the arch at the median. 2. The City would request MNDOT to provide video cameras at each end of the tunnel that would be monitored by MNDOT, similar to their other cameras on the highway system. 3. Request MNDOT to provide lighting within the tunnel. 4. Post Private Property/No Trespassing signs at the entry to Bearpath property line on both sides of the creek. (So people are not walking into Bearpath along the creek corridor.) 5. Commit to meet with residents along Bearpath trail when the trail adjacent to 212 is being designed to consider their concerns relating to the alignment of the trail and the landscaping needed to provide reasonable screening of the trail from their homes. 6. Provide a spur connection from the trail south to Bearpath Trail, if Bearpath Development Corporation is willing to provide a pedestrian access gate to gives it's residents easy access to the trail. Background Information The major concern of the Bearpath Homeowners Association relates to security at the secluded location of the underpass. The camera that would be monitored twenty-four hours a day should alleviate this concern. Although a privacy issue is not indicated as an issue, City staff believe that the City should make a concerted effort to ensure that the trail is as far away from the back of 0.6 Methods to Address Security Concerns for the TH312/212 Underpass at Riley Creek February 17,2004 Page 2 homes as possible and trail users are screened from viewing the back of peoples homes as much as possible. City staff believes that this trail corridor will be appreciated by the residents of Bearpath once it is installed. It will provide relatively direct access to the trail around Rice Marsh Lake to the north and to the trail corridor leading to Miller Park, as well as to the trail leading north under Highway 5 that provides access to facilities such as the High School, Community Center and Round Lake Park. Furthermore, Bearpath residents and residents living north of Rice Marsh Lake will have relatively direct access to Riley Lake Park via this trail corridor. The City anticipates initiating the construction of this project in 2006 when the highway corridor in this location is substantially complete. Cc: Jim Ressmeyer,President of Bearpath Homeowners Association John Hankinson,President of Bearpath Development Corporation Greg Olson Joe Stoebner Attachments: January 20,2004 Letter from Bearpath Homeowners Association January 26,2004 Letter from John Hankinson Photos of underpass examples RAL/bju 1�� January 20,2004 - - •_•' • REARpAT11 Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Recommendation Concerning Consent for TH312/212 Near the Bearpath Community Dear Mayor Tyra-Lukens: We wish to express our concern over the proposed design of the Underpass Archway(Bebo)in the Lake Riley Creek bed where it enters the Bearpath Community. We have a recommendation that we feel will better serve the needs of the residents of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen that would be in close proximity • to this structure. We understand the proposed design for this Underpass Archway calls for a structure approximately 250' long, 15'high'and from 35 to 40'wide that will include the stream-bed,animal passage,and pedestrian walkway that opens at the south end immediately adjacent to the Bearpath community. Our concerns are as follows: . 1. We feel.the-secluded location of this underpass and its huge size would be an inducement for unsupervised partying and vandalism. Because of its location of not being near any public road, it is not readily accessible for emergency vehicles or law enforcement. ' 2. Residents in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie have also expressed security concerns over even using a public trail that includes a 250'tunnel and is so remote from law enforcement and maintenance capabilities. 3. We also would question the feasibility of deer being attracted to a 250'tunnel to cross to the other side of the highway that has a pedestrian crossing included in the design. While it may be the most economical solution to attempt to funnel water, animals and people through one massive underground archway,we believe serious issues will arise if this design approach is accepted. We recommend that the Municipal Consent for TH312/212 include the following design criteria: A. Reduce the size of the.Underpass Archway by using a similar structure as is currently being used on TH5 near Mitchell Lake to handle the creek bed and animal crossings. B. Require a pedestrian Overpass at a revised location just west of the creek bed along the Eden Prairie—Chanhassen border. This would be a win-win for both Eden Prairie and Chanhassen residents that also desire a road crossing location for their community. This would greatly reduce security concerns that are present at the Riley Creek location. C. Request that MNDOT fund the cost of this overpass on the Eden Prairie—Chanhassen border as they have done at the Miller Park Overpass just to the east. We respectfully submit this request on behalf of the Bearpath Homeowners Association and the residents of Eden Prairie. Sincerely, .71 f President H eowner Homeowner 7 1 0 0 Madison Avenue We st' I Gol de n V a l l e g , MN 5 5 4 2 7 .Pkone 763 - 746 - 8120 I Faz 763 - 746 - 8124 1A, Ctit •i Y� golf and c o u n Fry club January 26, 2004 Bob Lambert, Director Parks and Recreation Department City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Eden Prairie Trail Corridor • Dear Mr. Lambert: It has come to our attention that a group of Eden Prairie residents are concerned about the Pedestrian Underpass Archway (Bebo) as currently proposed, and have requested that a portion of the Trail Corridor be relocated to eliminate the need for such a Pedestrian Underpass Archway. As developer of the Bearpath community, our development agreement with the City required us to be responsible for funding a portion of the Trail Corridor. We want to assure the City of Eden Prairie that we understand that the relocation of the trail would not relieve us of our financial responsibility in this matter. Sincere) ohn Hankinson, President Bearpath Development Co poration cc: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens Corporate Office 4940 Viking Drive IMinneapolis, MN 55435 I 952-835-2808 /( Oreerb ir?r°-ct 1-11 9°r° wsrv. \-r-ffrr"4 --r1124 (i) v7.0 d,v vtrn -, co d o� t�. ' no 1-‘r14 c�J "M A-. • • j w^ • • Jf ,�a> • i— y . / 'r ..,, • • � =r;F • —� "ors. R• �_� • ' `" . �r • # t F `' , 1( j 1 ' ! i i I _ i j. ' 1 f ' ' r ! .� 1 *' • . d. i •fist ' ii Y w • ....n. - -. • • • C .. s �y yfz J ", . �'• .... fY.. • . ram , � � e r 'y-A'.,.'c..:• a.e y� Mtn' -:d , y- { -. ?®� . . . • .3--.!':::----- . ;=. -'-'14.,...,'*=4-'31.t---?-•- '----1----..,.::-,--,-4-;','-'4..'",'''"- - v.:111Y-i-;,..„:;;,;R„;,•;•:-• - ••••••••.1 ',..ki',.Y,4:;,-,,.-4 �"• i �q r • i ffj r. • k Tits4 s = • <a � •c. do f , ,,;1. . •.. . , 1 YU.0 .0 u.}4 .4.n1-61•LGA ,p{ _ Uh•GC72. 0(04 1_ of CL6(1c 1 S G I .,(.':n .Q.C-:1 ill, urViv A. itilL k ., , m tLcxL[/:\ e 131 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: February 17, 2004 SECTION: Director of Public Works DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 93-5305 ITEM NO.: Public Works Approve Proposed Layout for TH212/TH312 Eugene A. Dietz Improvements from CSAH 4 (Eden Prairie ► Q Road) to existing TH212 near Carver County Road 147 Requested Action Move to: Adopt resolution approving the proposed layout for the TH212/TH3 12 improvements from CSAH 4 (Eden Prairie Road)to existing TH212 near Carver County Road 147. Synopsis The Public Hearing for these improvements was held on January 20, 2004. The primary issues raised at the hearing regarding safety of the underpass at Riley Creek,noise mitigation and a subsequent comments from the Lake Park Townhouse Association are addressed in the resolution as follows: 1. Request that MnDOT consider creating an opening at the midpoint of the arch/bebo within the median of the roadway and that artificial lighting be installed. 2. Request that MnDOT consider installing video cameras that would be monitored by the Traffic Operations Center. 3. That MnDOT provide the arch/bebo structure to accommodate pedestrians, animal crossing and Riley Creek at no cost to the City of Eden Prairie. 4. That MnDOT provide additional screening berms at specific locations. 5. That MnDOT delete the reconstruction of the Miller Park access at Eden Prairie Road from the project. Within the next few months, MnDOT will prepare a Cooperative Construction Agreement for City approval. It is anticipated that all or most of the City's cost participation items (with the exception of requested watermain improvements)will be eligible for State Aid funds. Background Information Noise mitigation on this project is accomplished primarily with the use of earthen berms. These berms will be supplemented by noise walls where berms cannot be built high enough to provide the required noise mitigation. As addressed at the public hearing, MnDOT stated that there is substantial extra excavation material being generated by the project. MnDOT is willing to specify in the project that the contractor develop additional screening berms beyond those berms required for noise mitigation. Staff has determined those potential areas, which are identified by project stationing in the attached resolution. However,the actual extent of the additional berming will be determined during final design and limited to areas that create minimal tree loss or wetland/drainage impacts. Since this concept was offered by MnDOT at the public hearing,this aspect of the resolution is considered an expectation of approval. Bob Lambert met with the spokesperson from Bearpath and the proposed safety mitigation solutions are contained in a separate agenda item for Council consideration. MnDOT has stated that artificial lighting meets their design policy and that will be a minimum expectation. However,the concepts of opening the center of the arch at the median and the installation of monitoring cameras are established in the resolution as a request for consideration. We should expect a good faith evaluation,but the final decision will be made by MnDOT and City approval is not contingent upon these two items. Staff recommends against pursuing the overpass structure that has been discussed—the estimated cost of$1.375 million is not a cost effective alternate. At a technical advisory meeting on February 11, 2004, MnDOT indicated that they are considering requiring Cities to pay approximately $325,000 towards the cost of the arch/bebo structures for the accommodation of a trail if there is no indication of their commitment to provide them at no cost at the point the Final EIS was adopted. Throughout the informational meeting process,neighborhood meetings and the public hearing the concept of a 42 foot by 15 foot arch/bebo has been discussed as a mitigation for pedestrian trails, animal crossing and creek crossing, which has always been our expectation. The trail in the greenway corridor along Riley Creek has been on our Comprehensive Guide Plan since 1979. The Final EIS states that the preferred corridor is consistent with our "City Comprehensive Plan". Accordingly,the resolution is written to expect that the trail accommodation be provided at no cost to the City. The reconstruction of the east entrance to Miller Park at Eden Prairie Road(CSAH 4) is proposed by staff to be eliminated. The original concept was that it would provide a higher level of mitigation due to the loss of the bridge over TH212 into the Fairfield neighborhood by improving the opportunity for the location to be signalized in the future at a location that could accommodate redevelopment of the parcels on the east side of CSAH 4 (Church,mortuary,etc.)in the future. Staff has met with adjacent residents of the Lake Park Townhouse Association about their concern of the close proximity of the entrance to several of the adjacent units. MnDOT has determined that they will not participate in the cost of this aspect of the project. Staff has reviewed, in greater detail, the alignment of the access road and the associated future improvements on the east side of CSAH 4. We determined that modifications to the alignment of Miller Parkway East improvements would be necessary to accommodate a future access on the east side of CSAH 4. With the details of the design modifications unclear, as well as the uncertainty of any re-development east of CSAH 4, staff is recommending that the Miller Parkway East improvements (as shown on the proposed layout) be eliminated from the TH212/TH312 Design-Build project. The latest cost estimate reflects the elimination of our share of these improvements. MnDOT has developed a "good faith" cost estimate for our share of the project cost. After subtracting the estimated cost of the Miller Park entrance reconstruction, the estimated City share is $1,136,223.00, which does not include the cost of the requested watermain within Scenic Heights Road. According to MnDOT's "Policy and Procedures for Cooperative Construction Projects with Local Units of Government",we will be responsible for a share of the costs for items such as: extra bridge width on Dell Road to accommodate a non-existent sidewalk, some turn lanes on Dell Road and Scenic Heights Road, a portion of Scenic Heights Road construction and non existent trails. Staff will continue to work with MnDOT to refine the estimate. Within the next few months, a Cooperative Construction Agreement will be presented to Council for approval. It is anticipated that all or most of the City's costs (with the exception of the watermain in Scenic Heights Road) will be eligible for payment from our State Aid account balance. Finally, there are existing special assessment agreements relating to the Fairfield and Big Woods subdivisions regarding Scenic Heights Road in the amount of approximately $295,000. Although no action by City Council is proposed at this time, staff will prepare a plan that would levy special assessments in this amount that would pay a corresponding amount of the City share of the project. 13� CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVE THE PROPOSED LAYOUT FOR TH212/TH312 IMPROVEMENTS FROM CSAH 4 TO EXISTING TH212 NEAR CARVER COUNTY ROAD 147 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie is the official governing body of the City of Eden Prairie; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is proposing to make improvements on TH212/TH312 from CSAH 4 to existing TH212 near Carver County Road 147; and WHEREAS, MnDOT has prepared the layout (identified as Layout No. 6, S.P. 1017-12) and environmental documentation for this project; and WHEREAS, MnDOT will implement these improvements using a design-build process; and WHEREAS, based upon the MnDOT's "Policy and Procedures for Cooperative Construction Projects with Local Units of Government", the City's share for this work has a "good faith" estimate of$1,136,223,not including City requested watermain improvements on Scenic Heights Road; and WHEREAS,MnDOT and the City of Eden Prairie will continue to work cooperatively toward a mutually agreeable Cooperative Construction Agreement; and WHEREAS, MnDOT has requested that the City formally indicate its intent to participate in these costs; and WHEREAS, MnDOT and the City of Eden Prairie will work cooperatively toward the construction and completion of this project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie authorizes City staff to work with MnDOT to make any necessary minor modifications to the layout during the design and construction phases of the TH212/TH312 improvement project; and WHEREAS, MnDOT has requested municipal consent for the TH212/TH312 improvements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statute 161.164, the City of Eden Prairie has held a public hearing to consider layout approval and subsequent municipal consent of said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council based on available information, studies and input received hereby approves Layout No. 6 (S.P. 1017-12) for TH212/TH312 improvements from CSAH 4 to existing TH212 near Carver County Road 147 and the following: 1341 1. The City of Eden Prairie respectfully requests that MnDOT consider the feasibility of creating a break/opening in the length of the Arch/Bebo structure at Riley Creek within the median of the proposed highway to improve safety of pedestrians by providing natural light at the midpoint of the estimated 200-foot long structure. This request is in addition to the decision by MnDOT to provide artificial lighting of the structure. 2. The City of Eden Prairie respectfully requests that MnDOT consider the feasibility of installing video cameras at each end of the Arch/Bebo structure that would be remotely monitored by the Traffic Operations Center. 3. That MnDOT provide the Arch/Bebo structure to accommodate pedestrians, animal crossing and Riley Creek at no cost to the City of Eden Prairie. 4. That MnDOT provide additional berming for screening purposes near the following station locations where tree loss or wetland/drainage impacts are minimal or non-existent; Sta. 1205 to 1210 (left/north), Sta. 1223 to 1245 (left/north), Sta. 1249 to 1253 (left/north), and on Scenic Heights Road from Sta. 848 to 858 (right/south). 5. That MnDOT eliminate the Miller Parkway East improvements as shown on the proposed layout as well as the associated costs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City agrees to participate in costs associated with this project as set forth in MnDOT's "Policy and Procedures for Cooperative Construction Projects with Local Units of Government" and as noted above. The City of Eden Prairie understands that the estimated City share of the costs listed herein represents a "good-faith" estimate, but will be finalized with the Cooperative Construction Agreement. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 17, 2004 Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen Porta, City Clerk f35