HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/01/2005 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/FORUM
TUE5DAY,FEBRUARY 1,2005 CITY CENTER
5:00—6:25 PM,HERITAGE ROOM H
6:30—7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER
CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Ron Case, 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, Community Development Director
Janet Jeremiah, Communications Manager Pat Brink, Assistant to the City Manager Michael Barone,
City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder Lorene McWaters
Heritage Room II
I. DISCU55ION/PRE5ENTATION5
A. Municipal Wireless Broadband Service-Mike Barone,Assistant to the City
Manager
B. Public Hearing Protocol—Mike Barone,Assistant to the City Manager
Council Chamber
II. OPEN FORUM
III. OPEN PODIUM
IV. ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 1,2005 7:00 PM,CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Councilmembers Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher,Ron
Case, and Philip Young
CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal,Parks&Recreation Director Bob Lambert, Public Works
Michael Franzen
Director Eugene Dietz, City Planner M , Community Development Director Janet
g
Jeremiah, Y
iah City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Theresa Brundage
I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
V. MINUTES
A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,JANUARY 18,2005
B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,JANUARY 18.2005
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
B. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION FOR
2005 HENNEPIN COUNTY RECYCLING GRANT
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS
A. COVE 2ND ADDITION-RESCIND APPROVALS(2004-27) by Ted Vickerman,
Jr. Request to rescind: the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 3.2 acres;the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review
within the R1-22 Zoning District on 3.2 acres;the Resolution for Preliminary Plat on
3.2 acres;the Resolution for Final Plat on 3.2 acres; and the Development Agreement.
Location: 6861 and 6871 Beach Road. (Resolution Rescinding the PUD Concept
Review, Ordinance Rescinding the PUD District Review within the R1-22
P
Zoning District,Resolution Rescinding the Preliminary Plat,Resolution
Rescinding the Final Plat,Resolution Authorizing Amendment to Development
Agreement Rescinding all of its terms)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 1,2005
Page 2
B. HERITAGE PINES (2004-31)by David W.Durst. Request for Guide Plan Change
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 1.65 acres,Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 1.65 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.65 acres,
and Preliminary Plat of 1.65 acres into 12 lots and road right-of-way. Location:
17621 Pioneer Trail. (Resolution for Guide Plan Change, Ordinance for Zoning
District Change,Resolution for Preliminary Plat)
VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
IX. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. COVE 2ND ADDITION-RESCIND APPROVALS by Ted Vickerman,Jr. 2°d
Reading of the Ordinance Rescinding the Planned Unit Development District Review
within the R1-22 Zoning District on 3.2 acres. Location: 6861 and 6871 Beach
Road. (Ordinance Rescinding the PUD District Review)
X. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
XI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
XII. APPOINTMENTS
XIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
1. Cemetery Task Force
2. State of the City
3. Annual Performance Review
C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
1. MCA Study Update
2. Purchase Agreement for 7900 Mitchell Road
D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF
G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 1,2005
Page 3
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XIV. OTHER BUSINESS
XV. ADJOURNMENT
Protocols for Public Hearings
City of Eden Prairie
Michael Barone, Assistant to the City Manager
Office of the City Manager
February 1, 2005
Project Overview
Public bodies, such as City Councils and/or Planning Commissions, are required by law
to hold public hearings to properly conduct their business. In Eden Prairie, most issues
that require public hearings are generally not very contentious. But the question given
for research and analysis was to find out how other municipalities deal with their public
hearings, and more specifically, find out if there are any protocols or procedures that are
simple and straightforward that would be worth considering in Eden Prairie.
The following communities in the metropolitan area were surveyed for response- -
Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Chanhassen,Eagan, Lakeville, Minnetonka,Northfield,
Roseville, and Woodbury. An internet search was also conducted, and information was
found from Bellevue,Washington;the Municipal District of Rocky View in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada; Rock Hill, South Carolina; and the State of Texas—State Board of
Education. Additional information on this subject was also gathered from the Municipal
Research& Service Center of the state of Washington.
Jurisdiction Information
The following information was gathered from local jurisdictions. The summary for each
community notes if a jurisdiction has a formal policy or procedure in place,or if it
utilizes informal guidelines for public hearings. Also included is information on any time
restrictions, if applicable, or the tactics used by the Mayor or Presiding Officer of the
meeting to control the length of time for speaker presentations.
Jurisdictions in the Twin Cities metropolitan area
Brooklyn Center
The City of Brooklyn Center City Council adopted a City Council handbook a few years
ago, and that handbook includes a protocol on public hearings. No time restrictions are
included in the handbook to limit speaker presentations at a public hearing.
Brooklyn Park
The City of Brooklyn Park adopted an"Elected Officials Rules of Procedure and Code of
Conduct" in June 2002. Contained within the `Rules and Code' information is a section
that discusses restrictions on public input and has a protocol for public hearings. A
general 3 to 5 minute time restriction is in place to limit speaker presentations,but the
Mayor has the discretion to determine how much time is appropriate, based on their
responsibility of running an efficient public meeting.
Chanhassen
The City of Chanhassen has an informal set of guidelines that they make available to the
public as they visit to participate in a public meeting or public hearing. These informal
guidelines discuss general expectations and behavior for speakers. A 5 minute time
restriction is included in the guidelines to limit speaker presentations, but the Mayor has
the discretion to grant additional time for a speaker to talk.
Erman
The City of Eagan has never adopted a formal or informal set of rules/protocols to govern
speakers for public meetings or public hearings, and also does not have an informal set of
guidelines for public meetings or public hearings, either.
Lakeville
The City of Lakeville City Clerk said that there are very few public hearings at the City
Council,with most public hearings held at the Planning Commission. As designated by
the Lakeville City Council,the Lakeville Planning Commission conducts Public Hearings
on all land use applications. The Lakeville Planning Commission has an informal set of
guidelines that are available to those attending their Planning Commission meetings, and
these guidelines discuss general expectations and behavior for speakers. No time
restrictions are included in the guidelines to limit speaker presentations at a public
hearing.
Minnetonka
The City of Minnetonka City Council adopted a"City Council Rules of Procedure"a
number of ears ago that provides guidelines for the conduct of public business by or on
Y g p
behalf of the City Council. No time restrictions are included to limit speaker
presentations at a public hearing, but the Mayor does have the discretion to limit the time
available for public comment.
Northfield
The City of Northfield has a formal procedure in place for Public Hearings. Northfield
gives citizens speaking at a public hearing a 3 minute time limit per item. Citizens may
speak more than once on a topic provided everyone has had an opportunity to speak.
Roseville
The City of Roseville, in August 2004, included a set of Meeting Guidelines in the
introductory section of each City Council Agenda. These are general expectations and
norms of behavior for Councilmember's, not for the public. Roseville has never adopted
a formal or informal set of rules or protocols to govern speakers for public meetings or
public hearings.
Woodbury
The City of Woodbury is now in the process of assembling a formal procedure for
conducting public hearings that would apply for their City Council and any other
subordinate board or commission that may have public hearings under their jurisdiction.
This formal procedure went before the Woodbury City Council in September 2004 for
review. Within the proposed formal procedure is a 2 minute time restriction to limit
speaker presentations at public hearings.
Jurisdictions Outside of Minnesota
Bellevue, Washington
The City of Bellevue, Washington, has a set of guidelines that they make available to the
public as they visit to participate in a public meeting or a public hearing. These
guidelines discuss general expectations and norms of behavior for speakers. A 3 minute
time limit is in place, or 5 minutes if you are representing the official position of a
recognized organization, to control the length of speaker presentations.
Municipal District of Rocky View—Calgary Alberta, Canada
procedure to govern their Council
This governing body has a formal public hearing g
g g Y P P
public hearings. A 5 minute time limit is in place if you are speaking on behalf of
yourself, and a 10 minute time limit is in place if you speak for a group to control the
length of speaker presentations.
t Carolina
Su Rock Hill, South C
This city has adopted a formal procedure to govern public hearings for their Planning
Commission. A 3 minute time limit is in place to address the Commission, and speakers
will receive a 30-second warning from the Chair when they have 30 seconds remaining
on their time limit to conclude their remarks. When a speaker is notified that their time is
up, they must stop speaking immediately.
State of Texas State Board of Education
' n TSBOE has provided a procedure for
The state of Texas State Board of Education p
T ( ) p
includes ublic
'c hearings to those coming before that body. Before a meeting thatp
public h g g Y
hearings, the TSBOE determines the set length of time that testimony will be allowed per
individual testifying at the meeting(3 minutes, 5 minutes, etc.) on a particular public
hearing item. They have the option to determine different lengths of time for any public
hearings on their Agenda(3 minute time limit for Item A, 5 minute time limit for Item B,
etc.), depending on the subject at hand. As a general guideline,three minutes is allotted
per speaker, and the presenter is signaled when one minute is left. Time will be called
when the remaining minute has expired and the presenter will be allowed to finish the
sentence in progress.
Municipal Research& Service Center of the state of Washington
The MRSC of the state of Washington had some very interesting information as written
by a legal consultant a few years ago. This information was intended to be used as a
guideline for cities in the state of Washington.
The MRSC states the following: That there are two basic requirements of a public
meeting and they are(1)that the public be notified and(2)that the public be allowed to
attend. Although a public hearing is also a public meeting, the main purpose of most
pubic hearings is to obtain public testimony or comment. A public hearing may occur as
part of a regular or special meeting, or it may be the sole purpose of the meeting, with no
other matters addressed. The MRSC also recommends that time limits should be placed
on individual comments if many people are intending to speak.
The City of Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie provides visitors to the Council Chambers a brochure entitled"Welcome to
your City Council..Meeting." This brochure is on a rack just outside the main.entrance to
the City Council Chambers, and is intended as a guide to visitors wishing to speak before
the Council, and addresses the subject of public hearings, as well.
The brochure describes, in general,the procedure that will be followed during a public
hearing. It also has some informal guidelines for addressing the City Council. These
guidelines are:
o State your name and address before starting your remarks. Speak clearly and talk
directly into the microphone at the speaker's podium.
o Direct all remarks to the Mayor. The Mayor may wish to refer any questions to the
proper Councilmember or to staff.
o Keep your comments brief, and do not repeat comments already made.
o Individuals may speak, but cannot make motions or otherwise participate in the
meeting.
o A single spokesperson is usually encouraged to express the views of a large group.
o Signs,cheering, and clapping are not allowed in order to maintain a comfortable
environment.
Common Themes
In my discussions with local municipal representatives, and in reviewing the materials
received from these cities and from other cities outside of Minnesota,there were some
common themes for having a successful public meeting or public hearing.
Instead of repeating these common themes, city after city,I have summarized them
below. Some items are seen in the Eden Prairie guidelines just mentioned above. These
items are the ones most commonly seen to have a successful public meeting or public
hearing:
■ Create anon-threatening and positive environment for the meeting; which
includes not allowing signs, cheering, clapping, or booing.
■ Have all speakers identify themselves before speaking.
■ Direct all questions to the Mayor or Presiding Officer of the meeting, not directly
to any specific Council or Board member or City staff.
• Have the Mayor or Presiding Officer determine who will answer a question asked
by a speaker.
■ Do not have any person speak a second time until everyone that wishes to speak
has been able to do so for the first time.
■ Those speaking should not repeat remarks or points of view already made by a
previous speaker.
■ Comments in the public meeting should be limited to the subject under
consideration.
■ The Mayor or Presiding Officer has the responsibility to run an efficient public
meeting and/or public hearing, and has the discretion to modify the public
meeting or public hearing process,within legal restraints, in order to make the
meeting run smoothly.
■ The Mayor or Presiding Officer has the power to determine whether a speaker has
gone beyond reasonable standards of courtesy in their remarks, and can entertain
and rule on objections from other members of the Council or Board on this
ground.
■ The audience may not comment during the Council or Boards deliberations unless
requested by the Mayor or Presiding Officer for more information.
Conclusion
There are some jurisdictions that have created formal procedures for public hearings that
do include a time limit for speakers, with the typical time limit is in the three to five
minute range. Some time limits are determined by whether or not the speaker is speaking
for themselves or on the behalf of a group, with more time allotted if speaking on behalf
of a group.
Public hearing procedures do allow the Mayor or Presiding Officer to have some
discretion on limiting or extending the allotted time to speak. This discretion is usually
based on the length of the Agenda or the complexity and/or level of controversy
anticipated for the public hearing item.
To keep the pace of a public hearing moving, most jurisdictions have the Mayor or
Presiding Officer notify speakers with a verbal cue when they are getting near the end of
their allotted time to speak.
WiMax: The Next Revolution in Wireless
By Mike Houghton,Wi-Fi Planet.com
January 12, 2005
What is WiMax?
Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access(WiMax) for short is a point to multi
point,non-line-of-sight(NLOS)wireless broadband access technology. WiMax also
known officially as 802.16-2004(its IEEE name) can.transfer data at rates around
70Mbps with a range of close to 30 miles all from just a single base station.
The acronym for WiMax also encompasses the WiMax Forum, and industry consortium
that will be pushing 802.16 as a solution.. The Forum is a collection of service providers,
vendors and Industry leaders including Cisco, Proxim, Lucent and many others that plan
to design the definitions for testing and certifying that these products are compliant and
will interoperate.
WiMax's primary usage will most likely come in the form of MANS, or Metropolitan
Area Networks. So what does this all mean? Simply put; High Speed Wireless Internet
for the masses.
What it means for the masses
One reason that WiMax will make a splash in the wireless networking market is that
WiMax offers a much larger range than the traditional Wi-Fi standards which include
802.11 a, 802.11 b and 802.11 g. Standard Wi-Fi technologies with a maximum range of
approximately 1000 feet outdoors are mainly intended to be used for local area
networking in residential homes, for public access hotspots, and in businesses for general
office connectivity because of the smaller coverage area that they provide.
What this means is that broadband providers will soon be able to propose Internet access
to thousands of homes without the costly need of dispatching technicians or physically
running wires. This has great potential for Broadband service providers that cannot
currently reach their entire potential customer base. WiMax will allow Broadband
providers the ability to service customers that previously had access only to antiquated
56K dial up via land line.
For businesses WiMax can potentially be a great tool to allow many locations scattered
across a MAN to network without the need for running wires or paying for expensive T-1
lines. Imagine the possibilities: A business with many stores through out a metro area
could network all of his stores together,wirelessly. The hardware savings alone would be
sufficient to justify the switch to WiMax.
Another reason that WiMax should be given a good look is the speed factor. The most
common Wi-Fi technology; 802.1 lb currently allows for data transmission speeds of up
to 6Mbps under ideal real-world conditions. While this is relatively fast, its nothing
compared to the speed that WiMax can provide. WiMax has the capability to provide
data transmission rates of up to 70Mbps. That's nearly the equivalent of 60 T-1 lines.
Combine that with the range of WiMax and you can see why the possibilities for
WiMax's applications are almost endless. One Broadband provider with one WiMax
tower could provide wireless Internet service for hundreds of users while maintaining
DSL equivalent data transmission speeds.
Don't cut your wires just yet!
As great as all of this sounds, WiMax is not without its problems.WiMax is still
currently in the pre-standardization phase. What this means is that there is no current
standard for WiMax. There are no industry wide standards available for chip sets or
products that support WiMax. There are many companies that are currently working on
WiMax technologies and are helping to drive the standardization process.
Currently,true WiMax is still not commercially available,though many"pre-WiMax"
solutions based on the early 802.16 specification have come to market. There are also no
standard chip sets or hardware currently available that support WiMax, but there will be
soon enough. Until then, expect WiMax hardware to be very expensive.
WiMax is still the best alternative when compared to the loss in productivity or latentness
of data transmissions due to using outdated 56K dial up technology.
It will be here soon
Real WiMax technology should hit the markets this year. For example, Intel(Quote,
Chart)plans to have the WiMax certified chip sets available in early 2005. They might
even build 802.16 into future Centrino Mobile chipsets(like those used now in notebooks
to provide 802.11 Wi-Fi).
WiMax has the potential to revolutionize the wireless industry. Hotspots no longer need
be just a thing at a local coffee shop, but the entire city or town can be a hotspot. You
could take your laptop from your home, to a local park;to the library and then back home
and have access where ever you are.
WiMax can not currently be used while moving, say on a train or in a car, but there are
technologies that will be available in the next few years that will allow for that scenario.
All in all WiMax is set to turn the wireless market on its head, allowing thousands of new
users access to the Internet at speeds they may have never thought possible and allowing
businesses to network with greater ease than ever before.
High Speed Wireless Internet Access (Wireless Fidelity —WiFi)
in the City of Eden Prairie
Michael Barone,Assistant to the City Manager
Office of the City Manager
February 1, 2005
Purpose
Some Eden Prairie residents have made inquiries about looking at the possibility of the
City providing high speed wireless internet access, in the form of a Wi-Fi, to residents`
and businesses of the community. The model most often used for comparison is the new
City of Chaska Wi-Fi that went online in 2004.
What is Wi-Fi?
Wi-Fi is also referred to as IEEE 802.1 lb technology. Without getting to technical, the
acronym"IEEE" (referred to as I-triple E) stands for the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers. The IEEE is the professional organization that has taken on the
responsibility of establishing the physical and working specifications for a whole host of
electronically-based technical standards in the industry. The 802.1 lb based technology is
the specific"name" used by IEEE to identify the technologies and standards used for
Wireless Fidelity(Wi-Fi).
What Wi-Fi technology does is take existing high speed internet connections and
wirelessly extend them by several hundred feet in distance. Any user with the proper
wireless receiver would be able to have Internet access for any Wi-Fi enabled device,
such as a computer and/or a PDA. The 802.1 lb Wi-Fi standards are universally in use
around the world, and all are fast enough to generally allow broadband connections.
Public Sector and Private Sector Information
One of the big questions asked of the City of Eden Prairie is"Why can't we do what the
City of Chaska is doing and offer a Wi-Fi to our residents and businesses?" There are a
number of factors that go into answering that question, and we will begin to look at those
factors by looking at what is currently in the marketplace, and also look at what various
government entities are currently doing here in Minnesota.
CARDCab\PL\Temp\200.5-02-01 Wi-Fi Report-Ist.doc - I
Private Sector Information
. One of the big questions to try to answer is the following: Why is it that none of the"big
name" incumbent private sector internet providers are in the wireless internet provider
business?(like Time-Warner Cable or Qwest, who both are in the"wired"technology
area).
According to Kim Roden, Vice-President of Public Affairs and Customer Service for
Time-Warner Cable(TWC), their company"doesn't have any plans now, but that plan
could change in the future"as to offering a wireless internet service. TWC will continue
to offer their Roadrunner cable modem internet service to their customers.
But there are some private sector companies that are in the wireless internet provider
business, and one such company is Stonebridge Wireless, Inc., based in Eden Prairie.
Stonebridge Wireless incorporated their business in 2000 with one"tower"or access
point, and since that time has grown their business to over 45 "towers"or access points
that serve the metropolitan Twin Cities area as a fixed Wireless Internet Service Provider
(WISP) company.
According to Scott Ojala,Broadband Consultant for Stonebridge Wireless, Inc., he
believes that the"big name" communications companies (TW Cable, Qwest, and others
nationally like Comcast, SBC, etc.)that are all in the"wired" end of the internet provider .
field with DSL and cable modem technology are all"too late to be players" in the
wireless internet provider field at this point in time.
Here is a quick comparison of some residential internet options that Eden Prairie
residents have for internet service:
Metropolitan Twin Cities CHART#1
Product Seed Price
Qwest
* Choice DSL Deluxe(home) Up to 1.5 Mbps $30/mo for 2 mo.
with MSN Premium $45/mo thereafter
* Choice DSL Deluxe(home) Up to 1.5 Mbps $25/mo for 2 mo.
(choose ISP at own cost) $28/mo thereafter
Time-Warner Cable
* Roadrunner High Speed range 3-5 Mbps $44.95/mo
Online
* —Roadrunner Premium High Up to 8 Mbps $69.95/mo with cable service
Speed Online $84.95/mo alone
Stonebridge Wireless
* Wireless Starter 1 -2.4 Mbps $49.99/mo
$350 installation
* Wireless Pro 1-2.4 Mbps $99.99/mo
$350 installation
CARDCab\PL\Temp\2005-02-01 Wi-Fi Report-lst.doc -2-
The following table is taken from a recent article in Governing magazine(January 2005
edition),that gives a quick comparison on a nationwide basis to all the wired and wireless
broadband internet technologies:
National Comparison CHART#2
(source:Governing magazine-January 2005 edition)
Wired Technology
Residential
Type Seed Cost Upside Downside
DSL Moderate $25-$60/mo uses existing some range issues
to Fast phones stem
Cable Moderate $40-$70/mo uses existing customers share
Modem coaxial cables stems bandwidth
T-1 line Fast $200-$1,000/mo. widely used by expensive to install
dep.on location small business
Fiber-optic Fast to $35-$80/mo fast and reliable; expensive to install
Lighting Fast huge capacity new fiber
Wireless Technology
Residential
Type Seed Cost Upside Downside
Wi-Fi Moderate Varies easy to deploy limited range;
securitv concerns
Wi-Max Very Fast Expected to be 30 mile range with won't beat fiber optic
moderate one antenna -
As you can see by looking at the two charts that the pricing structure in the metropolitan
Twin Cities area fits into the price ranges reported on at a national level.
Public Sector Information
There are lots of examples from across the metropolitan Twin Cities area of how the
public sector is approaching this issue. But before beginning to detail those examples,I
want to reference an opinion article by Mr. Jim Miller,Executive Director of the League
of Minnesota Cities, printed in the October 2004 edition of the Minnesota Cities
magazine. His article was entitled"Should Government Compete with Business?"and
the article focused on a philosophical discussion of whether or not local governments
should venture into `businesses"that are thought of as being able to be done better by the
private sector.
Near the end of his article, Mr. Miller says that it maybe currently unconventional for
local government to provide services like wireless Internet, but this does not mean it is
bad public policy. He say that the question that should be asked in not whether, but when
is it appropriate for local government to operate private-sector businesses?
Mr. Miller then says, "The answer to that question is that it depends. In part it depends
on conventional business principles, such as risk versus potential return on investment.
The real consideration should be if local elected officials view the activity as either
C:\RDCab\PL\Temp\2005-02-01 Wi-Fi Report-Ist.doc -3-
meeting a critical need that will not otherwise be met or that will not be met soon or
well."
"That has always been the test for municipal involvement in private or quasi-private
activities, such as running an electrical utility. In almost every instance, cities entered
into a business because an important need was not being met—as was the motivation in
Chaska."
"In times of increasingly limited traditional resources, cities will consider even more
creative ways to meet community priorities, sometimes including offering new services
like wireless Internet. The media and citizens must scrutinize and participate in such
decisions, but they should not be dismissed out of hand because of an artificial
categorization of private and public sector service. Such distinction made little sense in
the past and makes even less sense in our more complex world."
For communities, like Eden Prairie,we see Internet access as something that is essential
for the economic vitality of the community, and hope that it can be provided in a fast,
affordable and reliable fashion. For Eden Prairie and other communities, our"role" is
unclear.
There are alternatives that municipalities need to explore that include, but are not limited
to, providing incentives to existing and prospective providers,seeking to participate in a
joint venture, public or private, to provide services, or to provide direct municipal
services like Chaska.
City of Chaska
I visited with Mr. Matt Podrhadsky, Assistant to the City Administrator, and with Mr.
Dave Pokorny, City Administrator for the City of Chaska in January 2005. Chaska's
involvement with the internet and their evolution to their current Wi-Fi system has roots
that date back to the late 1990's.
The Process
In 1999, the City of Chaska received a substantial grant from 3-Com Corporation; this
was back in the day of the IT-boom era when large internet based companies were
reinvesting profits into communities they felt would help broaden the reach of the
internet as an economic tool to better interconnect businesses.
Chaska parlayed this grant money into the creation of Chaska.net,and purchased much of
the"back office"equipment needed for the Internet. Chaska also worked with KMC
Corporation to have city-owned fiber optic network installed between the City's
municipal building and the main Industrial Park area, in exchange for right of way access
for KMC. Also of note is that the Chaska School District's administrative building and
Chaska High School were located geographically between the City and the Industrial
area. This"fiber backbone"helped connect the government, school and business hubs in
Chaska.
C:\RDCab\PL\Temp\2005-02-01 Wi-Fi Report-1st.doc -4-
The fiber backbone connection to the Industrial Park actually connected only about '/4 of
the total businesses there, but of those %4, most were the larger businesses - - the major
employers in the Industrial Park. Chaska's next move was to try to extend the service
beyond the direct access to the fiber line to try to connect the remaining Industrial Park
businesses, and that is when Chaska got its first wave of wireless internet(Wi-Fi)
connections established.
Logically,the next question in Chaska's progression was whether or not to continue in
this direction and try to extend this Wi-Fi Internet service to Chaska households and
residents. The main hurdle for this or any Wi-Fi system involves trying to maintain the
"line-of-sight" system for the wireless transmitting antennas.
Chaska's goal was to make the Wi-Fi system physically and economically feasible for
residents who may decide to"buy-in" and be part of the Wi-Fi. They wanted to make it
inexpensive, costing less than the standard dial-up service,and they wanted to be able to
have Wi-Fi service to all Chaska residents. Their final goal was to have a payback of
100%of capital costs within 4 years. They established their Wi-Fi system as an
enterprise fund in their City budget.
One huge advantage that the City of Chaska has(as compared to the City of Eden Prairie
and most other communities) is that Chaska owns its electrical utility. That means it
doesn't cost Chaska anything to mount the over 200 wireless transmitters that are
distributed across the City for the Wi-Fi to function. This definitely puts Chaska into the
"right place, right time"category when discussing the Wi-Fi success that they have had
to date. Chaska is a city of 22,000 people in a 14 square mile area. [Eden Prairie is about
60,000 people in a 36 square mile area.]
Chaska partnered with Tropos Networks, Inc., and Last Mile Wireless,two companies
that were able to provide the equipment and expertise for the Chaska Wi-Fi system.
Chaska estimated that they spent approximately$480,000 to set-up and configure their
Wi-Fi system, and that number has grown to about$600,000 as they have dealt with
connective"issues." There are some pockets of the city of Chaska that, because of
topography and other issues, have poor portal connection with the main lines, and so
some additional fiber lines have had to be installed to rectify these situations.
Successes
Chaska has been able to make this Wi-Fi system work remarkably well, especially when
you consider that they have the product priced at a monthly fee of only$15.99. They are
one of the first cities in the nation to connect their entire City to the Internet.
They have added just 1 full-time employee and 2 part-time employees (all Help Desk
Technician positions)to the"customer service" portion of this business unit in their IT
department. The customer service hours are 8am to 8pm, Monday through Friday.
The remainder of the IT department has been able to keep a handle the computer server
and the equipment related to the Wi-Fi to date. They have incorporated the Wi-Fi billing
CARDCab\PL\Temp\2005-02-01 Wi-Fi Report-Ist.doc -$-
directly into their existing Utility Billing system, and haven't seen any issues in
collecting revenue for the Wi-Fi product to date.
They have a business model that gives Chaska a"break-even" scenario over a 4-year
period with 1400 households paying for the service on a monthly basis and adding 120
households per month to that base. If they have 2000 households paying for the service
and are able to add 120 households per month to that base,they will break even in 3-
years.
Chaska rolled out the Wi-Fi in a"testing phase"free of charge to any and all customers
in June 2004, and immediately had about 1000 customers. This was actually a much
larger response than anticipated, and slowed down the testing phase somewhat. When
the testing phase ended in early November 2004,the first month that Chaska began
billing, participation was at approximately 2000 customers, and estimates are that their
current customer base is in the 2000-2200 range in January 2005.
One of the main motivators for Chaska when they began this project was to try to develop
a"connected community." As reported in Wi-Fi Planet in June 2004, an internet website
devoted to wireless internet activities, Chaska also sees other perceived benefits arising
from their Wi-Fi beyond connecting the community. They see economic development
and community building as outcomes. The availability of inexpensive broadband access
will potentially attract both new residents and small businesses, according to Bradley
Mayer, Information Systems Manager for the City of Chaska. He has heard from people
considering Chaska just because of the Wi-Fi service. "It's one way to make the city
grow. . .`it draws people to Chaska" says Mayer.
Challenges
As shown on CHART# 2(page 3), a National comparison of wired and wireless
technologies, Wi-Max is coming. Wi-Max is a technology that will offer speeds up to 75
Wi-Fi technology, and signal transmission will
faster than current
Mbps, 25 to 75 times as rgy, g
be as far as 30 miles as compared to the 500-1,000 feet distances for Wi-Fi technology.
A single antenna on a water tower could blanket an entire city, like Eden Prairie, for
internet coverage. Wi-Max technology is slated to arrive in 2005-2007, as it is still in
development.
More specific challenges for Chaska include the ability to adapt and keep pace with the
ever-changing and evolving technologies,such as Wi-Max. Also, the private sector will
probably respond to the competition from cities like Chaska for providing this service.
New Legal Challenges to Municipalities
Like Chaska, many cities across the country are trying to participate in the Wi-Fi
phenomenon. Philadelphia is trying to create a similar scenario as Chaska, and private
sector opponents to Philadelphia's Wi-Fi, most notably Verizon Communications, think
that cities should stay out of the Wi-Fi business, and have been taking steps to
accomplish that goal.
CARDCab\PL\Ternp\2005-02-01 Wi-Fi Report-ist.doc -6-
As a background, Philadelphia is trying to build a 135 square mile Wi-Fi `hot-spot' zone
that would serve 1.5 million people at an estimated cost$10 million dollars;no estimates
are available on the operational costs of the system. According to the New York Times
on November 23, 2004,Philadelphia wants to offer free wireless access in public areas,
and provide lower-cost connections to households and businesses. The City of
Philadelphia believes they can begin the project in June 2005 and complete it in one year,
and raise the $10 million that is needed, in their estimation, to fund this initiative
privately.
According to the Wall Street Journal on December 1, 2004,Pennsylvania Governor
Edward G. Rendell signed into law a large telecommunications bill placing severe
restrictions on the ability of cities and towns in the state of Pennsylvania to offer
telecommunications services, an item heavily lobbied by Verizon.Communications, Inc.
with Pennsylvania state legislators, and by other big telephone companies in similar
legislation across they country. Rendell's move was closely watched because it could
hurt the burgeoning movement by municipalities around the United States to provide_
wireless Internet access using Wi-Fi technology. The legislation bars municipalities from
offering paid telecommunication services.
The City of Philadelphia and Verizon officials said they had reached a separate
agreement to let the city proceed with its plan. However, the legislation signed by Gov.
Rendell gives phone companies the right to deny municipalities the ability to deploy their
own networks,which could hinder the deployment of Wi-Fi networks elsewhere.
[Editorial note: Before becoming Governor, Mr. Rendell was Mayor of Philadelphia.]
Similar actions are taking place in Illinois. According to Governing magazine(January
2005 issue),Comcast, SBC, and other broadband providers are expected to lobby the
state of Illinois legislature for a law similar to Pennsylvania's, either banning municipal
broadband or severely restricting it. Similar laws have passed in 15 other states to date,
and the U.S. Supreme Court recently found such bans as constitutional. Says Illinois
Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn,"They[broadband providers] are snarling in Illinois. It
looks like they will try to wipe out the municipal option for our state this year- -we'll
see."
Other Twin Cities Municipal Wi-Fi activity
City of Buffalo
The City of Buffalo is currently operating a Wi-Fi for their residents. They are using a
non-line of site technology similar to cell phone technology.
Buffalo is a town of 13,000 residents(and growing) and they set up their Wi-Fi through
their electrical utility. They utilize five water towers and 2 other towers and sell
subscribers window mounted receivers to get the Internet signal to customers. Buffalo
was motivated to pursue a Wi-Fi due to lack of service for residents and businesses.
CARDCab\PUTemp\2005-02-01 Wi-Fi Report Ist.doc -7
City of Eagan
The City of Eagan just produced an exhaustive and comprehensive report from the Eagan
Technology Task Force(ETTF). The ETTF was authorized by the Eagan City Council in
February 2004,was formed in May 2004 and presented findings to the City Council with
an 87-page report in December 2004. The make-up of the ETTF was 13-members, and
included IT representatives from large corporations like Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Minnesota,US Bank, and Northwest Airlines;general business representation from small
family owned businesses and franchise businesses like Insty-Prints,and representatives
from the City of Eagan's Economic Development Commission and Telecommunications
Commission, as well as some residents of Eagan who had an interest.
The ETTF recommended immediate, short term and intermediate term actions to their
City Council. One of the outcomes of the ETTF was that the group produced a map of
Internet services, hoping it will help lure new businesses and to identify and address gaps
in service that currently exist. Virtually all Eagan residents have access to a cable
Internet connection through the cable company that serves Eagan, Comcast. Only about
half of the city's residents have access to DSL,which is a more affordable option. The
city hopes for a solution that would provide all residents high-speed Internet access at
competitive prices.
One of the short-term ETTF goals was to press Qwest(DSL provider)to expand its
services throughout Eagan, as well as request from several providers' information on
what it would take to fully serve the city with updated telecommunications capabilities.
As far as a possible city-run Wi-Fi `solution'for the residents of Eagan,the ETTF
estimated that to achieve a break-even status while covering only operating costs, the
monthly customer subscription fee would need to be around$40. Estimated start-up
capital expenses in the first year would be close to $500,000. The customer service,
billing, and technical systems required to be a successful Internet Service Provider(ISP)
discourages the feasibility of"small"ISP's. ETTF surmised that even if every household
and business in Eagan were to subscribe to the service, Eagan's ISP would still be
"small" as compared to providers like AOL, Comcast,Earthlink, etc.
One of the intermediate ETTF actions is to design and issue an RFP to prospective
wireless providers for the delivery of Wi-Max services.
City of St. Louis Park
The City of St. Louis Park's City Council discussed the Citywide Wireless High Speed
Internet Access issue with workshop on November 8, 2004. In the Preliminary Review
report authored by Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services, staff
recommended that they hold off on investing in the current Wi-Fi high-speed wireless
service for two main reasons: (1) The Wi-Max benefits, which are above and beyond Wi-
Fi technology, are scheduled to come into the marketplace in the next year or two; and
(2)the Wi-Max technology should allow for reduced ongoing operating costs for system
setup and tower and radio equipment maintenance because there will far fewer of each to
support, as compared to the Wi-Fi technology.
CARDCab\PL\Temp\2005-02-01 Wi-Fi Report-Ist.doc -8-
City of Minnetonka
In a report to the City Manager,Amy Cheney of the City of Minnetonka's IT department,
presented some preliminary findings on the feasibility of having a Wi-Fi in Minnetonka.
Their overall conclusion is to wait for the emerging Wi-Max technology to become
available in the next few years.
In explaining their conclusion,they listed four main reasons for waiting:(1)There have
been very few resident inquiries regarding a Chaska-style Wi-Fi in Minnetonka, and
recently Quest has expanded it's coverage area in their City, so there are not as many
underserved areas; (2)An estimate for setting up a Wi-Fi system, made by Stonebridge
Wireless, Inc. of Eden Prairie, showed a Wi-Fi network would cost$180,000 for the base
configuration, and$35,000 - $40,000 per square mile of coverage. With Minnetonka
encompassing 28 square miles,that yields a final cost for a Wi-Fi. system in the
$1,160,000- $1,300,000 range; (3) Stonebridge Wireless, Inc., also said that some of
Minnetonka's topography may present a challenge to installing a Wi-Fi system; and(4)
the Wi-Max technology would allow Minnetonka to use existing city-owned water
towers rather than blanketing the city with pole mounted radios.
They concluded by saying they"don't want to invest in an already aging technology with
very little identifiable gain,"and will wait to see what the new Wi-Max technology will
bring.
City of Burnsville
Burnsville entered into an agreement with Stonebridge Wireless, Inc.,to install five
tower/access points; three on City of Burnsville owned water towers and the remaining
two on a couple of the tallest buildings in Burnsville to establish a Wi-Fi system. This
tower/access point configuration hits approximately 65 70%of Burnsville's residents
for this Wi-Fi service. In exchange for the equipment and service, Stonebridge receives a
percentage of Internet revenues from the City.
❖end❖
Attachments:
■ "Should Government Compete with Business?"by Jim Miller, Executive Director
of the League of Minnesota Cities;Minnesota Cities magazine,Volume 89, Issue
9, October 2004, p.3.
■ "WiMax: The Next Revolution in Wireless"by Mike Houghton, Wi-Fi
Planet.com, January 12,2005.
C\RDCab\PL\Temp\2005-02-01 Wi-Fi Report-Ist.doc -9-
mess
. � � ?
should Government Competevith us
By.Jiin Miller
recent St. Pahl Pioneer Press Then there are services,such as they should be turned over to private
editorial bemoaned how some social welfare, that are deemed of high operators.If the enterprise isn't lucrative,
local governments, notably importance but which the private then cities should be questioned for
Buffalo and Chaska, are now sector cannot provide economically. providing that service. Fortunately the
providing wireless Internet Operating homeless shelters is not discussion was short lived,but like so
services to their businesses and likely to be a lucrative opportunity. many bad ideas it will undoubtedly
residents. Rather than applauding And while an occasional private jail return.
their efforts, the editor argued` or transit system can be found, they While it may currently be unconven-
that this was patently unfair because nevertheless are publicly subsidized. tional for local governments to provide
governments have an advantage when It is defining if and when it is services like wireless Internet, this does
competing with the private sector— appropriate for government to provide not mean it is bad public policy.The
mainly because they don't pay taxes_The services normally found in the private question the editor and legislators should
editor then argued that cities shouldn't sector that provokes the debate..Should have asked is not whether, but when is
be providing such high-tech services local governments run community it appropriate for local governments to
because government can't be innova- centers that compete with private health operate private-sector businesses?
tive and the effort will ultimately fail. clubs?Is that OK in some instances,but The answer to that question is that it
Taken together, these two argu- not others?Are there some services that depends. In part it depends on conven-
ments seem to suggest that if we just the public sector should never provide? tional business principles, such as risk-
wait, the problem of inapprgpriate These questions are not new, nor do versus potential return on investment.
government intrusion into the realm of they present simple or absolute answers. The real consideration should be if
business will go away because local Cities have long offered services that local elected officials view the activity
governments' ineptness will eventually are also provided by the private sector. as either meeting a critical need that
outweigh any competitive advantage. Electric utilities are one ubiquitous will not otherwise be met or that will
There is a certain irony, not to example.Likewise,there are increasingly not be met soon or well.
mention fallacy (government can more instances of public/private That has always been the test for
indeed be innovative),in this position. partnerships where public investment municipal involvement in private or
On the one hand, governments are often and private profit merge to provided quasi-private activities, such as running
chided for not being more business-like. a desired or needed service.Several an electric utility.. In almost every
That opinion, however,seems to community recreational facilities have instance,cities entered into a business
narrowly mean prudently managing been funded and operate successfully in because an important need was not
costs.When governments attempt to just that way. being met—as was the motivation in
be more entrepreneurial they are Most local goverrunents wouldn't Buffalo and Chaska_
questioned or criticized,as in this even consider running a restaurant. In times of increasingly limited
instance. Likewise, we certainly would That idea alone would be a sure-fire traditional resources, cities will consider
never consider rewarding public execu- ticket out of office.Yet the local even more creative ways to meet com-
tives based on standards similar to those governments in some small communities munity priorities,sometimes including
used to determine private-sector salaries.. have done just that. Residents under- offering new services like wireless
It is generally accepted drat govern- stand the importance of this service to Internet..The media and citizens must
meet is necessary and that certain their quality Of life and embrace their scrutinize and participate in such deci-
services are better provided by govern- city's involvement when there is no sions,but they should not be dismissed
ment than by die private sector. These private operator. Even what seems like out of hand because of an artificial
include services of such common and an obvious private-sector service some- categorization of private and public
critical importance, such as national times is not, sector service.Such distinction made
defense Or public safety,that they must During the List legislative session, little sense in the past and makes even
be delivered through a deliberative there was serious discussion about less sense in our more complex world I
political process. They also include limiting the ability of local governments
services,such as snow plowing or to operate any business Operations, Jint Miller is exemlir e director of the
public health, where uniform delivery Proponents argued that if such activities L.eagne of Minnesota Cities Phone: (651)
provides benefit for all. make a profit(to the benefit Of citizens) 281-1205 E-mail:jrniller@lrnm org
OCTOuER 2004 MINNESOTA CITIES - 3
� P
v
`� R <�x.
Ims
Wm
5 .
S
�w
q.
}
Yd,
E
a' Y ^"'OEyME -(
le
,n �'`st a OEMOARr z
E .. .�' % �` t
R
one
✓ 1S S 'L✓ �
b
C
wt
1k S
M
l �w ra
� d
F �I
,& `
al
Ple
Ty
s
t. rt
Y
On
1 Pad,
ap
Zs wrs&E
INS ,.,�.,
UNAPPROVED MINUTES V.A.
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/FORUM
TUESDAY,JANUARY 18,2005 CITY CENTER
5:00—6:25 PM,HERITAGE ROOM H
6:30—7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER
CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Ron Case, 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, Community Development
Director Janet Jeremiah, Communications Manager Pat Brink,Assistant to the City Manager
Michael Barone, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder Lorene McWaters
Heritage Room II
I. LEGISLATIVE ISSUES
Suppressed Weapons Legislation
Lambert said Eden Prairie would like to use suppressed weapons in the deer management
program, which reduces the deer population through use of a sharpshooter. Lambert said
the program is very successful, but the sound of gunshots is sometimes alarming to
residents. Eden Prairie supported suppressed weapons legislation a couple of years ago,
but the effort was unsuccessful Senator Hann and Representative Paulsen are both
supporting the bill this year, and six or seven other cities have met with DNR to request
similar legislation. Lambert feels the legislation has a better chance of passing this year,
mainly because public safety organizations no longer oppose it since they are now allowed
to use suppressed weapons.
Polling Place Locations and Regulations
Mr. Mallo said current statutes control polling places only up to 100 feet from the doors of
the polling place. He believes changes should be made to increase the area of control to
500 feet and/or rules should govern private properties, such as churches, the same way
public places are governed on Election Day. City Attorney Rosow said the rules are the
same for public and private properties. City Manager Neal noted that most churches that
serve as polling places do so out of a sense of civic duty, and he would be reluctant to
recommend adding additional burdens. Mayor Tyra-Lukens noted some Muslims will not
vote at a polling place located in a Christian church. Neal said the absentee voting process
in Eden Prairie is fairly open, but that it might be helpful if the legislature revised voting
rules to allow an even greater ability to vote absentee. Neal said he is reluctant to
recommend not using churches as polling places because that would greatly reduce the
number of available polling places, and would likely result in long lines on Election Day.
Neal said he will keep Council informed of any proposed legislation on these issues.
Street Utility Fund
Assistant City Engineer Rod Rue reviewed budget projections for replacement of existing
roadways in Eden Prairie. The analysis indicates there will eventually be a shortfall of
funding. Using special assessments to fund roadway reconstruction is problematic because
it is difficult to prove benefit. Property taxes are the other major source of funding, but
there are levy limits and competing priorities with which to contend. A street utility would
be another source of funding, and staff is asking Council to support legislation allowing a
street utility.
MLC Legislative Agenda
Scott Neal introduced Torn Poul and Bill Schreiber of Messerli&Kramer. Messerli&
Kramer supports the Municipal Legislative Commission,which advocates on behalf of the
member municipalities at the legislature. Poul and Schreiber provided an overview of
topics on the MLC legislative agenda for this legislative session. Poul said the major MLC
priority is support of local control and accountability. Although there currently are no levy
limits in place,there may be legislation this year to control property taxes. MLC's stand is
that levy limits should be put into place only in tandem with a major overhaul of the
property tax system.
Pouls said in his state of the state address today, Governor Pawlenty introduced a"post
card" proposal. This proposal involves sending outpost cards each year to each tax payer
asking whether or not he or she supports various local property tax increases. If a certain
(as yet undetermined)percent do not agree with the increase,the levy would be taken to
referendum. Poul said this proposal is reflective of the Governor's desire to limit property
taxes one way or another. Poul noted there is a new tax committee chairperson, as well as
a new house tax subcommittee—both of which add an element of the unknown to the tax
discussion.
Poul said there is a move to shift eminent domain away from City control and into the
courts. This is a result of some citizens' concern over the taking of properties to benefit
private concerns. Poul said more discussion is needed on what constitutes "public
purpose,"especially when the taking is by a private entity. He noted that the U.S. Supreme
Court is currently considering this issue, and it may make sense to delay discussion until
the Supreme Court makes a decision. MLC is working with LMC to help maintain local
control over eminent domain issues.
MLC will be requesting a study of the fiscal disparities program. Poul said most cities are
supportive of the idea of a study, even St. Paul, which is one of the largest recipients of the
program.
Poul noted that the market value credit program is scheduled to be reinstated in 2005,
although some doubt this will actually happen. He said the program may be restructured so
that it is administered through the county or some other entity.
Poul said local units of government are continuing to spend more on transportation,but the
state has failed to keep pace with its responsibility. He noted the Governor did not mention
transportation in his state of the state speech. Poul said MLC is supportive of anything that
would get more revenue in the transportation system.
Council Chamber
U. OPEN FORUM
The following speakers addressed Council on the Farmers Market proposal.
Pat MulQueeny
MulQueeny, President of the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce, and Bill Ward, Chair
of the Chamber's Government Committee, asked Council to provide more time before
making a decision on the current Farmers Market proposal.
Dale Bachman
Bachman told Council that as a resident and business owner in Eden Prairie, he objects to
the current Farmers Market Proposal in part because he feels for-profit businesses should
not be allowed to operate on City property.
Patti Lloyd and Vickie VanDriessche
Lloyd and VanDriessche, the proponents of the current Farmers Market proposal,
reconfirmed their commitment to the project. They told Council Farmers Markets in
other communities benefit the entire community, including the business sector.
Mary MacMiller
MacMiller, an Eden Prairie resident and marketing professional, said there is a$9 million
market in Eden Prairie for lawn and garden products.
Sever Peterson
Peterson commended Lloyd and VanDriessche for the hard work they have put into their
proposal; however, he said he does not support the proposal for a number of reasons,
including the fact that consumers in Eden Prairie already have many choices available to
them and his concern about use of public property for commercial purposes.
III. OPEN PODIUM
Jeff Strate, Eden Prairie resident, said he agrees with Parks and Recreation Commissioner
Tom Bierman that more time is needed to consider using park land for a Farmers Market.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES V.B.
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,JANUARY 18,2005 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher,
Ron Case, and Philip Young
CITY STAFF: City Manager Scott Neal, Parks&Recreation Director Bob Lambert,Public
Works Director Eugene Dietz,City Planner Michael Franzen, Community Development Director
Janet Jeremiah, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Theresa Brundage
I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. All members were present.
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY FOR THE RECOGNITION OF
DR MARTIN LUTHER KING,JR.
Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens read the Proclamation and Manifesto. Following the reading,
Larry Piumbroeck, Chair of the Human Rights and Diversity Commission,gave an
overview the City's Human Rights Award and Dr. Jean L. Harris Youth Scholarship
Award process. Piumbroeck said the Human Rights Awards are given to outstanding
individuals,a non-profit organization and a business. He said the nominations will close
March 28, 2005 and recipients will be selected in April and recognized in May.
Piumbroeck said nomination forms can be found on the city's website or at City Center.
Piumbroeck said there will be two recipients of the Dr. Jean L. Harris Youth Scholarship
Award that will be given in May. He said each recipient will receive a one-time$1,000
award and explained that volunteerism and community service are the main criteria for
the award. He said applications for the award are posted on the City of Eden Prairie
website in the resident section and are also being sent to guidance and career resource
offices in area schools. He said application deadline for this award in also March 28,
2005.
IV. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Neal added scheduling of a joint meeting under Report of City Manager.
MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Case to approve the Agenda as published and
amended. Motion carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 2
VI. MINUTES
A. - CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,JANUARY 4,2005
Butcher clarified she wanted an annual meeting to be included that one of her
goals.Therefore,on Page 7,the first paragraph should begin"Butcher said one of
her goals would be to work more closely with the business community,
continuing Meet and Greets,have an annual meeting and collaborate with the
Chamber of Commerce to identify opportunities and discuss business issues."
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Young,to approve as amended the
minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday,January 4, 2005. Motion
carried 5-0.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
B. EDEN HEIGHTS ESTATES by Premier Development. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 24.78 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers on 24.78 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-22
to R1-13.5 on 18.62 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 24.78 acres into 47 lots.
Location: Southwest corner of Pioneer Trail and Eden Prairie Rd. (Ordinance
No. 1-2005-PUD-1-2005 for PUD District Review and Zoning District
Change)
C. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2005-12 AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS
ON VALLEY ROAD AND HILLTOP ROAD,I.C. 05-5642
D. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2005-13 EXTENDING CONDITIONAL USE
AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR ELECTRONIC
GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED DATA FOR USE IN MAPPING
E. APPROVE ADDITIONAL DESIGN FEE FOR SEH,INC.,FOR FINAL
DESIGN OF TH 212NALLEY VIEW ROAD INTERCHANGE
IMPROVEMENTS,I.C. 01-5543
F. ADOPT RESOLUTION 2005-14 APPROVING ROADSIDE LANDSCAPING
AGREEMENT WITH MNDOT
G. AWARD CONTRACT TO BRAUER&ASSOCIATES FOR TRAIL
PLANNING SERVICES
H. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR WATER FILL STATION
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE WATER PLANT,I.C. 04-5630
MOTION: Young moved, seconded by Case,to approve Items A-H of the
Consent Calendar.Motion carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 3
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS f MEETINGS
A. HENNEPIN VILLAGE OFFICE COMMERCIAL GUIDE PLAN
CHANGE AND PUD AMENDMENT by United Properties. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Industrial on 20 acres,
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Office on
4.5 acres, and Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 51 acres.
Location: North of Highway 212, east of Spring Road. (Resolution No.2005-15
for Guide Plan Change,Resolution No. 2005-16 for PUD Concept Amendment)
City Manager Scott Neal announced that official notice of this public hearing was
published in the January 6, 2005,Eden Prairie Sun Current and sent to 3 property
owners. He said this project is an amendment to the office and commercial
portion of the Hennepin Village PUD. The changes are as follows:
• Reduce the size of the neighborhood commercial use from 30,000 s.f. to 9,000
s.f.
• Decrease the amount of office use from 473,800 to 364,000 s.f.
• Add 173,550 s.f. of industrial use.
Neal said the Community Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of an
alternative guide plan change and PUD plan as follows.
Recommended Land Use
• Building sites 1, 2,and 3 be guided both office and industrial.
• Building sites 4, 5, and 6 be guided office.
• Building sites 7, 8, and 9 be guided office, industrial and neighborhood
commercial.
Recommended PUD use
• Building sites 1, 2, and 3 concept approval 205,000 s.f office and industrial.
• Building sites 4, 5, and 6 concept approval for 228,000—352,000 s.f. office.
• Building sites 7, 8, and 9 concept approval for 30,000 s.f. neighborhood
commercial and 64,400 s.f. office and industrial.
Neal said approval is based on future development for all sites must be based on
office standards. He said loading must be within an enclosed loading court and there
must be an appropriate transition to the adjacent residential areas. City staff and the
developer agree with the alternative land use and PUD plan as recommended by the
Community Planning Board.
Jeremiah pointed out that there has been some discussion of a change to residential
on some properties in this area, but that is not part of the current proposal.
Regarding the reduction of commercial use from 30,000 s.f. to 9,000 s.f., Case
asked what the city had hoped would go in there,what is being lost from what
was hoped to go in there and what there is room for now. Jeremiah said the
developer requested the reduction to a total of 9,000 s.f., but specific plans on
what will be there is yet to be discussed. She said it could potentially include a
restaurant or small bank.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 4
There were no public comments.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Young,to close the Public Hearing; and
adopt the Resolution for Guide Plan Change from Office to Office/Industrial for
building sites 1, 2, and 3; and Office/Neighborhood Commercial to Office/
Neighborhood Commercial/Industrial for building sites 7, 8, and 9; and adopt the
Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 51 acres; and
direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Board
recommendations and Council conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
B. EDEN DEVELOPMENT ADDITION by Eden Development. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3 acres,Planned Unit
Development District Review on 3 acres, Zoning-District Change from I-General
to I-2 on 3 acres, and Site Plan Review on 3 acres. Location: 7875 Fuller Road.
(Resolution No. 2005-17 for PUD Concept Amendment)
City Manager Scott Neal said official notice of this public hearing was published
in the January 6,2005,Eden Prairie Sun Current and sent to 16 property owners.
He said this is for a 15,880 square foot building addition and the Planning
Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council
at its December 13,2004 meeting. The building addition meets the requirement
for the I-2 zoning district. The outside storage will be permanently removed from
the site. The plans have been revised to provide screening of the rooftop
mechanical equipment.
Jeremiah said there has been a question regarding providing fire sprinklers in the
building. She said staff has indicated that it is a city building code requirement
from which you cannot waiver and Fire Chief George Esbensen is present to
answer questions.
Elmer Wedel, 9039 Gould Road, said he is concerned about the cost of fire
sprinklers on the property. He said in checking with other suburbs, if you have
two sprinkler hydrants on a property,this property would be at the front and also
the rear, they require you to sprinkle the new building, but not the existing
building. Wedel said there is a two-hour fire separation between the buildings and
it is a cost concern.
Chief Esbensen said Eden Prairie is one of the many cities in the state that
adopted the 1306 modification to the building code that says buildings of a certain
square footage are required to have sprinkler protection.He said it is a safety
issue to help small fires stay small.
Case commented that the old section is 88,000 s.f.,which is not insignificant, but
the rationale at the time the building code modification was passed made sense
and there is no option to waiver from it if we wanted to.Aho asked if the rules are
being applied retroactively to the structure because of the 1306 requirement.
Esbensen said that is correct and the city has offered to work with the owner to
phase into that to reduce the financial burden.Neal said in some cities there are
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 5
special assessment programs where they allow the building owner to have the
system installed and special assess it over a defined period of time. He said that
type of program could be developed here.
Case asked why the second hydrant and running the water line down the cul-de-
sac shouldn't be assessed to all properties that will benefit. Dietz said it could be
done, but special assessments require a special process and the fact that there
might be some general benefit to the neighborhood may not be a special benefit.
He said the line that is being proposed is there to charge the sprinkler system and
the hydrant itself is $2,200 and part of the exact plan that was originally proposed.
Dietz said the law says that we must prove that the increased value to the other
properties is at least equal to the special assessment and the other properties have
water service and it might be difficult to show special benefit for that.
There were no further comments.
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Case,to close the Public Hearing; and
adopt the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3 acres;
and approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District
Review and Zoning District change from I-General to I-2 on 3 acres; and direct
Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and Board
recommendations and Council conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
C. MAINTENANCE OUTDOOR STORAGE SITE By the City of Eden Prairie,
Request for Rezoning from Rural to I-General on 17 acres. Location: 9955
Flying Cloud Drive. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change)
City Manager Scott Neal reported that official notice of this public hearing was
published in the January 6, 2005, Eden Prairie Sun Current and sent to 2 property
owners. He said this proposal is to rezone property from Rural to I-General to
allow the City to operate an outdoor storage area for the operating functions of the
utility, streets, and park and recreation departments. The Community Planning
Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning to the City Council at the
December 13,2004 meeting. This site needs to be rezoned to I-General in order
for the City to use the property for outdoor storage of materials and equipment.
The proposed plan meets the required setbacks.Neal said the plan includes the
required screening of the outdoor storage from public roads and adjacent land
uses and also includes the required stormwater treatment pond. The proposed
buildings have not been designed. When completed, these designs will be
submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for a site plan review.
There were no public comments.
MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Young,to close the Public Hearing;and
approve 1 st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-
General on 17 acres.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 6
Case asked what the city would be doing about stormwater drainage and potential
groundwater infiltration from vehicle storage.Dietz said the packet does include
the site plan that is nearly final in terms of the grading. He said there are two
ponds on the site that are intended to be dry ponds, but the city is doing
everything on the site that would be expected of a private developer. He said the
idea that there would be storage of confiscated and towed vehicles would require
a special design but in the beginning that kind of use is not anticipated.
Tyra-Lukens said it appeals to her that there is the potential of saving taxpayers
$12,000 per year for storage of towed and impounded vehicles. She asked if the
improvements would eat up the savings and if not, why not do it right away. Dietz
said the city could do it right away but is currently under contract with a towing
company. He said the city could explore that but would have to pave the site and a
fair amount of improvements could be made to accommodate the$12,000 per year.
Motion carried 5-0.
D. VACATION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER PART OF THE
PINES AT SETTLERS RIDGE (Resolution No.2005-18)
City Manager Scott Neal reported that official notice of this public hearing was
published in the January 6, 2005,Eden Prairie Sun Current and sent to 12
property owners. He said a conservation easement was required for The Pines I
development for protection of the wetland,wetland mitigation area and wetland
buffers. However, inadvertently the recorded easement included the structure
setback area. Neal said only the wetland and wetland buffer are required by
ordinance to be covered by a conservation easement. This vacation reduces the
size of the easement to conform to City Code requirements and eliminates current
and future encroachment issues for adjacent property owners. Staff recommends
approval of the vacation.Neal said this item was required because there was an
error in the way the easement was recorded and so the council is not giving up
something it wanted, it is putting something back the way it was first approved.
There were no comments';from the public.
MOTION: Young moved, seconded by Butcher,to close the Public Hearing; and
adopt a resolution vacating the Conservation Easement over part of The Pines at
Settlers Ridge. Motion carried 5-0.
IX. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Young,to approve the Payment of Claims. The
motion was approved on a roll call vote with Aho,Butcher, Case,Young and Tyra-
Lukens voting"aye."
X. ORDINANCES AND RESOLPTIONS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 7
XI. PETITIONS,REQUESTS ANDI COMMUNICATIONS
A. BASEBALL ASSOCIATION REQUEST REGARDING GRAND STAND
FACILITY AT MILLED PARK
Lambert reported that the Eden Prairie Baseball Association has renewed its
request to donate $250,000 toward the construction of a baseball stadium at Miller
Park. He said this has been a vision and goal of the baseball association for 10
years. The first phase of this baseball stadium would cost approximately
$850,000.Future phases would also be constructed through partnership
improvement projects between the City and the Baseball Association, similar to
how the Baseball Association is assisting in the funding of improvement of
baseball fields throughout the community.This proposal would require funding
from the park fund of$600,000.
Lambert said Tom Siering, president of the Baseball Association is present
tonight to answer questions. He said Siering has been a strong proponent of
having the association become a partner with the city in improving baseball
facilities. He said for the last three years,the association has come to the city with
matching funds on a 50/50 basis to do improvements on baseball fields
throughout the community. Lambert said he applauds the efforts of the Baseball
Association because it is a great example of what the city would like to see from
athletic associations that want more use of facilities than what other taxpayers are
using and are also willing,to pay for extra use of those facilities.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher, to authorize preparation of plans
and specifications and to take bids for construction of a grand stand that would
include restrooms, concessions, storage facility, covered seating and an enclosed
announcer's booth for the;baseball field at Miller Park.
Case asked if$600,000 from park fund fees is used here, what gets pushed back.
Lambert said nothing gets pushed back and he has been consistently conservative
on his projection with what revenues would be expected each year in the park
fund. He said some excess money has been built up so that projects can be moved
forward rather than pushed back and he has recommended this project move
forward because the leadership of the Baseball Association is expected to change
over the next few years and current leaders are willing to contribute funds now.
Case said he supports this,project and this is not just extra money, it is real dollars
that would've been available down the road for something. Lambert said the parks
commission voted in favor of this project because they believe it is the kind of
facility all Eden Prairie residents will appreciate and not just players will enjoy
the use of it.
Aho asked if this stadium';was part of the referendum that failed.Lambert said
there was a question on the referendum asking for residents to support putting
money aside to match funds for athletic associations that do things like the
baseball stadium and it was part of that single question that did fail. Aho asked if
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 8
this is enhancing an existing field that is currently being used for playing.
Lambert said that is correct.Aho asked how we get to the point where we put this
project above projects where there are no facilities. Lambert said that is always a
question but do you take away the incentive from groups like the Baseball
Association who raise funds and support their own construction and enhancing of
facilities they are using?He said people have always had to wait for facilities and
it is not an easy decision.Aho asked if we do this project are we then saying we
don't have funding to do other projects. Lambert said the issue is because the
Baseball Association has brought money forward, and because this is already on
the capital improvement plan, should we move it forward.
Lambert also pointed out that in all issues listed in the referendum, of the $26.5M
to $27M,we were taking $4.5M from the cash park fee fund, so this is simply
taking one of those properties that were going to be constructed by cash park fee
money anyway. He said instead of$1.2M for this project, it is scaled down to
$850,000 to be done in phases.
Butcher said she loves the plan and asked how the other commissioners responded
to the one park commissioner's comment on delaying this to a referendum.
Lambert said Rob Barrett, chair of the Parks Commission, said he'd rather delay it
until after a decision was made on a referendum.
Young said he is concerned that this was a referendum issue a year ago and if we
are contemplating doing a referendum in 2005, he thinks it could be sensitive to
pay for it out of cash. He said he is concerned that some people may ask how
much the city really needs in tax dollars and if the referendum doesn't pass,what
will be paid for in 2006 out of cash. He said his preference would be to
incorporate this with any discussions about a referendum and decide what would
be part of a referendum and what would be part of cash park fees.
Neal said a joint session will be scheduled between the Parks board and the
council to discuss when that type of discussion can take place. He said the
question for the council to consider is that if citizens had authorized a referendum,
what would have been done is it would have accelerated the pace at which this
project would have been completed. He said the discussion on what would be
and what would ha
ve been done anyway is a discussion for the
acceleratedyu' y
council and Parks board to make sure that their view of the future of the capital
improvements plan is consistent with the council's.
Butcher said her only worry is there is$250,000 earmarked as a donation for this
and she would hate to see that money not be used to go toward this. She asked if
the project were delayed,would the money still be available from the Baseball
Association.
Tom Siering said he cannot say whether the money will be there a year or two
from now. He said there will be a transition within the association within a year or
two so the money is earmarked now, but he cannot guarantee it for the future. He
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 9
said the association firmly believes it has shown a commitment by funding the
$250,000, and has a goal to be the best baseball association in the state.
Tyra-Luken asked if this were put to referendum and approved,when would be
the earliest that construction could begin. Lambert said one of the options the
council might want to consider is to authorize approval of plans and specifications
and not go to bid. He said it could be included in or delayed until after the
referendum and construction could begin next year.
Case said the proposal is a different proposal than what was on the original
referendum. He said it is a downscaled project with more private monies.
Tyra-Lukens clarified that the council would be looking at this proposal one more
time after tonight before giving approval.Aho asked what the intended timeframe
would be. Lambert said it would probably start mid-summer for opening next spring.
Motion carried 5-0.
Young stated his preference would be to table it. He said he likes the proposal and
will support it but his statement was cautionary.
Tyra-Lukens thanked the Baseball Association and said the entire community
should be impressed with the fundraising of the association. She said it is a great
example of how the city tries to provide facilities to all aspects of the community,
but the extent of support that the Baseball Association has shown to baseball
related projects is more than any other organization in the community. _
B. EDEN PRAIRIE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION PROPOSAL FOR AN
OUTDOOR WINTER RECREATION AREA
Neal said this is the next phase of a discussion between the city and the Eden
Prairie Hockey Association. He said he and Lambert met with two representatives
from the Hockey Association and they proposed a new proposal that was
fundamentally different that what the city had seen before. He said Lambert
advanced it to the Parks board and now to the council.
The Eden Prairie Hockey Association would like to see two outdoor refrigerated
hockey rinks incorporated with an outdoor recreation area that may include a
large outdoor free skating rink with music, a concession stand that would serve
these users and include an outdoor plaza where people might enjoy hot chocolate,
snacks,etc. while watching skaters and listening to music. The concept would
hopefully also be able to serve other winter recreation facilities and would
become a focal point in the community during the winter months.
Lambert said with refrigerated rinks goes team equipment, zambonies, team
rooms, and concessions.He said he thinks the idea makes enough sense to at least
ask the council to do a feasibility study to see if it makes sense at all. He said it is
interesting and creative enough to at least evaluate.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 10
Case said with rinks like this,the season can be extended from late October to
early March and it works.He said it at least deserves to be looked at.
Butcher asked if once the feasibility study is done would it go to the Parks and
Recreation Commission before coming to the council. Lambert said that is
correct.
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Case,to authorize staff to obtain quotes
for planning services to provide concept plans for developing a winter recreation
area in a community park that would include refrigerated outdoor ice and serve
other winter outdoor recreation activities. Motion carried 5-0.
C. PROPOSAL FOR FARMERS MARKET AT PURGATORY CREEK
RECREATION AREA
Neal asked Rosow to clarify what the council is being asked to do tonight. Rosow
said the manner in which the request was presented to the council was vague in
terms of what exactly the council would be approving. He said the heart of the
matter is that there would have to be presumably a lease agreement between the
city and the proponents to lease an area of the park for a designated number of
days for use as a Farmer's Market. He said the approval tonight would be to direct
staff to prepare such an agreement that would take into account other topics that
were discussed pertaining to approval of parking, zoning amendments,
appropriate conditions for clean-up, hours of operation,and operation and
maintenance of the market.Rosow said it would be to approve staff developing an
agreement to operate subject to the conditions. He said council action would be to
move to approve that the staff prepare for council consideration a lease agreement
for the use of the park as a Farmer's Market subject to conditions including
obtaining written approval for use of adjacent parking, approval of zoning
amendments, and setting conditions regarding clean-up and hours.
Case said initially he likes the sound of a Farmer's Market but this particular
proposal is problematic because he didn't realize how much for-profit it would be
and would compete with other businesses in the city. Case said the city has three
indigenous farmers and he'd still like to see the city sponsor some type of
Farmer's Market festival.
Young said a Farmer's Market can be a nice amenity for a community, but this
proposal is a business plan that does compete against close-by businesses that
have invested in the community and he cannot support it.
Butcher said the city already has a number of Farmer's Markets and businesses
that provide the same service. She said she is not comfortable with the proposal.
Aho said the council needs to be uniform in terms of application of rules and
regulations to all businesses and all residences.He said location is the issue and if
it were on private land,all rules and regulations would be applied as in all other
proposals.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 11
Rosow suggested moving to table it and said it is also acceptable to have no
motion or direction to staff and the matter would not move forward.
Councilmembers agreed to give no direction to staff and to make no motion.
XII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
XIII. APPOINTMENTS
A. POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS STUDY
Neal explained that this is to appoint a representative to represent the City of
Eden Prairie on the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority(HCRRA)
Southwest Corridor Alternative Analysis Study and place a member on the
Policy Advisory Committee. He said two citizens have represented the city in the
past, but he thinks it is important to have a representative from the council.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher,to approve appointment of
Councilmember Aho as the Member and Janet Jeremiah as the Alternate to the
Policy Advisory Committee for the Southwest Corridor Alternative Analysis
Study. Motion carried 5-0.
XIV. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Neal said he and Lambert are trying to set a dedicated time for the Parks
Commission and Council to meet to discuss long-term CIP issues with the park
dedication funds and also plans for a referendum in the future. He asked
councilmembers to check schedules and Lorene McWaters will send queries this
week.
C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
1. Shuldhiess Family Property
Lambert explained that there are two residential lots within the proposed
boundaries of Riley Lake Park.A 60-foot wide lot owned by Ernie
Shuldhiess at 9281 Riley Lake Road, and a 91-foot wide lot owned by the
Shuldhiess family estate at 9291 Riley Lake Road. On September 2, 2003,
the City Council considered action on acquiring the Shuldhiess family
estate lot. He said the City's appraisal was for$360,000 and the family
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 12
was asking$495,000. The staff did not recommend taking any action at
that time and the Council tabled any action on this property.
Recently the realtor for the property indicated to the City that the parcel is
on the market for$349,000. City staff believes the asking price is
approaching what the value of the property would be to the park. Staff
would recommend negotiating with the property owners to determine the
lowest price at this time, and then requesting the Council to determine if it
has any further interest in this property.
Lambert said someday in the future,if the city does not acquire these lots,
there will be people living in the park and future councils will wonder why
the city allowed the situation to occur. Lambert said the asking price is
now around $339,000 and it is at least worth looking at because it is best
to acquire the properties when there is a willing seller.
Case asked what monies would be used to purchase the properties.
Lambert said it would be park dedication fees.
Rosow commented that if Lambert likes the result of the negotiations with
sellers, Council could authorize staff to bring back a proposal in the form
of a purchase agreement. .
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Case, to authorize staff to
negotiate for acquisition of the Shuldhiess property at 9291 Riley Lake
Road and report back to the Council on the cost to acquire that property
at this time.
Young said he has difficulty with this because there is not a compelling
need to spend this amount of city dollars to buy this property.
Case said the idea of having a section of park that is off and by itself is
not the worst thing in the world; it's not great but it's OK. He said he
would like to talk in great detail before expending funds. He said he is
OK tonight with just looking at this.
Aho said he would like to evaluate this in relation to all other projects
before moving to go ahead with it.
Motion carried 4-1 with Young opposed.
2. Lighting of Softball Field#4 at Round Lake Park
Lambert explained that staff is proposing to light field#4 in a manner
similar to what is currently at field#2 and#3. Light poles, light fixtures,
and lighting pattern will be done in a similar manner. He said all property
owners within 1,000 feet of the ball field were notified and no phone calls
were received and nobody attended the Parks Commission meeting. He
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 13
said the estimated cost for lighting of Round Lake field#4 is approximately
$62,000 to $65,000 and that amount was collected by the softball players
for field improvements and there would be no tax dollars used for this
construction project.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Young,to authorize staff to prepare
plans and specifications and take bids for the lighting of softball field#4 at
Round Lake Park. Motion carried 5-0.
3. Land Acquisition Needs
Lambert showed a map of the trail system and explained that the majority
of the land acquisition required to complete the Park and Open Space
System plan relates to acquisition of land necessary to complete trail
systems. He said the city has acquired 95 percent of the land for the parks
system,but there are a few key parcels left to acquire. He pointed out each
of the parcels and explained topographical characteristics and logistics for
acquiring the parcels or obtaining trail easements.
It is important to have a public record of the City's interest in acquiring
these parcels of land especially if the land acquisition is from another
governmental agency, or if we ever apply for grants for acquisition. Seven
of the properties are owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
The State may determine to sell those properties or may decide to grant an
easement for trail purposes and retain ownership of the property. As long as
the property remains in public ownership it makes little difference to the
City of Eden Prairie unless the State would determine at some time in the
future to sell the property. There are six other parcels that might be acquired
through dedication, or a combination of dedication and purchase,when the
adjacent property is developed.
Lambert said the reason for making a list of these parcels is to have a
record of what is on the list and that council agrees these parcels should be
on the list for this council and future councils. Aho asked if by putting
these parcels on a list we are just saying these are properties of interest to
the city and parks system and if they come available we are interested.
Lambert said if they come available we are interested and don't be
surprised if we say we would recommend moving forward now on some
of them. Aho asked if MnDOT owns them, is there a cost associated with
the easement. Lambert said generally they give it to the city at no cost.
Rosow suggested deleting the words"and should be acquired if feasible"
because that is close to authorizing an acquisition.
Case asked Lambert why the city would not move immediately on the
lands that have no cost. Lambert said a resolution has not yet been
prepared for them. Case asked staff to move ahead with the ones that have
no cost for the rights to have the trail there.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January.18,2005
Page 14
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher,to approve the list of land
acquisition needs and ratify the placement of these parcels within the Park
and Open Space System Plan.
Young stated he will support the motion but he is not a big supporter of
acquiring the Shuldheiss properties. Motion carried 5-0.
4. Proposed Revisions to the Park Fund Capital Improvement Program
Lambert explained that each year City staff propose revisions to the
estimated revenue and expenditures in the park fund in order to assist the
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and City Council in
determining priorities for fund expenditures and estimated revenue and
expenditures over the next five years. The park fund does not include
general fund capital improvement projects, but is limited to capital
improvement projects that would be funded from park dedication fees,
grants,donations and revenue from adult athletic fees and interest accrued
within the fund. Revenues as of mid-December 2004 for this year totaled
$1,237,010. This included$1,053,270 in cash park fees. Expenditures to
date from this fund total $1,513,128. The fund balance is $5,663, 079.
The revisions to the park fund include moving the expenditures for the
baseball stadium up from 2008 to 2005 and increasing the total estimated
cost of that facility from $600,000 to $850,000. Other adjustments have
been made based on decisions made by the Commission and Council
during the year relating to planning for trail projects, off--leash dog
exercise areas, etc.
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Young,to approve the revisions
to the Park Fund Capital Improvement Program as proposed in the January
3, 2005, staff report. Motion carried 5-0.
E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
1. ADC Request Regarding Construction of Technology Drive
Dietz explained that concurrent with the development review and approval
process for the ADC campus, the City and ADC have entered into a Tax
Abatement Agreement that allocated$1.4 million of tax revenue towards
roadway and related improvements necessitated by the development. There
ers Agreement,which amon ot
her
have been amendments to the Develop g
items, include time extensions for completion of the work. During
discussions regarding an additional time extension,ADC and City staff have
reached consensus that the project, City and ADC needs would be best met
by elimination of the Tax Abatement Agreement in favor of a Special
Assessment Agreement that results in the following_
Technology Drive would be constructed in accordance with the terms
of the Developers Agreement.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 15
• The City of Eden Prairie will contribute an identical $1.4 million
towards the project(plus certain costs for elements planned for by the
City, i.e.,watermain and landscape items).
• The City of Eden Prairie would become the project manager for
construction of the improvements.
• ADC would be assessed their portion of the costs over a ten-year period.
A new budget would be established for the project.
Dietz said he is transmitting to the council the copy of a letter from ADC
that requests we get rid of the tax abatement agreement and authorizes
staff to develop documents that would support the general conclusions of
this transmittal. He said there would really be three documents—one that
nullifies the tax abatement agreement,one that is a special assessment
agreement, and one that is a modification of the developer's agreement
that exists on the property.
Neal said this is an item that had one time been considered for the Consent
Agenda but he asked that Dietz handle it in open session because it is an
item that council had to make new decisions on policy at the time. He
clarified that the initiation of this request comes directly from ADC and
the city did not encourage them.
MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Case,to direct staff to develop a
Special Assessment Agreement with ADC to replace the existing Tax
Abatement Agreement for the purpose of constructing Technology Drive
between Mitchell Road and Southwest Station.Motion carried 5-0.
2. Support of Legislation to Provide Funding Options for Street
Improvements (Resolution No. 2005-19)
Dietz explained that this resolution provides city support for a street utility
initiative developed in partnership with the League of Cities(LMC),the
City Engineer's Association of Minnesota(CEAM), and the Minnesota
Public Works Association(MPWA). The resolution requests enabling
legislation for street utility authority to Minnesota cities. A street utility
will provide another funding option for the 80%of our street network that
is not funded by Municipal State Aida The maintenance and
reconstruction of these streets(80%of our network) is currently funded
through the Capital Improvement Fund,the General Fund, and special
assessments. This legislation initiative is listed as one of LMC's top
legislative priorities for 2004.
Dietz said the transportation utility may be the best solution for the future
and staff recommends approval of this resolution.
Young said he is sensitive to raising revenue by anything other than
property taxes because funding by other mechanisms complicates it for
residents.He said he is prepared to support enabling legislation for
I CO
UNCIL OUNCIL MEETING
January 18,2005
Page 16
providing funding options, but he does not support all the findings or
recommendations. He suggested deleting the current"NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED..."paragraph in its entirety and
starting the following paragraph with"NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED,..."
Tyra-Lukens said she would also rather raise revenue with property taxes,
but she thinks the city needs tools to be proactive enough to plan for the
future. Case said in the best of all worlds, it would be on property taxes
but he would not want to limit options this early.
Neal explained if this resolution is adopted, multiple copies will be shared
with our two representatives and state senator and the credibility and
authority of the city council will be behind it to ask the representatives and
senator to vote in favor of the legislation_
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Young,to adopt resolution
supporting legislation to provide funding options,particularly the
authority to establish a street utility, for city street improvements striking
the"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED..."paragraph in its entirety
and starting the following paragraph with"NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED,..." instead of`BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,..." Motion
carried 5-0.
F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF
G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XV. OTHER BUSINESS
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Case, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried
5-0. Mayor Tyra-Lukens adjourned the meeting at 9:16 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Consent Calendar February 1,2005
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Christy Weigel, Police/ Clerk's License Application List VI.A.
Community Investigations
Unit
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity.
2005 Renewal Licenses
Solid Waste Collector
Express Roll-off of the Twin Cities
Blackowiak& Son Rolloff Service
- 1 -
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Consent Calendar February 1, 2005
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Leslie Stovring Hennepin County Recycling Grant VI.B.
Public Works/Environmental Resolution for 2005, 2006&2007
Services
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt Resolution for submittal of an application for the 2005 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 in 2004,which
was $145,592 and resulted in an$8.00 credit to each single family and multi-family account with
individual refuse collection service.
Hennepin County has requested a Resolution for years 2005,2006 and 2007 in order to process the
Recycling Grant for these three years. A copy of the Resolution must be on file with Hennepin
County prior to distribution of the Recycling Grant funds to the City.
Attachments
• Resolution
• Grant Application Form
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION
FOR THE 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, 2005 through
December 31, 2007; 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 Municipal Recycling Grant Applications for 2005 through 2007 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 on February 1, 2005.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
SEAL
ATTEST:
Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk
2004 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING FINAL REPORT
2005 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT APPLICATION
Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program
January 1 —December 31, 2004
Municipality
WROx
E
A. Program Administration $
B. Recycling Promotional Activities $
C. Waste Reduction Promotional Activities $
D. Collection Curbside $
Drop-Off $
E. Curbside Collection Containers $
Total Expenditures 1$
Revenues from Sale of Recyclables Is
� t
P :110114 � ecic �'a` plr�ov�lend�vctu o raa+g era la�8
f �S �. ,E _ qr , _
A. Residential Source-Separated Collections Curbside Drop-Off Multi-Housing Total Tons.
Mixed Fibers " Newspaper
I-` Corrugated Cardboard
Office Paper
Mixed Paper/Junk Mail
Magazines
Boxboard
Phone Books,
Metal Alum_Cans&Foil
( Steel&Tin Cris
I Commingled Cans
r Scrap Metal
Glass Food&Beverage
Other Glass
Plastic PET
r HDPE
Commingled Bottles
Other Vehicle Batteries
Recyclables Textiles
Carpet
Household Goods
Appliances
Totally Commingled(One Sort)
Other
Other
Total Tons
B. Number(#) of Households(HH)with Curbside Recycling Service Available as of January 1,2005:
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
a , $ 0
Week Number Of HH With Curbside Number Of HH Setting Out Participation Rate
Recycling Service Available Recyclables
10/04-10/09
10/11-10/16
10/18-10/23
10/25-10/30
Totals
iy IF
�,. ram;: ,c :� iaen „ x{j� a >< j}{i �?i•• `" axe`
A y.72RA
:, y �z"�i
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 2004 and planned in 2005. Note any major program changes
from previous years.
f�a�� #2ECYt��.:i�IAR�GR,�M�T1��MA"TigN x0�U4��$ �.����"��R � •.�i�, ��� �� "
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: $
Collection
B. Curbside Collection Contractors: Organized Open Method*
L
2.
3.
4.
5.
' 1 =Single Stream(commingling all recyclables together in one container)
2=Two Stream(collecting metal cans,glass,and plastic in one container and all papers in the other)
3=Source Separated(segregating recyclables into 3 or more categories)
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 _
« KkM gllm '�xg
�
Mayor or City Manager/Administrator/Clerkf Date
Recycling Coordinator Date
FINAL REPORT AND GRANT APPLICATION DUE FEBRUARY 16, 2006
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 02/01/05
SECTION: Public Hearings
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Community Development/Planning Rescinding Approval of The VII.A.
Janet Jeremiah Cove 2°d Addition
Scott A. Kipp
Requested Action
Move to:
• Close the Public Hearing; and
• Adopt the Resolution rescinding the Planned Unit Development Concept Review for
three lots, approved by the City Council on May 6, 2003; and
• Approve lst Reading of the Ordinance rescinding the Planned Unit Development District
Review within the R1-22 Zoning District of The Cove 2°a Addition for three lots, approved
by the City Council on June 3, 2003; and
• Adopt the Resolution rescinding the Preliminary Plat for three lots, approved by the City
Council on May 6,2003; and
• Adopt the Resolution rescinding the Final Plat of The Cove 2°d Addition for three lots,
approved by the City Council on July 15, 2003; and
• Adopt the Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute an
amendment to the Development Agreement for The Cove 2°a Addition rescinding all
of its terms.
Synopsis
Theodore R. Vickerman, Jr., a Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Theodore R.
Vickerman, one of the property owners, requests that all the approvals granted by the City for
The Cove 2nd Addition be rescinded thus restoring the status of the property before the
Development Agreement and all approvals were granted by the City. Rick LaMettry, the other
owner of the property does not object to this request.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of rescinding The Cove 2°d
Addition project to the City Council at its January 10, 2005 meeting.
Background Information
The Cove 2°d Addition project subdivided two exiting single-family lots to create a third single-
family lot. The City Council approved the project in June 2003. The approvals included a PUD
Concept and PUD District Review, Preliminary and Final Plats and a Development Agreement.
Rescinding Approval of The Cove 2°d Addition
Page 2 of 2
The 2°d Reading of the Ordinance to rescind will take place under the Ordinances and
Resolutions section of the agenda.
Attachments
1. Resolution Rescinding the PUD Concept
2. Resolution Rescinding the Preliminary Plat
3. Resolution Rescinding the Final Plat
4. Resolution Authorizing Amendment Rescinding the terms of the Development
Agreement
5. Staff Report dated January 7, 2005
6. Location Map
7. Planning Commission Meeting minutes dated January 10, 2005
8. Development Agreement Amendment for The Cove 2°d Addition
9. Original Attachments
• Resolution No. 2003-75
• Resolution No. 2003-76
• Resolution No. 2003-113
• Development Agreement dated June 3, 2003
• Preliminary Plat dated May 2, 2003
THE COVE 2ND ADDITION RESCINDING
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
A RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT OF THE COVE 2ND ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
WHEREAS,the Planned Unit Development Concept of The Cove 2°d Addition for three
single family lots was approved by City Council Resolution No. 2003-75.on May 6, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the one of the Property owner requests that the Planned Unit Development
Concept of The Cove 2°d Addition be rescinded and the other Property owner does not object; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing and recommended that
the Planned Unit Development Concept of The Cove 2nd Addition be rescinded at its January 10,
2005 meeting; and
WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on February 1, 2005.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
Resolution 2003-75,approved by the City Council on May 6,2003 is hereby rescinded thus
restoring the Property to its status before the Planned Unit Development Concept approval was
granted by the City.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 1S`day of February, 2005.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk
THE COVE 2ND ADDITION RESCINDING
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF THE COVE 2ND ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
WHEREAS,the preliminary plat of The Cove 2nd Addition for three single family lots was
approved by City Council,Resolution No. 2003-76 on May 6, 2003; and
WHEREAS,the one of the Property owner requests that the preliminary plat of The Cove
2nd Addition be rescinded and the other Property owner does not object; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing and recommended that
the preliminary plat of The Cove 2°d Addition be rescinded at its January 10, 2005 meeting; and
WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on February 1, 2005.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
Resolution 2003-76,approved by the City Council on May 6,2003 is hereby rescinded thus
restoring the Property to its status before the preliminary plat approval was granted by the City.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the lST day of February, 2005.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
THE COVE 2ND ADDITION RESCINDING
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
A RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE FINAL PLAT OF
THE COVE 2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the final plat of The Cove 2"d Addition for three single family lots was
approved by City Council, Resolution No. 2003-113 on July 15, 2003; and
WHEREAS,the final plat of The Cove 2"d Addition has not been recorded at Hennepin
County; and
WHEREAS, one of the Property owner requests that the final plat of The Cove 2"d
Addition be rescinded and the other Property owner does not object; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing and recommended
that the final plat of The Cove 2"d Addition be rescinded at its January 10, 2005 meeting; and
WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on February 1; 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY
COUNCIL:
Resolution 2003-113, approved by the City Council on July 15, 2003 is hereby rescinded
thus restoring the Property to its status before the final plat approval was granted by the City.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on I"day of February,2005.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta,City Clerk
THE COVE 2r'"ADDITION RESCINDING
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE COVE 2N"ADDITION RESCINDING IT
IN ITS ENTIRETY
WHEREAS, Richard A., and Joanne LaMettry, and Theodore R. Vickerman have
received City Council approval for The Cove 2nd Addition for three single-family lots located at
6861 and 6871 Beach Road, more fully described in the Development Agreement dated June 3,
2003; and
WHEREAS,the Property owner requests that the Development Agreement for The Cove
2nd Addition be rescinded; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing and recommended
that the Development Agreement for The Cove 2"d Addition be rescinded at its January 10, 2005
meeting; and
WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on February 1, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY
COUNCIL:
The City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute an
Amendment to the Development Agreement rescinding the Development Agreement for The
Cove 2°d Addition dated June 3, 2003, in its entirety
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 1ST day of February, 2005.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner
DATE: January 7, 2005
SUBJECT: The Cove 2nd Addition—Rescinding Approvals
APPLICANT: Theodore Vickerman, Jr.
OWNERS: ` Theodore Vickerman, Jr. and Rick LaMettry
LOCATION: 6861 and 6871 Beach Road
REQUEST:
Rescind the following approvals:
1. PUD Concept Review on 3.2 acres.
2. PUD District Review within the R1-22 Zoning District on 3.2 acres.
3. Preliminary Plat of 3.2 acres into 3 lots.
4. Final Plat
5. Development Agreement
Staff Report—The Cove 2nd Addition-Rescinding Approvals
January 7,2005
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The Cove 2nd Addition project subdivided two exiting single-family lots to create a third single-
family lot. The City Council approved the project in June 2003. The approvals included a PUD
Concept and PUD District Review, Preliminary and Final Plats and a Development Agreement.
Theodore Vickerman, one of the owners of the development, passed away in late 2003. His son
and heir to the estate,Theodore Vickerman, Jr., requests that the approvals granted by the City
for this development be rescinded thus restoring the status of the Property before the
Development Agreement and all approvals listed above were approved. Rick LaMettry, the
other owner of the property does not object to this request.
Because the project involved a PUD zoning action, a public hearing and recommendation by the
Planning Commission is required to rescind such action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the following request:
• Rescind the PUD Concept Review on 3.2 acres.
• Rescind the PUD District Review within the R1-22 Zoning District on 3.2 acres.
• Rescind the Preliminary Plat of 3.2 acres into 3 lots.
• Rescind the Final Plat
• Rescind the Development Agreement dated June 3, 2003
Area Location #flap► - , The Cove 2nd Addition
Recind Approvals Project 2004-27
6861 and 66-f-I Beach Road Eden Prairie MN
Bryant Lake
..............
i k
Y Y
r r r (y
.. .sL 7 �z i „7. jam ut>•.'t''.�:"R
;�j-'�s`r.r" :axis y;�,4.a 3r3 a�.u'j'r .l r. '+• 4..
F r.
.Beach_;C,ircle ,
J t /
't' a t^1 t $
!Mea•"'r`:::�.r:;.s«-{ti:='' - - -_'iii :. _ °m _-_ .m'nr�i9`4��'s;:.�;
e•t;.'`a•4r .�gLtw •Y- - ,:T^"_ w'-�1aiT.�::�-�111�tr....:,V"y.r..�'i::.
:Y.. MY w —•t•� -
,.�st.tc,.:7" �..Y... ;:V.€"'r„s: r-•- �i;. ..,. ..,<�.it;4=is=..:
„ar �-'¢�'.fy``�-,^"'ltti+-:F':r;•S' �%r�:�5��¢:�''�`rrs'�-'-',:, ,+'L'.ti�.,- ,,a.�i?��;�:ai�`..�::;_'^'�'-•':'=A�z�;tiz;n.',..:F:: -
a,'.;'+>.:>ci._.:f r:,,, f%. =='L'�;-�'.^� :''a.,";r..< .k;:rtc:•'• ,;i: :z:-' `u,.T,•-:j;'. ;»,`,.::i:.,a'_'
,:��' 44 ££` °..t: is•:= _ .:tvr;--:"�.3-..•`„+s_"- �•...,.�_.`.
.:L.r - K•i - `'•!t'5,,�., 3:tS-tYG^y: Y_. �'''':.ft"":Y.t'-'�',r. -�YY:I•!^..y 'i�::r..-.i•y._tt:::': ��r. ,.t• ��;st�, '.: -''*r .=� `=,:.?c..sr�'•,+•�.-_,t..^� ,
- - _�K'}•.'-. ..�'r. :1S:x[!-, v�.Ci.-- :3,�:�:..,,:.,,ya.w s4.:tili�..y.:,:ys•..� ,.,.P:E-.�.c
_ iR', -.�.,,"-.�'. u.:.4'fi -';a:.: r.cs - _N..sr'^:4r;r-:x:_:...::a:y,-., r-•r �tt•�`:n,. _,:._,-
i�^�1 :::=' ^;?`L "r=:. r'".�'„.`ir,-:•'.;t• *:t;rS�:-r:+.�l '.:!rl,:�;,...M<:.-en.::,.-> :'
Eta
'cr t "aAy e S tr. zs.. r. -
- F � { f� t J'`w.�r 9 •x'f �;z:y� '+.',$',Sr�-C, ..r 7`..ac*T.-cy�--,"
x ,�:�:.�,--4 •r_°� ?;°:�P-_=-'yl.n ! Y;r. ,K:}a'v^: ,}--F�',c,f.. uC' rP tic. 'CJ �i'•,.r� '-,ti-,••sh '"
a. ,
.,r'-
Tr^•-`,'„ ; '9i:':
.'�,,.a•':-� t �•zs� e• sir`..;-,' r lnt:r~,.,''„xr.-,_.;•z` .,w;;<'-�'v,•,;
.. ":tzi�4 ;..y•^ raw.?,t.:,":..g�
1'tt
\\'�\\ t1w z °!`.�:'34r":i'•_ flu •.-'� � [ �'.:!�'•:�y�t i.1'r;� .•y,�:r e`y�-'''� `
\. urvt_�`'+s`A_.C`,-,•�z s�v""�'>t„ct.:.ty L.^„S. .a.>.,,� r"�:,'.riCh��Ze�:�
- ��r<'.'.Y1,^'rl-�.'-t'•_Y,'o-.KA�s:l'�ii'.�"'�`y.1.4.-t'':4.�A3:L•FiSY,ry`t!:r^,� ,r.< ,S:-,..a r.J,+.'
�. •t•t)"'.l",.�;td $., ,Au i .+ 4 at"=r `- r' .}, ">;:t t Y;.; i-
r. ':,e.: -7t;;�`+, l+zf�; 'e.:.^>r R+ ..ti.•, :-ti'w�•��6,it:.,K%�-t _ .f:r _
- �rr_.:.e;,..,t����;�."�"L.w„L:�°fit:•r:»��r�.;y_-.i � :'v e:-
u :Beach' Road:°
.-„�'�^'• ��<i 9t���+�i„<`-,i?+r-,��';� �'e.,ry�,rs..n_Ci"" ;y.;,._:''�:`-� __ -'^':r��3R _ ..7.. _S_.... •.
.jam,, � Y]� '-e4.1 Y t<t tS 'n'C•r7..i Yr. C .yki ..
'-}.y'ju S� ..�e+5'{;•�^�r•,.,fiF ,YS a•1 1-:T�, i!xl-.t; arc,
1 .:Z T .r •aFq-. ,.,.a .'��r .t;`" -r xr E a.:"�.�t�•a;"`•;"r'`'':Y:. i,. N
- Tr. `"• `-rir;��::s-'�:.�'rt"r..:t'% ts�Li' y.3:� t ter..-fr,`r: ��:.::..,:f:',�"=.�`3:.��.L�.-'�..�.'3�:,,y-4,'r',y��L
'.'%°- "a""�`... -�:•k.�t :'z:-.:!j t�t`+ �`+T'i.' c x:�.,�"�; '--.,:�._.b^�`-�<,-y.%�:sue_'�'�Fi>:n,�'�•era: -
- - ..�r',i;5'_.2i.:;%_. 'Y"�<::>_'*`�':?;,�^.:, ..4':' ...:5�2_',`'S'• ::ti,�a5�t,;�r4�"�,.,.�w;�.?:,%sr �,+r`.
..+�-'rv(•'•:i -.4� ^..-e�.xZie"F:.`.p�.:e�,iT-f+�:.': .=.rfi.�'<-�e:'S.-' YN'�%^`•-•"a-r'.?,1.1':'.�ia��-t'i�i::l�3,
-i�:i'.•..li•` _ •.6--u.4:Y'^ `��t`w','`?.ixy^i.•,,..._.,�.. ,+,LI, vr;y.
i
e'P
_ q�
w:d^.\ .-_.-fit._ -,,,,.{:;,.::.: '�'.•.�.
zti. •�._
-
i:r.
•et.t
t'
l�att,
7d No ^'
- `:tip`:';-'
- P.
•-
>
-<r•. .�7t�-`„�t.v4 ,-<�f.1:.....;;..u.,.k,a:!. R`•i ��ii,, w_s.. .t.,_.,.� '•��.�L?'' � f, :.JLte ? "•s" ,�.:',Ie'^"'5y'-:v :_.L...1 w.P,
APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,JANUARY 10,2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks,Larry Kacher, Vicki Koenig,Kathy
Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray
Stoelting, Jon Stoltz, William Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox,Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Al Gray, City Engineer
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Julie Krull, Recording Secretary
V1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. COVE 2ND ADDITION—RESCIND APPROVALS (2004-27)by Ted Vickerman,
Jr. Request to rescind the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on
3.2 acres; the Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review within the R1-22
Zoning District on 3.2 acres;the Resolution for Preliminary Plat;the Resolution for Final
Plat; and the Development Agreement. Location: 6861 and 6871 Beach Road.
Franzen presented the proposal for the project proponent and also the Staff. He stated
that this was a project that was previously approved by the City Council in which two
existing single-family lots were subdivided to create a third lot. Theodore Vickerman,
one of the owners of the development, passed away and his son, Theodore Vickerman,
Jr., requested that the approvals granted by the City for this development be rescinded.
stated that the Staff recommends closing the
Franzen s g Public hearing and motion to
rescind this action.
There was no input.
e u for public input.
Stoeltin opened them meeting P
g P g P P
MOTION by Sutherland, seconded by Nelson,to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION by Sutherland, seconded by Nelson,to recommend approval of a request to
Rescind the Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.2 acres; the
Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review within the R1-22 Zoning
District on 3.2 acres;the Resolution for Preliminary Plat;the Resolution for Final Plat;
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10,2005
Page 2 of 2
and the Development Agreement, based on the staff report dated January 7, 2005,to the
City Council. Motion carried 6-0.
AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THE COVE 2ND ADDITION
THIS AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into as
of February 1, 2005, by the Estate of Theodore R. Vickerman, and Richard A., and Joanne
LaMettry, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City";
WHEREAS, as of June 3, 2003 Richard A., and Joanne LaMettry, husband and wife and
Theodore R. Vickerman, an individual, and the City of Eden Prairie entered into that certain
Development Agreement Cove 2nd Addition pertaining to the development of certain real property
(the"Property")described on Exhibit A hereto(hereinafter the"Development Agreement").
WHEREAS, the Estate of Theodore R. Vickerman is the successor in interest to Theodore R.
Vickerman. Theodore R. Vickerman, Jr. and Gretchen F. Zalewski are the Co-Personal
Representatives of the Estate of Theodore R.Vickerman.
WHEREAS, Theodore R. Vickerman, Jr. and Gretchen F. Zalewski as the Co-Personal
Representatives of the Estate of Theodore R.Vickerman request that the City rescind the approval
granted for the Property, including, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.2 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review within the R1-22 zoning district on 3.2 acres, and
Preliminary Plat and final plat of 3.2 acres into 3 lots, and the Development Agreement, thus
restoring the Property to its status before all approvals were granted by the City. Richard A., and
Joanne LaMettry have informed the City that they consent to this request,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No.
rescinding the Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Ordinance No.
rescinding the Planned Unit Development District Review within the R1-22 Zoning District,
Resolution No. rescinding the Preliminary Plat,Resolution No. rescinding the
final plat,and Resolution No. authorizing the execution of this Amendment rescinding the
terms of the Development Agreement,the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. The Development Agreement is hereby rescinded in its entirety:
DEVELOPER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ESTATE OF THEODORE R VICKERMAN
By:
Theodore R. Vickerman, Jr. Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
Co-Personal Representative of the
Estate of Theodore R. Vickerman
By: Scott H.Neal,City Manager
Gretchen F. Zalewski
Co-Personal Representative of the
Estate of Theodore R. Vickerman
Richard A. LaMettry
Joanne LaMettry
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2005,by Nancy
Tyra-Lukens and Scott H.Neal, respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Eden
Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2005,by
Theodore R.Vickerman,Jr., Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Theodore R.Vickerman,
on behalf of the Estate.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2005,by
Gretchen F. Zalewski, Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Theodore R. Vickerman, on
behalf of the Estate.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005,by
Richard A., and Joanne LaMettry, husband and wife.
Notary Public
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 12 and 13,Block 1, THE COVE,Hennepin County,MN.
THE COVE 2ND ADDITION
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2003.75
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT OF THE COVE 2ND ADDITION
FOR RICK 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
April 14,2003 for The Cove 2nd Addition by Rick Lamettry and considered the 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 18, March 4,April 1 and
May 6, 2003.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,Minnesota,
as follows:
1 Cove 2nd Addition, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as
outlined in Exhibit A,is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans
dated May 2,2003_
3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Community Planning
Board dated January 27,2003.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 6th day of May,2003.
an a r
Kadgeen Porta, City Clerk
E BIT A
PUD Concept- The Cove 2nd Addition
Legal Description:
Lot 12 and 13,Block 1,THE COVE,Hennepin County,MN.
THE COVE 2ND ADDITION
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MU-NESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-76
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIl UNARY PLAT
OF THE COVE 2ND ADDITION FOR RICK LAMETTRY
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of The Cove 2nd Addition for Rick Lamettry dated May 2, 2003, and
consisting of 3.2 acres into 3 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 6th day of May,2003.
N a L ns
c ,
ATTEST:
KAleen Porta, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-113
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
THE COVE 2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of The Cove 2"d Addition has been submitted in a manner required for
platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota
Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
A. Plat approval request for The Cove rd Addition is approved upon compliance
with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated July 15,
2003.
B_ That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this resolution
to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing
provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on July 15,2003.
Ron Case,Acting Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
&46��2 A�
K thlee Porta, City Clerk
J309'�• !�•' gay, !�q` � T ��ft ^,.•1 -
si `� a SCANNED O
\ 7 c tvrA
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THE COVE 2na ADDITION
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT("Agreement')is entered into as of June 3,2003,by Richard A.,
and Joanne LaMettry, husband and wife, and Theodore R.Vickerman, an individual, hereinafter referred to as
"Developer,"its successors and assigns,and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,a municipal corporation,hereinafter
referred to as"City":
WITNESSETH III
WHEREAS,Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.2 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review within the R1-22 zoning district on 3.2 acres,and Preliminary Plat of
3.2 acres into 3 lots, legally described on Exhibit A(the"Property');
NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of'the City adopting Resolution No. 2003-75 for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review,Ordinance No_15-2003-PUD-6-2003 for Planned Unit
Development District Review within the R1-22 zoning district, and Resolution No. 2003-76 for
Preliminary Plat,Developer agrees to construct,develop and maintain the Property as follows:
L PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised
003
'ewed and roved b the City Council on May 6,2003,
dated May 2 2003 revs y ty
and stamp y , , approved
(hereinafter the Plans and identified on Exhibit B, subject to such changes and
modifications as provided herein,
2.. EXHIBIT C: Developer agrees to the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set
forth in Exhibit C.
3. CONNECTION FEE: Prior to the release of the final plat for any portion of the Property,
Developer shall pay sanitary sewer connection fees for a total amount of'$8,115.00.
4_ CROSS ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Prior to release of the final
plat for the Property,Developer shall enter into a cross access and maintenance agreement
with respect to the driveway areas common to Lot 1 and Lot 2. The agreement shall address
joint vehicle access and maintenance of the driveway common to both lots. The driveway
shall be privately owned and maintained.
Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the Property,Developer shall submit to the
City Engineer proof that the cross access and maintenance agreement has been recorded in
the Hennepin County Recorder's Office/Registw of Titles' Office.
5. DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR CODE VIOLATIONS: In the event of a
violation of City Code relating to use of the Land construction thereon or failure to fulfill an
obligation imposed upon the Developer pursuant to this Agreement,City shall give 24 hour
notice of such violation in order to allow a cure of such violation,provided however, City
need not issue a building or occupancy permit for construction or occupancy on the Land
while such a violation is continuing,unless waived by City.
The existence of a violation of City Code or the failure to perform or fulfill an obligation
required by this Agreement shall be determined solely and conclusively by the City Manager
of the City or a designee.,
6. DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTRACTORS: Developer shall
release,defend and indemnify City,its elected and appointed officials,employees and agents
from and against any and all claims,demands, lawsuits,complaints,loss,costs(including
attorneys' fees), damages and injunctions relating to any acts, failures c; act, 'errors,
omissions of Developer or Developer's consultants,contractors,subcontractors,suppliers and
agents. Developer shall not be released from its responsibilities to release; defend and
indemnify because of any inspection,review or approval by City.
7, GRADING,DRAINAGE,AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS:
A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN:Developer agrees that the grading
and drainage plan contained in the Plans is conceptual. Prior to the release of a land
alteration permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City
Engineer's written approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the Property. The
final grading and drainage plan shall include all wetland, wetland buffer strips,
wetland buffer monument locations,water quality ponds,storm water detention areas
and otheritems required by the application for and release of a land alteration permit
All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage
area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Prior to release
of the grading bond,Developer shall certify to the City that the water quality pond
conforms to the final grading plan.
Developer shall employ the design professional who prepared the final grading plan.
The design professional shall monitor construction for conformance to the approved
finai'grading plan and City erosion control policy. The design professional shall
provide a final report to the City certifying completion of the grading in conformance
the approved final grading plan and City erosion control policy.
B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a land alteration permit,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's written
approval of an erosion control plan for the Property. The erosion control plan shall
include all boundary erosion control features,temporary stockpile locations and turf
restoration. procedures: All site grading operations shall conform to the City's
Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Prior to release of the grading bond,Developer shall complete implementation ofthe
approved plan
Developer shall remove any sediment that accumulates in the existing and/or
proposed sedimentation pond 'during construction. Upon request by the City,
Developer shall provide preconstruction and post construction surveys for evaluation
by City.
& GRADING IN THE WOODED AREAS ON SITE: Prior to grading within any of the
wooded areas on the Property,delineated on Exhibit B,Developer shall submit to the City
Forester and receive the City Forester's written approval of a plan depicting construction
grading limits on the Property. Prior to the issuance of any land alteration permit,Developer
shall place a construction fence on the approved construction grading limits. Developer shall
notify the City and watershed district 48 hours in advance of grading so that the construction
limit fence may be field inspected and approved by the City Engineer and City Forester.
Developer shall maintain the construction limit fence until written approval is granted by the
City to remove the fence.
9. PLANS FOR INDIVIDUAL HOME CONSTRUCTION: Prior to building permit
issuance for each residential structure on each lot of the Property,a Certificate of Survey for
such parcel shall be submitted for review and written approval by the Building Department,
The Certificate of Survey shall include a certification by the builder that construction of the
residence is consistent with this Agreement and all exhibits attached hereto,and shall further
contain the following information:
A. Topography with 2 foot contour intervals for existing and proposed grades.
Topography trust be field verified.
B. Location of structures with finished floor elevations.
C. Retaining walls,type,height,and type of details.
D. Location of sewer,water,gas and electric lines.
E. Location,size and type of all significant trees on site.
F. Method of erosion control.
3
G. Detailed grading plans.
H. No construction or grading within any conservancy easement area..
1. Engineered design for footing,foundation, and retaining wails.
10. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for grading or
construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and
obtain the Chief Building Official's written approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls
identified on the grading plan in the Plans.
These plans shall include details with respect to the height,type of materials,and method of
construction to be used for the retaining walls-
Developer shall complete implementation of the approved retaining wall plan in accordance
with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto, prior to issuance of any
occupancy permit for the Property.
11. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT: Prior to the release of the final plat for any
portion of the Property, Developer shall sign an assessment agreement, in the form and
substance as attached in Exhibit.E,with the City for Trunk Sewer and Water Assessments
(Trunk Improvements)on an assessable acreage of 0.9487 acres in the amount of$4,933.24.
12. TREE LOSS-TREE REPLACEMENT: There are 2,214 diameter inches of significant
trees on the Property. Tree loss related to development on the Property is calculated at 447
diameter inches. Tree replacement required is 119 caliper inches.Prior to the issuance of any
grading permit for the Property,Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the
City Forester's written approval of a tree replacement plan for 119 caliper inches.
This approved plan shall include replacement trees of a 3-inch diameter minimum size for a
shade tree and a 7-foot minimum height for conifer trees. The approved plan shall also
provide that, should actual tree loss exceed that calculated herein,Developer shall provide
tree replacement on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis for such excess loss.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the Property,Developer shall furnish to the City
Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a tree replacement bond equal to 150%of
the cost of said improvements as required by City Code.
Developer shall complete implementation of the approved tree replacement plan prior to
occupancy permit issuance.
13. WETLAND PLAN: Prior to release of the final plat for any portion of the Property,
Developer shall submit to the Environmental Coordinator and receive the Environmental
Coordinator's approval of a Wetland Plan. The approved Wetland Plan shall be consistent
with the materials and requirements shown on the Plans and as required by the City Council
and City Code. The Plan shall include the following elements.
Eva
luation: Developer Shall
and Wetland Buffer Strip Vegetation P
A. WetlandP
submit to the City a Wetland Buffer Strip Vegetation Evaluation Report(`Buffer
Report ')in accordance with the Wetland Plan and City Code requirements prior to
release of the final plat for any portion of the Property. The Buffer Report shall
provide an action plan and proposed cost for correction of any problems identified.
B. Vegetation Management Plan: A Vegetation Management Plan must be developed
if the Buffer Report identifies any unacceptable vegetation, sod,turf, structures or
other unacceptable conditions within the lake,wetland and/or wetland buffer strip.
The Vegetation Management Plan shall include plans to grade,treat,reseed and/or
replant (thereon known as "Landscaping", or `Tmdscaped") the wetland and/or
wetland buffer strip by the Developer within 60 days of submission of the Buffer
Report. If Landscaping of the wetland and/or wetland buffer strip is required,the
Developer shall submit a signed statement by a qualified wetland consultant, as
determined by the City Manager,stating that the wetland and/or wetland buffer strip
completion of the
is within 30 days of
('' requirements complies with all .i r Y
vegetationCity 9
Landscaping.
C. Lake Access: Developer shall furnish to the Environmental Coordinator and receive
the Environmental Coordinator's approval of a Lake Access Plan as part of the
Vegetation Management Plan. The Lake Access Plan shall include a minimal path to
the lake shore for recreational use by the Owner of the property and one dock. This
area shall be incorporated into the Vegetation Management Plan as a grassed area.
The Vegetation Management Plan for this area shall include the proposed grass seed
mixture,mowing schedules and other proposed management plans.
D. Annual Wetland and Wetland Buffer Strip Evaluation Reports: Prior to release
of the final plat for any portion ofthe Property, Developer r shall submit a signed
an
contract with a qualified wetland consultant, as determined by the City Manager
and/or designee, for preparation of a Annual Wetland and Wetland Buffer Strip
Evaluation Report (Annual Buffer Report) that evaluates the condition of the
wetland(s) and wetland buffer strip(s). The first Annual Buffer Report shall be
submitted no later than November 1 of the calendar year in which construction of the
wetland and/or wetland buffer strip is completed and thereafter annually until the
final Annual Report is submitted. The Annual Buffer Report shall provide an action
plan and proposed cost for correction of any problems identified. The final Annual
Buffer Report shall be submitted two full growing seasons following completion of
the development and shall evaluate the wetland and wetland buffer strip to determine
if the wetland and wetland buffer strip remain in compliance with all City
requirements. If any unacceptable conditions or vegetation are identified within the
correct the areas identified within 90
e the Developer shall ( )
Buffer R orts
Annual ep P
days of submission of the Annual Buffer Report
E. Conservation Easement: Prior to release of the final plat for any portion of the
Property, Developer shall submit a Conservation Easement(Exhibit F) for review
5
and written approval by the Environmental Coordinator, for the area delineated on
the Plans. This shall include the wetland and wetland buffer areas.
Prior to release of the first building permit for the Property,Developer shall submit
evidence to the Environmental Coordinator that the approved Conservation Easement
has been filed in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrar of Titles' Office.
F. Wetland Buffer Strip Monuments: Prior to release of the final plat for any portion
of the Property,Developer shall install all wetland buffer strip monuments for the
property. Wetland buffer strip monument locations shall be shown on the final
grading plan and final plat. The post shall be a fiberglass reinforced composite post
with a maximum size of 4 inch by 4 inch(4"x 4")that states"Wetland Buffer:No
Mowing Allowed". The Post shall be mounted to a height of a minimum of four feet
above grade set at least 42 inches in the ground. The bottom of the post must be
fitted with an anchor attachment that would expand upon attempted removal.
Removal of the wetland buffer strip monuments is prohibited.
& Wetland Performance Bond:: Developer shall furnish to the Environmental
Coordinator and receive the Environmental Coordinator's approval of a Wetland Plan
performance bond;cash escrow,or letter of credit with a corporation approved by the
City Manager or other guarantee acceptable to the City Manager equal to 150%ofthe
cost,as estimated by the City Manager,of completing said Wetland Plan,Vegetation
Management Plan and/or Landscaping requirements as depicted on the Plans and as
required by City Code. Said performance bond,cash escrow,letter of creditor other
guarantee shall cover costs associated with the Wetland Plan and Vegetation
Management Plan during development and for two full growing seasons following
completion of the development
b
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be
executed as of the day and year aforesaid_
D LOPE CITY Q EDEN PRAIRIE
r
Ric' ettry e a or
o aMettry colt H.Neal,City anager
Theodore R.Vickerman
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPI<1V ) A 0 � }
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 'I�/ 2003,by
Nancy Tyra-Lukens and Scott H.Neal,respectively the Mayor and the City anager of the City of
Eden prairie,a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
KATHLEEN A. PORTA
,~ 4-4 NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA
My Commisaon Ewa Jan 31,2045
,Notary Public
r
STATE OF YM14NESOTA ) -
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this od day of 2003,by
Rit;hard A.LaMett y and Joanne LaMettry,husband and wife.
- AI,N M.WALDSCHMtDT U
MOTARY PUBLIC—M W ESMA Notary Public
" My Ccrnrti Expires Jan.31,zoos
avtiv,
a
STATE OF MINNESOTA }
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me day of 2003,by
Theodore R.Vickerman,an individual.
otary Public
JANE E.HOVIND
r NOTARY PUBM-NNNE"
My Conuors9on Erb AX 31.2045
s
77
F,XIMIT A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-THE COVE 2ND ADDITION
Legal Description Before Final Plat
Lot 12 and 13,Block I,THE COVE,Hennepin County,MN-
Legal Description After Final Plat
Lot 1,2,and 3,Block 1,THE COVE 2nd ADDITION,Hennepin County,MN.
EXBIBIT B
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-THE COVE 2"ADDITION
Preliminary Plat dated 05-02-03 by Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson,Inc.
Bluff Analysis Plan not dated by Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson,Inc.
Reforestation Plan dated 01-02-03 by Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson,Inc.
q
EXHBIT C
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—THE COVE 2T't'D ADDITION
Prior Y release an
to rel a of building permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for
I.
approval two copies of a development plan(1"=100'scale)showing existing and proposed
contours,proposed streets,and lot arrangements and size,minimum floor elevations on each
lot,preliminary alignment and grades for sanitary sewer,water main,and storm sewer,100-
year ,flood plain contours, ponding areas, tributary areas to catch basins, arrows showing
direction of storm water flow on all lots,location of walks,trails,and any property deeded to
the City.
H. Developer shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer plans to the Watershed District
for review and approval. Developer shall follow all rules and recommendations of said
Watershed District
III. Developer shall pay cash park fees as to all of the Property required by City Code in effect as
of the date of the issuance of each building permit for construction on the Property.
IV.. If Developer fails to proceed in accordance with this Agreement within twenty-foui (24)
months of the date hereof,Developer,for itself,its successors,and assigns,shall not oppose
the City's reconsideration and rescission of any PUD, or Preliminary Plat approved irk
connection with this Agreement, thus restoring the status of the Property before the
Development Agreement and all approvals listed above were approv ed.
V. Provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against owners,their
successors,and their assigns of the Property herein described.
VI. The Developer hereby irrevocably nominates, constitutes,and appoints and designates the
City,as its attomey-in-fact for the sole purpose and right to amend Exhibit A hereto to
identify the legal description of the Property after platting thereof:
VII. Developer represents that it has marketable fee title to the Property.
With respect to any interest in all portions of the Property which Developer is required,
pursuant to this Agreement, to dedicate or convey to the City (the"Dedicated Property"),
Developer
is and warrants as follows now and at the time of dedication or
represents presen
conveyance:
A. That Developer has marketable fee title free and clear of all mortgages, liens, and
other encumbrances. Prior to final plat approval,Developer shall provide to the City
a current title insurance policy insuring such a condition of title.
l�
B. That Developer has not used, employed, deposited, stored,disposed of, placed or
otherwise allowed to come in or on the Dedicated Property,any hazardous substance,
hazardous waste, pollutant, or contaminant, including, but not limited to, those
defined in or pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §9601,et seq.,or Minn.Stat.,Sec. 115B.01,et.
seq. (such substances,wastes,pollutants,and contaminants hereafter referred to as
"Hazardous Substances");
C. That Developer has not knowingly allowed any other person to use,employ,deposit,
store, dispose of, place or otherwise have, in or on the Property, any Hazardous
Substances.
D. That, to Developer's knowledge, no previous owner, operator or possessor of the
Property deposited, stored, disposed of, placed or otherwise allowed in or on the
Property any hazardous substances_
Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless City,its successors and assigns,
against any and all loss,costs,damage and expense,including reasonable attorneys fees and
costs that the City incurs because of the breach of any of the above representations or
warranties and/or resulting from or due to the release or threatened release of Hazardous
Substances which were,or are claimed or alleged to have been,used,employed,deposited,
stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise located or allowed to be located, in or on the
Dedicated Property by Developer, its employees,agents,contractors or representatives.
VIU. Developer acknowledges that Developer is familiar with the requirements of Chapter 11,
Zoning,and Chapter 12,Subdivision Regulations,of the City Code and other applicable City
ordinances affecting the development of the Property. Developer agrees to develop the
Property in accordance with the requirements of all applicable City Code requirements and
City Ordinances.
IX. Prior to release of the final plat,Developer shall pay to City fees for the first three(3)years'
street lighting on the public streets adjacent to the Property(including installation costs,if
any,as determined by electrical power provider),engineering review,and street signs.
X. Developer shall submit detailed water main,fire protection,and emergency vehicle access
plans to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. Developer shall follow all the
recommendations of the Fire Marshal.
M. Developer acknowledges that the rights of City performance of obligations of Developer
contemplated in this agreement are special,unique, and of an extraordinary character,and
that, in the event that Developer violates, or fails; or refuses to perform any covenant,
condition, or provision made herein, City may be without an adequate remedy at law.
Developer agrees,therefore,that in the event Developer violates,fails,or refuses to perform
any covenant, condition, or provision made herein, City may, at its option, institute and
prosecute an action to specifically enforce such covenant, withhold building permits or
rescind or revoke any approvals granted by the City. No remedy conferred in this agreement
is intended to be exclusive and each shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every'
other remedy. The election of anyone or more remedies shall not constitute a waiver of any
other remedy.
)M. Developei shall,prior to the commencement of any improvements,provide written notice to
Time Warner Cable,a Minnesota Limited Partnership,the franchisee under the City's Cable
Communication Ordinance(80-33)of the development contemplated by this Development
Agreement. Notice shall be sent to Time Warner Cable, 901 Plymouth Avenue North,
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55411.
XIII. Prior to building permit issuance,all fees associated with the building permit shall be paid to
the Inspections Department,including;Building permit fee,plan check fee,State surcharge,
metro system access charge(SAC),City SAC and City water access charge(WAC),and park
dedication. Contact Metropolitan Waste Control to determine the number of SAC units.
M. Prior to building permit issuance, existing structures,walls and septic systems(if present)
shall be properly abandoned or removed as required by City ordinance and all permits
obtained through the Inspections Department
XV. Prior to building permit issuance,provide two copies of an approved survey or site plan(I"=
200 scale)showing proposed building location and all proposed streets,with approved street
names,lot arrangements and property lines.
XVI. The City shall not issue any building permit for the construction of any building,structure,or
improvement on the Property until all requirements listed in this Exhibit C have been
satisfactorily addressed by Developer.
XVII. No failure of the City to comply with any term,condition,covenant or agreement herein shall
subject the City to liability for any claim for damages,costs or other financial or pecuniary
charges.No execution on any claim.,demand,cause of action or judgment shall be levied
upon or collected from the general credit,general fund or taxing powers of the City.
XVIII. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Property,Developer
shall h lot roperty
anently
demarcate the location of the boundary of the conservationeasement
line or comer with permanent four-foot tall posts. A 2 1/2 by 6 inch sign or decal reading
"Scenic/Conservation Easement Boundary,City of Eden Prairie",will be affixed to the top of
the post
EDIT D
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-THE COVE 2M ADDITION
EROSION CONTROL POLICY-AUGUST 1,1997
1. All construction projects permitted by the City of Eden Prairie which results in the temporary
disturbance of vegetative or non-vegetative surfaces protecting soils from erosion require the
use of Best Management Practices(BMP's)as outlined in the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency's manual,Protecting Water Quality in Urban.Areas,to mitigate the impact of erosion
on wetland and water resources. The City Engineer or the Director of inspections may
impose special conditions to permits which stipulate erosion control procedures and/or direct
the installation of erosion control features or the clean up of erosion at construction sites.
Permits affected by this policy include all grading permits,building permits,and permits for
the installation of utilities.
2. All erosion control systems stipulated in the permit application shall be installed prior to the
issuance of the permit. Supplemental erosion control systems ordered by the City Engineer
or the Director of Inspections shall be installed within 48 hours of that order.
3. The applicant must maintain all erosion control systems in a functional condition until the
completion of turf and/or structural surfaces, which protect the soil from erosion. The
applicant must inspect erosion control biweekly and immediately after each rainfall event of
S inches or more_ Needed maintenance shall be performed within 48 hours.
4. Best Management Practices(BMP's)shall be utilized at all construction sites to minimize the
trackage or spillage of soil on public streets or highways. BMP's may include,but are not
limited to,rock construction entrances,washing stations,frequent cleaning of streets adjacent
to the construction site or limiting operations when site conditions are unmanageable.
Trackage or spillage of soil on a public street or highway must be cleaned by power sweepers
within the time frame stipulated in the permit special conditions or as ordered by the City
Engineer or the Director of Inspections.
5. If erosion breaches the perimeter of a construction site, the applicant shall immediately
develop a clean up and restoration plans, obtain the right-of-entry from the adjoining
property owner, and implement the clean up and a restoration plan within 48 hours of
obtaining the adjoining property owner's permission. in.the event eroded soils enter onto or
are tracked or spilled on a public street,highway,sidewalk or trail,the applicant shall remove
the soil material and thoroughly sweep the street or sidewalk surface within four hours. If
eroded soils enter,or entrance appears imminent,into wetlands or other water bodies,clean
up and repair shall be immediate. The applicant shall provide all traffic control and flagging
required to protect the traveling public during the clean up operations.
6. When an applicant fails to conform to any provision ofthis policy within the time stipulated
in a written notification,the City may take the following actions:
a. Withhold.the .scheduling of inspections and/or the issuance of a Certtfica te of
Occupancy or other approvals.
b. Direct the correction of the deficiency by City personnel or separate contract.
C. Withhold the issuance of building permits
d. At its option,institute and prosecute an action to enjoin violations of this Agreement
and/or an action to specifically enforce performance of this Agreement
The issuance of a permit constitutes a right-of-entry for the City or its contractor to enter
upon the construction site for the purpose of correcting deficiencies in erosion control.
All costs, including but not limited to, attorneys'fees and engineering fees incurred by the
City in correcting erosion control deficiencies or enforcing this policy shall be reimbursed by
the applicant. All invoices for erosion control correction shall be due and payable within 30
days: Invoices not paid within 30 days shall accrue interest at a rate of 1%per month or the
highest legal rate.
Each charge for correction oferosion deficiencies shall be a lien upon the property to which
the permit applies. Invoices more than 30 days old on September 30 or any year or on any
other date as determined by the City Engineer or the Director of Inspections may be assessed
against the property. As a condition of the permit, the owner shall waive notice of any
assessment hearing to be conducted by the City, concur that the benefit to the property
exceeds the amount of the proposed assessment and waive all rights by virtue of'Minnesota
Statute 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of the assessment.
I,We,The Undersigned,hereby accept the terms and conditions of the Erosion Control Policy dated
August 1, 1997 as set forth and agree to fully comply therewith,to the satisfaction of the City of
Eden Prairie,Minnesota
By: By:
Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature
DEVELOPMENT NAME: Lot: Block:
OWNER INFORMATION OWNER(PRINT):
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP
ty
EXIMIT E
DEVELOPMENT AGREE
MENT THE COVE 2ND ADDI
TION
TION
AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT MADE THIS day of ,2003,between the City
of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, (the "City"} and Richard A., and Joanne LaMettry (the
!SV Wnern). -
A. The Owner holds legal and equitable title to property described as
,Hennepin County,Minnesota,which property is the
subject of this Agreement and is hereinafter referred to as the"Property".
B. The owner desires to develop the property in such a manner that relies upon the City's
trunk.utility system,including trunk sanitary sewers,trunk watermains,wells,elevated storage facilities
and a water treatment plant(all of which is hereafter referred to as the"improvement").
C. The parties hereto desire to enter into an Agreement concerning the financing of the
construction of the improvements all of which will inure to the benefit of the Property.
AGREEMENTS
IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:
l. The Owners consent to the levying of assessments against the Property in the amount of
$4,933.24 for the Improvements.
2. The City's assessment records for the Property will show the assessments as a"pending
assessment"until levied.
held at which hearing or
o ehl t b
3. The Owners waive notice of any assessment hearing g
hearings the assessment is to be considered by the City Council and thereafter approved and levied.
4. The Owners concur that the benefit to the Property by virtue of the Improvements to be
constructed exceeds the amount of the assessment to be levied against the Property. The(hvner waives
all rights it has by virtue of'Minnesota Statute 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity
of the assessments, or the procedures used by the City in apportioning the assessments and hereby
releases the City,its officers,agents and employees from any and all liability related to or arising out of
the imposition or levying of the assessments.
15
OWNER CITY OF EDEN PRAIR]E
A Minnesota Municipal Corporation
Richard A.LaMettry
By:
Joanne LaMettry Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
By:
Cott H.Neal, City Manager.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HfENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2003,
by Nancy Tyra-Lukens,the Mayor,and Scott H.Neal,the City Manager,of the City ofEdenPrairie,a
Minnesota municipal corporation,on behalf ofthe corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MMMSOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HMgNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2003,by Richard A_,and Joanne LaMettry,husband and wife.
Notary Public
THis 1NsTRVMENT wAs DRAFMD BY:
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344
EXHIBIT F
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—THE COVE 2m'ADDITION
CONSERVATION/SCENIC EASEMENT
THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made this day of ,2003 by and
between Richard A_, and Joanne LaMettry, husband and wife, and Theodore R. Vickerman, an
individual, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,a Minnesota
municipal corporation,hereinafter referred to as"City'
WIIEREAS,Grantor is the fee owner of land located in Hennepin County,Minnesota,more
fully described in Exhibit A:, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said land hereinafter
referred to as "the Property";and,
WHEREAS, Grantor has marketable title to the Property, free and clear of all liens,
mortgage,and encumbrances, except:
WHEREAS,Grantor and City wish to enter into an agreement which will grant to the City a
conservancy/scenic easement for conservation and preservation of the terrain and vegetation,and to
prohibit certain destructive acts thereon,over that portion of the Property as described in Exhibit$,
hereinafter referred to as the"Basement Area", attached hereto;
NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the premises contained herein,it is agreed by the
parties as follows:
I. Grantor hereby conveys to City and its successors and assigns a conservation and
scenic easement in, under, on, and over the "Easement Area", and City hereby
accepts such conveyance.
2. The following terns and conditions shall apply to the Easement Area:
A. The Easement Area shall be preserved predominantly in its natural condition.
No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be planted or removed from the
Easement Area without the prior written consent of the City. The City will
consider removal of noxious weeds, as defined by Minnesota Statutes
Sections 18.76-18.88,, upon submission and approval of a Vegetation
Management Plan. No vegetation cutting,fertilizer application or placement
of turfgrass, such as Kentucky bluegrass, shall occur within the Easement
Area
l �
B. Wetland buffer monuments must be placed at the boundaries of the wetland
buffer strip as shown on Exhibit C. Removal of the wetland buffer strip
monuments is not allowed
C. No building,road,sign,billboard,utility,or other structures shall be placed
in the Easement Area without the prior written consent of City.
D. No trash,waste,or other offensive material,soil, or landfill shall be placed
upon or within the Easement Area without the prior written consent of the
City.
E. No change in the general topography of the Easement Area landscape,
including,but not limited,to excavation,dredging,movement,and removal
or placement of soil,shall be allowed within the Easement Area without the
- prior written consent of the City.
F. Grantor may maintain minimal access to the lake shore and one dock through
the wetland buffer strip area. The Grantor must submit a Vegetation
Management Plan to the City delineating the size,type and location of access
as well as the proposed vegetation management plan for this area_
3. With respect to the Easement Area,Grantor represents and warrants as follows:
A. That Grantor has marketable title free and clear of all liens,encumbrances
and mortgages.
B. That Grantor has not used,employed,deposited,stored,disposed of,placed
or otherwise allowed to come in or on the Easement Area, any hazardous
substance, hazardous waste, pollutant, or contaminant, including, but not
limited to,those defined in or pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§9601,et_seq.,or Minn.
Stat., Sec. 115B.01, et seq. (such substances, wastes, pollutants, and
contaminants hereafter referred to as"Hazardous Substances");
C. That Grantor has not knowingly allowed any other person to use, employ,
deposit, store, dispose of, place or otherwise have, in or on the Easement
Area,any Hazardous Substances;
D. That, to Grantor's knowledge,no previous oviner, operator or possessor of
the easement area, deposited, stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise
allowed in or on the Easement Area any Hazardous Substances;
Grantor agrees to indemnify,defend and hold harmless City,against any and all loss,
costs,damage and expense,including reasonable attorney's fees and costs that City
incurs because of the breach of any of the above representations or warranties and/or
resulting from or due to the inaccuracy or falsity of any representation or warranty
�g
herein.
4. Grantor agrees to maintain the Easement Area subject to the provisions stated herein.
5. The duration of this easement his perpetual and shall bind and inure to the benefit of
the parties,their successors,and assigns.
6. Nothing contained herein shall impair any right of City now held or hereafter
acquired to construct or maintain public utilities in or on the Easement Area.
1
IN WI'I`NESS WHEREOF,the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be
executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
GRANTOR CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Richard A.LaMettry Fy T -L or
Joanne LaMettry Scott H.Ne4Cian er
Theodore R-Vickerman
STATE OF ME'4NESOTA )
)Ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
�•�
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thi� day.Of 2003,d the Ci Manager of the City
by Nancy Tyra-Lukens and Scott H.Neal,respectively the Mayor an ag
of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation,on behalf of said corporation.
KATHLEEN A- POSTA
NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA
aar cAmnfion Eat„s�n 91.2oos Notary Public
x
STATE OF M1NNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day Of ,2003,
by Richard A.LaMettry and Joanne LaMettry,husband and wife.
Notary Public
STATE OF ME- NESOTA )
)ss.
i COUNTY OF gENNEPIN ) Say
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me of 2003,
by Theodore R. Vickerman,an individual,
Public
JANE E.HOVINt)
NOTARY PUBLIC-NIINNESOTA
Alp Camm�n Expires Jei�3t.2005
v It
CID
EXHIBIT A
"TEE PROPERTY"
EX MIT B.
"EASEMENT AREA"
EXHIBIT C
"EASEMENT AREA"DIAGRAM
�^� ! PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
usr aeass arcs s v,orn ea r a" / EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
unmis me ncnaw emcn s to
�"�"" " `k THE COVE 2ND ADDITION LOTS 12 8 13, BLOCK 1
THE COVE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN.
EXISTING LOT AREAS:
r LOT 12 52,900 50. FT. 1.214 ACRES
eexaren:rn,x �\ 'tie, e LOT 13 87,600 80. FT. 2.011 ACRES
'LOT i
ens nown wm \\ `yh.. P Y,4
%rr eRYANr by` \\ NT CqK PROPOSED LOT AREAS:
m er naP ME __ _ LOT 1 47,600 80. FT. 1.090 ACRES
CAsen.xssouro+ar, c 1e4t `sue LOT 2 41,300 SO. FT. 0.948 ACRES
KE "`eMOjproronr--, 4�� LOT 3 51,700 80. FT. 1.167 ACRES
ueeis.w�� ��_ �m e
eo e Y \ DEVELOPER:
r Y , -— �ry .tea y` 1 RICK LAMETTRY
acnaxeeasroanr ,:'�'�` L i, q��i — -� e`er,,`�\�ti`�" - •1r �I 18002 BEAR PATH TRAIL
eae mwlwe ru, A� 97ten s{ / J/ EDEN PRAIRIE MN 66347
' nnwe scussman .F¢'C* 'r r 1' S" 'ii 3-"�._.,�• 'eaes •�. J' /
'•ti A 1,
r. r eQy .• �uxrnaec d r / . .ti xµn„n wr- �`''-tea \ \._ ;w SURVEYOR: _
o"i 1 ? -r,erzcns Nro w 1 s`� /'I / 1i r-'t` F\1 s. 1 /f HTPO INC
e 91'}A0.,'', i anasro wlvl I C 1 1 f I \ I I y 1>scalme
—I,7.� 1.• ,�' / 7510 MARKET PLACE DRIVE
♦ br ,..a' # ro* i ' +' +.I I v 1 EVEN PRAIRIE MN 66344
LQ7
aeu-• k a^ /r'brN' �I���'" � /' �/ \ s!'"°,ws %I N" t�! '�/r ��aeetn.nr non n•ros
nls n[v-e»ee
/• \A\✓ ri- r' /g,/ !l rll ? .,.� r �+l I a j %/� .' ; l/: eh1�, wrtnumt wEnwo Hero cuaulmn
y '`� •�_,,y,�: >y r /3Y OFF �l t C r / I �,, L T/�.3•'/ ✓/K /.' / .4N r unan a nnw,e swnesr s,e sm
r/ Jir_ A r �ttlF' %/� ( lien esi n aaw m.rt
/ 7 r /r � r r �r9 f'\'• � _/,� rFe /ff su rt e ea rt ,e.ao sa rt
i. /. 1.. s. er� r, �/ t r •' siianswn u
xl» W f4 M s2n�no emu nolnl
,N•( 'a r' .4'1/', lgaido r M.ulu awem n r*J
.ids-'� ".'•-...a.^`s;e e,� � � `�- £ � ''�� � rri'"r� �� Y/ j wets:Ham euwlwn eezo
'�T• .. ww.r��. ! / ;&• % 1 msss nom tetanal arao
am pTf OF BFII RIWtlE
EXHIBIT B
I/ I113 _ — - �_�'� M`ns'E.1„y TMt Mmosm nwsr an wl s srls rc+K
•� a � -\.yO� ._ '� ='+a-•-��. 1 »ssrcsol s+nw nnnsm rm rslc mortcnan
141 t?MI
�� e snesi ~ 1' 1 CM OF
E
A C H / �rnw EVEN PMIRIE
\
— — — - — M nw,..., r.aw«.w nnnn..• PRELIMINARY
a.n. Tn M[nuwr iwr arl M
— — — eel N PLAT .
\ 1 M nernn w N M1N
N , LEGEND a nn s.w n nwer N xwn
i LOCATION MAP r r 4 w wn�x us uw
N r,Fbe�wr fmYw,nnlM
" LOT 12 AND A BLOCK 1
\ *� ® �sa�e31�; s ,a THE COVE
e
e0• HENNEPIN COUNTY,MN.
<—dsnw wan:uerr .n r:�TIv ..r 'j� I EnOhsero.Surwyare miss
e \ 11 —onew sw,ra.sense a s.—tnnus r,mr weal '�,w.r s':i e,.Sue: Lendwape Arden oss
' sx n.CAe3Les.�£Zsn3. � "'
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Public Hearings 02/01/05
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Community VII.B.
Development/Planning
Janet Jeremiah heritage Pines
Scott Kipp
Requested Action
Move to:
• Close the Public Hearing; and
Adopt the Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential
to Medium Density Residential on 1.65 acres; and
• Approve 1 st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on
1.65 acres; and
• Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat on 1.65 acres into 12 lots and road right-of-way;
and
• Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff and
Commission recommendations and Council conditions.
Synopsis
This is for 11 multiple-family units in two buildings.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission continued the project at its January 10, 2005 meeting for the
developer to add guest parking,provide additional tree replacement and revise the architecture.
The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council at
its January 24, 2005 meeting.
Background Information
A guide plan change from low density residential to medium density residential is required. This
request may have merit based on the following reasons:
• The medium density land use was anticipated when the adjacent multiple family
developments were approved.
• The medium density land use would be consistent with the surrounding multiple family
uses.
• Access to the site is from a private drive through the existing multiple family
City Council Agenda
Public Hearings—Heritage Pines
Page 2 of 2
development to the east.
• The density of the project is consistent with the adjoining area.
The plans have been revised according to the staff report and Planning Commission
recommendations.
The January 24, 2005 Planning Commission minutes are not available at this time.
Attachments
1. Resolution for Guide Plan Change
2. Resolution for Preliminary Plat
3. Staff Reports dated January 7, 2005 and January 21, 2005
4. , Location Map
5. Planning Commission minutes dated January 10,2005
6. Letter from Ms.Mary Erhard, dated January 5, 2005,with a response from Scott Kipp,
dated January 12, 2005
Heritage Pines
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN
WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the
Comprehensive Municipal Plan("Plan"); and
WHEREAS,the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review
and comment; and
WHEREAS,the proposal of Heritage Pines,by David Durst for 11 multiple-
family units in two buildings requires amendment of the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby adopts the amendment of the Plan subject to
Metropolitan Council approval as follows: 1.65 acres from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential, located at 17621 Pioneer Trail
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 1st day of
February, 2005.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
Heritage Pines
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF HERITAGE PINES FOR DAVID W. DURST
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Heritage Pines for David W.Durst stamp dated January 24,2005,
and consisting of 1.65 acres into 12 lots and road right-of-way, a copy of which is on file at the
City Hall,is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and
Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the I"day of February, 2005.
Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta,City Clerk
STAFF REP
ORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner
DATE: January 7, 2005
SUBJECT: Heritage Pines
APPLICANT: David Durst
FEE OWNER: Durst and Gans Realty,Inc.
LOCATION: 17621 Pioneer Trail(west of Wiedman Way)
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on 1.65 acres.
2. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 1.65 acres.
3. Site Plan Review on 1.65 acres.
4. Preliminary Plat on 1.65 acres into 12 lots, and road right-of-way.
i,
Staff Report—Heritage Pines"
January 7,2005
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows the property as low density residential for up to 2.5 units
per acre. Surrounding land use is medium density residential for up to 10 units per acre, and
zoned RM-6.5. Pioneer Trail and Bearpath golf course are to the north. The property is zoned
Rural.
GUIDE PLAN CHANGE
A guide plan change from low density residential to medium density residential is required. This
request is may have merit based on the following reasons:
• The medium density land use was anticipated when the adjacent multiple family
developments were approved.
• The medium density land use would be consistent with the surrounding multiple family
uses.
• Access to the site is from a private drive through the existing multiple family
development to the east.
• The density of the project is consistent with the adjoining area.
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN
The proposed plan is for 11 multiple family units in two buildings.
The proposed density is 6.6 units per acre. The RM-6.5 zoning district permits up to 6.7 units
per acre. Heritage Place to the east is 5.2 units per acre. The townhouse portion of Eden
Orchard to the south is 10.2 units per acre.
All lots meet the requirements of the RM-6.5 zoning district.
All proposed buildings meet the setback requirements of the RM-6.5 zoning district.
The plan meets the required parking of two parking stalls per unit with one enclosed is met. An
additional 5 parking stalls is provided for guest parking.
Twenty-seven feet of additional right-of-way is provided along Pioneer Trail to accommodate its
future widening.
The property will be served by extending Wiedman Way from the east. A cross access and
maintenance agreement has been recorded on this private road. No access to Pioneer Trail.will
take place.
Staff Report—Heritage Pines
January 7,2005
Page 3
GRADING AND TREE LOSS
The tree inventory shows 205 diameter inches of significant trees on site. Tree loss is 147
diameter inches. Tree replacement is 141 caliper inches. The plan provides 90 caliper inches.
The plan will need to be revised for an additional 51 caliper inches of tree replacement.
DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
Storm water will be piped to an existing NURP pond located to the east of Dell Road. The pond
has been sized to accommodate the storm water from this site. The storm sewer will be privately
owned. Therefore, a maintenance agreement with the adjacent homeowner's association will be
needed.
Sanitary sewer and water will be provided to the site from Wiedman Way.
LANDSCAPING
A total of 111 caliper inches of landscaping is required based on the size of the buildings. The
plan provides the required landscaping.
ARCHITECTURE
The five-unit and six-unit buildings are two-story lookouts 26 feet tall. City code permits
buildings up to 40 feet in the RM-6.5 zoning district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the following request:
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from low density residential to medium density
residential on 1.65 acres.
• Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 1.65 acres.
• Site Plan Review on 1.65 acres
• Preliminary Plat of 1.65 acres into 12 lots and road right-of-way.
This is based on plans dated December 21, 2004, and the following conditions:
1. Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall revise the tree replacement plan to
include an additional 51 caliper inches of tree replacement.
Staff Report-Heritage Pines
January 7,2005
Page 4
2. Prior to release of the final plat,the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility, and erosion control plans for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District.
B. Submit a storm sewer maintenance agreement with the adjacent homeowner's
association to the east for review and approval by the City Engineer.
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/landscaping surety equivalent to 150%of the cost of the
tree replacement/landscaping for 252 caliper inches.
B. Pay the Cash Park Fee.
Area Location Map - Heritage Pines
Project #2004-31
Address: 17621 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie, MN
m
FT
Bearpath Tr.
-- ) Pioneer Tr. -` . \ Wledman Wy.
Rath Pl.
FMI
/.
Hackberry Ct.
f Harlson Dr.
Dell Rd. �.
le
i r'
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott A.Kipp, Senior Planner
DATE: January 21, 2005
SUBJECT: Heritage Pines
APPLICANT: David Durst
FEE OWNER: Durst and Gans Realty, Inc.
LOCATION: 17621 Pioneer Trail(west of Wiedman Way)
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential on 1.65 acres.
2. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 1.65 acres.
3. Site Plan Review on 1.65 acres.
4. Preliminary Plat on 1.65 acres into 12 lots, and road right-of-way.
Staff Report Heritage Pines
January 21,2005
Page 2
BACKGROUND
This project was continued at the January 10, 2005 Planning Commission with direction from the
Commission to revise the plans as follows:
1. Add more guest parking and split the parking between the east and west sides of the site.
2. Incorporate additional tree replacement as recommended in the staff report.
3. Revise the building architecture to be more consistent with the surrounding multiple
family housing.
GUEST PARKING
The parking has been revised to add two additional parking stalls. Four stalls are now located on
the west end of the site and four stalls on the east end of the site.
GRADING AND TREE LOSS
The tree inventory shows 205 diameter inches of significant trees on the site. Tree loss is 147
diameter inches. Tree replacement is 141 caliper inches. The plan provides for 79 caliper inches.
The plan is 62 inches below the required mitigation for tree loss.
The plan indicates that 9 trees on the property totaling 71 inches will be transplanted on site. The
developer will need to bond for these trees to provide adequate funds should they fail to live. The
bonding requirement will be incorporated into the landscape bonding for the project.
ARCHITECTURE
The proponent has prepared new elevations to more accurately depict the proposed buildings
than what was presented at the January IO h meeting. The garage doors have also been changed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the following request:
• Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from low density residential to medium density
residential on 1.65 acres.
• Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 1.65 acres.
• Site Plan Review on 1.65 acres
• Preliminary Plat of 1.65 acres into 12 lots and road right-of-way.
This is based on revised plans stamp dated January 19,2005, and the following conditions:
Staff Report-Heritage Pines
January 21,2005
Page 3
1. Prior to release of the final plat,the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water runoff; utility, and erosion control plans for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District.
B. Submit a storm sewer maintenance agreement with the adjacent homeowner's
association to the east for review and approval by the City Engineer.
2. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading.
B. Install erosion control on the property, as well as tree protection fencing at the
grading limits in the wooded areas for trees to be preserved as part of the
development. Said fencing shall be field inspected by the City Forester prior to any
grading.
3. Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the proponent shall:
A. Provide a tree replacement/landscaping surety equivalent to 150%of the cost of the
tree replacement/landscaping for 252 caliper inches.
B. Pay the Cash Park Fee.
APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,JANUARY 10,2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks,Larry Kacher,Vicki Koenig, Kathy
Nelson,Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray
Stoelting, Jon Stoltz, William Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox,Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Al Gray, City Engineer
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Julie Krull,Recording Secretary
B. HERITAGE PINES (2004-31)by David W.Durst. Request for Guide Plan Change
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 1.65 acres;Zoning
District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 1.65 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.65 acres; and
Preliminary Plat of 1.65 acres into 12 lots and road right-of-way. Location: 17621
Pioneer Trail.
David Durst, developer, stated that he has been building homes in Eden Prairie
since 1976 and to compete against the other builders in the area his company
needs to develop their own property. They would like to build 11 units in 2
buildings; a five-plex and a six-plex. In order to do that, they need to rezone.
Eric Johnson, landscape architect, displayed-an overhead picture of the proposed
development. He stated that this project would take access off the existing
Wiedman Way. There is no access proposed at Pioneer Trail. He stated that their
objective is to get the units as far away as possible from Pioneer Trail. In addition
to tree planting,they are proposing to transplant a number of existing trees on the
property out towards Pioneer Trail to get that screening off the roadway. Mr.
Durst displayed an overhead picture depicting the building elevation. Mr.Durst
stated that they are proposing 2 buildings with a row-housing concept. Garage
and front entries would be on the front elevation. There are gables on the
buildings and units are in and out to give an offset in design. There is a Dutch hip
on the two ends and rear elevation mirrors with two more gables.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10,2005
Page 2 of 5
Franzen stated that this piece of property is adjacent to land that is already guided
as medium density residential and the proposed density of the project is consistent
with the density of the Eden Orchard project which is south and west of this site,
and the project of the townhouses,which is directly to the east. The development
plan that they have conforms to the requirements of the RM6.5 zoning district,
which is the zoning of the adjacent parcels. Franzen stated that they have one
minor technical modification to the tree-replacement plan prior to the City
Council meeting, and that modification is to add 51 more caliber inches of
replacement to the plan. Franzen also addressed a letter that was received after
the packet was distributed. The letter is from Mary Erhard,who resides at 17580
Wiedman Way. There were four items that were raised in her letter, ranging from
the number of real estate signs on the corner of Pioneer Trail to whether or not
this project will participate in maintenance of the private road;which they are
obligated to do by recorded cross-access agreement. Ms.Erhard was also
concerned with the speed of the traffic because of her concern for the children in
the townhouses. The Staff will prepare a formal letter to Mary Erhard and a copy
will be placed in the Planning Commission packet for the next meeting.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Stoelting addressed the Board for questions. There was none.
Stoelting asked Mr. Durst and Mr. Johnson that if the plan needed to revised for
an additional 55 caliber inches of tree replacement,would there be a problem with
that.
Mr.Johnson stated that they plan to deal with that revision and work closely with
the City to accomplish this. He also stated that they plan to transplant a number
of existing spruce trees on the site.
Stoltz asked Franzen if six stalls at a 1/2 stall per unit was typically normal for
guest parking in parking lots.
Franzen stated that historically it was the average for this type of project.
Stoltz stated that he does not like the look of the buildings and feels they look like
a barn. He stated he would like to see more detail, pictures, and building
materials.
Mr.Durst stated that their buildings are all in the developmental stages and they
want to build affordable housing. He stated that in order to do that,there has to
be some constraints of what is put together. Their vision was to have vinyl lap
siding on the building and shakers up by the gable ends. Mr.Durst stated that
they would have the timber-lined shingles for the roof and that the garage doors
would have more of a carriage type look.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10,2005
Page 3 of 5
Stoltz asked if there would be any outside lighting. Mr. Durst stated that there
would be lighting on the front of the garages and recessed lighting in the front
entryways.
Stoltz stated that he could not comprehend what the final project will look like by
what material was presented tonight.
Stoelting stated that the architectural drawings are too conceptual and
would like to see a finished product.
Sutherland questioned the transplanting of the trees on the site and also what kind
of tree sizes the project proponent had in mind.
Mr.Johnson responded by stating that the transplant trees are 6"ash that exist
more down in the lower corner of the site. He stated there is basically anywhere
from 6-10" spruce; generally 18-20 ft. in height. Mr. Johnson.stated that he has
previously transplanted trees of that size at the Wayzata Medical Clinic.
Sutherland asked Mr. Durst what he meant by affordable housing.
Mr. Durst stated that affordable housing would be between$325,000 and
$350,000.
Sutherland stated that he is interested in more detail of what the building is
intended to look like.
Nelson questioned the visitor parking and asked if more parking could be put
outside of the second building.
Mr.Johnson stated that from a grade standpoint, it looked like they would have
the opportunity to add additional spaces.
Nelson stated that this would be something well worth doing.. She also questioned
the design of the garage and stated that the front of the building does not look like
the back; that they look like they are two different buildings.
Tim Nelson, architectural designer working on this project, stated that this is a
cottage style unit that is a very popular design. He stated that it consists of a lot
of cedar shake shingle and trim boards. Mr.Nelson said that this look is very
popular and that this is the character and charm that they are going after. The
garage doors are also cottage style; not the look of a barn. Mr. Nelson also stated
that the idea of the garage is to pull out the garage doors to get a three
dimensional relief to the buildings. He stated that the gables are prevalent with
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10,2005
Page 4 of$
this design. They will be adding planter boxes to soften the landscaping. Mr.
Nelson suggested bringing in photos of existing projects at the next meeting.
Seymour questioned the Staff about the road that is located in this project;
that there is no turn-around for emergency vehicles at the end but that it is located
in the middle. He asked if this was a standard layout for this type of project.
Gray responded that this is a typical layout for private streets in this type of
development and that the adjoining development has a cross-access agreement
that exists between the existing development and this property. He stated that this
is consistent with the way the City expected the property to be developed in
relationship to the property to the east that was developed a few years ago.
Stoelting stated that three of the Board members were not satisfied with the
drawings that were displayed tonight and asked them what they would like to see
changed.
Stoltz stated that he would like to see more detail in the drawings.
Nelson stated that she is a bit more satisfied with the project but would also like to see
more detail.
Stoelting responded by stating that Mr.Nelson could come back to the next Planning
Commission meeting in two weeks and bring the photos at that time.
Mr. Durst stated that it will work to come back in two weeks,but asked if they could also
proceed with the City Council meeting.
Stoelting asked Franzen what the Commission would be proposing; either approval
with subsequent review or a continuance.
Franzen stated that if the Commission is not satisfied with the plan it would be a
continuance until the next meeting;therefore pushing the City Council meeting back two
weeks until the third week in February.
Nelson stated that she is comfortable with the change in the plan and does not see any
reason to get the project off schedule with the City Council_
Stoelting asked the Commission if there was anyone who was not satisfied with the guide
plan. There was no response. Stoelting summarized that the Commission supports the
guide plan but would like a better rendition of the building.
Seymour stated that it is reasonable for the Staff to ask for more detail in the drawings
and materials used.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10,2005
Page 5 of 5
Stoelting asked if there was any more guidance to give to the project proponent.
Rocheford stated that on page A5 of the plan,the drawing of the plan contains
inconsistencies and not very much detail.
Mr. Durst stated that he would bring better drawings and photos at the next meeting.
Stoltz stated that even though this architectural design is popular in Minnetonka, it might
not fit into the surrounding neighborhood.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Stoltz, to recommend continuance to the
January 24, 2005, Planning Commission Meeting and to revise the development
plans as listed below:
Updated drawings with more detail to the buildings and a parking plan. Motion
carried 6-0.
Stoelting asked if there were any additional questions.
Mr.Durst asked Nelson what she would like to see in parking.
Nelson stated that she would like to see 6 and 2, or 6 and 3,but stated just more
parking is important.
Franzen stated that in regards to architecture of a multiple family dwelling, code
allows the City to require compatibility in terms of materials, color and
construction detail with other buildings in the area.
•
�Gz/Yr-GC/ V..C�D`1't-Q.P/!/ � � U"3�-J �./v ✓V c��z�a/
/No
A a-:./
law
.�'.��' ..u-� ,� � ,ram a���� •
15
'Aal
ZI
January 12, 2005
Ms. Mary Erhard
17580 Wiedman Way
Eden Prairie,MN 55347
SUBJECT: Heritage Pines
Dear Ms. Erhard:
I am in receipt of your January 6, 2005 letter regarding the Heritage Pines project. This letter
was also provided to the Planning Commission at its January 10, 2005 public hearing on the
project. Staff has reviewed the questions raised in your letter and offers the following
responses.
1. Regarding signs and there location, two signs would be permitted on the development
site; one sign for marketing the property(32 sq. ft.) and one sign for the contactors doing
the project(32 sq. ft.). In addition, off-site signs are permitted by code on private
property with the permission of the land owner. Off-site signs in public right-of-way are
not permitted. Wiedman Way is a private road and is regulated by the Association. To
request enforcement for off-site signs you would need to contact the Zoning
Administrator.
2. Regarding maintenance of Wiedman Way,this street is private and the maintenance
responsibilities are specified in the cross access agreement between the properties. Each
association will maintain the portion of Wiedman Way within their respective property.
3. Regarding access, Wiedman Way is the access to the site based on the cross access
agreement between the properties entered into August 20, 2001 by Ryland Group, Inc.,
and the Horsfall's to provide for future access at time of development.
4. Regarding speed control on Wiedman Way, management of this street within Heritage
Place is provided by your homeowner's association in accordance with association
bylaws. The City has no authority to regulate private streets.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Kipp
Senior Planner
Cc: Alan Gray, City Engineer
Michael Franzen, City Planner
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Payment of Claims February 1, 2005
DEPARTMENU/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Sue Kotchevar, Office of the Payment of Claims VIII.
City Manager/Finance
Requested Action
Move to: Approve the Payment of Claims as submitted(roll call vote)
Synopsis
Checks 137844 - 138204
Wire Transfers 2168 - 2179
Background Information
Attachments
City of Eden Prairie
Council Check Summary
2/1/2005
Division Amount
General 49,532
100 City Manager 3,935
101 Legislative 4,712
110 City Clerk 2,653
III Customer Service 8,758
112 Human Resources 347
113 Communication Services 6,041
114 Benefits&Training 9,729 .
115 Risk Management 158
116 Facilities 59,536
117 City Center 48,576
130 Assessing 360
131 Finance 5,182
132 Social Services 12,037
133 Community Development 265
135 Information Technology 52,109
136 Wireless Communication 1,075
137 Economic Development 5,156
150 Park Administration 1,716
151 Park Maintenance 13,304
153 Athletic Programs 1,603
154 Community Center 7,292
156 Youth Programs 1,710
158 Senior Center 1,631
159 Recreation Administration 20
160 Therapeutic Recreation 1,043
161 Oak Point Pool 1,365
162 Arts 260
163 Outdoor Center 47
180 Police - 8,343
183 Civil Defense 376
184 Fire 5,441
185 Animal Control 126
186 Inspections 60
200 Engineering 133
201 Street Maintenance 18,485
202 Street Lighting 54,839
203 Fleet Services 24,447
204 Equipment Revolving 52,060
303 Cemetary Operation 7
304 Senior Board 69
308 E-911 1,481
312 Recycle Rebate 20
316 WAFTA 943
418 HRA 2002A Lease Revenue Bonds 868,069
424 G.O.Improvement Bonds 2003D 697,989
503 Utility Improvement 149,403
506 Improvment Bonds 1996 1,535
509 CIP Fund 48,967
511 Construction Fund 7,053
601 Prairie Village Liquor 93,506
602 Den Road Liquor 168,306
603 Prairie View Liquor 78,206
605 Den Road Building 1,018
701 Water Fund 70,326
702 Sewer Fund 208,727
703 Storm Drainage Fund 1,476
803 Escrow Fund 1,138
806 SAC Agency Fund 129,641
807 Benefits Fund 458,753
Report Totals 3,451,095
City of Eden Prairie
Council Check Register
2/l/2005
Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit
2169 725,000 US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSN Principal HRA 2002A LEASE REVENUE BONDS
2169 143,069 US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSN Interest HRA 2002A LEASE REVENUE BONDS
2170 645,000 US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSN Principal G.O.Improvement Bonds 2003D
2171 52,989 US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSN Interest G.O.Improvement Bonds 2003D
2172 75,472 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS Benefit payments Health and Benefits
2173 12,950 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 Deferred Compensation General Fund
2174 19,303 ORCHARD TRUST CO AS TRUSTEE/CU Deferred Compensation General Fund
2175 31,711 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE State Taxes Withheld Health and Benefits
2176 156,408 WELLS FARGO MINNESOTA N A Benefit payments Health and Benefits
2177 524 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE Sales Tax Payable General Fund
2178 117,444 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE Sales Tax Payable General Fund
2179 13,451 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MN Benefit payments Health and Benefits
1.37844 200 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING Other Contracted Services Classes/Programs/Events
137845 18 AMES CONSTRUCTION INC Deposits Escrow
137846 7 ANDERSON,KATHRYN Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons
137847 12 BAKER,NANCY Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons
137848 6 BEST,JANE Lessons&Classes Pool Lessons
137849 29 DAVID MODROW HOMES INC Cash Over/Short General Fund
137850 177 DMX/MINNEAPOLIS Other Contracted Services Prairie Village Liquor Store
137851 12 DONELON,MARY Program Fee Outdoor Center
137852 282 EDINA,CITY OF Printing Therapeutic Rec Administration
137853 310 FINANCE AND COMMERCE Dues&Subscriptions Communication Services
137854 148 GE CAPITAL Other Rentals General
137855 14 GENZ RYAN PLUMBING&HEATING Cash Over/Short General Fund
137856 21 GR MECHANICAL INC Cash Over/Short General Fund
137857 32 GREEN LEAF PROP AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund
137858 62 GUERTIN,LOUIS Outside Water Sales Water Enterprise Fund
137859 1,950 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFI Board of Prisoner Police
137860 2,160 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Board of Prisoner Police
137861 100 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Licenses&Taxes Engineering
137862 71.3 IND SCHOOL DIST 272 Transportation Teen Programs
137863 32 KOTTKE,CAROL Program Fee Health and Fitness
137864 78 KRUEGER,ANDREA AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund
1.37865 5 LINSCOTT,KAREN Program Fee _ Cummins House Special Events
137866 220 MEA Conference Expense General Facilities
137867 3,013 METRO SALES INCORPORATED* Other Rentals General
137868 103 MIDWEST PLAYSCAPES Equipment Repair&Maint Round Lake
137869 43 MILLER,MARIA Lessons&Classes Pool Lessons
137870 1,854 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR Garnishment Withheld General Fund
137871 5,255 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BEVERAGE A Dues&Subscriptions Prairie View Liquor Store
137872 1,753 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP Electric Street Lighting
137873 60 MLEEA Dues&Subscriptions Police
137874 12 NIELSEN,JULIE Lessons&Classes Pool Lessons
137875 139 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services
137876 144 PROUTY,MARY Events/Admission Fee Ice Show
137877 3,815 QWEST Telephone City Hall-CAM
137878 324 REILING CONSTRUCTION Building Permits General Fund
137879 200 STOLTZ,VERONICA Refunds Environmental Education
137880 1,496 US POSTMASTER-HOPKINS Postage Water Accounting
137881 20 YAHOO! Other Contracted Services Police
137882 177 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVI Other Rentals Fire
137883 178 DMX/MINNEAPOLIS Other Contracted Services Prairie View Liquor Store
137884 3,150 FORE MECHANICAL,INC Contract Svcs-HVAC Public Works/Parks
137887 2,405 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY Equipment Parts Fleet Services
137888 400 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Office Supplies General
137889 213 HULES,JILL Awards City Manager
137890 1,161 METRO SALES INCORPORATED* Other Rentals General
137891 129,641 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Due to Other Governments SAC Agency Fund
137892 8,152 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER Building Surcharge General Fund
137893 9,717 MINNESOTA UC FUND Unemployment Compensation Employee Benefits
137894 1,615 MRPA Conference Expense Recreation Administration
137895 3,818 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES Dues&Subscriptions City Council
137896 121,895 PARROTT CONTRACTING INC Other Contracted Services Utility Improvement Fund
137897 344 PITNEY BOWES INC Other Rentals General
137898 3,498 RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE CO Disability Ins Employers Health and Benefits
137899 128 SBSIINC Software Information Technology
I37900 46 SCHUMACHER,LANA Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons
Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit
137901 20 SHAH,BHAVNA Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons
137902 6 SOLHEID,JOSEPH Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons
137903 4,477 SOUTHDALE YMCA YOUTH DEVELOPME Other Contracted Services Housing,Trans,&Human Sery
137904 5 STAR TRIBUNE Dues&Subscriptions Den Road Liquor Store
137905 29 STATE OF MINNESOTA Operating Supplies Fleet Services
137906 459 TARGET CENTER Special Event Fees Preschool Events
137907 350 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT Awards City Manager
137908 220 TIME WARNER CABLE Cable TV Fire
137909 550 VERIZON DIRECTORIES CORP Advertising Prairie View Liquor Store
137910 12 VOLTZ,JEANETTE Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons
137911 110 WAGNER,SUE Lessons&Classes Ice Arena
137912 65 WIPPERFURTH,ANITA Lessons&Classes Ice Arena
137913 6 WOOCK,LINDA Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons
137914 146 ZIEMER,BARBARA Wages No Benefits Elections
137915 198 ACE ICE COMPANY Misc Non-Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store
137916 149 AMERIPRIDE LINEN&APPAREL SER Repair&Maint.Supplies Prairie View Liquor Store
137917 86 ARCTIC GLACIER INC Misc Non-Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store
137918 4,925 BELLBOY CORPORATION Wine Imported Prairie View Liquor Store
137919 123 CAT&FIDDLE BEVERAGE Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
137920 84 D'VINE WINE DISTRIBUTORS Wine Imported Prairie Village Liquor Store
137921 5,685 DAY DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store
1.37922 674 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Transportation Den Road Liquor Store
137923 12,334 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY Beer Den Road Liquor Store
137924 96 EXTREME BEVERAGE Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store
137925 154 GETTMAN COMPANY Misc Taxable Prairie View Liquor Store
137926 756 GRAND PERE WINES INC Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store
1.37927 564 GRAPE BEGINNINGS Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
137928 4,090 GRIGGS COOPER&CO Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store
137929 845 HOHENSTEINS INC Beer Den Road Liquor Store
137931 21,572 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store
137932 5,985 MARK VII Beer Prairie View Liquor Store
137933 485 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
137934 5,457 PAUSTIS&SONS COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
137935 4,831 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Wine Domestic Prairie View Liquor Store
137936 132 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Operating Supplies Den Road Liquor Store
137937 957 PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
137938 11,890 QUALITY WINE&SPIRITS CO Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store
137939 647 SPECIALTY WINES AND BEVERAGES Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store
137940 11,941 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer Den Road Liquor Store
137941 2,240 - WINE COMPANY,THE Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store
137942` 2,814 WINE MERCHANTS INC Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store
1.37943 1,030 WORLD CLASS WINES INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
137944 270 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING Other Contracted Services Classes/Programs/Events
137945 307 ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURNITURE Supplies-General Bldg Police City Center
137946 6 ANDERSON,LISA Lessons&Classes Pool Lessons
137947 82 AT&T Pager&Cell Phone Water System Maintenance
137948 495 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC. Contract Svcs-Snow Removal Den Bldg.-CAM
137949 180 BROWNING,RYAN Mileage&Parking Information Technology
137950 698 DISH NETWORK Cable TV Ice Arena
137951 740 EDEN PRAIRIE FIREFIGHTER'S REL Union Dues Withheld General Fund
1.37952 60 ENSTAD,TERRANCE Mileage&Parking Inspections-Administration
137953 462 ESBENSEN,GEORGE Operating Supplies Fire
137954 1,053 FAMILY&CHILDRENS SERVICE Other Contracted Services Housing,Trans,&Human Sery
137955 5,667 FAMILY&CHILDRENS SERVICE Other Contracted Services Housing,Trans,&Human Sery
137956 152 FRESCO INC Operating Supplies Street Maintenance
137957 303 G&K SERVICES Clothing&Uniforms Street Maintenance
137958 4 GOPALAKRI,NARAYANAN Lessons&Classes Oak Point Lessons
137959 331 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC Other Contracted Services Water System Maintenance
137960 30 HARDING,MARY Program Fee Outdoor Center
137961 1,710 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Postage Elections
137962 973 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Repair&Maint.Supplies Community Center Maintenance
137963 119 JAMES,CARY _ Lessons&Classes Ice Arena
137964 5 LINSCOTT,KAREN Program Fee Outdoor Center
1.37965 360 MAAO Conference Expense Assessing
137966 13 MENARDS Repair&Maint.Supplies Community Center Maintenance
137967 401 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR Garnishment Withheld General Fund
137968 130 MN DEPT.OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY Licenses&Taxes Fire Station 42
1379,,69 140 MSSA Dues&Subscriptions Street Maintenance
137970 20 MUNICIPALS Dues&Subscriptions Human Resources
137971 840 NUR,ZINA- Instructor Service Housing,Trans,&Human Sery
137972 373 OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN Operating Supplies Police
Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit
137973 158 PARK NICOLLET CLINIC Other Contracted Services Risk Management
137974 293 PENNINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DE Deposits Escrow
137975 54 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services
137976 1,050 RECM Special Event Fees Red Hat
137977 28 SECRETARY OF STATE Operating Supplies Community Development
1.37978 119 TEND,TANIA Lessons&Classes Ice Arena
137979 573 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
137980 5 UPS Postage Water System Maintenance
137981 209 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEVUE Pager&Cell Phone Park Maintenance
137982 12 WILLIAMS,TERRI Lessons&Classes Pool Lessons
137983 58 WITTHUHN,KIM Memberships Community Center Admin
137984 30,122 XCEL ENERGY Electric City Hall-CAM
137985 20 ASSOCIATION OF RECYCLING MANAG Dues&Subscriptions Recycle Rebate
137986 48,656 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MARKETING I Gas City Hall-CAM
137987 519 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVI Other Rentals General
137988 91 GE CAPITAL Other Rentals General
1.37989 20 GR MECHANICAL INC Mechanical Permits General Fund
1,37990 118 LAMBERT,BOB Operating Supplies Parks Administration
137991 206,373 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME Waste Disposal Sewer Utility-General
137992 225 MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASS Dues&Subscriptions Police
137993 40 MINNESOTA COMMERCE DEPARTMENT Licenses&Taxes General
137994 30 MINNESOTA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE Licenses&Taxes Park Maintenance
137995 258 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT Travel Expense Police
137996 17 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER Postage Communication Services
137997 200 SCOTT COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT Deposits Escrow
137998 9 TIME WARNER CABLE Cable TV Fire
1,37999 1,400 TOTAL REGISTER Equipment Repair&Maint Den Road Liquor Store
138000 93,199 XCEL ENERGY Electric Street Lighting
Dues&Subscriptions City 138001 625 BREHM GROUP,THE p Council
138002 833 CROWN MARKING INC Other Contracted Services Police
138003 163 DEGREE,BETH Mileage&Parking Aquatics&Fitness Admin
138005 3,500 DORSEY&WHITNEY LLP Bond Issue Costs Capital Impr./Maint.Fund
138006 180 FBINAA Dues&Subscriptions Police
138007 213 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MN Training Supplies Fire
138008 140 FMAM Dues&Subscriptions Fire
138009 150 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE Conference Expense Records Management
138010 18 HAUGH,MARY JANE Program Fee Red Hat
138011 516 HENNEPIN COUNTY I/T DEPT Software Maintenance Information Technology
138012 103 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Operating Supplies Community Development
138013 500 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Licenses&Taxes Police
138014 181 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC Operating Supplies Water Treatment Plant
138015 943 LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST Insurance WAFTA
138016 509 MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING LTD Supplies-Electrical Ice Arena Maintenance
138017 189 MAROTTA,VIC Instructor Service Fall Skill Development
138018 178,214 MEDICA CHOICE Medical Bills Prepaid Health and Benefits
138019 960 METRO SALES INCORPORATED* Other Rentals General
138020 743 NATIONAL MARTIAL ARTS ASSOCIAT Instructor Service Fall Skill Development
138021 408 PETTY CASH Office Supplies General Facilities
1,38022 210 ROGERS,FREDERICK Operating Supplies Winter Theatre
138023 16 STATE OF MINNESOTA Operating Supplies Fleet Services
138024 45 STIKA,EVELYN Program Fee Red Hat
138025 133 ACE ICE COMPANY Misc Non-Taxable Den Road Liquor Store
138026 122 AMERIPRIDE LINEN&APPAREL SER Repair&Maint.Supplies Prairie Village Liquor Store
138027 69 ARCTIC GLACIER INC Misc Non-Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store
138028 6,629 BELLBOY CORPORATION Liquor Den Road Liquor Store
138029 76 BRW ENTERPRISES Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store
138030 6,926 DAY DISTRIBUTING Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store
138031 9,137 EAGLE WINE COMPANY Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store
138032 4,785 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY Beer Prairie View Liquor Store
138033 215 GETTMAN COMPANY Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store
138034 1,275 GRAPE BEGINNINGS Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store
138035 20,048 GRIGGS COOPER&CO Liquor Prairie View Liquor Store
138037 8,233 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store
138038 14,228 MARK VII Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store
138039 597 MASS BAR-MATE CORP Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store
138040 615 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store
138041 309 MORAN USA,LLC Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store
138042 2,370 PAUSTIS&SONS COMPANY Wine imported Prairie Village Liquor Store
138043 3,322 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Misc Taxable Den Road Liquor Store
138044 387 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Misc Taxable Prairie Village Liquor Store
138045 4,369 =PRIOR WINE COMPANY Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit
138047 21,109 QUALITY WINE&SPIRITS CO Wine Domestic Prairie Village Liquor Store
138048 4,080 SPECIALTY WINES AND BEVERAGES Wine Imported Prairie View Liquor Store
138049 14,188 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Beer Prairie Village Liquor Store
138050 905 WINE COMPANY,THE Wine Imported Prairie Village Liquor Store
138051 923 WINE MERCHANTS INC Wine Domestic Den Road Liquor Store
138052 86 WINE SOURCE INTERNATIONAL Wine Imported Den Road Liquor Store
138053 395 WORLD CLASS WINES INC Wine Imported Prairie Village Liquor Store
138054 43 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER Operating Supplies Park Maintenance
138055 101 ABLE HOSE&RUBBER INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant
138056 235 ACTIVAR Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant
138057 503 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI Training Supplies Water System Maintenance
138058 503 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY Office Supplies General
138059 696 AOI ELECTRICAL INC Capital Under$2,000 Fleet Services
138060 2,417 ARAMARK SERVICES INC Other Contracted Services City Manager
138061 294 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138062 2,295 ATLAS FOUNDATION CO Other Assets Outdoor Center
1.38063 2,938 AUDIOVISUAL INC Other Assets Communication Services
138064 529 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138065 454 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Ice Arena Maintenance
138066 62 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY Operating Supplies Senior Board
138067 63 t BER.TELSON OFFICE PLUS Office Supplies Water Utility-General
138068 149 BLACK&DECKER,USPTG Small Tools Water System Maintenance
138069 379 BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS Supplies-General Bldg Police City Center
138070 25 BOYER TRUCKS SO.ST.PAUL Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138071 2,950 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Testing-Soil Boring Construction Fund
138072 6,951 CARGILL SALT Salt Snow&Ice Control
138073 180 CLAREYS INC Protective Clothing Water Treatment Plant
138074 240 CLASS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS Operating Supplies Community Center Admin
I38075 783 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS Safety Supplies Water Treatment Plant
138076 18 COPY EQUIPMENT INC Operating Supplies Street Lighting
138077 2,914 CORPORATE EXPRESS Office Supplies General
138078 329 CROWN MARKING INC Other Contracted Services City Council
138079 7,273 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY Chemicals Water Treatment Plant
138080 1,011 CY'S UNIFORMS Clothing&Uniforms Fire
138081 287 DALCO Operating Supplies Community Center Maintenance
138082 1,936 DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant
138083 85 DELEGARD TOOL CO Equipment Repair&Maint Park Maintenance
1.38084 4,609 DELL Computers Information Technology
138085 5,460 DIVERSE BUILDING MAINTENANCE Janitor Service City Ctr-Tenant Direct Costs
139086 1,908 DUDA PLUMBING SERVICE INC Contract Svcs-Plumbing Fire Station 42
138087 187 EAGLE DRY GOODS Miscellaneous Communication Services
138088 73 EARL F ANDERSEN INC Signs Traffic Signs
138089 8,141. EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC Equipment Repair&Maint Traffic Signals
138090 307 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC Repair&Maint.Supplies Fire
138091 113 ERICKSEN,LIZ Other Contracted Services Basketball
138092 180 ESCHELON TELECOM INC Equipment Repair&Maint Telephone
138093 133 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138094 2,112 FASTSIGNS Repair&Maint.Supplies Ice Arena
138095 558 FERRELLGAS Motor Fuels Ice Arena Maintenance
138096 819 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MN Training Supplies Fire
138097 2,023 FORCE AMERICA Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138098 647 FORE MECHANICAL,INC Contract Svcs-HVAC Prairie View Liquor Store
138099 441 FRERICKS,KOREY Other Contracted Services Basketball
138100 117 G&K SERVICES Clothing&Uniforms Fleet Services
138101 924 G&K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant
138102 458 GARELICK STEEL CO INC Operating Supplies Emergency Preparedness
138103 85 GE CAPITAL Other Rentals General
138 t04 246 GRAFIX SHOPPE Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138105 1,197 GRAINGER Supplies-HVAC Community Center Maintenance
138106 57 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC Building Repair&Maint. Park Maintenance
138107 6,788 HANSEN T 40RP PELLINEN OLSON Other Contracted Services Storm Drainage
138108 314 HARMON AUTOGLASS Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services
138109 10,508 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC Motor Fuels Fleet Services
138110 5,541 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT Chemicals Water Treatment Plant
138111 121 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE Training Supplies Fire
138112 195 HOBART CORPORATION Other Contracted Services Garden Room Repairs
138113 735 HOLMES,TOM Other Contracted Services Volleyball
138114 240 HOSPITALITTY SERVICES COPR Other Contracted Services Garden Room Repairs
138115 220 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS Small Tools Traffic Signals
138116 105 HUEBSCH Ed Center-Contr.Svcs City Ctr-Tenant Direct Costs
138117 133 IND SCHOOL DIST 272 Transportation Preschool Events
Check# Amount Vendor/Explanation Account Description Business Unit
138118 1,441 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant
138119 2,732 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR Other Hardware Capital Impr./Maint.Fund
138120 3,037 INTEREUM INC Supplies-General Building City Center Operations
138121 364 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF M Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138122 954 ITS A KEEPER Awards City Manager
138123 154 J H LARSON COMPANY Building Repair&Maint. Den Road Liquor Store
138124 52,608 J-CRAFT DIV OF CRYSTEEL MFG IN Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138125 147 JAMIESON COMPANY THE Recreation Supplies Volleyball
138126 121 JANEX INC Cleaning Supplies Community Center Maintenance
138127 168 KALLIN,LAWRENCE E Other Contracted Services Volleyball
138128 835 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC Safety Supplies Water Treatment Plant
138129 341 LAKELAND ENGINEERING EQUIP CO Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant
138130 126 LEROY JOB TRUCKING INC Other Contracted Services Animal Control
138131 2,029 LIFEGUARD STORE INC,THE Clothing&Uniforms Oak Point Operations
138132 266 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC Lubricants&Additives Fleet Services
138133 30 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138134 7,510 MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION INC Improvement Contracts Utility Improvement Fund
138135 5,071. MAJESTIC LOG HOMES AND PRODUCT Building Capital Impr./Maint.Fund
138136 144 MARKS EDEN PRAIRIE BP Equipment Repair&Maint Police
138137 38,674 MASYS CORPORATION Software Maintenance Information Technology
138138 732 MENARDS Operating Supplies Street Maintenance
138139 146 METRO FIRE Repair&Maint.Supplies Fire
138140 739 METROPOLITAN FORD Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services
138141 8,139 MILLER DUNWIDDIE Building Capital Impr./Maint.Fund
138142 648 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPARTMENT Software Maintenance Information Technology
138143 295 MINNESOTA CONWAY Operating Supplies Fire
138144 20 MINNESOTA DEPT OF LABOR AND IN Licenses&Taxes Water Treatment Plant
138145 320 MINNESOTA GLOVE INC Safety Supplies Fleet Services
138146 23 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG Licenses&Taxes Sewer Utility General
138147 81.5 MOORE MEDICAL CORP Safety Supplies Fire
138148 174 NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL Training Supplies Fire
138149 143 NFPA Dues&Subscriptions Fire
138150 454 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138151 125 NORTHLAND BUSINESS SYSTEMS Office Supplies Police
138152 5;134 NORTHSHORE ADVISORS LLC Audit&Financial Finance
138153 247 NUCO2 INC Chemicals Pool Maintenance
138154 51 OLSEN COMPANIES Small Tools Traffic Signals
138155 542 OSI BATTERIES INC Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138156 144 PC MALL Other Hardware Information Technology
138157 511 PEPSI COLA COMPANY Merchandise for Resale Concessions
138158 9,164 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY Equipment Repair&Maint Water Treatment Plant
138159 4,354 PRECISION TURF&CHEMICAL INC Chemicals Park Maintenance
1,38160 136 PRINTERS SERVICE INC Other Contracted Services Ice Arena Maintenance
138161 358 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138162 4,118 RMR SYSTEMS INC Other Contracted Services Utility Improvement Fund
138163 245 ROOT O MATIC Contract Svcs-Plumbing Ice Arena Maintenance
138164 19 ROYAL TIRE INC Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services
138165 220 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138166 77 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant
138167 150 SCRAP METAL PROCESSORS INC Waste Disposal Fleet Services
138168 217 SIWEK LUMBER&MILLWORK INC Building Materials Street Maintenance
138169 266 SNAP-ON TOOLS Small Tools Fleet Services
138170 302 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL I Software Information Technology
138171 59 SOUND CLIPS INC Video&Photo Supplies Communication Services
138172 327 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING- Employment Advertising Human Resources
138173 3,446 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING- Advertising Prairie View Liquor Store
138174 499 SPIRIT APPAREL&STUFF Clothing&Uniforms Pool Operations
138175 115 SPORTS WORLD USA INC Repair&Maint.Supplies Ice Arena
138176 292 SPS COMPANIES Repair&Maint.Supplies Water Treatment Plant
138177 5,121 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Other Contracted Services Economic Development
138178 78 STANDARD SPRING Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138179 1,482 STEVENS ENGINEERS Building Capital Impr./Maint.Fund
138180 218 STONEBROOKE Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138181 3,439 STREICHERS Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138182 898 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138183 7,901 SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS Other Contracted Services Utility Improvement Fund
138184 611 SUN NEWSPAPERS Legal Notices Publishing City Clerk
138185 25,438 SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION Legal Capital Impr./Maint.Fund
138186 100 SUSA Dues&Subscriptions Water Utility-General
138187 6,000 SYMPRO INC Miscellaneous Information Technology
138188 177 TERMINAL SUPPLY CO Equipment Parts Street Lighting
Check# Amount Vendor I Explanation Account Description Business Unit
138189 2,126 TESSMAN SEED CO Chemicals Park Maintenance
138190 8,395 TKDA Design&Engineering Utility Improvement Fund
138191 333 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO Lubricants&Additives Fleet Services
138192 598 TWIN CITY WINDUSTRIAL CO. Equipment Parts Water Treatment Plant
138193 326 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Clothing&Uniforms Police
138194 1,634 UNITED LABORATORIES Cleaning Supplies Sewer Utility-General
138195 670 UNITED STATES MECHANICAL INC Contract Svcs-Plumbing Ice Arena Maintenance
138196 73 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC Operating Supplies Traffic Signs
138197 24 US CAVALRY Clothing&Uniforms Police
138198 175 VESSCO INC Operating Supplies Water Treatment Plant
138199 1,401 WATSON CO INC,THE Merchandise for Resale Concessions
138200 874 WENCK ASSOCIATES INC Other Contracted Services Storm Drainage
138201 65 WEST WELD Equipment Parts Fleet Services
138202 442 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT Equipment Repair&Maint Fleet Services
138203 523 WHEELER HARDWARE COMPANY Contract Svcs-Security Fire Station 42
138204 2 027 YALE MECHANICAL INC Equipment Repair&Maint Den Road Liquor Store
3,451,095 Grand Total
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 02/01/05
SECTION: Ordinances and Resolutions
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: IX.
Community Development/Planning Rescinding Approval of The IX.A.
Janet Jeremiah Cove 2°d Addition
Scott A.Kipp
Requested Action
Move to:
• Approve,2nd Reading of the Ordinance rescinding,the Planned Unit Development District
Review within the R1-22 Zoning District of The Cove 2nd Addition for three lots, approved
by the City Council on June 3, 2003.
Synopsis
Theodore R. V ickerman, Jr., a Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Theodore R.
Vickerman,one of the property owners,requests that all the approvals granted by the City for
The Cove 2nd Addition be rescinded thus restoring the property to its zoning and subdivision
status before the Development Agreement and all approvals were granted by the City. Rick
LaMettry,the other owner of the property does not object to this request.
Attachments
1. Ordinance rescinding the PUD District Review
2. Original attachments:
• Ordinance No. 15-2003-PUD-6-2003
THE COVE 2ND ADDITION—RESCINDING
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. -2005
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, RESCINDING
APPROVAL 15-2003-PUD-6-2003, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF
LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN
PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the
"land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof..
Section 2. That action was duly initiated to rescind the action taken by the City
Council adopting Ordinance No. 15-2003-PUD-6-2003 which amended the land within the RI-
22 Zoning District for a three lot subdivision.
Section 3. The land shall no longer be subject to the terms and conditions of that
certain Development Agreement dated as of June 3, 2003, entered into between Richard A., and
Joanne LaMettry, and Theodore R. Vickerman and the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter
"Development Agreement")-
Section 4. Rescission of Ordinance 15-2003-PUD-6-2003 is hereby adopted,
restoring zoning of the land to its status before adoption of Ordinance 15-2003-PUD-6-2003 by
the City.
Section 5. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated
verbatim herein.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and
publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the
1st day of February, 2005, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form
as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 1st day of
February, 2005.
ATTEST:
Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens,Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on
EXHIBIT A
Lot 12 and 13,Block 1, THE COVE,Hennepin County, MN.
THE COVE 2ND ADDITION
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 15-2003-PUD-6-2003
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CERTAIN LAND WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT, AMENDING THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the
"land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be amended within
the R1-22 Zoning District 15-2003-PUD-6-2003 (hereinafter"PUD-6-2003-R1-22).
Section 3. The land shall be subject,to the terms and conditions of that certain
Development Agreement dated as of June 3, 2003, entered into between Richard A. LaMettry
and Theodore R. Vickerman and the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter "Development
Agreement"). The Development Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-6-2003-
R1-22, and are hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD-6-2003-R1-22 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide
Plan of the City.
B. PUD-6-2003-R1-22 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified
environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City
Code that are contained in PUD-6-2003-R1-22 are justified by the design of the
development described therein.
D. PUD-6-2003-R1-22 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its
construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence
upon any subsequent unit.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is
amended within the R1-22 District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit
Development 6-2003-R1-22, and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City
Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly.
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation and Section 11.99 entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated
verbatim herein.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and
publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the
6th day of May, 2003, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as
attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 3rd day of June,
2003.
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on
EXHIBIT A
PUD Legal Description — The Cove 2nd Addition
Legal Description Before Final Plat
Lot 12 and 13, Block I,THE COVE, Hennepin County, MN.
Legal Description After Final Plat
Lot 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, THE COVE 2nd ADDITION, Hennepin County,MN.
THE COVE 2ND ADDITION-RESCINDING
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE NO. -2005
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA,
RESCINDING APPROVAL 15-2003-PUD-6-2203, AMENDING THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION11.99 WHICH, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA,
ORDAINS:
Summary: This ordinance allows the rescinding of action taken by the City
Council adopting Ordinance No. 15-2003-PUD-6-2003 which amended the land located
at 6861 and 6871 Beach Road within the R1-22 Zoning District for a three lot
subdivision, thus restoring zoning of the land to its status before adoption of Ordinance
15-2003-PUD-6-2003 by the City. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full
legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie Sun Current on the
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Reports of Officers February 1,2005
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Community Development
Janet Jeremiah MCA Study Update XHI.C.1.
Synopsis:
The Major Center Area(MCA) Study is underway. Traffic data is being prepared from recent
intersection counts, and results from the first task force meeting have been compiled(see
attached meeting summary and survey results).
The next meeting of the MCA Task Force is scheduled for Tuesday,February 22,2005 from
4:00-5:30 pm at the Colony senior residence. The meeting will focus on developing a vision for
the future of the area(e.g., How much density is appropriate where? Should additional housing
be encouraged in the area? What will be the assumptions regarding major future transportation
improvements?).
The initial feedback of the Task Force will be discussed at a joint meeting of the City Council
and Planning Commission on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 from 5:00-6:30 pm in the Heritage
Rooms. The Task Force is then expected to meet again in late March to prepare for the first
MCA Study Open House, which is tentatively planned for early April.
Background Information:
The MCA Study is a comprehensive study of the area within and surrounding the Prairie Center
Drive and Valley View ring roads. Key components of the study include transportation,way
finding, land use and redevelopment. The Task Force is composed of residential, business and at-
large stakeholders. The Task Force plays a vital role by providing input regarding a future vision
for the area. The study is expected to be completed within about 9 months and to provide
recommendations for implementing proposed land use plans and transportation improvements
(roads,trails/sidewalks, and wayfinding)through the year 2030. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. is
the lead consultant for the study.
Attachments:
➢ Summary of the November 22, 2004 MCA Study Task Force Meeting
➢ MCA Study Task Force and Staff Survey Results
MCA Study Task Force
Eden Prairie Mail Community Room
4:00-5:30 PM - November 22, 2004
Task Force Staff & Consultants Unable to Attend
Bill Burgess Marie Cote Jim Beaudette
Walmart Consultant (SRF) SEARS
Melody benyer Mike Franzen Terry Pearson
Lincoln Parc City Planner Resident-Weston Woods
Ed Flaherty Greg Ingraham Louise Pelcher
Lariat Companies Consultant(Ingraham& Assoc) Resident-The Colony
Gary Melony for Scott Janet Jeremiah
Anderson- Emerson Process Community Development Director
Pat Mulqueeny David Lindahl
Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Manager
Mark Namtvedt Scott Neal
Noreseman OiI City Manager
Kathy Nelson Randy Newton
Community Planning Board Traffic Engineer
Greg Olson Barry Warner
Anchor Bank Consultant(SRF)
Patrick Sarver Mary Zilka
Hartford Group Administrative Asst.
Ray Stoelting
Community Planning Board
Alan Young
General Growth
Scott Neal, City Manager welcomed all of the MCA participants. He gave a brief history of the
area and thanked everyone for making an investment in the City of Eden Prairie.
MCA Study Task Force
Page Z
Janet Jeremiah, Community Development Director stated one of the reasons this task force exists
is the need to get information from the community. We need to know what your vision is, what you
see as the issues? What types of land uses would you like to see in the future? Should there be
more residential? What types of businesses are desirable? Jeremiah knows one of the major issues
is wayfinding to and from the Major Center Area. There are also traffic and transportation issues.
These include, not only automobile, but pedestrian/bicycling and transit too. Some other issues
Jeremiah mentioned she heard in the opening vision/goals from different Task Force Members and
is looking forward to the survey you will be filling out at the end of the meeting today. If you see,
anything missing on the survey, please also share that feedback on the survey.
Barry Warner shared the Project Approach with the Task Force. Warner presented the tasks of
the Task Force briefly in conjunction with the handout. The tasks are as follows:
1. Examine the edges of the Major Center Area. Should the boundaries be changed?
Z. MCA Analysis - What are some of the constants?
3. Establish the MCA Vision - look at the big picture/vision
4. Identify the alternatives
5. Evaluate the alternatives and options- What works?
6. Review, Evaluate, Revise and Recommend
7. How do we get there?
8. Everyone get on board
Warner then shared the Project Schedule, which suggests starting our work from November
through early January. The preferred scheme commences in February. February and March -
Evaluation will start. Traffic or way finding is seen as the biggest issue. Our Implementation
strategy will be ready to go the first part of the summer and we will see a document unfold. There
will be many different elements of stakeholder involvement. The Task force will meet at least 4
times with individuals and consultants. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will be meeting during
the course of the study. We may undertake a community survey, and will want feedback from you.
There will be two different community open houses, a newsletter or website updates, and
presentations to the Planning Board and City Council. Your feedback is critical.
Jeremiah talked about the charge of the task force. She went over the mission and explained how
the mission can help develop the Task Force vision. The City does see this as a priority area of
Eden Prairie and we see that there are going to be many initiatives to reach our vision of the
future. Jeremiah went over the group's ground rules - this will not be a formal voting committee.
She believes a better way to guide a study of this sort is through your feedback, comments,and
sometimes written feedback during these meetings. Our goal would be to reach general consensus.
It will be tough to reach complete unanimity with a group this size but hopes that at the end of the
study, no one will be opposed to the recommendations.
MCA Study Task Force
Page 3
The recommendations will be presented to the Planning Board and City Council. Any Task Force
comments will become public information and will be passed along to the Planning Board and Council,
so please keep that in mind. All opinions will be treated with respect and will be given fair
consideration, and we trust you will treat each other with the some respect.
Mike Franzen,City Planner passed out the land use map from 30 years ago and from today. Some
things that were important from this document were the road system.It was first called the Ring
Road, now it is called Prairie Center Drive and Valley View Road. The plan has developed over the
years and it does seem to follow the vision of long ago. How did we do? From a developer plan, we
accomplished all of our goals, but now we have to take a look at where you want this to go in the
future? What will this area be like in another 30 years?
Randy Newton,City Engineer discussed the transportation issues with the Task Force. Newton
shared handouts of recent and future transportation projects. During the last few years, the City
has spent a lot of money in the MCA. Newton would like feedback on future projects. For example
one of the future projects is improving the intersection of TH212/Singletree Drive, he wondered
if improving the intersection is enough? The City could figure out access to the regional system on
a small scale, which could be done with way finding, and signage. On bigger scale, we have talked
about adding ramps on the highways coming out on 212, would it be worth the money? What about
the roadway continuity? The number of traffic signals? The dual-purpose functions of these
roadways are mobility and access. The roads we have tend to provide one of those functions very
well, but the roads that have to do both tend to have a breakdown. Marie Cote, SRF Consultant
will collect the traffic data and use a computer system that figures out the traffic forecasts.
Cote mentioned a forecasting model from the Met Council, and an intersection model. The Task
Force suggested to review the models together and see if that will work in the future.
David Lindahl, Economic Development Manager, discussed business opportunities for Eden Prairie.
Businesses are looking to develop here, especially retail As part of the study, we want to improve
a few things and we know traffic and way finding is part of that. Retail vacancies are very low
right now, which is a very positive sign. The office vacancy is larger, mainly due to Best Buy
relocation. Housing has been strong and continues to be strong. More housing plans are being
discussed right now. Eden Prairie is also a desirable place to dine out and more upscale restaurants
are interested in coming here. Some of the city's challenges and redevelopment sites mentioned by
Lindahl are the Food and Fuel location, which has been closed for a year and a half. Frank's
Nursery is closing. Mervyn is closed. Hops have closed. Zing's closed shortly after opening. The
Southwest Station is doing very well overall. These closings could lead to opportunities. Lindahl
talked about the many "What ifs?" Does Eden Prairie have or want a downtown? Are there uses
that are missing from the area? For example,furniture options, Circuit City, Restoration
Hardware, and many retail options that Eden Prairie does not have. What should we be looking for
or seeking out?
MCA Study Task Force
Page 4
Greg Ingraham, SRF Consultant passed out the Task Force Survey asking members to elaborate on
your goals in this questionnaire. They would like to use this survey to set the initial direction for
this task force. Ingraham asked the Task force to please remember it is rare in our lifetime to
think about what will happen in the next_25 years. The world around us changes, and we want this
to be a blue-sky view, but also grounded.
Jeremiah explained there would be a lapse until February 2005 before we meet again while staff
and the consultants review survey results and collect traffic data. The 4:00-5:30 PM time seems
to work, but we may move the location, so please pay attention to that detail in future
communications.
&AGomm.Dev\MCA Study\MCA Task Force Minutes\Task Force Minutes 11-22-04.doc
Major Center Area Task Force Study
Survey Results - December 2004
1. What positive qualities of characteristics does the MCA present to the community and its market
area?
Task Force Members City Staff
• Because of the ring system,more than one-way to 0 Strong retail market
get places during high traffic times. • Attractive area with park/wetland
Relatively good access to transit opportunities. (2) 0 Lots of traffic can be good for business
• Close proximity to metro road system,with The upgraded mall
improvements in process. (2) Variety of restaurants
• Concentrated area in terms of intensity of use and Purgatory Creek Recreation Area
density of people. Central location within the community
High quality improvements and market interest for Presence of lakes
future development. (2) Access to regional transportation network
• Fairly stable business environment. Effective transportation system for those
• Well developed/landscaped/clean/neat and upscale familiar with the area
properties,not after thought buildings.(3)
• Prosperous look to Eden Prairie. Reflects
community as a whole.
The area has an energy of its own,there are
employment opportunities.
• The lack of land will limit development insuring
existing business good probability of long-term
success.
150 stores in one location-Convenience for banking,
shopping,entertainment,retail services. Great
job on the redesign! (7)
• The EP mall looks very upscale and is a success. (2)
• Relatively new construction,safety, handicap
accessible.
• There is a relative good mix of multi land use, but
this might be improved on. Need to look at the
location and numbers.
LOCATION, LOCATION,LOCATION
2. What land use, building or development issues and opportunities need to be considered by the study.
Task Force Members City Staff
• Not much vacant land left for either building or • Building density-height
addressing road issues. • How much retail is enough?
Support for mixed-use development • Exterior materials- incorporate new building
opportunities. materials into mix to help create more diversity.
• When approving the use of a parcel, make sure • Strong market for commercial- how do we
parking will be accommodating. incorporate more?
• We should be more proactive on what is available • Parking is limited.
building and use wise. • The possible conversion of industrial to
As a shopping district- need to have like commercial throughout the GTA.
businesses together with very good roadways for • The potential location of LRT and its associated
traffic. (2) parking needs.
• New business has to sustain the long-term • The leveling off of EP's population growth and
solution to the temporary problems we now have. our access to adjoining populations.
(2) . Piece-meal development- integration between
Flow of vehicles,pedestrian,ease of existing adjacent development is not always good.
entrances. It has to matter with the long-term • Development that doesn't or is outdated - Wal-
plan. mart,gas stations etc.,adjacent to TH 212.
• Next generation land use plan- where/when? • From a crime prevention standpoint,good
• Re-development on the West side of 212 -across visibility of any retail operations from roadways.
from Eden Prairie Center. This allows officers to detect potential crimes
• Density! Success of any urban area requires in progress and can prevent crime if would-be
residential living opportunities. perpetrators see us.
• Limited opportunities for incorporating the LRT
into the multimodal transportation network.
• Way finding off 494 to MCA (2)
• Cost benefit analysis of East bound ramp to 212
off 494
• Way finding within MCA to major destinations.
• Have we really made MCA pedestrian friendly?
When can we do to make people want to walk or
ride a bike around MCA?
• Would love to see drug stores in the area.
• Apparent disproportionate amount of high-
density housing within market.
• Infrastructure for/from other Western suburbs
who do not have a strong business district.
• How to integrate parks/recreational facilities
with shopping,restaurants, movies.
• Ped/Bicyle path around Anderson Lakes.
Redevelop Gelco/NCS Pearson to fit with the
residential around it.
3. Identify primary traffic, transit and circulation issues that exist.
Task Force Members City Staff
• Treat the whole area as a large mall,and put • Pedestrian connections needed.
business direction signs on corners. (2) • Access from Southbound 494 to Flying Cloud
• No major indicators of how to get from point A Drive.
to point B. Back to where I started from very • Access to EP Center.
difficult. (2) • Main line flow takes too long to get through the
• Difficulty giving directions, many get frustrated area.
and find it confusing. (2) • Topography and buildings inhibit direct visual
• Identify directional finding on how to get on 494 view of where you want to go.
or 212,and major through fares. (2) a Poor access to 494
• ' Clarity and transit forms, maps and information • East-West movement from one side of study
centers,way finding maps (used at the mall)(2) area to the other.
• Community knowledge for access to transit • 212 North of 494. It becomes small very
opportunities and alternatives, quickly.
Commuter VS Resident needs • Lack of roadway continuity
• I am not aware of any connection from • Little to no transit service
Southwest Station to EP Center and surrounding • Lack of pedestrian facilities
area. Might be a good thing to have. • Regional access
• More through roads that cut across the ring • Pedestrian crossing Prairie Center Drive from
area. the Library to the Mall area in the hours after
• 212 from Prairie Center Drive to Technology school at non-signalized locations.
Drive is very congested and too many long
duration signal lights. (2)
• There will likely be more synchronized lights.
A forward-looking opportunity for incorporating
LRT into the system.
• Good and inviting pedestrian connections into the
EPC.
• Westbound Prairie Center Drive access to
Preserve Blvd.and Southbound 212.
• Eastbound 494 direct access to 212.
• Accessibility from neighboring communities.
Uses should only be allowed to develop based on
what is available from a traffic standpoint.
• Prairie Center Drive right hand turn lanes are
not long enough and causes backups and accident
potential.
4. Do parking problems exist within the study area? If so, where and when?
Task Force Members city Staff
• ; Parking at the restaurants West of 212 off • Tower Square and Southwest Metro area during
Prairie Center Drive. Often cars are parked on the noontime.
the street. • Not that I'm aware of. (2)
• Lunchtime near restaurants very bad. a Mall during the holidays.
There will be issues with the new Best Buy All restaurants, for example Champps,Wildfire,
Redstone currently uses that as employee Redstone,etc. (2)
parking. • North lot of mall appears under use
• Problems seem to exist in the area of Champps, (opportunity for LRT Park&Ride)
Redstone, Old Chicago all have limited parking • Parking facilities for potential LRT station.
and over flow to neighboring businesses.
• Certain areas seem over parked while other
areas seem under parked,
• Lariat Center I conflict with Wendy's/Taco Bell
(all lack enough parking)
• Outside of Sears, Wildfire parking is getting
more crowded, maybe a ramp like Van Maur would
help.
• Parking is primarily focused upon individual
business facilities,with little cross use
opportunities.
• West side of mall to the South side is too far to
walk,especially in inclement weather.
• Not any that I am aware of.
5. What pedestrian or bicycle system improvements should be made?
Task Force Members City Staff
• More paths-we are not creating a new mode of • Connections- streetscape
transportation if we do not encourage walking or • Make connections to the mall
biking (Rails to Trails type of program) • Need a bridge to cross over Prairie Center Drive
• Pedestrian access to mall from the corner of and 212.
Preserve Blvd.,and Prairie Center Drive. There is • System needs to be completed.
a great deal of fast traffic there from the
housing South of there.
• What system(paths)is in place? There are a few
sidewalks but I cannot remember ever seeing a
bicyclist or a walker in the system. (2)
• Possible footbridges over 212 to business
facilities on West side. (From EP Center)
• Underground crossings of Prairie Center Drive,
even with lights its scary to cross that road.(2)
• Many recent improvements have been made by
developers,yet adjacent neighborhoods lack
sidewalks or similar tie ins. (2)
• Trail around Anderson Lakes- fully around.
6. Identify aesthetic, visual quality or development character issues and opportunities that currently
exist.
Task Force Members City Staff
• Old Chicago,Costco, Southwest Station have • Signage, banners, etc.
great aesthetics. I really like the look- Any new • Lack of public art
buildings should reflect some type of theme that • Lack of green space
compliments this. (2) • Lack of trees
• Tie area together with lighting,plantings/flowers • I would prefer taller,denser development to
and directional signs. create a more urban CBD-feel.
• Some of the buildings simply do not match others • More residential in study area needed.
in its vicinity. Flag Ship Corporate and the
Medical Buildings in that area match. The
building between Wal-Mart and Prairie Center
Drive seem to be more of a hodgepodge.
• Further embrace the lakes and natural resource-
amenities around the area.
• Think Big! What about large digital signs
depicting MCA events?
• Opportunities to sell business-advertising access.
• Create a cutting edge Las Vegas style"WOW"to
the area.
Avoid the old big box type structures. (2)
• Many areas (towns,etc) have City provided
plantings (landscaping)at major intersections to
enhance the overall appeal of area.
• Consistent fixture and architecture qualities but
need a noticeable element to bring it together.
(2)
7. What comparative commercial areas or projects exist within the Twin Cities that serve as a model
comparative for the MCA?
Task Force Members City Staff
• Centennial Lakes area of Edina(2) . Arbour Lakes- Maple Grove(3)
• Arbour Lakes is to a certain extent. I think • Excelsior&Grand in St.Louis Park(2)
Ridgedale with its secondary retail could be • Perhaps downtown Madison, WI- in the manner
viewed that way. (2)Perhaps Knollwood Mall area that lakes are exploited.
- major highways with roads that are more of a 50'h&France
wrap around Galleria in Edina
Excelsior on Grand- mix of commercial and
residential(2)
• New development in Blaine along 35.
Hopkins Main Street
• Mall of America
• The Lakes in Minneapolis
• I do not think there is anything much better.
Small changes become personal taste. I have
lived and worked in MCA for 20 yrs. It is ideal
to mix business and personal service needs.
• Shakopee downtown development.
Chanhassen- main street feel.
8. Identify key stakeholder groups (participants) that should be involved during the MCA planning
process.
Task Force Members City Staff
• EP residences. Not necessarily new to the area- • Task Force- Residents
it does take a while to figure out where • We've got them onboard.
everything is. • Southwest Metro
• The major employers not in the MCA loop. Their • At-large Resident or Two
employees need to get around and they need to 0 Not a need for community survey,get feedback
recruit employees. (3) at open houses.
• Business bankers,venture capitalists.
LRT representatives-transit people
• Being able to bring LRT down 494 from Mali of
America to EP Center would be huge!
• Need to talk to neighborhood groups that live in
the MCA and adjacent areas and groups that
have the MCA as a destination.(2)
Commuters (office employee's)
• Bar/restaurant owners,gasoline owners,grocery
owners, center owners,shopping center strip
owners.
• Higher end retailers/restaurants to understand
the demographics they desire.
9. Describe your long-term vision of an enhanced MCA.
Task Force Members City Staff
• Much the same as the last 20 years. However, • Great access, image,shopping and living
traffic patterned out so anyone can maneuver environment.
through our area and find their way around.(2) • Balance mainline VS cross line traffic flow.
• Redevelopment of area along 212. Addition of • Fly over ramp from 494 to Mall
restaurant near Valley View Road and Prairie 0 Parking ramps at the mall to promote more
Center. commercial use.
• A densely developed mixed-use area that is full • I envision it as the heart of our community.
of life and opportunities for residents and . The center of community related commerce.
visitors for shopping and recreation. • Our"downtown"
• Great traffic and street signage.(2)
• Signage that announces city events Las Vegas
style
• Signage that allows local retailers to advertise.
• Easier accessibility from 494.
• Strong viable business district used as regional
draw yet providing town center vitality.
• Vibrant,durable,well lit with class.
• Safety enhanced, handicap access, ease of
entrance and exit for shopping:
• An area to be modeled after.
Other comments:
Task Force Members
• Thank you so much. This is very important to our town. In particular to the MCA,I look at the last 20+
years and know we need some changes to accommodate the times were in as well as where we are going.
The future will be great if we plan it. Plan it right the first time. Let us look for positive improvements.
Improvements to east of commuting in and around the MCA. Whether it is signing, use of roads, bike and
walking paths to anything we might use from other successful towns.
• A statement of area could be made in the winter with lights (holiday) consistently all the area. Over
the holiday,season and our residents would recognize the area as an area. It would help the retail as well
Could be marketed to metro area. This would take many lights however. It might be worth it.
• I am amazed that Sever Peterson can get people to his maze every year and we cannot find Wal-Mart.
• Combine parks, retail and activity sites.
• Combine people shopping with people playing,exercising having fun. Closer to nature or natural settings. In
addition, it is important to try to integrate facilities for the arts. It is time for Eden Prairie to have an
arts center-something that attracts artists to do/perform/display their work. It has done a lot for
Hennepin Lake,and now NE Mpls.
• FOOD, FOOD, FOOD
• Pursue retailers with a more upscale flair: William Sonoma,Ampersand, Nordstrom's,Marshall Fields,
Cooks of Crocus Hill,Pottery Barn, Restoration Hardware.
• Restaurants: Sidney's, Big Bowl
&AComm.Dev\MCA Study\MCASurveyResults12.6.04.doc
12/9/2004
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Reports of Directors February 1, 2005
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM NO.:
Community Development ITEM DESCRIPTION:
David LindahUJanet Jeremiah Purchase Agreement- 7900 Mitchell Road(old XIII.G2.
police headquarters site)
Requested Action
Move to:
• Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a purchase agreement and other
documents including but not limited to a Warranty Deed and affidavits as are necessary to
complete the sale of a 2.3 acre site owned by the City and legally described as Lot 1,Block 1,
Wingate Hotel Addition, Hennepin County,Minnesota.
Synopsis
The Hartford Group, a development firm located in Eden Prairie,has submitted an offer to
purchase the old police headquarters site located on the southwest corner of Mitchell Road and
TH312/5 for a mixed use development. Hartford has agreed to pay the City its asking price of
$13/square foot on the net"developable"portion of the property(2.1 acres), or a total of
$1,189.188. The gross price per square foot is $11.87. The sale is expected to close 180 days
following the execution of the purchase agreement, provided they receive all the necessary
governmental approvals.
The proposed development concept could include up to four different land uses including:
restaurant, townhomes, retail, and office condos. Some of these uses would be vertically
integrated into multi-story buildings. The developer is acquiring both the City owned site and the
adjoining 2.8 acre site to the south, which is owned by a private group that had at one time
planned to develop a Wingate Hotel.
Attachments
Purchase Agreement
Final
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of 2005 between City of Eden Prairie, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (referred to as "Seller") and Legacy Holdings-NM LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company("Buyer").
RECITALS
Seller is the fee owner of certain real property located in Hennepin County,Minnesota,
containing approximately 2.3 acres, as legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Wingate Hotel
Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with all buildings and improvements
constructed or located on the Land in Eden Prairie, Minnesota and all easements and rights
benefiting or appurtenant to the Land(collectively,the"Real Property").
Buyer desires to purchase the Real Property from Seller, pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement.
Seller desires to sell the Real Property to Buyer,pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Sale of Real Property. Seller agrees to sell to Buyer and Buyer agrees to buy from
Seller the Real Property.
2. Purchase Price.The purchase price to be paid by Buyer to Seller is One Million
One Hundred Eighty-Nine Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Eight Dollars
($1,189,188.00).
3. Payment of Purchase Price. The Purchase Price shall be paid as follows:
3.1 Earnest Money. Fifty Thousand and no/100 Dollars($50,000.00) as earnest
money ("Earnest Money") which Earnest Money shall be held by First
American Title Insurance Company ("Escrow Agent") in an interest bearing
escrow account, pursuant to the Escrow Agreement attached hereto as
Exhibit A provided, however, that the fee for any such account shall be paid
by Buyer.
3.2 Closing Payment. One Million One Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand One
Hundred Eighty-Eight Dollars and no/100($1,139,188.00) in cash or by wire
transfer of U.S. Federal Funds to be received by Seller on or before 10:00
a.m. local time on the Closing Date.
Final
4. Contingencies. Unless waived by Buyer in writing, Buyer's obligation to purchase
the Real Property shall be subject to and contingent upon each of the following:
4.1 Representations and Warranties. The representations and warranties of Seller
contained in this Agreement must be true now and on the Closing Date as if
made on the Closing Date and Seller shall have delivered to Buyer at closing
a certificate dated the Closing Date, signed by Seller, certifying that such
representations and warranties are true as of the Closing Date (the "Bring-
down Certificate")
4.2 Performance of Seller's Obligations. Seller shall have performed all of the
obligations required to be performed by Seller under this Agreement, as and
when required by this Agreement:
4.3 Title. Title shall have been found acceptable by Buyer or made acceptable in
accordance with the requirements and terms of Section 10 below.
4.4 Phase I. Buyer shall have approved, in Buyer's sole discretion, a Phase I
Environmental Report (prepared in accordance with the current ASTM
standard for Phase I environmental site assessments) to be prepared with
regard to the Real Property by an environmental consultant reasonably
acceptable to Buyer (the "Phase I"). Buyer shall cause the Phase I to be
prepared at Buyer's cost and expense. Seller shall furnish to Buyer within
five (5) days of the Effective Date a copy of the March 15, 2000 Phase I
Environmental.Site Assessment prepared by LJM Group.
4.5 Testing. Buyer shall have determined, on or before the Contingency Date,
that it is satisfied with the results of and matters disclosed by the Phase I and
any other soil tests, engineering inspections, hazardous waste and
environmental reviews of the Real Property, all such tests, inspections and
reviews to be obtained at Buyer's sole cost and expense.
4.6 No Adverse Action. There shall not exist on the Closing Date any lawsuit,
governmental investigation or other proceeding challenging the transaction
contemplated in this Purchase Agreement, or which might adversely affect
the right of Buyer to own, develop, or use the Real Property after the Closing
Date for Buyer's intended use thereof for park and open space, nor shall any
such action have been threatened or instituted.
4.7 Survey. Buyer shall have prepared at its expense and be fully satisfied with
all matters shown in an ALTA survey (the "Survey") prepared by a
Registered Land Surveyor properly licensed to practice in the State of
Minnesota.
f
I�'
Final
4.8 Governmental Approval. No later than 180 days ("Inspection Period")
from the Effective Date, Buyer shall have obtained approval from the City
of Eden Prairie City Council of a Resolution for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review, I" Reading of an Ordinance for Planned
Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change Site Plan
Review pertaining to the Real Property. The Effective Date is the later
date both Seller and Buyer execute this Agreement. Seller, as the Owner
of the Real Property and not as a governmental entity, shall without
charge to Buyer cooperate in Buyer's attempts to obtain all such
governmental approvals. Seller shall further execute such rezoning
applications, plans, environmental worksheets and other documents as
may be required by governmental bodies to accomplish the foregoing. In
the event that all approvals specified above are not completed within the
Inspection Period,then the Inspection Period shall be extended, at Buyer's
option, for an additional forty-five (45) days (the "first Extension
Period") provided Buyer gives Seller written notice of its intent to extend
the Inspection Period and pays to the Seller an additional Twenty-Five
Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($25,000.00) prior to the expiration of the
Inspection Period, which amount shall not be credited against the
Purchase Price but shall be an addition to the Purchase Price (the
"Extension Payment"). Upon Buyer's payment of the Extension Payment,
the Initial Earnest Money and the Extension Payment, as defined above,
shall both become nonrefundable to Buyer.
The "Contingency Date" shall be that date which is twenty(20) days after the expiration of the
initial Inspection Period or any Extension Period. If any of the foregoing contingencies have not
been satisfied on or before the stated date or if no date is stated, on or before the Contingency Date,
then this Agreement may be terminated, at Buyer's option, by written notice from Buyer to Seller.
Such notice of termination may be given at any time on or before the Closing Date. Upon such
termination (a) Buyer and Seller shall execute a recordable written termination of this Agreement,
which shall include Buyer's quit claim of any interest in and to the Real Property, (b) the Earnest
Money and any interest accrued thereon shall be released to Buyer,and(c)upon such return; neither
party will have any further rights or obligations regarding this Agreement or the Real Property
except for the rights and obligations of indemnification set forth in Sections 5 and 17. Buyer shall
have the right to unilaterally waive any contingency by written notice to Seller.
5. Buffer's Access Investigation and Security.
5.1 Access and Investi gat ion_Seller shall allow Buyer, and Buyer's agents,
access to the Real Property without charge and at all reasonable times for the
purpose of Buyer's investigation and testing the same. Buyer shall pay all
costs and expenses of such investigation and testing and shall indemnify and
hold Seller and the Real Property harmless from all costs and liabilities
relating to Buyer's activities. Buyer shall further promptly repair and restore
any damage to the Real Property caused by or occurring during Buyer's
Final
testing and return the Real Property to substantially the same condition as
existed prior to such entry.
5.2 Buyer's Security. Prior to Buyer being allowed access to the Real
Property for any testing, investigation, or surveying, Buyer shall obtain
three written estimates for said services reasonably acceptable to Seller,
and shall tender to the Seller security equal to the total of the estimates of
the contractors selected by Buyer to perform said services. Such security
shall be in the form of cash or a Letter of Credit from a financial
institution acceptable to Seller (the "Security"), and shall be held in
escrow by Seller and shall be released by Seller upon tender of lien
waivers for all work performed on the Real Property. in the event liens or
other claims are filed against the Real Property, Seller may use the
Security to satisfy such liens or claims.
6. Closing. The closing of the purchase and sale contemplated by this Agreement(the
"Closing") shall occur on that date which is twenty (20) business days after the earlier of the
satisfaction of the last of the contingencies set forth in Section 4 or the date when Buyer shall give
notice to Seller that the contingencies which are to have been satisfied on the Contingency Date have
been waived or satisfied(the"Closing Date"). The Closing shall take place at 10:00 a.m. local time
at the offices of the City in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, or at such other place as may be agreed to.
Seller agrees to deliver possession of the Real Property to Buyer on the Closing Date.
7. Seller's Closing Documents. On the Closing Date, Seller shall execute and/or
deliver to Buyer the following(collectively,"Seller's Closing Documents"):
7.1 Deed. A Warranty Deed, in recordable form reasonably satisfactory to
Buyer, conveying the Real Property to Buyer, free and clear of all
encumbrances,except the Permitted Encumbrances.
7.2 Title Policy. The Policy described in Section 10 of this Agreement, or a
suitably marked up Title Commitment for the Policy initialed by Title, in the
form required by this Agreement.
7.3 Bring-down Certificate. A certificate reaffirming as of the Closing Date all
of the Seller's Representations and Warranties contained in paragraph 12
of this Agreement.
7.4 Seller's Affidavit. An Affidavit of Seller indicating that on the Closing Date
(a) there are no outstanding, unsatisfied judgments, tax liens or bankruptcies
against or involving Seller or the Real Property; (b) there has been no skill,
labor or material furnished to the Real Property for which payment has not
been made or for which mechanic's liens could be filed; and(c)there are no
other unrecorded interests in the Real Property, together with whatever
standard owner's affidavit and/or indemnity (ALTA Form) which may be
Final
required by Title to issue the Policy described in Section 10 of this
Agreement.
7.5 FIRPTA Affidavit. A non-foreign affidavit, properly executed and in
recordable form, containing such information as is required by IRC Section
1445(b)(2)and its regulations.
7.6 IRS Reporting Form. The appropriate Federal Income Tax reporting form, if
any,as required.
7.7 Executive Order Affidavit. An affidavit properly executed and in recordable
form satisfying Buyer and Title that the Seller is not a blocked person under
Executive Order 13224.
7.8 Other Documents. All other documents reasonably determined by Buyer to
be necessary to transfer the Real Property to Buyer free and clear of all
encumbrances, except the Permitted Encumbrances.
8. Buyer's Closing Documents. On the Closing Date,Buyer will execute and/or deliver
to Seller the following(collectively,"Buyer's Closing Documents"):
8.1 Purchase Price. The Purchase Price, by wire transfer of U.S. Federal Funds
or by certified check to be received in Title's trust account or delivered to
Seller on or before 10:00 a.m. local time on the Closing Date.
8.2 Title Documents. Such Affidavits of Purchaser, Certificates of Value or
other documents as may be reasonably required by Title in order to record
the Seller's Closing Documents and issue the Policy.
8.3 Executive Order Affidavit. An affidavit properly executed and in recordable
form confirming the Buyer's representations in Section 13.2.
9. Prorations. Seller and Buyer agree to the following prorations and allocation of costs
regarding this Agreement:
9.1 Title Insurance and Closing Fee. Seller will pay all costs of the Title
Evidence described in Section 10 of this Agreement and the fees charged by
Title for any escrow required regarding Buyer's Objections. Buyer will pay
the premium or cost of the Policy and all additional premiums required for
the issuance of any mortgagee's title insurance policy required by Buyer.
Seller and Buyer will each pay one-half of any reasonable and customary
closing fee or charge imposed by any closing agent designated by Title.
9.2 Deed Tax. Seller shall pay all state deed tax regarding the Warranty Deed to
be delivered by Seller under this Agreement.
Final
9.3 Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. At Closing, the Purchase Price
shall be adjusted as follows:
9.3.1 Current.Year's Taxes. The Real Property is currently tax exempt
because of public ownership. Any taxes due and payable because of
this transaction and all taxes due and payable after Closing occurs
shall be paid by the Buyer.
9.3.2 Assessments. All charges for improvements or services already made
to or which benefit the Real Property, and all levied and pending
assessments (general or special) arising out of or in connection with
any assessment district created or confirmed prior to the Closing Date
("Assessments") shall be paid in full by Seller at Closing, except
assessments covered by that certain Agreement Regarding Special
Assessments dated July 27, 2004 by and between Eden Prairie Hotel
Group, LLC and the City of Eden Prairie regarding Turn Lane
improvements on Mitchell Road and except for trunk sewer and water
assessments in the approximate amount of$13,765 and connection
fees for sewer and water laterals in the approximate amount of$38,012,
both based on 2005 rates,which rates change year to year.
9.4 Recording Costs. Seller will pay the cost of recording all documents necessary
to place record title in the condition warranted by Seller and requested by
Buyer in this Agreement. Buyer will pay the cost of recording all other
documents.
9.5 Other Costs. All other operating costs of the Real Property will be allocated
between Seller and Buyer as of the Closing Date, so that Seller pays that part of
such other operating costs payable before the Closing Date, and Buyer pays
that part of such operating costs payable from and after the Closing Date.
9.6 Attorneys' Fees. Each of the parties will pay its own attorneys' fees, except
that a party defaulting under this Agreement or any closing document will pay
the reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs incurred by the nondefaulting
party to enforce its rights regarding such default.
10. Title Examination. Title examination will be conducted as follows:
10.1 Seller's Title Evidence. Seller shall, within ten(10) days after the date of this
Agreement, furnish to Buyer, at Seller's cost and expense, the following: A
commitment ("Title Commitment") for the most current ALTA Form B
Owner's Policy of Title Insurance insuring title to the Real Property in the
amount of the Purchase Price, issued by First American Title Insurance
Company("Title"). The Title Commitment will commit Title to insure title to
the Real Property subject only to the Permitted Encumbrances.
Final
10.2 Buyer's Objections. Within ten (10) days after receiving the Title
Commitment,Buyer shall make written objections("Objections")to the form
and/or contents of the Title Commitment. Buyer's failure to make
Objections within such time period will constitute a waiver of Objections.
Any matter shown on the Title Commitment and not objected to by Buyer
shall be a"Permitted Encumbrance"pursuant to this Agreement. Seller will
have 60 days after receipt of the Objections to cure the Objections, during
which period the Closing will be postponed as necessary. Seller shall use its
best efforts to correct any Objections. To the extent an Objection can be
satisfied by the payment of money, Buyer shall have the right to apply a
portion of the cash payable to Seller at the Closing to satisfaction of such
Objection and the amount so applied shall reduce the amount of cash payable
to Seller at the Closing. If the Objections are not cured within such 60 day
period,Buyer will have the option to do any of the following:
10.2.1 Termination. Terminate this Agreement and receive a refund of the
Earnest Money and the interest accrued and unpaid on the Earnest
Money,if any.
10.2.2 Escrow for Cure. Withhold from the Purchase Price an amount
which, in the reasonable judgment of Title, is sufficient to assure cure
of the Objections. Any amount so withheld will be placed in escrow
with Title, pending such cure. If Seller does not cure such Objections
within 90 days after such escrow is established, Buyer may then cure
such Objections and charge the costs of such cure (including
reasonable attorneys' fees) against the escrowed amount. If such
escrow is established, the parties agree to execute and deliver such
documents as may be reasonably required by Title, and Seller agrees
to pay the charges of Title to create and administer the escrow.
10.2.3 Waiver. Waive the Objections and proceed to close.
11. Operation Prior to Closing. During the period from the date of Seller's acceptance of
this Agreement to the Closing Date (the "Executory Period"), Seller shall operate and maintain the
Real Property in the ordinary course of business in accordance with prudent, reasonable business
standards, including the maintenance of adequate liability insurance and insurance against loss by
fire, windstorm and other hazards, casualties and contingencies, including vandalism and malicious
mischief However, Seller shall execute no contracts, leases or other agreements regarding the Real
Property during the Executory Period that are not terminable on or before the Closing Date, without
the written consent of Buyer,which consent may be withheld by Buyer in its sole discretion.
12. Representations and Warranties by Seller. Seller represents and warrants to Buyer as
follows:
Final
12.1 Authority. Seller has the requisite municipal power and authority to enter
into and perform this Agreement and those Seller's Closing Documents
signed by it. Such documents have been (or will have been) duly executed
and delivered. Such execution, delivery and performance by Seller of such
documents do not (and will not) conflict with or result, as applicable, in a
violation of any judgment, order, or decree of any court or arbiter to which
Seller is a party. Such documents are (and will be) valid and binding
obligations of Seller,and are enforceable in accordance with their terms.
12.2 Title to Real Property. Seller owns the Real Property, free and clear of all
encumbrances except the Permitted Encumbrances identified on Exhibit B
attached hereto(the"Permitted Encumbrances").
12.3 Environmental Laws.Except as disclosed in writing to Buyer by Seller to the
best of Seller's knowledge no toxic or hazardous substances or wastes,
pollutants or contaminants (including, without limitation, asbestos, urea
formaldehyde, the group of organic compounds known as polychlorinated
biphenyls, petroleum products including gasoline, fuel oil, crude oil and
various constituents of such products, and any hazardous substance as
defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 9601-9657, as
amended) have been generated, treated, stored, released or disposed of or
otherwise placed, deposited in or located on the Real Property nor has any
activity been undertaken on the Real Property that would cause or contribute
to (a) the Real Property to become a treatment, storage or disposal facility
within the meaning of or otherwise bring the Real Property within the ambit
of, the Resource.Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ("RCRA"), 42
U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq., or any similar state law or local ordinance, (b) a
release or threatened release of toxic or hazardous wastes or substances,
pollutants or contaminants, from the Real Property within the meaning of or
otherwise bring the Real Property within the ambit of, CERCLA, or any
similar state law or local ordinance, or (c) the discharge of pollutants or
effluents into any water source or system, the dredging or filling of any
waters or the discharge into the air of any emissions, that would require a
permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. Section
1251 et seq., or the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq., or any
similar state law or local ordinance. Except as disclosed in writing by Seller
to Buyer to the best of Seller's knowledge there are no substances or
conditions in or on the Real Property that may support a claim or cause of
action under RCRA, CERCLA or any other federal, state or local
environmental statutes, regulations, ordinances or other environmental
regulatory requirements, including without limitation, the Minnesota
Environmental Response and Liability Act, Minn. Stat. 115B ("MERLA")
and the Minnesota Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Act, Minn. Stat. 115C.
Final
To the best of Seller's knowledge no above ground or underground tanks are
located in or about the Real Property or have been located under, in or about
the Real Property and have subsequently been removed or filled.
12.4 Rights of Others to Purchase Real.Property. Seller has not entered into any
other contracts for the sale of the Real Property, nor are there any rights of
first refusal or options to purchase the Real Property or any other rights of
others that might prevent the consummation of this Agreement.
12.5 Seller's Defaults. Seller is not in default concerning any of its obligations or
liabilities regarding the Real Property.
12.6 FIRPTA. Seller is not a "foreign person," "foreign partnership," "foreign
trust" or "foreign estate" as those terms are defined in Section 1445 of the
Internal Revenue Code.
12.7 Proceedings. There is no action, litigation, investigation, condemnation or
proceeding of any kind pending or threatened against Seller or any portion of
the Real Property.
12.8 Agents and Employees. No management agents or other personnel
employed in connection with the operation of the Real Property have the
right to continue such employment after the Closing Date. There are no
claims for brokerage commission or other payments with respect to the
existing Real Property, including leases which will survive and remain
unpaid after the Date of Closing.
Seller will indemnify Buyer, its successors and assigns, against, and will hold Buyer, its successors
and assigns, harmless from, any expenses or damages including reasonable attorneys' fees, that
Buyer incurs because of the breach of any of the above representations and warranties,whether such
breach is discovered before or after Closing. Each of the representations and warranties herein
contained shall survive the Closing for a period of one year. Wherever herein a representation is
made to the "knowledge" of Seller, such representation is limited to the knowledge of David
Lindahl. Consummation of this Agreement by Buyer with knowledge of any breach of such
representations and warranties by Seller will constitute a waiver or release by Buyer of any claims
due to such breach.
13. Representations and Warranties by Buyer. Buyer represents and warrants to Seller
as follows:
13.1 Authority. Buyer is corporation duly formed under the laws of the State of
Minnesota; that Buyer is duly qualified to transact business in the State of
Minnesota; that Buyer has the requisite corporate power and authority to
enter into this Agreement and the Buyer's Closing Documents signed by it;
such documents have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action
on the part of Buyer and have been duly executed and delivered; that the
Final
execution, delivery and performance by Buyer of such documents do not
conflict with or result in violation of state law or any judgment, order or
decree of any court or arbiter to which Buyer is a party; such documents are
valid and binding obligations of Buyer, and are enforceable in accordance
with their terms.
13.2 Anti-Terrorism,Executive Order 13224 and Public Law 107-56.
The Buyer is not in violation of any laws relating to terrorism or money
laundering ("Anti-Terrorism Laws"), including Executive Order No. 13224
on Terrorist Financing, effective September 24, 2001 (the "Executive
Order"), and the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,
Public Law 107-56.
The Buyer or, to the knowledge of the Buyer, none of its agents acting or
benefiting in any capacity in connection with the transaction, is any of the
following:
13.2.1 Person or entity that is listed in the annex to, or is otherwise subject
to the provisions of, the Executive Order;
13.2.2 Person or entity owned or controlled by,or acting for or on behalf of,
any Person or entity that is listed in the annex to, or is otherwise
subject to the provisions of,the Executive Order;
13.2.3 Person or entity with which Seller is prohibited from dealing or
otherwise engaging in any transaction by any Anti-Terrorism Law;
13.2.4 Person or entity that commits, threatens or conspires to commit or
supports"terrorism"as defined in the Executive Order;or
13.2.5 Person or entity that is named as a"specially designated national and
blocked person" on the most current list published by the U.S.
Treasury Department Office of Foreign Asset Control at its official
website or any replacement website or other replacement official
publication of such list.
The Buyer or, to the knowledge of Buyer, any of its agents acting in any
capacity in connection with the transaction does not(i) conduct any business
or engage in making or receiving any contribution of funds,goods or services
to or for the benefit of any Person described above, (ii) deal in, or otherwise
engage in any transaction relating to, any property or interests in property
blocked pursuant to the Executive Order, or (iii) engages in or conspires to
engage in any transaction that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of
evading or avoiding,or attempts to violate,any of the prohibitions set forth in
Final
any Anti-Terrorism Law.
Buyer will indemnify Seller, its successors and assigns, against, and will hold Seller, its successors
and assigns, harmless from, any expenses or damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, that
Seller incurs because of the breach of any of the above representations and warranties,whether such
breach is discovered before or after closing. Each of the representations and warranties herein
contained shall survive the Closing for a period of one year. Consummation of this Agreement by
Seller with knowledge of any breach of such warranties and representations by Buyer will constitute
a waiver or release by Seller of any claims due to such breach.
14. Seller's Design Requirements. All exterior design of structures and buildings on
the Real Property shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Seller (as a party to this
Agreement and not as the municipality) both before and after the Date of Closing. Compliance
by Buyer with the City Code alone shall not be deemed to be in compliance with the terms of
this Paragraph 14. Specifically,architectural exterior design of all buildings, building materials
and colors, sidewalk placement,fences, walls or other structures, signage, lighting, bollards and
landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the Seller (the "Design Review"). In
addition Seller shall have the right to approve any future exterior addition, change or alteration
which may be made to the approved Design Plan with regard to light fixtures, benches,bollards,
planters, sidewalks or signs. Approval of designs created by Buyer shall not be unreasonably
withheld by Seller. Buyer shall develop the Real Property in accordance with the approved
Design Review. The requirements of this Section shall survive and be enforceable after Closing
and shall specifically not be subject to the one year limitation on enforceability set forth in
Section 19.
15. Condemnation. If, prior to the Closing Date, eminent domain proceedings are
commenced against all or any part of the Real Property by any entity except Buyer,Seller shall
immediately give notice to Buyer of such fact and at Buyer's option(to be exercised within 30 days
after the date of Seller's notice), this Agreement shall terminate, in which event neither party will
have further obligations under this Agreement, except for the rights and obligations of
indemnification set forth in Sections 5 and 17, and the Earnest Money, together with any accrued
interest, shall be refunded to Buyer. If Buyer shall fail to give such notice then there shall be no
reduction in the Purchase Price, and Seller shall assign to Buyer at the Closing Date all of Seller's
right, title and interest in and to any award made or to be made in the condemnation proceedings.
Prior to the Closing Date, if the Agreement has not been terminated pursuant to the first sentence of
this Section, Seller shall not designate counsel, appear in, or otherwise act with respect to such
- condemnation proceedings without Buyer's prior written consent.
16. Broker's Commission. Seller and Buyer represent and warrant to each other that
they have dealt with no brokers, finders or the like in connection with this transaction, and agree to
indemnify each other and to hold each other harmless against all claims, damages, costs or expenses
of or for any other such fees or commissions resulting from their actions or agreements regarding the
execution or performance of this Agreement, and will pay all costs of defending any action or
lawsuit brought to recover any such fees or commissions incurred by the other party, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.
Final
17. Mutual Indemnification. Seller and Buyer agree to indemnify each other against,and
hold each other harmless from, all liabilities (including reasonable attorneys' fees in defending
against claims) arising out of the ownership, operation or maintenance of the Real Property for their
respective periods of ownership. Such rights of indemnification will not arise to the extent that(a)
the party seeking indemnification actually receives insurance proceeds or other cash payments
directly attributable to the liability in question, (net of the cost of collection, including reasonable
attorneys' fees) or (b) the claim for indemnification arises out of the act or neglect of the party
seeking indemnification. If and to the extent that the indemnified parry has insurance coverage, or
the right to make claim against any third party for any amount to be indemnified against as set forth
above, the indemnified party will, upon full performance by the indemnifying party of its
indemnification obligations, assign such rights to the indemnifying party or, if such rights are not
assignable, the indemnified party will diligently pursue such rights by appropriate legal action or
proceeding and assign the recovery and/or right of recovery to the indemnifying party to the extent
of the indemnification payment made by such parry.
18. Assignment. Buyer may not assign its rights under this Agreement, without the
prior written consent of the Seller which consent may be withheld in Seller's sole discretion,
provided Buyer may assign this Agreement, without Seller's consent, to a wholly owned
subsidiary incorporated or organized, and qualified to conduct business in Minnesota, to a lender
to facilitate financing of the acquisition of the Real Property, or to a corporation, partnership or
limited liability company qualified to conduct business in Minnesota if the majority of the
shareholders,partners or members of said entity are shareholders of the Buyer.
19. Survival. Except as stated in Section 14, all of the terms of this Agreement will
survive and be enforceable for a period of one year after the Closing.
20. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given by any party upon the other is
given in accordance with this Agreement if it is directed to Seller by delivering it personally to an
officer of Seller, or if it is directed to Buyer, by delivering it personally to an officer of Buyer, or if
mailed in a sealed wrapper by United States registered or certified mail,return receipt requested,
postage prepaid, or if deposited cost paid with a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier,
properly addressed as follows:
If to Seller: Eden Prairie City Offices
Attention: David Lindahl
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230
Facsimile: 612-949-8484
With a copy to: Richard F. Rosow
Gregerson, Rosow,Johnson&Nilan, Ltd.
1600 Park Building
650 Third Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4337
Final
Facsimile: 612-349-6718
If to Buyer: Legacy Holdings-MR,LLC
Attn: Jack Brandt
12100 Singletree Lane, Suite 101
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Facsimile : 952- 746-1201
With a copy to: Hartford Group,Inc.
Attention: Frank Janes,General Counsel
12100 Singletree Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Facsimile: 952-746-1201
Notices shall be deemed effective on the earlier of the date of receipt or the date of deposit as
aforesaid, provided, however, that if notice is given by deposit, that the time for response to any
notice by the other party shall commence to run one business day after any such deposit. Any party
may change its address for the service of notice by giving written notice of such change to the other
party, in any manner above specified, 10 days prior to the effective date of such change.
21. Captions. The paragraph headings or captions appearing in this Agreement are for
convenience only, are not a part of this Agreement and are not to be considered in interpreting this
Agreement.
22. Entire Agreement; Modification. This written Agreement constitutes the complete
agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior oral or written agreements between the
parties regarding the Real Property. There are no verbal agreements that change this Agreement and
no waiver of any of its terms will be effective unless in writing executed by the parties.
23. Binding Effect. This Agreement binds and benefits the parties and their successors
and assigns.
24. Controlling�Law. This Agreement has been made under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, and such laws will control its interpretation.
25. Remedies. If Buyer defaults under this Agreement, Seller shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Buyer. If Buyer fails to cure such default
within thirty (30) days of the date of such notice, this Agreement will terminate, and upon such
termination Seller may obtain and retain the Earnest Money as liquidated damages,time being of the
essence of this Agreement. Except as stated in the following sentence the termination of this
Agreement and retention of the Earnest Money will be the sole remedy available to Seller for such
default by Buyer, and Buyer will not be liable for damages or specific performance. Seller and
Buyer acknowledge and agree that any liability of Buyer to Seller under the indemnity provided
under Sections 5 and 17 hereof will not be limited by the liquidated damages provision set forth
Final
above and Seller may maintain an action to recover any sums due under said indemnification
provisions. If Seller defaults under this Agreement, this provision does not preclude Buyer from
seeking and recovering from Seller specific performance of this Agreement. Buyer shall have no
right to seek damages, including but not limited to damages for Buyer's loss of its bargain in failing
to acquire the Real Property, from Seller for Seller's defaults hereunder. Upon an uncured default,
Buyer, in lieu of seeking specific performance, may terminate this Agreement, at which time all
Earnest Money and interest thereon shall be immediately returned to Buyer.
26. LIKE KIND EXCHANGE. Buyer may elect to treat the transaction as a deferred
like kind exchange under Internal Revenue Code Section 1031. Seller agrees to cooperate in the
event Buyer elects such deferred exchange treatment, provided:
a) Seller shall not be required to take title to any exchanged or replacement property;
b) Seller shall not incur any additional costs or liabilities beyond the scope of the
Property and this Agreement, and Buyer agrees to indemnify Seller from such
costs or liabilities;
c) Buyer shall provide copies of all exchange documents to Seller in advance of the
Closing for counsel's review and approval; and
d) Said exchange shall not delay the Closing.
IN AGREEMENT, Seller and Buyer have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
SELLER:
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By
Nancy Tyra-Lukens
Its Mayor
BY
Scott Neal
Its City Manager
BUYER:
Final
LEGACY HOLDINGS-MR,LLC
By
John C. Brandt
Its Chief Manager
EM.PlanningWa[tford-Mitchell Road\PurchaseTurchase Agreementl 12904
Final
EXHIBIT A - Escrow Agreement
EXHIBIT B - Permitted Encumbrances(Section 12.2)
Final
EXIMIT A
ESCROW AGREEMENT
The undersigned, First American Title Insurance Company ("Title Company"),
acknowledges receipt of$50,000(the"Earnest Money")to he held by it pursuant to the Purchase
Agreement to which this Escrow Agreement is attached. Title Company will hold the Earnest
Money (hereinafter the "Earnest Money") in accordance with the terms of the Purchase
Agreement and disburse the same strictly in accordance with such terms. Title Company will
invest the Earnest Money in such interest-bearing accounts, instruments, corporate paper, or
money market funds as approved by both Buyer and Seller, Interest will accrue for the benefit of
Buyer, unless the Purchase Agreement is terminated by reason of the default of Buyer, in which
case the interest will be paid to Seller. Prior to the Contingency Date, Buyer may direct the Title
Company to return the Earnest Money to it if Buyer elects to terminate the Purchase Agreement.
Title Company is not responsible for any decision concerning performance or
effectiveness of the Purchase Agreement or for resolution of any disputes concerning the
Purchase Agreement. Title Company is responsible only to act in accordance with the joint and
mutual direction of both Seller and Buyer, or in lieu thereof, the direction of a court of
competent jurisdiction except as to Buyer's right to direct the return of the Earnest Money prior
to the Contingency Date. Seller and Buyer will hold Title Company harmless from all claims for
damages arising out of this Escrow Agreement and do hereby agree to indemnify Title Company
for all costs and expenses in connection with this escrow, including court costs and attorneys'
fees, except for Title Company's failure to account for the funds held hereunder, or acting in
conflict with the terms hereof.
The fees and charges of the Title Company will be paid by Seller. This Escrow
Agreement is dated this—day of 52005.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO
By
Its
n Fi al
EXHIBIT B
PERMITTED ENCUMBRANCES
1. Easements shown on the plat of Wingate Hotel Addition.
2. Federal, state and municipal laws, ordinances,rules and regulations.
3. Cross Access, Parking and Sewer Easement dated July 27, 2000 and recorded as Doc.
7332026 with the Hennepin County Recorder,
4. Temporary Construction Easement dated July 27, 2000 between Eden Prairie Hotel
Group, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company and the City of Eden Prairie.
5. Conservation/Scenic Easement dated July 18, 2000 between Eden Prairie Hotel Group,
LLC, an Illinois limited liability company and the City of Eden Prairie.
6. Agreement Regarding Special Assessments made July 27, 2000 between Eden Prairie
Hotel Group,LLC, an Illinois limited liability company and the City of Eden Prairie.
U:\Hartford\Projects\Eden PrairieWitchell Road\City Properly\EP City Purchase Agreement 1-28-05(Final).doc
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: February 1, 2005
SECTION: Consent Agenda
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Public Works/Environmental ponds Edge Development—Wetland
Services Mitigation Agreement
Leslie Stovring
Requested Action
Move to: Approve the Agreement with LandGeeks LLC for the Proposed Wetland Mitigation
for Ponds Edge Development
Synopsis
The Ponds Edge Development included wetland fill for a portion of the site. The plans approved
by the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District included on-site mitigation of the
impacts. The mitigation was not completed by the Developer, LandGeeks, LLC, prior to deeding
of the proposed mitigation area (Outlot A) to the City. This Agreement outlines what the
Developer will follow to complete the mitigation, including allowing the City to utilize the
existing cash escrow for the Ponds Edge development to secure the work.
Background Information
The following provides information regarding the history of the site.
• The wetland mitigation was not completed prior to transfer of the ownership of Outlot A to
the City.
• The Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District is working with LandGeeks, LLC to
complete the wetland mitigation as required in his permit.
• The Developer filed a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants against Outlot A and
adjoining properties in December 2004, after the lots had been sold. The Declaration is not
binding.
• The City Attorney has drafted an Agreement to be signed by the Developer to allow
construction of the wetland mitigation on the Outlot.
• The Agreement includes an Amended Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions which will
include a detailed legal description of the wetland mitigation area that will only include
property on the City Outlot. No wetland mitigation will occur on adjoining privately-owned
lots.
The City Attorney will provide additional details regarding this project.
Attachments
Agreement
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and executed this day of , 2005, by and
between the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"City" and Land Geeks LLC, a Limited Liability Company, hereinafter referred to as
"Developer".
WHEREAS, the City is the fee owner and/or holder of a perpetual easement of land
located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, and said land,hereinafter referred to as"the Property;" and
WHEREAS, the Property is the site of a Replacement Wetland, as defined in Minnesota
Rules 8420.0110, subp. 40 which is subject to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as
amended, Minnesota Statute § 103G.222 et se , and all other provisions of law that apply to
wetlands, except the exemptions in Minnesota Statute § 103G.2241 do not apply to the
Replacement Wetland,pursuant to Minnesota Rules 8420.0115; and
WHEREAS, an Amendment To Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Site
Specific Wetland Replacement ("Declaration"), more fully described and attached hereto as
Exhibit B, is required to be filed regarding the Replacement Wetland; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has contracted with a third-party to complete the
requirements of the Declaration, however, is no longer a fee title holder of the Property and
therefore may not file the Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Developer wish to enter into an agreement by which the
City will become the Declarent for purposes of filing the Declaration and the Developer will
agree to complete all of the requirements as listed in the Declaration;
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the premises contained herein, it is
agreed by the parties as follows:
1. The Developer shall maintain the Replacement Wetland of the size and type
specified in the Replacement Plan and shall not make any use of the Replacement Wetland that
would adversely affect the functions or values of the Wetland as determined by Minnesota Rules
8420.0549, subparts 1 through 8.
2. The Developer shall comply with the applicable requirements of Minnesota Rules
8420.0541, subparts 1, 6, and 7.
3. The Developer shall pay the costs of maintenance, repairs, reconstruction and
replacement of the Replacement Wetland, which the Local Governmental Unit or the State of
Minnesota through the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources may deem necessary to
comply with the specifications for the Replacement Wetland in the approved Replacement Plan.
Page I of 8
4. The Developer shall, at its own cost, establish and maintain permanent vegetative
cover on areas specified in the Replacement Plan for native vegetative cover, including any
necessary planting and replanting thereof, and other conservation practices, in accordance with
the Replacement Plan;
5. The Developer agrees that the cash escrow provided pursuant to the Developer's
Agreement dated July 15, 2003 between Land Geeks, LLC and the City shall also secure the
Developer's obligations under this agreement. The City shall be entitled to draw on the cash
escrow and use the funds to remedy any of the Developer's defaults hereunder or under the
Developer's Agreement. Prior to drawing on the security, the City will give the Developer
written notice that the City intends to draw on the security at the expiration of ten (10) business
days from the date the written notice was unless the Developer cures the default within that time.
6. The Developer shall not place any materials, substances, or other objects nor erect
or construct any type of structure, temporary or permanent, on the areas specified in the
Replacement Plan, except as provided in the Replacement Plan.
7. The Developer shall, at its own cost, be responsible for weed control by
complying with noxious weed control laws and emergency control of pests necessary to protect
the public health on the areas specified in the Replacement Plan;
8. The Developer shall comply with any other requirements or restrictions specified
in the Replacement Plan, including, but limited to, haying, mowing, timber management or other
vegetative alterations that do not enhance or would degrade the ecological function and values of
the Replacement Site.
9. The Developer and/or its contractors shall have a right to enter the Property in
order to complete any monitoring, improvements or repairs to the Replacement Wetland as
required by this Agreement.
10. If any action is brought to enforce this Agreement or the Declaration, the City
shall be entitled to recover an award of reasonable attorney's fees from the Developer, which
may be drawn from, but is not limited to, cash escrow referenced in Item 5 above.
11. The Developer shall at all times abide by the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 1301, et seq., to the extent that the Act is applicable to data and
documents in the hands of The Developer.
12. In the performance of this Agreement, the Developer shall not discriminate on the
grounds of or because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status
with regards to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or age against any employee of
the Developer, any subcontractor of the Developer, or any applicant for employment. The
Developer shall include a similar provision in all contracts with subcontractors to this contract.
Page 2 of 8
The Developer further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act,
Minn. Stat. § 363.01, et seg., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
13. In the event of a breach of this Agreement by the City, the Developer shall not be
entitled to recover punitive, special or consequential damages or damages for loss of business.
14. It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement of the parties is contained in
this Agreement and it supercedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties. The
parties agree that no change, amendment, or modification to this Agreement, or any attachments
hereto, shall have any force or effect unless the change is reduced to writing, dated, and executed
by both parties to the Agreement.
15. This Agreement shall be governed and construed under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
16. This Agreement and all obligations contained herein shall remain in effect until
the requirements under the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended, as set forth in the
Replacement Plan are completed and approved by the Riley Purgatory-Bluff-Creek Watershed
District.
17. Notice required or permitted to be given by any party upon the other is given in
accordance with this Agreement if it is directed to Developer by delivering it personally to an
officer of Developer, or if it is directed to City, by delivering it personally to the City Clerk, or if
mailed in a sealed wrapper by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid, or if deposited cost paid with a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier,
properly addressed as follows; or if email to the email address set forth below:
If to Developer: Land Geeks,LLC
6873 Washington Ave. S, Suite 208
Edina,MN 55439-1500
mjvklandgeeks.com
If to City: Kathleen Porta, City Clerk
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344
kportakedenprairie.org
Notices shall be deemed effective on the earlier of the date of receipt or the date of deposit or the
date of emailing as aforesaid, provided, however,that if notice is given by deposit,that the time for
response to any notice by the other party shall commence to run one business day after any such
deposit. Any party may change its address for the service of notice by giving written notice of such
change to the other party, in any manner above specified, 10 days prior to the effective date of such
change.
Page 3 of 8
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be
executed as to the day and year aforesaid.
LAND GEEKS, LLC
Date By
Michael Vincent
Its Chief Manager
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Date By
Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
Date By
Scott H. Neal, City Manager
Page 4 of 8
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED MITIGATION AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A permanent easement for the creation of new wetland areas over, under and across the following
described parcel:
Outlot A, PONDS EDGE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Said permanent easement for the creation of new wetland areas being that part of the above
described parcel which lies within the following described area:
Beginning at the southwest corner of said Outlot A(also being the northwest corner of
Lot 8, Block 1), PONDS EDGE; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 08
minutes 11 seconds East, along the southerly line of said Outlot A, a distance of 209.28
feet; thence North 57 degrees 44 minutes 12 seconds East, 14.61 feet; thence South 89
degrees 28 minutes 24 seconds West, 101.22 feet;thence North 79 degrees 07 minutes 17
seconds West, 37.02 feet; thence North 62 degrees 48 minutes 47 seconds West, 35.69
feet; thence North 49 degrees 07 minutes 16 seconds West, 64.74 feet; thence North 44
degrees 17 minutes 06 seconds West, 47.79 feet; thence North 44 degrees 15 minutes 45
seconds West, 64.93 feet; thence North 85 degrees 38 minutes 14 seconds West, 2.03 feet
to the westerly line of said Outlot A; thence South 41 degrees 47 minutes 58 seconds
East, along said westerly line, a distance of 109.80 feet; thence continuing along said
westerly line, South 3 degrees 11 minutes 56 seconds East, 74.82 feet to the point of
beginning.
AND
Beginning at the northeast corner of said Outlot A , PONDS EDGE; thence on an
assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 34 minutes 07 seconds East, along the east line of
said Outlot A, a distance of 39.95 feet; thence South 78 degrees 06 minutes 48 seconds
West, 6.87 feet;thence South 52 degrees 09 minutes 37 seconds West, 7.04 feet;thence
South 33 degrees 36 minutes 24 seconds West, 9.67 feet; thence South 62 degrees 46
minutes 56 seconds West, 7.15 feet; thence North 86 degrees 19 minutes 06 seconds
West, 20.30 feet; thence South 43 degrees 49 minutes 19 seconds West, 39.44 feet;
thence South 48 degrees 56 minutes 11 seconds West, 3.32 feet; thence North 3 degrees
33 minutes 53 seconds East, 11.28 feet; thence North 4 degrees 26 minutes 52 seconds
West, 16.34 feet; thence North 20 degrees 52 minutes 06 seconds East, 62.08 feet to the
north line of said Outlot A; thence North 89 degrees 08 minutes 11 seconds East along
said north line, a distance of 52.12 feet to the point of beginning
Said easement containing 9,170 square feet(0.211 acres)more or less.
Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT B
AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS
FOR
REPLACEMENT WETLAND
This Amendment to Restrictions and Covenants for Site Specific Wetland Replacement
(Declaration) is made this day of , 2005 by the undersigned Declarant,
and amends that certain Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Site Specific Wetland
Replacement dated October 24, 2003, filed December 2, 2004 as Document No. 8482854 in the
Office of the Hennepin County Recorder.
RECITALS
A. The Declarant holds the fee title or perpetual easement on the real property described as
follows:
See Attached Exhibit
B. This real property is the site of a Replacement Wetland, as defined in Minnesota Rules
8420.0110, subp.40.
C. The Declarant is seeking approval of (1) a replacement plan under Minnesota Statutes
section 103G.222 and Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 or (2) a bank plan under Minnesota Rules
8420.0740,
D. The Replacement Wetland is subject to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended,
Minnesota Statutes section 103G.222 et seq., and all other provisions of law that apply to wetlands,
except that the exemptions in Minnesota Statutes section 103G.2241 do not apply to the Replacement
Wetland, pursuant to Minnesota Rules 8420.0115.
E. The Local Government Unit (LGU) charged with approval of the Replacement or Banking
Plan is Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District whose address is c/o Barr Engineering Co. 4700
W. 77th Street, Minneapolis,MN 55435-4803.
F. All references in this instrument to Minnesota Statutes and Rules are to the Statutes and
Rules currently in effect and as amended or renumbered in the future.
RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS
The Declarant makes the following declaration of restrictions and covenants for the Replacement
Wetland. These restrictions and covenants shall run with the land, and bind Declarant, and Declarant's
heirs, successors, and assigns:
1. Declarant shall maintain a Replacement Wetland of the size and type specified in the
replacement plan or bank plan approved by the LGU and on file at the offices of the LGU. Declarant
FORM A—DECLARATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS
FOR REPLACEMENT/BANKING WETLAND(2000)
Page ] of 4
shall not make any use of the Replacement Wetland that would adversely affect the functions or values
of the wetland as determined by Minnesota Rules 8420.0540, subp. 10, and as specified in the
replacement plan or bank plan.
2. Declarant shall pay the costs of maintenance, repairs, reconstruction, and replacement of the
Replacement Wetland, which the LGU or the State of Minnesota through the Minnesota Board of Water
and Soil Resources may deem necessary to comply with the specifications for the Replacement Wetland
in the approved replacement plan or bank plan.
3. Declarant grants to the LGU, the State of Minnesota,
ota and the agents and employees of the
LGU and the State of Minnesota, reasonable access to the Replacement Wetland for inspection,
monitoring, and enforcement purposes. This Declaration grants no access to or entry on the lands
described to the general public.
4. Declarant represents that he or she has a fee simple or easement interest in the land on
which the Replacement Wetland is or will be located. Declarant represents that he or she has obtained
the consent of all other parties who may have an interest in the land on which the Replacement Wetland
is or will be located to the creation of the restrictions and covenants herein, and that, all such parties
have agreed in writing to subordinate their interests to these restrictions and covenants, pursuant to the
attached Consent and Subordination Agreement(s).
5. Declarant shall record or file this Declaration, pay all costs associated with recording or
filing, and provide proof of recording or filing to the LGU. If this Declaration is given pursuant to a
replacement plan, such proof shall be provided to the LGU before proceeding with construction of the
Replacement Wetland.
6. These restrictions and covenants shall be unlimited in duration,without being re-recorded.
7. If the replacement plan or bank plan approved by the LGU and on file at its offices requires
the establishment of areas of pennanent vegetative cover, the tern OReplacement WetlandO as used in
this Declaration shall also include the required areas of pennanent vegetative cover, even if such areas
are not wetlands. All provisions of this Declaration that apply to the Replacement Wetland shall apply
equally to the required areas of pennanent vegetative cover. In addition,the Declarant:
(a) Shall comply with the applicable requirements of Minnesota Rules 8420.0540, subpart
2.13;
(b) Shall, at Declarant's cost, establish and maintain pennanent vegetative cover on areas
specified in the replacement plan or bank plan for pennanent vegetative cover,
including any necessary planting and replanting thereof, and other conservation
practices, in accordance with the replacement plan or bank plan;
(c) Shall not produce agricultural crops on the areas specified in the replacement plan or
bank plan;
(d) Shall not graze livestock on the areas specified in the replacement plan or bank plan;
(e) Shall not place any materials, substances, or other objects, nor erect or construct any
FORM A—DECLARATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS
FOR REPLACEMENT/BANKING WETLAND(2000)
Page 2 of 4
type of structure, temporary or permanent, on the areas specified in the replacement
plan or bank plan, except as provided in the replacement plan or bank plan;
(f) Shall, at Declarant's cost, be responsible for weed control by complying with noxious
weed control laws and emergency control of pests necessary to protect the public
health on the areas specified in the replacement plan or bank plan; and
(g) Shall comply with any other requirements or restrictions specified in the replacement
plan or bank plan, including, but not limited to, haying, mowing, timber management
or other vegetative alterations that do not enhance or would degrade the ecological
functions and values of the replacement site or bank site.
8. This Declaration may be modified only by the joint written approval of the LGU and the
State of Minnesota through the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Such modification may
include the release of land contained in the legal description above, if it is determined that non-wetland
areas have been encumbered by this Declaration, unless the approved replacement plan or bank plan
designates these non-wetland areas for establishment of permanent vegetative cover.
9. This Declaration may be enforced, at law or in equity, by the LGU, or by the State of
Minnesota. The LGU and the State of Minnesota shall be entitled to recover an award of reasonable
attorney's fees from Declarant in any action to enforce this Declaration.
Signature of Declarant
Signature of Declarant
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF_)
This instrument was acknowledged before me on (date) by
(name(s) of person(s).
(Signature of Notarial Officer)
(Title)
My commission expires:
FORM A—DECLARATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS
FOR REPLACEMENTBANKING WETLAND(2000)
Page 3 of 4