Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/02/1999 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Celebration 2000 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1999 5:00 - 6:30 PM, CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM II CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher-Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Public Safety Services Director Jim Clark, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, and Council Recorder Barbara Anderson OTHER: Sr. Recreation Coordinator - Arts & Special Events Tria Mann and Communications Coordinator Steve Nelson I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER-MAYOR JEAN HARRIS II. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO CITY COUNCIL FORUM- CHRIS ENGER III. OVERVIEW OF"1999,YEAR OF CELEBRATION" EVENTS - NATALIE SWAGGERT,TRIA MANN,AND STEVE NELSON IV. DISCUSSION OF JANUARY 1, 2000, CELEBRATION V. ROLE OF MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS IN SUPPORT OF EVENTS VI. OTHER TOPICS VII. ADJOURN interoffice MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Members THROUGH: Chris Enger, City Manager FROM: Natalie Swagged,Director of Management Services SUBJECT: 1999 - 2000 Celebration Events DATE: January 29,1999 THEME: 1999 - A YEAR OF CELEBRATION MAJOR EVENTS Date Event Critical Focus Area May 14 & 15 Environmental Learning Center and Environment (Friday& Saturday) Water Plant Grand Opening to be determined SW Metro Hub Grand Opening Transportation July 4 Fourth of July Community Celebration Leisure October 10 City Facilities Open House Economic Growth -Fire Station Ribbon Cutting Public Safety January 1, 2000 New Year's Day 2000 Celebration All (Saturday) Additional Events January SW Metro Service starts Transportation February Liquor Store Re-Opening Economic Growth June Schooner Days Leisure July Safety Camp Public Safety " Page 2 February 4, 1999 July Safety Camp Public Safety September 18 Great Ride Leisure • September 19 Sunbonnet Days Natural and Cultural Resources October 3 Oktoberfest Leisure,Natural and Cultural Resources TBA Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Ground Natural Resources breaking TBA Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area Natural Resources Ribbon Cutting (or Ground breaking) TBA Miller Spring Improvement(ribbon Natural Resources cutting or Ground breaking) TBA Highway 212 Phase I- ribbon cutting Transportation TBA County Road 4 -ribbon cutting Transportation TBA County Road 1 -ribbon cutting Transportation TBA Eden Prairie Mall Renovation Ground Economic Development breaking TBA Private Business ground breakings (all) Economic Development cc: Natalie Swaggert,Director of Management Services Gene Dietz,Director of Public Works Services Jim Clark,Director of Public Safety Services Don Uram,Director of Community Development&Financial Services Bob Lambert,Director of Parks&Recreation Services AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1999 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher- Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra- Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Safety Director Jim Clark, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Council Recorder Barbara Anderson I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. COUNCIL FORUM A. MARY KEATING OF THE HOPE PROGRAM - STATUS REPORT III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS V. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 2, 1999 Page 2 B. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR BAKER ROAD RESERVOIR C. RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATERMAIN IN WALLACE ROAD AND TECHNOLOGY DRIVE D. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PROVISION OF ELECTRONIC DATA FOR MAPPING PURPOSES E. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT TO ENABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ONE AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR TO POLICE DEPARTMENT F. SET THE DATE AND TIME FOR THE 1999 BOARD OF REVIEW VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. EDEN ORCHARD By Orrin Thompson Homes. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 39.26 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 158.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 158.4 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 42.08 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 77.07 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 39.26 acres, Site Plan Review on 39.26 acres, EAW Review and Preliminary Plat on 158.4 acres into 433 lots and 10 outlots. Location: Pioneer Trail and Dell Road. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change, Resolution for Guide Plan Change, Resolution for PUD Concept, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS IX. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS X. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. RECEIVE PETITION FROM CENTRON DPL CO., INC. EMPLOYEES REQUESTING SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS AT CSAH 61 (SHADY OAK ROAD) AND CITY WEST PARKWAY/BRYANT LAKE DRIVE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 2, 1999 Page 3 XL REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS XII. APPOINTMENTS A. APPOINT MEMBERS TO BOARD OF REVIEW XIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTOR F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XIV. OTHER BUSINESS XV. ADJOURNMENT UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP 1999 County Transportation Projects (T.H. 101. et. al.) TUESDAY JANUARY 19, 1999 5:00 - 6:30 PM, CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM II CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher-Younghans, Ronald Case, and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Public Safety Services Director Jim Clark, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, and Council Recorder Dona Rowland OTHER Jim Grube,Bruce Polaczyk, and Craig Twinem of Hennepin County; Tim Phenow of SRF I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER-NANCY TYRA-LUKENS Nancy Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 5:15 pm Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. was absent. II. INTRODUCTION: GUEST SPEAKER. JIM GRUBE OF HENNEPIN COUNTY Public Works Services Director Gene Dietz introduced Jim Grube of Hennepin County. III. COUNTY PRESENTATION A. GENERAL REVIEW OF COUNTY ROAD PROJECTS IN EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP MINUTES January 19, 1999 Page 2 Grube began the presentation by showing an enlarged map of Eden Prairie which showed the proposed 5-year County Capital Improvement Plan as it impacted the City. The discussion included the proposed schedule for the projects. Ron Case asked about the prioritizing of road projects. Grube said there are three factors considered when prioritizing road projects: 1. Road Conditions 2. Amount of Traffic 3. Accident History along the Corridor Road conditions, traffic volume, and accident history are important in determining the need for either an overlay or reconstruction. If two threshold conditions have been met, repair will take place. If all three threshold conditions are met, it makes for a viable project. The County then asks the local community if they are interpreting the situation correctly from a local or regional perspective: • Is there local support? • Can the community support the construction? Uram asked about size and funding source for the CIP (Capital Improvement Plan)budget. Grube estimated well over$159 million for the 1999-2003 budget. That includes trails on existing roads,bike trail construction, traffic signal construction, and surface water construction. Property taxes contribute $500,000/year vs. $50 million per year Hennepin County Road Project budget. $500,000 is seed money to start projects. State aid amounts to $15-$20, with federal funding making up the balance. Enger asked how bonds are repaid. Grube said it is a property tax repayment, but is seldom used. Enger asked about the limit on bonds sold. The County Board makes that determination, Grube said. B. DETAILED REVIEW OF T.H. 101 Dietz introduced Bruce Polaczyk, and Craig Twinem of Hennepin County and Tim Phenow of SRF. This project was designed by the SRF Consulting Group. From 1976-1986, Eden Prairie experienced 6% annual traffic growth. We are reaching some level of saturation in terms of development and traffic being handled other ways. Traffic growth is leveling off. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP MINUTES January 19, 1999 Page 3 Enger asked about the projection of traffic and deciding when the ideal time is to improve to three or four lanes. T.H. 212 is being improved under very heavy traffic conditions. Why build now if it's not projected to be highest volume until 2020? Grube said safety is a big item. Pioneer Trail discussion included safety along the road and traffic history. The condition of roadways is also important. The condition of T.H. 101 is a concern. If we're at 13,000 vehicles per day on a two-lane road, the area and road are being challenged. We are already at a threshold condition for four lanes. Therefore, if is appropriate to plan for a four- lane reconstruction. Butcher-Younghans asked if there were wetlands issues with T.H. 101. Wetland mitigation is the key and is governed by state and watershed districts. The County has to discuss those issues in environmental documentation. Dietz noted the three states of the proposed design. Case asked if we know enough to know that Carver County and Chanhassen are in agreement with these designs. Grube said Carver County agrees. Chanhassen agrees but needs to reconcile some of the impact issues. Case suggested bringing the two communities together and receive community comments The recommended plan is 52 feet wide from curb to curb, versus 72 feet for the other two proposals that were studied. A number of private driveways enter onto the road, creating an access issue with the the 22-25,000 vehicles per day. Separate turn lanes at all intersections is the ideal. The 72-foot design provides a wide fifth center lane for turning access, a ten-foot wide regional trail and an 8- foot trail on the Eden Prairie side, bringing the road very close to homes in many areas. It is difficult to get into some driveways because of grades. Dietz said the 52-foot design had the least right-of-way impact for the project and would be the recommended plan shown at the public meetings. Case indicated it would be appropriate to show previous versions of the plan to let people know the effort taken to minimize impacts. Case asked when taking a house out is discussed, is the primary issue a financial issue one on the County or an emotional issue on the community? Grube said the financial responsibility is on the State. He said some people are happy to be bought out while others are not. IV. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION PROCESS A discussion about the public process included a suggestion by Mayor Harris to consider 3 CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP MINUTES January 19, 1999 Page 4 a joint meeting with Chanhassen. Mayor Harris will talk with the Mayor of Chanhassen to determine the possibility of such a meeting. Butcher-Younghans suggested a wider distribution of information than just adjacent to the roadway. Residents along Dell Road have an interest in the outcome of this project. Everyone agreed that a thorough communication plan is very important. Staff will develop a more detailed plan for that purpose. V. ADJOURN The meeting ended at 6:50 p.m. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher- Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra- Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Safety Services Director Jim Clark, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. All members were present. II. COUNCIL FORUM - 7:00 PM - 7:15 PM Harris explained the Council Forum process that will allow any citizen to come before the Council to present issues or concerns provided that person has called City Hall prior to noon on the day of the Council meeting to indicate a desire to present an item at the meeting. Enger said no one had called to sign up for tonight's meeting. A. Harris suggested that the issue regarding the upgrade of Highway 101 be pursued by seeking a joint meeting with the City Council of Chanhassen to discuss issues both cities must address in making a decision on this roadway. She proposed that the Mayors and City Managers of the two cities set the agenda for the meeting. She thought it should include the same kind of presentation from Hennepin County that the Council received at this evening's workshop. She asked Councilmembers to give items for discussion to Mr. Enger to make sure those will be part of the discussion. Enger asked if the proposed meeting would be a workshop or a formal joint Council meeting. Harris thought it might take the form of a workshop, but we would need to discuss that with Chanhassen. Tyra-Lukens liked the idea of a workshop rather than a formal meeting. The consensus was to pursue the joint session. 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 19, 1999 Page 2 B. Enger said he would like to discuss the issue of formalizing the City's help to residents who have had water problems from sewer blockage. He said we have had situations where the City has helped those residents, but the policy has not been very formal. To date this has not been a large problem, but Staff is concerned about what would happen if there were a larger problem. They would like to provide a fund to self-insure for such occasions and to put some standards to the process. As a small part of their annual sewer bill, residents would pay towards that fund. Tyra-Lukens asked if there would be a cap on the amount one person could receive. Enger said there would be. Harris asked who would administer the fund. Enger said the City would. Case asked how typical it is for insurance companies to cover this type of catastrophe. Enger said some insurance companies do cover this situation. Case thought if 90% of the insurance companies cover it, it is not a problem. Dietz noted he has extended coverage on his own policy, and his department has sent information with the utility bills regarding the need for residents to have their own insurance. Case asked if we could word it that the City would be the last resort. Dietz thought the fund would be the second resort after exhausting the individual's insurance coverage, with a cap on the amount to be paid out from the fund. Pauly was not sure we could structure it such that people would have to exhaust their insurance since everyone should be entitled to the same benefit; however, we could put an overall cap on it. Tyra-Lukens asked if we are talking about situations where the drains back up. Dietz said we aren't talking about surface water, only sanitary sewer backup. Harris asked what the surcharge would be. Dietz said 5 cents per thousand raises about $200,000 per year, so that we could build up a pool with a charge of pennies per thousand. He noted that the Met Council has proposed some rate reduction which might lessen the overall rate increase needed for the surcharge. Case asked if this type of situation sometimes results from negligence. Dietz said the City has an active maintenance program for the system, and occurrences in the past have usually been the result of something other than a deficiency in the City's maintenance of the system. Harris asked how often we can identify the perpetrator of the problem. Dietz said we have taken contractors to court when we discovered they had dumped concrete in the sewer system; however, we didn't win because we did not have an eye witness. The fact that we did take them to court helped to get the message out that we would not tolerate such actions. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 19, 1999 Page 3 III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Dietz added item XIII.E.1. Award for City. Enger added item XIII.B.2. Award for City. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried 5-0. V. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1999 Case said the first sentence of the last paragraph on Page 1 should be changed to "Case recommended...committee to study the issue of Communications and Technology." MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve as published and amended the Minutes of the City Council/Staff Workshop held Tuesday, January 5, 1999. Motion carried 5-0. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 5. 1999 Tyra-Lukens said Sentence 2, Paragraph 1, Page 4 should be changed to "From one to three...Minneapolis for the six nights that service was offered." MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve as published and amended the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 5, 1999. Motion carried 5-0. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. RESOLUTION 99-13 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF SETTLERS RIDGE 2ND ADDITION C. RESOLUTION 99-14 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BEARPATH 8TH ADDITION D. RESOLUTION 99-15 GRANTING AUTHORIZATION TO EXERCISE OPTION TO PURCHASE PARCEL #2 - RICHARD T. ANDERSON CONSERVATION AREA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 19, 1999 Page 4 E. AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AGREEMENT ON CITY- OWNED PARCEL - LOT 4 BLOCK 1 MARKET CENTER 2ND ADDITION & GIVE OFFICIAL NOTICE TO JOHN TEMAN AND THE NATIONAL 1031 EXCHANGE CORPORATION TO VACATE AND SURRENDER THE "HOUSE PROPERTY." F. APPROVE APT LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT FIRE STATION #2 G. RESOLUTION 99-16 APPROVING LIMITED USE PERMIT AGREEMENT BETWEEN MINNETONKA, MnDOT AND EDEN PRAIRIE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF A TRAIL ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 62 BETWEEN I-494 AND CLEARWATER DRIVE H. RESOLUTION 99-17 APPROVING COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH MnDOT FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS TO RAILROAD CROSSING SIGNALS ON VALLEY VIEW ROAD I. RESOLUTION 99-18 APPROVING RECYCLING GRANT J. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR FULLER ROAD STORM SEWER, I.C. 98-5461 K. AWARD PARKS AND RECREATION BROCHURE PRINTING BID TO SHAKOPEE VALLEY PRINTING MOTION: Tyra Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve items A- K of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS VIII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Tyra Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve the Payment of Claims. Motion carried on a roll-call vote with Butcher-Younghans, Case, Thorfinnson, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting "aye." IX. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS X. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS XI. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS XII. APPOINTMENTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 19, 1999 Page 5 XIII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. Boards and Commissions Report (Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. and Sherry Butcher-Younghans) Thorfinnson asked the Council to extend to September 30, 1999 the terms of those members of Boards and Commissions whose terms expire in March so that the review and realignment project can keep moving forward. They have developed the basic structure but will need a couple of months to take the plan to department heads, chairs of the boards and commissions and Staff liaisons. They will then bring forward the realignment proposal for Council review. Harris asked if there is a system in place to determine whether individuals are willing to extend their terms. Thorfinnson said they have discussed approaching those whose terms are expiring and asking them to consider extending through September. If that would be a problem for an individual, they would proceed on a case-by-case basis to see if it presented a particular problem to a Board or Commission. In that case they would consider interim appointments. Case asked if that would mean we would be appointing for a 3-1/2 year term in October. Thorfinnson said it would be 2-1/2 years. Case asked if we have a plan to seek out advise from the Commission Chair if the Commission were weakened. Thorfinnson said if two or three people left the Commission, we would have to consider an interim appointment. They are trying to find a place for everybody and that might not be easy. Butcher-Younghans said the realignment process is complex, and there are a lot of things that need to be looked at. Thorfinnson said one of the things they realized is that as we have reorganized and realigned Staff we need to do the same thing with Boards and Commissions. They are trying to develop a process that will work better for us in the future. Swaggert said there are 19 individuals that would be asked to extend. In addition they would need to look more closely at two Commissions that are currently operating down one individual. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to extend the terms of current Boards and Commissions through September 30, 1999. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 19, 1999 Page 6 Motion carried 5-0. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Presentation of 1999 Strategic Plan Enger said the Council has involved the Boards and Commissions and various parts of the business community in developing a Vision 2001 Strategic Plan. He reviewed the work Staff has done on the Strategic Plan to develop strategies and action plans through the process of conducting a community forum, a business forum, Board and Commission discussion, Staff and Council visioning and Council/Staff workshops. Enger said the four strategic initiatives identified were communication, partnership, diversity, and investment to protect our natural and cultural resources. Within the four initiatives Staff identified strategies for 1999 and 2000 for projects in the five focus areas. He noted that all of the strategies are cross functional in scope. The Service Area directors were involved in developing the priorities, beginning date for the projects and the completion time. They are asking individual Service Areas to develop action plans for supporting the over-all strategic plan, strategic initiatives and the strategies. They believe the strategic plan will lead to the ability to be more responsive to citizen needs. He commended Staff on their job in developing the strategies. Harris asked if there was an error in the strategy on upgrading the current Eden Prairie Mall since the lead Service Area identified was the Public Safety Services. Enger said that strategy would be the City Manager's responsibility with other Service Areas involved. Harris thought this speaks to the integrated approach and helps us face the challenges ahead in the next millennium. 2. Award for City Enger said the Government Finance Officers Association of the U.S. and Canada have given the City their award for outstanding achievement in popular annual financial reporting for the fiscal year ended 1997. C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR (19 E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 19, 1999 Page 7 1. Award for City Dietz displayed the award plaque the City received for the "Project of the Year" award from the Association of City Engineers for the new water plant and environmental learning center. F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XIV. OTHER BUSINESS XV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 7:40 PM. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: edam SECTION: Consent Calendar February 2, 1999 prairim SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development Clerk's License Application List & Financial Services - Gretchen Laven These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. RENEWAL LICENSES CONTRACTORS CON'T CONTRACTORS FRIENDSHIP VENTURES dba: Eden Wood Center ADVANCED HEATING&COOLING GENERAL SHEET METAL CORPORATION AIRTECH INC GENZ-RYAN PLUMBING&HTG CO ALBERS SHEETMETAL&VENT INC GILBERT MECH CONTRACTORS INC ALLIANT HEATING&A/C H I S PLUMBING CO INC dba: FREDRICKSON HTG&A/C HAUENSTEIN &BURMEISTER INC ALPINE HEATING HOKANSON PLUMBING&HEATING INC AQUA CITY PLUMBING INC HUNERBERG CONSTRUCTION INC ARCHETONE INC J&H GAS SERVICES INC ASSOCIATED MECHANICAL BATON J W ANDERSON&ASSOCIATES BELGRADE PROPERTY SERVICES INC JANECKY PLUMBING CO BERWALD ROOFING CO INC KLEVE HTG&A/C INC BUDGET PLUMBING CORPORATION KNUTSON CONSTRUCTION CO C 0 CARLSON AIR CONDITIONING CO KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO CARD CONSTRUCTION LARSON MECHANICAL CO CENTRAIRE INC LOFGREN HEATING&AIR CONDITIONING CHRISTIANS INC M P JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION INC COMMERCIAL PLB &HTG INC METROPOLITAN MECH CONTRACTORS INC CONTRACTORS INC MID-CITY MECHANICAL CORP CORPORATION MILLER ARCHITECTS &BLDRS INC CRONSTROMS HTG&A/C INC MODERN AERO INC D J' S HEATING&AIR CONDITIONING INC dba: ASI-Aero Services DAKOTA PLUMBING&HEATING INC NS/I MECHANICAL CONTRACTING CO DAVID WAYNE CONST INC PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC DEPENDABLE INDOOR AIR QUALITY INC PETROLEUM MAINTENANCE CO DESIGN 1 OF EDINA LTD (Larson Enterprises) E C I BUILDING CONTRACTORS POKORNY COMPANY INC EMERALD BUILDERS INC PRACTICAL SYSTEMS FAULKNER CONSTRUCTION INC R C PLUMBING&HTG INC FISHER-BJORK SHEETMETAL CO INC RAYMOND E HAEG PLUMBING FORCIER PLUMBING RESIDENTIAL HEATING&AIR INC RICCAR HTG&A/C INC RICHFIELD PLUMBING February 2, 1999 CONTRACTORS CON'T RON'S MECHANICAL INC SINGLE-PLY SYSTEMS INC SOUTH TOWN REFRIGERATION INC STATEWIDE GAS SERVICES INC THE BAINEY GROUP INC THOMPSON PLUMBING CORP TIM SCHMITZ CONSTRUCTION WELSH CONSTRUCTION CORP WENZEL HTG&AIR WENZEL PLUMBING&HTG CO INC PRIVATE KENNEL KIM DONAHUE- CATS VINCENT STROM-DOGS SOLID WASTE COLLECTOR A W DISPOSAL INC February 2, 1999 DATE: 02/02/99 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 96-5419 Public Works Approve Change Order No. 1 for Baker Road Water Tank Interior Painting Engineering Division Mary Krause Recommended Action: Move to approve Change Order No. 1 for the Baker Road water tank interior painting in the amount of$3,122.00. Primary Issues: The additional manway is required to meet OSHA standards. Financial Issues: This change order results in an additional $3,122.00 for installation of a manway. This project is being funded from the Trunk Fund/Capital account. We hereby recommend approval of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $3,122.00 to DeLoughery Painting Company. 1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 Date: January 6, 1999 Project Name: Baker Road Storage Tank - interior painting I.C. 96-5419 Contractor: DeLoughery Painting Company Engineer: AET Nature of Changes: Addition of manway at the bottom of the storage tank for access 1. Install pressure hatch to existing steel storage tank Labor and Material Costs $ 3,122.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER COST $ 3,122.00 SUMMARY OF CONTRACT CHANGES • Original Contract Amount $ 99,500.00 • Net Increase resulting from Change Order No. 1 $ 3,122.00 • Current Contract Amount including Change Order No. 1 $ 102,622.00 The Above Changes are Approved: The Above Changes Are Accepted: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DeLOUGHERY PAINTING COMPANY By By Date: Date: DATE: 02/02/99 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA: rrEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 98-5476 Public Works Award of Contract for Construction of Watermain in Wallace Road and Eugene A. Dietz Technology Drive Requested Action: Move to approve resolution to award contract for construction of watermain in Wallace Road and Technology Drive (well collector line) to Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $98,815.00. Background: This project will provide the watermain to carry water from the new Well No. 13 to the existing well collector line in Technology Drive adjacent to the Public Works Maintenance Facility. The low bid is approximately 10% below the engineer's estimate of$110,000.00. Attached is a letter from our consultant, TKDA, which recommends the award of the contract to Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. Staff concurs with the recommendation. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvement: I.C. 98-5476 - Watermain in Wallace Road and Technology Drive bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works recommends Award of Contract to Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter in a Contract with Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of $98,815.00 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 2, 1999. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Donald R. Uram, City Clerk DATE: 02/02/99 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: V SECTION: Consent Calendar -� DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Approve Conditional Use Agreement with Hennepin County for Provision of Mary Krause Electronic Data for Mapping Purposes Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution approving Conditional Use Agreement for electronic geographical digitized data for use in mapping of the City. Overview: Hennepin County will provide electronic digitized half-section map data to the City of Eden Prairie. The City will then use this data to produce mapping. Financial Issues: A minimal charge for the time and materials required for Hennepin County to transfer the information to disks will be charged to the City. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE PROVISION OF ELECTRONIC DATA FOR MAPPING PURPOSES WHEREAS, a Conditional Use Agreement has been prepared which identifies the obligations regarding the transfer and use of electronic digitized data files for use in mapping and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends approval of said Conditional Use Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that said Conditional Use Agreement is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 2, 1999. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Donald R. Uram, City Clerk Agreement No. HENNEPIN COUNTY CONDITIONAL USE LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT,made by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, Taxpayer Services Department, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the"County", and the City of Eden Prairie,hereinafter referred to as the "Entity". For purposes of this Agreement,the address of the County is A703 Government Center,Minneapolis,Minnesota 55487-0073 and the address of Entity is 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344-2230. WITNESSETH WHEREAS,the County has developed electronic forms of certain data bases and an electronic proprietary geographical digitized data base hereinafter referred to as "EPDB"; and WHEREAS, the Entity desires to use the County's EPDB in the course of conducting the Entity's business; and WHEREAS, in acknowledgment of the Entity's above-stated purpose,the County is agreeable to provide to the Entity the EPDB, and WHEREAS,the parties agree that the execution of this Agreement is necessary in order to adequately protect said EPDB; and WHEREAS, the County exclusively owns the EDPB which is the subject of this Agreement and has the authority and legal right to grant Entity a license to have and use the EPDB as provided in this Agreement; and WHEREAS,the EPDB is trade secret or confidential information under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and is governed by Minnesota Statutes sections 375.86 and 13.03 as well as other applicable state and federal law. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, as well as the obligations herein made and undertaken,the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound,hereby agree as follows: Form 1 (10/98) 3 Section 1 SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 1.1 This License Agreement shall apply to the EPDB,which Hennepin County will provide to Entity, after a specific request has been made to County. Section 2 GRANT OF LIMITED LICENSE 2.1 The County hereby grants the Entity a non-exclusive,nontransferable and nonassignable limited use license to use the EPDB which includes self developed computer software under Minn. Stat. § 375.86. Said license shall commence on the date of approval of this Agreement by the County and shall extend throughout the term of the Agreement unless terminated sooner, in accordance with the provisions hereof. Section 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION RESERVATION OF TITLE 3.1 The Entity acknowledges and agrees that the EPDB is the exclusive property of the County,including, but not limited to, any and all indexes, and includes commercially valuable information which reflect the efforts of skilled development experts and required the investment of considerable amounts of time and money, and that the County has treated the EPDB as trade secret and confidential information,which County entrusts to the Entity in confidence to use in the conduct of the Entity's business. The Entity further acknowledges and agrees the EPDB is a creative selection,coordination, arrangement and method of arrangement of data which is identified as being subject to copyright protection; is self-developed computer software under Minn. Stat. § 375.86 and is an entire or substantial and discrete portion of a pattern, compilation, method,technique, process, data base or system developed with significant expenditure of funds by County under Minn. Stat. § 13.03. The Entity agrees that the County owns and reserves all rights,protection and benefits afforded under federal copyright law in all EPDB furnished to the Entity as unpublished works, as well as all rights,protection and benefits afforded under any other law relating to confidential and/or trade secret information respecting said EPDB, and that the Entity will abide by all relevant laws,rules, regulations and decisions which afford protection to the County for its confidential and trade secret information and said copyright. This Agreement does not effect any transfer of title in or to any EPDB of the County. The Entity acknowledges that it is granted only a limited right of use of such EPDB, which right is not coupled with an interest, and the Entity shall not assert nor cause or cooperate with others to assert any right,title, or interest in any EPDB of the County. 2 Section 4 PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 4.1 Obligations of Confidentiality,Limitations of Use. The Entity shall neither disclose, furnish, sell,resell,transfer, duplicate, reproduce nor disseminate, in whole or in part,the EPDB of the County and its unique design, arrangement or method of arrangement in its electronic form furnished to the Entity to (1) any other person,firm, entity,organization, or subsidiary, except as expressly authorized hereunder; or(2)any employee of the Entity who does not need to obtain access thereto in connection with the Entity's exercise of its rights under this Agreement. The Entity may have and use the EPDB on a corporate-wide basis and shall have the rights to use the EPDB on a limited number of sites,provided the equipment on which the EPDB is maintained supports only equipment operated by the Entity and the EPDB is used only for the conduct of the Entity's own internal business by Entity employees. All employees having access to the EPDB shall be informed of the requirements contained in Section 4 herein. The Entity shall not otherwise copy or reproduce any EPDB of the County. Under no circumstances may the entity disclose or disseminate any EPDB to any other public or private entity. The obligations of the Entity to protect confidentiality which are established by this Agreement apply to the EPDB itself and not to any graphic representation or products produced by the Entity while using the EPDB. Any authorized consultants,contractors or agents of Entity must properly execute and file a separate EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement with Hennepin County. The Entity expressly agrees to use the County's EPDB in the ordinary course of its business and all such use shall bear a notice of copyright by Hennepin County. 4.2 Secure Handling. The Entity shall require that all EPDB be kept in a secure location at 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230 and maintained in a manner so as to reasonably preclude unauthorized persons from having access thereto. The Entity shall devote its reasonable efforts to ensure that all persons afforded access to EPDB protect same against unauthorized use, dissemination or disclosure. Entity agrees it will not knowingly or negligently allow its employees, agents or independent contractors to copy, sell,disclose or otherwise make the EPDB available to others. Entity agrees to immediately notify the County by telephone and in writing if Entity becomes aware of any unauthorized duplication, sale or other disclosure. Entity further agrees to prevent unauthorized disclosure by taking appropriate security measures including,but not limited to,providing physical security for copies of the EPDB and taking all steps Entity takes to protect information, data or other tangible and intangible property of its own that Entity regards as proprietary, confidential or nonpublic. Except for off-site backup,the Entity shall not remove or cause or allow to be removed from the Entity's place of business or the place of business of any EPDB or any copy thereof without the prior written consent of the County, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 4.3 Assistance of the Entity. At the request of the County and expense of the Entity,the Entity shall use good faith and reasonable efforts to assist the County in identifying any 3 use, copying, or disclosure of any EPDB by any current or former Entity personnel-- or anyone else who may have come in possession of said EPDB while the same was in the Entity's possession—in any manner that is contrary to the provisions of this Agreement so long as the County shall have provided the Entity with information reasonably justifying the conclusion of the County that such contrary use may have occurred. 4.4 Survival of Confidentiality Obligations. The Entity's obligations respecting confidentiality of the EPDB shall survive termination of this Agreement for any reason and shall remain in effect for as long as the Entity continues to possess or control any EPDB furnished by the County. In addition,the County shall remain entitled to enforce its copyright and propriety interests in all EPDB. Section 5 TERM, TERMINATION 5.1 The Entity and the COUNTY agree that this Agreement is in effect during the period commencing January 1, 1999 and terminating December 31, 1999. This Agreement shall commence from the date hereof, unless sooner terminated by either party with cause upon three(3) calendar days' written notice to the other. The expiration or termination of this Agreement shall automatically and without further action by the County terminate and extinguish the license. In the event of any such expiration or termination,the County shall have the right to take immediate possession of said EPDB, and all copies thereof wherever located, and without demand or notice. Within five (5) days after expiration or termination of this Agreement,the Entity shall return the EPDB and all copies thereof to the County, or upon request by the County,the Entity shall destroy all of the same and all copies thereof and certify in writing to the County that the same has been destroyed. 5.1.1 It is agreed that any right or remedy provided for herein shall not be considered as the exclusive right or remedy but shall be considered to be in addition to any other right or remedy hereunder or allowed by law, equity or statute. 5.1.2 The County's failure to insist upon strict performance of any covenant, agreement or stipulation of the Agreement, or to exercise any right herein contained shall not be a waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation or right, unless the County stipulates thereto in writing. Any such written consent shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation or right. 6 4 Section 6 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 6.1 The Entity acknowledges and agrees that unauthorized disclosure or use of the EPDB or any part thereof could cause irreparable harm and significant injury to the County,which may be difficult to measure with certainty or to compensate through damages. Accordingly,the Entity agrees that the County may seek and obtain against the Entity and/or any other person or entity injunctive relief against the breach or threatened breach of the foregoing undertakings, in addition to any other equitable or legal remedies which may be available. Section 7 OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS 7.1 No Agency. The parties hereto are independent contractors, and nothing herein shall be construed to create an agency,joint venture,partnership or other form of business association between the parties hereto. 7.2 No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party hereto to exercise any right or power occurring upon any noncompliance or default by the other party with respect to any of the terms of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof unless the same is consented to in writing. A waiver by either of the parties hereto of any of the covenants, conditions, or agreements to be observed by the other shall not be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach thereof or of any covenant, condition, or agreement herein contained. All remedies provided for in this Agreement shall be cumulative and in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedies available to either party at law, in equity, or otherwise. 7.3 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 7.4 Entire Agreement. This License Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and there are no understandings or agreements relative hereto other than those that are expressed herein. No change,waiver, or discharge hereof shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the party against whom such change,waiver, or discharge is sought to be enforced. 7.5. No Assignment. Neither party shall assign, sublet or transfer this Agreement, either in whole or in part,without the prior written consent of the other party, and any attempt to do so shall be void and of no force and effect. 7.6 THE ENTITY AGREES THAT THE COUNTY IS FURNISHING THE EPDB ON AN"AS IS" BASIS,WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER,AND WITHOUT REPRESENTATION OR ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED 5 WARRANTIES,INCLUDING BUT NOT IN ANY MANNER LIMITED TO, FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE,MERCHANTABILITY OR THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE EPDB. THE COUNTY'S SOLE LIABILITY AND THE ENTITY'S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT WHICH IMPAIRS THE USE OF THE EPDB FOR THE PURPOSE STATED HEREIN SHALL BE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT. THE COUNTY DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE EPDB ARE ERROR FREE. THE EPDB WERE DEVELOPED FOR THE COUNTY'S OWN INTERNAL BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE COUNTY DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THE EPDB CAN BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONAL, TRACKING OR ANY OTHER PURPOSE REQUIRING EXACTING MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE OR DIRECTION OR PRECISION IN THE DEPICTION OF GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES. THE COUNTY DISCLAIMS ANY OTHER WARRANTIES,EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,RESPECTING THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT OR THE EPDB. 7.7 In no event shall the County be liable for actual, direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential damages(even if the County has been advised of the possibility of such damage) or lost of profit, loss of business or any other financial loss or any other damage arising out of performance or failure of performance of this Agreement by the County. The County and the Entity agree each will be responsible for their own acts and omissions under this Agreement and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other party under the Agreement and the results thereof. The parties' respective liabilities shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act,Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466, and other applicable law. This paragraph shall not be construed to bar legal remedies one party may have for the other party's failure to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. 7.8 Notice. Any notice or demand shall be in writing and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party address as follows: To the Entity: City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 0 6 • To Hennepin County: Hennepin County Administrator A-2300 Government Center (233) Minneapolis, MN 55487-0233 Copy to: Robert L. Hanson Hennepin County Chief Information Officer A-1900 Government Center (190) Minneapolis, MN 55487-0190 Copy to: Patrick H. O'Connor Director, Taxpayer Services Department A-600 Government Center (060) Minneapolis, MN 55487-0060 7.9 Whereas Clauses. The matters set forth in the"Whereas"clauses on page one of this Agreement are incorporated into and made a part hereof by this reference. 7.10 Survival of Provisions. It is expressly understood and agreed that the obligations and warranties of the Entity under Sections 3,4, 5, 6, 7.6, and 7.7 hereof and the obligations and warranties of the Entity and the County which by their sense and context are intended to survive the performance thereof by the Entity and the County, shall so survive the completion of performance and termination or cancellation of this Agreement. 7.11 Authority. The person or persons executing this License Agreement on behalf of Entity represent that they are duly authorized to execute this License Agreement on behalf of Entity and represent and warrant that this License Agreement is a legal,valid and binding obligation and is enforceable in accordance with its terms. This portion of page intentionally left blank 7 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL ENTITY,having signed this agreement, and the County having duly approved this agreement on the day of , 19 ,and pursuant to such approval,the proper County officials having signed this contract,the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Approved as to form COUNTY OF HENNEPIN and execution STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Assistant County Attorney Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator Date: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By: Mayor And: City Clerk/City Manager Form 1 (10/98) 0 8 DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA OPEden February 2, 1999 prairie SECTION: Consent Calendar SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Public Safety Michael T. Bosacker, A Resolution Authorizing Execution of VI.E. Division Commander, Sub-Grant Agreement Patrol Operations REQUESTED ACTION: Move to approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign an agreement between the City of Eden Prairie and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to enable the distribution of one Automated External Defibrillator to the Police Department. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the 1998 Minnesota legislative session, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety awarded $450,000 to purchase Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) units which were to be awarded to local law enforcement agencies who are first responders. In July of 1998, the Eden Prairie Police Department applied for the 1998 Defibrillator Grant Program. On November 16, 1998, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety awarded the Police Department one AED unit. In order for the Police Department to take possession of the AED unit, a joint powers agreement, which has been provided by the State of Minnesota, must be signed. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed Resolution Authorizing Execution of Sub-Grant Agreement. • Agreement between the City of Eden Prairie and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Information Supplied By: Lieutenant Michael T. Bosacker Division Commander, Patrol Operations Eden Prairie Police Department January 22, 1999 MTB:sm CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the 1998 Minnesota legislative session awarded $450,000 to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to purchase Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) units to be awarded to local law enforcement first responder agencies; and WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Police Department applied for the 1998 Defibrillator Grant Program in July 1998 and on November 16, 1998, was awarded one AED unit by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie enter into a Sub-Grant Agreement with the Division of Emergency Management in the Minnesota Depai talent of Public Safety for the program entitled Infrastructure Program for FEMA 1175-DR-MINNESOTA. Christopher M. Enger, City Manager, is hereby authorized to execute and sign such Sub- Grant Agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on February 2, 1999. • Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald Uram, City Clerk • COPY • MN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR (AED) AGREEMENT (DISTRIBUTION OF AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES) THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT, by and between the State Minnesota,Department of Public Safety (hereinafter referred to as the STATE) and City of Eden Prairie, Eden Prairie Police Department, 8080 Mitchell Road,Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344(hereinafter referred to as GOVERNMENTAL UNIT)witness that: WHEREAS,the Department of Public Safety, pursuant to the 1998 Minnesota Sessions Laws,Chapter 367, Article 1,Section 9.,Subd.6,purchased Automated External Defibrillators(hereinafter referred to as AED)to distribute to local law enforcement agencies,and WHEREAS,the Department of Public Safety,pursuant to the 1998 Minnesota Sessions Laws,Chapter 367, Article 1,Section 16.,shall administer a program to distribute AED(s)to local law enforcement agencies; and WHEREAS,automated external difibrillators may only be distributed to law enforcement agencies that are first responders for medical emergencies; and WHEREAS, the STATE and the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT are empowered to enter into joint powers agreements pursuant to Minn. Stat.§471.59,Subd. 10,and, WHEREAS,the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT is authorized to accept equipment from the STATE for the purpose specified in the Agreement,and WHEREAS,the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT represents that it is duly qualified to carry out the tasks described in this Agreement, NOW,THEREFORE,the STATE and GOVERNMENTAL UNIT agree as follows: I. STATE'S RESPONSIBILITIES. A. The STATE shall provide the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT with a total of one AED units for use specified in this Agreement. B. The STATE,through the AED manufacturer,shall provide essential training of the AED unit(s), to at least one designated person employed by the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT who is qualified as a first responder for medical emergencies. II. GOVERNMENTAL UNIT'S RESPONSIBILITIES. GOVERNMENTAL UNIT receiving Defibrillators under this Agreement must: A. The Governmental Unit shall provide any necessary training to their employees concerning the used of the AED unit(s), and shall not permit the AED unit(s) to be tampered with or operated by individuals who are not properly trained. - .._. . _ B. The Governmental Unit shall designate one or more person(s)to be trained in the proper handling, use and maintenance of the AED unit(s),in which the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall bear the cost of any travel and related expenses incurred by their people attending training. This initial training shall be arranged for by the STATE through the AED manufacturer, and shall thereafter be the total responsibility of the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT. C. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall retain or consult with a physician consultant who is responsible for assisting the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT with issues involving the AED unit(s) and following up on the medical status of persons on whom a AED unit(s) has been used. D. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall compile statistics on the use of the AED unit(s)and its results and report this information to the STATE's commissioner as required. E. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall keep and maintain the AED unit(s)in proper operating condition in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and warranty. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall also be responsible for any and all costs of repairing or replacing AED unit(s) which are lost or damaged due to misuse or abuse. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall report to the STATE any repairs or replacement of AED unit(s) within 30 days of such action taken. In all cases,the ownership of the originial and/or replacement AED unit(s)covered by this Agreement shall remain the property of the STATE. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall make the AED unit(s) available to the STATE's authorized personnel when required for inventory or inspection purposes. F. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall provide and maintain all disposable and consumable components originally provided by the STATE,and shall supply all other necessary disposable and consumable components not provided by the STATE at the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT's expense. G. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall return the AED unit(s)to the STATE upon demand,and within 30 days of demand. Any postage and handling charges for delivery or shipping of the AED unit(s) to the STATE shall be pre-paid by the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT. III. TERMS OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be effective on February 15, 1999,or upon the date that the final required signature is obtained by the STATE,pursuant to Minn.Stat. 16C.05,Subd.2,whichever occurs later,and shall remain in effect until February 14,2001, or until all obligations set forth in this Agreement have been satisfactorily fulfilled or the Agreement has been canceled,whichever happens first. IV. TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by either the STATE or GOVERNMENTAL UNIT at any time with or without cause, upon ten (10) days written notice to the other party. In the event of such termination GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall return all AED unit(s)that it has received pursuant to this Agreement to the STATE, within thirty(30) days after the termination of this Agreement. If GOVERNMENTAL UNIT fails to return the AED unit(s)within this time period. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT agrees to pay the.STATE.the cost of replacement of the AED unit(s). V. STATE'S AUTHORIZED AGENT • PAGE 2 of 4 The STATE's authorized agent for the purposes of this Agreement is Pamela J. Docken,or her successor in office,Department of Public Safety,Office of the Commissioner,445 Minnesota Street,Suite 1000, North Central Life Tower, St. Paul, MN 551 01-21 28. Such agent shall have final authority for acceptance of the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT's services. VI. REPORTING • A. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT will advise the STATE each and every time an AED unit(s) has been used by the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT. Such reporting will be done within 48 hours from the AED unit(s)use. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT will use forms and data collection software that is provided by the STATE and the manufacturer to report the usage of the AED unit(s). B, The GOVERNMENTAL UNITshall make any and all project records, reports and other data available to the STATE upon request; this includes submission of copies of any reports, data, surveys (including survey information)'or other materials for review and comment before they are prepared in final form,and three copies of all materials produced by and for the project following production of materials. • C. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall permit periodic site visits by the STATE's Authorized Agent, other STATE staff or other employees of the State of Minnesota on behalf of the STATE. D. If initiated,the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall participate in statewide data collection and cooperation with a designated evaluator on behalf of the STATE,for the purpose of statewide evaluation efforts and assistance with individual project evaluation plans. E. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT acknowledges that participation in training and evaluation workshops may be required. VII. ASSIGNMENT GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent from the STATE. VIII. LIABILITY The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT shall indemnify,save and hold the STATE,its representatives and employees, harmless from any and all claims or causes of action,including all attorneys' fees incurred by the STATE, arising from the performance of this Agreement by the.GOVERNMENTAL UNIT or GOVERNMENTAL UNIT's employees, agents, or subcontractors. This clause shall not be construed to bar any legal remedies the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT may have for the STATE's failure to fulfill its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. The GOVERNMENTAL UNIT's liability shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.01-466.15 and other applicable law. IX. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES Neither GOVERNMENTAL UNIT nor GOVERNMENTAL UNIT's agents or employees are to be considered to be agents of the STATE or to be engaged in any joint venture or enterprise with the STATE,and nothing herein shall be construed to create such a relationship. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed intending to be bound thereby. APPROVED PAGE 3 of 4 5 1.GOVERNMENTAL UNIT 2. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date By: Title: Date 3. ATTORNEY GENERAL 4.DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION APPROVED TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY By: GENERAL AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION: Date: By: Date: Person(s)signing the Agreement and obligating the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT to the conditions of the Agreement, must be authorized. A certified copy of the resolution authorizing the GOVERNMENTAL UNIT to enter into this Agreement and designating person(s)to execute this Agreement must be attached hereto. • PAGE 4 of 4 • . CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar February 2, 1999 SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development and Financial Services - Set the Date and Time for the 1999 Board of VI. F. Assessing Review Steve Sinell Requested Action: Move to set Thursday, April 22, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. as the 1999 Board of Review meeting date. Background Information: By statute, the Board of Review must meet between April 1 and May 31 each year. The Board of Review has 20 calendar days to complete their business. As a practical matter, we suggest a date when the City Council Chambers are available. The dates the Council Chambers are available for the Board of Review to meet are Thursday, April 22, for the initial meeting date and twenty days later on Tuesday, May 11, to reconvene the meeting. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 2-2-99 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. VII.A. SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development & Financial Services EDEN ORCHARD Donald Uram Michael Franzen Requested Council Action: Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; or • Continue for more information or modification. (The City must take action on this item by March 16, 1999.) • Adopt resolution for Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 39.26 acres; and • Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District change from Rural to R1-9.5, R1-13.5 and RM-6.5 on 158.4 acres; and • Adopt resolution for PUD Concept; and • Adopt resolution for Preliminary Plat. Background: This is a residential plan for 259 single family homes, 118 townhouses, and 58 twinhomes. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission first reviewed a plan for 456 units on December 14, 1998. The Planning Commission continued the project and directed Orrin Thompson Homes to revise the plans to reduce tree loss, increase the number of twin homes, and reduce the density in the southeast corner. At the January 11, 1999 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve a revised plan for 433 units. The revised plan included the following changes: 1. Three lots have been removed from the southeast portion of the plan in order to meet the bluff setback requirement of the shoreland code. 2. The road in the southeast portion of the plan is shifted to the north. A woodland planting buffer is proposed across the rear lot lines adjacent to City park property. 3. Twenty eight(28) one level twin homes are shown on a site plan for Outlot H . The previous plan for Outlot H was 40 multiple family units with no specific site plan. 4. The number of senior oriented units has increased from 28 to 56. Eden Orchard Page 2 5. The density has been reduced from 2.89 to 2.73 units per acre. 12/14/98 Plan 1/11/99 Plan R1-9.5 117 (26%) 125 (29%) R1-13.5 137 (30%) 134 (32%) RM 6.5 (twins) 28 (6%) 28 (7%) RM 6.5 (town) 134 (29%) 118 (25%) Outlot H 40 (9%) 28 (7%) Total 456 433 Density 2.89 du/acre 2.73 du/acre 6. Tree loss has been reduced from 41% to 31.7%. A new tree survey located significant trees to be saved that were not included in the previous inventory. The additional trees are primarily on land to be dedicated to the city. There is a total of 14,282 inches of significant trees on the site. Staff calculates the tree loss at 4,525 inches. The required tree replacement is 1,907 inches. This is a residential plan for 259 single family homes, 118 townhouses, and 58 twinhomes. The Planning Commission discussed the road connection to Cedar Crest Road and Cedar Forest Road in response to a citizen petition to not extend the road. The Planning Commission recommended against the road extension. The Staff recommends that the road extension be made for emergency vehicle access, for distribution of traffic, sidewalk connections and extension of utilities. The City Council may consider either recommendation. An EAW is required for this project. The Planning Commission reviewed the EAW and recommended a finding of no significant impact. A resolution with findings of fact will be prepared and submitted to the City Council at 2nd reading. Supporting Reports: 1. Staff Reports dated December 11, 1998, and January 8, 1999. 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated December 14, 1998, and January 11, 1999. 3. Letters from DNR, Metropolitan Council, Department of Health and Minnesota Department of Transportation. 4. Letters from residents and a Petition against road extension. 5. Supplemental Staff Report to the City Planner's Staff Reports Dated December 11, 1998, and January 8, 1999, for Eden Orchard. 2 EDEN ORCHARD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 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 Eden Orchard by Orrin Thompson Homes for construction of 433 units requires the 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: 39.26 acres from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential located at Pioneer Trail and Dell Road. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 2nd day of February, 1999. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R.Uram, City Clerk 3 EDEN ORCHARD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EDEN ORCHARD FOR ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Eden Orchard dated January 29, 1999, consisting of 158.4 acres into 433 lots and 10 outlots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances,and amendments thereto,and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 2nd day of February, 1999. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk 7 CITRIF.C'T• 'PA A,. nr,.t,n�a EDEN ORCHARD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT REVIEW OF EDEN ORCHARD FOR ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES 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 City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Eden Orchard PUD Concept Review by Orrin Thompson Homes and considered their request for approval for development (and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on February 2, 1999; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Eden Orchard, 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 January 29, 1999. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated January 11, 1999. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 2nd day of February , 1999. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk S ,..../—\______ s n _________Th 71 .: ems — ,:t; R. 3 MG _ _ Laliff4- 1 -). 3 I Lam,. Ii.,,,10 T tv - ig \ i...:e•a JI an V1:3U IFIll 0 ■9Pr . \,. aW4t' 1Q Mr g t, 40 1 ' N°;CO larPir • ).. r / N 'I'll v‘I'll'" ' pried,do. d. „..._, .. . ■ A .i ■ 0) „ r , i 1 P c , ,= ifilel? ..... .. .. 4,40, 4 ift, ..... Or L. -i:i.::i .:.::.i.::: ::• iEi: --:.• Sri vr .a . Or! te,„, —""Lin • ini =.-. ...... .......... 0101111 I <Whiterg 14:72'. -ts g ' re ltjil i. mg., ,,,,,,„Iwo" _ , a 4dial ff-,,. 4-, ,, A •9/7.4? N„,,,,;:•::::::::::.: •.:.•.• . 1 lig `1 III 'OW gill Ileaale&'. VII i_! ,� ♦ ` ' --- ■a,1n/1INII ,33 si a- wiiiiii. zervirt a -11 .4i: ,714juitit 40 lift,"/ 4-AP" ,,,, 'ft' ' /—i. . nit - 4 ' ..:ii.::: V . ftt Zill ! ; 1-_-: 2 111 . 14111t1 43- ._ . ..., . 4.,„ \ , .. . .... , , ke LI :Cart,,,„„t„ , , a ft. la r Ao ::i :.• :kJ ,„,,„, ,. tr ,41 ,i . ,k,,,,.. ,i;:,:„ .4'4 TAR irs,` i .:,,,: :,,,,,....: kc....„wiS mit vas of,,.;,.. ii . s le IIi1`1 ,...,'., 4., -v virl x- -qui -100- ' tiiii.... ' vw ;"..1-' ::3iiil:0\ .i,'..' .11 Staff Report Eden Orchard December 11, 1998 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposed plan is 416 units on 150 acres at a density of 2.77 units per acre. The future development of Outlot H(8.28 acres) for 40 units will increase the density to 2.89 units per acre. There is no specific development plan for Outlot H. Acres Units Density (du/acre) R1-9.5 42.08 117 2.82 R1-13.5 77.06 137 1.78 RM 6.5 (twins) 11.68 28 2.4 RM 6.5 (town) 19.3 134 6.9 RM 6.5 (future) 8.28 40 4.83 GUIDE PLAN CHANGE REQUEST A guide plan change is requested from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 39.27 acres. This is the area planned for 134 townhouses, 28 twinhomes, and 40 future units Outlot H. ARE THERE COMPELLING REASONS FOR CHANGING THE GUIDE PLAN? The Planning Commission has used the following reasons for changing the guide plan. A. The change does not increase traffic above the guide plan. The property is guided low density residential for up to 2.5 units per acre or 397 units. Single family homes generate 9.55 trips per day for a total of 3,791 daily trips. The proposed plan generates 3,450 daily trips. The daily trips are less since multiple family has a trip generation rate of 6.3 trips per unit. 2 Staff Report Eden Orchard December 11, 1998 B. The change creates an adequate buffer zone between the existing and proposed land uses. The proposed single family area of this plan is adjacent to land that is guided low density residential for up to 2.5 units per acre. Since the 2.13 unit per acre gross density is less than the development potential of adjoining land,no buffer zone is needed. There is no buffer zone between the proposed townhouses and adjoining land to the north and east which is guided low density residential. Approving townhouses at a density of 6.9 units per acre in the north and east portion of the site, without a buffer zone, will result in requests from adjoining property owners for a similar density and a commercial use. C. The change preserves as many trees as possible. The plan preserves 9.9 acres of tree mass along Riley Creek through dedication to the City, and 3.5 acres of tree mass as a conservation easement in the twin home area. There is a total of 12,664 inches of significant trees on the site. A significant tree as defined by City Code is 12 inches in diameter for shade trees and 8 inches in diameter for conifer trees. Staff calculates the tree loss at 41%or 5,231 inches. D. The change results in minimal wetland impacts. There are .31 acres of wetland on the site. This wetland will be filled and mitigated on the site. E. The change preserves natural buffers adjacent to residential areas. The majority of trees are located on the east side of the property adjacent to Riley Creek. The plan shows 9.9 acres of woods adjacent to the creek as a buffer to residential areas across the creek. F. The change meets a City housing need that is currently not provided in the City. The housing types proposed are currently provided in the City. The townhouse units will help the City meet a goal for additional affordable housing. The affordable units represent 32%of the total units in the project. 3 Staff Report Eden Orchard December 11, 1998 The Senior Issues Task Force Study identified a need for more senior housing including assisted care, affordable and market rate ownership and rental,housing with elevators, and one level housing. A senior ownership project, like Real Life Cooperative,on Smetana Lake would not be appropriate in this location because of the size and density (26 units per acre). One level detached or attached housing could work on this site. Additional twinhomes similar to the ones north of Dell Road(3.5 units per acre)or four unit attached townhouses similar to Staring Lake Townhouses (5 units per acre)would be an appropriate size and density. G. The change results in a density that is compatible with the surrounding area. The density of the townhouses at 6.9 units per acre, without a buffer zone, is incompatible with low density guided land to the north and east. H. The change does not require shoreland waivers. Lots 2 and 3 Block 4 in the single family area adjacent to Riley Creek are in the Bluff Impact Zone. A waiver is requested. I. The change does not require waivers from the City Code. The project meets lot size, frontage, and setback requirements for all proposed zoning districts. WHAT IMPACT WILL THE GUIDE PLAN CHANGES HAVE ON SURROUNDING VACANT LAND AND TRAFFIC? Approving townhouses at a density of 6.9 units per acre in the north and east portion of the site will impact land to the north and east. There is approximately 40 acres of land between this site and the existing single family homes on Cedar Forest Road and Cedarcrest Drive, of which 30 acres could be multiple family and 10 acres for low density. If developed at 6.9 units per acre, a total of 207 townhomes is possible. Between Eden Orchard and offsite development there could be a total of 341 townhouses in this area. For the last five years the market has been looking at the intersection of realigned Dell Road and Pioneer Trail for a neighborhood commercial site. A neighborhood commercial site,typical for Eden Prairie, would be 20,000 square feet on 3.5 acres with convenience gas, retail,restaurant, and day care. This would leave 26.5 acres for multiple family and 182 units. The 40 acres of undeveloped land to the east developed consistent with the guide plan at 2.5 units 4 Staff Report Eden Orchard December 11, 1998 per acre would create 100 units and generate 955 daily trips. A multiple family, or commercial and multiple family,development will generate more traffic than the guide plan and will impact existing road systems. IS THE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH STRATEGY FOR SOUTHWEST EDEN PRAIRIE? In June of 1997,the City Council approved a growth strategy as a guide for developing 1,512 acres of land in the MUSA Line expansion area that would preserve open space and natural features, meet housing goals,keep traffic levels consistent with the approved Transportation Plan, and transition to existing low density neighborhoods. The growth strategy has six basic goals: • Preserve and protect as much open space and environmentally sensitive areas as possible • Allow for a variety of housing • Keep traffic levels consistent with the approved Transportation Plan • Meet housing forecasts used for financing City infrastructures (water treatment plant, roads, storm sewers etc.) • Maintain reasonable level of taxes. • Protect property rights The development of the 1,512 acres of land is limited by transportation capacity which would allow the development of 2,606-2,906 units. The development scenarios suggested that this site could accommodate a variety of housing types and densities with higher density clustered along Pioneer Trail with lower density next to open space and existing low density neighborhoods. The proposed plan is consistent with most of the growth strategy goals. The amount of traffic is less than planned for this site. There are four housing types, including senior and affordable. There is 13.4 acres of preserved natural open space along Riley Creek. The plan transitions to existing lower density areas to the south and west. The plan does not transition to the low density residential areas to the north and east. The plan will generate requests for additional multiple family and commercial and change the character of the area to a more intense use of the land than envisioned by the strategy. 5 Staff Report Eden Orchard December 11, 1998 IS THERE A NEED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SERVICES IN THE AREA? The City is well served by neighborhood commercial areas. The 1982 Comprehensive Plan indicated a need for 10 neighborhood commercial sites. There are 11 areas guided for neighborhood commercial.Nine are existing, one is approved and not built, and one is guided and undeveloped. The neighborhood commercial zoning district allows up to 50,000 square feet of commercial. Existing and approved neighborhood commercial sites adjacent to residential areas vary between 5-30,000 sf. . The average size of a neighborhood commercial site is 20,000 sf. on approximately 3.5 acres. The 1982 guide plan showed a community commercial area in the northeast quadrant of Dell and Pioneer Trail when 212 was planned on a different alignment. This commercial area was replaced by neighborhood commercial sites approved at Linwood Court and Cascade Drive in 1993, and the existing twinhomes to the north. A service area for neighborhood commercial is 1- 1.5 miles. The nearest neighborhood area (zoned and approved but not built)is on Dell Road and Linwood Court north of planned 212. The attached service area map shows there would be overlapping service areas if a commercial site is added at Pioneer and Dell. There is an area south of Pioneer Trail outside the service area. Settlers Ridge (220 units)to the west and the Charlson property to the east(475 acres of office and residential)are outside of the service area at Dell and Linwood Court. DENSITY TRANSFER The city uses density transfer to preserve open space and to encourage a variety of housing types. The plan has 13.4 acres of preserved natural open space. The transfer of density to provide more affordable housing is important and satisfies a City housing goal, however, it eliminates an opportunity to address a greater need for more senior housing and Habitat for Humanity Housing. With a limited amount of residential land left in the City,there should be a greater emphasis on fulfilling unmet housing needs. LANDSCAPING Landscaping is required for the townhouse and twin home area based on total building square 6 ca '�� Staff Report Eden Orchard December 11, 1998 footage. The caliper inch requirement is 922 inches. The landscape plan meets this requirement. TREE LOSS AND REPLACEMENT There is a total of 12,664 inches of significant trees on the site. A significant tree as defined by City Code is 12 inches in diameter for shade trees and 8 inches in diameter for conifer trees. Staff calculates the tree loss at 41%or 5,281 inches. The required tree replacement is 2,852 inches. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET An EAW is required based on the project size and number of units. The purpose of the EAW is to screen projects which may have the potential for significant environmental effects. If the answer is yes,then an EIS must be prepared. As the"worksheet"part of the name implies,the EAW process uses a standardized list of questions in worksheet format to disclose the necessary information to screen the project for significant environmental effects. The EAW is distributed to local, state, and federal agencies to identify any environmental protection measures. After reviewing comments from outside agencies and the public,the City Council must determine whether the impacts warrant an EIS. The staff believes the potential significant environmental effects are traffic, water quality of Riley Creek, and vegetation. These impacts are mitigated in the following ways. Traffic is less than the guide plan and no road improvements are needed beyond the project boundaries. All storm water is routed through storm water treatment ponds before discharge into Riley Creek. There will be 13.4 acres of preserved wooded areas. Tree loss will be mitigated by tree replacement. SHOULD A ROAD CONNECTION BE MADE TO CEDAR FOREST ROAD AND CEDARCREST DRIVE? To distribute traffic and provide better emergency vehicle access, a road should be extended from Dell Road through Outlot H to Cedar Forest Road and Cedarcrest Drive. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS The Park and Recreation Staff recommend that the sidewalks on Street C and M be changed to 8 foot wide trails. An additional 5 feet of right of way will be needed. 7 13 Staff Report Eden Orchard December 11, 1998 DRAINAGE The plan provides the required storm water treatment ponds. OFFSITE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS The Planning Commission should consider the potential of this project to influence offsite development to a higher intensity creating a larger concentration of townhouses with neighborhood commercial in an area that was envisioned for lower intensity development. If neighborhood commercial and additional multiple family are acceptable adjacent future uses,the commission should determine the size of the neighborhood commercial area,housing types, and density. A small amount of neighborhood commercial could supplement the site on Dell and Linwood Court for the homes outside of the service area and to encourage walking and shorter driving distances. Since the density of the area south of Pioneer Trail will be less than the land to the north, the size of the commercial area should be smaller than the City average. A neighborhood commercial development of 10,000 sf. similar to the one at Anderson Lakes and Chestnut Drive would be appropriate. Density transfer should be used to create senior housing, Habitat for Humanity housing, and affordable housing. The provision of these housing types could also be a reason to change the guide plan to a density higher than 2.5 units per acre for the Eden Orchard site and adjoining land. The staff would suggest that the housing mix for multiple family housing be 70% senior one level, 28% affordable, two level, and 2%Habitat for Humanity for the Eden Orchard site and adjacent land. The staff presents the following scenarios for adjoining land. Scenario# 1 Develop the adjoining land consistent with the guide plan. Revise the Eden Orchard plan to meet the guide plan. Multi family will be considered through density transfer. Scenario#2 Develop the adjoining land with a 3.5 acre commercial site(20,000 sf.), with 182 townhouses and 25 single family homes.No density changes to the Eden Orchard plan. Multi family will be considered through density transfer. Scenario#3 Developthe adjoiningland with a 2.0 acre commercial site(10,000 sf.) 8 ' 676 Staff Report Eden Orchard December 11, 1998 with 2.5 units per acre density for the rest of the land. Revise the Eden Orchard plan to meet a density of 2.5 units per acre. Multi family will be considered through density transfer. Scenario#4 Develop the adjoining land with a 2.0 acre commercial site(10,000 sf.) with a maximum density of 2.9 units per acre for the rest of the land and the Eden Orchard site. The multiple family housing mix shall be 70% senior one level, 28% affordable,two level, and 2%Habitat for Humanity for the Eden Orchard site and adjoining land. The staff recommends Scenario#4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative One If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have been demonstrated by the developer to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan, then one option would be to recommend approval of the Guide Plan Change from Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 39.26 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 158.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 158.4 acres,Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5,R1-9.5, and RM 6.5 on 158.4 acres, Site Plan Review on 39.26 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 158.4 acres for 254 single family homes, 28 twinhomes and 134 townhouses, and a finding that an EIS is not warranted, based on plans dated December 11, 1998 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 11, 1998 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval,the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to Building Permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. 9 /5 Staff Report Eden Orchard December 11, 1998 C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 3. Prior to grading,the proponent shall notify the City Engineer, Watershed District, and City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal. 4. Developer is responsible for the assessments and timing for construction of existing Dell Road. 5. Right-of-way acquisition and construction of"new" Dell Road are to be the responsibility of the Developer. 6. Intersection improvements with turn lanes and signals are required at the intersection of "new" Dell Road and CSAH 1 meeting design requirements of Hennepin County and the City. The developer shall be responsible for all improvement costs. 7. A lift station for sanitary sewer service for the southeast portion of the project is required. The lift station location, timing and cost participation must be determined. 8 Sanitary sewer depth along the west boundary(existing Dell Road)of the project must be of sufficient depth to serve the property to the west and south as determined by the Engineering Division. Timing of the installation of the storm sewer must be coordinated. 9. Storm sewer and pond discharges for the project must have adequate capacity for the discharge rates and have public drainage and utility easements over them. 10. Trunk sewer and water charges will be applicable at the 1999 rates. 11. Existing active erosion areas must be repaired. This should include areas of erosion within the property and on adjacent land for which this property is the historical source of runoff. Alternative Two If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have not been demonstrated by the developer to change the comprehensive guide plan then one option would be to recommend that the project be continued to revise the plan to reduce the density 2.5 units per acre with multiple family allowed as a density transfer,reduce significant tree loss, and redesign the plan to meet bluff impact zone requirements for lots 2 and 3,Block 4. 10 I Staff Report Eden Orchard December 11, 1998 Alternative Three If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have not been demonstrated by the developer to change the comprehensive guide plan then one option would be to recommend that the project be continued to revise the plan for multiple family housing mix to 70% senior one level, 28% affordable,two level, and 2%Habitat for Humanity,reduce significant tree loss, and redesign the plan to meet bluff impact zone requirements for lots 2 and 3,Block 4. Alternative Four If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have not been demonstrated by the developer to change the comprehensive guide plan then one option would be to recommend denial of the project for the following reasons: the plan is inconsistent with the comprehensive guide plan, high tree loss,high offsite development impacts and that density transfer should be used to fulfill unmet housing needs. Staff recommends alternative three. k:\commdev\planning\reports\edenorchard 11 21 1 ,.....__ , \ , i3v , r- / G \ 71k1/7 7//t/i° dv — I2 l 1 Y`I, 7 _ a i m iro , ,7,-..-,---- 1 . ,,,,g.cp., .. ,, 7,r,.....,„(-3 /. _7,. _ la wil. .., ,. ,-. q.((\ S �: IL \\ i : f*...,,s40. _• T.,,,-.0 7,‘„, ...... ,...._ -.0 f((r� ' _tom I. _ .-1 IINe • irlrit-'1 l'3- -2-\ . . / ,� ,,,\ s t—..--, r ,.,..cr' 6 1,;_, -17,O' .0 ii,/.. " -y;=� Ciy)...-U .-7--,), 1."-I,, ©^ -1 ^",ice _} ��� 1 } , f, \ r �� tp / 1li \,.,...., '>.��\ /� ,.1. �y r71.'��,/, I ; (,__ a .. _t` < is i . • .� u . .' 4 it ill�, `ti!(lot.-:,,,- iiiii-ft,i _ / " _. A ).:_ p a f \ / _ iEvTips 4. 4$ .... _..,.:l_d___ ,, j- --1, t fity.2, �ro� a i� %,;~?— fl 4,1 �L�. :II/�.• — AWL � .fir -� - .• -.• / - ...I=ft .r-s-t _,,,„titv.„„..ah4. liP) ' .et di -'4r:a,'-*•74, • 1 it%41t ,.7 - ipAr,,,,fo a a t;to• 1:_y_, in !II/ , ,o. o F1 S • if:- e leTittV 1 I C 1.4js Al MI e Illift -Tvmn.. ,�y�I,f - I • : .." .: : uimllulmmllIllnllimmimillimillIllimllimll1.111.1.11' ' . / .111111 ,1 1\1111 a i •••• - NM 44 a* , i i I • VIV....&EXi.0111:1 1 1•. maid1111111 rerF;47,F; ...e l.7) MOO.A kg750 ...c: ANY .k 0 4- I kV i ‘, • . .0 -c allbAsol Mrs, 1 / 1 1 um ,..._ iff •`r NM° 4# Ria I .. I ; : , t...--. -2-&-LY_LAKE RVAo )111. ;411 TO I Gt# '.1 ,. ....... _ , 1 Non -E1 • 7,..4. iii z Mil z••••i A' ::N, / - : i • ..,.... : : -, : r . .:, IIII .• :•i:::: •- . .. . . . . • 1.: .•:•:::• MI/ '4, ,__ imam ..::••: ,i:! i::::: rir ii,.... ...\... :•::::::. _I'm- sisp:/. .,:14111410oinft t:.00:: W 44, / MIR 6, 0: . . . . . .? ,:.;-.,.:::•:•:•:. ‘:,:; ','Oi :•.111: x %. ... , , i Ell I 01 H 4.• VSNSiil, • • • -tri Hiii 1 //I.'. • \ - ',7K IIII • i / i 4 4 : • .. MI ::, ; - , l • i: / r_...10° Ai likt-\ \ .- 4 . . • • • . • ....-- Mk -.; ,:%•.!: : : : .: sill40. 41 % ' ,.• i i. • ••:•:•:• • . ; • /:,: :: : .:.: • .. fke;:c" • • • PICIH i.::/::; :. : ' e -,7•77,1,..:;,!f•-4. 4 • • fio / k • •I I r fr 07 \ • : ' . .•='r::3 nokl II LI • • . •. : / • mi.. • /• ilk•'1L I • • • ,* 2 0 cr. 00, IIPP." 1 ----/ • • • ,...k .7, 30 2 II • • • \ I • • . • . I • f , 4 • . A ,. 7 h ,. • • it Nkiip., )'-ii--- . . , V . .• . . • • fr... i . - N / r, N - ,_, -.. .... 1 , •,•:: N i..... .\;:l ,-,t. N vip. -4%4 i E_:1-.--- L\--\_\_\_\,__ R I OFF( (1111141/411°11111;1 L° 4 ,...,.I.._ ---'.- pJ1 CO vc.it.9• , I / y. 44:7', figa 21 Cy Ate 19 (ip Pk) AVM I \ 4. / / fr.kl.._.17::: ' • ,./ \ d. 4. E 'FT Li= MI 44 Ali ./p., , .• . f 1 . I J �'� EXfORb OC � FiJnF:c:`J :1). .ii _ o igt)� 'i�T ; b ft � �R�.ERS ! NICXId0. ` • 24,451... i' Rimer P, , w�;; t,..,,t ir: `'v', �' . I .-t iL . ? �' 1 ` c A LEI z III E..u; 41LE, LAKE I Q -� r c% y ►S- `AN � w - J _ s L C d� v m3. A. : \ V ,,,' it ,'e,ill ; •` c. A , m : J ., `3 m P :::::• .. ,t7,7 ff;siPjj P . ___ !,. .,: .I: :::: t1., •. , . V l �, A � I ,fi`r ____ , ,...,1„oisiiii,1 ,.....,,, ,,:\,,,,,„„: 11 I.• _,,,;:i \ F : ,;, iw: „„, vg.).\\- . . y/ . •v :.:y ,. : T:$ 11 ;!: 021° , •• ' ' i ' / • N F 5 / p : . •4, •EI: : •ill .:. 7 CO ® / / / • . _ �. .. j •',/ � 1 i /: r--- .„. .„.-.. .::.,,: ; / r / / � /.•/ 30 rs , � , ��r'i IIIIIIIIIIPIIPIIPP .---.„1 NM .. / / i ---......„, ��EN • . • li lk ' I Iv I N / \ �1 .,...:; NN....:, .A*110:. = T1 Y j iC I ly T RI ---------\ 1 \4 : 7--%'-- --1—/ EAR ...,.. \ /....„..--- 11,--. Et \ ,<• &( 0 0 (30 t•I ' t,„W ,a- 1610 II — EFT\ \ I \ (; • 74' 1 I , Gil \\ •.:7 : i:: ::::. Y 11111w_ima 11110 . •.•.• .•.• . -‘-44'4:?\211 ., 41134,:',.; ma. 1`0.- NI RN . > : i ----i :.::, : . 10 ;:r F::.• 4 A ••--- :::::l • 1 . 1„18 A ift ., , ... . . ".-- - y____ IA sillati.VM c.:17.17.4 tr1-1 N * •-•11 r 1 - 496 dleiW . 114) 1 ix LEI" rILI. C. dic 4 •::::•:• / c., los A. t .:.:.•.... • • • •• • • -.•.:: :...:. IIII 4,, ‘S QM . . .... . , , -1:.•. . . -%:••••: :i:i: •i••;\:'',: :i : k • '::0• '%: i:i: :i: amiu-c: i .—— - • •V‘•:,r-X •.• s:•,...,••:•::::: 1 11111 'a. /, •,1 . We 41 LIN 4\ 4... . 0.: _ , .t,.:: 60. tik-w- • I .I::: ...........0 / ) .'. I 1: :.•.: :i: !i,r , :.:.,!. i;LI. ;1 ; wir 4 • . • thi :iii:: - , ,i, NI im ii,.• ...o r±T:3,,e..L.C3Ifor . • 6 • • 6 •• 1/1.: 1:1Y:/' k iii a I I I 11 10 r:". . • .. .\ • III _....011111111 . -z/.z:•, . De • se . \ 1.‘ • Ir, • - 44 0111111 2 opai • I ----........„.., . otrItvto 9 OM lib rim: ......0 r 1• _,, IV / IIIP IIIII 1 INI . N ' lifil „IN, ._ Ei Ns 1%, %:..1 . t• .. :" • - - ill p N fr 1444ftall _ -411k, es . (.. *\...._ ICeL) ^ RIO - .<\W<) 1 2 - rlu INI ii" tiO 1 raor(i f. ;ea, \ i /am ;1411:1U-SIP. • 1‘. '// \ t —(�- y o , fir{ "" AO 1e•" ler `� ;s t&V....I . .A .. " c\It/l44'i1ti.10A'vVist47.:1'4li-'a.i;7.i:13.8 NICXIA f ` . M= .`7♦/ )111 F& ! J R LEY LAKE p._0 -'NIdp,/ I _ e. m..0 .. ..• •• N i .. / c.7 titi - • _ ORI \ _ II - 11 .t.. 9 --• i - 1\` Y .....e- ... . . r� -„ -•,, o , ` v .1:m / -‘- . • il to i ,... AS V*1°4%- 1.k : ;; E.-0 //: 620°,: ,,o� oo� .,�`,• I 1 *PI______ /y / ,.„0,... ,... Ter io a ik - . .,„ ...,,,c _ ..- ....* _ iv, ..),„______ um at 4 EL.° 4 ,`` • s- _ ---„,x a[___,L jime lik ipireill E .. A „. . . OP / b :: A IN .., N %.121..f:*L is. ro"mrign 111115111,la Y :E s I Sigre 44 1 w. \' ,....,...„.... loww111011 1 ;di • A lb . 4k\ "j4 :-.5.,..6. . _ 6650A . 0 IS Mr-VIII ) .111 1. * . \ Q -- ' t�/ v STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: January 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Eden Orchard APPLICANT: Orrin Thompson Homes OWNER: Charles Grosch, Eden Orchard Limited Partnership, Arlene Marshall LOCATION: South of Pioneer Trail, east of Dell Road REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 39.26 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 158.4 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 158.4 acres. 4. Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and RM 6.5 on 158.4 acres. 5. Site Plan Review on 39.26 acres. 6. Preliminary Plat of 158.4 acres for 259 single family homes, 56 twinhomes and 118 townhouses. 7. Review of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. a3 1An1%m*i .11 ■ ' .'.' ,P TdNE �N< �f .r�iri Am 1 VIiii 4 'Y'� "Flr '. 1 i z,' .. w ` 0P IR. ` r, RNN -L• i).,1�, l, FA2Oi.t ' R d ` 0_A. i6 \ N I O1'l u, 4! -eA- 10 rafi 611 mankw 1, .....;::::: :.i:. A' , 5,h Silli%Awn,:„„,„.,„,::::::.. . 4° ZAP" h. 0111 ' JIM ---filt 51:71,1,12M432.n3:1. !Fp 4M1r, Oil p .:ji.: . BWTe1.... r y.4 ‘44. ?tool -.:::::i Si It. -"I.,* 141 ) '', VIII was w•-• Allho ni ��A sago' '. `�.r .en en 2� lie:- '�fM ��v Roip ... RI r IAaE A. , q `- • IIR ..., to et r^ J5.... 1 i +fit i71111111111iiii;i::::: iiili..i.'...; :-::::::::., ., # .11;" ; W 9 , g , 1111 A* -\,,,,\ '': :;;: ::3;::;:: i s; :\M / �' �\\ \SI Fs 6.-- I lit ••%1 com00 I �, w4 1 at ida Nil : ,, sa. um . ., :-, y • Lil ).':: ::. ,::::\) %ad11 i141111 a - ..,.,'. 1:tV +ego e.or..N) a.. „. ' - .. ._ tt 4 4, ...11 . L,,, i .. °Rai . ic9 gm ,37,..n. N‘ii-aisio AltaW ---) ' *liatt-Zalll r III ..:: , Nip. iiisE,j g- ' aR. ,_,\ 6.......,_ ii. I , \ , . ., a FLY1N BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the December 14, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. PLAN CHANGES The plan has been revised as follows: 1. Three lots have been removed from the southeast portion of the plan in order to meet the bluff setback requirement of the shoreland code. 2. The road in the southeast portion of the plan is shifted to the north. A woodland planting buffer is proposed across the rear lot lines adjacent to City park property. 3. Twenty eight(28) one level twin homes are shown on a site plan for Outlot H . The previous plan for Oulot H was 40 multiple family units with no specific site plan. 4. The number of senior oriented units has increased from 28 to 56. 12/14/98 1/11/99 Plan Plan R1-9.5 117 (26%) 125 (29%) R1-13.5 137 (30%) 134 (32%) RM 6.5 (twins) 28 (6%) 28 (7%) RM 6.5 (town) 134 (29%) 118 (25%) Outlot H 40 (9%) 28 (7%) Total 456 433 Density 2.89 du/acre 2.73 du/acre 5. The density has been reduced from 2.89 to 2.73 units per acre. 6. Tree loss has been reduced from 41% to 31.7%. A new tree survey located significant trees to be saved that were not included in the previous inventory. The additional trees are primarily on land to be dedicated to the city. There is a total of 14,282 inches of significant trees on the site. Staff calculates the tree loss at 4,525 inches. The required tree replacement is 1,907 inches. • WHAT IMPACT WILL THE GUIDE PLAN CHANGES HAVE ON SURROUNDING VACANT LAND AND TRAFFIC? The previous staff report recommended that the Planning Commission consider the potential of the Orchard project to influence offsite development to a higher intensity. The result would be a larger concentration of townhouses with neighborhood commercial in an area that was envisioned for lower intensity development. Although the unit mix is different and the density is lower with the revised plan, staff believes the potential for additional multiple family and commercial still exists. The previous staff report identified approximately 40 acres of land available for future development. This represented the net developable acres. According to assessing records there are 52 acres of land. To be consistent with the Orchard property the gross acres should be used to calculate density. There are 22 acres adjacent to an existing R1-22 neighborhood that should remain low density residential. This leaves 30 acres potentially for commercial and multiple family housing as stated in the previous report. A 10,000 square foot neighborhood center with a buffer zone will need at least 2.0 acres. This means that 28 acres at 6.9 units per acre would create 193 units. The traffic study in the EAW analyzed the impact of a 30,000 sf commercial area. This would add 2,700 trips to adjacent roadways. The Dell and Pioneer intersection when signaled would change from level of service B to C. Level of service D is the design standard for intersections. CONCEPT PLAN FOR HENDRICKSON PROPERTY On Friday morning, staff received a concept plan for a portion of the adjoining land to the east. The plan is an indication that the market is responding to the Orchard plan, a staff suggestion for commercial, and City needs for senior housing. The project is 95 senior units on 15.41 acres at a density of 6.16 units per acre and 30,000 sf of commercial. The senior plan could be an acceptable use of the property because of the architectural style and product type. The clustering of units creates larger setbacks for berming and heavy landscaping and open space that can be used to buffer lower density land uses to the east. The plan must provide access to land to the east. The commercial center provides more services than may be needed for the area. Many of these uses will be provided at Dell and Linwood Court. The size of the commercial area should be limited to10,000 sf. OFFSITE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS The Planning Commission is responsible for guiding the development of adjoining land for the best land use which is consistent with City goals and compatible with existing land uses. Staff offers the following options. Option One Recommend that the adjoining land be developed consistent with the density transfer concept and guide plan change for the Orchard site at 2.73 units per acre with a similar housing mix. Option Two Recommend that the adjoining land be developed consistent with the density transfer concept and guide plan change for the Orchard site at 2.73 units per acre with a similar housing mix and a neighborhood commercial center of 10,000 sf. Option Three Recommend that the adjoining land be developed for a neighborhood commercial center of 10,000 sf and senior housing similar to the proposal for the Hendrickson property. Staff recommends Option Three. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative One If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have been demonstrated by the developer to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan, then one option would be to recommend approval of the Guide Plan Change from Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 39.26 acres,Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 158.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 158.4 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and RM 6.5 on 158.4 acres, Site Plan Review on 39.26 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 158.4 acres for 259 single family homes, 56 twinhomes and 118 townhouses, and a finding that an EIS is not warranted, based on plans dated January 8, 1999 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated January 8, 1999 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. a7 C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 3. Prior to grading, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer,Watershed District, and City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal. 4. Developer is responsible for the assessments and timing for construction of existing Dell Road. 5. Right-of-way acquisition and construction of"new" Dell Road are to be the responsibility of the Developer. 6. Intersection improvements with turn lanes and signals are required at the intersection of "new" Dell Road and CSAH 1 meeting design requirements of Hennepin County and the City. The developer shall be responsible for all improvement costs. 7. A lift station for sanitary sewer service for the southeast portion of the project is required. The lift station location, timing and cost participation must be determined. 8 Sanitary sewer depth along the west boundary(existing Dell Road) of the project must be of sufficient depth to serve the property to the west and south as determined by the Engineering Division. Timing of the installation of the storm sewer must be coordinated. 9. Storm sewer and pond discharges for the project must have adequate capacity for the discharge rates and have public drainage and utility easements over them. 10. Trunk sewer and water charges will be applicable at the 1999 rates. 11. Existing active erosion areas must be repaired. This should include areas of erosion within the property and on adjacent land for which this property is the historical source of runoff. Alternative Two If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have not been demonstrated by the developer to change the comprehensive guide plan then one option would be to recommend that the project be continued to revise the plan to reduce the density to 2.5 units per acre with multiple family allowed as a density transfer. Alternative Three If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have not been demonstrated by the developer to change the comprehensive guide plan then one option would be to recommend that the project be continued to revise the plan for a multiple family housing mix to 70% senior one level, and 30% affordable, two level. Alternative Four If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have not beenbed to demonstrated by the developer to change the comprehensive guide plan then one option would d denial of the project for the following reasons: the plan is and that density transfer should onsistent with the comprehensive guide plan,the plan creates high offsite developmentimpacts, be used to fulfill unmet housing needs. Staff recommends alternative one. c PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 14, 1998 B. EDEN ORCHARD. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 39.26 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 158.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 158.4 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RI-9.5 on 42.08 acres,Rezoning from Rural to RI-13.5 on 77.007 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 39.26 acres, Site Plan Review on 39.26 acres, EAW Review and Preliminary Plat on 158.4 acres into 416 lots and 10 outlots. Location: Pioneer Trail and Dell Road. Lee Johnson, representing Orrin Thompson Homes, commented he has worked on several projects currently completing construction in Eden Prairie, and they believe they produce a quality product and wish to continue building in the city. He described the properties they have purchased which will comprise this development. They have not platted the entire area as there are still some details that need to be worked out. They are proposing three different products for this development. The southern portion of the site will be developed into 137 lots on 77 acres which has a density of 1.78 units per acre. These homes will be in the $150,000 to $200,000 price range. He described the variances they are requesting for the development, and the erosion which has been occurring in the ravines that will need to be corrected. He discussed the grading which will be done at the time of construction. He felt that the development will do a lot to soften and stop the erosion which is presently occurring on the site. He discussed the wetland mitigation plan for the development and described the twin homes they are proposing to construct. These will consist of 28 units which will have a density of 2.5 units per acre for this portion of the development. The price for the twin homes will be from $200,000 to $240,000 base price, which will include the lot. He described the reasons for locating the units on the inside of the ridge, which primarily was to preserve existing trees. In the northwest portion of the site they are proposing to construct 117 single family units on 42 acres which will have a density of 2.82 units per acre. These homes will start at a base price of$130,000. They propose to have a mix of building sizes and configurations for the townhouses and these will have a base price of$125,000. They believed there was a commercial area which had been approved on County Road 1 and they felt this was a logical place to have this kind of development. The land adjacent to the north was thought to develop as a higher density development but the owners are not ready to sell at this time. He discussed the setbacks around the perimeter of the development and the landscaping they are proposing as a buffer for both the development and the surrounding areas. He noted they will be submitting sketch plans for the adjacent area and are requesting rezoning on it at this time. They are requesting a Guide Plan change 3 0 and felt they have substantiated the request by providing housing for empty nesters and dedicating land for park purposes. They felt they have a good plan and he requested the Planning Commission to approve their requests. He commented they held a meeting with residents living within 350 feet of the property and were requested to eliminate the access onto Old Dell Road, which they have done, making it a cul-de-sac, although they believed it should remain open. The tree loss was not accurately reflected in the staff report as there are about 15,000 caliper inches of trees and they will be removing about 29% of those at the outset of the project. It could be higher than that when the project is completed, possibly between 29-35%. He had concerns about some things that were in the staff report but he wanted to stay focused on the issues at hand and not get into things like the location of the commercial in the area, etc. The finished project will be an asset of about $80 million to the community of Eden prairie, and all of this area is under the control of one builder. Foote asked where the Habitat for Humanity sites would be located and Johnson responded they are philosophically opposed to the concept of being required to provide sites for Habitat for Humanity homes and regard it as being similar to extortion. They believe it is not appropriate for the City to dictate where these units should be built. He did not believe they should be forced to include these units in the project. They have designed units that will be marketable for this area and they do not want to have 70% of the development as single level homes. Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that this project could be developed in compliance with the existing guide plan or in a manner such as what the developer believed it should be. If the Guide Plan is to be changed the City should get the type of development that they believe will be most beneficial to the City overall. This plan gives the Planning Commission choices in the type of development they want to see on this property. This project must be considered in conjunction with the surrounding areas. If this project is approved then the surrounding properties will be developed with higher densities as well. Lewis asked abut the Habitat for Humanity and if it was a requirement and Franzen responded it was not a requirement but the Comprehensive Plan encourages the City to develop different housing types. Clinton asked what the overall goals for mixed housing types were and how these were kept track of and Franzen responded that 30% of all new housing should be affordable housing under the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act of 1994-95. The City would like to come as close to that as possible, but it was doubtful if Eden Prairie could meet that requirement. Affordable units are supposed to be $120,000 in 1994-95. It is $128,000 this year. It is adjusted annually to allow for inflation. The Public Hearing was opened. Brad Mlynar, 17140 Cedarcrest Drive, noted they had submitted a petition requesting that Cedarcrest Drive not be connected. Jeff Strate, 150121 Summerhill Drive, commented the submitted plan was very good with many nice things about it including the open spaces. He asked how many of these open spaces would contain NURP ponds, and Johnson responded the large open space will have a pond and there is also a pond in the open space by the road. He illustrated the locations of ponds and wetlands on the site. Strate commented that Orrin Thompson homes has done a great deal of construction of affordable housing in the Metro area. He was concerned about the impact this development would have on the open space that the City had wanted to preserve. There is less than 1% of the Old Woods left and Eden Prairie has done a good job of preserving that. He was concerned about the tree loss in the area of the Old Woods because of the long cul-de-sac, which could be very detrimental to it. He requested the Planning Commission to come up with a more creative plan to preserve the remnants of the Old Forest. Doug Dance, 14763 Boulder Pointe, asked if they owned the land included in the project and Johnson responded they have it under an option to purchase. Dance asked about the location of the wetlands and Johnson illustrated where they were located on the plans. He described how they will replace any wetlands that will be lost due to construction and where they would be located, including one area which was originally a wetland, and will be again when the project is completed. He discussed the amount of tree loss and noted that it was difficult to arrive at an exact figure because some of the shapes and sizes of the houses were undetermined. It could vary by as much as 8% depending on what size, shape and configuration a homeowner wants for his house and his lot. The tree loss will have to be agreed upon with the City before final approval is granted so the proponents will know what the mitigation will be. Franzen explained how the tree loss calculations are done and the figures determined. These figures do not include any trees which are within the land which is being dedicated to the City and the proponent is also paying the City a Cash Park Fee. Dance asked the Planning Commission to be careful in considering the plan as this is a very sensitive area and this project could set an undesirable precedent. He stated he was not in favor of the plans. Pete Palmisano, 9072 Briarglen Road, stated he lives in an Orrin Thompson home which has problems, and he is tired of fighting with Orrin Thompson to get these things fixed as they have been promised. There are other people in his neighborhood who have problems with their homes and are unable to get satisfaction from Orrin Thompson, and he questioned whether Orrin Thompson should be allowed to proceed with more construction in the City until these problems are rectified. Larry Kacher, 9820 Sky Lane, stated he has lived in Eden Prairie for 15 years and lives close to this land. He was opposed to losing part of the Old Woods and turning it into home sites, but he understood that development must occur. He met with staff and received information on the Comprehensive Plan. He requested the Planning Commission to deny the request to deviate from the Comprehensive Plan because of the extensive tree loss that would occur if the plan is approved. There could be up to 60%tree loss in the southwestern portion of the development, which he believed was unacceptable. There are serious erosion problems in the Riley Creek area and he urged the City to carefully consider the ramifications of development on these environmentally sensitive areas which are some of the few remaining areas where wildlife exists in its natural habitat. He asked the Planning Commission to listen to the residents of Eden Prairie. Pauline Kacher, 9820 Sky Lane, asked about the park dedication lot which is a ravine and unbuildable and is a highly erosive area. She could not imagine putting twin homes in this area. She was very happy that the City preserved the land along Riley Creek in its natural state, and was concerned if homes were built in this area it will destroy this area because there will be such high usage of the land. She felt the developer could be more creative and sensitive to the needs and concerns of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Sandstad asked if she would be in favor of the developer having a higher density in another part of the development if they could preserve the woods, and Kacher responded she would support that. Kari Nettlestrum, 9351 Cedar Forest Road, stated the cedar trees that you want to keep are the slower growing ones, as they are better quality, and she was concerned that many quality trees could be lost because they were not large enough to be considered significant by the City standards. Kathy Horsfall, 17621 Pioneer Trail, stated she was a 21 year resident of Eden Prairie and she realized this area was going to be developed, but she believed it was imperative it be developed in such a manner that it would benefit all of Eden Prairie. She thought perhaps they needed to have less density in some areas and perhaps more in others. She was disappointed in this plan and felt it could be better designed as the density of the homes is increased, it is imperative that these residents be provided with open spaces for outdoor recreational needs. This should not include off-site areas which are designated as parks. She was also concerned about the traffic onto Pioneer.Trail and it should be coordinated so as not to perpetuate this hazardous traffic situation. Dick Cole, Cedar Forest, stated he has lived on his property for 25 years and most of his trees are 25-30 years old and he is losing two to three old trees a year due to erosion and old age. He did not understand why the City was trying to save these old trees, because they were going to die anyway. He felt any development up the hill would help him out down the hill. Kathy Webber, 9650 Dell Road, stated she lives west of the proposed development on a 4-5 acre hobby farm, and she would like to see a buffer between the development and their property to preserve the rural nature which still remains today. Pam Olson, 9040 Dell Road, stated if the cul-de-sac was connected they would have lights coming directly into their home. She would like to see traffic diverted from Old Dell Road, and to change the road from a cul-de-sac to an egress would not do them much good. JoAnn Lroblewski, 9360 Cedar Forest Road, stated she was disappointed in the density with the proposed plan and its insensitivity to the natural environment and wildlife habitat. She asked if the road would be a cul-de-sac or connected and Johnson responded staff has recommended that it go through, and they concur with that recommendation. Gray reviewed the history of these neighborhoods and the Transportation Plan for them. When the overall Transportation Plan for the City is considered it has been determined that it is best to connect the neighborhoods to the greatest extent possible. Pioneer Trail is a County road which is in the process of being upgraded and it is unlikely that a signalized intersection would be provided for this neighborhood to provide access. Pedestrian connections also need to be considered and staff would strongly recommend a pedestrian connection if not a roadway connection in this area. Staff recommends connecting the roadway as it is best for everyone in the long term. Mark Reese, 9200 Cedar Forest Road, stated he chose Eden Prairie because of the low density of the neighborhoods. He was concerned about the higher densities proposed with this development and felt they were too high. He was opposed to the Guide Plan changes requested, and felt that if the plan were approved as proposed it would adversely impact his property values and quality of life. He- urged the Planning Commission to follow the wishes of the residents. He wanted the investment he has made in his home to increase in value, not decrease. Foote commented that affordable housing was not subsidized housing which is a significant difference. Reese responded he was concerned about his property values decreasing significantly if the project was approved. Dorn commented that 2/3 of the project would be developed with homes valued at $200,000 to $250,000 which could not be detrimental to his property values by comparison. Johnson noted there are adjacent parcels of land that will need to be developed and tied into this project and he is proposing that he submit a plan illustrating some possibilities for how this are may be developed. Jim Zahler, 17200 Cedarcrest Drive, stated he felt that his property would be a nice area for a park because it was strategically located and would give the neighbors something so they would back off from other things; however, no one was willing to pay for it. Warren Carlson, 8955 Ferndale Lane, asked about the extension of dell road and how it would be done. Johnson responded the first part would be 4-lane divided l but the part that goes through the development would be 32 feet wide with no parking on either side. Gray noted the Transportation Plan does not show high traffic for Dell Road south to Hwy. 212 from Pioneer Trail so it would not be four lanes. The closest regional roadway would be Highway 101 to the west. Discussion ensued regarding traffic flow patterns from the development and how it would impact traffic on existing roadways. Carlson asked about drainage across existing Dell Road and Johnson responded they may be able to allow some drainage into the wetland areas if they can obtain easements. Carlson asked the City to do a traffic study on Dell Road south of Pioneer Trail. Warren Smith, 16511 South Manor Road, discussed the Old Grove Woods and the quality of life as it exists today and what it will be like after this project is built. He described the erosion problems that exist in the area and how they will be exacerbated by more people moving in with children. The ravines do not stay stable and homes built adjacent to these ravines are in jeopardy. Homeowners insurance policies do not cover homes that slide into ravines. The trees provide some stability to these slopes and if they are lost it will only make the erosion problems worse. They should not grant the 50 foot variances requested along the ravine. They should put trails along this area to provide places for people to walk and prevent them climbing over the eroded places and creating more problems. Clinton asked if the name of Old Dell Road would be changed or remain the same and Gray responded it should be changed to avoid confusion in the future, possibly named after a property owner in the vicinity or a long-time resident of Eden Prairie. Sandstad discussed the buffer/transition area along the southeast corner and the creek and the homes that are proposed for this area which would be single family with small lots. He asked what would be done to provide buffering and if the fence would remain there. He was concerned that this area might be open to the creek area. He asked when the Parks and Recreation Commission would review this plan and Franzen responded after the Planning Commission has made a recommendation on the project. Sandstad asked if Johnson had considered tree locations when the plans were laid out and Johnson responded that it was laid out based on the topography, but could make slight shifts to preserve a significant tree if that was something required by the City. Sandstad commented he was not comfortable with the southern portion of the plan. Johnson noted tree loss has been mitigated as much as possible with retaining walls, etc. and there is minimal grading required on the site in this area. He explained that the end result would be something that was quite acceptable because they would clean up this area which has been eroded and replant some new trees. Franzen explained the Shoreland Ordinance and its impact regarding bluffs versus the creek which is not a bluff and the proponent could put houses within 100 feet of the creek if he desired. Discussion ensued regarding the Shoreland Ordinance and it's requirements and the definition of a bluff area. Foote asked if the affordable housing was two-story and Johnson responded it would be two or three stories depending on whether it was a walk-out or not. They do not have a one-level plan now, either attached or detached. Alexander asked if these units would have a bath and bedroom on the same level and Johnson responded they would on the same level, usually on the upper one. They have a range of buyers for these units, who usually find that arrangement preferable. Dorn commented he felt the plan should be continued for 30 days to allow the proponent to make some changes in the plans which would make the development more acceptable to the Planning Commission. The proponent should look at the creek area and reduce the density there, maintain a 30%tree loss, eliminate the Habitat for Humanity portion, and resolve roadway connection issues. He commented he liked the configuration of the plan. Lewis noted that she would like to see a traffic plan, and the issue revolving around the Old Dell Road connection be resolved. She believed the connection to Cedarcrest Road should be made as it was a great asset to the neighborhood, providing accessibility. The City needs diversity in its housing types, and she felt the southeast corner should be revised to preserve the forest area. Clinton commented he would like to see more information prior to making a recommendation. He would like to preserve as much of the Old Woods as possible, felt the plan should include affordable housing units, and he wanted to see the impacts of traffic on the roads if they are connected. He felt a traffic study including the commercial area at Old Dell Road and Pioneer Trail should be included. Sandstad commented Senior one-level housing would be appreciated and was greatly needed in the City. The road connection may not have as great an impact as it appears. Alexander noted she was concerned about destruction of the Old Woods and the construction along the creek with the erosion problems. She believed there was room for both senior single-level housing and Habitat for Humanity housing in the development. The trail system should be included with this project. Johnson noted there is a sidewalk or trail on every street throughout the development. Foote was concerned about the southeast area and did not support the waives. He was concerned about the transition between the homes and the preserved area. Three loss at 41% was too high, and should be in the 30% range. Diversity in housing should include one-level types of housing, and he also thought the Habitat for Humanity would be a nice gesture to the City on the part of the proponent. Franzen summarized the concerns expressed by the Planing Commission which included a lower density in the southeast corner, and it was permissible to transfer density to another location on the site. The Guide Plan changes could be made if a better mix of housing types is proposed. The traffic impacts need to be addressed, as well as off-site development impacts, which have not been addressed. MOTION: Dorn moved, seconded by Clinton, to continue the Public Hearing for EDEN ORCHARD for Orrin Thompson Homes for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 39.26 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 158.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 158.4 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RI-9.5 on 42.08 acres, Rezoning f DM Rural to RI-13.5 on 77.007 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 3.26 acres, Site Plan Review on 39.26 acres, EAW Review and Preliminary Plat on 158.4 acres into 416 lots and 10 outlots until the January 11, 1999 meeting. Motion carried 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie January 11, 1999 Page 2 B. EDEN ORCHARD. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 39.26 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 158.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 158.4 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RI-9.5 on 42.08 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RI- 13.5 on 77.007 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 39.26 acres, Site Plan Review on 39.26 acres, EAW Review and Preliminary Plat on 158.4 acres into 416 lots and 10 outlots. Location: Pioneer Trail and Dell Road. Lee Johnson, representing Orrin Thompson Homes, reviewed the changes that were made to the original plans. He stated they eliminated one access to Dell Road which was made into a cul-de-sac. He reviewed the traffic study for the development and noted it was recommended that a right turn lane be installed on Dell Road turning onto Pioneer Trail to facilitate traffic movement at this intersection. He described the reconfiguration of the roadway to preserve two trees, and noted it also allows for an increase in lot depth for the lots adjacent to the City park land. There are four lots which are adjacent to the park and there will be a slope up to the park which will be planted with transition-type vegetation to enhance the transition between the park and the development. He discussed the tree loss, which was another concern expressed by the Planning Commission and the residents, and noted that by adjusting roadway alignments and lot lines they have been able to reduce the amount of tree loss they will have to between 21.4% and 37.1% tree loss for the total project. There were some trees that were omitted from the original calculations, and these have now been included in the figures. Johnson commented they did not know what would be going on with Outlot H and they have added 28 duplex homes for this part of the site. These would be for the empty-nester type homeowner and they have been distinctively configured. They are also showing six units which are located on the Cole property but this is not included in this request, as it has not been formally applied for at this time. He discussed the mix of housing types and noted they eliminated 16 units from the Town Home section and moved them into the single family section. They also eliminated three lots so they are proposing a total of 416 units and 10 outlots. He requested the Planning Commission to approve the revised plans. Foote asked if it would be possible for the proponent to maintain the same housing diversity but reduce the density of the project, or would that make the remaining units too expensive. Johnson responded it would aversely affect the cost of the housing remaining in the project. Sandstad asked about the park and Johnson responded it was not developed yet, but would be as soon as this project was built. Dorn expressed concern about the cost of the homes that would be constructed because of the concerns of the residents expressed at the last meeting regarding their property values being adversely impacted by this development. It was noted that the median price for a home would be at about $146,000 which was not low income housing and should not negatively impact property values for ;: > PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie January 11, 1999 Page 3 adjacent residential neighborhoods. Alexander was concerned about the stand of pine trees located on the Hendrickson property to the north and Johnson responded that the small ones could be moved to other areas on the site, but since this property was not included in this project proposal, that would be addressed in the future. Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted the reasons for approval should be based on a finding of a compelling reason to change the Guide Plan. He noted this development would provide affordable housing for the City and in exchange the City was proposing to allow density bonuses to the developer to permit construction of projects with higher densities. Also, the proposal for development of the Hendrickson property which has a market response to this development by developing at a higher density. The Planning Commission needed to evaluate this project in light of what may develop on parcels adjacent to this subject site. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission consider what the ramifications are for the adjacent properties even though the proponent has met the intent of the direction given by the Planning Commission at their last meeting. Dorn commented he felt that the commercial proposal for the adjacent property should be larger in size to allow enough space for businesses to come in and be able to compete with other commercial businesses in the area. Discussion ensued regarding the sizes of various small neighborhood commercial areas throughout the City and Franzen noted that many developers felt that 50,000 square feet were needed for a neighborhood commercial center to be viable. Discussion ensued regarding if there would be adequate buffering between the center and the adjacent residential areas, and whether there was adequate development in the surrounding areas to support a neighborhood commercial center. Franzen commented that land use issues were not based on economic feasibility. The Public Hearing was opened. Ben Merriman, BMP Real Estate, stated he was the developer of the property on Linwood and Dell Road. They have done the project which will commence construction this spring, and they buffered it from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Before beginning their project, they looked at the guiding and zoning which determined how far other commercial developments could be located from their development. He expressed concern that the new commercial development proposed for the Hendrickson property would be only about one mile from their site, and he was opposed to changing the Guide Plan to allow commercial development on this site. He believed it would take business away from their development and dilute the market. Larry Kacher, 9820 Sky Lane, stated he wished to comment about the southeast corner of the project. He was concerned that the proponent had not met the criteria set by the Planning Commission regarding this area. He did not believe eliminating three units and counting trees on an undevelopable portion of the site met this direction. There is no reasonable logic to grant a variance to the Guide Plan in this area of Eden Prairie. The amount of tree loss in the areas on construction is still 60% which does not meet the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie January 11, 1999 Page 4 direction of the Planning Commission. He proposed that this portion of the site follow the guidelines from the R1-44 District, and be developed with large-lot single family homes. The Cash Park Fees could be reduced by a commensurate amount with this type of development. He stated he could find no compelling reason why the Guide Plan should be changed in this area. Diana Dunn, 9381 Cedar Forest Road, stated she was opposed to the density and was concerned about the traffic that would be generated from this development. There was a large amount of development going on in Chaska and Chanhassen, and this development will also impact traffic levels on Pioneer Trail. She stated she moved to Eden Prairie to enjoy the natural features and the environment which exist in Eden Prairie. She was opposed to connecting this development to the Cedarcrest area, and proposed the roadway be ended with a cul-de-sac. She noted many of the proposed homes would have cul-de- sacs and felt that older residents should have the same privilege as these newer residents would have. She expressed concern about the farmers market and whether it would be able to survive if this development was approved. She also asked what determined a significant tree and Foote responded it was a 12 inch diameter size for a deciduous tree and 8 inch diameter for an evergreen tree. She asked how many different types of housing units were proposed, and Foote responded the developer was proposing 259 single family homes, 56 twin homes and 118 town homes. Paula Legad, 17191 Cedarcrest Drive, indicated where she lived on the plans, and stated she was concerned about the erosion from this proposed development and the impact it would have on her property when the runoff came down the ravine. She stated she was opposed to a road connection to Cedarcrest from this development. She commented she was not opposed to having between 8-10 homes added to her cul-de-sac, since her neighbors were selling their property. She was concerned about the environmental impacts on the wildlife in the area and the habitat which would be lost. She was opposed to the development. JoAnn Lroblewski, 9360 Cedar Forest Road,inquired if an environmental study was done and if so, could she see the results. Franzen responded the documents were located in the Community Development Department at City Hall and could be viewed between the hours of 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Monday through Fridays. She asked about the roadway connection and if it had been decided whether it should go through or not. Sandstad commented he had not discussed this issue with other Commissioners, and it had not been determined yet. She was concerned about the impact on the wildlife in the area and commented they had not been notified this item would be on the agenda that evening. Foote responded that it was announced at the last meeting that this item would be continued to the January 11, 1999 agenda, and the City did not send out notices for continued items unless specifically instructed to do so by the Commission. Brad Mlynar, 17140 Cedarcrest Drive, stated he bought his home because it was located on a cul-de-sac, and he wanted it to stay that way. He inquired how the land located between PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie January 11, 1999 Page 5 Cedar Forest Road and the Orrin Thompson development was zoned and Franzen responded it was all the Eden Orchard property which is zoned for agricultural use but is guided for a developed density of 2.5 units per acre. When development is proposed staff tries to have development that is comparable to what is already existing in the area. Pam Olson, 9040 Dell Road, stated they are the owners of a hobby farm, and have several neighbors who also own hobby farms in this area. She was concerned about who would be required to pay for the upgrading of old Dell Road and objected to being assessed to pay for it when this development was causing the upgrade to occur. Johnson responded that the assessment policy will be determined by the City Council but much of that land now being used as hobby farms will be divided in the future. He did not believe that Orrin Thompson Homes should bear the entirety of the cost of upgrading the roadway, but there were many options available to the City Council when determining how the road improvement assessments should be handled. Discussion ensued regarding who should pay for the upgrading of the roadway, and Olson commented she believed Orrin Thompson should pay for it. Mark Reese, 9200 Cedar Forest Road, stated he was concerned about the increased traffic if the roadway was connected. He was concerned that if the road was connected it would require that Cedarcrest and Cedar Forest Roads be upgraded to handle the increased traffic, and he was opposed to paying any additional assessment costs resulting from this. He did not want to have additional traffic going through is neighborhood. He asked when the decision would be made regarding this roadway connection, and Foote informed him that it would be decided after the public hearing closed and the Planning Commission discussed it. Franzen noted the policy of the City Council is usually to make the connection unless it would cause severe damage such as filling a wetland area or cutting down a large hill. The final decision on the roadway connection will not be made until the Council reviews this project. Staff is recommending that the roadway be connected, but the City Council may decide not to connect it when they review the project. Jan Bahn, 17170 Beverly Drive, asked if the Planning Commission had looked at what would happen when they put that many homes into this southeast area and the erosion that will occur with the construction on top of the ridge. She asked why the City would waste money trying to save land in the Big Woods preserve and then let all these people move in right next to it. Mark Michaelson, Cedarcrest Drive, commented he noticed a recent washout that happened last summer while out walking his dog, which was the result from the development above it. He did not believe any compelling reason had been established to change the guiding for this development. Sandstad stated he appreciated the comments from the residents. The project does appear to be reasonable from his perspective and development needs density incentives so the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie January 11, 1999 Page 6 City can get affordable housing and Senior housing. He did not feel they need to have a larger commercial area than what is proposed. The PUD agreement provides for bonding against environmental damages, and he supported the proposal. Lewis stated this area will be developed and that is inevitable. Eden Prairie is now 90% developed and the City has few alternatives left to use. She noted the developer has made major concessions to meet the direction given by the Planning Commission. She recently heard residents at another public hearing complain of being isolated because roadways were not connected through their neighborhoods, and at first she had believed this roadway should be connected. However, given the input from the residents, she had changed her position, and felt the roadway should end in a cul-de-sac. She supported the density but was not excited by the density in the southwest corner. She noted it did meet the requirements and forcing an exchange in density was not going to meet their goal to protect this sensitive area. She suggested that the developer look at it one more time to see if something could be done. Overall, she supported the project because it meets needs of the City. Dorn explained that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council and they are the ones who make the final decisions. He was concerned about the southeast portion of the site and the environmental impacts which could be the result from this development in this area. He noted that residents have rights, but so do property owners. He suggested that perhaps the southeast corner of the development could be eliminated from this project. He suggested it could be donated to the City as a park and it would benefit everyone. It could save Orrin Thompson the cost of developing the street and the property owner could deduct the value of this land from the capital gains tax. Dorn supported the project without the southeast corner segment, and supported connecting the streets whenever possible. Alexander stated she had changed her views, and connecting the street was something that was usually done to benefit the residents of a neighborhood, and since the residents that spoke appeared to be against connecting the street, she did not support making that connection. The southeast corner of the project would be a nice addition to the preserve and she urged the proponents to work together to see if something could be worked out. She commented again she would like to see the pine trees saved. The assessments for improvements to Old Dell Road should be fairly distributed and the property owners on the west side of the road should not be penalized because of this development. She would like to see a lower density or a larger commercial development in the area. She felt they could develop something that was more environmentally sensitive. She supported the project except for the southeast corner and she felt the roadway did not need to be connected. Foote commented he was always an advocate for diversity in housing types and this project has many features which are desirable. He was concerned about the southeast corner and would like to see the proponent eliminate half to two-thirds of those lots. He did not want to see homes built on the ravine or back up to the park. He was comfortable PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie January 11, 1999 Page 7 with the density being located elsewhere on the site. He did not see any value to connecting the roadway. Sandstad commented if the proponent wants to build on this portion of the site and the property owner wants to sell it there is no way the City can force the property owner to donate land to the City. He was prepared to move for approval of the project. Johnson commented he could discuss the idea of donating this area to the City with the Limited Partnership but he did not think they would be willing to do that, and the City did not have the financial resources to purchase this land. He could have platted the lots so they went to the creek and then conceded more area to the City, but chose to plat them the way he believed they should be done initially. These lots are very large and will be able to support the homes they are proposing for them. They have already donated 10 acres to the City and will be placing a conservation easement over land in the twin home area. They believe what they are proposing will virtually eliminate all the runoff from this area. If nothing is built this area will just continue to erode into the creek. They have developed a reasonable use for this property and he requested the Planning Commission to approve the project. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Lewis, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Lewis, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Orrin Thompson Homes for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 39.26 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 158.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 158.4 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RI-9.5 on 42.08 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RI-13.5 on 77.007 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 39.26 acres, Site Plan Review on 39.26 acres, EAW Review and Preliminary Plat on 158.4 acres into 416 lots and 10 outlots based on plans dated January 8, 1999, and subject to the stipulations listed in the Staff Report dated January 8, 1999 with the addition of the following conditions: 12. Maintain the quasi-rural condition of Cedarcrest Road and not connect it through. 13. Unanimous concern that extreme care be utilized in the development of the southeast corner of the project and that the proponent explore all options to increase protection of the woods and ravine. Motion carried 4-1. Dorn voted no. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources m w kItAJ 500 Lafayette Road 0� St.Paul,Minnesota 55155-40_ 10 c'FNArus0- December 16, 1998 Mike Franzen, City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Untitled Residential Development in the Vicinity of Dell Road Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Franzen: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EAW for the above-noted project. We offer the following comments for your consideration. The site exhibits a mixture of cover types according to Item 10. Of particular interest to the DNR is the southeastern portion of the site containing approximately 35 acres of"woodland/forest" vegetation. According to Item 11b, "development is proposed in approximately 59% of the on-site portion of the forested area," which represents a 41% loss of forested area. We are concerned that the EAW does not recognize the locally significant nature and value of this forest, especially in terms of the larger, contiguous forest complex of which it is a part. We are also concerned that the EAW does not identify how the project avoids impacting this important resource. The discussion that follows explains our concern. The forested riparian corridor along Riley Creek, including the project site, contains remnants of the once extensive maple-basswood "Big Woods" natural community. The Big Woods forest type is dominated primarily by red oak, sugar maple, and basswood trees. The Big Woods once spanned from St. Cloud to Mankato and included the western one-half of Hennepin County. Less than one percent (1%) of the County's original Big Woods forest remains today due to 140 years of clearing for agricultural and human settlement purposes. The remaining Big Woods forest covers approximately 1,100 acres that are best characterized as being individual, isolated patches or fragments of forest. These forests are shady and moist with tall, straight trees dominating a rich and diverse understory whose ecological value depends upon minimal intrusion and disturbance. As just noted, the forest area on the site is also maple-basswood, but is not high quality. However, higher quality maple-basswood forest is located just south of the project site and is protected in the Riley Creek Woods Conservation Area. In general, remnant stands of the Big Woods forest have long been considered to be one of the most threatened natural community types in the state and are given a high priority for protection. When funding is available at the state and federal level, site purchase can occur to protect these (and other) natural communities to the benefit of local residents, citizens of the state, and the nation. Unfortunately, insufficient funding is available at the state level to protect all of the high quality natural community priority sites. Therefore, efforts to preserve what is left of Minnesota's natural heritage, including the remaining Big Woods stands, will in most instances require the direct action of local citizens and governments. Eden Prairie has taken such a step, one that DNR DNR Information:612-296-6157, 1-800-76(1-6000 • TTY:612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer 41111 Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity ) y `a Minimum of 10%Post-Consumer Waste Mike Franzen,City Planner December 16, 1998 commends, by protecting the high quality maple-basswood forest remnant in the conservation area adjacent to the project site. The Riley Creek Woods Conservation Area serves several important natural resource functions, some of which are also tied to the forest area located at the project site. The riparian forest surrounding Riley Creek provides locally significant wildlife habitat, open space, and amenity value to the Eden Prairie community. Importantly, because the forest complex is growing on the slopes above Riley Creek, it provides an extremely valuable riparian buffer that reduces soil erosion, provides water infiltration, and keeps the stream water temperature lower. Essentially the forest protects Riley Creek from the potentially adverse effects from upland use and development. The 35 acres of forest found on the site contributes substantially to the habitat, water quality, amenity values of the entire forest complex located along Riley Creek. The EAW does not recognize that proposing to develop the forest on the site results in some loss of value, especially in terms of habitat, for the entire forested area. In our offering of these comments, please recognize that the term "forest" cannot be applied to all sites with trees, especially in an urban and suburban setting. The term "forest" must be distinguished from "woodland," where forest is ecologically distinct and superior to the functions and values produced just by woodland. In this instance, the forest complex exhibits a mixture of trees of different sizes, various shrubs, herbaceous plants, and the associated leaf litter that are correctly characterized as a true,'actual forest. Woodland exhibits less diversity along all these dimensions, thus its habitat and biodiversity values are accordingly lessened. In this case, the forest label is correctly applied to vegetation listed as "Woodland" on Figure 4. The proposed elimination of 18 acres of forest identified in the EAW affects more than just the trees that are cut. The remaining 17 acres will essentially be converted to residential woodland, thus the loss of true forest will occur on the entire 35 acres on the site. Offsite impacts will also result because the site's forest loss and conversion to woodland further diminishes the total area of forest, thus contributing to the ongoing fragmentation of the total forested area, including the Riley Creek Woods Conservation Area. Forest fragmentation is an issue of concern statewide, but particularly in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The development as proposed fragments the forest by creating more open areas and forest fringe, thus changing the existing "unopened" condition to a more sunny and windy condition. Such a change favors those species, especially birds, adapted for the boundary zone between forest and open space while adversely affecting forest bird species adapted to inhabiting only the interior portion of mature forest stands. The main consequence is to change the predation and competition profile of the forest. In particular, interior-adapted forest bird species are subject to increased predation from crows, jays, and mammals that tend to hunt forest edges. Development, for example through installation of roads, building sites, farming, harvest activity, and golf courses, is resulting in an increase in forest edge conditions over forest interior conditions. We believe that interior species populations are gradually declining from the cumulative effects of such activities. In general, whatever interior habitat that remains in the Twin Cities is being converted to edge habitat as development proceeds. This project contributes to this trend by eliminating most of the ecological functionality on the site proper, and by diminishing the general ecological functionality of the larger forest block. 2 vs Mike Franzen,City Planner December 16, 1998 The EAW indicates in Item lla that "[d]uring development of the project site, some trees will be removed. Removal and replacement will be in accordance with all applicable City ordinances." Item llb further offers, "[a]ccording to current project plans, development is proposed in approximately 59% of the on-site portion of the forested area. Mitigation will include tree replacement in accordance with the City ordinance, as well as efforts to avoid damage to remaining trees." Unfortunately, the lost ecological functions on the site cannot be mitigated by simply planting replacement trees. Furthermore, the dimunition of ecological function and value offsite will not be mitigated by tree replacement either. In this respect, the EAW fails to acknowledge this impact and is therefore deficient. From a natural resources perspective, development should avoid the forested portion of the site because it is a valuable, locally significant resource. The two eastern cul-de-sacs have the most impact and represent a small percentage of the development. We strongly encourage the City of Eden Prairie and the proposer to evaluate the feasibility of meeting project objectives without encroaching into the forested portion of the site. The area could be redesigned with some low impact trails, thus providing substantial amenity to the development as a whole. In this respect, we note in Item 28, Compatibility with Plans, that the project as proposed is currently "inconsistent" with City's Guide Plan and City's Zoning Map in terms of permissible dwelling unit densities. Opportunities may be present to apply a more clustered approach to the site similar to that employed with planned unit developments, where higher unit densities are tolerated at some parts of a site in return for open space dedication. Any economic burden this may place on the proposer could be offset by compensation with City open space monies, or donation or tax credit options that are available. Such an outcome could prove mutually beneficial for both the proposer and Eden Prairie community as well as the future residents of the development. As we have indicated, it is preferred that no development occur at all in the forested part of the site. If development does proceed in that part of the site, it should happen only under the supervision of a professional forester or arborist. A Tree Protection Plan should be developed that identifies how tree losses are minimized, especially potential post-project losses. Post-project tree losses are important because tree mortality can continue long-term after construction ceases if trees are wounded, or if their roots are damaged,during construction. In addition, the plan should ensure that all trees removed be utilized for the commercial products they contain. These products include sawlogs, veneer, pulpwood, and firewood. Non-merchantable material should be chipped into mulch. If any material remains that is unusable, it may be permissible to burn it. Piling and burning is to be considered a last resort and burning permits are not automatically issued for disposal of this much material. Regarding storm water runoff management issues discussed in Item 18, we strongly endorse the EAW's recognition of the value of handling runoff"by infiltration and discharge to adjacent vegetated areas." Although we cannot ascertain fully whether this project meets this objective at this time based upon the level of detail available, we support this concept and recommend close scrutiny of this project feature as greater definition becomes available. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. The project as proposed results in the loss of locally important forest areas, which is a loss that can be avoided. In addition, the project will also diminish the value of the Riley Creek Woods Conservation Area. We recommend evaluation of whether project objectives can be achieved without encroaching into the forested area of the site. We are willing to meet with the City as well as the proposer to discuss our concerns. 3 Mike Franzen, City Planner December 16, 1998 We look forward to receiving your record of decision and responses to comments. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action. Please contact Bill Johnson of my staff at (651) 296-9229 to discuss our comments or if you have questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Environmental Review and Assistance Unit Office of Management and Budget Services c: Kathleen Wallace Con Christianson Bret Anderson Jon Nelson Lynn M. Lewis, USFWS Jon Larsen, EQB Lee Johnson, Orrin Thompson Homes #990158-01/UNTITLED.WP7 4 (y7 Metropol_.an Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future December 9, 1998 Mike Franzen,City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 RE: EAW--Orrin Thompson Residential Development at Pioneer Trail and Dell Road. Metropolitan Council District 4 Referral File No. 16913-1 Dear Mr. Franzen: Council staff has conducted a review of this environmental assessment worksheet(EAW)to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The staff review has concluded that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. However, staff provides the following comments for your consideration: The proposed project involves the construction of 254 single-family detached and 162 attached(two- family and townhouse)residences on 158 acres located in the SE quadrant of Pioneer Trail and Dell Road. Riley Creek forms the eastern boundary in the SE portion of the project area. Item 8—Permits and Approvals Required The EAW mentions that several jurisdictional wetlands will be filled during this project,Council staff recommends that all permits pertaining to wetland fill/mitigation be included in this section of the document. Item Jib. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. The EAW states that the maple-basswood forest on the slopes of Riley Creek will be impacted by the project;approximately 59%of the on-site forest will be developed. Council staff concurs with Karen Cieminski,Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ecologist,whose letter is included in the appendices of the EAW. In her letter, Ms. Cieminski states that ...because less than 1%of the maple-basswood forest natural community type remains,I believe that the portion of the forest that lies on the southeast segment of the project area should be preserved as open space. This would also further protect the health of Riley Creek". From the information included with the EAW, it appears that the forested area of the proposed development is steeply sloped,with high potential for erosion. Due to rarity of the maple-basswood forest, its vicinity to Riley Creek, and the potential for erosion,Council staff recommends that the AREA CODE CHANGES TO 651 IN JULY, 1998 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1626 (612)602-1000 Fax 602-1550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 602-1888 An Equal Opportnniti Emplotier Mike Franzen, City Planner December 9, 1998 Page 2 entire forested area on the southeast corner of the proposed development be left intact to serve as a buffer to Riley Creek, consistent with the Council's action steps 4A and 4D of the Regional Blueprint. Item 17-Erosion and Sedimentation The EAW states that portions of the site have slopes greater than 12 percent and that some parts of the site are already eroded,yet only two erosion control measures(siltation fences and revegetation)are mentioned in the EAW. Council staff does not believe that these measures will be sufficient for prevention and/or mitigation of erosion of the steeply sloped, highly erodable soils in this project area. We recommend that construction on slopes of more than 12 percent should be prohibited, if possible. Additionally,the City and developer should negotiate a more realistic set of corrective and preventative measures so that erosion of the steep slopes and the likely sedimentation in Riley Creek can be avoided. This should include,but not be limited to,requiring that the entire forested area on the southeast corner of the proposed development be left intact to serve as a buffer to Riley Creek Item 18a and b-Water Quality-Surface Water Runoff The EAW form requires that a comparison be made of the quality and quantity of site runoff before and after the project. This information is not included in the EAW. Council staff recommends that estimates of water quality/quantity discharging to Riley Creek under existing and proposed conditions be completed and included with the EAW. This is important information for the City and permitting agencies to know before project approvals are given. In part b,the EAW states that since stormwater runoff will be treated to NURP standards,water quality impacts to Riley Creek are not expected. Council staff would like to point out that NURP standards specify design criteria to achieve a certain removal efficiency,not a specific effluent concentration. Since no water quality simulation estimates were included in the EAW, it is not possible to assess whether or not the stormwater runoff will impact Riley Creek. As stated previously, Council staff recommends that estimates of water quality discharging to the creek under existing and proposed conditions be completed and included with the EAW. In addition,phosphorus and suspended sediment concentrations as determined by the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District should be included in the EAW. From the results of the water quality/quantity simulations and from the monitoring data,a more realistic assessment of the impacts on Riley Creek can be made. Item 22- Traffic Forecasts for TH212 appear low compared to Hennepin County's TSP 2000 forecast of 30,000-32,000 ADT. At these numbers, it will be at or over the capacity of TH212;they should be examined closely. Item 28-Compatibility with Plans The EAW does not include any discussion on relationships/impacts between the proposed project and the Flying Cloud airport plan. The Metropolitan Council approved the 2010 airport Long-Term LI9 Mike Franzen,City Planner December 9, 1998 Page 3 Comprehensive Plan(LTCP) in 1996 and the City MUSA expansion in 1997. The following text discusses the plans and outlines areas of concern. The proposed 158-acre Orrin Thompson subdivision is about one and a half miles due west of the Flying Cloud Airport. The subdivision will include 416 residential units consisting of detached single- family homes,twin homes and townhomes. At this location the likely airport impacts to be considered are potential airspace obstructions and aircraft noise. Airspace Obstructions: Most of the subdivision appears to be close to the same elevation as the airfield(i.e. @900'AMSL). The most stringent runway safety zone surface is an imaginary surface starting at the end of the runway primary zone,extending upward and outward at a 50:1 ratio for precision instrument runways. At a distance of 1.5 miles from the runway end the floor of the runway approach zone would be at about 150' AGL or, 1,050' AMSL. The residential uses in this proposed subdivision are usually controlled by cities through a height ordinance limiting buildings generally to 35 or 40 foot maximum height. Some areas will be at @ 950 feet AMSL, and with residential structures could be at @ 970 to 980 feet AMSL at the southeastern part of the subdivision. It appears that there should be no height restrictions needed in the subdivision;however,the City should have a height limit ordinance in-place and enforced. If better information is available and the data indicates the height assumptions above appear inaccurate,a detailed assessment should be conducted and coordinated with the MAC. Aircraft Noise: The 2010 LTCP noise contours are depicted in Figure 19 of the 1996 Aviation Guide Chapter. These are the contours that apply for review of this EAW. Several acres of the proposed subdivision are within the 2010 LTCP noise contour(D)as depicted in attachments I and 2. The proposed subdivision is essentially undeveloped property without urban services and is considered as "New Development"under land use compatibility guidelines for aircraft noise. Under noise zone D, single family,twin home and townhome development is a"conditional"use. This means residential use can be considered as a compatible and permitted use if: (a) it meets the interior sound structure performance standards for residential development of 45 d.b.a. (see also footnote 1 in table 9 of the Aviation Guide),and (b) it can adequately address the conditional land use review factors as identified in the Aviation Guide(applies to all system airports). It appears that about eight blocks of the proposed townhomes in the northeast portion of the subdivision would need to meet the exterior-to-interior noise reduction performance standards. The City should refer to the Council's Builders Guide concerning state building code and model noise ordinance. Be advised that the Builders Guide is under revision, and readers should contact Chauncey Case, Office of Transportation and Transit Development at 651-602-1724 for information about specific changes that may impact this proposed subdivision. The remainder of the subdivision is considered a compatible use at the present time and requires no special noise control considerations. Conditional Land Use Review Factors to be addressed as part of a PUD comprehensive plan amendment are listed below: Mike Franzen,City Planner December 9, 1998 Page 4 1. What is the specific nature of the proposed use,including extent of associated outdoor activities? For example, are the activities voluntary or required? Does the activity occur on a daily or seasonal basis? 2. What is the relationship of the proposed use to other planning considerations,including adjacent land use activities,consistency with overall comprehensive planning and relation to other metropolitan systems? For example,how does this project fit into the overall comprehensive plan, its use designation and development phasing? Do adjacent uses increase or decrease the ambient noise? 3. What is the frequency of exposure of the proposed uses to aircraft overflight? For example, how many times does the overflight occur-day/night,daily/seasonal? Is it expected to increase/decrease? 4. What is the location of the proposed use relative to aircraft flight tracks,and aircraft on- ground operating and maintenance areas?For example, is the proposed use located directly under a heavily used flight track, a seldom-used flight track,to the side of a flight track? How close is the project to taxiways and hangars? 5. What are the location,site design and construction restrictions to be imposed on the proposed use by the community with respect to reduction of exterior-to- interior noise transmissions,and shielding of outdoor activities? If the project is close to the airport,are there opportunities to limit noise intrusion by taking advantage of terrain, or through the orientation of structures? Can building structure be used to block common areas such as outdoor swimming pool or recreation areas in apartment complexes? If the project is further from the airport,but still in the noise impact area, is it a candidate for clustering or other site positioning to lessen noise impacts? 6. What method the community will use to inform future occupants of proposed potential noise from aircraft operations? For example,will there be a notice in the property deed, a truth in housing type disclosure,an informational bulletin provided to buyers, permit notice? 7. The extent to which the community restricts the building from having facilities for outdoor activities associated with the use? For example, are outdoor recreation areas and facilities allowed for projects in high noise impact areas?Are numbers,types of doors and windows or other openings(e.g. vents, skylights) included in building design to attenuate high noise impacts? do building designs restrict balconies? 8. The distance of the proposed use from the existing or proposed runways,parallel taxiways, or engine run-up areas. For example,how far is the project away from the noise source now? What will it be in the future? The distance/direction the project has in relation to the above airport areas will determine the type of noise impacts that will be experienced; it also relates directly to the type of potential mitigation effort. Mike Franzen,City Planner December 9, 1998 Page 5 This will conclude the Council's review of the EAW. The Council will take no formal action on the EAW. If you have any questions or need further information,please contact Jim Uttley,AICP, principal reviewer, at 651-602-1361. Sincerely, hr`� Helen Boyer,Directo Environmental Services Division Attachments-2 C: Jules Smith,Metropolitan Council District 4 Lee Johnson, Orrin Thompson Homes Lisa R. Fay,Environmental Scientist,Northern Environmental Karen L. Cieminski,Data Manager/Ecologist,Minnesota DNR Keith Buttleman,Director, Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department Thomas C. McElveen,Director, Housing and Local Assistance Lynda Voge,Referrals Coordinator Chauncey Case, Office of Transportation and Transit Development Karen Jensen,Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department Tom Caswell, Sector Representative,Office of Local Assistance Jim Uttley,AICP,Community Development Division V:/library/commundv/referral/letters/EP 169131.doc MINNESOTA MDH DEPARTMENToF HEALTH Protecting, Maintaining and Improving the Health of All Minnesotans December 16, 1998 Mr. Mike Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Franzen: The Minnesota Department of Health(MDH)staff has reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)for the untitled residential development project at Dell Road and County Road 1 in Eden Prairie, Hennepin County,Minnesota. We understand that this project proposes to develop 416 residential units on 158 acres, including 254 single-family detached homes, 28 duplexes, and 134 units of townhomes. Concomitant development includes grading and construction of public roads; stormwater treatment pond construction, and storm sewer pipe installation for stormwater systems; erosion control measures; wetland mitigation; and public utilities to include city water and city sewer services. There are two existing residences/farmsteads in the project area. Also,there may be one or more other existing buildings on the land now; however no information is provided about future intentions to retain, remove, or demolish these structures. We offer the following comments for your consideration: 1. Plumbing Plan Review. Plumbing plan approval will be necessary for any housing units which are part of a building consisting of five or more housing units. Please call the state plumbing regulation program at(612)215-0836. 2. Water Service Lines. The Minnesota Plumbing Code specifies that a buried sewer or drain be located at least 10 feet from a buried water service line, or if this distance cannot be maintained,the installation and materials must comply with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4715.1710, subp. 2 (Minnesota Plumbing Code). Questions should be directed to the local plumbing administrative authority or to the state plumbing regulation program at(651)215-0836. 3. Sewer Main Stubs. We recommend careful planning to consider where to locate stubs for any future sewer service lines or other connections, in order to maintain the isolation distance from wells and/or buried water service lines. 4. Inventory of Existing Sewage Disposal Systems. We recommend an investigation be made of the type(s)and location(s) of any existing component(s)of sewage disposal system(s) in the area of any existing building(s), including the two residences/farmsteads, or where there were any buildings in the past on any of this property. If any sewage disposal system component(s) remain,their locations should be staked and the types of the sewage disposal systems should be recorded,in order to maintain required setback distances. 5. Abandonment of Septic Systems. We recommend that all existing septic system component(s)be properly abandoned according to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080,with proper disposal of remaining waste. Improperly abandoned septic systems can threaten existing wells in the area. 5,7 121 East Seventh Place • St.Paul,MN 55101 • http://www.health.state.mn.us An equal opportunity employer Mr. Mike Franzen December 16, 1998 Page 2 6. Field Well Inventory. We acknowledge the information in Item 13.a. of the EAW,which states that there is one irrigation well on the property and two wells are located at the on-site residences/farmsteads,which will be sealed according to MDH regulations. However, it is unclear by which method these wells were located, and whether any other unused,unsealed wells may still exist on this property. We frequently caution project proposers that records and databases are not all-encompassing, and that old wells from previous land uses or installed by previous landowners frequently remain, especially in rural areas. Therefore,we recommend a field well inventory be performed, if one has not been done, across the entire property, and especially along the proposed routes of all streets and sanitary sewer lines, along any proposed new pipeline alignment, as well as in the vicinity of any large-diameter stormwater pipes,to determine the locations of any existing water supply wells(active or unused,unsealed). Please be aware that water supply wells also include irrigation wells,drive-point wells, etc. Such a well inventory will be useful to determine where all wells to be sealed are located, and also to ensure that isolation distances will be taken into account(if any wells will remain). Particular attention should be made in the areas shown on air photos, old maps, etc. where any farmsteads or homes have been located on this property, as well as along property boundaries where wells on adjacent properties may still exist. We recommend that the work be completed for all wells to be sealed before beginning other types of construction,because the isolation distances apply in all cases until a well is sealed. Once a well is sealed by a licensed well contractor in accordance with requirements of the rules,the isolation distance is no longer an issue. In case a decision is made in the future to retain any well on this property, or to begin any construction prior to well sealing,we offer the following information: 7. Construction Near a Well. The Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725 specify that construction activities must not bury any well. 8. Stormwater Conduits. The Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725 specify that the setback distance between water supply wells and stormwater pipes or conduits must be 20 feet if the pipe is 12 inches in diameter or greater;there is no setback distance requirement if the pipe is less than 12 inches in diameter. If the pipe carries sewage or sewage can back up in the pipe,the piping is considered a sewer, not a stormwater drain. 9. Well Setbacks from Sewers. Minnesota Statutes,section 103I.205 prohibits the placement of regulated sources of contamination any closer to an existing water supply well (active or unused, unsealed)than the distances prescribed by the Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725. The rules specifies the following setback distances between water supply wells and buried sanitary sewers or individual sewer lines, including building drains connected to the building sewer line: a. 50 feet. A minimum setback distance of at least 50 feet must be maintained between a well and a buried sewer if the sewer: i. is a collector or municipal sewer; ii. is pressurized and serves more than a single-family residence; iii. is open-jointed; or iv. is constructed of materials that do not meet the material, installation and testing requirements in the Minnesota Plumbing Code. b. 20 feet: The 50-foot separation distance may be reduced to 20 feet if the sewer meets the material, installation and testing requirements in the Minnesota Plumbing Code,AND it is: i. a buried,gravity sewer that serves a single-family residence or a single facility such as a business, church, school, or single commercial property. (This does not include collectors or municipal sewers); or ii. a buried,pressurized sewer that serves a single-family residence. Mr. Mike Franzen December 16, 1998 Page 3 There is a 12-inch gasoline easement which runs approximately east-west through the property, shown and labeled on Figures 1 and 4. Figure 3 appears to show the easement; however, it is not labeled and the alignment appears to be changed to run nearly north-south near the east property boundary. It is not clear whether the proposer intends to request that the pipeline be moved. In case that request is made, we provide the following for your information: 10. Petroleum Pipeline Easement. Please be aware that Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4725 specifies that the setback distance between a water supply well and a buried petroleum pipeline must be 150 feet. 11. Well Inventory for Any New Pipeline Alignment. We recommend that a separate field well inventory be performed along any proposed new pipeline alignment, across all affected properties, to determine the locations of any existing water supply wells(active or unused,unsealed), in order to accommodate the required isolation distance. In the case that any structure(s)will be remodeled, demolished, or otherwise disturbed during the project, we offer the following additional comments: 12. Asbestos. MDH regulates removal or disturbance of asbestos-containing material from commercial or residential buildings for the protection of public health. These regulations mandate licensure of contractors and individuals conducting asbestos-related work and the safe work practices associated with this type of work. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulates proper handling and disposal of asbestos-containing material, and the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry regulates protection of asbestos workers. For additional information, please contact the MDH asbestos program at(651)215-0900. 13. Lead. MDH also regulates lead abatement in and around homes by mandating licensure of contractors and individuals conducting lead abatement. These regulations also specify the safe work practices for lead abatement. Please call (651)215-0890 for a copy of the regulations governing lead abatement and for information about how to protect children and adults from the harmful effects of lead. Thank you for the opportunity to review this EAW. If you have questions or need further information, please contact Betty Wheeler at(651)215-0807. nicer avid Wulf S ervisor Policy, Plann g, and An sis nit Environmental Health D. DWW:BJW cc: Betty Wheeler Docket#:98228 v0NNEsor7 o Q Minnesota Department of Transportation 9 a Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 December 21, 1998 Michael Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Michael Franzen: SUBJECT: Orrin Thompson Homes Mn/DOT Environmental Review EAW98-042 Northeast Quadrant of Trunk Highway (TH) and Dell Road Eden Prairie, Hennepin County C.S. 2744 The Metro Division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Orrin Thompson Homes Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for impacts to the state highway system. We apologize for our delay in responding to this submittal. We find it acceptable with consideration of the following comments. • Due to the recent and future development in this area, the city should be examining ways in which to improve the TH 212/Dell Road intersection. Mn/DOT has expressed it's concerns over this location to the Eden Prairie City Engineer. For further information regarding this matter,please contact Lars Impola of our Traffic Engineering Section at 797-3126. • Dell Road is MSA Route 113. The city should review it's State Aid system designations in this area. Questions regarding this matter may be directed to Tom Leibli of our State Aid Section at 582-1372. • We request the opportunity to review site plans and grading/drainage plans for any proposed developments next to TH 212,when plans have been prepared. Mn/DOT review of plans allows potential issues to be identified and considered at a comparatively early phase of the development process. Two copies of the plans may be sent to Sherry Narusiewicz, Local Government Liaison Supervisor, at the above address. Please allow thirty days for a formal response. An equal opportunity employer 17 Michael Franzen December 21, 1998 page two This letter represents the transportation concerns of the Metro Division of Mn/DOT. Other environmental concerns raised by a wider Mn/DOT review may be forwarded to you under separate letter. Please contact me at 582-1383 with any questions regarding this review. Sincerely, Lisa Christianson Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison c: Gerald Larson, Mn/DOT Environmental Coordinator 7 To: Eden Prairie City Planning Commission 14 Dec 98 From: Kathy Horsfall 17621 Pioneer Trail Eden Prairie Subj: Comments re. the Eden Apple Orchard Development You have undoubtedly received many comments concerning the upcoming development of the Eden Orchard property. I would argue, that while many people are affected, there is no other property which will be impacted as much as ours. After initial denial and shock, I have become resolved to the fact that such development will occur. Even though I don't consider it"progress", it is inevitable. However,I do strongly feel that the property must be developed responsibly, with due respect to the environment, the neighbors, the utilities, and even more importantly, the residents who will ultimately reside there. In this vein, I am yet again very disappointed in one aspect of this third development proposal. While less dense than the first, and more appropriate to the surrounding community, I am still extremely concerned about the emphasis on maximizing the units per acre, without any regard to open space, community space, or green space. As with the previous two developers--United Homes has proposed over 100 townhomes and many dense small-lot"affordable" units. This can also be interpreted as"biggest bang for the buck". Nowhere in these plans do they show any playgrounds, picnic areas, or any recreational space within close proximity to these dense areas. As with each of the previous two developers--they "count"the already acquired City-owned park space, or the unbuildable ravine area as"their"designated recreational space for the development. The fact that both of these areas are located outside of the development, and the furthest distance away from the densest housing doesn't seem to affect their reasoning. We have used the Chaska/Chanhassen development as the rationale (or excuse?)for many of the decisions made recently in Eden Prairie-- ie. road improvements, MUSA line moves, etc. Perhaps for once we should also use them as an example of responsible development. I cite as an example the recent Lundgren development just west of Lake Riley. Despite it's adjacent proximity to the new and large Bandimeer park, this developer has included in his plans a recreation area that is not just a patch of grass with a plastic playset. It includes a playground, picnic facilities, basketball courts, and even a neighborhood pool. I'm not suggesting anything quite so grand. But I think that it is time to require the planners of these developments to be responsible for the needs of the people living in housing designed with little to no opportunity for outside recreation. Considering the location and size of the development, my next major concern is with utilities and traffic flow. Pioneer Trail has already become dangerous. Responsible traffic management, and minimizing uncontrolled outlets onto Pioneer Trail must be a priority. Coordinating and limiting the progress of the development with upgrades to the intersections must be well controlled. This is the last major piece of land left in Eden Prairie. Let's look beyond the dollars and the potential tax income, and do it right. To: The Eden Prairie Planning Commission 12/6/98 From: Residents of Cedar Forest Road& Cedarcrest Drive The Cedar Forest neighborhood is a 25year old development with approximately 45 homes. Please accept our petition requesting that Cedar Forest Road & Cedarcrest Drive remain dead-end streets. We ask that you stop any development proposals for the Eden Orchard which would connect streets to Cedarcrest Drive or Cedar Forest Road. • Homes were purchased here because it is a dead-end w/ cul-de-sacs • More traffic will be a safety concern for the children • 45 Homes (over 100 vehicles) is enough traffic load for a small street. Thank you or considering our needs. 1) d/- 9331 &d 2) G .3m q Cc,c 4i/, 'Ji Af 3) '` z _-< 9a 62 etcc-✓ -- vD c - 28., 4) k'ivtAAae'/.er// �Z Ce 0,,(-1 c r .ps t �'c] 5) kSe,-4 4cts Z� 6) / 1‘ - e_ 01100 Wu- F^oc e.s. g-c, ,/ 7) Ti ./ 1. CX1x1 . �• 3S ' 8)_,17t (1.1;&' q 2 5-3 4 34 Rd. 9)4:e4A-1. /54—N/-1 / //9- 4.) C‹.C-Gi✓ c r 2_S I • / 7/57 6�', Afres �e��` gat, / 7/L/ Cz � .� ,� 12) grA 6c1; ,.- 17I 0 7+ I7Casr bt'L. To: The Eden Prairie Planning Commission 12/6/98 From: Residents of Cedar Forest Road & Cedarcrest Drive The Cedar Forest neighborhood is a 25year old development with approximately 45 homes. Please accept our petition requesting that Cedar Forest Road & Cedarcrest Drive remain dead-end streets. We ask that you stop any development proposals for the Eden Orchard which would connect streets to Cedarcrest Drive or Cedar Forest Road. • Homes were purchased here because it is a dead-end w/cul-de-sacs • More traffic will be a safety concern for the children • 45 Homes (over 100 vehicles) is enough traffic load for a small street. Thank you for considering our needs. / J 1 a ?\_.) --j C,, ,,0 / 1/ 71 c t o.a,1c!t u r 2) JC rcfis (for- P ,/1< -k ,)p ) 171ctI ccdcr ,-,r,_.s ) 3) /` ry \,N 11Ve,..1P'YY\ l i i g D c\c,t.=-r&- D' 4) 1 i,,/U..c .'L. . . / /7/ 76 6tn. L,./-,L U -' - 4 . 5) ilit-7v-e,J Z 7 / 7/ Y? �� -1c, 56) ,„-41. —Rr.zyx.y.\--'61-,_," ri 7)(—) (9-- sC..dv o.` ' dLQ 8) CZ/? � noi-1 J -, „ 93Ycl 6-J f'' ' /". 71- 1- �57"- 9) • ' ,fr 9, ai_i 1,07.--i-t--4,:. • 4- ' 9.3.> 6 L c 2'c ,i, 10) is at4A7 11) 47 „ „,/,,„1 tv.,/,' -' liciet (-12L /Ata ,,z(ec__-; cice/&74t.rtz_y-- 0 To: The Eden Prairie Planning Commission 12/6/98 From: Residents of Cedar Forest Road & Cedarcrest Drive The Cedar Forest neighborhood is a 25year old development with approximately 45 homes. Please accept our petition requesting that Cedar Forest Road & Cedarcrest Drive remain dead-end streets. We ask that you stop any development proposals for the Eden Orchard which would connect streets to Cedarcrest Drive or Cedar Forest Road. • Homes were purchased here because it is a dead-end w/cul-de-sacs • More traffic will be a safety concern for the children • 45 Homes (over 100 vehicles) is enough traffic load for a small street. Thank you for considering our needs. 1) 44‘40 77AZ.eift 371*11 l 7/VOCeE 2) 1J'ie 161). 5 1 w w-1 n £eda-rc s t-- 3) C e 4) r - /7/3/ (7c ,J4e/2F S1 5) %hi $at c l�-���. /71 o e6 pnit(w --Si- Ovo >3*-1 7) QQ32":74410 I t t 8 11 11 !I / ' r / / 9) 42-ectd-1- 11/4/( 9 q *0 10) (kw lei I//2 11) 4 1 eed ( 6�-G°J t �53'/ ���� Rig 12) 7441 K-7 VV 347 To: The Eden Prairie Planning Commission 12/6/98 From: Residents of Cedar Forest Road & Cedarcrest Drive The Cedar Forest neighborhood is a 25year old development with approximately 45 homes. Please accept our petition requesting that Cedar Forest Road & Cedarcrest Drive remain dead-end streets. We ask that you stop any development proposals for the Eden Orchard which would connect streets to Cedarcrest Drive or Cedar Forest Road. • Homes were purchased here because it is a dead-end w/cul-de-sacs • More traffic will be a safety concern for the children • 45 Homes (over 100 vehicles) is enough traffic load for a small street. Thank you for considering our needs. 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 1/24/99 To: Community Development Department Mayor Jean Harris and City Council Members RE: Eden Orchard Project Hello: I do not understand why Eden Prairie should let Orrin Thompson over develop the apple orchard. Does Eden Prairie really need another sea of tract homes? Has anyone thought about what will happen in 20 years when the population changes? Baby boomers are growing up, will Eden Prairie be one of those suburbs that will be full of empty houses as articles have predicted for many sprawling communities? What will keep Eden Prairie as a unique suburb? What about keeping land undeveloped? We are seeing continual over development all over town when long time landowners have to sell out due to taxes over improvements or inheritance. One would think that some of these people would be"grandfathered" in so we can keep Eden Prairie unique. What about increased traffic?Do you drive around this town at rush hour? Your development for tax dollars has created major grid locks all over town as people try to get home. The major over expansion of Pioneer Trail is not going to help this problem. I have been a resident of Eden Prairie since 1986 and have seen many changes, some good, some bad. I would like to see a compromise on the orchard property so we can enjoy our memories of the apple orchard, and not be angered by the over development. I can not be at your meeting on February 2 due to the Varsity girl's hockey game but I hope that you will consider the adverse affects of this project. Would you please let the community know what the positive reasons for letting this over development happen? Thank you, j G�c tie (.LA ctt,_ Laura Wicklander 9264 Hearthstead Lane Eden Prairie, Mn 55347 -1 8-111 4.). ;,i) aoLt ,i' lvokt)ok 1-11- 46,14.) 44,A ppctle_ rcl) e0( Iccq452._ 10/LIA ato off. h 0 t, t,, o r o use. The,rt c - +11,44- nkly oyMe Per"s c��' o f e ar Iorle . 611 �p pe�s��� h er , er- tietss �o f n,�Gh - mein. -r (yott re es ci G n'10 i 1 +n� i^ ���a111, � r7Drt J it ew��� "�{r h eCS,'n (0 Memorandum To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council Through: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks and Recreation Services From: Stuart A. FoxL ager of Parks and Natural Resources Date: January 26, 1999 Subject: Supplemental Staff Report to the City Planner's Staff Reports Dated December 11, 1998 and January 8, 1999 for Eden Orchard RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends approval of the developer's request for a Guide Plan change and rezoning subject to the Planning Staff Reports and the following recommendations of the Park and Recreation Services staff: A. To accept the gift of approximately 10 acres of land along Riley Creek. B. Require the developer to file a conservation easement on the 3.5 acre wooded parcel. C. Dedicate Outlot B that contains the parking lot that provides access to Riley Creek Woods. D. Grade Outlot B to accommodate a 10 to 15 car parking lot that is screened from the lot to the east. (Plan to be approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation Services.) E. Landscape Outlot B to screen parking lot from lot the east. (Plans to be approved by Director of Parks and Recreation Services and installed prior to any building permits being issued for any adjacent lots.) F. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. REQUEST: The proposed development is located on the corner of Dell Road and Pioneer Trail. It involves 158.4 acres of property and the developer is requesting Guide Plan change from low density residential to medium density residential on 39.26 acres. The proposed project includes a mixture of single family, twin homes, and multi family housing units. G� 5 NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES: Tree Loss/Tree Replacement The developer has supplied several detailed tree inventory sheets for the various tree areas on the proposed development site. There are a total of 14,282 diameter inches of significant trees on the site as defined by City Code. Staff calculates the tree loss at 4,525 diameter inches, which equates to 31.7%loss of significant trees due to development. The required tree replacement based on that tree loss is 1,107 caliper inches of replacement trees. Staff has made several visits to the site to cross check the information supplied in the tree survey, as well as assessing the condition of the trees. One observation the staff has made is that the quality of the trees on this site are not as high in quality as the site directly to the south which is owned by the City of Eden Prairie. It is apparent when visiting the site that farm animal grazing has occurred on the site due to the lack of under story regeneration trees. Most of the trees on the site are "even aged." This means that most of the trees are very similar in diameter and age. A copy of the 1940 aerial photograph for this site is included with this staff report. From that aerial photo, it is apparent that the easterly one-half of the southeast corner was grazed heavily due to the absent of trees on the photograph. In visiting the site, it is easy to see which areas were grazed because most of the trees are relatively young, smaller in size and tend to be trees such as aspen, elm, basswood, box elder, and cedar. Some of the larger red oaks trees have the presence of heart rot, stem defects and wind damaged crowns. In addition, the staff observed trunk damage to trees along former roadways/trails that meander throughout the wooded portion of this site. Red oak and basswood are the majority tree types in this area with a mixture of sugar maple,black cherry, butternut, hickory, ironwood, and hackberry. There are large masses of Eastern red cedar in the areas of the site that had been heavily grazed. Most of these trees are anywhere between eight and fourteen inches in diameter,which would indicate that most of these cedar trees started growing at the same time. The landscaping plan that has been submitted indicates that a variety of over story deciduous and coniferous trees are scheduled to be planted throughout the entire project. The deciduous trees include: Norway maple, sugar maple, Northern red oak, green ash, and American basswood. The coniferous trees include: Black Hills spruce, Norway pine, and white pine. The plan includes the number of trees for mitigation, as well as for screening and landscaping requirements. Some of the trees are scheduled to be planted in the woodland areas to reforest areas of erosion restoration. NURP Ponds The plan indicates that a least 8 NURP ponds would be constructed within this development. These ponds would take storm water runoff from the streets and adjacent yard areas and provide sedimentation and temporary holding prior to discharge into Riley Creek. Prior to construction of these ponds and the inner connected pipe system full review would be necessary by the Watershed District and City Engineering Department. Sidewalks and Trails Staff has met with the developer and has reviewed the proposed sidewalks and trails for this development site. Staff is recommending that there be a five foot wide bituminous trail on the west wide of Street A and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on the east side of Street A. The rest of the pedestrian transportation system shown on the plans dated 1/6/99 indicates that the interior streets would have five foot wide concrete sidewalks. Staff is recommending that a five foot wide sidewalk be added to Street B and Street C to provide a pedestrian walkway link with the other roads within the proposed development. Street Q has been dropped from the proposed development and staff is recommending that a pedestrian walkway link be retained using a 40 foot wide outlot to provide future connection with Cedar Forest Road to the east. PARK DEDICATION CONSIDERATIONS The developer is proposing to gift up to 13.5 acres along Riley Creek and to pay the entire cash park fee. If the entire subdivision were developed in 1999, the total park dedication fee would be $801,050. Assuming it will take several years to develop, the fees will total more than that amount. City staff have discussed the feasibility of requiring land in lieu of park fees on this subdivision in an attempt to preserve more of the woods in the southeast portion of this development. The city may be able to take up to 10%of the land in lieu ofpark fees. This would mean the city could take 15.84 acres of land. The developer has indicated that if the city is going to take land in lieu of park fees he would not gift any land to the city. The 15.84 acres of land would include the 13.5 acres of land already being considered as a gift, plus an additional 2.34 acres of land, in lieu of the $800,000 of park fees. In essence the city would be paying over $800,000 to preserve approximately 2.34 additional acres of land. The developer has proposed to gift 10 acres in the creek valley plus an additional 3.5 acres west of the northeast cul-de-sac in the woods. At the City's choice, the developer will either gift the 3.5 acres to the City after he has developed a NURP pond and nature trail on the site, or he would keep the property under private ownership and file a conservation easement on the property. The goal of the Park and Open Space System Plan is to preserve the Riley Creek valley in order to maintain as wide a natural creek corridor as possible through that portion of the community. Often, the definition of the valley corridor is difficult to define as the configuration of the valley changes. Although the bluff wall is fairly easy to define in this portion of the valley, it is desirable to attempt to preserve as much of the wooded lands along this corridor as is feasible. The city owns approximately 43.4 acres immediately south of the proposed 10 acres, which would bring the size of this creek corridor conservation area to 53.4 acres. There will be additional land acquired to the north and east of this site, as well as to the west, as adjacent property is developed. The Park Dedication Ordinance was developed in order to insure that all neighborhoods throughout the community were able to have neighborhood park and recreation facilities developed within approximately one-half mile. The State law that allows land dedication requirements states that the city can take a"reasonable"amount of land that would be required for use by the people that will be living within this subdivision. It is difficult to prove that these people would require an additional amount of conservation land rather than their neighborhood park facilities. The neighborhood park that serves this area is Crestwood Park located on the west side of Dell Road. This park should be developed with the development of Eden Orchard. The park will contain a soccer field, softball field, basketball court,tennis court,hockey rink, skating rink, and warming house. The estimated cost to develop this park is $750,000 to $800,000. Although the City does value our wooded land, we simply cannot afford to protect it all. There will be many beautiful parcels along Riley Creek that will be developed. If the City is able to essentially maintain the wooded valley in its natural character,we will have preserved a great resource;however, throughout the process of reviewing the development along this creek we will have many difficult decisions regarding how to protect all of the land we would like to protect vs. our financial ability to do so. In this instance,staffrecommends taking the 10 acre gift and the 3.5 acre conservation easement, as well as the park fees that are needed to develop the recreation facilities these new residents will demand. CONSERVATION AREA PARKING LOT: Outlot B will be dedicated to the City for the purpose of providing a parking lot for access to the Riley Creek Woods Conservation Area. The proposed design will accommodate 13 cars. It is important to have this parking lot screened from the adjacent lot. Staff are not convinced there is sufficient room to adequately screen this lot and recommend the developer either provide a landscape plan and cross section that details how this would work, or provide a sufficient amount of space to construct a berm that will screen this lot. It should be the City's responsibility to construct the parking lot, but it should be the developer's responsibility to grade the lot and provide the screening. Staff would recommend a four foot high berm with heavy coniferous landscape plantings to provide a significant screen between the parking lot and the adjacent homes. ATTACHMENTS TO STAFF MEMOS FROM JEFF STRAITE AND LARRY KACHER: Staff has included comments received from Mr. Straite and Mr. Kacher regarding this proposed development. Copies of these memos also went to the Mayor and City Councilmembers. orchard.memo/Stu99 dy aka January 14, 1999 To members of the Eden Prairie City Council, I would like to ask you to not approve the proposal to develop the Eden Orchard area as proposed by Orin Thompson. Much of the proposal is fine. The southeast corner, though,must be changed. Almost every member of the Planning Commission had concerns about this part of the development. They approved the proposal, but noted their concerns and expressed the desire that modifications be made before being approved by the City Council. They added condition thirteen to the proposal to flag their concerns. Attached is a summary of some their comments from the December and January Planning Commission meetings expressing their concerns. Also attached is a copy of a letter I submitted to the newspaper. I believe that there is a "win-win"solution if the City Council will consider it. By working together to preserve 10 acres of the 150+acre proposal by either donating and/or purchasing and/or exchanging for a reduction in cash park fees we can increase the size of the 40 acre park preserve by 50%. By widening the corridor along Riley Creek we could connect the 40 acre park preserve to the 10 acres of land that is not developable that Orin Thompson is "donating"thus increasing the preserve to 60 acres. This would have many benefits. It would protect from further erosion the already fragile area of this part of Riley Creek. It would reduce the likelihood of the existing preserve being harmed by over usage. 60 acres is better than 40 acres. We can do this. The Planning Commission ran out of time to make this change, but I believe if you talked to them they would think it very reasonable. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this. I will be out of town on February 2, but my wife,Pauline,will be at the City Council meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, Larry Kacher (J Letter to the Editor-Eden Prairie News Eden Orchard Development On January 11 at the last Planning Commission meeting we heard, for the second time, Orin Thompson present their plans to develop the 150 acres of the Eden Orchard area. Though the plan was approved it was clear that the Commission still had unresolved concerns. In particular the southeast corner of the development site,the area which will be developed along Riley Creek is clearly a source of concern for both the Commission and many residents. Rather than resolve their concerns the Commission decided to approve the development noting their concerns and allow the proposal to move to the city council for resolution. For several reasons this part of Eden Prairie should not be developed as outlined in the Orin Thompson proposal. First,though the overall loss of significant trees falls within the acceptable range of 30%or less,the real loss will be about 60%where the actual construction will occur. Orin Thompson achieved the 30%requirement simply by counting trees in land that is not developable. Second,the land in this area because of steep ravines and the creek itself is subject to significant erosion even without development. Building several homes in this area will only make more fragile an already sensitive area. Third, by saving the southeast corner we could preserve a little more land for the last of the wild turkeys,the red fox and other unique wild life in Eden Prairie. Fourth,the city of Eden Prairie funded by the tax payers,have already made a sizeable investment in this area through the combination of City funding and the generous donations to establish a 40 acre preserve. This preserve will soon be surrounded by hundreds of homes. It will not last for long as a natural preserve unless it is effectively established and managed. What options does the City Council have to protect the rights of the owners,the developers,the residents and Mother Nature? There are options. We can all win if the City Council will provide the required leadership. I propose that the city connect the already purchased preserve to the ten acres being donated by Orin Thompson(land that is not developable)by establishing an agreement to widen the corridor along Riley Creek. This would require that Orin Thompson not build on approximately ten acres of land. By each interested party cooperating an arrangement could be made to set aside this land and turning the now 40 acre preserve in to a 60 acre preserve by setting aside only 10 additional acres. If each interested party gave a little this could be accomplished. For example, the city, could reduce the cash park fees in exchange for setting aside a portion of this land. In addition,they could contribute to the purchase of part of the land. The Marshall family could donate a small part of this area to the city which they could then use as a tax write off. And, finally, Orin Thompson, could agree to reduce their profits perhaps just a little bit to allow the entire community to jointly benefit from this area. If each party was willing to make a contribution to the preservation of this land the entire community would benefit for generations to come. If you feel similarly please come and make your views known February 2 at 7PM at the next City Council meeting. Comments made at the December and January Planning Commission Meetings by the Planning Commission Members: Larry: "I'm still concerned about the southeast corner. We have two things to think about-the rights of the environment and residents as well as the rights of the property owner and the developer. Maybe Orin Thompson should go back to the seller and cut this corner out of the development. Preserve the 8 or 9 acres. Have Mr. Marshall donate it to the city and deduct it from income tax gains on the rest of the property. Let's preserve that entire peninsula." Beverly: "I just feel that that is asking for more erosion. I think it would be a nice preserve and wild life area(regarding the southeast corner). We have not gained in net tree loss simply by counting more trees in the undevelopable area. Don't change the comprehensive guide plan and be more environmentally sensitive. Make the southeast corner part of the preserve(referring to the 40 acre park preserve)." Rebecca: "Make the woods a center point of your development as opposed to just another development site. Let this part of your development be a buffer between the more dense housing and the natural environment." Doug: I am not comfortable with the southeast corner. There is too much potential for erosion. There are too many large,significant trees." Randy: I would like to see Orin Thompson eliminate 2/3 of the lots in the southeast corner. Stay away from the park area. Stay away from the ravines. My biggest concern is the tree loss." 1/18/99 fu l @ i.i v sou @ u J© tri all")( LJ@ ® © from Jeff Strate 612/949-8980 Page 1 of 5 To: Mayor Harris & City Council members Butcher-Younghans, Case, Thorfinnson, Tyra-Lukens. Re: cc: Bob Lambert, Parks & Rec. Services City of Eden Prairie. Eden Orchard Development Proposal Dear Mayor and Council Members: The Planning Commission should be commended for its careful review of the Eden Orchard development proposal submitted by Orrin Thompson Homes. I am hoping that the following brief will also help you determine the best future for this critical area when the proposal comes before you on February 2nd. I remain concerned with several aspects of the proposal, especially with its effect on the Riley Creek Conservation Area which protects a signficant portion of the last of the few surviving pockets of the old growth forest which once blanketed most of Hennepin County. As stewards of this area, we are compelled to do all we can to protect it. Generally, through its first two public hearings, the Eden Orchard proposal has evolved from standard issue to one that has some nice features including the promise of a variety of housing. However, as you will be alerted by the Planning Commission and a number of citizens, there remains serious concern about its housing density and the natural integrity of the southeast section of the development proposal -- that part adjacent to the Riley Creek Woods Conservation area and the steep ravines that lead into the Riley Creek valley. This area harbors one of the last surviving old growth forests in the Metro area and has a cultural and emotional tug on Eden Prairians. And, as of January 12, 1999, the proposal does not adequately satisfy one of the City's six growth strategies for SW EP: "Preserve and protect as much open space and environmentally sensitive areas as possible." I understand that these goals (determined as the MUSA line was extended to include SWEP) are not binding, but it is clear that many feel that this particular one must be rigorously supported. COMMENTS: 1. Although the City needs to be concerned with the substantial tree loss within the south east leg of the proposed development, it needs to be even more concerned with the impact that the development will have on the fragile adjacent areas. I suspect that any homes in this area (including ones on adjoining agricultural land will put the Conservation area and Riley Creek corridor in jeopardy. f , r> • 4.1,41 ,,it,,•••%;..,,''',,";•;,.1,"i ; . 1...-:.,y,',...,,4- ...' •4, • ...,,.,‘,..; . •-,„ .,,,..\.1.•-:44.„,„ , . I. ., . it ,v....... 111111 . , It 1 --1, ': "', •,'`. '.,- --_-:,. •',;i 4..-1z-,' t .. ,, 1./ ' -r , '' '4 ... ,„, . ,- ' '-r.,41 4 - •-_.,:„ ' w ,.,;2:•--,,'! ,„.."''4 , '''1,:; ... ' 4,,.,e, '. \i.:::.: , 4,-0' 7:0. ..''.,-, ',„ ,, .-:. .;,‘ ''-'' -,, it l',r•:',0.4!f.-'..:..,, "L ',. ? .',;41,1-e;-',..,.: ,-..s,L • li"'.• * -I * ...414' '' 1 ''1.74.,*4'. ., - -tr. .''. ,•:;T: ',-.4"." ' ‘ ,t'k •-4.7':A...10,„L,*1-. '''' ;:.:-.1.. ''':- :,:-...N:c". ,- 4 r 11„ it, ...1 - ,v, 1 ,,, i, , ,.. =,,, 4.• •#'`,11, - ''''04 i •".,#' "1. ,11 t 1- --;. , 7.42.., ,,_. i .., . , . -..'".. 4-yt,', ...1.-it.--Kt-,,,,,.,,,.; -.1",, „.,,,'-'-4t... - ,7„t•-• i .„ .,4. rt ,t;,. "t -4 ,-- r. riA .1. ,,- : 7. f-, ' -'ti I 4,..4. ..,,,i,tc",,7,e',,,417".*gr.'71%* '7- ,,k,147.,•, '.7 i., ..'" 4 .17,Y".' ',/ h..-=‘,, t t.}.'"; ...1, - •0 . '-',-• " .c, -n , ,e, ..,...„.. -7243 ,-5,' .„ , .Atf,d7,.,,, ..... ., r-cc c'• „tr.:, f- '144,4: %.:...,v. T.. t_7.,4.-74, lit/.1 .,,..a,-t.e• ,00 • io..0:, .. ,.- 421,0(‘ 1,('''it I. ..7,V1' :7-t'I t •,,t,4'`'• 04' '4 .,,f;7:. lilt .0, 1 . • 0-. '' r. . --.trA ,.. .,-. •.. ,-- . * -\ 41 0ti'I •-,°1,;'.,t .1..4'I A ....• fr,„'1'..,1,4 ',,,,,1134; ,....1.:::;;A.1,14; i"r,-.,:-;,,,ts..,,iti..,:;',0 sask4t. •;•.::,.,,;.:,, ••5, . >4.,-iiiiik ,.....-* ,... 2 ....., ,4 t: At ?', .--,i,-;, ' 4 trt;c1,4.0.0)..t. c -„,.. -Iv. . *.;.,„.*- ,,,,t411; .i.,, •• '': 1,''.1, y 1.: 1, ti,40.le,-.;-v:c.,,,•/.. .., .,., • ,t,..ki,f4-, , ,-44 0,•i.).•, .-:.s •-..7,,J4 ?!,.....e:If.-,z . .. -004Ati.d4 i.,-, ,..,_ .,,, ;,-•. ...,f, c,,,,tr,.. „.... , .." ...,....,- , .,,,,. ,,.....7... ., - , .._ % ,', i t.-',i4rq,,lj, '.'3,,.. ,o j 1 ri#4,t'4 &I ,k-q,i,i-,-.:...:•7 T.C##•:•.,,-• -7 7-,•••:,••; :7," -• ...• ' - ; - .- • .t.-0;.-,40 .4a . ..1•43, _lir ,,fre,„ , ,„„ .•-, ... s, ) --..-70..._, ,. '••••40t '• : !v .v;•:ii.:(- ., , '1'"-cs **1":, ''-7',1",-4' • •. r . t!i.',j,,,, .s-- .., : .. , -1,r4,44,41144.ii.aiiimist . •-„, Nf-• , - :' -, i , , roc,. -, ..,s NI-, - • -;.-n- t",-;)01 .;,,-4p.;_.*4 • 7.k-4 1,.. ' '..-.7.4,10:s . i. •`. , . 7,.\2.7--• —7" , 11.' , **All loc.,• 7.`" • -'" -,. 'I'll, -'.4:--;..4.4.‘ '%"7"::0' ...itr,„.3i oeffst-fg.t*X,........_"%rt',.t",ft *''k•• ,kr,,-7*4,..- -, N.)1 , - N ' er.ii,..,".•-.'''';' , . n..,..v r.- ..-„,,_ .,..,trtc,.... ;,,,va.1_1. ,7,1-'-'... .t _ ` """,- - -7,',... -e"..; ‘i-''% ',.' '',„t...,'.. • -. "r '`N.,. * 'tip.' ,-.ri'''` i!1,431 `i \'.7• -, _:.--? ,,, ' Ar,„..,Jt.,,,,,,,It'll'004,... ....r.... i.:7t:.4.,. ,..,..,,, ,',47..-7, ".„1 it—,'''' ',', --t:',A.:y,-t)4-,--•,- * ''''' '--,,-,1,,,,,- . . .1.'.\',''. , '—---- -,.'s., sle• ''''‘''''''t.e41,01, - .' *"... . „1,,,' ''''',14.'-'........, 3.-- -- 4 '",:::-*A 1''- • 4••%•79*-r,... _,. 4-1:5"'- ,•!-.;',. °, ;..t.• ----L.-. •''. ' ' CA4-‘Ittat 4 4 f' ' -- 11%4;4- 44'4\ '''N''' -- --.•°, , j....1.- -- ,, ,.,-17'14. , '•,, 1 -**,,-.0 * .°-r•z t • .. "7-‘4'. Iii ----• -'-- - ' • -_,,,7 ..., ,,.4, -7-#) /..;_f• ,-,/,,-7/•=_- :',/,',re; ,--- icifo iii M.,ro igit2,--/6121---4 L'146667 tif-‘) 1/ -' ' ./.. (/111,011L, '- ! t I )' ' f i 1" ,Y,i7 •'-ii,,i'.. 111- -,'-'*7 T• -1- v, 5 I A''Ai '-L.' — • 1 i. t ' .+.i'. rr- t .‘ . --7t.-.. . .J.- , ,,, *\,,..., A ,•' 1 i I 7 • ' '• 1 0' **4' i'44 4 ., ,... ., , xj,„:- ivi 2. #/-• ''.. , ..,-- ....- ,_-.; , , • ! , 24; . ,-;., :if; Ilk!).;,,t,-.7.-..' ' i , ,' :•'sii I ,t. '. 4.:, .„ •',4,..° -,-#1-0,-..;11; ,....' .\•,. ;n .'-7., \ ! ,,, , ., ,,I, 1....„ ,., .. ,. 7,,g, i .'' , 0.1tp, t,,,. ir, \ i , "' • i '? , 1,, `;, , 1 ,, 1-1 ' 0 ,ii- f t 4 1/4 IC it ;?,4•4 f: l' 1 Yri,‘Z .)i, :i't' ' 1, ' ' 'it - I( 1"o' - ' \ :',•"'' .;' ' '• t 4 ' v„, r qi i ,,, • $ , ,. ,,,, 44, ' i , , . , It • , At ' , *A ,,,i, p, 't Ili t k i I,, tr ' ' 4,,1 f • • t '':lirti,' i : ti f .it'ijri, ,.•.:1,.1,-' 1 .,,,„3,1 ' fi 4-1,, i?' ri: Si, 1 ,',',.. , I i, ' '1,,,, , ..1. ,j.:11,4,.: ':.f ',1.1 ,. , 1 , t .' Z , , 1,,,, 0 0 . 1 . 1 ' A 1 1. . 4 t, 4 ' •,, ' . rIir i l' ' •• 4,, . : 1 OPC ' ' - ',,,,' 'A zi. It- - r'" ' `v- - , 'f, 1, - ;.1-i - #... .1. i ot, . ' i..',fll I i A _ ',.'O.._'' :I. .•,.i." ' .,:f.„,•''4-....f-4*. , 4 7„; 14. ''* • • .4- 4.4:. ,*,, .. .... .'4,s\ge, .144 7-,4 t-,,,,,l' 1,i't ,i ..,_,,':4 .r..•••.1 • ;',,,, ' z „,.''','; ' - ,.."•• 1,',.t.le,,,* 1 ., i a t'etA.v" , •:.„"“ '' ' ' .:,.,..: ;,.1'" ' ', ,,. . ,'„,,,... ' ,, ,'''--1 0 f t .rzt,T; - :,,,,,;;_„. ---.•- ! •17 i,„1 g ..,..,,‘-0-., .i ..,,•_// :.....,,,_-..14- 10... ....„,,.. _ „.. # -1":: , .,,,,, •,. it c.,, tc. ,,j......",„71,"7",.....„". 1 , ':"'''." "..47°4:2 "•ctelteti !!' -4 S ... Pl. ';',41,1--"W 1,7 ' ..„,,,7.. ".\..:7--,,,,i•" * • ::"." ...7:". .,7"* .,.- ;-,I '• 1 ' " . , , ,:4•?/, _, .4 ..‘„111, - ,,,,„, 4„;`,„, ,7,,,,,,,,, ; ,...„„*"4"."1.4It :,-...."•'• - .7'4'1 . - -,--z. "",'". -,,Icilia.,...e,,,,j. t„ .1„;,-7 '.,"."I• , "''''**7..,•"•:,„"." ,. ''' 1 ''. "I.t,It' '\ '''. %I* ."'7*I. -• : ' ''' ': -•','.• - ;*;4,-,' .." ..**_.,*--, -.41 '':-X ,..77 ,".,, tft ,• ,. c , , . . - \• • - • - " . ,. .7 . t'"..t•ft \..„_. ' 7/ , ,, 4,..3,4.4„,,^ , "•-', .c,^ - ' ,Iir :,,,or . 4., - ,d( I •, "f". :.,'• ...f..: '-- 1,„.,.... ........\,,-...,- ,-: 1, ,Li ' `,.„.... i (4.• c. c 1 . : __ -.---„„;•• .....„ ." - 1. c ' • 1 - . • , . ,, s7T, • .211.g„9 . ..t.. , / .."••• 4 "` - N ,- j ___--/ .- , 1.• 1.771. ' • ,• 1,,,,,7 . W \ ' ,17-1 ' • ,e** k f „... , , /;..,-- 7 . ,,- . . .-.<'. - \-- i 1 . . . • . ./i .7 - . -'- /2/IV/'.''' ' /2.141,--i 42 1,:=i---1 6 •----: 1?1,-%(.77%-t.,/f jj..P.I ri*C7'.(.27?1 (A..,4•4?-‘7/ 1.--,--'‘...=r-/-7--4/4 ,l r .---i-/-/ 4.,,-- • ) 1 1 -•,(r, - .cei/ c *'," * " 1. $,%, k, '. ,,„..44„..,:,‘,,Alt .,,,, • .„ -......iii.i.141 . . 1, -4-, ". „.%)•vv-i,.....- ' L I ii.,1ii.....i.„ '• i ' ,...01\ - v.1, t :41, ;,t`'14,1"Oil/ 4"i''''•'' Atigil '• •'kt...t40,,A‘''', "1, t/.‘t I`4' 4 3i-;,2- -.4A4,..i Y tk ‘,„172'°..i!•`f :• i 1' 2. ,, 1 .L.A..",.. '' -.lit '`1'Ar .s' ! -4 „#, 4 'IN i- Py i'4. k... i 41 ''f y•-aitritr'41- 4•11'4;W .i-'7,?;-44',P. :'..;: - "),, ..44.„, --11 :ANA,.1 ' t ,t , 'Vik 47' li.'-.i 1 r° ',.'? 10 - 1 ro ,.;, :, r ..it ,, , Ay tr 4$101 i1/4 ,..,,,,Vil.At' Vi--1,,,),V•f'sa,•,' ., VAC:0 rgi$„,,,,J , :;'- .."..-,,..t...#0, ••:.: •. 34 i.„-, . ..•, ),k, 0., tf • . c 7 ,tI••: '' 1 ' e, ,..,. .. ,, At * ,,* , :,,P- q -.-, • A' .,,, A•i•4 7 .-•,1 ' n: yr -'?.:-''`. '','- -4„`"' -' 114 11.-""*;•-•';.' 11-113 l'". I:Vt tg:it A V t ••. - ,'':„•',,,*?41',Z ---4.4,r,14rt -;,,i4,1410.1,.. ,';',4f. i ',"' ' %Ir-,4.• •Aug ,,Pi.0..#•171! 'ti•;'..k‘t•I' 4 i''• 1 ''; f#7 2 i ,0 . ,,, 1 !#.7., ,4,,,..,;- ,41,,-,.,-,,%-„, 1:-- , -..,;,::: -,i,..-.-t ..ti 7..vi.:',.s„r„.-;,,,,g)..41,,,t.01;,g‘zi• PI.1-J',11 •,,,,, .•Tr,,,,I Alfr'',4.; :lir '',.';'1 4' f:*10 1 r 15, 1,,,,', .) ,I ,,,, , ,J. ,:1, - , #,n, :, •*•-,,,,; .•,-.:---;..,:„,,k,-4....4.FC.:.„,, 4;-,/,•. :1::: '''k' ,'I'l,1 V5,1 ".1 c..c.';•-*.,''''-ir• ",4„ 7?': 1 t',••,7t."• '7,1',."•" c c!..", '47' ,'I I r, fc,e,.! 1 ,,•'7'7Z.V: 7c4r,f4 ....„.*4.!,,,,,•-sA i $ , . , ,, ,,„ 4 I,,,,),.1.., , ' .-',.. , , z, ,,',., . , ...." •' ,1°'''4,, *, e.',.: 1/ 1 '1 .:.,,,,'4, t•I .'is- ! L:,7 ' i'' Vit' - 'M.- *i 1.; -`,`.r: -• , '‘•-• ' -4-'r'`. l'. ' ',44-4'''N 414.' '''' ''- _-. • 7-' -r" %•',.--, • ''' - r''...! ',...•ri'" tvi "-i'vA4.,..',4'4"4.J. 1. . •t-ic=7<':"..:. .41 .e4t '.. ,j,'.11 f.,• '''."... _ )41, 71- ..-: . , .:. . , 1 r' 4 ..s ' : • ';-•:. '-, ','•_.:_ t4,0,110A,,..-4"--'''''' '4 './,/,' t'‘' ",'" -'01°``r : -,11,4,/-1--#:!"'#-;4'#.--•,Zt:. I - .., ,-.„ • - ' ' ', .' '',., X'. ,, ', ,' /,,.,•'si :,,e?"--'r.,.,,....,',1,.0,,..4;..tv.,,1 .-07-,•.-- •....'1'''‘Ws-f------ tt,-..,_,-.......,e40- , -54. ,-, ,41,,,t, . .-' ,-,,,;.teo.,,4),,,,,„-,-;-_, r...., , . • ; . . - . ft,.-;,f,,,,f_4._!;11. ..--e .,;-• ft - . ...-fr''''.----s.--...4; .,,,t,„*:'-4.- ' - --- -'1:•• .... ..le-•-•,---'t-•-, i•--,- ..,-;.-'4" 'I.-% '''',,, *40-ri s ' : • - • m,--,-•:-...- trote ot......;t*or ,--... ....;„,v,,o),.; -. . ,-, wor...-4.--- - .41. .., .'"4".t5e;„, ,:::.4,- . 1,e. , . la,, ,* 4-1,44A.,•',4,i rx , •.. .... .1* • •.7. ^1- ***IFIRAT304",„4.,,;,,,••***EfF„,, ,c4„,,,,• „„e,,4 '44 ,,04-A4Aatit. , ..e 7------ e*tr• -.----,---'-'"..,-A.- ''' S-4.--,. • -f-,..4 ior,4,• 7 ., ,, .,t. ,.,.: „... ,•.*P":1 *. - ' - -:- '-e '.:---.-" '1.4"-.7*;4'. 7:41"!;''.4.4 :. .- - '•' • - '' '....rfV,..!.... .r.t.*Iikt*'t..,`.5......, '.."S.T,?..'g * ,.X-''''''t• '. 'V ite ).0t.' A - • . . .. .. - • • , . . .. , . -..;., ...,: . ,f.,,i4g••*:,0,.... ...,,, -. , ..0,,-, r...:-.. ;#.>/..v#0.; re-t,!..--)...-:, . •-,..,,,- ..4,..,;•„•:*,„-,,;-4,...kovi..-,.,., . Ale . #,,,,-.74.-,A,-,,-,•' .• 4..p„,,,„T.:v.; 4 trv,.....ei , .„....e.,,,. ,. _A;4,.....--. ,-;-:-. • , ..4„„_.7„.,,, .-_,„........":„_,... ,,,,,,..4fti,74.4r.,-, - • • ,,,,,,,,.0 44•1:;- -6: ...f...46.,41'14.- 1'?:... *-> ''{.4..' ''''''''''',.. —-• ar..'"' ...1 r r'7....,-;:'*r.4 t*,""'':'' n'''°4111' ',,P1 ' ''. '4 f' .i'''' ie: -. •s'-'*' ce ' -a'' '.'. - 4,1p.#4.4.4,,r•-..-111.t.•44-,,,.;:4-124.'''''.. f.'r- '..- Alto' .r.....4-.4. .4 ..^..'''','..,11-..*::**•4 ' yk 1, ..)' - 7•0.* .-.' -:'' . • .". ..'-...,;-:"`-.,t".,"'.(„2.. ..,....-*:`,.,*"'...•,'-'.' -7';'- 'Il-.,,ec.4...' ,,,,t,.---•.. .*- - --:),•-0-, 'r:( r•---i -4 -.- ittr.v•!;-;;-'4„.1...; . , .'-'.4,.40.4 .. , „,;'• -,...e7t.s.,0,„4." ' ..•-.•.C: '•e"•";.:-.• ,„`...4 • •..r....-nre*,. •• „...-,'.4- „4 •,. 41,, s, • tr...,,,.Itit .. ,• ' • . • ' . „, . ...) . .'!'r,s-yt -;,^.."'•e: '... ....,T. ''.›4"' • '4".7-7-:- . ' 4•'•..".'... A i•••7-'''• -44.'**- ":" ''. ••'" ' t, 'iv -'''' 4'*or' :t1 ;'. ' -'14;4'.•:' '. .....:- :- ... --%,A4.-,_ :. " '":."'-i*Ir' ....... .-...h.t..."4*t'S.:-41\f"-`' :* - ", -yro...; ' l',,,,..e.. •"..4.., '' 41, . -..,,i'Ci?,0 le''''%'1‘ts*,''-`:;k-r.'-'7f.' 4::• ' . '.^' ''....`'.:.Y--4t, . - . '. " /'• .- -;.1.-"1":.-_•.-- -e '' ' ..."... .ASTiNgr' -'' -""1."'. --5t.....'W. . . .r*SX,A,VV-„.., ',:-., I, , , , • ,;.• .-', ' "4,. r ..,:,••.„„-*---, ---.-.4 , „Iv, ' --4,-., '....re, : _-;-.....;,.„,-,,;(.4:; -- .,..1...,,s..., ..,,,,, 1.-c.11(..-v.. .. ,. .i.,- -• '-r"7'4' 'S....0,,""'• • -' '" 1,` 4.--.. - ' ' -,..- • .4-''- -S :-.., --'',dr,- .4'"."-'tx"747 --k, '---,,--*. ,' :'- ' ,•.00f "f ,/,2z3.-29 I -/ -'I // -_-.-.• -I, ••' ----77,/...--71. 1- , . 1/18/99 LTAg if] 'C IPA)II] UdCO irSiOEWE.* from Jeff Strate 612/949-8980 Page 2 of 5 The mere reduction of homes with bigger lots and erosion control structures and landscaped transition strips between back lawns and the ravines and the Old Woods (as put forth in a revised design) sounds nice but will likely fail, if such a strategy is not guided by principles of best forest management and conservation practices including the strict control of human use within and nearby the big woods and steep ravine areas. At my request, Mr. Fred Harris of the DNR's County Biological Survey re-visited the area shortly before the first Planning Commission hearing and found that the south east woodsy area platted for development does not host classic old growth forest (such as protected in the conservation area) but does generally recommend creating such buffer zones between it and the Old Woods and the creek valley. (See attachments) . 2. The wetlands within the proposed development as it is platted on 01/12/99 are likely to become eutrophied and polluted with lawn runoff and street runoff to become liabilities for the City and future home owners. These wetland-open spaces can be more effectively exploited for their scenic, wildlife habitat and runoff purifying functions with a redesign. I understand that the Bluff, Riley & Purgatory Creeks Watershed District will be reviewing this aspect of the proposal. 3. The developers seem disinterested in taking advantage of the rural character of the area: They've ignored (a) the George Marshall farm, (b) the possibility of preserving clusters of apple trees (which might be incorporated into tot lots -- of which there are none in the 01/12/99 version of the plan) and ignored (c) the potential of creating rural like scenic strips along Dell Road and Pioneer Trail. Such design' elements might gain favor from those who are worried about the project's density. Landscape design is much more than a cosmetic exercise. In this instance -- it could perpetuate some of area's strong rural appeal and win support for possibly denser housing on a reduced buildable area. Given our stewardship obligations to the Riley Creek Woods and corridor; the goals of the City and the general will of citizens (voiced at public hearings, in published opinion and through surveys-- "We like it the way it is."), I urge The City Council to do the following as soon as possible. 1. Consider persuing the simplest, most satisfying and safest strategy for insuring the integrity of the old woods -- The purchase of all or significant portions of the south east part of the proposed development for hiking and other low impact recreational use and conservation purposes. X, 1/1 8/99 ff���ff J © s�uu a T O T O TITWEIP from Jeff Strate 612/949-8980 Page 3 of 5 This entails consideration under the advisement of the City's legal counsel and independent counsel and other suburbs, the feasibility of condemning portions of the land for conservation and/or buffer strip purposes. 2. Check that environmental impact evaluations are thorough and include on-site inspections; that reviews by consultants retained by the developer and the State and Watershed District are in turn reviewed by qualified, independent experts. 3. Consider having the Mayor or a Council Member meet with the owner partnership (including Arlene Marshall) to (1) express appreciation for their hard work to date, (2) provide them with reasonable development and conservation options and (3) to become stronger earth stewards than they may be as represented by the developer's spokesperson. The Minnesota Land Trust and its development planning specialist and other landowner friendly organizations might be of help. 4. On a related separate track begin as soon as possible to reel in monies to compensate the land owner partnership in case you elect to proceed with condemnation. COMPENSATION FOR LAND OWNERS The City of Eden Prairie seems to be in a great position to win funding to compensate landowners for condemnation actions made on behalf of a variety of conservation initiatives. Our reputation in protecting highly valued scenic and environmentally critical areas is high and a number of these assets which still remain unprotected, also have regional, statewide and national significance. Mayor Harris and Mr. Lambert, if not all of you, are now aware of the following • funding opportunities which are greater now than in recent years. 1. DNR Natural and Scenic Area Grants. $870,000 available in 1999. Much of this will be earmarked for purchasing land. The woodsy part of the Orchard development and other critical property along Riley Creek (and elsewhere in EP) would qualify. I've been told that the DNR is highly impressed with EP and its initiative for the Anderson conservation area and that we can certainly qualify for more help from this source. DNR contact: Wayne Sames 651/296-1567. 2. DNR Metro Greenways $4 million. A lot of this will be devoted to purchasing development rights or purchasing property outright. Eden Prairie has many pockets of privately owned land that are already adjacent to existing and intended conservation and/or trail corridors and can qualify for this program. See separate print out. NEXT 1/1 8/99 f� f ssJ O � 0 gdin© J— © from Jeff Strate 612t949-8980 Page 4 of 5 DEADLINE JAN 20, 1999. The woodsy part of the Orchard development and even George Marshall's farm* (or at least portions of it) are likely to qualify. DNR Contact: Mr.Al Singer 651/772-7952. 3. The MN Valley Wildlife Refuge has $20 Million in mitigation money from the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Much of this will be put into an interest bearing trust fund which will help the refuge acquire property over the long haul. Rick Schulte, Refuge Manager says that the refuge will be doing a new comprehensive plan and that adjoining blufflands will be of interest. The Refuge encourages as much land preservation as possible along its boundaries and its watersheds and viewsheds and can be expected to be of help in a few years. Refuge contacts: Rick Schultz (Manager) 854- 5900 and Nelson French, Friends of the MN Valley 854-5900 4. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) . Some of this might be reeled in for our blufflands, bottomlands, trail systems and viewsheds because of new Highway 212. Contact: Minnesota Deportment of Transportation. 5. Low interest Loans for Conservation. The Conservation Fund (contact Peg Korhing 612/521-1237) and The Trust for Public Land (contact Cordelia Pierson 612/338-8494) each have regional offices in Minneapolis. Both organizations make low interest loans for purchasing endangered land for conservation and/or recreational purposes. A number of EP's remaining conservation and recreational needs, I suspect, could be assisted by these two groups. I've had informal conversations with them over the past year about opportunities in Eden Prairie. 6. The Minnesota Land Trust, both the West Metro Chapter--CO- chaired by Diane Lynch (492-7722) and the State Office can continue to contact and provide information to private land owners about conservation easements. I or any other Eden Prairie member can contact and run workshops for any land owners the City may think might be helpful in achieving its conservation goals along its parks, greenways and trailways. The MLT's Conservation Development Specialist Kris Larson (651/647-9590) is available to meet with City Staff, Commissions, land owners and developers. He is a superb resource for planning subdivisions which provide for a mix of housing, open space and functionality. We can also put private land owners and developers in contact with developers who have successfully and profitably built communities which respect both long term human needs, the environment and the landscape. 1/18/99 ';h LnJ-U © LP]gI's]O iraJ] ftf© M@Mo @wo from Jeff Strate 612/949-8980 Page 5 of 5 7. City of EP and State of Minnesota Bonding initiatives may be realistic options for purchasing sensitive land. There is substantial concurrence that as a steward of some of the Metro area's most scenic and critical environmental assets (again including the bluff lands and Riley Creek Woods) Eden Prairie deserves some help. Through the concern and hard work of Eden Prairie's elected officials, countless volunteers, the media and the City's talented Parks and Recreation Services, our city has inspired other communities to do same. I feel that our City should bear only a portion of the expenses entailed in a more complete level of public stewardship of our surviving scenic and natural assets. But I also feel that we cannot shy away at this time from sparking a strong initiative for what needs to be done. When I remind myself that we live in one of the most prosperous regions of the richest nation in the history of the world; that during the first quarter of 1998, the over all cost of housing in the Twin Cities region was the lowest in the country for metro areas of a million or more people; that the Twin Cites has become one of five most sprawled and congested regions in the country; that our County's once substantial old growth forests, scattered prairies and oaken hills have been reduced to less than 1% of their former areas and that our inner suburbs (which probably need re- development more than we need development) look enviously at the options we still have, what needs to be done does not seem expensive at all. Sincerely, (:) JEFF STRATE 612-949-8980 bukumi@pioneerplanetinfi.net 15021 Summmerhill Drive,Eden Prairie,MN 55346 77 Fred Harris,114199 1:24 PM -0500,Re: Eden Prairie Riley Creek Woods (redoes To: "Fred Harris" <fred.harris@dnr. state.mn. us> From: Jeff Strate <bukumi@pioneerplanet.infi. net> Subject: Re: Eden Prairie Riley Creek Woods (request) Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: The following is a condensed e-mail letter to me from Fred Harris of the DINR' s County Biological Survey: Jeff- >I believe there is an argument for protecting these woods [the woodsy areas proposed for development by Orrrin Thomspson Homes) because they create a larger natural area that greatly enhances the viability of the woods that have already been protected. Eventually these woods should recover to a fully canopied condition, which is not presently present on the ridge top, at which time there will be significantly more interior forest habitat-- required by ainumber of different animal and plant species that may occur in the woods. (I heard Barred owls calling in the woods when I surveyed the area in 1995) . >2 . One recent example of a tract of woods being destroyed for development was in the city of Medina. This was a 40 acre stand of mature forest that was carved up into an exclusive golf course (termed Spring Hill golf club) . It is located just north of Long Lake just N of hwy 6 along the E side of Tamarack Drive. Local citizens protested. The DNR made a strong statement advising against destruction of the woods. With regret, the city felt they could not deny permits for the development and it went ahead. >There are other recent examples of stands being developed. A big one is in Maple Grove section 35 along Elm creek. Another is just west of Lake Independence in the north end of section 14. Most if not all the remaining unprotected forest stands in Hennepin county are threatened with development. >We recently published an article on the Big Woods in the Minnesota Volunteer July-August 1998 issue, where we discuss the situation with development. >3. The DNR will be providing comments on this proposed development, which has come through our environmental review process. I believe our comments will be advising against destroying the woods on the ridge top for reasons I have stated above. Fred Harris Printed for Jeff Strate <bukumi@pioneerplanet.infi.net> 1 The Minnesota Volunteer July:August Last Stands of Big Woods Forests of elm, sugar maple, basswood, and oak once covered more than 2,000 square miles of south-central Minnesota. Today just 2 percent of these forests remain, and most stand in the path of urban development. By Daniel Wovcha and Fred Harris In the 1980s, about the time suburbia began to expand rapidly along Interstate 94 in northwestern Hennepin County, developers and real estate agents began knocking on Lloyd and Evelyn Henry's farmhouse door. They envisioned converting the 60-acre forest that occupies the northwest corner of the Henrys' farm into secluded lots for new houses. The Henrys knew they could sell their forest for a good price — undeveloped wooded lots in the area were going for as much as $15,000 an acre — but they were determined to see the forest preserved, both as a memorial to Lloyd's grandparents, who bought the farm near Rogers shortly after the Civil War, and for people who enjoy the tranquillity and sense of history that old forests provide. "I've kept them at arm's length," Lloyd, now in his 80s, says of the developers who used to appear at his door. "Over the years we've had many visitors to the woods when we've made maple syrup. People love to be out in these woods in the spring, and I'd like for them to continue to enjoy it." The forest, it turns out, is one of the best-preserved remnants of deciduous forest in the Twin Cities area, strengthening the Henrys' resolve to see it protected. Forests of elm, sugar maple, basswood, and oak once covered more than 2,000 square miles of south-central Minnesota, extending in a band 40 miles wide from Mankato to Monticello. This band of forest contrasted markedly enough with the surrounding prairies, savannas, and brushy oak and aspen woodlands that French explorers traveling through Minnesota in the 1700s designated it the bois fort or bois grand, which English-speaking inhabitants later translated as "big woods." In the 1800s the presence of the Big Woods in southern Minnesota - with its bears, wolves, and other forest-dwelling creatures — was a curiosity to new inhabitants of the region. N.H. Winchell, who participated in early geologic and natural history surveys of Minnesota, noted in1875: "The existence of this great spur of timber, shooting so far south from the boundary line separating the southern prairies from the northern forests, and its successful resistance against the fires that formerly must have raged annually on both sides, is a phenomenon in the natural history of the State that challenges the scrutiny of all observers." It was not until 100 years later, through careful study of the notes of public land surveyors from the 1840s and1850s and examination of fossilized pollen grains left in bog and lake sediments, that scientists worked out the origin of the Big Woods in detail. Page 1 of 5 � supplied by Jeff Strafe 7r Relatively Recent The development of the Big Woods turned out to be a relatively recent event that coincided with climate cooling over North America about 300 to 400 years ago. Before this cooling, fire maintained the brushlands, prairies, and oak savannas that covered southern and western Minnesota. When the climate cooled, wildfires diminished in the area that would become the Big Woods. Forests spread outward from small, isolated groves into the brushlands and prairies. Fires remained frequent enough on the flatter and often drier lands surrounding the Big Woods region that brushlands. prairies, and savannas persisted in these areas. Bounded by rivers androlling, lake-dotted terrain, the Big Woods region burned much less frequently. Dense, tall forests of elm, sugar maple, basswood, and oak developed during the next few hundred years. The Big Woods was not only a curiosity to new inhabitants, but also a source of livelihood in the 1800s. Settlers who located their farms on nearby prairie land traveled to the Big Woods to obtain lumber to build houses and barns and firewood to heat them. Other settlers found that the region's soils made good cropland, and they cleared away patches of the forest to develo their homesteads. Although European-American settlers began farming in the Big Woods region in the 1840s, sizable areas of forest persisted into the late 1800s. By the 1930s, however, farmers had converted most of the Big Woods to cropland, leaving a patchwork of widely scattered 40- to 80-acre wood lots. The Henrys' forest is one•of these faint wood lots, set aside as a source of fuel wood or lumber (the Henrys' barn is made with wood from the forest) and shelter for livestock during the summer. Over the years, the Henry family collected sap from the maple trees for syrup, which provided additional incentive for preserving the forest and its dense canopy of sugar maples. It is also likely that ginseng plants were harvested from the Henrys' forest, especially in the1850s and 1860s, when economic depression led many farmers to seek other sources of income. At this time, hundreds of thousands of pounds of ginseng root were dug from the BigWoods region. It was often said that ginseng saved many Minnesota farms from bankruptcy. Despite its history of use, the Henrys' forest has never been heavily grazed or logged. It still evokes the setting described by earlier inhabitants. Maple trees 150 years old tower in the forest canopy. Dutchman's breeches, wood anemones, and other wildflowers carpet the soft earth in the spring. Evelyn Henry has watched the forest change with the cycling of time and weather, noting the reappearance each spring of trilliums and wood ducks, and the disappearance of other forest-dwelling plants and animals following droughts or cold winters. "We've thought the whole time we've been here about how nice it is to have a forest. We know we have something special," she says. Reducing Tax Burden. With just 2 percent of the Big Woods remaining in • stands large enough to be called forests, the Henrys truly do have something special. What has been less certain in recent years is whether the Henrys Page 2 of 5 supplied by Jeff Strafe d would be able to preserve their forest and farm in the face of the higher taxes and assessments that are coming to northwestern Hennepin County as the land around their fai in is developed into residences and businesses. Because of this, they have been considering options for reducing their tax burden and at the same time protecting thei forest and other parts of their farm. Among the options available to them is having the forest designated as a park, which would both lessen the Henrys' taxes and ensure that people could visit the forest in the future. If the forest becomes a park, the Henrys would like to see it remain largely natural. "But we're also interested in having a small replica maple-sugar camp in one corner with demonstrations of the maple-sugaring operations that we've had here for three generations," Lloyd says. "It's part of the history of the area." The Henrys are also considering protecting their forest and other parts of their farm by donating a conservation easement to the Minnesota Land Trust, a nonprofit organization that has worked with private landowners to protect more than 7,000 acres of natural, scenic, and agricultural land in Minnesota. A conservation easement,which is a legal agreement permanently restricting the development of a piece of land, could benefit the Henrys in several ways, according to Jeanne Wright, a land protection specialist with the Minnesota Land Trust. First, it would assure that their forest will be protected in the future, regardless of who comes to own it. Second, it could help keep their property taxes down, because land that cannot be developed is generally taxed at a lowe level. It is also possible for the Henrys to place a conservation easement on their forest and have it turned into a park, ensuring that the agency or government body operating the park would not be able to sell it to developers in the future. "The conditions of the easement are determined by the landowner," Wright says. "We work with them to ensure that their interests are met." Whether the forest becomes a park or is protected by an easement, the Henrys would probably not benefit as much financially as they would from selling the woods outright to a developer. "I realize I could sell my land and make all kinds of money. But I'd rather have my family come by it when they're older and see it intact, instead of just a bunch of houses," Lloyd says. "When you stay this long in one place you get attached to it. It's more than just money." Disappearing Each Year. While the Henrys are committed to seeing their forest preserved, other Big Woods remnants are not faring so well. With less than a quarter of the remaining Big Woods forests protected in parks or preserves, hundreds of acres have been disappearing each year, converted to subdivisions, golf courses, roads, and other developments as the Twin Citie and surrounding communities spread outward. Efforts are underway to encourage protection of forests in the Big Woods region. In the past few years, several cities and townships in the region have initiated plans to protect forests and other natural lands within their boundaries. Hannah Dunevitz, a regional plant ecologist with the DNR, has been helping citizens and local governments preserve natural areas in east- Page 3 of 5 _Y_��__ supplied by Jeff Strate central Minnesota. "Many communities here are realizing that the time to act is now," Dunevitz says (see editor's note, below). In Rice County a committee of citizens, developers, and local government officials has been drafting recommendations for protection of fajunland and forest remnants near Nerstrand-Big Woods State Park. These recommendations include use of alternative zoning ordinances and other innovative land- protection tools. They might eventually serve as a model for forest and farmland protection throughout the region. With time running short, however, the survival of many Big Woods forests will likely depend on individuals like the Henrys, who value the forests for their place in the history of the region and for the habitat they provide for animals and plants, and who, importantly, are willing to act directly and quickly to protect them. Two free publications offer guidance for land protection. Land Protection Options, an 80-page handbook for Minnesota landowners, is published by The • Nature Conservancy, DNR, Trust for Public Land, and Minnesota Land Trust. Natural Areas: Protecting a Vital Community Asset is a150-page sourcebook designed to help people at all levels of local government. It is published by the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. To order a free copy, write Attention: Sourcebook, DNR Ecological Services, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 5 5 1 5 5-402 5. To order Land Protection Options, write to the same address but specify Attention: LPO book. Several scientific and natural areas include remnants of Big Woods, such as Wood-Rill SNA, al10-acre parcel recently donated by Bruce and Ruth Dayton. A Guide to NlinnesotaOs Scientific and Natural Areas lists others you can visit. The guide, which sells for $12.95, is available by calling 651-297-3000 or 800- 657-3757. Plant ecologists Daniel Ltiovcha and Fred Harris coordinated recent vegetation surveys o the Big Woods region for the Minnesota County Biological Survey, a DNR program that is documenting Minnesota's native habitats and rare plants and animals. Disappearing Wildflowers: A Management Challenge Nearly all remnants of the Big Woods have undergone significant changes during the past 150 years. The large-scale die-off of American elms, once the most abundant tree in the Big Woods, has permanently altered deciduous forests throughout the region. Many stands have also had heavy logging of selected tree species, or have been heavily grazed. Today, park managers and private landowners managing protected lands face a new set of thorny issues in addition to ameliorating the effects of past land uses. For example, they must minimize impacts from increasing recreational use and onslaughts of exotic weeds. One especially perplexing problem is the apparent loss of wildflowers in woods in rapidly developing suburban areas. Forests carpeted with wildflowers 30 years ago now have mostly bare ground. Page 4 of 5 _ supplied by Jett Strafe Several factors could be b econtributing, to such declines. One problem is hungry ueer. recent University of Minnesota study found that white-tailed deer prefer certain plants -- such as trilliums, large-flowered beliwort, and enchanter's nightshade -- and could be depleting the in the Big Woods, particularly in Suburban areas where alfalfa fields and other types of forage have disappeared. in some Twin Cities suburbs, shrinking habitat and the absence of hunting have led to such __ig c trations o j r -- ,p t, _0 h . Ol_Cen _�.li_, f Gee. L �.0 per square mile in some forests --that virtually all plants below 5 feet tall are consumed. Exotic earthworms might also be contributing to the decline of wildflowers in certain forests (see "A New Angle on Earthworms in the July-August issue). As in other recently glaciated regions, Minnesota's ecosystems evolved without earthwoi iris, which have been introduced in potting soil or as fishing bait since European-Americans began to settle the region. The worms devour the soft organic duff and leaf litter on the ground, reducing the availability and levels of soil nutrients, and altering the soil's structure -- changes that many forest wildflowers might not tolerate. indeed, wildflowers are often scarce in those Big Woods forests that have abundant earthworm castings and little or no leaf litter or duff. More work is needed to determine how much these or other factors account for the decline of wildflowers in some Big Woods remnants. An altogether different and more challenging problem will be to determine how to keep these factors at bay so that these forests survive. Fred Harris and Daniel iWoycha Contents :©� 1998 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.Please send us your comments. JEFF STRATE 612-949-8980 1 bukurni@pioneerplanet,infi.net 15021 Summmerhili Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55346 1 Page 5 of 5 supplied by Jeff Strate c$3 2 ~ _ _ * _ N. ' � ? r '. OP.ft117: p.. � = 3 -_,...,-,1::: '_ t` �' � �� ' '�►ey5a Vie=. ' / - .� j.. GT >- 3 4 _ _ ,- _ ?"1:::,,.'..-e;,1%...._. ' mow. '9•, a M, +3% .e - , il . ..,_ ,,,,:,.....,,,...,,,,,,_, ,,... s. -3S „s tiara S` .b.xy y'y- r '� '__._..YEA- � �xi+ '�'.t }, b- of. r� .,•?x' y X36 Fz i r s 32 s 3 R W `ys Location - , * Y Y •3 'r ,X..97_0757 , ,,,....-::.--.1 .: ,- a* ,.G - • .t Mt� w yr.. .• V 5 yx _A r-0 r!~p r� `, w!' ma y c ? <,• f A . .y' �/! E � ''•. .' ' ,. & Apt , �'_ `:K„i t -*" 4 -a Z -dw ?-,. 1.;.r `. r P d R ..;Asa` ,; 's ,'laa., Y ;-^�-�. -. c ,~ 4. !a"Yr' ti, g a - � +� a a t ,v ;'' ems :. a . � } F x _. �� sue' $,, 'iy.'' -'� r w ��- 2.:'L� '_ .e�'.�- - e �` �n:. '.y-i :tl tk .M, t t a :wy a m- `` -• 1s.- Y�.n•s -�' ^-� A g ^4 '.� s- .t �-. °''°�4"''v5.';.a 'F.. *:._ • Y '1,. ', y' "Z''' . Y iz'`�. • •'say r„-e, .. `+.- : A''' f',e, . •kv-.� z'+t. +. ..y ' +�; a�{. • - *.ter r 3 _ a "AL.'.,� '" ;1/2 . z,� ray � �w '�..sti .-$ • - a� ti-•:yam t N, y^ , y • . r,,.E -core mas. raa. _ fir .. "'ram i `RTC-• am- } s ts-° '_ "s..7 '76e"\s 4a' a Z„6 ag q - _ 7�x is-yam .S. - y ' . ' Q - t ,f ... - ` 4 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: edam SECTION: Consent Calendar 02/02/99 prairie DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance Payment of Claims Checks 71592 to 71944 Wire Transfers 210 to 217 Action/Direction: Approve Payment of Claims COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY 26-JAN-1999 (16:08) DIVISION TOTAL LEGISLATIVE $14,345.13 GENERAL SERVICES $4,470.77 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $1,954.84 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $65,353.21 CITY MANAGER $6.50 FINANCE $25.00 HUMAN RESOURCES $1,774.55 COMMUNITY SERV $10,128.71 HUMAN SERV $19,103.75 ENGINEERING $1,269.15 INSPECTIONS $235.29 FACILITIES $16,760.79 ASSESSING $583.55 CIVIL DEFENSE $26.28 POLICE $20,010.10 FIRE $13,786.64 STREETS/TRAFFIC $12,584.78 PARK MAINTENANCE $22,782.44 STREET LIGHTING $48,664.94 FLEET SERVICES $25,621.74 ORGANIZED ATHLETICS $13,945.50 COMMUNITY DEV $2,886.15 COMMUNITY CENTER $24,214.44 YOUTH RECREATION $1,849.22 SPECIAL EVENTS $1,137.50 ADULT RECREATION $527.00 RECREATION ADMIN $52.74 OAK POINT POOL $200.56 PARK FACILITIES $1,482.91 PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ $666,755.03 EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS $8,696.44 CITY CENTER $9,077.82 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $6,786.76 PRAIRIE VILLAGE $27,224.37 PRAIRIEVIEW $37,513.58 CUB FOODS $77,285.67 WATER DEPT $12,792.68 SEWER DEPT $1,317.26 STORM DRAINAGE $3,447.31 EQUIPMENT $69,489.05 GRANTS $193.50 $1,246,363.65* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-JAN-1999 (16:08) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM I 71592 $13.90 LIDDELL, TONY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 71593 $1,544.37 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES STORM DRAINAGE 71594 $735.18 PITNEY BOWES RENTALS GENERAL 71595 $192.00 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 71596 $12.00 HANLON, STEVE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 71597 $2,693.65 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71598 $363.00 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71599 $508.90 GETTMAN COMPANY MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71600 $3,265.90 GRIGGS COOPER & CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71601 $293.40 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71602 $1,436.46 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71603 $5,828.20 MARK VII BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71604 $159.24 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71605 $168.50 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71606 $36.50 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING TOBACCO PRODUCTS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71607 $913.64 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71608 $5,809.55 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 RED ROCK HEIGHTS WATERMAIN 71609 $94.67 WINE COMPANY, THE TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71610 $9,223.00 ASSOCIATION OF METRO MUNICIPAL DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS COUNCIL 71611 $7,330.50 GREAT WEST LIFE AND ANNUITY DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG 71612 $31.62 LANENBERG, CYNTHIA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 71613 $1,286.42 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG 71614 $37.40 ORIENTAL TRADING CO CLOTHING & UNIFORMS ICE SHOW 71615 $24.97 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT POSTAGE GENERAL 71616 $4,930.14 US POSTMASTER - HOPKINS POSTAGE COMMUNITY SERVICES 71617 $3,328.22 WOLFF FORDING & COMPANY CLOTHING & UNIFORMS ICE SHOW 71618 $8,000.00 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC 71619 $84.89 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE 71620 $71.20 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71621 $912.39 BELLBOY CORPORATION TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71623 $639.41 DMX/SOUND PRODUCTS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71624 $375.48 EAGLE WINE COMPANY MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71625 $138.45 FASTSIGNS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71626 $225.00 FLAHERTYS HAPPY TYME COMPANY* MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71627 $9,154.20 GRIGGS COOPER & CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71628 $3,749.58 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71630 $25.00 M SHANKEN COMMUNICATIONS INC MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71631 $787.65 MARK VII BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71632 $1,406.55 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71633 $85.95 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71634 $3,503.33 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71635 $346.98 PROTECTION ONE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71636 $598.22 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71637 $170.35 RESPOND SYSTEMS SAFETY SUPPLIES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71638 $1,391.30 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING- ADVERTISING PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71639 $621.60 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71640 $178.28 WASTE MANAGEMENT - BLAINE WASTE DISPOSAL PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71641 $731.00 WORLD CLASS WINES INC TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71642 $3,143.10 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71643 $8,263.55 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71644 $704.47 GE CAPITAL RENTALS GENERAL 71645 $432.54 GTE DIRECTORIES ADVERTISING OAK POINT SPECIAL EVENTS 71646 $500.00 HENNEPIN PARKS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL DAY CAMP 71647 $205.00 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 71648 $11,312.00 SPORTS WORLD USA INC REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES SOFTBALL 3 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-JAN-1999 (16:08) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 71649 $4,736.96 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE SEWER LIFTSTATION 71650 $14.63 WEEDMAN, NICOLE MILEAGE AND PARKING PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 71651 $266.04 BOSEK, LYLE SCHOOLS IN SERVICE TRAINING 71652 $5,212.79 COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOC PRINTING COMMUNITY SERVICES 71653 $489.60 KLITZKE, KIM SCHOOLS IN SERVICE TRAINING 71654 $48.16 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION WASTE BLACKTOP/CONCRETE STREET MAINTENANCE 71655 $85.09 RASMUSSEN, LISA MILEAGE AND PARKING YOUTH TENNIS 71656 $6,250.00 SOUTHDALE YMCA YOUTH DEVELOPME PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC 71657 $625.00 WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES 71658 $26.33 WRUCK, BEV MILEAGE AND PARKING COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 71659 $19.00 BERG, SCOTT LICENSES & TAXES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71660 $1,150.00 KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL RECYCLE REBATE 71661 $72.87 MINNCOMM PAGING COMMUNICATIONS WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 71662 $17.00 MINNEAPOLIS, CITY OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 71663 $75.00 MINNESOTA CRIME PREVENTION ASS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE 71664 $690.00 MINNESOTA POLICE & PEACE OFFIC DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE 71665 $6.50 PORTA, KITTY MILEAGE AND PARKING CITY MANAGER 71666 $216.00 TARGET CENTER SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 71667 $1,207.97 US POSTMASTER - HOPKINS POSTAGE WATER ACCOUNTING 71668 $429.73 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE GENERAL 71669 $1,250.10 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR, BELLEVUE TELEPHONE SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL 71671 $44.47 CROWN MARKING INC OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL 71672 $5,629.00 FLARE HEATING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1997 REHAB 52045 FOR $50,000 71673 $99.48 HENNEPIN COUNTY WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINTENANCE 71674 $462.50 HIGLEY, STEVE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 71675 $562.50 KUDEBEH, STEVE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ICE ARENA 71676 $18,865.29 MINNEGASCO GAS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 71678 $220.00 PURDIE, KRISTY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 71679 $370.00 WATERS, PATRICK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES BASKETBALL 71680 $335.00 OLD LOG THEATER SPECIAL EVENTS FEES ADULT PROGRAM 71681 $637,827.33 OLD REPUBLIC TITLE INSURANCE C LAND & INTEREST IN LAND DEV RICHARD T ANDERSON CONSERV 71682 $80.41 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71683 $544.96 BELLBOY CORPORATION TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71684 $581.40 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71685 $7,964.95 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71686 $1,357.95 EAGLE WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71688 $3,333.75 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71689 $192.00 FLAHERTYS HAPPY TYME COMPANY* MISC NON-TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71690 $294.40 GETTMAN COMPANY MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71691 $12,579.20 GRIGGS COOPER & CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71693 $12,548.64 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71696 $1,724.08 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71697 $4,301.73 MARK VII BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71698 $369.82 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71699 $1,507.81 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71700 $272.40 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71701 $9,340.07 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71704 $107.20 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71705 $3,007.78 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71706 $9,479.82 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71708 $10,012.20 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71709 $248.41 WINE COMPANY, THE TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71710 $52.50 FINA COSTUMES INC CLOTHING & UNIFORMS ICE SHOW 71711 $624.40 FINA COSTUMES INC CLOTHING & UNIFORMS ICE SHOW 71712 $309.25 WOLFF FORDING & COMPANY CLOTHING & UNIFORMS ICE SHOW y COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-JAN-1999 (16:08) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 71713 $228.97 BARLI, ROBERT CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 71714 $274.20 DONNA, PAULA CLOTHING & UNIFORMS ICE SHOW 71715 $129.85 FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FIRE 71716 $176.00 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS AS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING 71717 $45.00 GUSA, KRISTIE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 71718 $360.00 HAMILTON, MICHAEL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES BROOMBALL 71719 $60.00 ISFSI DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FIRE 71720 $140.00 MARZA, JOSE FAMILY RESIDENT MEMBERSHIP COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 71721 $230.00 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CHIEFS AS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FIRE 71722 $240.00 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE DEPT ASSO DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FIRE 71723 $68.94 NESBITT, DENNIS MILEAGE AND PARKING INSPECTION-ADMIN 71724 $5.00 PETERSON, SHARON ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 71725 $29.00 RYAN, LAURIE LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS 71726 $54.50 SCHERKENBACH, ROCHELLE LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 71727 $2,047.80 E F JOHNSON CO RADIOS GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 71728 $27.50 MCGLYNN BAKERIES TRAINING SUPPLIES HUMAN RESOURCES 71729 $497.95 S & B MFG CO INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 71730 $643.00 TIE COMMUNICATIONS INC TELEPHONE GENERAL 71731 $71.20 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71732 $348.02 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 71733 $199.50 MARK VII BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71734 $624.90 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 71735 $8.00 BICKFORD, TAWNDA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL EVENTS 71736 $64.00 BREDENBERG, LAURA LESSONS/CLASSES FITNESS CLASSES 71737 $51.00 BREMER, NANCY LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 71738 $18.86 DENNIS, YVETTE LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS 71739 $104.00 DOLENTZ, LEONARD LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 71740 $30.00 DONALDSON, LORINDA LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71741 $24.00 DUPONT, SUZY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 71742 $22.00 FALK, TRICIA LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71743 $5.00 FEATHERSTONE, LYNN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 71744 $8.00 HAGEN, LORI ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL EVENTS 71745 $32.00 HAMMER, DAWN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 71746 $27.00 HANSON, CINDY LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71747 $8.00 HART, MARY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL EVENTS 71748 $32.00 HAYDEN, JENNY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 71749 $35.00 IAPE DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE 71750 $10.00 JORDAN, LAURA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL EVENTS 71751 $110.00 KERBER, KRISTEN LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71752 $40.00 LEENERMAN, SUSAN LESSONS/CLASSES FITNESS CLASSES 71753 $50.17 LEIBOLD, BRIDGET LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71754 $25.00 MN LAW ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE 71755 $100.34 MOEN, JANE LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71756 $50.17 MOHAN, MARK LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71757 $55.00 MOLZAHN, EVELYN LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71758 $8.00 PAULSON, DEB ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL EVENTS 71759 $32.00 SAND, SHERRY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 71760 $21.00 SIEGLE, MARGARET ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 71761 $32.00 STEVENS, RAE LYNN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 71762 $25.50 STROOT, DIANE LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS 71763 $22.00 VANDERSTEEN, VICTORIA LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 71764 $9.56 WEEDMAN, NICOLE SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 71765 $10.00 WOMACK, HEATHER ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL EVENTS 71766 $1,175.02 GRIGGS COOPER & CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71767 $631.88 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-JAN-1999 (16:08) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 71768 $796.48 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 71769 $20.00 AMEM DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS CIVIL DEFENSE 71770 $64.35 BOSEK, LYLE MILEAGE AND PARKING INSPECTION-ADMIN 71771 $60.00 CODE ADMINISTRATION & INSPECTI LICENSES & TAXES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 71772 $90.00 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONFERENCE COUNCIL 71773 $25.00 MINNESOTA PARK SUPERVISORS ASS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 71774 $180.00 MINNESOTA POST BOARD LICENSES & TAXES POLICE 71775 $8.28 OLSON, COURTNEY SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 71776 $215.70 PORTA, KITTY SCHOOLS IN SERVICE TRAINING 71777 $23.43 ROWLAND, DONA MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL 71778 $60.00 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION CONFERENCE COUNCIL 71779 $990.00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY CONTRACTED COMM MAINT POLICE 71780 $12.33 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINTENANCE 71781 $43,694.22 NOVA TECHNOLOGY INC COMPUTERS INFORMATION SYSTEM 71782 $9.00 RICHFIELD, CITY OF OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71783 $804.00 STATE OF MINNESOTA AUTOS P/S REVOLVING FD 71784 $393.69 COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOC PRINTING OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 71785 $211.50 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES 71786 $20.00 HOPKINS, CITY OF MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL 71787 $25.00 LAVEN, GRETCHEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FINANCE DEPT 71788 $11.13 PARAGON CABLE CABLE TV GENERAL 71789 $15.00 POLICE AND SECURITY NEWS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE 71790 $250.00 SUCCESSFUL RETIREMENT INC CITY BUILDING RENTAL CITY CENTER OPERATING COSTS 71791 $25.51 G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL CLOTHING & UNIFORMS STREET MAINTENANCE 71792 $57,117.67 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ELECTRIC STORMWATER LIFTSTATION 71794 $453.52 REBS MARKETING OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER ACCOUNTING 71795 $14.87 A-ABC APPLIANCE & HTG CASH OVER/SHORT FD 10 ORG 71796 $129.90 AAA CREDIT SCREENING SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 71797 $84.30 ACTIVE RUBBER STAMP OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE 71798 $100.10 AIM ELECTRONICS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 71799 $224.68 ALLIANT ENGINEERING INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 71800 $275.00 APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PETERSON/KLEIN ACQUIST 71801 $602.50 APWA DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING 71802 $42.12 ARCH PAGING COMMUNICATIONS POLICE 71803 $986.83 ASPEN REACH EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71804 $24.00 ASSOCIATED WELL DRILLERS INC GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER 71805 $475.00 ASSOCIATION OF TRAINING OFFICE SCHOOLS POLICE 71806 $798.54 AUTO ELECTRIC SPECIALISTS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71807 $522.49 BACHMANS CREDIT DEPT CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 71808 $1,405.14 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71809 $1,140.39 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 71810 $5,597.85 BLACK & VEATCH IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS 10 MGD WATER PLANT EXPANSION 71811 $358.00 BLOOMINGTON LOCK AND SAFE* CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 71812 $11,169.02 BOARMAN KROOS PFISTER VOGEL & BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION 71813 $21.85 BROADWAY AWARDS TRAVEL RACQUETBALL 71814 $1,786.39 BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INC OTHER EQUIPMENT POLICE 71815 $430.62 CAMAS-SHIELY DIVISION GRAVEL STREET MAINTENANCE 71816 $110.89 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE 71817 $1,262.02 CATCO CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SE CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71818 $1,137.50 CHAD NESTOR ILLUSTRATION & DES OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SCHEDULE OF EVENTS 71819 $26.36 COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOC PRINTING POLICE 71820 $2,695.00 CORNERHOUSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 71821 $1,199.96 CORPORATE EXPRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE 71822 $82.96 CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71823 $132.90 CY'S UNIFORMS (^CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE W COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-JAN-1999 (16:08) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 71824 $965.52 D.J.'S MUNICIPAL SUPPLY CO SIGNS TRAFFIC SIGNS 71825 $239.57 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 71826 $200.00 DAYTON HUDSON CORPORATION FACILITIES RENTAL OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 71827 $447.01 DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC RENTALS EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 71828 $408.61 DELEGARD TOOL CO CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71829 $204.01 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES FALL SKILL DEVELOP 71830 $560.40 EARL F ANDERSEN INC SIGNS TRAFFIC SIGNS 71831 $239.63 ECOLAB INC CONTRACTED BLDG MAINT SENIOR CENTER 71832 $11,498.00 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC FIRE TRUCK EQUIP FIRE 71833 $274.74 ENERGY MANAGEMENT INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 71834 $181.07 FERRELLGAS MOTOR FUELS ICE ARENA 71835 $63.86 FRANKLIN COVEY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 71836 $6,349.29 FUNK - HANECY DISTRIBUTORS INC BUILDING SENIOR CENTER 71837 $902.20 G & K SERVICES DIRECT PURCHASE CLOTHING & UNIFORMS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71838 $106.33 G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL CLOTHING & UNIFORMS STREET MAINTENANCE 71839 $45.00 GALAXY COMPUTER SERVICES CONTRACTED COMM MAINT INFORMATION SYSTEM 71840 $200.00 GE CAPITAL FLEET SERVICES FACILITIES RENTAL OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 71841 $236.15 GILLUND ENTERPRISES LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71842 $129.94 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES FITNESS CENTER 71843 $31.95 GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN TIRES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71844 $46.71 H.D.F. OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE 71845 $1,550.89 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPT 71846 $1,198.00 HARMON FULL SERVICE GROUP CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS FIRE STATION #3 71847 $11,887.36 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC MOTOR FUELS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71848 $345.43 HENNEPIN COUNTY I/T DEPT OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ASSESSING-ADMIN 71849 $731.14 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S ACCO BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC POLICE 71850 $690.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 71851 $293.32 HENNEPIN TECHICAL COLLEGE SCHOOLS FIRE 71852 $499.50 HOLMES, JOHN CARTER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 71853 $721.50 HOLMES, TOM OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 71854 $269.80 HUDSON MAP COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE 71855 $4,928.70 I-494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS COUNCIL 71856 $182.74 ICEMAN/CO2 SERVICES, THE CHEMICALS POOL MAINTENANCE 71857 $2,448.64 IMC SALT SALT SNOW & ICE CONTROL 71858 $942.18 INGRAHAM & ASSOC DESIGN & CONST DEV RICHARD T ANDERSON CONSERV 71859 $303.66 INTERNATIONAL SUNPRINTS INC CLOTHING & UNIFORMS SKATING RINKS 71860 $104.23 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL COMPANY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINTENANCE 71861 $3,498.59 JANEX INC CLEANING SUPPLIES EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 71862 $99.45 JASPER ENGINES & TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71863 $733.33 JEFFREY T STRATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 71864 $35.24 JPM SMALL TOOLS EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 71865 $165.28 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY BUILDING MATERIALS STREET MAINTENANCE 71866 $49.00 KLEVE HTG & AC MECHANICAL PERMIT FD 10 ORG 71867 $350.00 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC SMALL TOOLS GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 71868 $1,974.50 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS FIRE STATION #5 71869 $2,162.02 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71871 $687.00 LAND'S END CORPORATE SALES CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 71872 $93.40 LARKSTUR ENGINEERING & SUPPLY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71873 $60.41 LINHOFF CORPORATE COLOR PHOTO SUPPLIES 10 MGD WATER PLANT EXPANSION 71874 $19,094.60 LOGIS LOGIS SERVICE SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL 71875 $607.38 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71876 $69,214.23 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC MACHINERY EQUIPMENT P/R REVOLVING FD 71877 $245.70 MAROTTA, VIC INSTRUCTOR SERVICE WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 71878 $619.83 MAXI-PRINT INC PRINTING POLICE 71879 $2,280.07 MCSB INC SOFTWARE INFORMATION SYSTEM 7 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26 JAN-1999 (16:08) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 71880 $15.65 MERIT HVAC CASH OVER/SHORT FD 10 ORG 71881 $189.21 METRO SALES INCORPORATED* OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 71882 $11.59 METRO SYSTEMS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 71883 $886.57 METROPOLITAN FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71884 $2,430.00 MIDWEST AQUA CARE INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL 71885 $62.91 MINNESOTA CONWAY CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE 71886 $2,196.34 MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOD SERVICE MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 71887 $587.96 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71888 $986.34 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES 71889 $1,201.60 NILSSON, BETH HOSES & NOZZLES ICE ARENA 71890 $535.73 OHLIN SALES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 71891 $132.79 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71892 $235.46 OPM INFORMATION SYSTEMS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT INFORMATION SYSTEM 71893 $192.00 PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HEALTHSYS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES 71894 $1,074.70 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS 71895 $68.12 PETSMART CANINE SUPPLIES POLICE 71896 $87.86 POKORNY COMPANY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES FIRE STATION #2 71897 $644.63 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 71898 $112.00 PRINTERS SERVICE INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 71899 $2,563.55 PROSTAFF OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 71900 $12.50 R S MEANS COMPANY INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 71901 $40.77 RAINBOW FOODS - CHARGES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 71902 $1,292.05 RAK INDUSTRIES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE 71903 $200.53 RC IDENTIFICATIONS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 71904 $100.00 RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING ASSOC RESERVE EQUIPMENT POLICE 71905 $50.47 RITZ CAMERA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TREE DISEASE 71906 $114.70 ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71907 $240.96 SAFETY-KLEEN EQUIPMENT RENTAL PARK MAINTENANCE 71908 $92.54 SH BARTLETT REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 71909 $568.25 SNAP-ON TOOLS SMALL TOOLS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71910 $2,180.00 SNELL MECHANICAL INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT COMMUNITY CENTER HVAC 71911 $4,853.75 SOUTH HENNEPIN REGIONAL PLANNI PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC 71912 $59.45 SOUTHWEST CONTRACTORS SUPPLY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE 71913 $427.08 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING- LEGAL NOTICES PUBLISHING GENERAL 71914 $154.40 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING- EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES 71915 $415.35 SPS COMPANIES REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 71916 $90.49 SQUARE CUT CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE 71917 $2,065.74 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAFFIC SIGNAL-MITCHELL RD 71918 $1,157.90 STREICHERS CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 71919 $3,403.40 STS CONSULTANTS LTD DESIGN & CONST STORM DRAINAGE 71920 $391.57 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GEO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71921 $955.84 SUBURBAN TIRE & AUTO SERVICE I TIRES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71922 $185.00 SURVIVALINK CORP OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POLICE 71923 $125.00 SWEDLUNDS WASTE DISPOSAL OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE 71924 $2,591.74 SYSTECH SERVICES CONTRACTED COMM MAINT POLICE 71925 $193.50 TACTICAL TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER EQUIPMENT AUTO THEFT PREVENTION GRANT 71926 $651.09 TIERNEY BROS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71927 $4,838.00 TKDA DESIGN & CONST DESIGN WELL 13 & WELL COLLECTO 71928 $73.82 TOLL GAS AND WELDING SUPPLY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 71929 $24.96 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO SAFETY SUPPLIES FIRE 71930 $1,235.40 TWIN CITY VACUUM CLEANING SUPPLIES EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 71931 $1,989.93 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 71933 $547.51 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TRAFFIC SIGNS 71934 $187.55 US CAVALRY CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 71935 $3,193.79 US FILTER/WATERPRO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE WATER METER READING 6 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-JAN-1999 (16:08) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 71936 $607.08 US PREMISE NETWORKING SERVICES CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT INFORMATION SYSTEM 71937 $261.68 VOSS LIGHTING REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 71938 $1,020.37 WATER SPECIALITY OF MN INC CHEMICALS POOL MAINTENANCE 71939 $1,580.76 WATSON CO INC, THE MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS 71940 $150.00 WEATHER WATCH INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STREET MAINTENANCE 71941 $16,500.00 WHITE BUFFALO INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES DEER CONSULTANT 71942 $208.75 WM MUELLER AND SONS INC LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL PARK MAINTENANCE 71943 $248.98 ZEP MANUFACTURING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 71944 $519.79 ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE $1,246,363.65* 9 COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY 27-JAN-1999 (09:08) DIVISION TOTAL FACILITIES $12.06 POLICE $38.16 STREETS/TRAFFIC $2.72 PARK MAINTENANCE $1.95 FLEET SERVICES $596.14 ORGANIZED ATHLETICS $34.07 COMMUNITY CENTER $2,375.99 YOUTH RECREATION $89.15 ADULT RECREATION $366.06. OAK POINT POOL $66.19 PARK FACILITIES $42.66 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $1,784,940.50 EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS $276,204.61 CITY CENTER $28.28 PRAIRIE VILLAGE $15,357.32 PRAIRIEVIEW $15,863.94 CUB FOODS $38,925.78 WATER DEPT $6,603.39 SEWER DEPT $7.10 $2,141,556.07* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 27-JAN-1999 (09:08) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 210 $117,894.25 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A FEDERAL TAXES W/H FD 10 ORG 211 $55,554.31 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A EMPLOYEES SS & MEDICARE FD 10 ORG 212 $55,554.31 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A EMPLOYERS SS & MEDICARE FD 10 ORG 213 $47,160.10 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENU STATE TAXES WITHHELD FD 10 ORG 214 $502.60 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE MOTOR FUELS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 215 $79,950.00 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENU SALES TAX PAYABLE FD 10 ORG 216 $1,065,378.00 FIRST TRUST NATL ASSOC INTEREST CITY CENTER DEBT FD 217 $719,562.50 NORWEST BANK MN N.A. INTEREST B & I PAYMENTS $2,141,556.07* DATE: 02/02/99 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: SECTION: Petitions & Requests SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Public Works Receive Petition from Centron DPL Co., Inc. Employees Requesting Signal Engineering Division Modifications at CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) and City West Parkway/Bryant Rodney W. Rue Lake Drive Recommended Action: Move to receive petition and direct staff to implement staff action plan. Primary Issues: The attached petition is requesting signal modifications at the existing traffic signal at CSAH 61 (Shady Oak Road) and City West Parkway/Bryant Lake Drive. They are suggesting left turn arrows for City West Parkway and Bryant Lake Drive. Action Plan: It is recommended that the City Council direct staff to send a letter to Hennepin County requesting that they investigate and analyze the intersection. The purpose would be to have Hennepin County determine if signal modifications and/or geometric improvements are warranted and appropriate. If so, we will request the County to estimate the project cost along with any City share for each alternative, and provide a possible time line for implementation. DEC 24 '98 02:37PM CENTRON P.1 a Julie Schmandke°A,Centron DPL Co., Inc. 6455 City West Parkway, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: 612-829-2804 Fax: 612-829-2861 Fax To: Mayor Jean Harris& Counsel From: Julie Schmandke Fax: 949-8390 Pages: 2 Phone: Date: 12/21/98 Re: Road Safety CC: 0 Urgent x For Review 0 Please Comment x Please Reply 0 Please Recycle Dear Mayor Harris and Counsel Members: We, the following employees of Centron DPI. Co., Inc, having a place of business at 8455 City West Parkway, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, do hereby petition the City of Eden Prairie to increase the traffic safety level at the intersection of Shady Oak Road,City West Parkway and Bryant Lake Drive. In the past two years we have had six employees involved in accidents at this intersection. We have all seen other accidents at this spot. An officer at the scene of the last accident advised that there is an accident here almost every day. There are drivers that "run"the red light on Shady Oak and quite often if you are crossing Shady Oak at this intersection, drivers who are turning do not yield the right of way. We feel this situation Is unacceptable. A good number of us make this crossing 2 to 4 times a day. We would suggest turn arrows for City West Parkway and Bryant Lake Drive. In addition, the intersection of Cty 62/Hwy 212 and Shady Oak near Flying Cloud Drive is a hazard. There is a right turn lane when going north on Shady Oak to turn onto Cty 821Hwy 212. The problem is that people also turn onto Cty 62 from DEC 24 '98 02:38PM CENTRON P,2 i December 21, 1998 City Of Eden Prairie the left hand lane, making it extremely difficult, and dangerous, for those going south on Shady Oak to make the turn onto Cty 62. We would be very appreciative if the city could do something to help this situation. Mayor Harris and Council Members, we thank you for your consideration of this matter and look forward to hearing your thoughts. Yours truly, Centron DPL Co., Inc. Employees 1. IAmit,dh- 17. ' a .0J . kid, 33. 1 t / 2, - - - -' 18. "-",:• /, 4.' J 20. 1z ` 36. % ii-- --0-1-.J ,.._- 5:.�i'7-e/I7Zc'_9 ii,„ 21. •t 37.�/ ' /(..,.�- 11 t4' 22. 38. - 7.L x,•... . • I d 23. 77 . -ZIcY 39. `- 8. ,: j Ijfi'. 2 nu.. . 40 9. (/1...._, 10. ,'- -? G, -� - 4 till' ��r�'� _r 11. II/ 11 //_!._____-- - 27. 43.4 1�!�ad , ( 4 ,• er • , 13. _ _ �/' 29.4I\'' 45. C tx L'l 1 14.E ,4111. � I 30. -- ,. ,- t_" s p 31. , 0,firlarriSP. • Page 2 ' DEC 24 '98 02:38PM CENTRON P.3 December 21, 1998 : tt C: T :;± ,'4. fag- 7. 51.__Ar -9..... 75 7 gl ',. !:=Th,- __---66. A A ii 52. i, __Mil 76._ '-v� � 100.rinf_it � 53. Mitt 7712 - .* 1 0eimir. // �!" !4 , 78. ,` �if �. 1OZ. flyikl- , �Ar1c�_ . 54. . , l 55._-.. • i♦rOlt i//! j 7 ifFM. !i' 1 103. . 'O?71 ,. --,-1- '--t/ t 56 r '---- ------ 80. A .i, ii ita . , • - 104.--- t,_ _ t c(2,--)-(-- 57. , ::4iAL 105. 5:. ,. /,.. 82. ' • CLg 106. -1/1" 4"i- I° - - . 6)1,41/4.4 60. 84. •00 108. 6 _. 85.__________`ct.4".1e 109. '62. j i._,,,_c__ SC 1nnv1 86. .__ iZSt -iio. rri►�63. _ /' /�A-- 87. - ... 111. .iir /,. ^ 8�y /''�iGu(. `- - 112 _ ft/I 65 ' f • /�,. .c `%_ 113. flriur 66. --r_ ,0. .rwrl0)..IA 114. . _.... _._ 67. 91. / 68. t 92. ' Pit 116. 69 4 -N..al 93. d1 4 cu_444- 117. 70. ,,./`i` 94., 118. - 71. _ _ JCZ - 95. 44"ge"--/ 119. - T2_A_______ 96. (1- 120. s Page 3 7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Appointments February 2, 1999 SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development and Financial Services - Appointments to the 1999 Eden Prairie Board `/I/ Assessing of Review IS 1T Steve Sinell Requested Action: Move to appoint Mike Best, Annette O'Connor, Phil Olson, Patricia Pidcock and Carol Standal to the 1999 Eden Prairie Board of Review. Background Information: From 1992 through 1998 the City has appointed a Special Board of Review. The members are citizen volunteers that are active and knowledgeable in the real estate market. The members are recruited by the City Manager and City Assessor and appointed annually with confirmation by the City Council. The City pays the members a per diem payment of$50 for each meeting attended. The 1999 Board of Review members are: Mike Best of REMAX Results. He is involved in the sale of single family properties in the southwest metro area. Served on Board of Review 1994 through 1998. Annette O'Connor of Burnet Realty. She is involved in the sale of single family properties in the southwest metro area. Served on Board of Review in 1995 through 1998. Phil Olson of Burnet Realty. He is involved in the sale of single family properties in the southwest metro area. Served on Board of Review 1992 through 1998. Patricia Pidcock of Edina Realty. She is involved in the sale of single family properties in the southwest metro area and a former member of the Eden Prairie City Council. Served on the Board of Review in 1997 and 1998. Carol Standal of Edina Realty. She is involved in the sale of single family properties in the southwest metro area. Served on the Board of Review 1996 through 1998. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE RELIEVER AIRPORT REFORM COALITION'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 473.641 CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF MINOR USE AIRPORT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURES AND ESTABLISHING A RELIEVER AIRPORT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota(the "City"), as follows: WHEREAS,the 1977 Metropolitan Development Guide Aviation Chapter specified a minor use airport runway length of 2,500 to 4,000 feet, and an intermediate use airport runway length of 4,001 to 8,000 feet; and WHEREAS, legislation enacted in 1980 prohibited the use of revenue from any source or construction of air facilities to expand or upgrade an existing airport from minor use to intermediate use as defined by the Metropolitan Development Guide Aviation Chapter; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council amended its Metropolitan Development Guide Aviation Chapter, expanding the definition of a minor use airport to runway lengths of 2,500 to 5,000 feet which the City strongly believes is contrary to the legislative prohibition enacted in 1980; and WHEREAS, the City is developing its land uses in conformance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan approved by the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS,the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport(a minor use airport)will have a negative effect on proposed land use; and WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Airports Commission's estimate of cost for the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport now exceeds $50 million; and WHEREAS, the City deems it prudent, reasonable and necessary to support legislation proposed by other cities and townships known as the reliever airport reform coalition (the "Coalition")to amend Minnesota Statutes Section 473.641 to clarify the definition of a minor airport for the purpose of public expenditures and to establish a reliever airport sound abatement council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA THAT: The City Council hereby supports the Coalitions's proposed legislation to amend Minnesota Statutes Section 473.641 to clarify the definition of a minor airport for the purpose of public expenditures and to establish a reliever airport sound abatement council. Passed by the City Council this 16th day of February, 1999. Dr. Jean Harris, Mayor Attest Donald R. Uram, City Clerk January 28. 1999 RE: Airport Bill 99-1599 FROM: Barbara Haake 6-0141 A bill for an act "Relating to metropolitan government; defining minor use and intermediate use airports for certain purposes; establishing a reliever airport sound abatement council; amending Minnesota Statutes 1998, section 478.641. subdivision 4; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes.chapter 473. BACKGROUND: Minn. Stat.473.641, subd. 4("expansion or upgrade of metro airport")was enacted in 1980. This statute prohibited the MAC from expanding or upgrading a minor use airport(ie, the Anoka County/Blaine Airport,Plying Cloud. Lake Elmo, Crystal, Airlake,etc.) to intermediate use as those terms are defined in the Metropolitan Council's metropolitan development guide,aviation chapter. This provision does not fix the definition as of 1980 but references the development guide which is revised from time to time. This bill is introduced to clarify the definitions of"minor use" and"intermediate use" airports so that it is consistent with the original legislative intent. Under this proposed bill language, Minn. Stat.473.641 is clarified to ensure that the MAC cannot extend airport runways at"minor use" airports without express legislative approval. The bill language will also ensure that the St. Paul Downtown Airport is the only"intermediate use" airport in the Twin Cities area. This bill states: "...a"tninor use" airport is an airport that has a primary runway between 2,500 and 4,000 feet in length, and an"intermediate use" airport is an airport that has a primary runway between 4,001 and 8,000 feet in length." This bill will also create a Reliever Airport Sounds Abatement Council("RASAC")which is modeled after the Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council. The organization would be created by the legislature and exist for the purpose of advising the MAC on sound abatement policies for communities in and around minor use and intermediate use airports., Funding for RASAC would be provided by the MAC. RASAC's decision making body would be comprised of representatives appointed by participating cities and townships in and around reliever airports as well as representatives from MAC,reliever airport user groups and the Commissioner of Transportation. 028-d 90/Z0 d 06£-1 O1£62££Z19+ N3AVN0 T Ad3NN3N-1110ad wd90:B0 66-Z1-qed • 01/28/99 t?Ev25CR RJS/JC 99-1519 1 A bill for an act 2 relating to metropolitan government; defining minor 3 use and intermediate use airports for certain 4 purposes; establishing a reliever airport sound 5 abatement council; amending Minnesota Statutes 1998, 6 section 473.641, subdivision 4; proposing coding for 7 new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 473. 8 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE of THE STATE of MINNESOTA: 9 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1998, section 473.641, 10 subdivision 4, is amended to reads 11 Subd. 4. [EXPANSION OR UPGRADE 0r METRO AIRPORT.] 12 Notwithstanding any other law, the metropolitan airports 13 commission shall not use revenue from any source, as described 14 by section 473.608, for construction of air facilities to expand 15 or upgrade the use of an existing metropolitan airport from 16 minor use to intermediate use status et-deE4ner9-k;Y-the 17 metropolitan-development-geidet-av#at.4ers-ehapter1-edepted 18 pursuant-te-5eet_on-4T3-3:45. The St. Paul downtown airport is 19 an intermediate use airport. The following airports are minor 20 use airports: Flying Cloud, Crystal, Anoka county - Blaine, 21 take Elmo, and Airlake. ?or the purposes of this subdivision, a 22 "minor use" airport is an airport that has a primary runway 23 between 2,500 and 4,000 feet in length, and an "intermediate 24 use" airport is an airport that has a primary runway between 25 4,001 and 8,000 feet in length. The existence before January 1, 26 1999, of a runway in excess of 4,000 feet at an airport Section 1 1 OL3-d 90/EO"d 06E-J. 01E6LEEZ19+ NEATdn 8 Aa3NN2N-Woad wd90:£0 66-Z1-q9d 01/28/99 (REv2SOf ) VZS/JC 99-1599 1 classified as a minor use airport does not cause the airport to 2 be reclassified from a minor use airport to an intermediate use 3 airport. 4 Sec. 2. (471.6573 (REL/LVER AIRPORT SOUND ABATEMENT 5 COVNCIL.] 6 Subdivision 1. (DEFINITION.] Eor the purposes of this 7 section, "sound abatement council" refers to the reliever 8 airport sound abatement council established in this section. 9 Subd. 2. (ESTABLSSRMENT, PDRPOSE. ] A reliever airport 16 sound abatement council is established to study and evaluate the 11 problem of noise created by the operation of reliever airports 12 in the metropolitan area, to recommend sound abatement policies 13 to be adopted and implemented by the metropolitan airports 14 commission, and to evaluate Any established sound abatement 15 policies for reliever airports in the metropolitan area. 16 Subd. 3. (MEMBERSBIP. ) (a) (COMPOSITION OF 17 MEMBERSBID.] The sound abatement council consists of the members 18 specified in this subdivision. A majority of the members must 19 be local representatives. 20 jj (STATE OF'f'3ciALS.] The executive director of the 21 metropolitan airports commission or the executive director's 22 designee and the commissioner of transportation or the 23 commissioner's designee are members of the sound abatement 24 council. 25 (c) (USER REPRESENTATIVES. ) The director of each reliever 26 airport shall appoint a user representative as a member of the 27 sound abatement council. 28 jj (LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES.] A city or township abutting or 29 within two miles of the boundary of a reliever airport may 30 appoint one member to the mound abatement council. Initially, 31 the cities of Mounds View, Blaine, Lake Elmo, St. Paul, Brooklyn 32 Park, Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Circle Pinest Lexington, and 33 Eden Prairie, and the townships of West Lakeland and Baytown, 34 shall appoint the local representatives to the sound abatement 35 council. Additional cities or townships whose borders abut or 36 are within two miles of a reliever airport may participate as Section 2 2 OL9- 90/170 d 06£-i 0l£6L££Z19+ N3IW 0 ' AO 3NN3N-mold wd90:£0 66-Zl-pad 01/28/99 (REVISOR I PJS/JC 99-1599 1 members upon written notice to the chair of the reliever airport 2 sound abatement council. 3 Subd. 4. IMEMBBFtQVALIPICATIONS.] Reliever airport user 4 representatives shall have knowledge of aviation issues at their 5 respective airports. Local representatives must be elected 6 officials of their communities or the elected officials' 7 designees. S Subd. 5. (TtRMS or OFFICE.] Members of the sound abatement 9 council serve two-year terms._ Terms of office must be staggered 10 so that one-half of the reliever airport user representatives 11 and one-half of the local representatives are appointed everzr 12 year. 13 Subd. 6. (EXPOISts AND ADMINISTRArtoN.I The metropolitan 14 airports commission shall provide the funding necessary for the 15 operation of the sound abatement council, as well as 16 administrative and staff assistance when requested by the sound 17 abatement council. 18 Sec. 3. IINITIAL MEETING AND BYLAWS Of COUNCIL.] 19 Initial members of the reliever airport sound abatement 20 council must be appointed by July 1, 1999. The cities of Mounds 21 View, Blaine) Lake Elmo, St. Paul, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn 22 Center, Crystal, Circle Pinest Lexington. and tden Prairie, and 23 the townships of West Lakeland and Baytown, shall appoint the 24 initial local representatives to the sound abatement council. 25 The executive director of the metropolitan airports commission 26 or the executive director's designee shall convene the initial 27 meeting of the sound abatement council no later than one month 28 after the appointment of members, and thereafter the sound 29 abatement council shall continue to meet once a month or as 20 determined by the sound abatement council's bylaws. At its 31 initial meeting the sound abatement council shall elect a chair 32 from among the local representatives, and_provide for bylaws 33 Sec. 4. (APPLICATION: LOCAL APPt(OVAL.I 34 Sections 1, 2, and 3 apply in the counties of Anoka, 35 Carver, Dakotaaflennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington. 36 Sections 2 and 3 are effective for each city or township named Section 4 3 OLB-d 90/S0 d 06£-1 01£61££Zt9+ N3AVa9 AQ3NN3)1-Word WdLO:£0 66-Zl-qsf 01/28/99 (REVISOR ] RJS/JC 99-1599 1 upon compliance by the city or township and its chief clerical 2 officer with Minnesota Statutes section 645.021, subdivision 3. 4 029-d 90/90 d 06£-1 0t£61££Z19+ N3Atld0 / d03NN3)I-woay wd10:£0 66-31-qBd