Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 06/02/1998 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1998 7:30 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 Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1998 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 19. 1998 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. APPROVAL OF DISPLAY OF CHAMPIONSHIP BANNERS FOR EDEN PRAIRIE HIGH SCHOOL AND ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION TEAMS AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER C. DEDICATION OF STARING LAKE PLAYGROUND TO THE MEMORY OF PAUL REDPATH D. APPROVAL OF LAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR MR. ROBIN SMITH. 9765 SKY LANE City Council Agenda Tuesday, June 2, 1998 Page Two E. APPROVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING, INC. (PPL) FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SALABLE ABANDONED PROPERTY COLLECTED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT F. AUTHORIZE INFORMAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. FOR THE 1998 BOG-MONITORING PROGRAM AT THE BEARPATH GOLF AND COUNTY CLUB AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $11,500 G. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 TO THE CONTRACT WITH KNUTSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT, I.C. 94-5350 H. APPROVE THE RELEASE OF LAND FROM THE AGREEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL CONNECTION CHARGES AGAINST THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 14-116-22-43-0005 (8511 FRANLO ROAD) AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE RELEASE I. APPROVE THE RELEASE OF LAND FROM THE AGREEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL CONNECTION CHARGES AGAINST THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 14-116-22-43-0002 (8561 FRANLO ROAD) AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE RELEASE J. WELTER'S BROOKHAVEN FARM by Ray Welter, Jr. 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review on 23.45 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 21.77 acres and Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.38 acres and from Rural to R1-9.5 on 0.3 acres. Location: Northeast corner of Homeward Hills Road and Pioneer Trail. (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change) K. APPROVE ORDER TO HAVE THE UNSANITARY CONDITION AT 16501 PIONEER TRAIL REMEDIED City Council Agenda Tuesday, June 2, 1998 Page Three V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. WYNSTONE by Jasper Development. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 6.95 acres, Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5 and RM- 6.5 on 9.01 acres, Preliminary Plat on 9.01 acres into 29 lots and Site Plan Review on 6.95 acres. Location: 7102, 7126 & 7128 Baker Road. B. RIVERVIEW BLUFFS by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 28.32 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 28.32 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the R1-13.5 District on 28.32 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 28.32 acres into 46 lots. Location: Riverview Bluffs. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) C. ANCOR COMMUNICATIONS by Hoyt Properties. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 3.76 acres of the overall Technology Park PUD, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from 1-2 to Office on 3.76 acres, and Site Plan Review on 3.76 acres. Location: 7765 Golden Triangle Drive. (Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change) D. REALIFE VALLEY VIEW COOPERATIVE by Realife, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential on 3.6 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 3.6 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 3.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 3.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres, into 1 lot, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South side of Smetana Lane. (Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change, Resolution for Preliminary Plat) VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS City Council Agenda Tuesday, June 2, 1998 Page Four VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. REVIEW BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS #98-06. Consideration of appeal from the Board's decision regarding property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION (Councilmember Nancy Tyra-Lukens) X. APPOINTMENTS XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT Maul-4 UNAPPROVED MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1998 5:00 PM, HERITAGE ROOM IV 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher- Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Finance Director Don Uran, Director of Assessing Steve Sinell, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, Director of Human Resources & Community Services Natalie Swaggert, Director of Inspections Kevin Schmieg, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Bob Lambert, Chief of Police Jim Clark, Lead Accountant Sue Kotchevar, Facilities Manager Barbara Cross, Fire Chief Spencer Conrad, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Acting Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Mayor Harris was absent. II. OVERVIEW OF 1999 PROPOSED BUDGET A. INTRODUCTION Jullie thanked the department heads for their work on preparing the proposed budget. Enger said we have had a more formal process for the last three years with a Budget Team and the department heads involved in the process. This means the Council has been able to set strategic direction rather than just reviewing line items. Enger reviewed the budget achievements that included eliminating the use of one- time revenues to fund operations, a balanced budget model and preparing for the transition from high growth to a stable community, increasing the awareness of long term financial impacts of decisions, and minimizing tax impacts. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP May 19, 1998 Page 2 B. 1997 BUDGET TO ACTUAL RESULTS Uram presented the 1997 budget to actual results. He noted their goal is to complete the audit earlier every year so that the departments have the information to use in preparing their budgets. He said 1997 was an excellent year with $700,000 more in building permit revenue than anticipated and $500,000 more in taxes. The operating budget was held to the previous year's level. He said they have discussed amortizing the additional revenue over a period of years to offset years when revenue is not as high as anticipated. Tyra-Lukens asked if they intend to amortize the $700,000. Uram said it will be the entire $1.3 million. Case asked if we would amortize for future use in general or for specific use. Uram said they have expenses to fund in the future, and it could be used for that. Enger said, if the CIP were done, we would not have this amount of variance. We will probably have a need in the future to fill negative amounts some years. This would provide flexibility. He noted that multi-year budgeting would be good from this perspective. C. 1999 BUDGET STRATEGIES Enger then reviewed how the City Council and community values tie into the budget strategies. He explained the budget strategies we use: freeze operational expenses and employee head count; reduce the rate of increase in operating expenses; use "one time" revenues for "one time" expenses; no new programs to expand services without offsetting revenues or reductions in existing services; maintain a balanced budget model; consolidate departments' Capital Improvements Plans; and develop performance measures. D. MAJOR INITIATIVES Barb Cross reviewed the efforts to find a replacement site for Fire Station #1. After identifying and evaluating potential sites, they determined the best balance of all sites was the Methodist Church location; however, soil tests showed that it was not feasible to build in that location because of the bad soils. They have since determined that the upper west parking lot of the City Center building to be the best alternative to the Methodist Church location. C. H. Robinson is okay with taking that location if we replace their parking. She said the costs of building a parking ramp for the replacement parking will be offset by the amount that we will not have to invest in a land purchase. She also reviewed an alternative to build a parking ramp on the City Center parking lot to increase the parking available for the City Center. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP May 19, 1998 Page 3 Enger noted this needs to be divided into two pieces--the fire station site with an 80-car ramp to replace the parking lost by the fire station building, and the separate issue of additional parking for City Center. He believes the additional parking for City Center would improve the public use of the building, but it may not fit into the immediate needs category and may be a project for the future. Case asked about the $1.6 million item on tonight's Consent Calendar. Cross said that is the amount for the architectural fee to begin the process. She said we have an aggressive time schedule because we have to have the apparatus housing space usable by November 15. We need to get the design done in a month, which may not be feasible, but we are on a month-by-month lease at the current station. Case asked if the Consent Calendar item is to design Phase 1 and Phase 2 and if we will have discussion of any expense beyond the architectural fee. Enger said Staff is recommending that we hire the architect to design the Fire Station and an 80- space parking deck. Tyra-Lukens asked if the cost of the balance of the parking deck is $1.6 million. Enger said the $1.6 million is for the full deck. Case asked if timing is the biggest issue in not going with the Methodist Church site. Enger said there isn't a major dollar difference. Thorfinnson asked what the savings was for not purchasing the land. Cross said it was $500,000 for the land and the surcharge would have cost $500,000. Case asked what the total is and what we will get from the State. Enger said the State payment is $1.4 million, and the total budget for this item is $2.7 million. However, it will cost $3.2 million to build this because the new building is larger in order to accommodate the program requirements. Jullie noted we have outgrown the current Station #1. Case then asked if we are okay with the other stations. Clark said, in terms of apparatus space we are, but not in terms of other programs. He said the proposed station would meet our needs for a very long time. Case asked where we will get the difference between the State payment and the cost. Enger said the difference would have to be debt issued, as we did for the City Center. Case asked if there is a statutory limitation on spending without a referendum. Enger said it depends on what it is used for. Essential function revenue bonds were used for the City Center, so we could also use those bonds for a fire station. Butcher-Younghans asked what the other benefits are to this site. Cross said the exit to Scenic Heights Road was a benefit, and a deck would improve the City Center property. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP May 19, 1998 Page 4 Case asked if would be possible to use the Methodist Church property for parking. Cross said C. H. Robinson would not accept that because it is too remote. Case asked if we could move City people there. Enger said we have a constant battle to keep people from parking near the front door. Thorfinnson asked what the soil problems are on the church site. Cross said the church took the good soils for their building site and moved the bad soils to the empty lot. Swaggert asked if C. H. Robinson has any issues on the design. Cross said they would like to see that their corporate image is preserved, and they are excited about the new entrance to their facility. Clark reviewed the proposed Public Safety Training Facility. He said a group of cities came together to talk about future training needs. Our Police Department currently uses a shooting range in Carver County since the Braemar shooting range was torn down. He is concerned that there is a huge liability issue with the current range. The only indoor range is in Maple Grove and that is overbooked. Two years ago the discussions about a combined facility got accelerated, and the group ended up including the M.A.C. Police Department, Bloomington Police and Fire, Edina Police and Fire and Richfield Police and Fire. Clark said they have prepared a business plan. While they don't expect to make a lot of money on the facility, they will be able to fill the time at the site between the group members and rental to other groups. He said Edina will give the site at Braemar. The group applied for a Governor's bond but were turned down by the legislature. Clark said we need to make a decision fairly soon. While it is not in our backyard, it is very close. The cost for the building is $6.7 million. The range components are very expensive, but we must have a facility to train the police and firefighters in order to keep up with the standards. If the group does not build a facility together they will all have to build individual ones. Clark said the operational costs for us would be $50,000- $60,000, and they plan to hire someone to work on filling the space available. He said their formula for the up front costs was determined by use and employment status, and our costs were $800,000-$1 million for the initial investment. They have set up a Joint Powers Agreement. Butcher-Younghans asked if Minnetonka was interested in joining. Clark said they were in and out of the group, but they will use the facility if it is available. Case asked if a city like Minnetonka would pay more. Clark said they would pay for operational costs. He said they took time to study the market, and they believe we can put people in there at all times. He noted that as part of the group we will be able to pick the best times and have more opportunities to schedule the training. LI CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP May 19, 1998 Page 5 Tyra-Lukens asked when we will be asked to make a decision. Jullie said they are meeting again in the next couple of weeks, and they wanted us to get a sense if this is a serious project for us. He thought it is an area-wide collaborative effort that will save tax payers a lot of money. We are not doing training we should because the facilities aren't there now. Butcher-Younghans asked if the councils in the other cities have approved this. Jullie said they have received positive responses, and Edina and Bloomington are very much behind it. Case asked what the plans are to fund the $1 million investment. Jullie said this would qualify for the essential function revenue bonds, so we could do that for our share. The debt service will be about $80,000 per year plus operating costs of $40,000-$50,000, which would be a total of$130,000 per year as a General Fund expenditure. Butcher-Younghans asked how that compares to our annual training costs. Clark said they have tried to come up with a comparison but it is hard to do. He said the lands aren't available for shooting practice like they have been in the past. Jullie said they tried to quantify the costs, but there are items such as travel time that are hard to evaluate. Jullie said they would like to report there is a strong interest in this. The architects are hired and are ready to go. We would be committed to the architectural design piece. Tyra-Lukens noted we have been talking about this for many years. The need doesn't go away and we need some better way of training than sending people outside of the area. Clark noted the legislature gives mandates regarding training, and those change from year to year. The consensus was to support the new training facility. Enger said the City Center Parking Ramp is probably something we should have a CIP plan for. Uram said we have two very important projects in the Fire Station and the Public Safety Training Facility. He noted that capital improvements planning has been going on in the past in the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments. Our goal with the process is to coordinate and consolidate everyone's information so we can present it to the Council. When it is completed, we can identify projects, determine the timing of those projects, determine funding options and prioritize projects. He said they have worksheets from the departments; however, this is a long process and takes a lot of work from the departments and from the Council. They hope to have a capital improvement budget as part of the process. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP May 19, 1998 Page 6 Case asked if we will receive this as a line item even though we don't have the plan. Uram said they will set up a permanent revolving fund for capital improvements and capital maintenance that will provide seed money for all capital improvements in the next few years. They are sitting down to determine what funds will be available in the next few years to fund these. Enger noted we don't have the fine points yet. E. PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Enger said Kevin Schmieg is working on performance measurement. They would like to take the enterprise funds such as the liquor store revenues and use these measurements to increase profits. F. BUDGET PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS Enger said they created an Information Technologies division and coordinated the 1999 fee schedule and resolution with the budget process. Uram said they intend to hand off the fee resolution as part of the budget process. They have the 1997 financial information earlier this year, so the actual amounts from last year are available as the budgets are prepared. G. BUDGET OUTLINE FOR SURCHARGE MONIES (ENVIRONMENTAL & WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Dietz said the Environmental & Waste Management Commission has prepared recommendations for the $50,000 budgeted for environmental programs from the $250,000 revenue from surcharge monies. He noted that City Attorney Pauly has some concerns about the scholarships proposed, and we will need to bring back more information before those would be finalized. He said the budget could be approved with the proviso that grants and scholarships would come back before the Council prior to being awarded. Case said, while he would be inclined to approve this, he would have preferred some incentive goals for those who take the initiative to reduce water usage. The water-saving rebate is a very small part of the program. He asked if we could have the Commission review and come back with more incentives. Dietz said it is difficult to spend $50,000 in this way. He thought the 1999 budget process will have something similar to this. He thought the way to get at the issues might be to carry back the concerns about needing more incentives for next year. Case asked if the rest of the $250,000 goes into the general enterprise fund to lessen future increases as they occur. Dietz said that is not a done deal, and we could have some changes in that. t0 CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP May 19, 1998 Page 7 Tyra-Lukens thought the whole thing is interesting in that we are giving out money in the hopes that we won't have as much money next year. Butcher-Younghans thought we will have a need for maintenance of the equipment at the facility because we have groups going through the water plant. H. CONCLUSION Tyra-Lukens thought we will need to meet again on the budget prior to the August 18th meeting in order to give direction on the issues. Enger said in previous years we have had one or two Council people work with Staff, but it may be best to use the Council as a committee of the whole this year. The consensus was to set a workshop for the beginning of July. Uram noted we need to get the levy limits from the state as part of the process. Thorfinnson was concerned that we need to know the impact of premature revenues on future years. He was concerned that we don't know if we underestimated the budget or if we are using up future revenues. Enger said they can have the answers available at the next meetings. IV. OTHER BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT Acting Mayor Tyra-Lukens adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. irm 2 6. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1998 7:30 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 Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Acting Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Harris was absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Jullie added item IV. O. EIGHTEEN SCREEN MOVIE THEATER. He noted there are amended resolutions relating to the Comprehensive Guide Plan action on Public Hearing items A, B and C. Jullie said item XI.B.2. should be deleted from tonight's agenda, noting that it will be considered at a future meeting. Case added item XI.A.2. Status of Underground Power Lines on County Road 4. Butcher-Younghans added item XI.A.3. Report on Program at SheRPA. Jullie said item XI.A.1. should be deleted. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried 4-0. II. OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 5. 1998 Butcher-Younghans said paragraph 6 on page 13 should be changed to "...she was on a Commission..." Case said sentence 4, paragraph 1, page 15 should be changed to "...to offer modem access at this time." Tyra-Lukens said the spelling in sentence 3, paragraph 4, page 15 should be "Stovring", and sentence 5 should be changed to "The caller was concerned..." CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 19, 1998 Page 2 MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve as published and amended the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 5, 1998. Motion carried 4-0. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. APPROVE ARCHITECT TO DESIGN FIRE STATION REPLACEMENT C. ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-90 APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR OFFICE RIDGE CIRCLE D. ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-91 APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR MAPLE ADDITION E. APPROVE NSP SERVICE CONTRACTS FOR STREET LIGHTS ON DELL ROAD F. APPROVE NSP SERVICE CONTRACT FOR STREET LIGHTS ON EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD - PIONEER TRAIL TO TERREY PINE DRIVE G. ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-92 APPROVING CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT CSAH 39 (VALLEY VIEW ROAD) AND PLAZA DRIVE/TOPVIEW ROAD, I.C. 97-5447 H. ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-93 APPROVING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT WITH MnDOT FOR TEMPORARY SIGNALS AT CSAH 39 (VALLEY VIEW ROAD) AND PLAZA DRIVE/TOPVIEW ROAD. I.C. 97-5447 I. ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-94 AWARDING CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT CSAH 39 (VALLEY VIEW ROAD) AND PLAZA DRIVE/TOPVIEW ROAD. I.C. 97-5447 J. APPROVE REQUEST FOR EARLY GRADING PERMIT FOR SETTLERS RIDGE K. OFFICE RIDGE CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT by Oppidan Inc. 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review on 2.76 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the Office Zoning District on 2.76 acres and Adopt the Resolution for Site Plan Review on 2.76 acres. Location: Valley View and Office Ridge Circle (Ordinance 11-98-PUD-8-98 for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment and Resolution 98-95 for Site Plan Review) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 19, 1998 Page 3 L. '97 BFI REZONING - SPRINT TOWER by BFI/Sprint. 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 9.5 acres and Adopt the Resolution for Site Plan Review on 9.5 acres. Location: 9813 Flying Cloud Drive (Ordinance 14-98 for Zoning District Change and Resolution 98-96 for Site Plan Review) M. GERRING CAR WASH - REZONING by Gerring Properties. 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review on 3.76 acres and Rezoning from Rural to Community Commercial on 2.5 acres and Adopt the Resolution for Site Plan Review on 3.76 acres. Location: Hwy 212 and Aztec Drive (Ordinance 12-98-PUD-9-98 for PUD District Review and Rezoning and Resolution 98- 97 for Site Plan Review) N. ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-98 RELATING TO A HEALTH CARE FACILITIES REVENUE REFUNDING BOND FINANCING FOR CASTLE RIDGE CARE CENTER. INC.. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA (the "City") O. EIGHTEEN SCREEN MOVIE THEATER by General Growth. 2nd Reading of Ordinance for PUD District Review on 10 acres and Zoning District Amendment in the Commercial Regional District on 10 acres and Adopt Resolution approving Site Plan Review on 10 acres and Adopt Resolution approving Developer's Agreement. (Ordinance 13-98-PUD-10-98 for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment, Resolution 98-89 for Site Plan Review and Resolution approving Developer's Agreement) MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to approve items A- O on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CHARLSON PROPERTY by Lynn Charlson. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Public Open Space/Park/Floodplain to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Office on 440 acres. Location: South of Pioneer Trail (Resolution 98-99 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change) Jullie said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published May 7, 1998 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 227 property owners. He said there is one set of plans which includes the Charlson, Brown and Standal proposals. This project is a change in land use to provide compatible land uses next to existing single family homes west of Eden Prairie Road and adjacent to the airport. The land use plan shows church and low density residential adjacent to Eden Prairie Road. Office is proposed adjacent to the airport. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 19, 1998 Page 4 The March 1998 traffic study by Benshoff and Associates indicates that a total of 10,946 daily trips can be allocated to the Charlson, Standal and Brown properties without requiring road improvements outside of the properties. Since the proposed land use plan is a mixture of land uses, the type and intensity of development related to traffic should be based on daily trips per acre. After subtracting out the church (450 daily trips), the airport, and open space, the net 276.8 acres can share 10,496 trips or 37.91 trips per acre. The 241 acres of the Charlson property would be allocated 9,138.5 daily trips. John Uban, Planning Consultant, reviewed the proposal for approximately 500 acres and the proposed uses for the three properties. Enger said the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval at their April 27, 1998 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of April 24. Lambert said the Parks Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval at their May 5, 1998 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report. He said they recommended that the public open space designation be crosshatched on the salmon-colored areas of the guide plan and that there be a road connection between Spring Road and Eden Prairie Road with a right-in and right-out connection with Highway 212 and Eden Prairie Road. Tyra-Lukens said the baseline trip figures for the traffic studies have several different scenarios and, since the approval tonight is for conceptual approval, will we run into any kind of problem regarding density surplus issues? Enger said we will have to deal with that as we go. Tyra-Lukens then asked if we will deal with specific developments on the site. Enger said we will. Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, was concerned that they were not contacted by either the City or the developer regarding the proposed road connection. He said it looks like the alignment shown is totally impossible. He thought the Council might be taking action precipitously with these kinds of issues outstanding. Case asked Dietz if the intent of putting the road on this schematic is to clear up a dangerous situation at Highway 212 and Eden Prairie Road and not to help the connections on this property. Dietz said we are talking about limiting access to Eden Prairie Road and give a transportation pattern between Eden Prairie Road and Spring Road. Gray said the connecting road will help them maintain the function of Eden Prairie Road as a neighborhood collector. If we could disconnect the Eden Prairie Road and Hwy 212 intersection in the future we could eliminate its use as an alternative to Spring Road. '7` CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 19, 1998 Page 5 Case asked if they could rule out that the connector should not be made through the Charlson property only. Gray said there appear to be some feasible arguments for that but we need to put the connection into the design so there is a commitment on the part of the developer. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt the amended Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Public Open Space/Park/Floodplain to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Office on 440 acres; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried 4-0. B. IROWN PROPERTY by David Brown. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Public Open Space/Park/ Floodplain to Medium Density Residential and Office on 11.4 acres. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, east of Eden Prairie Road and north of Highway 169/212. (Resolution 98-100 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change) Enger said the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval at their April 27, 1998 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of April 24. Lambert said the Parks Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval at their May 5, 1998 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt the amended Resolution 98-100 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Public Open Space/Park/Floodplain to Medium Density Residential and Office on 11.4 acres; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried 4-0. C. STANDAL PROPERTY by Carol and John Standal. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Public Open Space/Park/Floodplain to Medium Density Residential and Office on 24.4 acres. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, east of Eden Prairie Road and north of Highway 169/212. (Resolution 98-101 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change) Enger said the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval at their April 27, 1998 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of April 24. Lambert said the Parks Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval at their May 5, 1998 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report. s CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 19, 1998 Page 6 MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt the amended Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Public Open Space/Park/Floodplain to Medium Density Residential and Office on 24.4 acres; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried 4-0. D. HTG BUILDING by James R. Grover. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on .86 acres, Rezoning from Rural to Office on .86 acres, Site Plan Review on .86 acres and Preliminary Plat of .86 acres into one lot. Location: 9300 and 9310 Hennepin Town Road. (Resolution 98-102 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Ordinance for Zoning District Change and Resolution 98-103 for Preliminary Plat) Jullie said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on May 5, 1998 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 26 property owners. The proposal is for construction of a single-story, 4,200 square foot office building on 0.86 acres. The project will require a change to the guide plan from Low Density Residential to Office. Plan revisions have taken place to shift the building and parking to the east, and to add large conifers on the back side of the site based on the staff report and Planning Commission recommendations. Jim Grover, architect, reviewed the proposal. He said they have met with neighbors and with staff to present the proposal. Case asked if there is any provision for the neighbors to work with the developer as the project goes along to help mitigate the effects on the neighborhood. Grover said they worked with the neighbors to double the number of evergreens in the area on the west side of the property to provide better screening. Enger said the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the project at its April 27, 1998 meeting based on an easterly shift of the building and parking, and additional larger conifers. He said the shift in parking to a 17.5 foot setback from Hennepin Town Road will require a variance from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at its June 11, 1998 meeting. The Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission did not review this project. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public Hearing; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to Office on .86 acres; to adopt the Resolution 98-102 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on .86 acres; to adopt the Resolution 98-103 for Preliminary Plat into one lot; and to direct Staff 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 19, 1998 Page 7 to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried 4-0. E. FULLER ROAD BUSINESS CENTER by Mount Properties. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.02 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 7.02 acres, Rezoning from I-General to I-2 Industrial on 7.02 acres and Site Plan Review on 7.02 acres. Location: 7905 Fuller Road. (Resolution 98-88 for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning) Jullie said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published May 5, 1998 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 18 property owners. This is a 74,000 square foot industrial building which meets City requirements. Bob Soffelt, representing Mount Properties, reviewed the project. Enger said the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at its April 27, 1998 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Staff report of April 24. Lambert said the Parks, Recreation& Natural Resources Commission voted 6-0 to approve the project at its May 5, 1998 meeting, subject to the recommenda- tions of the Staff Reports of April 24 and April 28. He noted that some of the Commissioners would prefer to replace the cottonwood trees with a similar type tree. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt the Resolution 98-88 for PUD Concept Review on 7.02 acres; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review on 7.02 acres and Rezoning from I-General to I-2 Industrial on 7.02 acres; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried 4-0. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Case asked about the licenses and taxes item for the Douglas/More house. He was concerned that the taxes were more than $91,000 according to that item. Julie thought that was just one of several parcels included in that line item; however, he will verify that and get back to Councilmember Case. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Butcher-Younghans, Case, Thorfinnson, and Tyra-Lukens voting "aye." 17 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 19, 1998 Page 8 VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. ENVIRONMENTAL & WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION - Budget Outline for Surcharge Monies Dietz reviewed the recommendations of the Environmental &Waste Management Commission for spending the $50,000 portion of the surcharge monies that will be set aside for educational purposes. He said the grants and scholarships would have to come back to the Council for specific approval to be sure they meet the letter of the law. Case asked if we will spend this only if the $50,000 is available. Dietz said the budget is based on last year's revenue. Thorfmnson asked if they will be included in the General Fund budget. Dietz said it will be a line item in the utilities section. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to approve the budget proposed by the Environmental &Waste Management Commission for the $50,000 set aside for environmental programs as per the Staff Agenda Report of May 19, 1998, subject to review of the scholarships and grants by the City Attorney and the City Council. Motion carried 4-0. X. APPOINTMENTS XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. Appointment of Budget Team Members (Item deleted.) 2. Status of Underground Power Lines on County Road 4 Case asked about the status of putting the power lines on County Road 4 underground. Dietz said we have a contract with NSP to do that. He noted there will be a lot of moving and temporary power lines put in place before they do that. Dietz said they have solicited the opinion of various residents whether they would like to put their service underground but there were no takers. F CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 19, 1998 Page 9 3. Report on SheRPA Butcher-Younghans said there have been some changes recently in the SheRPA organization. They have taken a new name, Familink. The Eden Prairie Community Resource Center will be called Familink, Eden Prairie. This will help eliminate confusion because of the name. She said the Eden Prairie's Familink Coordinator, Nancy Holden, has increased her hours in order to handle the Welfare-to-Work initiatives. They received a State grant for funding of the additional hours. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Approve Revised List of Council Workshops Jullie said the workshops without subjects listed are just to reserve the time slots and could be eliminated if they are not needed. He noted that the July Budget workshop was moved to August 18. Thorfinnson noted we also moved the 2001 update to June 16. C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS. RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Acting Mayor Tyra-Lukens adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. 1 OPCITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: aJGri SECTION: Consent Calendar June 2, 1998 prairie DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance - Gretchen Laven Clerk's License Application List IV.A. These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. CONTRACTOR BUSHARD PLUMBING SERVICE C 0 CARLSON AIR CONDITIONING CO ROYALTON HTG&COOLING CO WENCL SERVICES INC LAWN FERTILIZER APPLICATOR CNR LAWN CARE INC DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY/THE PROPERTY UPKEEP SERVICES OF MTKA INC RAINBOW TREE COMPANY INC SUPREME COMPANIES LIQUOR AMENDMENT TO LIQUOR LICENSE TO EXPAND THE PREMISES (Outdoor seating) Leiserv,Inc. d/b/a Brunswick Eden Prairie Lanes d/b/a Watertower Brewing Company June 2, 1998 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6/2/98 SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Parks, Recreation & Display of Championship Banners at fV Natural Resources the Community Center �J Requested Action: Approval of display of Championship Banners for Eden Prairie High School and Athletic Association teams at the Community Center. Background: At the May 22nd Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission meeting, Staff recommended allowing banners at the Community Center. The Commission approved this request on a 5-0 vote. Specific guidelines have been developed for each area within the Community Center. Form c\hr\council\an-form.wpd Rev 12/4/95 PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES May 18, 1998 Page 7 VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Recommendation regardingDisplay of Banners at Community Center Lyndell Frey, Community Center Manager, stated he was concerned about allowing numerous banners to be put up at the Community Center. Staff has proposed guidelines for this, and he noted that only first and second place awards would be allowed. MOTION: Hilgeman moved, seconded by Koenig, to recommend approval of the guidelines and allow banners for First and Second places only as outlined in the Staff Report dated May 12, 1998. Motion carried 5-0. B. Volunteer for Housing. Transportation. and Human Services Board After a brief discussion,it was decided to defer discussion of this item until Commissioner Stolar was present. MOTION: Hilgeman moved, seconded by Koenig, to continue this item to the next meeting. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. REPORTS OF MANAGER OF PARKS AND NATURAL RESOURCES A. Goose Removal Report MOTION: Jacobson moved, seconded by Brown, to authorize staff to coordinate a meeting with the DNR and Dr. Cooper. Motion carried 5-0. B. Information on Cottonwood Trees Fox noted this was a FYI item only. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Corneille moved, seconded by Jacobson to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. MEMORANDUM 4111 TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Commission THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources • FROM: Lyndell Frey, Community Center Manager Julie Hoeft, Aquatic and Fitness Coordinator Joel Mute, Ice and Concessions Coordinator DATE: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 SUBJECT: Display of Championship Banners for Eden Prairie High School and Athletic Association Teams REQUEST Many Eden Prairie High School and Athletic Association teams consider the Eden Prairie Community Center facilities "home". Staff request permission to adopt a policy that would allow for the wall mounted display of championship banners at the Eden Prairie Community Center. The following teams utilize the Community Center facilities: • Pool • Eden Prairie High School Girls Swim Team • Eden Prairie High School Boys Swim Team • Eden Prairie High School Synchronized Swim Team • Foxjet Swim Club Ice Rinks • Eden Prairie High School Boys Hockey Team • Eden Prairie High School Girls Hockey Team • Eden Prairie Hockey Association Teams PROPOSED GUIDELINES Staff propose the implementation of the following guidelines: • State and National championship and runner up banners for any of the teams listed above may be hung permanently or until space is needed for a current championship banner. • Tournament or other place winning banners may be hung for one year or until replaced if space is available. Due to space limitation this will be allowed in Rink#2 only. (Rational - Space Availability) • High School conference banners will be hung in Rink# 1 only. Conference banners will represent their prospective school colors. • • Banners must be Eden Prairie Colors: red, black and white. With exception of the Foxjet swim club,their colors are blue and white. All banners must be two-feet and ten-inches wide and six-feet long. • ,4, -44,,,,, ...,0•4,,,=st,. ,<T'',,,s'.;','",'' •' l':0'-',--,. --;',_t-,'''' -?„*,ps ,,,V",:: ''.-s4.,-',/4 ','• =,- ....f„.r4 Fl• ill 1 I e n!,-,7),,,!,, , -,,:-„,...,a-:-.- -,,-,,,,,-„k.,, . .....„...;_...; ,..3..;:::,,, .. , •`,' .-,.-ir.3-rs-;-- ,,t,,,, *.,"' ,,,T. , *-,,,, 3- < , ` ',,C-V.I4,„eVi ''''';, "•. ' ".,:"%.,..-,: .. - • .' .. ,„„ - • Bleachers 30' 4 Rink 2 West 156 ' Wall 41111 1. 44 banners 2. 10.5' from corner to first banner, 7.3' from ceiling. 3. banners 3' wide V .4440Nit.4. 0000'k,- ,,- • ,, . ,,/ -,,lit,, 41104#?' • , 4" ''''--.. ,, . -::::z - * 4<•-,.•0 '''-'<!-:-.. • 4. is* - ., s:: . • , . • - • ii / / /4/' • .•:, ''' ', '.4• ',, _ // / • // / -._______, .....____ . .• .' _ I 1 , -• ' . , t / .• ., 4 • -_. 1 1 - • ! 6' 0 - , Rink 2 North Wall 37.3' • 4 • 1. 10 BANNERS. 2. 2'10" WIDE, 6" BETWEEN BANNERS. 3. 7.3'FROM CEILING, 2.1'FROM SCOREBOARD. .4111. ■ I mod. ..- -41. _ } P . x _ 3 ::ram 7 • 41141° gra" Rink 1 South Wall - Option 1 1. banners 2'6" x 4'6", 6" apart. A IPA 2. 19.5' out from corner covers width of all banners. 3. 6' from ceiling, 1' between top and bottom rows, and 5' from corner on right. • 4.110 .► • • 41111. �;• v G wY. Mu T v k � . - 5 Rink 1 North Wall 41111 1. 9 banners 2'10"x 6'. 2. 34.6' from scoreboard to wall; banners 29.6' wide area, with last banner 2.5' from scoreboard. 3. 6' from ceiling, 2.5' from corner on left. • Z )r �Ldi ' LY " - 7 I 31/2 ft window Fox .v r $a z ,. '1r � �, Aden '� - , ., f^k7 x.cti �'1� ,0& ''.''Prairie . i h ! 9 f 3 ft —, Y� .., ,, E ms : sr,-tea+ .-37�.{ µ a,.� a 8c ta°i y�}?a��`$"ems r'? fir' tF,w F� ` w -,;�,�n hro : �.;,- ; :, +fi h- ,. v'+.x.:1 fix',iw",y,,_ ... ... Windows 411 1.Windows at bottom are 6 ft. high. 2. Banners are 3 ft high with 2 ft of space above them. 3.Banners are 3 ft from left and right wall, centered on clock. it § e -:,1,1,..", 1 _ire } I � 1 y i lie R xf ..tea . '', �''' '�! To • . ti cs ........1 ••. . `, 1 1 � CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Date: June 2, 1998 Section: Consent Calendar Department: PRNR "Fee- Subject: Dedication of Staring Lake Playground to Item No.: --ry C Robert A. Lambert, Director the Memory of Paul Redpath RECOMMENDATION: City Staffrecommend the Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the City Coucnil consider dedicating the Staring Lake Park playground to the memory of Paul Redpath and his commitment of service to the citizens of Eden Prairie. BACKGROUND: Paul Redpath committed his life to helping others and providing service to his community. He was an extremely involved and effective leader for the community for over twenty years. Paul was very interested and involved in developing the Eden Prairie park system and was instrumental in obtaining the grant that was eventually used to purchase Staring Lake Park, as well as many of the other major parks such as Round Lake Park, Anderson Lakes Park, Bryant Lake Park, and Birch Island Park. Paul was a member of the Metropolitan League Open Space Land Use Committee in 1972 and 1973, and a member of the Metro Trail Committee in 1972. He was also a member of the National League of Cities Environmental Committee in the early 1970's. Paul was a Board Member of the Southdale YMCA for three years and Chairman of the South Branch of the American Red Cross. Het served two years as a Board Member for Corner Stone Advocacy Service, four years as a Board Member of the Eden Prairie Foundation, including serving a term as president, and three years on the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce Board. Paul instituted the first Youth Athletic Association in the City and was a strong supporter for park development and park referendums throughout his entire life in Eden Prairie. His garage was the "storage building" for the Athletic Association for the early years of the Association. Paul was very involved with PROP and delivered food and gift baskets to needy families for many years. He also served as a PROP driver, providing his own vehicle for transportation, taking people to doctor appointments and hospitals throughout the Cities. May 16, 1987 was declared Paul Redpath Day in Eden Prairie and over 400 friends attended the dinner held in his honor. Paul served as a Councilmember from 1966 to 1972, Mayor from 1972-1974,member of the Planning and Zoning Commission from 1976-1978 and a member of the City Council again from 1979-1987. 1 Due to Paul's commitment to improving the quality of life for all people in Eden Prairie for over 20 years, staff felt it would be appropriate to consider installing a commemorative plaque at the Staring • Lake playground stating the following: "This playground is dedicated to the memory of Paul Redpath's commitment of service to the reside* of Eden Prairie," and to place that plaque in an appropriate location at that site. Staff would request the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission to consider this proposal and forward a recommendation to the City Council. If the City Council approves this recommendation,the dedication ceremony could take place concurrent with the opening of the new playground in June of this year. Staff would recommend considering a ceremony on June 17, a Wednesday evening, right before the concert held at the amphitheatre. BL:mdd Attachment: May 18, 1998 PRNR Commission Unapproved Minutes Redpath.memoBob98 2 PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES May 18, 1998 Page 6 people who are 55 years of age and older. This project will help meet the City's need for a diversity in housing types. They have reduced the density by four units which is comparable to other town home projects in the immediate vicinity. He described the trail around the project and the pond in the center which will also be a picnic and gathering area. He discussed the landscaping on the site and the buffering which will be installed. Jim Brandser, 7238 Vervort Lane, stated he was opposed to the project and noted none of the residents in the vicinity were notified of this meeting. He stated multi-family housing was not consisting with the existing neighborhood. He was concerned about the transition and the buffering between the development and the existing neighborhood. He was concerned about the trail location being so close to his yard. He requested the Commission to deny the request. Terry Willmsen, 7265 Vervort Lane, stated he was concerned regarding the notification process. He has a preference for not looking at a row of town homes and while they may be well-screened, he preferred the privacy and intimacy of the single family residential neighborhood. He was concerned about buffering between the development and the existing neighborhood. Fox stated there was a drainage system engineered into this plan. Discussion ensued regarding the guiding on the property and the changes that can and will occur on property as communities grow and develop. Alternative buffering strategies were discussed. Jasper explained that he prefers to call the"trail" a walkway which will be a pleasant and safe place for people to walk who don't want to get out onto the public trails. The landscape plan was discussed and the staff recommended that fifteen more trees should be added. The tree loss will be high because many of these trees were planted around houses in an unusual fashion. Lambert stated that transition issues are something that occur throughout the City and the land use issues are decided by the Planning Commission and City Council. Trees, landscaping, trails, and grading issues are the purview of the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. To build anything on the site requires extensive grading, which will definitely impact the amount of tree loss. Discussion ensued regarding the trail location and possible alternatives. MOTION: Hilgeman moved, seconded by Jacobson, to recommend approval based on the information in the May 8, 1998 Planning Commission Staff Report and the Supplemental Staff Report dated May 14, 1998, with the addition of 15 more trees to minimize the visual impact to the public. Motion carried 4-1. Brown stated he was opposed to this because it does not fit in the area and can set a precedent. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Dedication of Staring Lake Playground to the memory of Paul Redpath MOTION: Hilgeman moved, seconded by Jacobson to approve the dedication ceremony for the Playground on June 17, 1998 before the concert at the amphitheater. Motion carried 5-0. DATE: 06/02/98 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: TV D SECTION: Consent Calendar • DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Land Alteration Permit for Mr. Robin Smith, 9765 Sky Lane Randy Slick Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council approve request for Land Alteration Permit to construct future building pad at 9765 Sky Lane. The permit should be conditioned on the following items: • Erosion control devices will be in place prior to grading • Restoration of all disturbed areas • Soils engineer report on existing conditions, material and method of filling lot • Field observation of fill process and final report indicating soils structural capacity Background: Mr. Smith has requested City Council approval of a Land Alteration Permit to place approximately 1500 cubic yards of dirt to construct a building pad (100' x 150') for a future single family home. The building pad is to be located in the southeast corner of the vacant lot. Please refer to the supporting information provided by the owner. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar 06/02/98 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Police Project for Pride in Living (PPL) Agreement �V E' REQUESTED ACTION The Police Departments requests the City Council approve the attached agreement between the City of Eden Prairie and Project for Pride in Living, Inc. (PPL) for the disposal of salable abandoned property collected by the Police Department. BACKGROUND An ordinance for the disposal of salable abandoned property collected by the police department through the private sale by a non-profit organization was adopted by the City Council in the summer of 1997. In August 1997, an agreement was entered into between the City of Eden Prairie and the City Store, a private organization, for the disposal of unclaimed property. The City Store is no longer able to provide this service. Project for Pride in Living, Inc. (PPL) provides a similar service and is used by other cities in the area for property disposal. PPL provides job training programs for adults and youth with employment disadvantages. An agreement between the City and PPL has been drafted by the City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS • Letter from Project for Pride in Living dated February 20, 1998 • Copy of the Agreement Between City of Eden Prairie and Project for Pride in Living, Inc. Information Supplied by: Lieutenant Rob Reynolds Division Commander, Support Operations Eden Prairie Police Department May 18, 1998 RLR:sjm I PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING, INC. z 2516 Chicago Avenue Minneapolis,MN 55404 Telephone(612) 874-8511 ( V) • . FAX(612) 874-6444 Dy=ffi fi,T► z ra Nidi email: ppl@ppl-inc.org // I ()() February 20, 1998 Tina Saugestad Property/Evidence Manager Eden Prairie Police 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55417 Dear Tina: As a follow-up to our meeting February 13, 1998, PPL would like to submit the following proposal for disposal of the Eden Prairie Police Department surplus property. There is an annual report and audit for 1996 included with this package. PPL currently operates surplus stores at two Minneapolis locations. The PPL Surplus Home and Office Products (SHOP) store 850 15th Ave.NE(30,000 sq. ft.) and the PPL General Store 1910 Chicago Ave South (7,000 sq. ft). The General Store has been in operation for twelve years and the SHOP has been in operation for ten years. The PPL Surplus Home and Office Products (SHOP) store began as a job readiness training program with commitments from Honeywell and General Mills to provide surplus office equipment, and other surplus products to sell in the store. It eliminated the need for in-house disposal of such goods and provided a tax benefit as well. In the case of both the General Store and the SHOP,revenue from sales supports the job-readiness training program. The General Store provides affordable"bargains and basics"to residents living and working in the Phillips neighborhood, and visitors from other parts of the Twin Cities. An adult and youth employment program helps prepare participants for the world of work. The mission of the PPL jobs training programs is to hire adults and youth with employment disadvantages and provide them a rigorous work experience which will prepare them for steady employment in a mainstream job. Based upon our discussions, we have complementary goals and our surplus sales operations would fulfill the city's goals for property disposal while generating income for you and to support our training mission. We would like to propose incorporating the Eden Prairie Police Department surplus into our two store locations as distinct departments. Through the use of a separate department(dedicated in store location) targeted merchandising and promotions would be possible. The city's surplus would add desirable merchandise and diversity to the core products currently being sold. PPL would continue to assume all responsibility for the expense of the stores including the cost of operations, advertising, promotion and personnel "PPL would handle all pick-up of materials relieving the city from this responsibility. PPL has trucks available for this purpose. PPL would be responsible for pricing of all items with input from city representatives. PPL would sell the surplus items from the City of Eden Prairie on a consignment basis. PPL would remit 30% of the selling price to the city. A tag and/or bar code system would track the sale and price of merchandise so that proper accounting for items can be maintained. PPL would remit to the city on a monthly basis the 30% of City surplus sales for the previous month. To cover the costs of operations, rent, and job readiness training program PPL would retain 70% of the sale price. These percentages were arrived at by estimating the expense per square foot required to handle and display the surplus items. We would propose a three year contract, reviewed and renewable at the City's option and can be terminated by either party with or without cause with a 60 day notice. This arrangement would achieve the city goals for surplus disposal. Eden Prairie would receive cash for surplus property and PPL would be able to sustain and expand the training programs at the stores. Proper accountability, reliability, dependability and positive image would be maintained for the city. Surplus material would be"recycled"into the consumer system. PPL is prepared to begin selling the city surplus items immediately. We have the capacity and resources to absorb this into our current operations as soon as a contract could be finalized. As background information, following is a brief organizational overview of Project For Pride In Living, Inc. Project for Pride in Living's motto "Give me a fish I eat for a day; teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime." expresses our philosophy of helping people to help themselves. The goal is to help families break the generational cycle of poverty and become healthy,productive members of the community. PPL is a non- profit organization designed to assist low- and moderate income people to become self-sufficient by addressing their job, housing and neighborhood needs. PPL concentrates its efforts in five of the most distressed neighborhoods in Minneapolis and St Paul(Phillips,Near North, Central, Thomas-Dale and Summit-University). PPL has 44 board members, 61 full time and 8 part time employees, with 778 volunteers participating in 1996. Over its 25 year history, Project for Pride in Living has had extensive experience implementing major development activities in partnership with businesses, government agencies, financial institutions and the community. Projects include business development and management, housing construction and rehabilitation, property management,job training, housing loans and resident training in self-sufficiency. The PPL retail businesses are self-sustaining. They have steadily increased revenues over the years and met financial goals and viability as businesses. Sincerely, Para. Sue Jaqua Associate Director of Retail Division Project for Pride in Living (Steve Cramer Executive Director Organizational Chart 1997 , Joe Selvaggio-fundraising-1FTE • HOMS Initiative-1FTE -.a— - Executive Secretary-.5 FTE Grant V*iter-1 FTE . Pubic Relations Coordnator-1 FTE II V • Susan Baldwin Steve Studt Jeff Helmeke Director of Finance&Business Operations Director of Housing&Development Director of Human Services&Administrationp SELF-SUFFICIENCY VOLUNTEER ANW Train to Work Business Marketin PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT g Controller MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROGRAM Program Specialist 1 FTE /Manager 1 FTE Project Coordinator-1 FTE Division Manager-4 FTE Coordinator-1FTE Associate Director of Self- Manager-1 FTE SufficiencyServices-1 FTE Trainer-1 FTE + NAP Project ►942-serving PPL INDUSTRIES Property Admin Assist.-1 FTE p � f►Coordinator-1 FTE 32,715 hours ACCOUNTING Admin Assist.-1 FTE General Manager-1 FTE STAFF Manager-3 FTE 8 AmeriCorps-FTE Job Operations Manager-1 FTE�- St.Paul Employment&Family Senior Construction Project • Manager-1FTE Development/PlacementSite Manager-1 FTE Specialist-2FTECoorda_1 FTE — Marketing Manager-1 FTE Accountant-1 FTE ADMINISTRATION Lease • Family Support-FTE Estimator-1 FTE Accountant-2 FTE Administrator-1 FTE Office Coordinator-1 FTE • Children's Program Office Retention - Career Development Clerk-2 FTE Coordinator-1 FTE Manager-.5 FTEay- Specialist-1 FTE Manager-1 FTE Receptionist-1 FTE Children's Program Administrative 95 Trainees Maintenance EMERGENCY Assist.-1 FTE Assistant-1.5 FTE Associate Director of Supervisor-1 FTE REPAIR SMALL BUSINESS Retail Businesses 1 FTE Coordinator-1 FTE .� Trainee-2 FTE Receptionist-1 FTE RESOURCE CENTER Maintenance Tech-3 FTE _ Manager-1 FTE PPL SHOP St Paul SSP Mgr.-1 FTE General Manager-1 FTE) Asset Fam &Housing Systems Support ` Manager-1 FTE 11.1 lyng Manager-1FTE Assist.Manager-1 FTE raw. Specialist-.SFTE SAINT PAUL STORE IRecePtb0nl5t. 5FTE Education Supply Acquisition Development Manager-1 FTE Manager-1 FTE Program Mgr-1 FTE Clerk-1 FTE Administrative CONSTRUCTION Community Services Assistant-1 FTE Manager-1 FTE Youth Trainee-1 FTE Manager-1 FTE ii,SSP Program 11 Trainees Supervisor-1 FTE VISTA-3FTE Evaluation Planning Administrator-1 FTE Mgr-.5 FTE SUMMER YOUTH — GENERAL STORE Supervisor-1 FTE Carpenter/instructor-4FTE ►MFIP-s-4 FTE Manager-1 FTE 4 crew leaders-.75 FTE Youthbuild Coordinator-.5 FTE FTE (summer position) Asslstart Manama-1 12 Youthbuild students 10-Human Resources 30 Participants Abelaend Support-.25 FTE 6 Youth Trainees Child Care 2 Adult Trainees Intiative-1 FTE • 10/22/97 hJshdata/wp/maryanne/programslboard/organ.gxd (Open this document in Quark) AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING, INC. This Agreement is made by and between Project for Pride in Living, Inc. ("PPL") and the City of Eden Prairie (the "City") as follows: 1. PPL will pick up salable abandoned property(the "property") from the City Police Department. PPL agrees to accept all property that is in reasonable condition for resale. 2. The City will tag and identify each property with a unique number, and provide an inventory specifying each property. 3. PPL will maintain the inventory received from the City, determine the sale prices of each property and use its best efforts to sell the property. 4. Sales proceeds will be divided 30/70 between the City and PPL (70% will be retained by PPL and 30% will be remitted to the City). 5. Sales proceeds checks will be issued to the City on a monthly basis. 6. This contract shall continue for a term of six months after which it shall continue indefinitely until terminated by either party by written notice to the other. 7. Upon termination all amounts due to City shall be paid to City within 20 days after termination and all unsold property shall be returned to City. PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING, INC. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By By Its Manager Its Mayor By Its City Manager Dated: Dated: rfr\ep\police\ppl.agr CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Section: Consent Calendar Date: June 2, 1998 Department: Public Works Item Description: Item No.: Annual Monitoring-Bearpath Leslie Stovring Development IV. F. Requested Action Authorize an informal professional services agreement with STS Consultants,Ltd. for the 1998 bog- monitoring program at the Bearpath Golf and Country Club at an estimated cost of$11,500. Background The bog monitoring activities at Bearpath began in 1992. A long-term sampling and monitoring plan for the three existing bogs was developed as a special condition of the COE permit number 91- 30137-IP-JJY issued on September 10, 1993. Water quality sampling began in 1993. The City of Eden Prairie began coordinating the sampling program in 1996,in accordance with the COE permit guidelines. The monitoring program was developed to assess potential changes in the bog ecosystems during both the construction phase of the project and after completion of the golf and country club. The program included assessment of the water quality and vegetation at the three bogs. The sampling program was designed to monitor changes at the most sensitive areas of each wetland basin. Construction continues along the perimeter of the large bog. The vegetation transect monitoring was not conducted in 1997. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has stated that the vegetation monitoring will need to be conducted by the City in 1998 and 2000. Water quality sampling will continue on an annual basis through 1999. The City will meet with the COE after the 1999 water quality sampling event to re-evaluate the program to determine a new schedule for long-term monitoring. The monitoring program for 1998 would include: • Water quality sampling. • Vegetation Monitoring in early July and late August. • Coordination of an informational meeting with the Bearpath Homeowner's Association to present the data collected to date. Bid Summary Three companies were approached to provide bids for the 1998 water quality sampling. They included Summit Envirosolutions (Summit), STS Consultants, Ltd. (STS), and Short, Elliot, Hendrickson (SEH). The STS proposal included the lowest bid at $11,000 as a "not-to-exceed" Bearpath Monitoring Program June 2, 1998 Page 2 of 2 contract. The bids submitted are as follows: • STS - $11,000 • Summit - $14,961 * • SEH - $14,811 * The Summit bid included$380 for coordination of an informational meeting with the Bearpath Homeowner's Association to discuss the results of the monitoring program and the buffer requirements as well as their importance to the bog habitat. Staff does recommend that this information be presented to the Homeowners Association. However, STS could perform this work for a similar amount. Attachments Proposed Scope of Services and Cost Estimate,Bearpath Annual Bog Monitoring, STS Consultants, Ltd., dated May 15, 1998. 2- Proposal #610301PP ] PROPOSAL May 15, 1998 .:1 I ___, .1 , _, ,, . . _. _ , --.- -,:-:„,- -----'. ---_-__- --, ,,,, ..' — „ -..... , ..:-.:-., .- ,-.._..... ._, - ,-, . ..... Y4L 7-4^y+ Z _ ..,,,,.. „.. ,,, ..._ ,,,„ ,_..,, „ ,. 1 .„, _ „ , . - -. -, , --, ,-- , . -„ ,, ,,-, - ,= ,... „ ... , , , . - t , , sv »c A w,„ i , 'a a "'rv�,3 aatr-✓, ^,,,„.,-. ,_, , , ,,-,..,,,, ,,....- ,,,,,,._,„,„,,„,,,,,,..,,,,._ . .„.....-„,, ,,,,,..,,..,..,„, .. - ''' ',,,,,,, --- =',-...- ' '-:;-.7,-,-,--,,,,,.. ,„ .44000 : -- ,,-.,..;,?..,.(...-4„1,,q,:.,,-,,,%', - , 2, .--„- ,, :-= .„ --„,.. x �� ' `r� s " 3y. `4i Y* "Y f �' r r , nh"„a ':%,:' ..'r.:-!!' �� n tr .;.. ,a hr 4 � 1 r { ,., yw,, 'fix #" i r Y :x+l t _'.. P t `l: ir f :i y ..tom` . - ' ' , -'r '"'', ' - s " 4. p �4 a G 1 hs 1 I Bear Path Annual Bo Monitoring STS Conuuttunts Ltd. Prepared Foy- Consulting Engineers of Eden Prai•rie l„();)i --;,1-,18080 Mitchell Road iiit lO� Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Jy iil,lu ( ,t-,)V ;(,1?) l5 <,3(H) I N III N ` STS Consultants, Ltd. J- Solutions through Science & Engineering 1 s May 15, 1998 Ms. Leslie Stovring Environmental Coordinator J City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 .� Re: Bear Path Annual Bog Monitoring, STS Proposal 610301PP Dear Ms. Stovring: STS Consultants, Ltd. (STS) is pleased to present you with our proposal to provide bog Imonitoring services for the City of Eden Prairie (City) at the Bear Path Development in 1998. The scope of work proposed by STS is based on the scope of work provided in your request for proposal dated April 30, 1998, and information you provided from monitoring performed in the fall of 1994. The main goal of STS in performing the work is to provide repeatable data that is cross-comparable to existing information in your existing database. The remainder of this proposal outlines the proposed methodologies, scope of work, and project schedule for services performed by STS. STS professional profiles (resumes) are provided for key technical personnel which will work on this project. Professional profiles for our valued support staff(word processors, drafters, etc.) are omitted in the interest of brevity. I1.0 Water Quality Monitoring Water quality samples will be collected from bogs Y, F and 0, similar to the locations previously sampled for the 1997 Annual Water Quality Report prepared by Summit Envirosolutions. The water quality monitoring will occur in conjunction with the initial vegetation survey described in I Section 2.0, unless otherwise requested by you. The water sampling team will include two STS personnel with current HazWaste site health and safety training required by 29 CFR 1910.120, operating under an STS site specific safety plan. IWater samples will be collected in locations described by Section 1.0 of your request for proposal. The water samples will be collected using 1 inch nominal ID flush-threaded PVC well materials at each location. STS has successfully driven these well screens into a variety of soils for groundwater sample collection. STS will collect samples through the bog mat holes left by previous site sampling wherever practicable. Approximately 2 to 5 liters of water will be purged from each sampling hole prior to sample collection. The sampling hole will be allowed to equilibrate prior to sampling. Water samples will be analyzed in the field for pH, specific (temperature corrected) conductance, and I 4 10900 73rd Avenue North, Suite 150 • Maple Grove, MN 55369-5547 • (612) 315-6300 • (612) 315-1836 Fax 11RI 1� rya City of Eden Prairie STS Proposal 610301PP 3 May 15, 1998 Page 2 temperature (degrees Celsius). Samples for laboratoryanalysis (30 samples total) will( gr ) p y p be collected from each sampling location for the following analytical parameters: total Nitrate-N, soluble (reactive) Phosphorous and total Phosphorous by Standard Method 1400-P(e), and Chloride by EPA Method 325.2. A laboratory certified by the Minnesota Department of Health will be subcontracted by STS for the laboratory analysis. I Observations made during water sampling will be documented on an STS Sampling Information J Form (SIF). The SIF will include surface water elevation data collected at the staff gauge located within each bog. Resurvey of the staff gauges for vertical control, if required, will be the responsibility of the City. STS can provide this service at your request. R-i 2.0 Vegetation Survey A vegetation survey will be conducted as a follow-up to the surveys conducted in 1992 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and in 1994 by Summit Envirosolutions. 2.1 Initial Vegetation Analysis I The initial survey will include a total of 12 transects, as indicated in your request for proposal. Methodology described in the "Bog Monitoring Program Vegetation Analysis" conducted by Summit Envirosolutions in 1994 will be followed. This includes: I • Line intercept method for trees and shrubs. • One-square meter plot method for bog surface (bryophyte) and herbaceous vegetation. "` • Statistical analysis of estimated percent cover, frequency analysis and correlation between sampling events and bog systems. Data reduction will be consistent with methods previously reported by Summit Envirosolutions. • Documentation of lagg (perimeter of raised bog) vegetation. Documentation will include estimations of the area of open water, percent vegetative cover, and radial extent of lagg areas. Similar observations will be made if Hark-like open water areas develop within the Ibog mat. 1 2.2 Meander Vegetation Analysis A meander survey shall be conducted to observe vegetation along the transect lines and lagg _I areas for identification of species which were not readily identifiable during the initial survey. The meander survey will generate a list of species observed and is not intended for use in the statistical analysis. The purpose of the meander survey is to identify readily-observable Ivegetation which may not have been sufficiently developed for identification with taxonomic I c gill NI It IL City of Eden Prairie STS Proposal 610301PP I May 15, 1998 Page 3 1 i keys during the initial survey conducted by STS, and/or to identify species which are present at the site but which were not encountered in the transect sampling (one square meter) plots. STS It will limit personnel movement through the bog areas to be studied to minimize bog damage from trampling. STS will consider using a single staff member for the meander vegetation analysis, if at site safety conditions allow. 3.0 Project Schedule STS can conduct the initial vegetation analysis during the first week of July 1998. The meander vegetation analysis would be conducted near the end of August 1998. We anticipate completion 4 of our report by the end of October 1998. If you wish, STS can provide you with a draft report for your review and comment prior to completion of the final report. I J4.0 Report Deliverables STS shall provide three hard copies of the final report, including one original for the City of Eden Prairie, one for submittal to the Corps of Engineers, and one report to the Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Creek Watershed District. Data(tables and drafted drawings) will be submitted to the City in electronic format, including AutoCAD Version 14, Microsoft Word, and Excel. STS can - generally provide alternative formats if requested. .1 5.0 Project Budget STS proposes to provide these services on a lump sum basis. The total cost for the scope of work referenced in this proposal is $11,000. The cost breakdown for this figure is provided below. _I Water Quality Monitoring includes collection and analysis of 30 water samples as described in the scope of work. Includes all materials and labor. Assumes access to the site will be provided to STS through the City of Eden Prairie. $ 5,000 I Vegetation Monitoring includes initial vegetation survey, meander survey observations, and assumes that initial vegetation survey can be conducted in . conjunction with water quality monitoring. $ 2,500 Report includes three hard copies of final report, and one digital transmittal of data I to the City of Eden Prairie. Assumes that all available information from previous sampling events will be provided by the City of Eden Prairie. $ 3.500 Project Total $11,000 14 y_. � City of Eden Prairie STS Proposal 610301PP I' May 15, 1998 Page 4 PI STS will perform these services on a lump sum basis with monthly invoicing to you. The monthly invoices will reflect the percent completion, including staff involvement, subcontracted chemical analysis, and expendable supplies. 6.0 Project Team Steve Carlson will serve the City as Project Manager and Scientist. Mr. Carlson will serve as the Ti point of contact with the City of Eden Prairie, and will maintain responsibility for project deliverables and budget considerations. The following biologists will provide services to this project: Joseph Hmielski, Charles Bartelt, and Jason Rauk. Principal review of the STS report -� will be provided by Bob DeGroot. Copies of professional profiles for these staff members are attached to this proposal. If additional services above the scope of work described are requested ,r 1 by the City of Eden Prairie, STS can provide additional professional profiles as appropriate. We provide you with two copies of this proposal for your review and acceptance. Please have the individual responsible for payment of invoices signify acceptance of this proposal by signing i one copy and returning it to STS. Retain the second copy for your records. Acceptance of our proposal indicates that the terms and conditions attached are understood, including payment to e I STS. If you wish to discuss this proposal, please contact Mr. Steve Carlson of STS at 612/315-6340. We look forward to hearing from you. Respectfully, ACCEPTED: —I STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. Date 4 N‘teallasY' Steven J. Carlson Firm Project Scientist . / Authorized Signature 14/I Z-bZ<-71-^ obert L. DeGroot, C G PE Principal Engineer Title —I SJC/dn © 610301PP, STS Consultants, Ltd., May 1998 Encs.: STS General Conditions STS Professional Profiles ` P6301001.DOC a 1 i., Steven J. Carlson Environmental Scientist AREAS OF EXPERTISE Representative Experience • Wetland Delineation • Wetland Assessment Recent experience and duties includes the following: • Ecological Monitoring • Project Manager responsible for an on-going wetland La • Vegetation Plans/ delineation,mitigation permitting, wetland monitoring, Planting Specifications and endangered species surveys for a 900+acre property in Shakopee, Minnesota. EDUCATION • Performs wetland mitigation site monitoringand reporting g P g B.A., Biology, University for replacement wetland as required by CWA and WCA of Minnesota-Duluth, regulations. 1985 • Scientist involved in the field identification of wetland ecosystems for housing development, other private AFFILIATIONS developments and civic infrastructure improvement. Society of Environmental Coordinated and reviewed the work performed by Technocologists subcontracted surveyors. Association of State • Provided environmental protection consulting and a Wetland Managers endangered species/habitat survey work for a telecommunication corridor extending through Minnesota, TRAINING Wisconsin, and Illinois. IlWetland Delineation • Established vegetation sampling methodologies and Training, The Wetland conducted first field reconnaissance for a baseline and 5- Institute, 1990 year ecological study as part of an NPDES permit for a WCA Administrative plastic injection molding company in Michigan. Training, MN Board of ♦ Provided restoration seeding specifications for wetland Water and Soil Resources mitigation sites in Plymouth, Shakopee, and Forest Lake, (BWSR), May 1996 and Minnesota. I 1997 • Conducted wetland and prairie restorations in Owen and Riplinger, Wisconsin following environmental repair for CERTIFICATION train derailments. Coon Creek Watershed • Reviewed proposed seeding specifications for restoration District training on sites in Minneapolis, Shakopee, and Edina, Minnesota. Problem and Disturbed Wetlands, April 1995, • Provided wetland consulting services to the Okabena- 1996 Ocheda Watershed District in Nobles County, Minnesota. HazWaste Safety Training, OSHA/SARA, Certified to Level B; CPR/First Aid I p 6r 'y I Jason P. Rauk Environmental Scientist AREAS OF EXPERTISE Representative Experience • Prairie Identification • Environmental site assessment for vegetation, soil type I ♦ Soil Identification slope, and potential erosion. • Erosion Assessment • Vegetation Design and • Wetland mitigation monitoring on sites in Forest Lake and IInstallation Shakopee, Minnesota. • Landscape Design • Water sample collection from hand augers, push probes, and other approved technologies for surface water Iprotection, groundwater investigations, and property EDUCATION transaction environmental site assessments. B.A., Biology, Gustavus • Conducted site exploration of marsh and wooded swamp Adolphus, 1996, Minor, areas including small bogs for residential development in Environmental Studies Dellwood, Minnesota. I • Coordinated the application and installation of seed mixes. AFFILIATIONS • Directed and evaluated technicians on installation of IInternational Erosion erosion control products. Control Association • Revegetation and erosion control seeding for riverside land spread of river solid waste (dredge material). CERTIFICATION • Field scientist for revegetation and erosion control for I 40 Hour Hazardous Waste SafetyMn/DOT highways. Training, ♦ Coordinated and installed low maintenance and self- OSHA/SARA, Certified to sustaining vegetation(prairie) for IDOT on I-35. Level B; CPR and First Aid • Construction monitoring and documentation for storm sewer and other utilities/improvements on a variety of Confined Space Training projects. Troxler Certified, Troxler • Conducted groundwater sampling and documented Electronic Laboratories, I Inc. vegetative cover conditions on numerous closed landfills in northern Minnesota for U.S. Department of Agriculture. I TRAINING Wetland Delineation : Training, Richard Chinn, 1 1998 I I Pt ( Robert L. DeGroot Principal Engineer AREAS OF EXPERTISE Representative Experience • Environmental Site Responsible for directing and managing projects to address Assessment environmental issues associated with project development. • Remedial Investigation Projects include environmental site assessments, remedial • Corrective Action Design investigations, corrective action design,project management, • Agency Negotiations and corrective action implementation. Representative EDUCATION samples of project experience include: MS. Geo-Engineering, • Principal Reviewer and Project Engineer for Phase I University of Minnesota, Environmental Site Assessment,wetland delineation and 1987 wetland mitigation project associated with various M.S. Water Resource developments. On-site and off-site wetland restoration Management, University of sites were utilized to meet regulatory requirements. Wisconsin-Madison, 1979 B.S. Geology and • Principal Engineer for environmental issues associated Geography, University of with a 300 acre Valley Green development project. Wisconsin-Madison, 1975 Environmental services included wetland delineation, mitigation,plans and specifications implementation, REGISTRATION review of adjacent Environmental Assessment Worksheet Professional Engineer: and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Minnesota, Idaho, Oregon, • Project Manager and Principal Investigator for Utah, Wisconsin, Virginia redevelopment of Specialty Manufacturing building for Professional Geologist: Investment Management Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota. A Wisconsin Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was performed resulting in issuance of"No Action" and"No IIAFFILIATIONS Association" letters from the Minnesota Pollution Control American Society of Civil Agency Voluntary Investigation and Clean-up Program. Engineers Corrective action plan was developed for lead, PCBs and IConsulting Engineers hazardous waste remediation. Grant application submitted Council in cooperation with St. Paul Planning and Economic i American Institute of Development resulted in grant of$493,000 for site Professional Geologists remediation. CERTIFICATIONS • Principal reviewer for watershed management projects including a flood control system in Grand Forks,North Hazardous Waste Safety Dakota and various wetland restoration sites in Minnesota. Training, OSHA/SARA 1 Certified to Level B, CPR and First Aid _I 1 pro Jo Joseph I. Hmieleski, P.W.S. Wetland Scientist AREAS OF Representative Experience SPECIALIZATION Experience in managing all aspects of environmental projects ♦ Wetland Delineation including delineating wetlands, obtaining permits, assessing wetland ecological functions, delineating forest stands, and ♦ Wetland Mitigation complying with federal, state, county and village ♦ Wetland Regulations environmental regulations. Expertise in ecosystem ecology, ♦ Ecology including analytical research in temporal and spatial vegetation dynamics, hydrology and soil biogeochemistry. ♦ Vegetation Analysis Proficient in univariate and multivariate analysis of ecological EDUCATION data. M.S., East Carolina • Delineated wetlands and"waters" for over 100 sites; University, Wetland successfully obtained federal and state wetland permits Ecology, 1994 and Water Quality Certifications for sites ranging from 0.5 to 500 acres in Illinois and Maryland. B.S., University of • Provided peer review of wetland delineations and Maryland Zoology, 1988 jurisdictional determinations for multiple projects associated with the Village of Carol Stream, Illinois. REGISTRATION • Assessed potential impact to wetland functions for Certified Professional riverine, slope and depressional wetlands along a 23 mile Wetland Scientist corridor in Kane County, Illinois. AFFILIATIONS • Headed delineation efforts of a 5 mile, 52 inch water main replacement project in Landover, Maryland. Society of Wetland Scientists • Designed and planned comprehensive mitigation projects and specific monitoring methodology for compensatory Estuarine Research mitigation compliance in Illinois and Maryland. Federation • Prepared biannual reports analyzing abiotic and biotic Sigma Xi Research Society variables affecting water quality, for review by Maryland Ecological Society of National Capital Park and Planning Commission and 1 America Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection. 1 TRAINING • Initiated and developed a hydrogeomorphic reference Army Corps of Engineers database for assessment of riparian functions in wetlands. Manual Wetland • Managed and designed a quantitative study of the 1 Delineator Training vegetation dynamics and water quality functions of storm water wetlands in Virginia and Maryland. Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Functional • Initiated and managed a long-term multidimensional Assessment of Wetlands ecological research project to evaluate factors affecting wetland ecology on the Virginia coast. 1 W-4 ` I STS CONSULTANTS , LTD . GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE • THESE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE, INCLUDING ANY gr;"0SUPPLEMENTAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE WHICH ARE OR MAY ` BECOME APPLICABLE TO THE SERVICES DESCRIBED IN STS' PROPOSAL, ARE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE FOREGOING PROPOSAL AND SHALL ALSO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO ANY AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH SERVICES ARE TO BE PERFORMED BY STS FOR THE CLIENT. No AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING, ORAL OR WRITTEN, WHICH IN ANY WAY MODIFIES OR WAIVES THESE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE SHALL BE BINDING ON STS (WHETHER CONTAINED IN THE CLIENTS PURCHASE FORMS OR OTHERWISE) UNLESS HEREAFTER MADE IN WRITING AND EXECUTED BY STS' AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. SECTION - E 1: a. The scope of work and the time schedules executed by the Client and STS as soon as practica S c o P E OF defined in the Proposal are based on the information ble.STS,at its discretion,may suspend performance WORK provided by the Client and shall be subject to the of its services until such an Amendment has been provisions of this agreement. If this information is executed and,if such an Amendment is not agreed incomplete or inaccurate,or if site conditions are to within a reasonable time,STS may terminate this encountered which materially vary from those indi- Agreement. In the event this Agreement is terminat- cated by the Client,or if the Client directs STS to ed pursuant to this Section,the Client shall pay STS change the original scope of work established by the for all services performed prior to termination and Proposal,a written amendment to the Agreement termination expenses as set forth in Section 15c of equitably adjusting the costs,performance time these General Conditions of Service. and/or terms and conditions thereunder,shall be SECTION 2: a. Payments for services and reimbursable expenses c. The Client's obligation to pay for the services BILLINGS A N o will be made on the basis set forth in the attached performed by STS under this Agreement shall not be PAYMENTS proposal. STS shall periodically submit invoices for reduced or in any way impaired by or because of the services performed and expenses incurred and not Client's inability to obtain financing,zoning, previously billed. Payment is due upon receipt. For approval of governmental or regulatory agencies,or all amounts unpaid after 30 days from the invoice date,as set forth on STS'invoice form,the Client any other cause,reason,or contingency. No deduc- tion shall be made from any invoice on account of agrees to pay a finance charge of one and one-half penalty or liquidated damages nor will any other percent(1-1/2%)per month,eighteen percent(18%) sums be withheld or set off from payments to STS. annually. The fees described in this agreement may Client further agrees to pay STS any and all expenses be adjusted annually on the anniversary date of the incurred in recovering any delinquent amounts due, effective date of this agreement. including,but not limited to reasonable attomey's fees,arbitration or other dispute resolution costs and b. The Client shall provide STS with a clear written all court costs. statement within fifteen(15)days after receipt of the invoice of any objections to the invoice or any por- d. If any subpoena or court order is served upon II tion or element thereof. Failure to provide such a STS and/or any of its staff,subconsultants or sub- written statement shall constitute a waiver of any contractors requiring presentation of documents or such objections and acceptance of the invoice as sub- the appearance of STS'staff,subconsultants or sub- mitted. contractors at a trial,deposition,or for other discov- 12 I SECT ION 2: ery purposes arising out of STS'services performed upon STS of the subpoena or court order. Billings BILLINGS AND under this Agreement,Client will pay STS'fees(if shall include time and expenses incurred gathering, PAYMENT s, any)applicable to STS'compliance with the subpoe- organizing and duplicating documents,preparing to CONTINUED na or court order. Fees will be based on actual units give testimony,travel and testifying in deposition or used at the standard rates in effect at time of service trial. I SECTION 3: a. If services to be provided under this Agreement ty on account of damages to subsurface structures or RIGHT OF require the agents,employees,or contractors of STS injury or loss arising from damage to subsurface ACCESS to enter onto the Project site,Client shall provide structures,the locations of which are not indicated or right-of-access to the site to STS,its employees, are incorrectly indicated by the information provid- agents and contractors,to conduct the planned field ed by the Client. observations or services. c. STS reserves the right to deviate a reasonable dis- b. If the scope of services includes,or is amended to tance from prescribed or selected exploratory boring li include,the performance of exploratory borings or or test pit locations. test pit excavations,Client will furnish to STS all dia- grams,and other information in its possession or d. STS shall take reasonable precautions to mini- reasonably attainable by Client indicating the loca- mize damage to the site due to its operations,but tion and boundaries of the site and subsurface struc- STS has not included in its fee,and is not responsible tures(pipes,tanks,cables,sewers,other utilities, for,the cost of restoration for any damage resulting L etc.)in such detail as to permit identifying,in the from its operations. At the Client's request and for field,boring/test pit locations which will avoid additional fee,STS will,to the extent reasonably interferences with any subsurface structures. Client practicable,restore the site to conditions substantial- shall indemnify and hold STS harmless from liabili- ly similar to those existing prior to STS'operations. [ SECTION 4: a. It is understood and agreed that,with respect to required services in conformance with Federal,state, SAFETY Project site health and safety,STS is responsible sole- and local laws,ordinances and regulations due to 11._ ly for the safe performance by its field personnel of Project site conditions or operations of other parties their activities in performance of the required ser- present on the Project site,STS may,at its discretion, vices. It is expressly agreed that STS'professional suspend its services until such conditions or opera- services hereunder do not involve any responsibility tions are brought into conformance with applicable for the protection and safety of persons on and about laws,ordinances and regulations. If,within a rea- the Project nor is STS to review the adequacy of job sonable time,operations or conditions are not in safety on the Project. It is further understood and conformance with applicable laws,ordinances,and agreed,and not in limitation of the foregoing,that regulations,STS may,at its discretion,terminate this STS shall not be in charge of,and shall have no con- Agreement. In the event that the Agreement is ter- trol or responsibility over any aspect of the erection, minated pursuant to this Section,the Client shall pay construction or use of any scaffolds,hoists,cranes, STS for services and termination expenses as set stays,ladders,supports or other similar mechanical forth in Section 15 of this Agreement. contrivances or safety devices as defined and inter- preted under any structural work act or other d. Current regulations promulgated by the statute,regulation or ordinance relating in any way Occupational Safety and Health Administration to Project safety. (OSHA)require that a"competent person"conduct inspections of excavations and review any support- b. Unless otherwise specifically provided in this ing system if workers are to enter the excavations. Agreement,Client shall provide,at its expense, See OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926(Subpart P). Under the facilities and labor necessary to afford STS field per- scope of work incorporated in this Agreement,STS sonnel access to sampling,testing,or observation does not provide and has not assumed any duties of locations in conformance with federal,state,and inspection and/or monitoring of excavations local laws,ordinances and regulations specifically, required of the"competent person"under OSHA 29 including,but not limited to regulations set forth in CFR Part 1926(Subpart P). STS has neither been OSHA 29 CFR 1926. assigned nor assumed the authority required of the "competent person"under OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926 c. If,in STS'opinion,its field personnel are unable (Subpart P). to access required locations and perform theIII 11 01 SECTION 5: a. Unless otherwise specifically provided in this Upon request,the samples will be shipped,(ship- - S A M P L E S Agreement or amendments thereto,STS reserves the ping charges collected)or stored at the rate indicated right to discard samples immediately after testing. in the fee schedule attached. I SECTION 6: a. STS shall furnish up to six(6)copies of each estimates are and remain the property of STS. Client REPORTS AND report to Client. Additional copies shall be fur- agrees that all reports and other work product fur- O W N E R S H I P OF nished at the rates specified in the fee schedule. nished to the Client not paid for in full will be D 0 C U M E N T S With the exception of STS reports to Client,all docu- returned upon demand and will not be used for any ments,including original boring logs,field data, purpose,including,but not limited to design,con- struction,notes,laboratory test data,calculations and struction,permits or licensing. SECTION 7: a. STS represents that it will perform its services for the Client's sole use to fulfill the purpose of this STANDARD OF under this Agreement in conformance with the care Agreement and STS is not responsible for interpreta- C A R E and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable members tion by others of the information developed. The of the professional engineering community practic- recognizes that subsurface conditions beneath ing under similar conditions at the same time in the the Project site may vary from those encountered in same or similar locality. borings,surveys or explorations and the information and recommendations developed by STS are based b. NO OTHER WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, solely on the information available. EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,AT COMMON LAW 111 OR CREATED BY STATUTE,IS EXTENDED, d. STS is not responsible for supervising,directing, MADE,OR INTENDED BY THE RENDITION OF controlling or otherwise being in charge of the con- CONSULTING SERVICES OR BY FURNISHING struction activities at the Project site;or supervising, ORAL OR WRITTEN REPORTS OF THE FINDINGS directing,controlling or otherwise being in charge of MADE. the actual work of the contractor,its subcontractors, or other materialmen or service providers not c. Any exploration,testing,surveys and analysis engaged by STS. associated with the work will be performed by STS 1 SECTION 8: a. Upon entering into this Agreement,the Client hazard or nuisance to those working in the area, H A z A R D O u s shall notify STS of all such hazardous substances Client shall immediately notify STS of such condi- S U B S T A N C E S which it knows or which it reasonably suspects are tions,potential health hazard or nuisance which it or may be present at or contiguous to the Project site knows or reasonably suspects exists and thereafter or which may otherwise affect the services to be pro- STS is authorized by the Client to take all reasonable vided.Thereafter,such notification to STS shall be measures STS deems necessary to protect its required as soon as practicable after the Client dis- employees against such possible health hazards or 1 covers either the presence of hazardous substances nuisance. The reasonable direct cost of such mea- which were not previously disclosed,increased con- sures shall be borne by the Client. centrations of previously disclosed hazardous sub- stances,or facts or information which cause the c. Following any disclosure as set forth in the pre- Client to reasonably suspect the presence of any ceding paragraphs,or if any hazardous substances such hazardous substances.Hazardous substances or conditions are discovered or reasonably suspected shall include,but not be limited to,any substance by STS after its services are undertaken,STS may,at I which poses or may pose a present or potential haz- ard its discretion,suspend its services until reasonable to human health or the environment whether measures have been taken at the Client's expense to contained in a product,material,by-product,waste protect STS'employees from such hazardous sub- or sample and whether it exists in a solid,liquid, stances or conditions. Whether or not STS suspends semi-solid or gaseous form. its services in whole or in part,the Client and STS agree that the scope of services,terms,and condi- b. If all or any part of the scope of work is to be per- tions,schedule and the estimated fee or budget shall formed in the general vicinity of a facility or in an be adjusted in accordance with the disclosed infor- area where asbestos,dust,fumes,gas,noise,vibra- mation or condition,or STS may,at its discretion, tions or other particulate or nonparticulate matter is terminate the Agreement. In the event that this in the atmosphere where it raises a potential health Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, I 'LI U SECTION 8: the Client shall pay STS for all services rendered fest signed by the Client as generator,release such HAZARDOUS prior to termination and all termination expenses as samples to a carrier selected by the Client to be SUBSTANCE s, set forth in Section15 of these General Conditions of transported to a location selected by the Client for CONTINUED Service. final disposal. The Client agrees to pay all costs associated with the storage,transport,and disposal d. In the event that services under this Agreement of samples. The Client recognizes and agrees that may involve or relate to hazardous substances,or STS is acting as a bailee and at no time assumes title constituents,including hazardous waste(as defined to said samples or substances. I by federal,state or local statutes,regulations or ordi- nances),whether or not involvement or relationship d.2. All laboratory and field equipment contami- was contemplated at the time this Agreement was nated in performing services under this Agreement made or when services by STS began under this which cannot be reasonably decontaminated shall Agreement,the following conditions shall also be become the property and responsibility of the Client. incorporated into the Agreement and be made All such equipment shall be delivered to the Client applicable thereto: or disposed of in a manner similar to that indicated for hazardous samples above. The Client agrees to d.1. In the event that samples collected by or pay the fair market value of any such equipment received by STS on behalf of the Client contain haz- which cannot reasonably be decontaminated and all ardous substances or constituents,including haz- other costs associated with the storage,transport I ardous waste,STS will,after completion of testing and disposal of such equipment. and,at Client's expense,(1)return such samples to Client,or(2)upon written request and using a mani- I SECTION 9: a. "Construction Monitoring Services"is defined as men or service providers from liability in the event CONSTRUCTION services,furnished by STS to the Client,which are of subsequently discovered defects,omissions, MONITORING performed for the purpose of evaluating and/or errors or other deficiencies in their work. The pres- S E R V I C E S documenting general conformance of construction ence or absence of STS on the Project site will not operations or completed work with Project specifica- affect any obligation of any contractor,subcontractorI tions,plans,and/or specific reports of the Project. or other materialman or service provider to perform Such services may include taking of tests or collect- in accordance with the specifications and plans of ing samples of natural or manmade materials at var- the Project. The Client further understands that STS ious locations on a project site,and making visual is not a quality assurance representative for any con- observations related to earthwork,foundations, tractor,subcontractor or other materialman or ser- and/or materials. If the services to be provided by vice provider on the Project. STS under this agreement include or are amended to include Construction Monitoring Services,the provi- d. The Client agrees to supply STS with specifica- sions of this Section 9 shall be an integral part of this tions,plans and other necessary material for the agreement and applicable thereto. Project pertinent to providing its services. I b. The presence of STS field personnel will be for e. Due to the nature of its services,observing and the purpose of providing the client with a profes- field testing the work of contractors,subcontractors sional service based on observations and testing of or materialmen or service providers on the Project, the work which is performed by contractors,subcon- STS cannot always be responsible for the schedule or tractors,or other materialmen or service providers. length of time its field personnel remain on the Such services will only be those specifically request- Project site. The time STS'field personnel spend on ed by the Client and agreed to by STS. Discrepan- the Project site is dependent upon the schedule of des between construction operations or completed the contractors,subcontractors or materialmen or work and project requirements which are noted by service providers whose work they are observing STS field personnel will be referred to the Client,or and/or testing. STS shall make reasonable effort to the Client's representative,as designated prior to utilize its time on the Project site judiciously,but the STS'involvement in the project. Client understands and agrees that any delays,can- cellations,rescheduling,overtime or other construc- c. It is understood and agreed by the Client that the tion activities that may alter the anticipated number observation and testing of natural and/or man made of hours and the anticipated costs of STS on the materials by STS in no way implies a guarantee or Project site and that are beyond the control of STS warranty of the work of the contractors,subcontrac- field personnel are legitimate and chargeable time tors,or other materialmen or service providers,and and will be invoiced at the rates designated in the the services rendered by STS will in no way excuse attached fee schedules. such contractors,subcontractors or other material- 1 SECTION 9: f. Part-time work is defined as Construction g. The Client agrees that STS shall charge a mini- C 0 N Si R U C T I 0 N Monitoring Services provided by STS where its field mum of four(4)hours for any part-time M O N IT O R I N G personnel are on the Project less than five(5)work- Construction Monitoring Services,regardless of the Is E R V I C E S, ing days per week or less than forty(40)hours per actual number of hours utilized. All field personnel CONTINUED week,or both. It is agreed that the Client will fur- charges will be made on a portal-to-portal basis. nish STS with a minimum of one working day's Mileage to and from the Project site will be billed at notice,or twenty-four(24)hours notice,whichever is the rate designated in the attached fee schedules as greater,on any part-time work of STS if field person- will any office engineering time needed to review, s nel are requested. STS shall make reasonable effort evaluate or analyze the field data. All calls made by to provide field personnel on all projects,but re- the Client or the Client's representative to cancel serves the right to schedule its field personnel as it requested part-time STS field personnel must be deems appropriate,including the scheduling of dif- received by STS in time for STS to notify field per- i ferent field personnel from day to day on any given sonnel before they leave for the Project site. STS will part-time project of STS. The Client agrees to inform make reasonable effort to contact its field personnel I STS of the anticipated services required by STS field as quickly as possible,but reserves the right to bill personnel on any day,including but not restricted to the Client the four-hour minimum charge in the the kind and number of tests to be required and the event STS received a cancellation call too late for it to anticipated amount of time the field personnel will intercept the field personnel enroute to the Project Ibe required on the Project site. site. 1 SECTION 10: a. STS'opinions of probable total Project costs and the construction industry; but STS cannot and does OPINIONS o f Project construction costs,if any,provided as part of not guarantee that proposals,bids or actual total C 0 S T the services under this Agreement are made on the Project costs or Project construction costs will not I basis of STS'knowledge,experience and qualifica- vary from opinions of probable cost provided by tions and represent STS'judgment as an experienced STS. and qualified professional engineer,familiar with i SECTION 11: a. In the event that the scope of services includes tractor(s)has,in writing,called STS'attention to SHOP DRAWINGS review and approval of Shop Drawings or other data each such variation at the time of submission and which contractor(s)are required to submit,STS' STS has given written approval of each such varia- review and approval will be only for conformance lion by a specific written notation incorporated into with the design concept of the Project and for corn- or accompanying the Shop Drawing or other data. I pliance with the information given in the Project Approval by STS will not relieve the contractor(s) plans and specifications and shall not extend to from responsibility for errors or omissions in the means,methods,techniques,sequences or proce- Shop Drawings or other data. dures of construction,or to safety precautions or programs incident thereto. c. STS will accept Shop Drawings or other data submittals only from the contractor(s)required by b. STS'review and approval of Shop Drawings or the Project contract documents to furnish the Shop I other data shall not relieve the contractor(s)from Drawings or data. STS will reasonably promptly responsibility for any variation from the require- review and approve,or take other appropriate ments of the plans and specifications unless the con- action in regard to,Shop Drawings or data properly submitted to STS. i I I ICv I SECTION 12: a. IT IS AGREED THAT THE CLIENT'S MAXI- d.1. In no event shall continuation of Client'sII A L I.0 C A T I 0 N MUM RECOVERY AGAINST STS FOR THE PRO- obligation to defend STS,as stated above,be condi- o F R I S K FESSIONAL SERVICES PERFORMED UNDER THIS tional upon STS'contributing any sums of money AGREEMENT,WHETHER IN CONTRACT,TORT toward settlement of any claim. In the event STS is OR OTHERWISE,IS$50,000 OR THE AMOUNT OF held liable for a greater than pro rata share of any 1-1 STS'FEE,WHICHEVER IS GREATER. IT IS common liability for damage or injury to person(s) EXPRESSLY AGREED THAT THE CLIENT'S SOLE or property by operation of law,Client agrees to AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AGAINST STS FOR indemnify STS for those damages awarded in excess U PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERFORMED UNDER of its pro rata share. THIS AGREEMENT,WHETHER BASED IN CON- TRACT,TORT OR OTHERWISE,IS THE AWARD d.2. In the event it is adjudicated that the event OF DAMAGES NOT TO EXCEED THE STIPULAT- and/or damages giving rise to the claim were ED$50,000 FIGURE,OR THE AMOUNT OF STS' caused in whole or in part by the negligence of STS, FEE,WHICHEVER IS GREATER. IN NO EVENT Client's obligation to indemnify STS for costs of SHALL STS BE LIABLE,WHETHER IN CON- defense shall be reduced by an amount proportion- I TRACT,TORT OR OTHERWISE,FOR CLIENT'S ately equal to the share of damages attributable to LOSS OF PROFITS,DELAY DAMAGES,OR FOR STS'negligence. STS shall reimburse Client for such ANY SPECIAL,INCIDENTAL,OR CONSEQUEN- proportionate defense costs incurred by client in TIAL LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY NATURE ARIS- defending STS as required by this paragraph 12.d. 1NG AT ANYTIME OR FROM ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER. a. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement,it is further agreed that to the fullest b. Documents,including but not limited to,techni- extent permitted by law the Client shall indemnify IL cal reports,original boring logs,field data,field and hold harmless STS and its employees,agents, notes,laboratory test data,calculations and esti- contractors and consultants from and against all mates furnished to the Client or its agents pursuant claims,damages,losses and expenses,direct and to this Agreement are not intended or represented to indirect,or consequential damages,including but be suitable for reuse by the Client or others on exten- not limited to attorneys'fees and all Court,arbitra- sions of the Project or on any other project. Any tion or other dispute resolution costs,arising out of, reuse without STS'written consent will be at Client's resulting from,or related to the presence and/or I sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to involvement of hazardous substances or con- STS or to STS'contractor(s)and Client shall indem- stituents,including hazardous waste,at or contigu- nify and hold harmless STS and STS'contractor(s) ous to the Project site or contained in samples col- from all claims,damages,losses and expenses lected by or received by STS from the Project site. including attorney's fees arising out of or resulting The indemnification set forth in this paragraph 12.e. therefrom. extends to claims against STS which arise out of,are related to,or are based upon,the dispersal,disIf - c. Under no circumstances shall STS be liable for charge,escape,release,spillage or saturation of extra work or other consequences due to changed smoke,vapors,soot,fumes,acids,alkalis,toxic conditions or for costs related to failure of the con- chemicals,liquids,gases or any other material,irri- E struction contractor or materialmen or service tant,contaminant or pollution in or into the Minos- providers to install work in accordance with the phere,or on,onto,upon,in or into the surface or plans and specifications. subsurface(a)soil,(b)water or watercourses,(c) objects,or(d)any tangible or intangible matter, [ d. If any claim,suit,or legal proceeding,including whether such event or circumstances is sudden or but not limited to arbitration or meditation,(collec- not. Nothing in this Paragraph 12.e. is intended to tively"claim")arising out of the services under this indemnify,or shall be construed as indemnifying,Agreement is asserted against STS by a person or STS with respect to claims,losses,expenses or dam- [ entity who is not a party to this Agreement,Client ages to the extent caused by STS'own negligent acts agrees,at its sole cost and expense,to defend STS or omissions. from and against any such claim,suit or legal pro- ceeding. The Client's obligation hereunder includes, I but is not limited to,the payment of attorney's fees, court costs,and expert and consulting expenses I required for the proper and vigorous defense of STS. I I x,. SECTION 13: a. STS represents that it and its agents,and consul- ty in STS'liability policies,the cost of such inclusions L I A B I L I T Y tants employed by it,is and are protected by or increased limits shall be borne by the Client. Except INSURANCE Worker's Compensation insurance and that STS has as otherwise provided in Section 12 the Client agrees to -. coverage under liability insurance policies which limit the liability of STS to the limits of STS'insurance. STS deems reasonable and adequate. Upon request, STS shall not be responsible for claims,damages,losses STS shall furnish certificates of insurance to the and expenses arising out of or resulting from acts d Client evidencing the risks insured against,and the and/or omissions of the Client,its employees,agents, II limits of liability thereunder. In the event the Client staff,consultants,contractors or subcontractors requires specific inclusions of coverage in addition employed by it or by any other entity. to that obtained by STS,or increased limits of liabili- ' SECTION 14: a. All claims,disputes,controversies or matters in Demand for arbitration shall be made by either party D I s v UT E question arising out of,or relating to this Agreement within ten(10)calendar days following termination R E S o L U T I o N or any breach thereof,including but not limited to of mediation. The date of termination of mediation disputes arising out of alleged design defects, shall be the date of written notice of closing of medi- breaches of contract,errors,omissions,or acts of ation proceedings issued by the mediator to each of ill professional negligence,(collectively"disputes") the parties. Demand for arbitration shall be made by shall be submitted to mediation before and as a con- filing notice of demand,in writing,with the other dition precedent to any other remedy. Upon written party and the American Arbitration Association. request by either party to this Agreement for media- The award rendered,if any,by the arbitrator(s)shall tion of any dispute,Client and STS shall select by be final and binding on both parties and judgment ji mutual agreement a neutral mediator. Such selec- may be entered upon it in accordance with applica- tion shall be made within ten(10)calendar days of ble law in any court having jurisdiction. j the date of receipt by the other party of the written request for mediation. In the event of failure to c. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this reach such agreement or in any instance when the Section 14,in no event shall a demand for mediation selected mediator is unable or unwilling to serve and be made more than two(2)years from the date the 71 a replacement mediator cannot be agreed upon by party making demand knew or should have known Client and STS within ten(10)calendar days,a of the dispute or six(6)years from the date of sub- mediator shall be chosen as specified in the stantial completion of STS'participation in the I Construction Industry Mediation Rules of the Project,whichever date shall occur earlier. American Arbitration Association then in effect. d. All mediation or arbitration shall take place in b. If a dispute cannot be settled through mediation Chicago,Illinois unless Client and STS agree other- as set forth above,then such dispute shall be decid- wise. The fees of the mediator or arbitrator(s)and ed by arbitration in accordance with the the costs of transcription and other costs incurred by Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the the mediator or arbitrator(s)shall be apportioned American Arbitration Association then in effect. equally between the parties. 11 I SECTION 15: a. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon at least seven(7)days written notice in b. In addition,STS may terminate this Agreement TERMINATION if the Client suspends STS'services for more than the event of substantial failure by the other party to sixty(60)consecutive days through no fault of STS. perform in accordance with the terms hereof Ithrough no fault of the terminating party. Such ter c. If this Agreement is terminated,STS shall be urination shall not be effective if that substantial fail- paid for services performed prior to the termination ure has been remedied before expiration of the peri- date set forth in the notice plus termination expens- u od specified in the written notice. The only excep- es. Termination expenses shall include personnel tions to this seven-day written notice condition are and equipment rescheduling and re-assignment STS'rights to terminate this Agreement as set forth adjustments and all other related costs incurred in Sections 1,4 and 8 of the Agreement. directly attributable to termination. 1 I I I$ SECTION 16: a. Client agrees that,prior to the completion of of employment opportunities with Client,Client's [ EMPLOYMENT STS'services on the Project,Client and its officers, parent or affiliate organization(s),if any,nor(3) agents or employees shall neither(1)offer employ- inquire into employment satisfaction of STS' ment to STS'employees,(2)advise STS'employees employees. i_ SECTION 17: a. The relationship between the Client and STS cre- not a party hereto and no such person or entity is INDEPENDENT ated under this Agreement is that of principal and intended to be or shall be construed as being,a CONTRACTOR independent contractor. Neither the terms of this third-party beneficiary of this Agreement unless Agreement nor the performance thereof is intended specified by name herein or in an Amendment here- to directly or indirectly benefit any person or entity to,executed by STS'authorized representative. SECTION 18: a. In the event that any provision herein shall be sions hereof shall remain in full force and effect,and S E Y E R A s I L I T Y deemed invalid or unenforceable,the other provi- binding upon the parties hereto. SECTION 19: a. The heading or title of a section is provided for SECTION convenience and information and shall not serve to HEADINGS alter or affect the provisions included herein. l'" SECTION 20: a. All obligations arising prior to the termination of Client and STS shall survive the completion of ser- r SURVIVAL this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement vices and the termination of this Agreement. allocating responsibility or liability between the i- S E C T I O N 21: a. Neither the Client nor STS may delegate,assign, ests in this Agreement without the written consent A s s I c N s sublet or transfer its duties,responsibilities or inter- of the other party. SECTION 2 2: a. This Agreement shall be governed by the law of 1 CHOICE OF LAW the State of Illinois. IF SECTION 2 3: a. Written notice shall be deemed to have been delivered at or sent by registered or certified mail to WRITTEN duly served if delivered in person to the individual the last business address known to the party giving N 0 T I C E or a member of the firm or entity or to an officer of notice. the corporation for which it was intended,or if I I I I 1 ii DATE: 06/02/98 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: TV GSECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 94-5350 Public Works Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Eugene A. Dietz Change Order No. 4 Requested Action: Approve Change Order No. 4 to the contract with Knutson Construction Company for the Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project in the amount of$22,417.26. Background: The attached Change Order and letter from Black & Veatch dated May 15, 1998 describes each element of the Change Order for the project. This Change Order is actually comprised of 23 separate issues that have been resolved as indicated over the past several months. The combination of Change Order Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 result in a net increase to the contract of $140,958.26 to an adjusted amount of $20,344,958.26 (a 0.69% increase over the original contract price). Substantial completion for the project (as required by contract) was met on April 1, 1998 -- we were able to produce water through the new facility. The final completion date is not until October and the work that remains includes painting, landscaping, grading of the "front yard" and other miscellaneous details. As soon as we are certain that the filter presses are fully reliable, the grading contractor can fill in the residual lagoons and finish grading the site. Due to planting schedules, it may be necessary to finish landscaping this fall. I had anticipated only four change orders to the project. However, since there will be a fairly significant time period this summer when little work will be done by the contractor, Knutson Construction Company asked that we process a change order now and a final one at the end of the project near October. I Ulf BLACK & VEATCHLLP 8400 Ward Parkway,P.O. Box No.8405, Kansas City, Missouri 64114,(913)458-2000 Eden Prairie, Minnesota B&V Project 26014.400 Water Treatment Plant Improvements B&V File G-1.0 May 15, 1998 Mr. Gene Dietz Director of Public Works City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Subject: Change Order No. 4 Dear Gene: Enclosed are four copies of Change Order No. 4 for the Water Treatment Plant Improvements project. The following is a brief description of each item included in the change order: Snow Melt System (RFP-36). It was decided to eliminate the snow melt system in its entirety as indicated in RFP No. 36 dated October 23, 1997. Intercom System (RFP-28). In an effort to decrease costs and increase intercom system efficiency, several modifications to the system were performed. These modifications are detailed in RFP-28 dated August 19, 1997. Air Service Butterfly Valve (RFP-39). It was determined that the lime blower system could operate without the 6-inch butterfly valve in the lime blower discharge piping. The valve was deleted in RFP-39 dated November 13, 1997. Additional Input/Output Field Device Signals (RFP-46). Three I/O points were not identified in the I/O list, but existed in the electrical one-line diagram. RFP-46, dated January 8, 1998, adds the discrete inputs to PLC-1 (Filter Control Panel), including them in the I/O list. Room 226 PC Outlet (RFP-31). The ethernet data highway was expanded with the addition of a PC outlet on the west wall of Room 226, as indicated in RFP-31 dated September 9, 1997. Heating Water Pump Modifications (COR-19). When the new circulating pumps were brought on site, it was determined that piping modifications would be Page 2 Mr. Gene Dietz B&V Project 26014.400 May 15, 1998 necessary for connection to the existing piping. The required modifications to the piping are indicated in COR-19 dated October 16, 1997. Beam B356 & Roof Opening in Room 240 (COR-25). Beam 356 was constructed in accordance with Section 7/N7 of the Contract Documents; however, one inch of the corbel which supports the face brick had to be removed to ensure a leak tight closure between the standing seam roof and the masonry wall. COR-25, dated October 27, 1997, indicates the cost and details associated with the modification. Entryway Concrete (COR-31). There was no sidewalk indicated between the south building entrance and the demonstration gardens. This sidewalk was required to complete the entryway. As a result, approximately 7.5 cubic yards of concrete was used in constructing the sidewalk on a time and materials basis, as indicated in COR-31 dated December 29, 1997. Skylight Flashing (COR-33). The installation of flashing around the openings in the hollow core panels at the five skylights located above the filters was recommended by the plant staff to provide a more finished appearance to the area since it is part of the public tour route. The changes are detailed in COR 33 dated December 11, 1997. Terrazzo Crack Isolation Membrane (COR-35). Due to the potential problems with terrazzo cracking on suspended slabs, a crack isolation membrane was added under the terrazzo on the second floor, as indicated in COR-35 dated December 22, 1998. The use of this type of membrane is becoming more common for this application. Precast Parapet (COR-36). As described in RFI-81, the contractor was having difficulty installing steel roof beams as shown on Detail B/D42. Some portions of the existing parapet were a single-piece and in order to install these steel roof beams, these single-piece precast parapet sections needed to be sawcut. This issue, detailed in COR-36 dated January 9, 1998, was a continuation of the previously approved COR-26. Filter Press Drain Valve Actuators (RFP-6.02). In order to achieve proper filter press sequence of operations, pneumatic actuators had to be added to both filter press drain valves as indicated in RFP-6.02 dated January 12, 1998. Filter Press Input/Outputs (RFP-29). In order to allow for remote monitoring of the dewatering system from the Plant Control System, a two inch conduit and wiring connecting the Filter Press Control Panel with the Filter Control Panel were added. As indicated in RFP-29, dated August 19, 1997, this additional instrumentation facilitates plant operations when a dedicated operator for the dewatering system is not on duty. Page 3 Mr. Gene Dietz B&V Project 26014.400 May 15, 1998 Hose Reel Piping & Utility Garage Heating System (COR-37). As a result of the demolition of the existing Public Works Building, new gas heaters were installed in the Utility Garage. Gas regulators were installed to maintain service to these new heaters since they operate at a lower pressure than the existing heaters. In addition, 40 feet of 1-1/2 inch non-potable water piping to the Utility Garage was installed to supply water to a hose reel in Room 247, as indicated in COR-37 dated January 20, 1998. Chlorine Alarm (COR-40). As discussed with the City staff, a chlorine alarm was added in the existing control room. The new alarm will notify the operators if a chlorine leak develops in the new chlorine storage room. As indicated in COR-40 dated March 4, 1998, the work involved with this addition proceeded on a time and materials basis. Paint Projection Room (RFP-49). In order to maximize the quality of the video projection screen, the interior of Room 213 was painted "flat black" as described in RFP-49 dated February 3, 1998. Core Blowdown Sludge Piping (RFP-3.02). The core blowdown sludge piping diameter was changed from six inches to three inches as indicated in RFP-3.02, dated January 7, 1997. Utilities Garage (RFP-43).. Various electrical and mechanical modifications to the Utilities Garage were performed as indicated in RFP-43, dated January 9, 1998. Fire Sprinklers (RFP-48). As directed by the City Fire Marshall and outlined in RFP-48 dated January 8, 1998, Zone 3 of the fire suppression system was extended to include several existing rooms. High Service Pumping Connection (COR-16). During construction of the 24-inch High Service Discharge, a fitting on the existing 8-inch water main separated from the pipe, causing silt to enter the storm drain. The fitting was not restrained by thrust block or restrained joint, as would have been anticipated, and the separation occurred when the surrounding soil was removed. COR-16, dated August 14, 1997 and revised on March 13, 1998, covers the vacuuming of this silt and the repair required for the 8-inch water main. Fire Horn (COR-41). As directed by the City Fire Marshall and outlined in COR- 41 dated March 10, 1998, a fire horn and strobe light were installed at the designated fire connection. Polyphosphate Mixing System and Fluoride Feeder Modifications (RFP-7, RFP-17). After the Contract Documents were issued, we had further discussions with the Page 4 Mr. Gene Dietz B&V Project 26014.400 May 15, 1998 plant staff and it was determined that additional polyphosphate tank capacity was not required. As indicated in RFP-7, dated November 14, 1997, the existing polyphosphate tank was to remain unchanged. In addition, it was also determined that the current capacity of the existing fluoride feeder was adequate and modifications to the fluoride feeder screw assembly as outlined in RFP-17 dated April 23, 1997, were not needed. Monument Sign (COR-43). In an effort to provide a more durable entrance sign which is compatible with other City monument signs, the monument sign was changed from a wood backing with aluminum cladding to an aluminum sign with aluminum cladding. We have evaluated the proposed changes and the costs associated with these modifications and they appear to be reasonable. Therefore, we recommend that Change Order No. 4 be submitted to the City Council for approval. If the change order is acceptable, Knutson's representative can come by your office to sign the change order for submittal to the City Council. Once fully executed, please return three signed copies. We will forward two copies to Knutson for their files and for their Surety. If you have any questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, BLACK & VEATCH LLP P•t-4- /David J.J. Carlson Enclosures cc: Ed Sorensen Todd Schilling Paul Slusher DATE: 06/02/98 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: EV. H , SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Release of Land from Agreement Regarding Utility Additional Connection Jim Richardson Charges Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Release of Land from the Agreement for Additional Connection Charges against the property identified as 14-116-22-43-0005 with an address of 8511 Franlo Road and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the release. Background: In March of 1995, the City entered into an agreement with the property owners of said property for additional connection charges because of use other than single family residential. The agreement was recorded at Hennepin County and appears on the title of the lot. Staff has been requested that the City release this agreement. The charges have been levied, therefore, it is appropriate and timely to release this agreement. E RELEASE OF LAND This Release of Land is executed by the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and is dated as of June 2, 1998. FACTS 1. A certain Agreement Regarding Utility Additional Connection Charges ("Agreement") dated March 11, 1995, was executed by and between the City and Almeda P. Karsko, which Agreement was filed as Document No. 6413262 with the Hennepin County Recorder on April 4, 1995. 2. The utility charges contemplated by the Agreement have been levied and the time for appeal has expired. 3. To evidence the fact that the utility charges have been levied and the time for appeal has expired, the City is executing this Release of Land. THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereby releases the Property from all obligations and conditions set forth in the Agreement Regarding Additional Connection Charges dated March 31, 1995 filed with the Registrar of Titles as Document No. 6413262 on April 4, 1995. This Release of Land shall not release or discharge the Property from the lien of any special assessments levied by the City pursuant to the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Eden Prairie has executed the foregoing instrument. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE A Municipal Corporation BY: BY: Jean L. Harris Carl J. Jullie Its Mayor Its City Manager Z DATE: 06/02/98 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: f V-t. SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Release of Land from Agreement Regarding Utility Additional Connection Jim Richardson Charges Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Release of Land from the Agreement for Additional Connection Charges against the property identified as 14-116-22-43-0002 with an address of 8561 Franlo Road and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the release. Background: In March of 1995, the City entered into an agreement with the property owners of said property for additional connection charges because of use other than single family residential. The agreement was recorded at Hennepin County and appears on the title of the lot. Staff has been requested that the City release this agreement. The charges have been levied, therefore, it is appropriate and timely to release this agreement. RELEASE OF LAND This Release of Land is executed by the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and is dated as of June 2, 1998. FACTS 1. A certain Agreement Regarding Utility Additional Connection Charges ("Agreement") dated March 2, 1995, was executed by and between the City and Charles E. and Carol J. Blesener, which Agreement was filed as Document No. 6415225 with the Hennepin County Recorder on April 11, 1995. 2. The utility charges contemplated by the Agreement have been levied and the time for appeal has expired. 3. To evidence the fact that the utility charges have been levied and the time for appeal has expired, the City is executing this Release of Land. THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereby releases the Property from all obligations and conditions set forth in the Agreement Regarding Additional Connection Charges dated March 2, 1995 filed with the Registrar of Titles as Document No. 6415225 on April 11, 1995. This Release of Land shall not release or discharge the Property from the lien of any special assessments levied by the City pursuant to the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Eden Prairie has executed the foregoing instrument. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE A Municipal Corporation BY: BY: Jean L. Harris Carl J. Jullie Its Mayor Its City Manager 2 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6-2-98 SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. IV f DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger WELTER'S BROOKHAVEN FARM Scott A. Kipp Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Approve 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 23.45 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 21.77 acres and Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.38 acres and from Rural to R1-9.5 on 0.3 acres; • Approval of a Developer's Agreement. Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change 2. Developer's Agreement WELTER'S BROOKHAVEN FARM CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 15-98-PUD-11-98 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance(hereinafter,the"land")is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the RM-6.5,R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 Zoning Districts 15-98-PUD-11-98(hereinafter"PUD-11-98-RM-6.5, R1-13.5 and R1-9.5"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of June 2, 1998, entered into between Welter's Brookhaven Farm Development Co., and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-11-98-RM-6.5,R1-13.5 and R1-9.5, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-11-98-RM-6.5, R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-11-98-RM-6.5,R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD-11-98-RM-6.5,R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-11-98-RM-6.5,R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction,marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. 2 Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-11-98-RM-6.5,R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03,subdivision 1,subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled"General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation"and Section 11.99 entitled"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 7th day of April, 1998, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 2nd day of June, 1998. ATTEST: Donald R. Uram,. City Clerk Jean L. Harris,Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on . 3 WELTER'S BROOKHAVEN FARM CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 15-98-PUD-11-98 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located at the Northeast corner of Homeward Hills Road and Pioneer Trail from Rural to RM-6.5 on 21.77 acres, from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.38 acres and from Rural to R1-9.5 on 0.3 acres. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/Donald R. Uram /s/Jean L. Harris City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) • Exhibit A Welter's Brookhaven Farm Legal Description: PUD Concept Review, PUD District Review, Preliminary Plat That part of Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 1032, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying Westerly, Northerly and Northwesterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the survey line of Hennepin County Highway Plat 6 a distance of 886 feet East from the West line of the Northeast 1/4, Section 26, Township 116, Range 22, as measured along said survey line, thence Northeasterly at right angles distant 412 feet, thence Southeasterly at right angles to the centerline of Purgatory Creek, thence Northerly and Northwesterly along the centerline of said creek to the North line of said Tract B, the centerline of said creek being the same as the Southwesterly line of Welter Purgatory Acres 1st Addition, 2nd Addition and 3rd Addition. Except that part of the West 40 feet thereof lying South of the North 250 feet thereof. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 That part of Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 1032, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows : Beginning at a point on the survey line of Hennepir. .County Highway Plat 6 a distance of 886 feet East from the West line of the Northeast 1/4, Section 26, Township 116, Range 22, as measured along said survey line, thence Northeasterly at right angles distant 522. 25 feet, thence North 68°19 ' 16" West 288. 72 feet, thence North 49°43 ' 58" West 150 . 30 feet, thence North 37°37 ' 48" West 235 . 10 feet, thence North 56°38 ' 18" West 267.45 feet, thence South 89°37 ' 26" West 361. 67 feet to the West line of said Tract B said Tract B being the same as the West line° of Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, Township 116, Range 22, thence South 0022 ' 34" East 667. 27 feet more or less to the center of County Road No. 1, thence Southeast 886 feet to the point of beginning. Except the West 40 feet for Homeward Hills Road and except the South 50 feet for County Road No. 1 (Pioneer Trail) . Legal Descriptions continued: Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 That part of Tract B Registered Land Survey No. 1032, : Hennepin County, Minnesota beginning at a point on the West line of said Tract B distan°t 667. 27 feet North of the Southwest corner of Tract B, thence North 89 37 ' 26" East 361.67 feet, thence North 40°58 '51" West 326. 65 feet, thence South 49 01 '09" West 62.88 feet, thence South 89°37 '26" West 61.34 feet to a point 40 feet East of the West line of said Tract B, thence South parallel with the West line• 207.07 feet to a point 40 feet East of the point of beginning and there terminating. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 That part of Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 1032, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows : Beginning at a point on the survey line of Hennepin County Highway Plat 6 a distance of 886 feet East from the West line of the Northeast 1/4, Section 26, Township 116, Range 22 as measured along said survey line, thence Northeasterly at right angles distant 264. 12 feet, thence North 56°30 ' 18" West 27. 38 feet, thence South- westesterly along a curve 44.63 feet, radius 50 .0 feet, thence South 36° 42 ' 13" West 161.40 feet, thence Southeasterly 73 . 35 feet more or less to a point 78. 10 feet North of the point of beginning and there terminating. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WELTER'S BROOKHAVEN FARM THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of June 2, 1998, by Welter's Brookhaven Farm Development Co., a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City": WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 23.45 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 23.45 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 21.77 acres, Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.38 acres, Rural to R1-9.5 on 0.3 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 23.45 acres into 43 lots, 2 outlots and road right of way, for construction of 40 twinhome units and 3 single-family homes, all on 23.45 acres legally described on Exhibit A (the "Property"); NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. 98-61 for Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Ordinance No.15-9$' for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5, Rural to R1-13.5, and Rural to R1-9.5, and Resolution No. 98-62 for Preliminary Plat, Developer agrees to construct, develop and maintain the Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer agrees to develop the Property in conformance with the materials originally dated March 16, 1998, reviewed and approved by the City Council on April 7, 1998, subsequently revised and dated May 19, 1998, attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXfIIBIT C: Developer agrees to the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C. 3. STREET AND UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the construction of streets and utilities for the Property,Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's written approval of plans for streets, public sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer. Plans for public infrastructures shall be of a plan view and profile on 24 x 36 plan sheets consistent with City standards. A permit fee of five percent of construction value shall be paid to City by Developer. The design engineer shall provide daily inspection, certify completion in conformance to approved plans and specifications and provide record drawings. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved street and utility plans prior to building permit issuance. 4. GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS: A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer agrees that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the release of a land alteration permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's written approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the Property. The final grading and drainage plan shall include all water quality ponds, storm water detention areas and other items required by the application for and release of a land alteration permit. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. The Developer shall certify to the City that the water quality pond conforms to the final grading plan prior to release of the grading bond. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. Developer shall employ the design professional who prepared the final grading plan. The design professional shall monitor construction for conformance to the approved final grading plan and City erosion control policy.` The design professional shall provide a final report to the City certifying completion of the grading in conformance the approved final grading plan and City erosion control policy. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's written approval of an erosion control plan for the Property. The erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features,temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures: All site grading operations shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan prior to release of the grading bond. Developer shall remove any sediment that accumulates in the existing and or proposed sedimentation pond during construction. Developer shall provide preconstruction and post construction surveys for evaluation by City. 5. GRADING IN THE WOODED AREAS ON SITE: Prior to grading within any of the wooded areas on the Property, delineated on Exhibit B, Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the City Forester's written approval of a plan depicting construction grading limits on the Property. Prior to the issuance of any land alteration permit, Developer shall place a construction fence on the approved construction grading limits. Developer shall notify the City and watershed district 48 hours in advance of grading so that the construction limit fence may be field inspected and approved by the City Engineer and City Forester. Developer shall maintain the construction limit fence until written approval is granted by the City to remove the fence. 6. CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF EXISTING TREES ON THE PROPERTY: Prior to release of the final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit a Conservation Easement, as depicted in Exhibit E, for review and written approval by the Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources,over Outlot A of the Property as depicted on Exhibit B. Concurrent with the filing of the final plat for the Property, Developer shall file the approved Conservation Easement and submit evidence to the Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources, that the approved Conservation Easement has been filed in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrar of Titles' Office. 7. TRAIL EASEMENT: Prior to release of the final plat for the Property,Developer shall submit a Trail Easement over Outlot A, as depicted in Exhibit B, for review and written approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. Concurrent with the filing of the final plat for the Property, Developer shall file the approved Trail Easement and submit evidence to the Director of submit evidence to the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources, that the approved Trail Easement has been filed in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrar of Titles' Office. 8. PRETREATMENT POND: Prior to street and utility plan approval on the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and receive the City Engineer's written approval of plans and design information for all storm water quality facilities to be constructed on the Property. The Developer agrees to install a 5 foot high, black or green vinyl clad chain link fence along the Homeward Hills Road trail to protect the trail users adjacent to the pretreatment pond, as depicted in Exhibit B. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved storm water quality facility plan and vinyl clad chain link fence concurrently, and prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the Property, Developer shall provide to the City Engineer proof that the pond size has not diminished from the original design volume because of sedimentation, erosion or other causes, and that the pond has been restored to its original volume if the pond size has diminished. 9. PLANS FOR INDIVIDUAL HOME CONSTRUCTION: Prior to building permit issuance for each residential structure on each parcel of the Property, a Certificate of Survey for such parcel shall be submitted for review and written approval by the Building Department. The Certificate of Survey shall include a certification by the builder that construction of the residence is consistent with this Agreement and all exhibits attached hereto, and shall further contain the following information: A. Location of structures with finished floor elevations. B. Retaining walls, type, height, and type of details. C. Location of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, gas, and electric lines. q D. Method of erosion control. E. No construction or grading within any conservancy easement area. F. For Lots 9 through 22, Block 1, and Lots 9 through 21, Block 2, houses shall include a roof drain system designed to take storm water runoff toward the storm sewer system within the proposed rear yards as depicted on Exhibit B. 10. TREE LOSS-TREE REPLACEMENT: Tree loss related to development on the Property is calculated at 56 caliper inches. Tree replacement required is 56 caliper inches. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for the Property,Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the City Forester's written approval of a tree replacement plan for 56 caliper inches. This approved plan shall include replacement trees of a 3-inch diameter minimum size for a shade tree and a 7-foot minimum height for conifer trees. The approved plan shall also provide that, should actual tree loss exceed that calculated herein, Developer shall provide tree replacement on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis for such excess loss. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved tree replacement plan prior to building permit issuance. 11. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance,the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity, type, and size of plant materials shown on the landscape plan on Exhibit B. Developer shall furnish to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape bond equal to 150% of the cost of said improvements as required by City Code. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved landscape plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C. 12. IRRIGATION PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved irrigation plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. 13. HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS: Prior to the release by the City of any final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit Homeowner's Association documents to the City for review and approval by the City Planner. The Homeowner's Association documents shall include,but not limited to,access to and maintenance of the private driveway and gazebos, architectural control,including,but not limited to, building colors, building style and roof lines, Jo and such other matters as are normally contained in such documents. 14. STREET NAME: Prior to final plat approval,Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain the City Engineer's approval of the street name for the Property. 15. FLOOD PLAIN MAP REVISIONS: Prior to release of the final plat for the Property, Developer shall obtain a Letter of Map Amendment from the Federal Emergency Management Agency accurately locating the flood plain on the Property, and shall submit a copy of the Letter of Map Amendment to the City Engineer. 16. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: The city hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within the RM-6.5 District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the Property as depicted in Exhibit B, and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD. A. Cul-de-sac length of 1,120 feet. City Code maximum is 500 feet. B. Minimum abutting lot size in the Shoreland area less than 10,000 square feet for Lots 12 through 16, Block 1. 17. DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTRACTORS: Developer agrees to release, defend and indemnify City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, complaints, loss, costs (including attorneys' fees), damages and injunctions relating to any acts, failures to act, errors, omissions of Developer or Developer's consultants, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and agents. Developer shall not be released from its responsibilities to release, defend and indemnify because of any inspection, review or approval by City. 11 OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN WELTER'S BROOKHAVEN FARM DEVELOPMENT CO. AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of , 19 , by and between Ray N. Welter, Sr. Family Limited Partnership, a Minnesota Limited Partnership, ("Owner"), and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ("City"): For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Resolution No. 98-61 for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance No. for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5,Rural to R1-13.5, and from Rural to R1-9.5, and Resolution No. 98-62 for Preliminary Plat for the Property owned by Owner as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 19 , by and between Welter's Brookhaven Farm Development Co., a Minnesota Corporation, and City("Developer's Agreement"), Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. If Welter's Brookhaven Farm Development Co., fails to complete construction and development in accordance with the Developer's Agreement and fails to obtain an occupancy permit for all of the improvements referred to in the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date of this Owners' Supplement, Owner shall not oppose the City's reconsideration and rescission of the PUD Concept Review, PUD District Review and Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat identified above, thus restoring the status of the Property before the Developer's Agreement and all approvals listed above were approved. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns of the Property. 3. If Owner transfers this Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring that such transferee agree to all of the terms, conditions and obligations of "Developer" in the Developer's Agreement. /a CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Date: Section: Consent Calendar May 28, 1998 Department: Item Description: Item No.: Approve order to have the unsanitary Inspections conditions at 16501 Pioneer Trl remedied ill hi, Requested Action Approve order to have the unsanitary conditions at 16501 Pioneer Tr1 remedied. Background The septic system serving the home located at 16501 Pioneer Trl has failed. Sewage from the failed system is causing an unsanitary condition and a Health hazard. Attachments STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT City of Eden Prairie, Plaintiff, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND v. ORDER James Davidson, Deborah Timm, Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corporation, and First Bank of South Dakota, Defendants. TO: James Davidson, Deborah Timm, Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corporation, and First Bank of South Dakota: The Council of the City of Eden Prairie makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order ("Order"): 1. This Order is made pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 463.15-463.21. 2. James Davidson and Deborah Timm are the owners of property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows: Lot 9, Block 1, Eden Heights, except the South 300 feet thereof, according to the plat thereof on file or of record. 3. Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corporation is the assignee and current holder of a mortgage on the Property dated January 29, 1993, granted to Metropolitan Federal Bank, fsb, filed April 13, 1993 as Mortgage Document No. 2364152, assigned by Document No. 2654984, dated May 1, 1995, filed November 20, 1995 with the Hennepin County Recorder, to Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corporation. 4. First Bank of South Dakota is the holder of a mortgage on the Property dated April 11, 1997, filed June 2, 1997 with the Hennepin County Recorder as Mortgage Document No. 2814936. 5. The building located on the Property is a hazardous building because of inadequate maintenance and unsanitary conditions. 6. The building on the Property constitutes a hazardous condition of a parcel of real estate within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 463.161 for the following reason: a. The septic system serving the home has failed. Sewage from the failed system is leaching above ground. 7. The premises is in need of repair and correction in order to remedy the hazardous and unsanitary condition. The following repairs are necessary: a. Proper abandonment of the existing septic system. b. Connection to the municipal sewage system. ORDER 8. It is ordered that the hazardous conditions on the Property be corrected or removed not later than 20 days from the date of service of a copy of this Order upon each of you. 9. A motion for summary enforcement of this Order will be made to the District Court, Hennepin County, unless the corrective action is taken or unless an Answer is filed within 20 days of the date of service of a copy hereof in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 463.18. BY ORDER OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By Dr. Jean Harris, Its Mayor By Carl J. Jullie, Its Manager LANG, PAULY, GREGERSON & ROSOW, LTD. By q61/1 v Jennife M. Inz Atty. . 211096 1600 IBM Park Building 650 Third Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 338-0755 jm i\ep\general\fmdings.day EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6-2-98 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS / �Q ITEM NO. V• 11- DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger WYNSTONE Michael D. Franzen The Planning Commission first reviewed this project on April 13, 1998 and made a motion to continue the project for 30 days. At the May 11, 1998,the Planning Commission recommended approval. No residents were present. After finding out that the project was approved,residents asked staff why they did not receive a notice. After explaining the commission recommendation for continuance,many residents felt that the City should do a better job of communication. Several residents asked me to consult with the City attorney about a potential violation of the public hearing process. Ric Rosow advises that the City must do more than communicate a two week or 30-day continuance. The hearing must be continued to a date certain. The Planning Commission vote for approval was not valid since it occurred 28 days after the first hearing. Even though staff and the Planning Commission know that 30 days means two meetings later, it does not satisfy the law. Staff is republishing the project for the June 8, 1998 Planning Commission meeting and the June 16, 1998 City Council meeting. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6-2-98 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. V.B. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger RIVERVIEW BLUFFS Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: 1. Close the Public Hearing; 2. Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review on 28.32 acres and Zoning District Amendment in the R1-13.5 District on 28.32 acres; 3. Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 28.32 acres; 4. Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 28.32 acres into 45 lots; and 5. Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations (and Council conditions). Background: This project is an amendment to the prior approved plan which consisted of 63 single family lots at a density of 2.22 units per gross acre. The new plat is 45 lots on 28.32 acres at a density of 1.59 units per gross acre. All of the lots meet the frontage and lot size requirement of the R1-13.5 district. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the project at the May 11, 1998 meeting. Park& Recreation Commission Recommendation: The Park&Recreation Commission voted 5-0 to approve the project at the May 18, 1998 meeting. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolutions 2. Staff Report dated May 8, 1998 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated May 11, 1998 4. Correspondence RIVERVIEW BLUFFS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT REVIEW OF RIVERVIEW BLUFFS FOR LAUKKA-JARVIS,INC. 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 Riverview Bluffs PUD Concept Review by Laukka-Jarvis 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 June 2, 1998; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,Minnesota, as follows: 1. Riverview Bluffs,being in Hennepin County,Minnesota,legally described as outlined in Exhibit A,is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated May 26, 1998. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated May 11, 1998. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 2nd day of June, 1998. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk 2. RIVERVIEW BLUFFS Exhibit A Legal: DESCRIPTION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT • Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 7, 8. 9, 10, 11, 12, Block 12; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, Block 9; Lots 42, 43, and 44. Block 7; Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. Block 10, and Outlot D, all in BLUFFS WEST SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County. Minnesota. And That part of vacated River View Road as platted and dedicated in BLUFFS WEST SECOND ADDITION. according to the recorded plat. thereof. Hennepin County. Minnesota, lying westerly of the northerly extension of the easterly line of Lot 28, Block 11. said BLUFFS WEST SECOND ADDITION. And That part of vacated Upland Drive as platted and dedicated in BLUFFS WEST SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And That part of vacated Sandy Point Road as platted and dedicated in BLUFFS WEST SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County. Minnesota, lying westerly of the northerly extension of the easterly line of Lot 12, Block 10, said BLUFFS WEST SECOND ADDITION. (Note: Said vacated streets shall be vacated previous to the recording of the final plat.) RIVERVIEW BLUFFS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RIVERVIEW BLUFFS FOR LAUKKA-JARVIS,INC. BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Riverview Bluffs for Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. dated March 26, 1998, consisting of 28.32 acres into 45 lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances,and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 2nd day of June, 1998. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk l STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: May 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Riverview Bluff APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Laukka-Jarvis LOCATION: North of Riverview Road and East of Mooer Lane REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 28.32 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 28.32 acres. 3. Zoning Amendment in the R1-13.5 District on 28.32 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of 28.32 acres into 45 lots. • N 1/2 of 3` 116-22 RIVEF -EW BLUFFS �� • • 22 -i __. 26]e.e6�s (75) II 1' �q' [/ %\� u' •6s(4) Ir (20) r t'O.•,44.• • (707 UO)'i . a (76) n (37) 1 Ir t?.O - ••.,r,,,,�•r.�rr ..a.e e,of..v e e - '± �t _` i U .r `Ir t ti -.ill?) .. , .. < (92)•• (.8) '9(1,9) , (76) (8) (7) (6)~ R (91l .75)•as'• rr • ) 7(t) a 1 1f� q1( (62) •• .� / (77 "s. ,(3) a (93) '4(60) . :.(65)" `(67);•- a WGS&(8c BLUFFS (6) 1. •(97 ,..'' - -4. s s (f=o"'(66) . :k, "(62) !1(61)�, v..n... ' (6)il 4 - • (89) `(68R)�1�(67) P'N._ r R Isar - ro . (94) �' >t ��p- tr 'x to r. Jd n 3•L- na (:3 x c� (9) .A... ,. la . • • s `(66) s•.+M _ x +•(87)-(82)'(81).(to) - (79) p • I - 34 :z(22) 'a, . •. (5) ^ (96) 5?"+^ ..` 85) ,(61) 1 - - -(25)-(2/)_ (21) (10)k::. Ill'...'„ t w >, ai ` T 29--4 q - 5. • (291_•.(26 _x a(I,h2)x 'fL` °I(•Ioa1 (%)} �. •_ r 1/7l /6i' (�S) (tQ (i37�(t2) (u: '.1 (-.1). e jr•}} _ . .: q - (7q 4( y 5 -•(by,.... (19)• .6, . n '^ : (102) ` . -1'. �`4, 49) r+.' , .. Y ' w • 1 r x „ ( 't 1,c(36) , (13) 1..3, a ro 4. 'a r_ .tt -,,.;II Y. (35) T °.s' 1r �(39) (16) • t. - -o ( 3.1) (`581 4rj-•(53) e..: :e(55)5°'"11.4 (SS) e . 57)�'e_ warnior.>• �. cm`1\°- ..-Ri S'. 1 n to (0. 2 17-•'_.._ ' (2.' g16' ., It,%) (: ssl (59;• `�t " - Q ,. a n.' -h.(ro 6 r (.01 �;` t7) . :. .r a , : p ' - ,r - e22) ff.,. ... 40), i14)..Ar•'112132)2 "1.+.. .g, ti-n .ter• 1. Ill S (99) (51)- i'e�• .a��a - ' X - (/) :`is(36) g, . - a • .soy'71 T.T , (11) ^ ` 16)ate= IS) ='•( ...(IOOi I • 1 . a . , 'u' 11 f I (56) (c6) 18 {. -Ylr`( 1.I -- - o•0; J ..126 8 0 r 4 g- .3 ram+ 1' ..,- J 020 �(47) i° Is •• Ir e a 1. A i -4( 1- (1 . '- '(5a). :ta le".. + 'e (48)1�, • aa '(` ])+' •..• (23)• 7) )1t(25) (2U 31 t 142,2 ' 1 xe 0 (55) 4 s '_ . . - a - s .. ,, n' /(36)t ,A.a e xA s (51) (50) (49) ..: /�^^�y = a a $w^(116l (115)'F. .\/(1l"...'a wee }DDIG�d ('Sr•� '�•- '' i , „ '' .1'' 3(5}) v(521= - SECOND (61) (e0) 791 1 (il')(' Q(I)I) .. ' y. ort•me ;,9, (29) n din r L-+ s t't, et n.ss x e.. x s (bat •n.-r t 3 . ''✓�'y m ._(6)),�t�t w , , . ..9� taw• e,, s. ^� •a'v n.a . . •(1t0) ` n (75)a.+s • (%) km ( (62)d • (67) w _ n as '' •O t' •. . te.rt t••n (]0) :.. :.Y, �- (61 (65)_)z(66I (67) t168) '(69) + ` s1 s , a (108) N N - c..•.. �., ts. : . .p— I—. (i0)' (71�> �t6), ( 7) - 76T (10/) s(1OS) 106)f, _ -• - (71) (}) t ('A) Y• !_ w it‘5'f(7,,) („),(7„ —•Sl,'7l'-� "• ,�• a �.(7S) a. . •• • ;( 08) li; n pe,�8 ( .) R - »,L- )� Y 77..1. �(72) (TSl "",4^ - , / / ' r " � li i .!B a1d 1 11" n (6) -•R(7) .� 70 t. _ ' - .41..,1 (2)d (3) i (U A (5) (6)- 7 • C7`(5) 1 - (9) 71 (9) �]�. a.n ~iei'..d ( ) ' a v _ =a.>).. �y/fit ]n- y�.�a ,'} _l /.. i)8, (9) g (.. (I1) (12J1 . . �n. •� ..7t,il. "7Mt AMr7tpt4 • s ? u °' v r 3 A!YJ 1 Rye .:. ,l 1 {771 .�� ta• nni .' veoliiy M .> j{ I ��r • • „it/III/El q „icot P,i;.f *Mr c �I *Mr(62) GOVT LOT 1 GOVT LOT 2 23 24 6 Staff Report Riverview Bluffs May 8, 1998 BACKGROUND: This site is currently guided Low Density Residential. It is zoned R1-13.5. The site is part of the approved Bluffs West Planned Unit Development. PRELIMINARY PLAT: This project is amendment to the approved plan. The approved plan is 63 single family lots at a density of 2.22 units per gross acre. The plat is 45 lots on 28.32 at a density of 1.59 units per gross acre. All of the lots meet the frontage and lot size requirement of the R1-13.5 district. TREE LOSS: There is a total of 6,825 caliper inches of significant trees. A total of 1,725 caliper inches of trees (25%) would be lost due to construction or construction practices. The tree replacement is 580 inches. UTILITIES: Sewer and water are available to the site. A Nurp pond is shown on the utility plan. IISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES: The archaeological survey shows burial mounds several of the lots. The homes are sited to provide mound buffer zones. If the State Archaeologist confirms the location of the mounds and determines that they must be saved, than the mound management plan must be implemented. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 28.32 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 28.32 acres,Zoning Amendment in the R1-13.5 District on 28.32 acres,and Preliminary Plat of 28.32 acres into 45 lots based on plans dated May 8, 1998, and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated May 8, 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 2 Staff Report Riverview Bluffs May 8, 1998 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. 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. • PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 4 B. RIVERVIEW BLUFFS by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 28.32 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 28.32 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the R1-13.5 District on 28.32 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 28.32 acres into 46 lots.Location: Riverview Bluffs. Planner Franzen told the Commission the development is reducing the number of units and a change in the road system to allow a short cul-de-sac on the western end of a subdivision. By resubdividing the property, it will be built according to today's standards; that means different street section standards, different drainage standards,tree replacement standards, and sidewalk standards that would not have occurred if any developer over the last several years had decided to go directly to the building permit stage and build on the property. Franzen introduced Peter Jarvis and Joel Cooper to give their presentation to the Commission. Joel Cooper gave a visual presentation of the revised subdivision explaining the road layouts, lot plating, stormwater drainage, and green space that would remain in the development stage. Laukka-Jarvis is acting as the developer and will be selling the individual lots to builders for further development. The revised subdivision meets all of the City's requirements. Planner Franzen stated staff is recommending approval according to the recommendations on Page 2 and Page 3 of the staffs report dated May 8, 1998. Dom asked Franzen if, by increasing the lot sizes in this subdivision, any mix of home sizes was being disturbed from the original subdivision that had been approved in the 1970's. Franzen told the Commission that the mix was still there. The main difference in this version of the plan and the old version is the larger lot needed for the three-car garage. Foote opened the floor for public comment. Greg Hueler, 12300 Riverview Road, voiced his approval for the revised subdivision. His main concern was that the trees that line the south side of the proposed property, the north side of his property, remain as a buffer. One other question was: Will the name of Riverview Road be changed when the road goes to the west as well as to the south? 9 PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 5 Franzen told the Commission Riverview Road, on the City's street location map,is listed as Riverview Road North and South, although the street signs do not depict it as that. This issue will be clarified with the City's Engineering Department and Mr. Hueler will be kept up to date on the information. Foote returned the floor to the Commission for their comments. Clinton spoke in favor of the project as long as the confusion in the road names can be addressed and rectified. Alexander spoke in favor of the project. Habicht stated his approval of the project as long as Mr. Hueler's tree buffering concerns were addressed. Foote spoke in favor of the project. Planner Franzen stated an easement would have to be put in place wherever the tree line is. When a home owner buys the lot adjacent to Mr. Hueler they will know that there is an easement to protect this tree line. Sandstad stated he was not in favor of supporting the restriction that Franzen had spoken of. He said this action would be micro managing an area the City didn't need to manage. Foote agreed with Sandstad stating the people that move into the area could manage their own conservation effort. MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Dorn to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7 - 0. MOTION: Clinton moved, seconded by Dorn to approve recommending to the City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 28.32 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 28.32 acres, Zoning Amendment in the R1-13.5 District on 28.32 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 28.32 acres into 46 lots based on plans dated April 22, 1998, and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated may 8, 1998 and its stated conditions. Motion carried 7-0. 10 May 8, 1998 Planning Commission c/o Michael D. Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Dear Planning Commission, My wife and I own and reside at the property directly south of the proposed 45-single family lot development by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. A significant number of both young and mature trees reside along the lot lines on the proposed development. Ash, white pine and a number of plum, cottonwood and nut trees all live on the first 30-50 feet north of the southern lot lines proposed for development. We request that these trees and shrubs be left undisturbed as a natural buffer and a part of the development of the property. It is our understanding that a 30-40 foot buffer is consistent with previous projects approved by the City Planning Commission. Leaving this plant life intact would enhance the beauty of the proposed lots and keep a natural buffer between these future homes and our property. Respectfully, L Gregory W. Hueler elli . Hue er I I Memorandum To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Through: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources From: Stuart A. Fox Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Date: May 14, 1998 Subject: Riverview Bluffs BACKGROUND: This project is located west of Mooer Lane and south of Stoney Way and Sandy Point Road. The proposal is to plat 28.32 acres into 45 single family lots. The site is currently zoned R-1 13.5 and was part of the original Bluffs West PUD. This plan would change some of the current lots and result in a lower number of units per acre than the original PUD. NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES: Tree Loss The majority of the trees found on this site were planted in "plantation style" several years ago. It's unclear whether or not these trees were planted to be moved as part of a nursery operation or whether these trees were to grow and be harvested for pole production. There is a total of 6,824 diameter inches of trees,the majority of which are various types of pines. In addition,there are some scattered cedar and other hardwood trees such as ash and hackberry. With grading and construction 1,725 diameter of inches of trees will be removed. This is a 25.3% loss of significant trees as defined by City Code. The mitigation for this tree loss is 580 caliper inches of landscape material. The landscaping plan shows 439 inches of plant material, which includes oak,maple, ash, white pine, Black Hills spruce, and river birch trees. A note on the landscape plan indicates that builders will be responsible for the remaining 141 inches of mitigation when houses are built. Staff has concern about this and would recommend that the developer bond for the 141 additional inches until the planting on the individual lots is confirmed or make it conditional in the sale documents that planting one 2% inch tree is included with each lot sale. la NURP Pond A NURP pond is proposed on an existing outlot that was deeded to the City as a part of the Bluffs subdivision. This outlot was originally scheduled to be a totlot. However, with the development Homeward Hills Park as a neighborhood park, the staff no longer recommends this area for a mini park. Storm water from the adjacent streets will be collected by storm sewer pipes and channeled to this NURP pond. Following sedimentation it will channeled into an existing storm sewer in Mooer Lane. Drainage calculations and construction of the NURP pond will have to be approved by the City Engineering Department and Watershed District prior to any grading work. Sidewalks/Trails There is an existing five foot wide concrete sidewalk on the west side of Mooer Lane. This sidewalk should be extended southward along Mooer Lane, across Riverview Road and to the southerly boundary of the most southeasterly lot. Construction of this sidewalk should be done concurrent with grading street and utility work. Historical and Cultural Resources An archaeological survey of this area indicates there are several burial mounds on some of the most southerly lots. These have been indicated on the site plan and a mound buffer zone has been proposed. Field verification of these mound sites will be required by the State Archaeologist, and if they are present a mound management plan must be implemented to protect them. RECOMMENDATION This project was reviewed at the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting and was approved on a 7-0 vote. Staff would recommend approval of this project based on the recommendations of the May 8, 1998 staff report and supplemental information within this report. SAF:mdd Riverbluffmemo/Stuart98 /3 PARKS,RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES May 18, 1998 Page 5 the City has the option to give the hill back and move the building away from the creek, which would eliminate the variances and allow the proponent to develop the site. The City gives variances to a site similar to this one to preserve the woods and give the wildlife a place to live and create diversity in the design of sites. Discussion ensued regarding what could be done to resolve the issues the Commissioners have with the plan. Corneille commented the developer has proposed a NURP pond that is larger than what is required and since the City made a deal with the property owners, he felt they should now follow through with that. B. Realife Valley Corporation Fox reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the request. Perry Wright, Wright Engineering reviewed the project which will be a housing development for seniors. Dick Hanson of Realife described the senior housing cooperative and explained how it would operate. The building will be owned and operated by the people that live in it. He described the process that they use to operate and the features that will be included in the building. The City needs this type of project and the site is very expensive. They are trying to make it feasible for those people that will live in this development. Hilgeman expressed concern regarding the intersection and the traffic and Hanson responded that they are putting in a right-turn lane to make it easier for residents to access the site. The building will own a 12-person bus which can be used by the residents at any time. Jacobson asked if Smetana Lane would end and Fox responded that it will remain in that location until it is upgraded. It is a public street, and will eventually be completed. MOTION: Corneille moved, seconded by Hilgeman, to recommend approval of the request subject to the conditions in the May 8, 1998 Planning Commission Staff Report and the Supplemental Staff Report dated May 13, 1998. Motion carried 5-0. C. Riverview Bluffs Fox gave the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the project. Peter Jarvis, Laukka-Jarvis, stated he was present to answer any questions. Hilgeman asked where the burial mounds were located on the site and Jarvis indicated those locations where they had thought the burial mounds might be and the buffer areas around each of them. It now appears that they are not Indian burial mounds, but that has not been verified as yet. They are in agreement with the stipulations contained in both staff reports. MOTION: Hilgeman moved, seconded by Corneille, to recommend approval of the project based on the information in the May 8, 1998 Planning Commission Staff Report and the Supplemental Staff Report dated May 14, 1998. Motion carried 5-0. D. Wynstone 1998 James Jasper, Jasper Homes, reviewed the project and described the development which will be for it' PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES May 18, 1998 Page 6 people who are 55 years of age and older. This project will help meet the City's need for a diversity in housing types. They have reduced the density by four units which is comparable to other town home projects in the immediate vicinity. He described the trail around the project and the pond in the center which will also be a picnic and gathering area. He discussed the landscaping on the site and the buffering which will be installed. Jim Brandser, 7238 Vervort Lane, stated he was opposed to the project and noted none of the residents in the vicinity were notified of this meeting. He stated multi-family housing was not consisting with the existing neighborhood. He was concerned about the transition and the buffering between the development and the existing neighborhood. He was concerned about the trail location being so close to his yard. He requested the Commission to deny the request. Terry Willmsen, 7265 Vervort Lane, stated he was concerned regarding the notification process. He has a preference for not looking at a row of town homes and while they may be well-screened, he preferred the privacy and intimacy of the single family residential neighborhood. He was concerned about buffering between the development and the existing neighborhood. Fox stated there was a drainage system engineered into this plan. Discussion ensued regarding the guiding on the property and the changes that can and will occur on property as communities grow and develop. Alternative buffering strategies were discussed. Jasper explained that he prefers to call the"trail" a walkway which will be a pleasant and safe place for people to walk who don't want to get out onto the public trails. The landscape plan was discussed and the staff recommended that fifteen more trees should be added. The tree loss will be high because many of these trees were planted around houses in an unusual fashion. Lambert stated that transition issues are something that occur throughout the City and the land use issues are decided by the Planning Commission and City Council. Trees, landscaping, trails, and grading issues are the purview of the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. To build anything on the site requires extensive grading, which will definitely impact the amount of tree loss. Discussion ensued regarding the trail location and possible alternatives. MOTION: Hilgeman moved, seconded by Jacobson, to recommend approval based on the information in the May 8, 1998 Planning Commission Staff Report and the Supplemental Staff Report dated May 14, 1998, with the addition of 15 more trees to minimize the visual impact to the public. Motion carried 4-1. Brown stated he was opposed to this because it does not fit in the area and can set a precedent. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Dedication of Staring Lake Playground to the memory of Paul Redpath MOTION: Hilgeman moved, seconded by Jacobson to approve the dedication ceremony for the Playground on June 17, 1998 before the concert at the amphitheater. Motion carried 5-0. gTATE,q�� February 26, 1998 w ;Irr% rvo Peter Jarvisoyeti Laukka-Jarvis Corporation •44i'NESO`tP• 3300 Edinborough Way, Suite 201 Edina,MN 55435 RE: Authentication, Site 21-HE-0019(south sub-group);Riverview Bluffs Project,Eden Prairie,MN Dear Mr. Jarvis, As you are aware, authentication investigations of the above mound site have been implemented by this office under provisions of MN Stat 307.08. The results of the investigations have been fmalized after completing pre-and in-field research,and extensive consultation with the Office of the Attorney General. These investigations confirm that mound/earthwork features 1-7 of this group have previously been destroyed by various processes. As discussed,the remnants of mounds 8-11 have been relocated and should be accommodated in further development plans. While these investigations have not demonstrated any direct evidence of human burials,mounds 8-11 have a high likelihood of including burial features;obtaining direct and definitive evidence of such features would require monitored(by an archaeologist)stripping of overlying soils. Although there are no provisions in State statutes which require a setback from these mound features (8-11),it seems prudent that a voluntary setback or"buffer"be established to better ensure the integrity of the remnant mounds. At the same time, this setback must reasonably accommodate the proposed development and plat. OSA recommends that a minimum 20 foot buffer(from the designated mound base)be established around mounds 9-11 and that a minimum 10 foot buffer be established on the lengthy east-west axis of linear mound 8 with a minimum 20 feet along north-south axis. The more limited east-west buffer suggested for mound 8 should ensure adequate protection of the mound margins as well as accommodate projected platting needs. Note that 10-20 foot buffers are routinely recommended by OSA and MIAC. The buffer areas are "no excavation/no grading"zones both during and post-construction (i.e., subsequent residential use). Regarding the possibility of remnant mounds 1-7 being located elsewhere,OSA's field investigations find no evidence for such features. Monitored mechanical stripping would yield defmitive information should you deem it necessary. OSA should be contacted prior to any subsequent project development to discuss additional mound- protection plans,which would include in-field mound centerpoint designation by OSA,and placement of protective fencing during any construction related earth-moving activities in the area. The OSA-designated centerpoints,mound locations/base configurations,and recommended buffers should be surveyed and added to your base maps prior to finalizing construction plans. Additionally, the mound locations should be included on any subsequent plats of the parcel,and described in any future deeds/abstracts, as appropriate. Like similar parcels elsewhere along the Minnesota River Valley bluffline,the project area continues to hold potential for other,unreported and unidentified burials. Should any such burials become evident during the course of construction/grading,activities in the area are to cease and OSA should be contacted immediately. A copy of the report of investigations is included for your review. Thank you for your cooperation and forbearance throughout this process. Please contact me,as needed,to further discuss this project. Fort Snelling History Center,St.Paul,MN 55111 Voice:612.725.2411; FAX:612.725.2427 ft Authentication,21-HE-00 19 Sincerely, Aj\ Mark J.Dudzik State Archaeologist enc. cc: J.Day,MIAC S.Masten,OAG J. Smith-Zuidema,"DOA • • Cent w111.61 WC UM....1.1101,10111.11 WS'" WI•••••1 *VD-0M/D* 1 ......,......VII 1M MAI M•OM ..*-0 . skonurts/salmis/smirk, C -.......7...--m-.-.---_ , NVId ABOIN3ANI 3381 I:IS g 1 ' .3l11 IN '11 SetUer ,-- 7...42":4::*"... . sew-*WM*10303 Sd...411-113 hk.31/1112A111 g 'a IE i 3 I gj11 1 il ,I /2 . . '—'......n."61--- I' 111111 1; 2 2 1 C IIg . I a.i.,4.," ... 4.•al - 5' ••••• ** * ill 1 . . . W 01:3i II ."4... ...--"--1 -"—F7 0 • - . '-I \i. \ . ........ ,_- - , , •_. .,_ ... • , - •,,,, 1 . • \ 1. ---. ..... -,.....• ------...... L4'‘ • -• .A i . . ....._, ,.. , tda It „,,K , -..-4:4 ...... . .3 .. -.... ...s. .... . . ,-.., x -,- ,lo.4. • . 11''.'4:-• , 231 . 1,,iNifin,' ' - • •. • - 6 11..•„4....1. 1 ......7. , . .\ , ...... .....:..........., , . ...X:4....4°11 •- ' -. • I 4.4.4. • . .• - lb°. 0 SO! — \'',*I • r•il,‘,' • 1 1\ °.11- • ho '‘ ..... is i•:• .. 4, ,."-._.44. 0.:;,:;:11., .0. - 2 e it,1111/4 0 79N;,6. 4G. • .''' . - . : '. ,e,.0..Ls,6,,b lf , ..:4.47_ip..• g...iii:4--_,§0t ..-- 00/1„,. ' : 7,4 --i:.I' .. - .. '''•\ __ • -. \-• \- ....1.4•• ' /Ir 0" • i'. .2114 i:'',,We • • ... e*:' , 410.:. !...... 0 • .,..• /if, 40,,,A46,..,•,___0 , .. . 4,..:• ,.... is*••• LK * 0!, •it .71WW,f7;iltilVr t• ,•.: . .' •'••••• ' . .--\ 11 .0., .....,-i•...._• -....*':/1.1*_.' '..•• r il.: . ••' SI ''' -- \ ..-...._-.., .. .. vi..30- , ,... ., ,2.41: QR iiki .g r,; \ ,-- •, ....../ . E...: ......, •, i.41...40.14.1. t''• .... .1. 11?, -.14;, 1 \*1. i h.-••.. .. 1.". ,. 0— • te -.,,. •1' . . . 41-1M :'.. .....1" . 4 ‘142.0,W1* ;'//1 84 .NI 06 '--. . ..• '--- ,..;.1 4 4 Ei: ...--. '.- l - .. \ • •ii. i •';'-' so 0— .:.---- - \ 1oot %$' NI ...* '6 1 .o at! __SY' • \\,.. \ Y I -i- 40 Oi; • i , •i• 1 , r-,..; A ‘ -..... , . : ,• ? 1,_ .s • i is--_ CEt 1 .1 1• j A 1 b ° I -R! \ \ .. -\...... . i; .,,,E't• ••,•:, It i !-iti iier7.. ..111 Ali ck"\. .7-c'...!. .f I t:,---;::- eb‘:in.„.,%•tt,''' : • 1 irrl., I Istliza ie. ' - ''' - -.3. i 1 _ _ _ .t.0 . . au 111 „... • . ......, .. .. .,,.• ,. 1 intmintg. 1 -4-: - - ° -.......-,' , . , ,•-, ., . . , , :--,•-- IVY - 1 , ,.,„F i"-.. ,. •; '. 0,0 Et !;*I \ • ! : la, ----t• !....,1 r,.:, 1 1 • '''1•! .- • •. .• ' . '.../ ;: tk,-A.:...,og., , • ./y/ iii- 00 t • , 1 / / , . i . c:.-- ........ • / .,.. , . .. :.,..:-....../,:,,-,..7 ' • ' 4 /4(L Ek g0•0 ... / / .. 1.... ./ 0- - ", •,-- i .:‘11061Willralgil' ! \) ' :‘:. ,...--.7/ / 1 1 -i f, ;/ ." t!'-------- \ N, i .... '' le. • .., t / • IL ......) ...i ...,\., ; , ...*, .....tv \ \ I.: . ei 0 . . . .. 00 \ ..,•, ,..._______ :........ \\< ) t A. (' .,* , \i 0 **.i'.-I:v) ..._._.' _..:_.___ _ ,:.'---,:.• _ ,-;i t. \ T.- : ...I i,., illemla ta".• "ik— .. i ... -,, I 1 • ‘\ j •• 6 *WIC. 1 .\7: g. ... I - • ,/, \\ / , .0 .-"" 4.-4 g wt Pt. •-_.. 0 --...- / te// vorik) . . . . ., ,/ !: ./-7..' ..-. \ /- •._., o .. . ,. o -, 11--es r---1, • _7J 77 / '' V2' \i;E:s000. __cr.__ ....._ ..7._.---,. .. i!•i el..f ge.t.. e. i• / ' , ., -- ., .: -1. •I • • Of No mown* 1f>� mian... fl.5M.!.o]K L.1c'p..IaS C..mam: b swamis/S /sauna ( �/��✓✓�� "T .= Ntlld AHO N3AN1331i1 ' ep ;; ig.-.°_ '3ul `II!H •� sawed _, _ MLiW M114OE 3 a ri- .. ' 1 Sddn-m MMAIMIt1 • t_l' \ -_' • s. `1$ 1 ' -- '0,I . L.,Hir' - '.33; I . 1 _: `l 0. 1MpTCH O LA • NE. / .�•) O . _i °0 O e MATCH .. ,�/ O °. : �� '18.r'. o O .•. .. t FOB , .i a 110Xy M I . . ' -' n°e E 1 E ti ° O O . :`'' , oar , -DT - y I : I -' / ! • O rt I • •� . . N • Ailik • I A jIF / t; IiO." • Q . °3 J ., : _ i !if. J#04 i , . . _ . .... . , , z. .. _ _ /O }sue .1 ' -i ..°. �- IL Vk It _ ; \ \ `- 4 '5 It \I - . a.' \ \ o a _ s+ Nd 3 � „, • •.\ . '- - 10 'it] - • -hr-- S • e•O _ 0 ' .^ 1_ I I \\\ - 3 N I 1 • - t.,3.1 <3.: 1 1 , Ire 1.4 1 1 ..' • . lid fCf REPORT OF BURIAL SITE AUTHENTICATION INVESTIGATIONS AT 21-HE-0019 (South Sub-Group), EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 3,tF ▪ __ • Nii:''IYk(',SQL' % Fi( R z L. �\�. 3'' 44-Z.. -65W II6 1 -X 9.Y. A.SGs-W --• ,'. :.. s ' - • 1.,3 fp W - 79 .E3 /�" ., , . . J. .q _ ?di :72 .t• 36..: f t ®.1 _ _. ®• . - -4 Y..s— .. — 90.W.••_ . S�- . .22 .. / • .-j . , e: . .0 3.•.,�.G — 76I .' j — //: * /, _, - ;:....6:,.-7 'V /37 .1s! ./' • - : • :. - b r . "mg/ f ib.u-r' . ./ W ;-•. ^n O - - - :;,:.r. _ ra _. / _ + _... . • . : . , .-..9 - le —stw -.2ro 1, , '/ - - _ —, ""'e -. - 4'2W ss . sa :3. = Q • . -. .- . . , .,„-l3- .67* - G.f --l6 /•fit^ - - M b ..q3,._l.� _.. .N6s. &o. ...16.__ . 12 .:. _ -- . ''�' q l5 Heti 6-r. __30•- 2 — — 7 ... : '.�x.:.5.'o lf,. ..-SSE- , 0 -�lo �:,3.: i .1 a-- `- G,�c7... Ns3�. 73- 3I z .- - ..1 : - i Is_ iV Ot= _GL . :j.o Z ?.� • �yµw� hf , t.' '.' y r fi.M... W `4 M1 ic r , _i - t �= w:44:� _ _ r.... #.:4 AP _..'w i.c. .. � bow .:1; :..)..{...`..- Lewis'1882 Field Notes, Site 21-HE-0019 �ys'�n •.4, o`� % Mark J.Dudzik, State Archaeologist 14 S Office of the State Archaeologist,Fort Snelling History Center, St. Paul wo sdC1." February 1998 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures List of Tables iii Introduction 1 Geophysical,Vegetation and Land Use History 1 Area Mound Sites and Related Investigations 2 Methods and Techniques 3 Results of Investigations 5 Conclusions/Summary 7 References 9 Appendix 1: Soil Core Profiles 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Lewis' Original and Computer-corrected Bearings 5 3 The Woodland period(ca. 800 BC to historic contact) in the region(central deciduous lakes; cf. Anfinson 1989)was evidently associated with incipient plant domestication,but hunting coupled with intensive gathering provided the bulk of subsistence needs. Settlement patterns resembled those appearing previously (i.e., along the margins of lakes and rivers),with particularly intense occupation of stream/lake junctions late in the period. An especially significant technological innovation of the Woodland peoples is the development of ceramics. Mound construction regularly associated with mortuary activity also developed at this time; the region evidences the state's highest concentration of mounds. In addition to mound site 21-HE-0019,the subject of this investigation, several other mound sites are located in the immediate area (e.g., 21-HE-0023 located one-quarter mile to the west; the additional 8 mounds of the second sub-group of 21- k344; HE-0019, located on a 22,.. second terrace � `��' -'- approximately 900 feet ✓( — .30 ;. `i north of mounds 1-11), and /�i scsw .", Infr. tsi.Jw : 6„- • non-mound burials have L J. 4 sY�Lw .� �.3c. /ryam: �also been identified locally .s- . .- 5�e w s� .2i / = . �- M:c p7f'Jr 6 _zs /t • �! (e.g., 21-HE-0002, located c r stow /3 r ts- / e - approximately 1 mile to the ;7. r Ibxs-: mow' • - m-- east). Two other, recently s:: 170/ = • •• ® : . • . Y t° 54'w •3w si , completed, OSA- ,, �l ._�ffa w A s-1 . so.' :. 3 8 authorized burial a #u _ OAP) TQL if: z .: �� ;� 1y,�13 Nb7t:E.- .:d� --ay _—��— _ _ ; 8 authentication t i - 13.l9' : /YGS'4 b e a l z , investigations in the area ( cs N'1JE �.r _ 3c . 2 (21-HE-0022, located less �� . :�yd�-'�¢..---?s- 30 .:---z : s than one-quarter mile east t1„��:. N-4ot `r... sa a of 21-HE-0019, and 21- Aso _ 1 h q .tom :_Ja.. , =- • HE-0020, located justx x� ; . across the Minnesota River - - j" '`J {{ in neighboring Savage) 7 " .__ ' —• •� `= t ,�; , -i demonstrated conclusively Figure 3. Lewis' original field notes,21-HE-0019. North at right of page; that both sites have been south sub-group at left. completely destroyed (Arzigian 1995;Arzigian and Boszhardt 1996). Both of these investigations utilized mechanically- assisted soil stripping techniques. The area of 21-HE-0019 has been the focus of rather cursory investigations in recent years (Chamberlain 1972:4; Helmen and Helmen 1978; Vogel et al 1994:86-87). METHODS AND TECHNIQUES A complete copy of Lewis'original field notes and other,related documentation is on file at OSA. 4 Lewis' (1898:34) data for the site includes descriptions of bearings and distances between individual mounds, mound dimensions(including height and diameter/length), a schematic map (Figure 3) showing approximate mound configuration, relationship to nearby historic features (fence,house),and notation identifying the general area of cultivation(cf.also Winchell 1911:250 and 252). It is critical to note that, at the time of his visit in 1882, Lewis used a magnetic compass bearing, that is, the compass needle pointed in the direction of magnetic north rather than true north. Magnetic north approximates true north. Magnetic north changes constantly, varying significantly with time and location (both horizontally and vertically) on the earth's surface. In order to duplicate the compass bearings Lewis used to map and locate mounds 1 through 11, and so accurately determine the location of these mounds,it is imperative that one accurately compensate for the substantial change in magnetic declination(relative difference between magnetic and true north) which has occurred between 1882 and 1997. In order to achieve this, one must precisely determine magnetic declination at this specific locale at the time of Lewis' 1882 visit and compare it to the current(late 1997) magnetic declination at the site. OSA was able to calculate a precise magnetic declination compensation figure and accurately determine the locale's 1882 and 1997 relative magnetic declinations by use of the National Geophysical Data Center's US Historical Declinations Program and Geomagnetic Field Synthesis Program(Version 3.0),which were developed to reliably calculate these values through time and space(the OSA-calculated magnetic declinations and compensation figure were recalculated and reaffirmed by the NGDC itself). Lewis' original field data, including both his 1882 compass bearings and adjusted 1997 bearings (which compensate for the relative change in magnetic declination over the past 100+years), are shown in Table 1 below. Note that the compensation figure at the site presently equals 5°13' (.5.25°) east of north, reflecting the difference, at this location,between the magnetic declination of 7°40'east of north in 1882,and that of 2°27' east of north in 1997. When taking bearings at the site,this figure was added to Lewis original bearing value in order to compensate for the greater magnetic declination which existed at the time of Lewis'visit. As an example, if Lewis shot a 90° bearing in 1882, OSA needed to shoot a 95.25° bearing in 1997,reflecting the change in magnetic declination which has occurred during that period. If this compensation value is not accurately calculated one can neither accurately reproduce Lewis' compass bearings nor determine the presently-obscured locations of the mounds he described. Moving from west to east,using Lewis' unadjusted original bearing(or using a bearing less than 5.25°) would put one north of the actual Lewis mound locations,while using a figure greater than 5.25° would put one south of the actual locations. Fortunately, although reduced substantially in height, the plowed-over remnant of mound 11 (originally 3 feet,the tallest of the group;presently z 1.5 feet high)was still visually discernible at the time of OSA's initial visit and provided a known starting point. Soil coring(1" Oakfield coring tool; 1 meter interval)confirmed the nature of this feature. Using mound 11 as a starting point and • • Table 1. Lewis'Original Bearings and Computer-corrected Magnetic Bearings,Mounds 1-11 (south sub- group,earthwork/mound site 21-HE-0019) Mounds Lewis'E-W Bearing Lewis'W-E Bearing Computer-corrected Bearings(W-E) 1 -2 245° 65° 70.25° 2-3 260° 80° 85.25° 3 -4 260.5° 80.5° 85.75° 4- 5 250° 70° 75.25° 5- 6 256.5° 76.5° 81.75° 6-7 260° 80° 85.25° 7- 8 272° 92° 97.25° 8-9 286° 106° 111.25° 9- 10 268° 88° 93.25° 10- 11 262° 82° 87 25° NOTE: Lewis'original line of travel was from east to west(mound 1-11). Beginning at relocated mound 11, OSA's line of travel was from west to east, or 180° (plus 5.25°compensation factor)opposite Lewis'original bearing. moving east,the loci of the other reported mound locations were determined by using a 300 foot fiberglass tape measure to determine distance and a Suunto KB-14 sight-through type precision compass(graduated in 0.5° increments,accurate to within 0.25°)to determine bearings. Bearings from mound locus to mound locus were established by foresighting and confirmed by backsighting. Mound loci(representing approximate centers of reported mound locations)were then pin-flagged. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS In addition to mound 11, at-surface remnants of mounds 8 and 9 also appeared to be visually discernible,although reduced in height(recall that mounds 1-10 were originally only 1-1.5 feet in height). These diminished features were relocated by using the computer-compensated bearings (Lewis original bearing plus the 5.25° compensation value). Coring of these features confirmed their status,as well as that of remnant mound 10. Of special note,the feature defined as remnant mound 8 (one of the two elongated linear mounds) conforms to the dimensions and orientation described by Lewis. The loci of mounds 1 through 7 were similarly determined, but remnants of these mounds were not visually discernible. The plotted(re)locations of these mounds conforms 6 well with Lewis' map, and, further, lie along the apex (esp. mounds 1-5) of the landform in a manner typical of such mound groups(The hachures on Lewis'original map seem to suggest that mounds 1-5 were located directly along a steep bluff edge, but in this area there is no adjacent sharp bluff edge or steep slope as there is for mounds 6-11. Instead,the area gradually slopes down to the river,especially in the mound 1-3 area. Therefore,this portion of Lewis' sketch map appears rather more impressionistic than in the mound 6-11 portion). While every effort was made to discern and identify soil components potentially associated with mound fill/construction(i.e.,lensing/truncation of A and/or B soils),none were observed._Cored A and B horizon soils were observed to be very similar in character, and the A-B transition at the site was not well demarcated; hence, determination of where it "began" (how deep it was) was deemed to be rather prone to subjectivity. Although soil coring has utility for grossly assessing soil stratigraphy, like all such tools it has limitations, working better in some applications than in others. Its usefulness is especially limited when, as in this instance, the transition between soil strata is not especially discrete. For the above reasons, assessment (by soil coring) of variation in the combined A-B depth to identify remnant thickening associated with mound construction was the preferred approach, successfully confirming the presence of remnant mounds 8-11 (thickened A-B; Appendix 1). Coring at mound loci 1-7 did not demonstrate any evident increase in soil thickness or other soil qualities characteristic of mound construction. No evidence of pit-type intrusions into lower soil horizons (B, C) were evident at any of these loci (1-11). At no time did OSA identify any bone - fragments,artifacts or other features which demonstrated or suggested the presence of intact human burials in the course of examining core samples from any of these mound loci. The observed lack of variation within and the relative similarity of the A and B horizons was discussed with Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Scientist Peter Hartman. Hartman (personal communication) noted that the homogeneity and similarity of the A and B soils (e.g:, only a one chroma difference in color,A= 10YR 3/3 sandy loam,B= 10YR 3/4 sandy loam; as observed in-field and per Lueth 1974:31) would make it very difficult to discern the transition between the two, or to discern variation within the horizons. He further noted that it would be difficult or impossible to identify plowzones or similar features (e.g.,mound fill and/or shallow excavation prior to mound construction). Hartman observed that the site's essential intra-and inter- soil homogeneity,coupled with centuries of bioturbation(by rodents,and especially that due to the effects of root action by prairie grasses), would have effectively eliminated any such evident anomalies within the A and B horizons. These comments affirm OSA's in-field observations. As a relatively gross assessment technique,coring is not deemed absolutely reliable, and, further, is rarely sufficient to directly and conclusively demonstrate the presence or absence of extant,intact burials. For this reason, OSA has established a conservative policy of implementing techniques to definitively assess for the presence or absence of burials in those instance in which less definitive techniques (such as coring) are inconclusive, or suggest that no burial components (i.e., burial, burial pit,mound fill)are left intact. Failing to implement definitive techniques would potentially 7 result in the disturbance of burials/burial features left undetected by coring or other, similarly less conclusive techniques. Archaeologists, forensics specialists, and others have long relied on closely-monitored, controlled mechanical stripping of overlying soils to assess for the absolute presence of a variety of features, including burial features(Goltz n.d.;Henning 1994; Ladwig and Hamilton 1997; Mather et al 1997;Peterson 1977; Rusch and Wade 1988; Stewart and Arzigian 1997). As noted elsewhere "... mechanical stripping provides the most comprehensive plan view of surface distributions of burial(and other)features. Such stripping is recommended when early maps indicate the presence of Indian mounds within the present-day project area but surface indications of those cultural features no longer remain"(Stevenson 1997:82). The recommended conditions for utilizing this technique match precisely the character of the present project in the areas of former mound loci 1-7. Subsequent to completion of coring, and in order to definitively assess for the presence of otherwise inapparent burials or burial features,OSA implemented controlled mechanical stripping of mound loci 1-7 using a bulldozer equipped with a toothless 10 foot bucket. Soils were stripped in approximately 10-15 centimeter increments to the C horizon,with all stripped soils and exposed surfaces examined for evidence of possible burial-related materials or features. No evidence of burials or burial features were observed during this process at any of former mound locations 1-7 (Figure 4). CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY The originally reported locations of mounds 1-11 (south sub-group) of earthwork/mound site 21- HE-0019 were accurately determined by using Lewis' original field notes, computer-corrected magnetic bearings, and tape measure. The visually discernible, but diminished remnants of mounds 8, 9 and 11 were relocated using the compensated bearings. Soil coring confirmed the relatively intact condition of these mound remnants as well as that of relocated mound 10. However,no direct evidence of intact,extant human burials was identified for any of these remnant mound features. Although the locations of mounds 1-7 were reestablished,no at-surface visual components were discernible. Soil coring results were similarly negative for evidence of remnant mounds/burials. Therefore, a definitive assessment technique, controlled mechanical stripping, was implemented to assess for potential burial features not identified by the rather more subjective coring technique. No burials or related features were identified at loci 1-7 using this technique, and the mound features identified by Lewis have evidently been destroyed. • l"`1.1 , , 1 r11\0 i:•:cs .. 1';l!!,_=-L... a1.• / ' I A , I. . 1 1 ' Hit''•il`' �', I /1 \ V • • A:, A a m RIVERVIEW BLUFFS . inc.9 a ag vs EDINPRAIRIEMN w _ James .R. Hill, =it f 'gQ i,I el EXISTING CONDITIONS Amielmod ""' PLANNERS /ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS �" P = R N J •-c LAUKKA—JARVIS 'ems 4300 t[crc ra 1Z sup ta, Bu�ar1 w 56U7 C • P : 3300 EDMBOROUGH WAY.SUnE 201 EDRN,MN 55435 'M• "•• 1W..1_''t .. , 612/00-50H F.c 690 1244 • (, 11 I ;\i .:(y.. / t e• ..�7 ` I,,, '1 ) n`,. . ` 1 i,-✓17 t;', 1I 11 I"-` \'.- ,...*i T\,.i.,,i,, 1? 8f,. .-1.4 ... 1 J}'1. ( 1 1 \1 ` 11' . I • Ir.1 :.r .11 10 , t?. ' i. lI '.11. / �••y . • _ 1. II I 1 I •.A 1 1 1 :.61:.:.,,,..:....:.,......1:51,'....,,...:1,..-t.c...4"....... - i. " . s:. c -� el r1.. 9 I'l11 II , 1 ► li 1 �' tak• . C2, i 9 r, `; rt ` , , 3I - _..1..xi.ii;:,./0.(::: ._.. :::. t j. .....1.: ....i: .....4.::14,. ,,.01L. 7„1,.***"".%-•':;'*1 '0'..*::-...1.., ,...,....‘•:•-•/ *;//,(*.;*/,41',.:1-,.. .''' ...,;__.:;'.......,*.N:*.7''...‘..,,'l' i\.• s,.•:,..... ._:.-.•.:•.!...: .. 1 . . • .1 c., kii" , ry .‘....,,,',...il.,... • _ 11t 1 , am_ -_ (( /; '>.. .�- _ 4. ,..:. .1., ..,... *...:. ..,zei ion— • .i.,-:.V.://' jr •, ... ..(-... .. .. •„‹., . ... ... ....,. . .,..... 2.:....,._.......,..:::..:........:..._....,......,....::.... .7. .:".:....:.,.... . :. ...... 1. .. . " , _"" • „ • ,,,„:._..._.. ).. ..;.....: 11.;;:i.i .ii\-:) ., z.......:. ._,. ....7,,.._:...._.e.:...,_.........".t... .,:::..... _ .z:..,.... :... .:::. .:,...i.v.....( ,.. . ...... _...._.... •. . s... .... .,, . .. . . ) ,....... ,............,',::,...‘:_...1,.....:::::.:::::,.::::"...•...'::....:.....7-..::)....:.:1..:',...,:•:i.',.•.*:::'::::.:.:::::.:::.:•..,.,,.r-..:-.'..:-:*.:".....k:.....:.. ''....,.,:s...::,-v..'''(.P. .,.''.2v:---.-.-..-::.'.::::it..-.,: . ...•.''''.....-....:-.:......,'::::::. '. :.:',....ii:14,11:::\„ ..-.;,...:.:•::-.....::::.,;1-1•:::::.....-........4,e.......ty......2,_ . •,.„ .:::.„ ., .. .:.:d. 1 i. 1 ...... . . .. .... ......... .. . . SCALE IN FEET '0 100 200 300 l — — 1 Inch a 100 feel Figure 4. Replotted mound locations, south sub-group(mounds 1-11),site 21-1-IE-0019; mounds 1-7 dcsfoyed. co EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6-2-98 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. Y . . DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger ANCOR COMMUNICATIONS Scott A. Kipp Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: 1. Close the Public Hearing; 2. Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change from I-2 to Office on 3.76 acres; 3. Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment on 3.76 acres of the overall Technology Park PUD; and 4. Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations (and Council conditions). Background: There have been three projects approved on this site since the Technology Park PUD was approved, including a five-story, 58,000 sq. ft. office, a three-story, 27,800 sq. ft. office,and a 48,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse. These projects proposed storm water ponding in the existing wetland,and required Shoreland Code variances, including setback from Nine Mile Creek,building height, and impervious surface. During review of the original PUD,the desire by the City to preserve the wooded knoll was a primary consideration in the layout of the lots and site plan approvals. Development planning for the Technology Park PUD could have met the requirements of the Shoreland Code, but would have resulted in major alteration of the knoll or its total elimination. The current proposal is for a three-story, 50,000 sq. ft. office building. This proposal will require waivers from the Shoreland Code, but there are fewer waivers with less impact than the variances approved for the previous projects. A small amount of wetland alteration is proposed. Mitigation is proposed on site. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Commission voted 7-0 for approval at its May 11, 1998 meeting. Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission: The Commission's motion to approve failed on a 2-3 vote. Concerns were the shoreland waivers and the use of the property. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment 2. Staff Report dated May 8, 1998 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated May 11, 1998 4. Correspondence ANCOR COMMUNICATIONS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT OF ANCOR COMMUNICATIONS FOR HOYT PROPERTIES 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 Ancor Communications PUD Amendment by Hoyt Properties 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 June 2, 1998; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,Minnesota, as follows: 1. Ancor Communications,being in Hennepin County,Minnesota,legally described as outlined in Exhibit A,is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated May 26, 1998. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated May 11, 1998. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 2nd day of June, 1998. Jean L. Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk 2- ANCOR COMMUNICATIONS Exhibit A Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, Technology Park 4th Addition 3 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner DATE: May 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Ancor Communications APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Hoyt Properties, Inc. LOCATION: 7765 Golden Triangle Drive REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 3.76 acres to the overall Technology Park PUD. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 3.76 acres. 3. Zoning District Change from I-2 to Office on 3.76 acres. 4. Site Plan Review on 3.76 acres. t V P • tips tt P R hi ..Ln - an .�.� man ct o„ t n t �q d. 1 ` t t w O. Ir.'''. "i'.. ..... k.W' ::U\ , T ,ti, „...,.....,. v_z...._ f_.,-4 . z r- . . \ \\.1'I gA l ,1J '• _ ��v 1�i } ct rno tJn N� _..... ,...., , ,,, .....„ • a « t 8 t • 9mp.q�'l' r' Ma t ti t n ' ' - y NIGIE - p„ E I •� •• • 1 fl ' • IA i ,,4} •• J •11 I.AL t wf 9 q- t s. I •••t ,�• • p 0 x :+it • '¢`,-Tg,. -319NY at;,'•.,- --/.I+-N30109-- ,i-.: VD a 4 t ; • ILIA . Hasaav • _ J, ,rdIl.f�K.K , 7_ �A� ^- F I. J - - — es • IC n. .,� 66 s: •-a. '' • •....a.a a,tR ••!I �..•. • Staff Report Ancor Communications May 8, 1998 BACKGROUND This 3.76 acre site is guided office and is part of the overall Technology Park PUD approved for office, office/service, and office/warehouse uses. Surrounding land uses are industrial. There have been three projects approved on the property since the PUD was reviewed. In 1985, the site was zoned office, and approved for a 58,000 square foot, five-story office building and parking deck. Variances were granted for a 100 foot shoreland setback, building height to 74 feet, and impervious surface of 35% in exchange for dedication of the 3.3 acre wooded knoll to the north, and 1.3 acre Nine Mile Creek corridor to the south. In 1986, the site was approved for a 27,800 square foot, three-story office building. This project required a variance for impervious surface. In 1992, the site was rezoned to industrial and approved for a 48,000 square foot office/warehouse building for Normark Corporation. The approval did not include a guide plan change to Industrial. Variances were granted for shoreland lot size less than 5 acres, a 70 foot shoreland setback, side yard setback of 10 feet, building height to 32 feet, and impervious surface of 52%. In all approvals, grading was shown within the wooded knoll and creek corridor. In addition, storm water ponding was proposed within a wetland. PUD AMENDMENT The current approval is for the Normark Headquarters, zoned industrial. The PUD amendment is to allow a return to the office use as originally approved in the PUD. SITE PLAN The site plan shows development of a 50,000 square foot, three-story office building and future parking deck. The Base Area Ratio is 0.12 and Floor Area Ratio is 0.31. City Code permits up to a 0.30 BAR and a 0.50 FAR in the office zoning district. The building and parking meet all setbacks from lot lines except for a proposed 14 foot side yard building setback. City Code requires a 20 foot side yard setback. A waiver through the PUD will be necessary and may have merit since it is consistent to a 10 foot side yard setback variance approved for the Normark proposal, and a majority of the building is screened from the north by 2 Staff Report Ancor Communications May 8, 1998 the existing wooded knoll. Parking required in the office zoning district is 250 spaces. Ancor Communications does not need this much parking for their use. The plan shows 153 surface parking spaces at this time, with a proof of parking deck for the remaining spaces totaling 251 spaces to meet City Code. SHORELAND CODE Nine Mile Creek abuts the site, and is classified as a General Development water according to the Shoreland Code. The proposal will require shoreland waivers through the PUD as follows: Structure Setback Minimum setback requirement for structures to the Ordinary High Water Level of the creek is 150 feet. The proposed building is shown at a 135 foot setback. The proof of parking deck is shown with a 97 foot setback at its closest point. The original office building was approved with a 100 foot setback, and the Normark proposal was approved with a 70 foot setback. Impervious Surface Maximum impervious surface is 30%. The proposal shows 49% impervious surface. This is less than the 52% approved for the Normark proposal. All hard surface runoff from the site will be treated to NURP standards. Alteration of the 75 foot Shore Impact Zone The plan shows grading within this area to eliminate the need for retaining walls along the parking areas. Allowing the graded slopes within this area together with the reforestation plan will maximize screening to the parking. All previous approvals showed similar alteration. During review of the original PUD, the desire by the City to preserve the wooded knoll was a primary consideration in the layout of the lots and site plan approvals. Development planning for the Technology Park PUD could have met the requirements of the Shoreland Code, but would have resulted in major alteration of the knoll or its total elimination. a Staff Report Ancor Communications May 8, 1998 The waivers are reasonable for the following reasons: • There are fewer waivers with less impact than the previous variances for the site. • The wooded knoll and creek corridor were dedicated as part of the original PUD approval for a 58,000 square foot office building. • The structure setback for the building is greater than the previous variances. The setback for the prodof parking is from the deck corner. The setback increases from this point. • All previous approvals showed grading close to the creek prior to creation of the shore impact zone. • Tree replacement, landscaping, and reforestation of the graded slopes in the shore impact zone screens parking and creates a more forested look than what exists today. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The original PUD was approved prior to the Tree Preservation Code. The other two approvals were based on the analysis of significant trees on Outlot A(wooded knoll) and the proposed site. The updated tree inventory indicates a total of 1,177 caliper inches of significant trees on the two parcels. The plan shows tree loss of 494 caliper inches or 42%. This is consistent with the average 40% tree loss for office and industrial development. Tree replacement is 276 caliper inches and is included in the landscaping plan. The property rises from an elevation of 833 feet along Nine Mile Creek to 885 near the north central portion of the site. Development of the property will involve a retaining wall along the north property line, as did all previous approvals. No alteration will go beyond the north property line. The Normark proposal showed grading and tree loss up to an elevation of 910 feet. Drainage from this site and from the industrial site north of the wooded knoll will be treated to NURP standards. The NURP pond and a small portion of the site development will alter 0.63 acres of the existing wetland located along Nine Mile Creek. Total fill is 0.13 acres, with 0.50 acres of excavation for the pond. The previous projects proposed similar wetland impacts prior to the Wetlands Conservation Act. Normark showed a total of 0.55 acres of alteration, of which 0.25 acres was fill. Mitigation for the alteration includes creation of additional wetland type diversity, creation of upland buffer areas through landscaping, and the treatment of proposed and existing storm water runoff to NURP standards. 4 Staff Report Ancor Communications May 8, 1998 The Ancor proposal is a reasonable use for the property, and all efforts have been made to avoid the wetland encroachment. The use of additional retaining walls on the southeast portion of the parking area could contribute to a small reduction of wetland filling,but would result in the loss of a landscaped transition and screening of the parking lot. UTILITIES City sewer and water can be provided to the site with connection to existing lines located in Outlot A to the north, adjacent to Golden Triangle Drive. ARCHITECTURE The three-story building meets City Code for 75% face brick and glass. The building is 30 feet tall based on the height definition and meets City Code. Rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened by metal panel enclosures. Should the proof of parking deck be necessary in the future, it has been designed in a tiered fashion to work with the grades and minimize the impacts. The structure will be brick-faced to match the building and meet City Code. Lighting for the property should consist of downcast cut off fixtures. LANDSCAPING Based on total building size and the required tree replacement, a total of 433 caliper inches of landscaping is required. The landscaping plan meets this requirement, and includes numerous wetland type plantings along the south property to screen parking and create a more forested look than what exists today. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 3.76 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 3.76 acres, Zoning District Change from I-2 to Office on 3.76 acres, and Site Plan Review on 3.76 acres based on plans dated May 6, 1998, this Staff Report, and the following: 1. Prior to final plat approval,the proponent shall submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. 5 I Staff Report Ancor Communications May 8, 1998 2. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Provide a permit from the Watershed District and the Corp. of Engineers for the alteration of the wetland. B. Install erosion control and tree protection fencing at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City Engineer and City Forester. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Review the building plans with the Fire Marshal. B. Submit a landscaping bond in accordance with City Code. C. Provide building material samples and colors for review by the City Planner. D. Submit a detailed lighting plan for the property consisting of downcast cutoff fixtures. E. Pay the cash park fee. 4. The following waivers are granted as part of the PUD: A. Side yard setback to 14 feet. B. Shoreland Code: 1. Building setback of 135 feet from Nine Mile Creek. 2. Future parking structure setback of 97 feet from Nine Mile Creek. 3. Impervious surface of 49%. 4. Alteration in the 75 foot Shore Impact Zone. fi I0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 1998 Page 10 D. ANCOR COMMUNICATIONS by Hoyt Properties. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 3.76 acres of the overall Technology Park PUD, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from I-2 to Office on 3.76 acres, and Site Plan Review on 3.76 acres. Location: 7765 Golden Triangle Drive. Planner Kipp introduced Gary Lally,representing Hoyt Properties, and Miles Lindberg, of BRW. Gary Lally told the Commission that Hoyt Properties has been developing in Technology Park since 1984. The site in question is the last parcel that the company has left to develop in the park. Miles Lindberg gave an architectural presentation using visual aids and handouts. The site to be developed is very challenging because of the nearby wetlands,Nine Mile Creek, and the heavily wooded condition of the site. The proposed development is for a three-story, 50,000 square foot office building. The office building is located so that the impact of the building is softened by the land form behind it. There will be 153 parking spaces to meet Ancor's needs,these will also meet the needs, of what is to be expected to be roughly 10,000 square feet of sublease space at ordinance level parking, 5 per 1000 square feet. It is expected that through Ancor's business life they will take over the sublease portion of the building. Grading and Landscaping will meet City requirements. Sandstad asked for details of the proposed retaining walls. Lindberg told the Commission the retaining walls were designed using wood so the system would blend in with the surrounding vegetation. Another reason for using wood was due to the major impact and grading that would have to be accomplished if the entire retaining wall was made out of cement. Maximum height of the wall at the parking ramp is 28'. The wall is 18'high behind the building itself. Clinton asked what Ancor's business entailed. Cal Nelson,representative of Ancor,told the Commission the company designs computer chips for companies such as Hewlett Packard and IBM. Currently the I I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 1998 Page 11 company has 80 employees whose average income is $80,000 per year. Sara Wiener, of Leonard Parker, gave a brief visual presentation of the proposed building material details; a darker brick that would ground the building on the site, architectural metal panels and nonreflective glass. Foote returned the floor to the Senior Planner for his report. Kipp told the Commission staff is recommending approval of the project based on the staff report and its recommendations. Sandstad asked if the wetland mitigation was being done on a one-to-one basis. Kipp told the Commission the mitigation was being done on a two-to-one ratio. The applicant and the City have not determined where that mitigation will take place. Foote opened the floor to the public for their comments on the project. No public comments were considered. Foote returned the floor to the Commission for their comments. Clinton told the Commission he liked the plan and would give it his support. Habicht concurred and gave his support to the project. MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7- 0. MOTION: Habicht moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 3.76 acres of the overall Technology Park PUD, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from I-2 to Office on 3.76 acres, and Site Plan Review on 3.76 acres,based on plans dated May 6, 1998, and subject to the recommendation of the staff report dated May 8, 1998. Location: 7765 Golden Triangle Drive. Motion 7-0. a .c�OF MINA/cc, ��► Minnesota Department of•Natural Resources A..<4.- Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 '��I mt. Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612)772-7977 ,kiOR NATUAP May 11, 1998 Scott Kipp Community Development Department • City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: ANCOR COMMUNICATION SITE,NINE MILE CREEK AND WETLAND 27-1012W, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Kipp: We have reviewed the site plans dated March 1998 (received March 31, 1998) and the supporting application materials provided by BRW, Inc. dated March 27, 1998 for the above-referenced proposal (Section 12, T116N-R22W). We understand that this site is part of the Technology Park PUD that was platted in 1985, and that there were negotiations at that time that resulted in the wooded knoll (Outlot A) and the Nine Mile Creek corridor (Outlot B) being deeded to the city to ensure preservation of the most sensitive natural resources. We also understand that there have been prior approvals for projects on this parcel that, arguably, disturbed more of the natural resources than the current proposal. DNR Waters had concerns with the Normark project when it was presented in January of 1992, and we see many of the same concerns with the current project proposal (even though the city adopted an updated shoreland ordinance 2/1/96). However,we understand that the above-referenced history needs to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the focus of our concerns is: keeping the project impacts limited to previously disturbed areas as much as practicable while restoring (including reforestation) of the disturbed areas to provide better quality buffers between the development and the creek corridor. Following are specific comments: 1. Protected waters Nine Mile Creek and unnamed wetland 27-1012W are on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water(OHW)elevation, which alters the course, current or cross-section of protected waters or wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of DNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit. Unnamed wetland 27-1012W has an estimated ordinary high water(OHW) elevation of 832.0'. As you are aware, the DNR had questions about whether the proposed stormwater treatment pond was within wetland 27-1012W, so we met on-site this morning (5/11/98) with the applicant's representatives Beth Kunkel and Miles Lindberg (of BRW). At the site we noted subtle variations in topography indicating a low ridge of higher land and a tree line that DNR Information:612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 • TTY:612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer ink Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity to Minimum of I(Y Post-Consumer Waste I& Mr. Scott Kipp Ancor Office Building May 11, 1998 Page 2 separates the main body of wetland 27-1012W from the proposed pond location. Based on our observations at the site, DNR Waters will not require a permit for the grading of the stormwater treatment pond, as currently proposed. 2. The DNR protected waters should be identified on the plan sheets or plats, as well as, the OHW elevations(if determined). 3. On Plan sheet EX1.0 the 100-year flood elevation for Nine Mile Creek is noted as 935.00 feet, which should be corrected to read 835.0. Please note that the proposed project should be consistent with all applicable floodplain regulations for both the city and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. 4. The site is within the shoreland district of Nine Mile Creek (300 feet from the creek or the width of the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater). The development must be consistent with the city's adopted shoreland management regulations. There are several aspects of the proposed project that are in conflict with the ordinance. a. A portion of the site contain bluffs (i.e. slopes that average 30 percent or greater and rise 25 feet above the top of the bank)along Nme Mile Creek. The bluffs themselves, and a buffer zone within 20 feet of the top of the bluff, should not be disturbed and all structures should be setback at least 30 feet from the top of the bluff The most recent plan revision shows essentially a new bluff location sloping down to the pond, and a reforestation plan. This is better than the previously proposed retaining wall, and the bluff in question here appears to have been previously disturbed, but the city should still be making a conscious decision to allow the total alteration of the bluff. If such an alteration is approved, it is important to ensure: there is good erosion control during and after construction, the runoff is directed such that it doesn't go over the steep slopes and the parking area is set back such that it is not in the 20 foot bluff impact zone. b. Other portions of the site contain steep slopes. Topographic alterations should be minimized in these areas in accordance with the city's shoreland ordinance. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. c. The proposed impervious surface cover of 49 percent is well above the 30 percent that is allowed by the shoreland ordinance. d. The setback from Nine Mile Creek for an office is 150 feet. The proposed setback of 135 feet requires a variance and, therefore, proof of hardship. Mr. Scott Kipp Ancor Office Building May 11, 1998 Page 3 5. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. There may be wetlands on the site that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by the city in accordance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. b. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan and Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. c. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is needed. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. d. Construction activities which disturb five acres of land, or more, are required to apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(Dan Sullivan @ 612/296-7219). e. The comments in this letter address DNR-Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Please contact me at 772-7914 should you have questions. Sincerely, c Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist c: BRW, Inc., Beth Kunkel Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joe Yanta Nine Mile Creek File Eden Prairie Shoreland File Memorandum To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Through: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources From: Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Date: May 12, 1998 Subject: Supplemental Staff Report to the Senior Planner Staff Report for Ancor Communications BACKGROUND: This project is located on the east side of Golden Triangle Drive, north of Nine-Mile Creek. The project is on 3.76 acres and currently guided office. There have been three projects approved for this site since the original Technology Park PUD was approved. The last project was the Normark Corporation Office Warehouse Building in 1992. NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES: Tree Loss/Landscaping The site has a total of 1,177 diameter inches of significant trees. The trees include oaks, cottonwoods, and willows. A total of 494 diameter inches of trees would be lost due to construction which represents a 42%loss of significant trees as defined by City Code. The mitigation for this tree loss is 276 caliper inches . During the early reviews of this site, the City received deeds to Outlot A and Outlot B, which were to be preserved as natural areas. The grading plan and retaining wall construction does not impact significant trees on Outlot A. The property line is defined as the grading limits for this project on the north side. A total of 156 caliper inches of landscape material are required under the Landscaping Screening Ordinance. When this is combined with the tree mitigation, a total of 433 caliper inches of landscaping material are required. The plan submitted has a total of 450 inches of landscape material and meets the landscaping and tree loss requirements. (p The landscaping plan has a wide variety of deciduous and coniferous material. Most of this plant material will be used to screen the parking lot and building from Golden Triangle Drive and the adjacent property to the south. NURP Pond A NURP pond is proposed in the easterly portion of the project. This pond would take runoff from the building and parking lot areas and pretreat it prior to discharge into Nine-Mile Creek. A group of willow trees will be retained between the proposed NURP pond area and creek channel. The City Engineering Department and Watershed District need to approve the design and drainage calculations prior to construction of this NURP pond. Shoreland Impact This project is located adjacent to Nine-Mile Creek and the proposal will require shoreland waivers as follows: • Structure Setback • Impervious Surface • Alteration of the 75' Shore Impact Zone Details of these individual waiver requests and the staff support for the waivers are noted in the May 8, 1998 Staff Report by the Senior Planner. Reasons indicated for supporting the waivers are as follows: • There are fewer waivers with less impact than previous variances requests for this site. • The wooded knoll and creek corridor were dedicated as part of the original PUD approval for a 53,000 square foot office building. • The structure setback for the building is greater than previous variances. The setback for the proof of parking is from the lower deck corner. The setback from the creek increases from this point. • All previous approvals showed grading closer to the creek prior to creation of the shoreland impact zone. • Tree replacement, landscaping, and reforestation of the graded slopes in the shoreland impact zone screens parking and creates a more forested look than what exists today. Attached to this memo is a letter from the MN Department of Natural Resources regarding the impact to the shoreline/wetland area by this project. RECOMMENDATION: This project was reviewed at the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting and was approved on a 7-0 vote. Staff would recommend approval of this project based on the information in the May 8, 1998 Staff Report and the additional recommendations within this supplemental report. SAF:mdd /3 PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES May 18, 1998 Page 3 assume where their property lines are located. Anything that is done to this land should be done by the City and not by it's residents. MOTION: Corneille moved, seconded by Koenig, to deny the request of the owners of Lots 1, 2, and 3,to purchase the park property and that all structures located on the park land be removed and the land restored to it's natural state. Motion carried 5-0. B. Petition for a Water Ski Slalom Course on Staring Lake Fox reviewed the staff report and stated staff recommended denial of the request. Russell Johnson, 5433 Vernon Avenue, Edina, stated he believed he could use Staring Lake harmoniously with the fishermen, and since there was relatively little boat traffic on Staring Lake it was ideal for his water skiing purposes. He requested the Commission to approve the request. He was unsure how much noise would result from the water skiing and the boat. Jacobson asked what a submersible slalom course was and Johnson responded that it was filled with air and submerged by letting the air out so it would sink. It was inflated when in use and deflated when submerged. Corneille asked who would use this course and Johnson responded that it would primarily be his son and himself using it. If he was going to spend several thousand dollars on the equipment he did not want just anyone using it. Hilgeman asked if the size and depth of the lake was part of the reason for the staff recommendation and Fox responded that the location of the system was a factor in that recommendation. Koenig asked Wit was legal to have buoys on the lake and Lambert responded they have to be taken down unless they have a permit to keep them up overnight. Koenig stated she has an issue with this request and without a permit, she could not support it. She noted that the proponent was not an Eden Prairie resident, and this was also an issue. She did not want to have boats on the lake creating noise and interfering with the residents who wanted to use the park and the facilities located there. Hilgeman stated they have based decisions on the numbers of people that would benefit from that decision, and in this case it appeared that number would be very small. She did not support the request. MOTION:Koenig moved, seconded by Hilgeman,to deny the request of Russell Johnson to install a retractable slalom ski course on Staring Lake based on the staff memo dated May 13, 1998. Motion carried 5-0. V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. Ancor Communications Fox reviewed the staffreport and noted staff recommended approval subject to the stipulations listed in the Planning Commission staff report and the supplemental staff report. PARKS,RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES May 18, 1998 Page 4 Miles -, BRW, Inc. reviewed the project and described the proposed tenant use for the site. He described the landscaping plan and the site plan. He discussed the NURP pond and its ability to handle runoff from property other than the subject site. He discussed the wetland mitigation that will be done to compensate for the area of fill that they need to do for this project. Fox reviewed the mitigation for the amount of tree loss and the amount of landscaping materials the proponent will be required to plant. He reviewed the ponding on the site and how it can best be utilized. He reviewed the waivers required for this project. Koenig asked about the wetland plantings that would be used in the mitigation area and Miles reviewed the landscape plan for these areas. Brown asked if the concerns of the DNR which had been raised with the Normark project had been addressed with this project, and Fox responded that there were differences between these two projects which lessen the impacts of this project as opposed to the Normark project. Koenig stated she was concerned that the impacts would be greater than expected because the lot size was so small. Fox responded that was the reason for the retaining wall. Hilgeman asked if this was an appropriate use for this site and whether the building was too large for this site. She thought there was too much damage being done to the site in order to put the building on this lot. Koenig stated the fact that the waivers were less than those required for a prior project was not sufficient reason to grant the waivers. Discussion ensued regarding the modification of the site necessary to construct the building. Jacobson was concerned about the lack of parking spaces for the building size and Miles responded that additional parking would be constructed when it was needed. Fox noted the City requires developers to provide proof of parking, and if parking occurs off-site this proof of parking will be constructed. Discussion ensued regarding the site drainage and the impact of the development on the wildlife in the area. The waivers were discussed and the hardship was that it was an extremely difficult site to build on. Gary Wyle, Senior Vice President with Hoyt Properties, stated they always intended to put an office building on the site and they gave the hill to the City as requested, and this now requires them to come back and ask for waivers in order to construct a building on the site. They will build the additional parking when and if it is required. MOTION: Corneille moved, seconded by Brown, to recommend approval of the request based on the information in the may 8, 1998 Staff Report and the additional recommendations within the Supplemental Staff Report dated May 12, 1998. Motion failed 2-3. Lambert requested the Commissioners who voted no to state their reasons for doing so. Hilgeman stated she did not see the trade-off as significant and it was not the best use of this site. Koenig commented she thought there were too many variances involved. Jacobson concurred with Koenig and felt that the 49% impervious surface was too much area. Corneille commented he believed that as a City they have put the proponent in his present position and felt that they owed him something in return for his donation of land to the City. Lambert stated 17 PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES May 18, 1998 Page 5 the City has the option to give the hill back and move the building away from the creek, which would eliminate the variances and allow the proponent to develop the site. The City gives variances to a site similar to this one to preserve the woods and give the wildlife a place to live and create diversity in the design of sites. Discussion ensued regarding what could be done to resolve the issues the Commissioners have with the plan. Corneille commented the developer has proposed a NURP pond that is larger than what is required and since the City made a deal with the property owners, he felt they should now follow through with that. B. Realife Valley Corporation Fox reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the request. Perry Wright, Wright Engineering reviewed the project which will be a housing development for seniors. Dick Hanson of Realife described the senior housing cooperative and explained how it would operate. The building will be owned and operated by the people that live in it. He described the process that they use to operate and the features that will be included in the building. The City needs this type of project and the site is very expensive. They are trying to make it feasible for those people that will live in this development. Hilgeman expressed concern regarding the intersection and the traffic and Hanson responded that they are putting in a right-turn lane to make it easier for residents to access the site. The building will own a 12-person bus which can be used by the residents at any time. Jacobson asked if Smetana Lane would end and Fox responded that it will remain in that location until it is upgraded. It is a public street, and will eventually be completed. MOTION: Corneille moved, seconded by Hilgeman, to recommend approval of the request subject to the conditions in the May 8, 1998 Planning Commission Staff Report and the Supplemental Staff Report dated May 13, 1998. Motion carried 5-0. C. Riverview Bluffs Fox gave the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the project. Peter Jarvis, Laukka-Jarvis, stated he was present to answer any questions. Hilgeman asked where the burial mounds were located on the site and Jarvis indicated those locations where they had thought the burial mounds might be and the buffer areas around each of them. It now appears that they are not Indian burial mounds, but that has not been verified as yet. They are in agreement with the stipulations contained in both staff reports. MOTION: Hilgeman moved, seconded by Corneille, to recommend approval of the project based on the information in the May 8, 1998 Planning Commission Staff Report and the Supplemental Staff Report dated May 14, 1998. Motion carried 5-0. D. Wynstone 1998 James Jasper, Jasper Homes, reviewed the project and described the development which will be for 2C EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6-2-98 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. V,D DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger REALIFE VALLEY VIEW COOPERATIVE Scott A. Kipp Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: 1. Close the Public Hearing; 2. Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review on 3.6 acres with waivers and Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 3.6 acres; 3. Adopt the Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential on 3.6 acres; 4. Adopt the Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 7.5 acres; 5. Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into 1 lot, 1 outlot and road right-of-way; and 6. Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations (and Council conditions). Background: The proposal is for construction of 94 affordable senior apartment units on 3.6 acres of the property at a density of 26 units per acre. The density is necessary to maintain the affordable aspect of the development, and will result in additional Shoreland waivers. This project addresses one of the needs identified by the Senior Issues Task Force for a variety of affordable senior housing opportunities. The Final Report said some flexibility in the zoning codes may be necessary, including the use of higher densities to help maintain affordability. The Realife Valley View Cooperative is a not-for-profit cooperative where the residents are the owners. Staff believes that the Guide Plan change for high density residential is an acceptable land use for the following reasons: 1. It is an opportunity to meet senior housing goals. 2. It maximizes the use of land in an area envisioned for, and capable of, supporting more intense land uses,'thus reducing pressure for higher density in the southwest part of Eden Prairie which is more appropriate for lower intensity land uses. 3. The land use is compatible with office and industrial. There are existing apartments in City West which are adjacent to office and industrial. 1 4. The proposal will reduce traffic impacts. Apartment projects reverse the peak hour flow which would minimize overall impact on the road system serving mainly office and industrial land uses. The plans have been revised according to the Staff Report by adding the trail extension, revising the landscaping plan, and showing the use of downcast lighting fixtures. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Commission voted 7-0 for approval at its May 11, 1998 meeting. Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission: The Commission voted 5-0 for approval at its May 18, 1998 meeting. Supporting Reports: 1.2. Resolutions Staff Report dated May 8, 1998 3, Planning Commission Minutes dated May 11, 1998 4. Correspondence z REALIFE VALLEY VIEW COOPERATIVE 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 Realife Valley View Cooperative by Realife, Inc. for 94 apartment units requires amendment of the Plan; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,hereby adopts the amendment of the Plan subject to Metropolitan Council approval as follows: 3.6 acres from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential located at the South side of Smetana Lane. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 2nd day of June, 1998. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk REALIFE VALLEY VIEW COOPERATIVE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT REVIEW OF REALIFE VALLEY VIEW COOPERATIVE FOR REALIFE,INC. 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 Realife,Inc. PUD Concept Review by Realife,Inc.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 June 2, 1998; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,Minnesota, as follows: 1. Realife Valley View Cooperative, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated May 26, 1998. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated May 11, 1998. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 2nd day of June, 1998. Jean L. Harris,Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk -I REALIFE VALLEY VIEW COOPERATIVE Exhibit A Legal: That part of the West 100 feet of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying Southerly of the centerline of Valley View Road (formerly known as County Road No. 39), as shown in the plat of WILSON RIDGE, WHICH LIES Northerly of a line drawn Easterly at right angles from the West line of said East Half, from a point on said West line distant 269.5 feet Southerly from the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Southwest Quarter. The East 179.0 feet as measured at right angles to the East line thereof, of that part of the West of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South of the center line of County Road Number 39, together with an easement for driveway purposes over and across the West 30 feet of the East 209.0 feet of that part of the West % of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12, lying South of said County Road Number 39 and North of a line drawn at right angles from a point on the East line of said West Y2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12, distant 1190.2 feet North of the Southeast corner thereof, according to U.S. Government Survey. That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said quarter-quarter;thence North, assumed bearing, along the west line of said quarter-quarter, a distance of 166.10 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel of land to be described;thence East a distance of 100.00 feet;thence South, parallel with said west line, a distance of 141.60 feet; thence North 54 degrees 00 minutes 04 seconds East a distance of 80.83 feet; thence North 29 degrees 19 minutes 47 seconds West a distance of 119.40 feet; thence West a distance of 106.91 feet to the west line of said quarter-quarter;thence South, along said west line, a distance of 10.00 feet to the point of beginning. That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said quarter-quarter;thence South, assumed bearing, along the west line of said quarter-quarter, a distance of 269.50 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel of land to be described;thence East a distance 100.00 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 12 seconds West a distance of 215.10 feet to the west line of said quarter-quarter;thence North, along said west line, a distance of 190.44 feet to the point of beginning. REALIFE VALLEY VIEW COOPERATIVE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF REALIFE VALLEY VIEW COOPERATIVE FOR REALIFE,INC. BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Realife Valley View Cooperative for Realife,Inc.dated March 26, 1998, consisting of 7.5 acres into 1 lot, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall,is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 2nd day of June, 1998. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk 4P STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner DATE: May 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Realife Valley View Cooperative APPLICANT: Realife FEE OWNERS: Gary and Patricia Kostecka Liberty Property Limited Trust Hartford Capital Group LOCATION: South side of Smetana Lane. REQUEST: 1. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential on 3.6 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.5 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 3.6 acres with waivers. 4. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 3.6 acres. 5. Site Plan Review on 3.6 acres. 6. Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into 1 lot, 1 outlot, and road right-of- way. ari:pb .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • . . . . • . •. . . •••...i..• • .. . . . • 00 P Ali< ;: th ..: K dr umenyaw, . :.. AMR ..... :- ':: :: : :):•: .' :.:.-::..N.........j.:H.: ... ..: - .% .. ! \ \; • •• • II_VA , •:' Li NI . . .... • " • • :,.1.i,.::-..,i.....2 o'' ,:•....„ :..; cl- • :::, ..:!• - ••_.. _ 2 .,. . . ii:i. •.\•r ,•••••:::,.:;:•••; ....1 14. cc .... 4.,, IT-1:::i•iNCL.:.).1‘r 040 i'd N4 •••• •i';‘,0 Li I -......: .... i '•'' i :::. i.• : \lop Air 1 , • • k V ': .•••••. .,,C ..•..1 ' IL ,•••':',. Ili: 4. — / ------- , ... ... . . il), c-- --- '• .1, .s . v 5TH A C.i."•Ii ION I . . -:1. ON KW.:? •...4„,‘,.; ....•,' • ,:•.';',' . n 1- / vi:<li,i6 7.__CENTER Pi_iz A . • • • • " •-••.• .• . . • •. •. . . .•.• •:•• : • •••: : :•: .. ,. .... .. ..... ... e'r'1.:•\\:; •:• •: :::::::::::::::-:: :: , • • • • . .• •*•.:a if • • • . . . . . . ./--- 111111 "INI%ti ::: •:•:-:•:•..-:•:. :•:.. .. :- :•:.....:•:•:•:•: :: '--..,. . e,....:. • • - - - • • • • . •:::: c...... :.. . . . ---r---------- --N. SI\ vooni °RIVE ••••m•m•Na •••••"'"*".."'""...". d ! T i',"..!S f--A-t 4 1—,•:—• z ' S ST. I L.--..----- V4 ES• '0 .st , ) i ' 1 •-• .••'''.'''. / • I \ .-- i • i / _ . :::::::;.:ii.i:. •.•:•:.:•. . '. .. .. •:•:•:•:• PRAIRIE _ _ :::::::::::: ._:::::::•.,•1:-.-....: :. ••.: : . . .2 ••,-.i:: E.t4 • -::•• - ....: :•,..... ..:...- ..,::::::• • - • • - • • ••• • • . .. . . . . . . . •.•..... ...... ..... .... . ........ . . .. . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . ...\ :::.:......•::•:•:.•:..:.•:•:.•:•:•:.•,.•:.•:.•.•.•.:.•.:• •: : ( -.•••. ••,•• . . : :•:•••.•:•:•.•: :.:•.:. .... . • : : : • • _ ..,.7i • 4 Staff Report Realife Valley View Cooperative May 8, 1998 BACKGROUND In 1995 the City Council established the Senior Issues Task Force to identify the impact of changing demographics of the senior population and the resulting needs for housing, transportation,health and social services and related issues. One of the needs identified by the Task Force was for a variety of affordable senior housing opportunities. The Final Report said some flexibility in the zoning codes may be necessary, including the use of higher densities to help maintain affordability. The Realife Valley View Cooperative is a not-for-profit cooperative where the residents are the owners. The site is guided Low Density Residential and zoned Rural. Surrounding land use consists of Office to the north across Valley View Road, Floodplain and High Density Residential to the east, and Office to the west. Lake Smetana abuts the site to the south. The existing building to the west required a guide plan change from Low Density Residential to Office and rezoning to Industrial. Variances were granted for a front yard setback from 50 to 35 feet, a shoreland setback from 200 feet to 100 feet, and for an increase in permitted office use from 50% to 75%. In 1997 the City approved a 318 unit apartment project on the north side of Smetana Lane. This project received PUD waivers for density of 22 units per acre, height to 45 feet, and shoreland waivers for impervious surface, land area per unit, and length of building along the shoreline. The project has not been constructed. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE The project requires a change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. This land was guided High Density Residential in 1979. There is no official record of the land use change to Low Density Residential. Staff believes it is the result of a graphic error. This site and the surrounding properties are within the City's Major Center Area(MCA) where the use of land is envisioned for, and capable of, supporting more intense land uses. This is evident with the approval of the Southwest Crossings PUD on the south side of Lake Smetana, the Wilson Learning building to the north, and other industrial and high density residential approvals adjacent to the site. The use of the site for Low Density Residential is unrealistic due to the high land value. High Density Residential, multi-story office or research and development are appropriate uses. The MCA allows for residential densities up to 40 units per acre within close proximity to the 2 Staff Report Realife Valley View Cooperative May 8, 1998 City's commercial center. Allowing higher density within the MCA reduces pressure for higher density in the southwest part of Eden Prairie which is more appropriate for lower intensity land uses. Since the surrounding uses are a mix of higher intensity uses, including office, industrial, commercial and high density residential, this proposal can be considered appropriate and compatible. The change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan for this proposal also helps meet housing goals established by the Cify's Senior Issues Task Force by providing affordable senior housing. This proposal will reduce traffic impacts. Apartment projects reverse the peak hour flow which would minimize overall impact on the road system serving mainly office and industrial land uses. SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT The site plan shows the construction of 94 apartment units on 3.6 acres of the property located above the Ordinary High Water Level of Lake Smetana. All structure and parking setbacks meet City Code. The Base Area Ratio is 0.24. City Code permits up to a 0.30 BAR. The preliminary plat shows the 7.5 acre property subdivided into one lot, one outlot, and road right of way. The proposal will require waivers through the PUD as follows: Density City Code permits up to 17.4 units per acre above the ordinary high water level in the RM-2.5 zoning district. The plan is based on 26 units per acre, or 31 additional units. The Lake Smetana apartments received a waiver for 22.2 units per acre, or an additional 69 units. The property is within the city's Major Center Area which allows residential densities up to 40 units per acre. Site Area per Unit A total of 2,500 square feet of site area per unit is required by City Code. At the proposed density, the project will provide 1,650 square feet per unit. Floor Area Ratio Floor Area Ratio is permitted up to 0.50. in the RM-2.5 district. At the proposed density, the FAR is 0.97. 3 I0 Staff Report Realife Valley View Cooperative May 8, 1998 Building height Building height maximum is 45 feet in the RM-2.5 zoning district. The proposed structure is 48 feet high. The additional height is due to the pitched roof. Parking City Code requires 2 parking stalls per unit, or 188 stalls. A total of 143 parking stalls (94 enclosed) are provided, or 1.5 stalls per unit. The proposed parking ratio is based on actual needs of existing similar developments owned by the proponent within the metropolitan area. SHORELAND CODE This site abuts Lake Smetana which is classified as a Natural Environment Water. The project meets the 150 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Level of Smetana Lake, meets the minimum lot width, and does not encroach in the Shore Impact Zone. However, the site will require PUD waivers from the Shoreland Code in the following areas: Lot size The Code requires a lot area of 30,000 sq. ft. per unit for multi-family housing. This requirement would permit 5 housing units on the 3.6 acres of property above the Ordinary High Water Level, and would not be considered a reasonable use of the property consistent with residential guide plan densities. Percent of structure facing a shoreland water No more than 50% of the shoreline can be occupied in building within the multi-family district. Due to the narrow lot width, this requirement cannot be met. An office or industrial use would have similar site impacts, but would not be subject to this code requirement. Maintaining the shore impact zone in its natural state, including the existing tree mass along the bluff of Smetana Lake is a reason to consider the waiver. Building height Building height cannot exceed 35 feet for residential structures. The proposed structure is 48 feet high, and is a result of the density required to meet affordable senior housing costs, and the residential roof design. Percent of impe 'ous surface Impervious surface maximum permitted is 30%. The amount of impervious surface proposed for the project is 41%. Treatment to NURP standards prior to discharge to the lake is a reason to consider the waiver. If the site were reasonably developed for industrial, the impervious surface 4 Staff Report Realife Valley View Cooperative • May 8, 1998 could reach 50%. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The tree inventory shows 106 caliper inches of significant trees on site. Tree loss is 30 caliper inches, or 28%. This is consistent with the average 30% tree loss for residential developments. Tree replacement is 11 caliper inches. A small portion of the bluff to Smetana Lake will be altered. However, a significant amount of existing tree mass will remain along Smetana Lake. Staff recommends that Outlot A of this area be dedicated to the City for conservation purposes. The limits of the alteration is less than the industrial development to the west, which received a shoreland setback variance. Some off-site grading to the east is proposed. The proponent has received permission from the land owner for this grading. Storm water will be treated to NURP standards. No wetlands will be impacted by the development proposal. With the property developed as proposed, or for an office or industrial use, the site will have similar impacts to allow for reasonable development. UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and water connection are available from Valley View Road. ACCESS The property will take access from Smetana Lane. This road is currently a gravel section. The proponent will construct a portion of Smetana Lane to City standards consistent with the road design for the Lake Smetana Apartments approval. When the rest of property along Smetana Lane develops, the remaining portion of the road will be constructed. The traffic study for the Lake Smetana Apartments included a development scenerio for industrial on the Realife site. The study concluded that traffic impacts were minor, and did not warrant a traffic signal installation. This senior housing proposal will also reduce any traffic impacts. Apartment projects would reverse the peak hour flow to AM outbound and PM inbound. This would be less overall impact on the road system serving mainly office and industrial land uses. PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS There is an existing trail along Valley View Road. An eight foot wide bituminous trail will be required along the south side of Smetana Lane to the entrance of the site. At that point a private 5 12 Staff Report Realife Valley View Cooperative May 8, 1998 five foot wide sidewalk would extend from the trail to the building. A private trail is proposed from the building to Lake Smetana. A public trail is proposed along the shoreline of Lake Smetana. The public section will need to be constructed to City standards concurrent with building construction. This trail will eventually be extended around Lake Smetana as part of the City's trail system plan. LANDSCAPING The amount of caliper inches based on building size is 470 inches. Together with 1 l caliper inches of tree replacement, a total of 481 caliper inches is required. The plan shows 417 caliper inches. An additional 64 caliper inches are required. The plan should be revised to show these additional inches along the south side of the building to reinforce buffering to Lake Smetana. The plan also shows approximately 30% use of understory trees (maximum of 30 feet at maturity). The City Code is based on the use of overstory deciduous and conifer trees to meet the caliper inch requirement. However, it has been the policy of the City to permit up to 10%use of understory trees toward the caliper inch total to encourage the use of some colorful ornamental varieties. The plan should be revised to limit 10%use of understory trees and show overstory trees or conifers in place of the understory trees on the west side of the building. This will provide more plantings that exist in the area and a better buffer to the office building. ARCHITECTURE The buildings meet the City Code for 75% face brick and glass construction. Lighting for the property should not exceed 25 foot tall downcast cut off fixtures. A detailed lighting plan will be necessary prior to City Council. CONCLUSION The Comprehensive Guide Plan identifies the site as Low Density Residential. This land was guided High Density Residential in 1979. There is no official record of the land use change to Low Density Residential. The staff believes that a Low Density Residential use is unlikely due to surrounding land uses and the high land value. High Density Residential, multi-story office or research and development uses would be expected. Staff believes that the proposal for high density residential is an acceptable land use for the following reasons: 1. It is an opportunity to meet senior housing goals. 2. It maximizes the use of land in an area envisioned for, and capable of, supporting more intense land uses, thus reducing pressure for higher density in the southwest 6 Staff Report Realife Valley View Cooperative May 8, 1998 part of Eden Prairie which is more appropriate for lower intensity land uses. 3. The land use is compatible with office and industrial. There are existing apartments in City West which are adjacent to office and industrial. 4. The proposal will reduce traffic impacts. Apartment projects reverse the peak hour flow which would minimize overall impact on the road system serving mainly office and industrial land uses. The Planning Commission must balance the above benefits against the waivers necessary from the Code. Strict compliance with the Shoreland regulations would preclude the development of this site for senior housing. This was the same approach used to justify the waivers for the industrial building to the west, and the Lake Smetana Apartment approval to the east. RECOMMENDATIONS Alternative One If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have been given to justify the change in the Guide Plan then one option would be to recommend approval of the change from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential on 3.6 acres, PUD Concept Review on 7.5 acres, PUD District Review on 3.6 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 3.6 acres with waivers, Site Plan Review on 3.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right of way based on plans dated April 22, 1998, this staff report, and the following: 1. Prior to City Council Review, the proponent shall: A. Show an eight foot wide bituminous trail along the south side of Smetana Lane to the entrance of the site. B. Revised the landscaping plan to add 64 caliper inches of additional trees along the south side of the building to reinforce buffering to Lake Smetana. In addition, revise the plan to limit 10% use of understory trees and show overstory trees in place of the understory trees on the west side of the building. C. Submit a lighting plan for the property which limits pole lighting to 25 foot downcast cutoff shoebox fixtures. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. 7 �� . Staff Report Realife Valley View Cooperative ' May 8, 1998 B. Submit detailed road design plans for Smetana Lane for review and approval by the City Engineer. 3. Concurrent with release of the final plat, the proponent shall dedicate Outlot A to the City for conservation purposes. 4. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall install erosion control and tree protection fencing at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City Engineer and.City Forester. 5. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Review the building plans with the Fire Marshal. B. Submit a landscaping bond in accordance with City Code. C. Provide building material samples and colors for review by the City Planner. D. Pay the cash park fee. E. Submit detailed plans for the trail along Lake Smetana for review by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. The trail will be constructed concurrent with building construction. 6. The following waivers are granted as part of the PUD: A. Density to 26 units per acre. B. Site Area per Unit of 1,650 square feet. C. Floor Area Ratio of 0.97. D. Building height of 48 feet. E. Parking at 1.5 stalls per unit. F. Shoreland Code: 1. Lot size less than 30,000 square feet per unit. 2. Percent of structure facing a shoreland water greater than 50% 3. Building height of 48 feet. 4. Impervious surface of 41%. 8 Staff Report Realife Valley View Cooperative May 8, 1998 Alternative Two If the Planning Commission does not believe that compelling reasons have been given to justify the change in the Guide Plan then one option would be to recommend denial of the change from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential on 3.6 acres. Staff Recommends Alternative One 9 PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 6 C. REALIFE VALLEY VIEW COOPERATIVE by Realife, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to high Density Residential on 3.6 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 3.6 acres with waivers, zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 3.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 3.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into 1 lot, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South side of Smetana Lake. Planner Kipp introduced Dick Hansen and David Hansen of Realife,Inc., and Bill Griffith,Realife's legal council. Mr. Griffith made his presentation as follows: Realife Valley View Cooperative is a cooperative housing project specifically for seniors. Realife Inc., currently has two similar projects in Burnsville, Edina and recently has been approved to develop in the City of Bloomington. The concept is one where the owner,the seniors,buy shares of the housing project. HUD becomes involved to insure that conventional financing at low rates is available. Also,by creating a master association to develop the project, there are no other investors other than the conventional financing backed by HUD. So that, again,reduces the cost of development. The project is composed of 94 units in four levels. The units are very much like condominium units or rental housing units. Ownership of the individual units allows the seniors to take advantage of the tax issues,mortgage issues, maintenance issues covered by the association. The main building will be located on Valley View Road north of Lake Smetana. Access will be on Smetana Lane which will be completed and upgraded to the location of the housing facility. There will be 47 above-ground-parking stalls to serve guests of the unit owners. The rest of the parking is located below the building in a garage that is accessible directly to the units. Again,this provides climate controlled parking for the residents, 94 stalls for the 94 units. The project will be served by a minibus that comes in and out of the sight twice daily. The project is very much consistent in keeping up with the report of the Senior's Issues Task Force that has recently been completed by the City. The Task force identified, among a number of issues,the provision of senior housing that is affordable, convenient, and is in locations with high serviceability. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 7 The project abides by the 150' shoreland setback requirement. Within the setback is a 75' shore impact zone where nothing can occur,no major grading operations or activities can occur in that setback. There is a walkway from the resident building down to the lake. This walkway is intersected by a public walkway which has been approved to be constructed around the lake. Griffith gave a visual description of the property using a plan view that showed the building foot print,parking location,property location in respect to Lake Smetana and Valley View Road. He also reviewed the demographics that support the development of a senior building. Sandstad questioned the Realife representatives in regards to elevator location, and trash handling. They were told there will be two elevators servicing the building. Trash is collected by the building management on each floor and then taken to a central staging area in the basement where it is picked up daily. Cost of the units was broken down by the size of the unit and the income that the share holder has. The minimum income was stated as $15, 521. As the size of the units increase the minimum income goes up to $20,000 with the highest minimum income for the largest unit being $23, 000. The share price, or the cost of buying into the cooperative, at this point is $32,000, very affordable compared to a single family home or even a town home, Griffith said. The majority of the share holders pay cash for their shares. Foote asked Griffith if the monthly charge, above and beyond the share cost, for living in the building, is fixed or if it will change over the years. Griffith deferred the question to Dave Hansen of Realife,Inc. Mr. Hansen told the Commission once the building's construction is finished,the building is turned over to the residents,the share holders,who elect a board of directors to help run the building's day-to-day operations. If this group determines that an increase in the monthly fee is necessary,then the fee will be increased. In order to serve on the board of directors of the cooperative,the person has to be a shareholder. The monthly fees are broken down as follows: 67 percent goes to pay the buildings mortgage, with the balance going to pay for real estate taxes and building maintenance, which includes appliance maintenance. Foote turned the floor over to the Senior Planner for his report. Kipp told the Commission staff is recommending approval of the project based on / 0 PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 8 the recommendations in the staff report. Sandstad offered the following design suggestions: First, change the layout of the elevators to accommodate a shorter walking distance for the occupants of the residents. Second, do not have the garage exhaust fan discharging into the central parking area of the building. Foote opened the floor for public comment. Patricia Kostecka, fee owner of the property, stated her approval of the development. John Kotke, 7665 Smetana Lane, asked if there were going to be any other infrastructure improvements at the corner of Valley View and Smetana Lane. Kipp told Mr. Kotke the roadway intersection would be improved based on the original Lake Smetana improvement that took place a year ago. The intersection will be built with turn lanes as called out for in the traffic study that was done at the time the project was approved. Mr. Kotke asked if there would be any grading at the intersection. Kipp told Mr. Kotke the intersection would be developed to City standards. This will most likely involve some grading. Foote returned the floor to the Commission for their comments. Dorn asked if there would be heavy maintenance on the Outlot that will be dedicated to the City. Kipp told the Commission the only improvement that is to be done on the Outlot would be the construction of the walking trail around the lake. Dorn recommended spelling out those responsibilities in the development agreement. Habicht expressed concerns that the proposed parking was not adequate. Franzen told the Commission there are two senior projects in Eden Prairie that were granted parking waivers; Edendale and Elim Shores. PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 9 Sandstad suggested updating the City's parking requirements relating to this issue. He offered his full support for the project. Dorn offered his support for the project. Alexander offered her support for the project,but asked the developer to consider improving on the elevator location and the number of handicap parking stalls that are shown on the plans. Lewis stated it was a well thought out project and it meets the multi-family housing needs of the community that Eden Prairie must prepare for. One concern she did express is the entrance to the facility from Valley View Road, a very heavily traveled road. Foote offered his support for the project. MOTION: Dorn moved, seconded by Habicht to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7- 0. MOTION: Dorn moved, seconded by Habicht to approve recommending to the City Council approval of the change form Low Density Residential to High Density Residential on 3.6 acres, PUD Concept Review on 7.5 acres, PUD District Review on 3.6 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural toRM-2.5 on 3.6 acres with waivers, Site Plan review on 3.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into one lot, one outlot, and road right-of-way based on plans dated April 22, 1998,the May 8, 1998 staff report, and the following conditions listed therein. Motion carried 7- 0. AO LI BER'TY PROPERTY TRUST May 11, 1998 Mr. Mike Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re: Realife Valley View Cooperative Dear Mr. Franzen: On behalf of Liberty Property Trust, this is to express our support for the concept of high quality, high density, mixed use development on the north side of Lake Smetana,which would encompass residential, office and other related support amenities. Furthermore, we have reviewed the most recent plans for the above-referenced project submitted by Hartford Capital Group and believe that they will, if carried out to a high level of quality, be in keeping with this overall concept. Please do not hesitate to call me should you have any questions or wish to discuss our position in more detail. Very truly yours, I S. Gattuso Senior Vice President JSG/kr CELEBRATING �- YEARS 330 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH •SUITE 390 • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 (612) 375-1776 • F i FAX (612) 375-8958 L MI 111116r1 DEVELOPMENTS MAY 6, 1998 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 8080 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I AM THE OWNER OF THE LAKEVIEW BUSINESS CENTER LOCATED AT 10901 -10925 VALLEY EY VIEW ROAD. I AM WRITING THIS LETTER TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF REALIFE VALLEY VIEW COOPERATIVE,INC.("REALIFE")FOR, AMONG OTHER THINGS,APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR HOUSING COOPERATIVE ON PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE LAKEVIEW BUSINESS CENTER. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY GARY AND PATRICIA KOSTECKA AND IS ZONED RURAL. THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THE PROPERTY FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT FOR SEVERAL REASONS: 1. THE PROPOSED US OF THE PROPERTY IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 2. BECAUSE OF THE SMALL SIZE OF THE PROPERTY,AN ISSUE EXISTS WHETHER IT IS EVEN ELIGIBLE TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE ASKED MY LAWYER TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE. 3. THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IS EXCLUSIVELY COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL IN USE. THERE IS NO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE NEARBY VICINITY OF THIS PROPERTY. THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF THESE USES IS MADE WORSE BY THE LACK OF EFFECTIVE LANDSCAPE SCREENING PROPOSED FOR THE PROPERTY. 4. THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGHT IN A SHORELAND DISTRICT BY 13 FEET AND THE MAXIMUM IN THE RM-2.5 DISTRICT BY 3 FEET. 5. THE PROPOSED DENSITY IS 26 UNITS PER ACRES. THIS EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED IN THE RM-2.5 DISTRICT BY ALMOST 9 UNITS PER ACRE. 6. THE APPLICATION REQUESTS SEVERAL DEVIATIONS FROM THE SHORELAND ORDINANCE. THE SHORELAND ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED TO PROTECT THE SHORELINES OF LAKES AND STREAMS IN EDEN PRAIRIE,INCLUDING SMETANA LAKE. A GOAL OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO PROTECT THESE AREAS FROM INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT SO THAT THEY MAY BE ENJOYED BY ALL OF THE CITIZENS OF EDEN PRAIRIE. THE CURRENT COMMERCIAL USE OF PROPERTY SURROUNDING SMETANA LAKE RESULTS IN LITTLE RECREATIONAL USE OF THE LAKE BY ADJACENT PROPERTY USERS. THE PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE WILL UNBOUBTEDLY LEAD TO SUBSTANTIAL USE OF THE LAKE BY RESIDENTS. P.O. BOX 44429 • EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344-1429 TELEPHONE: 612/941-2236 • FAX: 612/942-9567 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 1998 PAGE 2 THE CITY WILL BEST PRESERVE SMETANA LAKE FOR ALL RESIDENTS OF EDEN PRAIIRE BY INSISTING THAT THE PROPERTY BE PUT TO A COMMERCIAL USE. 7. THE DEVELOPER HAS STATED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE USED FOR SENIOR HOUSING. THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT THE DEVELOPER FROM ABANDONING THE SENIOR HOUSING DESIGNATION AFTER THE PROJECT IS BUILT. THIS WOULD INCREASE THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF ALL OF THE ABOVE FACTORS. 8. THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT,IF THIS USE IS NOT APPROVED,THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED AS A COMMERCIAL OFFICE USE WITH MUCH LOWER DENSITY,AND THEREFORE A REDUCED IMPACT ON SMETANA LAKE AND ADJACENT PROPERTY USERS. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THE ABOVE ISSUES AS YOU EVALUATE THIS PROJECT. I HOPE THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER REQUIRING THAT REALIFE VALLEY VIEW COOPERATIVE,INC.PROVIDE INCREASED LANDSCAPING SCREENING AND REDUCED BUILDING HEIGHT AND DENSITY FOR ITS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT,AND THAT IT AGREE BY DEED RESTRICTION TO USE THE PROPERTY ONLY FOR SENIOR HOUSING. VERY TRULY URS, GERALD PORTNOY GP/DJ rim MI v,v,s,T9 ► Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 ��� I I a y Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 N !II.. 1c>c pv AT May 8, 1998 Scott Kipp Community Development Department City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: REALIFE VALLEY VIEW SITE, SMETANA LAKE (27-73W) AND NINE MILE CREEK, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Kipp: We have reviewed the site plans dated March 26, 1998 (received March 31, 1998) for the above referenced project. The proposed project has many similarities to the Carlton Apartments proposal for . the same site, which we commented on in a January 14, 1998 letter to the city (copy enclosed). The current proposal has addressed some of the concerns we noted in the 1/14/98 letter, but it still does not meet many of the shoreland management requirements. While we are still concerned by the proposed density at this site, we also understand that this is the only parcel within the Smetana Lake Shoreland District that is currently expected to be developed as residential. Therefore, our greatest area of concern will be focussed on: maintaining the native vegetation in the area closest to the lake, screening the building from the lake and good stormwater management. Following are more specific comments: 1. The applicant states on page 12 of the supporting information that"(s)horeland regulations are strictly followed without variance." This is nal true. There are several variances associated with this proposal. The applicant has the burden of proof in persuading the board of adjustment that the following five prerequisites are satisfied when evaluating each individual request for a variance from the standards of the City's ordinance: a. The proposed use is reasonable. b. It would be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns", and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. c. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. d. The problem must not be created by the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. DNR Information:612-296-6157. 1-800-766-6000 • TTY: 612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer ", Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity %BIS Minimum of IDS, Post-Consumer Waste au Mr. Scott Kipp Realife Valley View May 8, 1998 Page 2 These prerequisites are based on past court decisions. The courts have said that the applicant has a"heavy burden of proof'to show that all the prerequisites to the granting of a variance are satisfied. This is because a variance allows property to be used in a manner forbidden by ordinance. 2. According to the shoreland ordinance controls adopted by the city on February 1, 1996, each of the following items, as proposed, would require a variance: a. The proposed building height greater than 48' 2". b. The proposed multiple housing structure comprises more than 50% of the length of shoreland within the lot. The applicant argues that meeting the minimum structure setback compensates for exceeding this requirement of the city. We disagree; if the setback was exceeded, it could be argued that the setback compensates for this requirement. c. The proposed impervious surface coverage is 41%. The ordinance standard is 30%. Also, it should be verified that the 41% was determined by using land that is above the ordinary high water elevation or the"net site area", which the applicant has determined to be 3.58 acres. d. Based on the applicant's stated acreage of 3.56 acres, the 2.5 Multi-family zoning would allow a total of approximately 62. units. The applicant has requested 94 units, more than a 50-percent increase over the allowable density. Current zoning, using the non-riparian minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, would allow 8 units. 3. There are very steep slopes between the proposed building and Smetana Lake. In fact, we estimated the slopes to be greater than 25% in many areas, which is very close to the 30% slope required to be officially considered a bluff. If it had been a bluff, there would be a 30 foot setback requirement from the top of the bluff and a requirement to not disturb within 20 feet from the top of the bluff. With this in mind, it is extremely important to minimize disturbance of the land lakeward of the proposed building. While the area within the first 75 feet upland of the OHW is the shore impact zone that is not to be disturbed, in accordance with the city's Shoreland Management regulations, the city should strongly consider requiring a conservation easement be placed on the entire steep slope. It is also important to ensure that the runoff from the site is directed away from the steep slope areas. Mr. Scott Kipp Realife Valley View May 8, 1998 Page 3 4. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. There may be wetlands on the site that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by the city in accordance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. b. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water& Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan and Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. c. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is needed. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. d. Construction activities which disturb five acres of land, or more, are required to apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(Dan Sullivan @ 612/296-7219). e. The comments in this letter address DNR-Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Please contact me at 772-7914 should you have questions. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist Enclosure c: Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joe Yanta Nine Mile Creek file Eden Prairie Shoreland file 2(p Memorandum To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Through: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources From: Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Date: May 13, 1998 Subject: Supplemental Staff Report to the May 8, 1998 Staff Report for Realife Valleyview Cooperative by Senior Planner BACKGROUND: This proposed development is located on the south side of Valley View Road and the west side of Smetana Lane. The project is for the development of 7.5 acres of land of which 3.6 acres is above the ordinary high water level of Smetana Lake. NATURAL RESOURCES ISSUES: Tree Loss/Landscape Plan This project has a total of seven trees defined as significant under City Code. The total number of diameter inches of significant trees is 106 inches of which 30 diameter inches would be lost due to construction. The tree loss for this site is at 20% and mitigation is 11 caliper inches of trees. The amount of landscaping required based on the building size is 470 caliper inches. The trees shown on the landscape plan include ash,linden, maple,river birch, Black Hills spruce, and Scotch pine. In addition, some under story trees such as flowering crabs,tree lilac, and amur maple are included. The landscape plan is short 64 inches of plant material. The final landscape plan should be changed prior to first reading at the City Council. NURP Pond Storm water from this site is proposed to be channeled through underground piping to a NURP pond on the east side of Smetana Lane. The details of this pond and the associated easements for construction need to be worked out with an adjacent property owner. The City Engineering Department and District will have to approve the construction plans for this NURP pond. Sidewalk/Trails a� There is an existing bituminous pathway alongValley View Road. This trail will have to be rebuilt with the construction of a right turn lane into Smetana Lane. In conjunction with the road work and trail, additional right-of-way will be provided to the City. An interior sidewalk extends from the parking lot area to Smetana Lane. Staff has recommended that the sidewalk continue northward along Smetana Lane and connect with the bituminous path along Valley View Road. Concurrent with construction a sidewalk will be built from the parking lot area southward toward Lake Smetana. Staff is recommending that this sidewalk have the appropriate handrails to accommodate pedestrian traffic up and down the staired areas. This sidewalk will not be maintained by the City during winter months. Concurrent with construction, an eight foot wide bitumious trail would be constructed along the northerly shore of Lake Smetana. This trail would be constructed above the ordinary high water level of 835.2 feet. The trail constructed along Lake Smetana will be extended eastward and westward at some time in the future. This trail will eventually forma loop around Lake Smetana by connecting with exiting trail sections along the southerly and easterly sides of the lake Shoreland Code Lake Smetana is classified as natural environment water and this site sits along the northerly shoreline. The development of the site would require a number of PUD waivers from the Shoreline Code in the following areas: • Lot Size • Percent of Structure Facing Shoreland Water • Building Height • Percent of Impervious Surface Attached to this staff report is the review by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Area Hydrologist. The primary concern is that the native vegetation along the slope be maintained as a screening from the lake and that there be good storm water management. Within the conclusion section of the staff report dated May 8, 1998, the staff outlines four reasons why high density residential is an acceptable land use for this site. The support for granting the shoreline waivers includes: 1. It is an opportunity to meet senior housing goals. 2. It maximizes the use of land in an area envisioned for, and capable of, supporting more intense land uses, thereby reducing pressure for high density in the southwest part of Eden Prairie which is more appropriate for lower intensity land uses. 3. The land use is compatible with office and industrial. There are existing apartments in City West which are adjacent to office and industrial. 4. The proposal will reduce traffic impacts. Apartment projects reverse the peak hour flow which would minimize overall impact on the road system serving mainly office and industrial land uses. RECOMMENDATION: This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the May 11, 1998 meeting and was approved on a 7-0 vote. Staff would recommend approval of this project on the informatin contained in the May 8, 1998 Staff Report by the Senior Planner and the supplemental information contained within this report. SAF:mdd Lifeline/Stu98 PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES May 18, 1998 Page 5 the City has the option to give the hill back and move the building away from the creek, which would eliminate the variances and allow the proponent to develop the site. The City gives variances to a site similar to this one to preserve the woods and give the wildlife a place to live and create diversity in the design of sites. Discussion ensued regarding what could be done to resolve the issues the Commissioners have with the plan. Corneille commented the developer has proposed a NURP pond that is larger than what is required and since the City made a deal with the property owners, he felt they should now follow through with that. B. Realife Valley Corporation Fox reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the request. Perry Wright, Wright Engineering reviewed the project which will be a housing development for seniors. Dick Hanson of Realife described the senior housing cooperative and explained how it would operate. The building will be owned and operated by the people that live in it. He described the process that they use to operate and the features that will be included in the building. The City needs this type of project and the site is very expensive. They are trying to make it feasible for those people that will live in this development. Hilgeman expressed concern regarding the intersection and the traffic and Hanson responded that they are putting in a right-turn lane to make it easier for residents to access the site. The building will own a 12-person bus which can be used by the residents at any time. Jacobson asked if Smetana Lane would end and Fox responded that it will remain in that location until it is upgraded. It is a public street, and will eventually be completed. MOTION: Corneille moved, seconded by Hilgeman, to recommend approval of the request subject to the conditions in the May 8, 1998 Planning Commission Staff Report and the Supplemental Staff Report dated May 13, 1998. Motion carried 5-0. C. Riverview Bluffs Fox gave the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the project. Peter Jarvis, Laukka-Jarvis, stated he was present to answer any questions. Hilgeman asked where the burial mounds were located on the site and Jarvis indicated those locations where they had thought the burial mounds might be and the buffer areas around each of them. It now appears that they are not Indian burial mounds, but that has not been verified as yet. They are in agreement with the stipulations contained in both staff reports. MOTION: Hilgeman moved, seconded by Corneille, to recommend approval of the project based on the information in the May 8, 1998 Planning Commission Staff Report and the Supplemental Staff Report dated May 14, 1998. Motion carried 5-0. D. Wynstone 1998 James Jasper, Jasper Homes, reviewed the project and described the development which will be for So ePCITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: °d2r1 SECTION: Consent Calendar 06/02/98 prairie DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance Payment of Claims VI. Checks 63297 to 63667 Action/Direction: Approve Payment of Claims COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY 26-MAY-1998 (13:28) DIVISION TOTAL CONTINGENCY $5,499.53 LEGISLATIVE $1,048.07 LEGAL COUNSEL $7,985.02 GENERAL SERVICES $1,216.36 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $2,994.31 HUMAN RESOURCES $4,666.25 HUMAN SERV $5,853.75 ENGINEERING $6.40 INSPECTIONS $2,816.11 FACILITIES $6,447.91 ASSESSING $750.00 POLICE $21,804.20 FIRE $8,869.73 ANIMAL CONTROL $840.26 STREETS/TRAFFIC $10,628.74 PARK MAINTENANCE $5,026.96 STREET LIGHTING $2,415.00 FLEET SERVICES $7,995.43 ORGANIZED ATHLETICS $3,997.41 COMMUNITY DEV $417.50 COMMUNITY CENTER $5,493.15 YOUTH RECREATION $5,875.39 SPECIAL EVENTS $81.74 ADULT RECREATION $3,243.90 RECREATION ADMIN $19.28 ADAPTIVE REC $166.55 OAK POINT POOL $39.35 ARTS $1,072.40 PARK FACILITIES $283.90 PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ $100,665.07 EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS $74,153.08 CITY CENTER $7,194.53 SW METRO TRANSIT $17.93 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $6,385.48 PRAIRIE VILLAGE $38,421.71 PRAIRIEVIEW $50,476.00 CUB FOODS $75,555.10 TRUST FUNDS $21,000.00 WATER DEPT $89,319.60 SEWER DEPT $182,028.65 STORM DRAINAGE $5,945.00 $768,716.75* 2. COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAY-1998 (13:28) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 63297 $1,805.05 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER CLOTHING & UNIFORMS INSPECTION-ADMIN 63298 $132.60 CRACAUER, CLIFF MILEAGE AND PARKING EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63299 $103.08 CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 63300 $224.68 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS 63301 $42,214.00 ERICKSON CHEVROLET PONTIAC INC AUTOS LIME SLUDGE 63302 $240.65 MCGLYNN BAKERIES MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS 63303 $343.70 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 63304 $242.82 SAFWAY STEEL PRODUCTS INC SAFETY SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 63305 $50.00 SCHMITZ, WENDY EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 63306 $429.61 SKETCH PAD, THE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES COUNCIL 63307 $39.41 WILLIAMSON, RICK OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE 63308 $3,066.53 US POSTMASTER POSTAGE FIRE 63309 $1,156.25 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63310 $3,806.40 EAGLE WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63312 $7,778.50 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63313 $6,517.23 GRIGGS COOPER & CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63314 $3,323.51 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63315 $170.50 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS 63316 $2,354.61 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63317 $4,928.83 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63319 $150.00 BEST, MIKE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ASSESSING-ADMIN 63320 $53.14 MANN, TRIA MILEAGE AND PARKING SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL 63321 $50.00 MCDONALDS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FAMILY PICNIC IN THE PARK 63322 $12.50 MCDONALDS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FAMILY PICNIC IN THE PARK 63323 $281.55 MENARDS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 63324 $150.00 O'CONNOR, ANNETTE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ASSESSING-ADMIN 63325 $150.00 OLSON, PHIL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ASSESSING-ADMIN 63326 $150.00 PIDCOCK, PATRICIA OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ASSESSING-ADMIN 63327 $84.43 RICHARDSON, JIM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 63328 $150.00 STANDAL, CAROL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ASSESSING-ADMIN 63329 $525.00 US CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, THE CONFERENCE COUNCIL 63330 $681.41 BELLBOY CORPORATION MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63331 $4,373.25 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63332 $3,788.10 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63333 $59.00 GRAPE BEGINNINGS TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63334 $1,850.18 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63335 $643.24 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63336 $5,671.86 MARK VII BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63337 $501.85 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63338 $311.80 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63339 $2,506.18 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63341 $428.49 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63342 $400.68 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63343 $9,823.75 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63344 $182.00 WORLD CLASS WINES INC DISCOUNTS PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63345 $33.94 BURD, JAESON OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ARTS 63346 $288.59 GROVE NURSERY CENTER LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL COMMUNITY CENTER 63347 $72.00 LAKE WAY SIGNS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ARTS 63348 $6.11 LANENBERG, CYNTHIA PHOTO SUPPLIES FIRE 63349 $8.11 MEYER, NICOLE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 63350 $81.00 MINNESOTA DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFET BIKE REGISTRATIONS FD 10 ORG 63351 $144.00 OBERLE, KAREN TOLLISON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 63352 $30.00 OMEGA MANAGEMENT FACILITIES RENTAL COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 63353 $839.83 REBS MARKETING OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER ACCOUNTING 63354 $12.00 VORONINA, OLGA OTHER REVENUE FD 10 ORG 3 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAY-1998 (13:28) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 63355 $1,474.73 US POSTMASTER - HOPKINS POSTAGE WATER ACCOUNTING 63356 $214.12 CARLTON CO HUMAN SERVICES CTR GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG 63357 $811.49 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG 63358 $580.00 CENTRON EQUIPMENT RENTAL CITY CENTER OPERATING COSTS 63359 $162.72 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 63360 $911.83 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT AND GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG 63361 $65.00 REMAX RESULTS REALTY EQUIPMENT RENTAL CITY CENTER OPERATING COSTS 63362 $3,305.13 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63364 $253.20 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63365 $1,622.96 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63366 $5,749.78 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63367 $1,171.70 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63368 $1,217.15 EAGLE WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63369 $9,873.55 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63370 $12,099.51 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63371 $7,974.06 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63372 $37.25 MARK VII MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63374 $335.49 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63375 $2,359.62 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63376 $6,127.70 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO DISCOUNTS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63378 $709.37 EAGLE WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63379 $303.68 AT&T TELEPHONE GENERAL 63380 $76.26 CARD SERVICES-BUSINESS CARD OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 63381 $200.00 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MPLS BOND DEDUCTION FD 10 ORG 63382 $6.00 FLESNER-CZECH, DENELLE LESSONS/CLASSES FITNESS CLASSES 63383 $274.70 FREY, LYNDELL PHOTO SUPPLIES COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 63384 $82.00 GERTIS, ALMA SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 63385 $7,218.85 GREAT WEST LIFE AND ANNUITY DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG 63386 $24.00 HARMS, SHERRY SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES ADULT PROGRAM 63387 $16.00 HARTLEY, DOROTHY SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 63388 $5,643.86 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG 63389 $1,422.00 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATI UNION DUES WITHHELD FD 10 ORG 63390 $1,674.93 JACK EDWARD ANDERSON ARCHITECT CANINE SUPPLIES DRUG FORFEITURE 63391 $60.00 JORGENSON, MICHELLE LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 63392 $61,212.02 KNUTSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS 10 MGD WATER PLANT EXPANSION 63393 $19.50 LARSON, CHERYL LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS 63394 $400.00 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 63395 $2,970.00 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME DUE TO OTHER GOVNT UNITS SAC AGENCY FUND 63396 $4,127.50 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG 63397 $1,205.00 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYS DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG 63398 $40.00 MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNI CREDIT UNION FD 10 ORG 63399 $99.89 PETTY CASH TRAVEL WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 63401 $112.65 POTTER, GRETCHEN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ARTS 63402 $1,800.00 PRISM HOLIDAYS SPECIAL EVENTS FEES ADULT PROGRAM 63403 $51,730.23 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT EMPLOYERS PERA FD 10 ORG 63404 $285.00 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PERA LIFE INSURANCE FD 10 ORG 63405 $57.50 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS EMPLOYERS PERA FD 10 ORG 63406 $24.00 ROGNEBY, PEARL SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES ADULT PROGRAM 63407 $55.00 RYAN, LAURIE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 63408 $38.20 SCHULER, JENN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PRESCHOOL EVENTS 63409 $48.00 SIMMONS, ANGELA LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 63410 $24.00 SKAALEN, KALMER SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES ADULT PROGRAM 63411 $24.00 SKAALEN, LEONARD & RACHEL SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES ADULT PROGRAM 63412 $99.00 SKILLPATH SEMINARS CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 63413 $24.50 SWANSON, MARION SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM Li COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAY-1998 (13:28) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 63414 $29.00 THORSON, SHERI LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS 63415 $65.00 TWIN CITY AUTISM SOCIETY EQUIPMENT RENTAL CITY CENTER OPERATING COSTS 63416 $192.70 UNITED WAY UNITED WAY WITHHELD FD 10 ORG 63417 $26.00 VIETH, MICHELE INSTRUCTOR SERVICE SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 63418 $162.90 REI FURNITURE & FIXTURES OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 63419 $3,032.65 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63420 $4,743.05 MARK VII BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63421 $3,693.17 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63423 $18,536.80 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63424 $17.00 ASFOUR, GRETCHEN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63425 $80.00 BERTRAND, SHARON ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPORTS/SPECIAL CAMPS 63426 $22.00 COLLINS, JEAN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 63427 $70.00 COURIER, KAY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 63428 $354.22 EARL F ANDERSEN INC SIGNS TRAFFIC SIGNS 63429 $12.00 ERAL, PEGGY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG DAY CAMP 63430 $38.00 FENLASON, CATHERINE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63431 $37.50 GALUK, DEBORAH ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63432 $42.00 GOFF, MICHELLE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 63433 $1,051.65 HARMON AUTOGLASS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63434 $38.00 HATZUNG, STEVE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 63435 $11.00 HEBELER, MARTY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63436 $6.00 HOBLIT, TOM ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 63437 $1,092.16 HYDRO ENGINEERING INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES STORM DRAINAGE 63438 $18.00 KOLLER, THERESE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL EVENTS 63439 $38.00 KRAEMER, KAREN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63440 $42.00 KRUSZEWSKI, KEVIN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 63441 $67.28 LANENBERG, CYNTHIA MILEAGE AND PARKING FIRE 63442 $270.00 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 63443 $26.00 MANNING, JODY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63444 $33.00 MATHEWS, SUE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG PRESCHOOL EVENTS 63445 $44.00 MCCARTAN, PEGGY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63446 $10.00 MCELVEEN, SUE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 63447 $5.00 MEYER, NICOLE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 63448 $2,415.00 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES STREET LIGHTING 63449 $76.00 OLSON, LINDA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 63450 $38.00 PLANTE, ARTHUR ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63451 $31.42 PLATH, LEAH OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM 63452 $80.00 RHOADES, GERRY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG DAY CAMP 63453 $25.00 RICHFIELD, CITY OF OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63454 $34.00 SCHAITBERGER, CHUCK SAFETY SUPPLIES FIRE 63455 $21.00 SEIDENSTRICKER, MARIANNE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63456 $70.00 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION TRAVEL IN SERVICE TRAINING 63457 $30.00 SHEA, LIZ ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SUMMER SAFETY CAMP 63458 $37.50 SILVERS, LORI ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63459 $1,582.16 SJF BLDG REPAIR & MAINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT 63460 $5,000.00 TRANSPORTATION, COMMISSIONER 0 BLDG RENTAL FIRE STATION 63461 $312.00 UNL CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP DEVE CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 63462 $37.50 WEHRS, BOBBI ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63463 $26.00 WILLIAMSON, MARGIE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63464 $968.75 BELLBOY CORPORATION MISC NON-TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63466 $1,311.20 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63467 $1,133.60 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63468 $68.50 GRAND PERE WINES INC TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63469 $252.00 GRAPE BEGINNINGS TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63470 $1,331.52 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAY-1998 (13:28) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 63471 $3,207.94 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63472 $134.40 JORDAN BEVERAGE INC BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63473 $1,397.25 MARK VII BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63474 $398.05 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63475 $161.00 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY DISCOUNTS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63476 $1,696.78 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63477 $4,883.25 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63479 $1.00 GRAPE BEGINNINGS TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63480 $44.98 20TH CENTURY PLASTICS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL INSPECTION-ADMIN 63481 $25.30 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER EQUIPMENT RENTAL PARK MAINTENANCE 63482 $1,200.00 ABRA INC SCHOOLS POLICE 63483 $55.00 AFFILIATED EMERGENCY VETERINAR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT 63484 $4,118.40 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 63485 $110.33 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63486 $603.10 ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY PRINTING SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 63487 $229.50 APT, JOE INSTRUCTOR SERVICE SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 63488 $44.99 AQUA ENGINEERING INC LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL STREET MAINTENANCE 63489 $63.00 ARMOR SECURITY INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 63490 $2,236.00 ASPEN CARPET CLEANING CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE-CITY CENTER 63491 $86.50 AUTOMATED BUILDIN COMPONENTS I OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL 1996 REHABILITATION 63492 $92.39 B & S TOOLS SMALL TOOLS SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 63493 $80.25 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63494 $452.63 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 63495 $97.50 BETH AND MORLEY BURNETT REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 63496 $797.18 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINTENANCE 63497 $218.44 BILL CLARK OIL CO INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 63498 $25,782.72 BLACK & VEATCH IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS 10 MGD WATER PLANT EXPANSION 63499 $660.00 BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF KENNEL SERVICE ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT 63500 $229.00 BOLLIG & SONS INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES RICE MARSH LAKE PARK 63501 $434.00 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION CONST TESTING-SOIL BORING 10 MGD WATER PLANT EXPANSION 63502 $70.82 BROADWAY AWARDS RESERVE EQUIPMENT POLICE 63503 $504.00 BROWN, PAUL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 63504 $1,800.00 BRUCE CHRISTOPHER SEMINARS INC CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING 63505 $340.27 BUSINESS & INSTITUTIONAL FURNI FURNITURE & FIXTURES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 63506 $46.95 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE 63507 $726.15 CEMSTONE REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES STORM DRAINAGE 63508 $808.23 CENTRAIRE INC CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS POLICE STATION 63509 $150.00 CHAD NESTOR ILLUSTRATION & DES PRINTING ADAPTIVE RECREATION 63510 $321.23 COLOR CENTER, THE BLDG REPAIR & MAINT WATER WELL #6 63511 $767.59 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 63512 $230.04 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC BUILDING MATERIALS STARING LAKE 63513 $11.05 COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOC PHOTO SUPPLIES POLICE 63514 $9,839.83 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 63515 $701.37 D J'S MUNICIPAL SUPPLY INC SIGNS TRAFFIC SIGNS 63516 $200.00 DALCO ROOFING & SHEET METAL IN CONTRACTED BLDG MAINT PUBLIC WORKS/PARKS 63517 $669.24 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 63518 $1,435.83 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE 63519 $313.69 DARTNELL CORPORATION, THE TRAINING SUPPLIES SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL 63520 $425.73 DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC RENTALS EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 63521 $45.00 DEM CON LANDFILL INC WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINTENANCE 63522 $24.00 DYNAMIC GRAPHICS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY BROCHURE 63523 $184.03 EARL F ANDERSEN INC SIGNS TRAFFIC SIGNS 63524 $186.40 ECOLAB INC CONTRACTED BLDG MAINT FIRE STATION #2 63525 $48.60 EDEN PRAIRIE FLORIST RESERVE EQUIPMENT POLICE 63526 $154.80 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT N OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ARTS 614 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAY-1998 (13:28) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 63527 $2,060.00 EDGEWORKS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES 1996 REHABILITATION 63528 $5,499.53 EDINA, CITY OF CONTINGENCY RESERVE 63529 $266.79 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 63530 $3,271.66 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC EQUIPMENT TESTING & CERT FIRE 63531 $2,704.61 EULL'S MANUFACTURING CO INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES STORM DRAINAGE 63532 $29.65 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE GENERAL 63533 $117.53 FERRELLGAS MOTOR FUELS ICE ARENA 63534 $120.00 FINLEY BROS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL RILEY LAKE 63535 $1,156.83 FISHER SCIENTIFIC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 63536 $76.48 G & K SERVICES DIRECT PURCHASE CLOTHING & UNIFORMS GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 63537 $551.45 G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL CLOTHING & UNIFORMS STREET MAINTENANCE 63538 $35.43 G C PETERSON MACHINERY CO INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINTENANCE 63539 $1,497.05 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG IN REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 63540 $1,250.13 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPAN FURNITURE & FIXTURES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 63541 $200.75 GETTMAN COMPANY MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS 63542 $441.07 GOLD COUNTRY INC SIGNATURE CON CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 63543 $224.00 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 63544 $697.90 HACH COMPANY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 63545 $217.25 HANCE COMPANIES EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63546 $484.00 HDS SPECIALTY VEHICLES NEW CAR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63547 $45.00 HEAVENLY HAM SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 63548 $417.50 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 63549 $33.17 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINTENANCE 63550 $740.00 HIGLEY, STEVE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL 63551 $1,235.40 HIRSHFIELDS PAINT MANUFACTURIN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 63552 $340.00 HOEHN, VICTORIA OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES BASKETBALL 63553 $67.38 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS* RENTALS FIRE 63554 $60.00 J W PEPPER OF MINNEAPOLIS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ART & MUSIC 63555 $1,973.85 JANEX INC CLEANING SUPPLIES EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 63556 $88.00 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT 63557 $9.59 KINKOS INC CONTRACTED STRIPING TRAFFIC SIGNS 63558 $144.86 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC TRAINING SUPPLIES HUMAN RESOURCES 63559 $91.00 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 63560 $1,167.65 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63561 $769.11 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63562 $395.56 LAND CARE EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63563 $23,193.68 LANG PAULY GREGERSON AND ROSOW PHYSICAL & PSYCO EXAM HUMAN RESOURCES 63564 $499.50 LAVALLE, FRANK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL 63565 $52.00 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63566 $77.35 LYMAN LUMBER COMPANY BUILDING MATERIALS STREET MAINTENANCE 63567 $125.00 MADD TRAVELING EDUCATIONAL EXH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 63568 $360.00 MANNING, PHILLIP OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 63569 $218.75 MASTER SPRINKLER SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 63570 $553.81 MAXI-PRINT INC PRINTING POLICE 63571 $234.00 MCGREGOR, RANDY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL 63572 $468.00 MEDICINE LAKE TOURS SPECIAL EVENTS FEES ART & MUSIC 63573 $92.00 MEDTOX PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES 63574 $198,894.91 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME WASTE DISPOSAL SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL 63575 $1,925.79 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION PATCHING ASPHALT STREET MAINTENANCE 63576 $509.82 MIDWEST TELETRON INC COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 63577 $370.00 MINNEAPOLIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE SCHOOLS POLICE 63578 $43.60 MINNEAPOLIS DEPARTMENT OF HEAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 63579 $254.28 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL 63580 $495.60 MINNESOTA PIPE AND EQUIPMENT* REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 63581 $68.80 MINNESOTA TROPHIES & GIFTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POLICE COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAY-1998 (13:28) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 63582 $939.60 MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOD SERVICE MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 63584 $319.25 MINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL STREET MAINTENANCE 63585 $2,719.75 MITY-LITE INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 63586 $516.70 MOORE MEDICAL CORP SAFETY SUPPLIES FIRE 63587 $259.48 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63588 $90.00 MUCENIEKS, VALDIS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 63589 $1,081.92 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63590 $4,236.06 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES 63591 $90.00 NORTH MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE SCHOOLS POLICE 63592 $449.58 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 63593 $290.31 NORTHERN EQUIPMENT PARTS STORM DRAINAGE 63594 $2,400.00 NUNNALLY, PATRICK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1997 CLG GRANT 27-97-12026.009 63595 $144.00 OBERLE, KAREN TOLLISON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 63596 $347.51 OHLIN SALES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 63597 $1,255.58 OPM INFORMATION SYSTEMS CONTRACTED COMM MAINT POLICE 63598 $52.64 P & H WAREHOUSE SALES INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINTENANCE 63599 $55.00 PARK AUTO UPHOLSTERY CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63600 $1,000.00 PARROTT CONTRACTING INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT STORM DRAINAGE 63601 $358.77 PENN RACQUET SPORTS REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES YOUTH TENNIS 63602 $880.00 PERFORMANCE DRIVING INC SCHOOLS POLICE 63603 $37.26 PETSMART OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT 63604 $966.08 PINK BUSINESS INTERIORS FURNITURE & FIXTURES INSPECTION-ADMIN 63605 $2,362.00 PRAIRIE CYCLE & SKI OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SUMMER SAFETY CAMP 63606 $842.54 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 63607 $90.91 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63608 $5,119.97 PRECISION PAVEMENT MARKING CONTRACTED STRIPING TRAFFIC SIGNS 63609 $73.76 PRECISION TURF & CHEMICAL INC LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL PARK MAINTENANCE 63610 $128.00 PRINTERS SERVICE INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 63611 $49.00 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE 63612 $1,258.12 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC WASTE DISPOSAL OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE 63613 $47.90 RADIO SHACK OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE 63614 $100.09 RAMBOW INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ARTS 63615 $465.76 RAYMOND PRODUCTS CO INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 63616 $93.46 REAL GEM AWARDS COUNCIL 63617 $150.00 RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING ASSOC RESERVE EQUIPMENT POLICE 63618 $1,161.70 RETROFIT RECYCLING INC WASTE DISPOSAL GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 63619 $204.48 RICHARDS ASPHALT COMPANY PATCHING ASPHALT STREET MAINTENANCE 63620 $438.50 RICHFIELD, CITY OF INSURANCE GENERAL 63621 $1,767.60 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63622 $5,375.76 RMR SERVICES INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER METER READING 63623 $18.82 ROAD RESCUE INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63624 $40.10 ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63625 $853.00 ROBICHONS THE IN-LINE SKATE SC INSTRUCTOR SERVICE SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63626 $130.00 ROOT 0 MATIC CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS FIRE STATION #1 63627 $660.00 RYAN, PAUL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ICE ARENA 63628 $2,968.00 S/K WELL & PUMP INSPECTIONS CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER WELL #7 63629 $147.03 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 63630 $553.00 SIT, ERIC INSTRUCTOR SERVICE SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 63631 $399.55 SNAP-ON TOOLS SMALL TOOLS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63632 $63.90 SNELL MECHANICAL INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 63633 $3,853.75 SOUTH HENNEPIN REGIONAL PLANNI PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC 63634 $402.86 SOUTHWEST CONTRACTORS SUPPLY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 63635 $718.88 SOUTHWEST LAWN MAINTENANCE INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 63636 $54.42 SPS COMPANIES REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINTENANCE 63637 $177.73 STANDARD REGISTER OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAY-1998 (13:28) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 63638 $48.75 STAR TRIBUNE ADVERTISING SUMMER THEATRE 63639 $259.00 STECK, RICKY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL 63640 $416.42 STEVE LUCAS PHOTOGRAPHY PHOTO SUPPLIES POLICE 63641 $23.14 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GEO EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 63642 $5,774.33 SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDEN PRAIRIE REALFLOW 63643 $117.79 SUN INDUSTRIES INC ASPHALT OVERLAY STREET MAINTENANCE 63644 $229.00 SURVIVALINK CORP OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POLICE 63645 $900.00 SWEDLUNDS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES RILEY LAKE 63646 $397.25 TEC-TEAM INDUSTRIES INC PATCHING ASPHALT STREET MAINTENANCE 63647 $2,000.00 TEENS ALONE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC 63648 $72.00 THOMSEN, LORI SUE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 63649 $477.83 TIERNEY BROS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63650 $1,650.00 TOTAL REGISTER CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 63651 $1.35 TRANS UNION CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE 63652 $6,933.24 TRAUT WELLS CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER WELL #9 63653 $363.91 TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN MTKA CITY CENTER GROUNDS MNTC FIRE STATION #2 63654 $19.81 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO SAFETY SUPPLIES FIRE 63655 $341.45 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 63656 $241.41 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63657 $171.00 UPENS, IVARS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL 63658 $7,012.61 US FILTER/WATERPRO REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINTENANCE 63659 $92.06 VWR SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 63660 $546.48 WALMART STORES INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SUMMER SAFETY CAMP 63661 $716.80 WARNING LIGHTS OF MINNESOTA TRAINING SUPPLIES HUMAN RESOURCES 63662 $2,462.00 WATER TECHNOLOGY INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNITY CENTER FILTRATION 63663 $315.00 WILDER, LOIS INSTRUCTOR SERVICE SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 63664 $65.87 WM MUELLER AND SONS INC GRAVEL WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 63665 $319.98 ZACKS INC SMALL TOOLS PARK MAINTENANCE 63666 $176.58 ZEP MANUFACTURING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 63667 $185.00 ZOELLNER, MARK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL $768,716.75* q i EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6-2-98 SECTION: PETITIONS,REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS ITEM NO. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger REVIEW BOA APPEAL#98-06 Jean Johnson Requested Council Action: Find the City Staffs' conclusions outlined in the memo dated February 13, 1998 do support a case for abandonment of the duplex non-conforming use and determined the property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive to be a single family non-conforming use. Background: On April 9th,the Board of Adjustments and Appeals made the finding noted above. Supporting Reports: April 21, 1998 Appeal letter from Richard Haefele & supporting information April 9, 1998 Final Order& Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals April 7, 1998 Letter from resident April 2, 1998 Memorandum from residents April 2, 1998 Staff Report February 13, 1998 Memorandum from City Attorney October, December, 1997 and March, 1998 letters from staff f RICHARD J. HAEFELE ATTORNEY AT LAW 1059 STOUGHTON AVENUE P.O. BOX 85 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 TELEPHONE(612)448-2200 FACSIMILE(612)448-7187 April 21, 1998 Mayor Jean Harris City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 and Eden Prairie City Council c/o Steve Durham Zoning Administrator 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re : 7170 Bryant Lake Drive Dear Mayor Harris and Council : Please consider this letter our appeal to the City Council of the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on April 9, 1998, that the non-conforming use of the property located at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive had been abandoned. The decision was based upon the loss of license of the tenant to operate a group home, the listing of the property for sale and the occupancy of the home as a single family residence . I believe the decision is inconsistent with the facts and was based to a great extent on pressure exerted by the surrounding neighborhood to eliminate the group home use. We have contacted the realtor and the occupant of the home and will submit Affidavits as soon as possible to Mr. Durham relative to the abandonment issue. Affidavits of owner and realtor enclosed. Please advise if anything further is necessary. t uly ' r , Richa J Haefele RJH/dab 2_ APPEAL#98-06 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FINAL ORDER • RE: Petition of Richard Haefele, Fee Owner and Jennifer Coughlin, Solid Foundations Program Director ADDRESS: 7170 Bryant Lake Drive OTHER DESCRIPTION: N/A APPEAL REQUEST: Appealinga decision of City Staff which finds that the multi-family non-conforming use at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive has been abandoned. The BoardAdjustments of Adjustments and Appeals for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular meeting thereof duly considered the above appeal and after hearing and examining all of the evidence makes the following findings: Appeal eal Request of an Administrative Determination#98-06: Board finds the staff a conclusions,non-con forming e aus edn the memorandum dated February 13, 1998,do support a case for abandonment ofnonconforming use. the Board determined the property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive to be a single family This decision is based upon the following findings: • The group home use ceased in 1994. • The MLS listing changed to single family marketing. • The structure had been rented as a single family in August, 1997. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the City Clerk. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council review or an appeal to City Council. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS N/A=Not Applicable BY: DATED: April 9, 1998 BARBUEA`nBOA APP9806 APPROVED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS April 9, 1998 Page 5 Motion: Giglio, seconded by O'Leary to approve Request No. 98-05 by Moynihan Builders, Inc. for 10220 Homeward Hills Road for approval to move the house located at 9950 Pioneer Trail to 10220 Homeward Hills Road and place the home at a 29-foot front yard setback to Homeward Hills Road (City Code requires a 30-foot setback), with the following conditions: 1. The contractor acquire all required permits. 2. The driveway be wide enough to allow for addition guest parking 3. The City be asked to evaluate the placement of driveway signage for the street 4. The builders list of work to be done, as submitted with the application, be completed 5. The builder furnish the appropriate bonding or letter of credit as outlined in staffs recommendation, and as required by code. The hardship being the Williams Pipeline easement which prevents the house from being located in the proper place on the property. Motion carried 5 - 0. B. Request 98-06 by Richard Haefele, Fee Owner and Jennifer Coughlin, Solid Foundations Program director, appealing a decision of City Staff which finds that the multi-family non-conforming use at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive has been abandoned. Mr. Haefele gave his presentation as follows: Mr. Haefele told the Board he has been the owner of the subject property for the last 13 years. At the time he acquired the property, in 1985, it was a non- conforming duplex. After taking ownership, the property was leased to a facility named Welcome Home, a group home licensed by the State of Minnesota, funded by the Hennipen County. No significant problems were experienced over the period of time that Welcome Home operated the facility. The issue of abandonment of the facility's use as a group home came about when Welcome Home lost its operating license in 1994. The current manager at that time continued to live in the house on a rental basis and did so up until January of 1996. At this point the property was listed for sale. The original sale listing was for investment property describing the home as a group home. In early 1997 the listing was changed to a single-family home. A list was enclosed in the meeting packet which described the large number of people and agencies that were contacted trying to find an operator of a reputable group home type program that might be interested in buying the home. Mr. Haefele told the Board that during the month of August of 1997, Solid Foundations was given permission to operate the home with a maximum BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Apri19, 1998 Page 6 occupancy of the home limited to six residents. In September of that year the neighbors next to the home raised the issue of abandonment with the City staff. The City in turn contacted Mr. Haefele and asked him to address this issue of abandonment. Mr. Haefele contended that when the property was on the market, it had always been marked as a group home. He told the Board that as early as last spring FEMA had contacted the realtor listing the property to see if the property would be available to house some of the dislocated flood victims from the Red River floods. FEMA was notified that the property had been issued to permits to house up to 16 people, as a group home, by the City of Eden Prairie. The State of Minnesota and Hennipen County have approved the program plans and the physical preparations of the building. If Eden Prairie revokes the current zoning, it would devalue the property by one half. The property was rented to a Mr. Braun on a month-to-month basis from July of 1997 through December of 1997, with the agreement that the owner was looking for another group home program to occupy the facility. Mr. Haefele said that this rental situation was done as a matter of courtesy to the renter and not with the intent to abandon the property from its intended use;that being the group home. Chairperson Nelson reminded the Board and the citizens in attendance the issue was not a "question of programs, whether it is single-family and has a six-member program, or it is the non-conforming use and has ten or more in the program. The program exists. This is a case of whether the non-conforming use has been abandoned. This is a real estate situation more so than it is a program situation." She added, "issues concerning the program would not be relevant to the case before the Board." Jennifer Coughlin, 6901 Bethia Lane,Brooklyn Park, representing Solid Foundations, gave her presentation as follows: Ms. Coughlin gave a brief history on how she had met Mr. Haefele and how she had made her proposal to him in regards to running her group-home program out of his facility; at that time unoccupied. All government agencies were contacted and approval to operate the group home facility was granted. The physical building was brought up to all City and State codes. At the current time the home can operate as a single-family home with a maximum of six residents. Ms. Coughlin is licensed as a "Rule 8", which allows her to run a program of up to ten residents. State requirements stipulate a maximum of five residents per bathroom BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS April9, 1998 Page 7 facility in any group home. The facility currently has three bathrooms and any future occupancy would be limited to a total of 15 residents because of the bathroom use restrictions. Nelson returned the floor to the Board for questions. Mr. O'Leary asked who was responsible for funding the group home. Ms. Coughlin told the Board that Hennipen County was responsible for funding the program. Mr. Dunham asked if there was a live-in supervisor. Ms. Coughlin told the Board that the facility is staffed 24-hours a day. Mr. Ismail asked if the residents came from the immediate or surrounding communities. Ms. Coughlin told the Board that the residents are placed on a state-wide basis. Chairperson Nelson asked the report from staff. Zoning Administrator Johnson gave her presentation as follows: It was the staffs opinion that the nonconforming multiple use of the property has been abandoned and the items and factors relating to this decision were outlined as follows: "The case for abandonment of the nonconforming use is based primarily upon three factors: 1. The non-use of the property since the middle of 1994 for a group home facility. 2. The listing of the property for sale as a single-family residence in April, 1997. 3. The rental of the property to a single person in August, 1997. Johnson then reviewed the items supplied to the Board in their mailed packet. A letter dated April 7, 1998 from a resident that lives near the home was presented as new information that evening. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS April 9, 1998 Page 8 City Attorney Rosow gave his presentation as follows: Mr. Rosow stated it was the Board's responsibility to find from the facts presented that there was an intent to abandon the multi-family use of the facility. The Board was not bound by the facts that were found by the City Attorney's Office. An analysis was made of the law and information that was gathered from the proponent. The conclusion was made as stated by Ms. Johnson in her report. "The lack of use as a group home, the listing of the property for sale as a single- family residence and the rental to a single person evidence an intent on the part of the owner to abandon the nonconforming multi-family residence use of the property. Continued efforts to market the property for group home purposes after April, 1997 when it was listed for single-family purposes and the explanation of Mr. Scheib,the listing realtor< that the listing as a single-family residence was done to attract more interest from group home users, does not necessarily demonstrate a continued intent to utilize the property for nonconforming use purposes. Likewise, the apparent understanding that Mr. Scheib had with the single occupant of the property that it was the subject of an ongoing interest by a potential buyer to be used for group home purposes does not negate a finding of abandonment, as group home uses are allowed in single family residential districts. Similarly, maintenance of the facility, its use for meetings, and maintaining an office phone does not evidence an intent to continue to use the property for multi- family purposes. These actions are not inconsistent with abandonment of the use of the property as a multi-family residence." Chairperson Nelson returned the floor to the Board for questions. Mr. O'Leary asked Mr. Rosow what ramifications would result from finding that the property use had been abandoned. Mr. Rosow told the Board the property would be limited to a single-family group home occupancy of not more that six residents. Mr. Ismail asked if there was a specific time frame that defined abandonment. Mr. Rosow told the Board that there is not a defined time period but there is case law that supports a one-year period, if the nonconforming use has not been used for that purpose for one year, the courts have said this would be evidence of abandonment. This is a Statute that applies to counties. There is no municipal enabling act that has the same provision in a similar statutory scheme that governs municipalities. All situations are fact specific. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS April 9, 1998 Page 9 Mr. Dunham asked Ms. Johnson to summarize the October 14, 1997 letter from the City that granted Solid Foundations permission to operate the facility. Johnson told the Board the letter in refence was issued without knowing the fact that the MLS listing on the home had been changed to reflect a single-family home status, and also the renting of the facility to a single individual. Chairperson Nelson opened the floor to the public hearing. Mark D. Wisser, Esq., retained by the neighborhood at Crown Oaks and Willow Creek Road, issued a statement supporting the fact that the property use has been abandoned. He stated he agrees with the City Attorney's findings and added, "as a matter of policy, nonconforming uses are limited exceptions to municipalities' power to regulate land use. In other word, the only reason that this use was allowed to continue, after the zoning ordinance classified this property as rural, was because it created a change. The law favors consistency with what the municipality has decided. Therefore, failure to continue that use argues in favor of abandonment to achieve the goal of having consistent overall ability of the municipality to implement as planned." The nonuse from 1994 to 1997 shows an intent to abandon and there was failure to continue. Brian Duois, 7161 Willow Creek Road, spoke in opposition of allowing the nonconforming use to continue, citing the fact that the home had been listed in the MLS as a single-family home. He said, "Minnesota Statute 394.36 clearly states, and this is out of the Northwestern Reporter, the discontinuation of a nonconforming use for one year results in termination of that use." Dick Seidenstricker, 7221 Willow Creek Road, spoke in opposition of allowing the nonconforming use to continue. He, too, cited the fact that the home was listed as a single-family home in the MLS listing service. Gretchen Doctor, 7032 Willow Creek Road, spoke in opposition of allowing the nonconforming use to continue. She told the Board if she and her family were aware that a multiple group home would be allowed in the area they would not have bought their home. Bob Sparby, 7261 Willow Creek Road, spoke in opposition of allowing the nonconforming use to continue. He cited the lack of supervision from the group home staff as his reason for opposing the project. Jim Beals, 9465 Amesberry Lane, spoke in opposition of allowing the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS April 9, 1998 Page 10 nonconforming use to continue. He told the Board the facility had been abandoned and not used as intended for a period exceeding the one year period of nonuse. Chairperson Nelson closed the public hearing and returned the floor to the Board for their discussion on the issue. Dunham asked the audience if they could state why they would not be opposed to six residents but would be opposed to sixteen residents. Susan Sparby, 7261 Willow Creek Road, told the Board the property did not offer enough useable flat yard for the children to play in. There is also a safety issue of the children walking the streets. O'Leary asked if it would be possible for the Board to limit future use of the facility to no more than ten residents. Johnson stated the notice of hearing had not addressed any issue of limiting numbers. Rosow stated no conditions could be put on the decision that the Board is charged in making on the appeal. The issue was to be resolved with a "yes or no" decision. The state regulates numbers in group homes. Ismail said he would support adding some conditions if it was possiblb. Dunham stated he was having a hard time agreeing with the facts that the City is using to prove abandonment. Giglio stated that the owner ignorance of law should not be a reason to prove the property was intentionally being abandoned. He said he agreed with the City Attorneys Findings of Fact. O'Leary agreed with Giglio's comment that ignorance of the law is not a reason to claim the property was not being abandoned. Ford stated he could not agree with the City Attorney's Findings of Fact. Nelson stated that the home has been physically changed to accommodate a single- family use. She agreed with the City Attorney's conclusion that the nonconforming use had been abandoned. The fact that the owner tried to sell the property as a BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Apri19, 1998 Page 11 single-family home, as evidenced by the MLS listing, strengthens this conclusion. Motion: Giglio, seconded by O'Leary to support the staffs conclusion in the memo dated February 13, 1998 and find abandonment of the non-conforming use at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive and determine the property to be a single family non-conforming use. Findings of Facts are as follows: The evidence of abandonment is based on: 1. The group home ceased to be a group home and remained unused for a period of more than a year. 2. The home was listed for sale as a single-family residence 3. The property was rented as a single-family residence for a period of time. Motion carried 3 - 2 - 1(Ismail abstained; Dunham and Ford voted nay). Chairperson Nelson told the applicant there is a 15-day time limit to appeal the decision to the City Council. V. OLD BUSINESS No old business was considered. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Offices Ford nominated Nelson as Chairperson, Dunham as Vice-Chairperson and Giglio as Secretary. Nelson, Dunham, and Giglio accepted the nominations. The nominations were passed unanimously. VII. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Ford, seconded by Giglio to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6 - 0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. U BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS STAFF REPORT TO: Board of Adjustment and Appeals members FROM: Steve Durham and Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrators DATE: Apri12, 1998 SUBJECT: 7170 Bryant Lake Drive , Variance #98-06 Request: Richard Haefele and Solid Foundations are appealing a decision of City Staff which finds that the multi-family non-conforming use at the above address has been abandoned. Finding/City Staff decision: Note attached to this staff report the memorandum dated February 13, 1998 from Roger Pauly and Richard Rosow, City Attorneys. The conclusion statement is on page 5 of the memorandum. Below is a synopsis of the conclusion. Conclusion "The case for abandonment of the nonconforming use is based primarily upon three factors: 1. The non-use of the property since the middle of 1994 for a group home facility. 2. The listing of the property for sale as a single-family residence in April 1997. 3. The rental of the property to a single person in August, 1997. Use/Licensing: Solid Foundations is a group home which proposes to use the home at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive to serve between seven and sixteen teenage males, between the ages 14-18, exhibiting either behavior or emotional disturbances. Solid Foundations is a transitional program for youths who have successfully completed a residential or correctional program and need to be back into the community. The program will be licensed through the Minnesota State Human Rights and Services Division. Based on the current City Staff finding,the program may operate under the single family zoning district(Rural) and may have up to six residents at the site. (I Minnesota State Statutes: 2. The State Statute, Section 245A.11, states: "Special conditions for Residential Programs. It is the policy of the state that persons shall not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations from the benefits of normal residential surroundings." "Permitted single-family residential use. Residential programs with a licensed capacity of six or fewer person shall be considered a permitted single-family residential use of property for the purposes of zoning and other land use regulations, except that a residential program whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses shall not be considered a permitted use. Programs otherwise allowed under this subdivision shall not be prohibited by operation of restrictive covenants or similar restrictions, regardless of when entered into, which cannot be met because of the nature of the licensed program, including provisions which require the home's occupants to b related and that the home must be occupied by the owner, or similar provisions." "Permitted Multifamily residential use. Unless otherwise provided in any town, municipal, or other county zoning regulation, a licensed residential program with a licensed capacity of seven to 16 persons shall be considered a permitted multifamily residential use of property for the purpose of zoning and other land use regulations. A town, municipal, or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or special use permit to assure property maintenance and operation of a residential program. Conditions imposed on the residential program must not be more restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in the same zones, unless the additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the persons being served by the program." The City does not have special use permits as part of the City code. History: In August of 1997 Jennifer Coughlin inquired of the City Zoning Administrator if a group home could be facilitated at this site. A program outline was requested and submitted by Solid Foundations. Based on previous use as a licensed group home serving up to 16 persons it was believed a group home could operate at this site. The City received notification via letter from the MN Department of Human Services dated September 25, 1997 indicating an application for a group home at the site had been filed(the proposed Solid Foundation program.) . It was believed the site was still a non-conforming use. Soon afterwards the nonconforming status of the property was challenged and the City staff reviewed new information. On December 17, 1997 the City sent a letter to the MN Department of Human Services indicating a challenge to the zoning classification of the property. Review of new additional information took place between December 1997 and February 13, 1998. 3. The property is zoned Rural. Based on the current code/zoning the property is considered a non- conforming use and may remain and be utilized as a residential care facility(provided all State, County licenses are obtained). The site is connected to City Sanitary Sewer and water. The Guide plan is Low Density Residential which permits up to 2.5 units per acre. The site is .93 acres. The site is next to Purgatory Creek and therefore subject to the Shoreland Ordinance. In 1984 a residential care program was proposed at the site. The program requested a use for 18 residents. City review via the Board of Adjustment and Appeals was required for the number of residents to increase from 6-18 (Variance#84-53). The Board of Adjustment and Appeals denied the request. The City Council approved the request in January 1985 based on the fact that the structure was determined to contain two units, therefore,up to 16 residents could occupy the facility. In 1985 a variance request (Variance Request#85-26)to alter the facility and determine its non- conforming status was requested at the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The request included 1. To permit conversion of a screened porch, 18' from the rear lot line. 2. To permit a deck addition to the northwest corner of the main structure 15.7' from the rear lot line. 3. To permit construction of enclosed stairway, to be added to the west side of the main structure, 34' from the rear lot line. 4. To permit an addition of a garage 1-3 above within 150' of the Ordinary High Water Mark of General Development Waters (Purgatory Creek.) 5. To determine whether proposed changes in the building constituting a non- conforming use, located on the property may be completed. The Board denied the request on July 25, 1985. On August 20, 1985 the City Council approved the variances and necessary building permits to alter the structure. Through the process it was determined the structure 7170 Bryant Lake Drive was a duplex, therefore,multiple family and up to 16 residents were permitted. This came as an opinion from the State Attorney General. A residential care program opened and operated until mid 1994. The property has not been used as a licensed group home facility since mid 1994. The property was on the real estate market in recent years. 4. Conclusion: The Board may wish to choose one of the following actions: 1. Find the staff conclusions, outlined in the memorandum dated February 13, 1998, do support a case for abandonment of a non-conforming use. The Board may determine the property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive to be a single family nonconforming use. 2 Find the staff conclusions, outlined in the memorandum dated February 13, 1998, do not support a case for abandonment of a non-conforming use. The Board may determine the property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive to be a muiti-family residential property based upon the previous use. G:\BARBVEAN\BOAU806SR.WPD 1 LANG, PAULY, GREGERSON & ROSOW, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIRST BANK PLACE 1600 IBM PARK BUILDING 650 THIRD AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-4337 TELEPHONE: (612)338-0755 FAX: (612)349-6718 EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE ROBERT 1.LANG SUITE 370 ROGER A.PAULY SUI PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE RICHARDR H.F.ROSOW GREGERSON. - EDEN PRAIRIE.MINNESOTA 55344 MARKJ. F.JOHNSONTELEPHONE:(612)829-7355 P J.A. NILA FAX:(612)829-0713 JOSEPH NILAN• TODD A.SATTLER REPLY TO MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE JENNIFER M.INZ'. JERRY D.PERRON JAMES W.DELAPLAIN °Also Admitted in Wisconsin MEMORANDUM TO: City of Eden Prairie Zoning Enforcement Staff FROM: Roger A. Pauly Richard F. Rosow City Attorney DATE: February 13, 1998 RE: Solid Foundations, 7170 Flying Cloud Drive Jennifer M. Coughlin has proposed operating a facility to be known as "Solid Foundations" at the above address (the "property"). Solid Foundations operation on the property would be a state licensed residential facility providing residential care and group home services for 16 males. BACKGROUND The property is situated in the Rural District. City regulations limit the use of land in the Rural District for residential purposes to single family detached dwellings and accessory structures. However, City Code authorizes uses existing prior to adoption of a zoning regulation to continue as lawful nonconforming uses. In 1985, the City Council determined that the property had been used as a multiple dwelling prior to the adoption of an ordinance (a predecessor to the present City Code) limiting the use of land in the Rural District for residential purposes to single family dwellings and thus was a lawful "nonconforming use as a duplex multiple dwelling, and as such, the use of the property is as a `multifamily residential use . . . for purposes of zoning' as those terms are used in M.S. § 462.357, Subd. 8, and M.S. § 245.812, Subd. 4." The current proposal to operate a state licensed residential facility was initiated in August, 1997. Minnesota Statutes § 462.357, Subd. 8 provides in part as follows: " . . . in any . . . municipal . . . zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivision, a state licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 persons . . . shall be considered a permitted multifamily residential use of property for purposes of zoning." Although Minn. Stat. § 245.812 was repealed in 1987, similar language is found in Minn. Stat. § 245A.11, Subd. 3. ISSUES It has been asserted that the property has lost its status and no longer qualifies for a lawful nonconforming use as a multifamily residence because that use was abandoned. DISCUSSION City Code Section 11.75 provides in part that nonconforming uses may not be re- established after they have been abandoned. The concept of termination of a lawful nonconforming use by abandonment is one which is a generally accepted legal doctrine. In general, a party claiming abandonment must prove two things. First, an intention to abandon and secondly, an overt act or failure to act which implies that the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the right to the nonconforming use. An intent to abandon can be shown by facts from which an inference can be drawn that the user has voluntarily renounced the nonconforming use. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, § 25.192; Anderson's American Law of Zoning, 4th ed. § 6.65; and 4 Rathkopf's, The Law of Zoning and Planning, § 51B.02. As is evident from a reading of the authorities and cases relating to the issue of abandonment, there is no clear rule or test by which it can be determined that an abandonment has occurred. Rather, each case depends upon the surrounding facts and circumstances. We have also reviewed the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision in County of Isanti v. Peterson, 469 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. App. 1991) in which the Court of Appeals upheld a lower court determination that nonconforming use of property for the purpose of storing houses was discontinued and abandoned. In that case, the owner had stored houses on land prior to 1972 when a zoning ordinance was enacted which did not permit such use of the property. The lower court concluded that the nonconforming use had been discontinued because no structures were stored on the property from approximately 1972 to 1983 and that the use was abandoned. In its decision, the Court of Appeals discussed and upheld the application of Minn. Stat. § 394.36, Subd. 1 which provides in part that a nonconforming use terminates if it is "discontinued for a period of more than one year." The statute is one of several (M.S. §§ 394.21 - 394.37) applicable to counties and those municipalities only which request that the county's zoning regulations apply to the municipality. Although the case is illustrative of how a court might deal with the current issue, the City is not governed by nor does it derive authority from those sections. Rather, the City's authority with respect to planning and zoning is derived from the Municipal Planning Act (M.S. §§ 462.351 - 462.365). These statutes do not contain provisions similar to M.S. § 394.36, Subd. 1, providing for termination of a nonconforming use if discontinued for a period of more than one year. -2- The Court of Appeals in County of Isanti also discussed the case of City of Minot v. Fisher, 212 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 1973) in support of a presumption of intent to abandon a nonconforming use upon expiration of an applicable termination period. Similarly, as in Isanti, the Minot zoning ordinance provided that discontinuance of a nonconforming use for a continuous specified period (two years) requires that future uses be in conformity with the regulations of the district. The Case for Abandonment. The evidence supporting the claim that a multifamily residential use of the property has been abandoned is as follows: The Hennepin County Mental Health Division advised City staff that the last check for the Welcome Home operation was issued in June, 1994 (mailed in July, 1994) and that no other payments to Welcome Home have been made since that time. No record has been found at the city, county or state offices of any other licensed residential or out-patient program to operate at the property after 1994. Use of the property as a group home or meeting place as an out-patient facility for more than five clients would have required a license from the Minnesota Department of Human Services. A City file opened on July 18, 1994 states that the sign at the property is gone and no vehicles are on the property. Another file opened in February, 1995 states that the Welcome Home program stopped in November, 1994. Beginning about April, 1997,the property was listed for sale as "Single Family-Property." The listing contains the following: "Six bedroom home with a beautiful setting on Nine Mile Creek. Conveniently located closed to MCTO Park & Ride Lot, Eden Prairie Center & several business parks." It also states: "This home needs some remodeling and renovation." The property has been occupied by a single person who pays rent to the owner since August 1, 1997. The Case for Non-Abandonment. The evidence supporting the claim that the nonconforming use of the property has not been abandoned is as follows: The owner states that after funding for the Welcome Home program ended, the principal of Welcome Home occupied the property by holding meetings and maintaining the office phone service and records. He also states that the property has been continuously maintained and he has contracted for kitchen remodeling, replacement windows and some other work to meet state fire codes. The owner states that he has never intended to abandon the nonconforming use of the property and that he relied on the original approval from the City and on the continuing approval as evidenced by the referrals of possible operators. He states that the current proposal has been progressing through various channels and except for the time lag due to the government approval process, resident clients would have inhabited the property several months ago. -3- The owner states that Mr. Just, who we understand was the principal of the Welcome Home operation, approached him in 1995 about purchasing the property for continued use as a group home. He obtained an appraisal as of August 14, 1995 by Aspen Appraisal Service, a copy of which he has provided. The appraisal characterizes the property as a Special Use property for group home purposes. Among other things, the appraisal notes that the house on the property has a kitchen of institutional quality, has metal fire doors and certain handicapped equipped facilities. The .owner states that the sale to Mr. Just was not consummated. Consequently, he listed the property for sale in January, 1996. The listing by Luger Realty indicates that the property was listed for sale as Investment Property. Included in the listing is the following: "Special use group home in unique location, good freeway & shopping center access. Unit is in good condition & ready for occupancy, abundant staff space on main floor. Licensed for 16." Brad Scheib, the representative of Luger Realty states that prior to the listing, he investigated the use of the property as a group home after which Luger Realty entered into the listing agreement. He states that in 1996, he contacted several group home providers, program operators, foundations and government organizations in an attempt to obtain group home user. He has provided the names of individuals and organizations which he contacted throughout 1996. He states that throughout 1996 and into 1997 the classification of the property as an Investment Property in the multiple listing service generated little interest in the property. He states that through discussions with some group home providers, it was discovered that several agencies were looking to the MLS for large single-family homes that could be converted to group homes. When searching on the MLS, the property was not identified because it was classified as an Investment Property, not a single-family property. He states that in discussing this with the owner, it was decided to change the MLS classification from Investment Property to reflect single-family classification in hopes of increasing market awareness. After the change in listing, Mr. Scheib continued to contact group home providers and professionals in the group home industry to further establish leads and he has provided documentation concerning these efforts. He states that he had several discussions with a Bruce McManus of Re-Entry Services between the months of March and August, 1997 when he terminated the listing agreement because he left the real estate business. He states that Re-Entry Services was a licensed group home organization. He also states that a Tom Braun inquired about temporarily renting the property for a place of residence and that he informed Mr. Braun that he had a prospective client, Mr. McManus, who showed a high level of interest in the property and that he would have to leave upon its sale for group home use. He then put Mr. Braun in touch with the owner who has stated that Mr.Braun is aware that his occupancy of the property is temporary and will continue only until a group home use begins City records reflect that on or about January 6, 1997, a request was made by one "Dave Caster" of Stonebridge Group Homes concerning use of the property for emotionally disturbed children. City files also indicate two inquiries concerning uses of the property for group homes were received in July, 1997. There is no bright line test indicating the circumstances under which a nonconforming use -4- is abandoned. For example, it has been said that using property for a conforming use has been held to indicate an intent to abandon. Rathkopf's, § 51B.02(4). Although a contrary result was reached where the change was clearly temporary. Anderson, § 6.67, p. 689. On the other hand, nonuse for a lengthy period of time has been held to be insufficient evidence to indicate an intent to abandon. 4 Rathkopf's, § 51B.02(14) and cases cited including Burrough of Saddle River v. Bobinski, 108 N.J. Super 6, 259 A.2d 727 (Ch. Div. 1969) holding that 27 years of nonuse did not constitute abandonment of a nonconforming use. A lease or a sale for a use different from the nonconforming use has been held to show an intent to abandon, while unsuccessful attempts to rent or sell premises for the continuance of a nonconforming use show an intent to not abandon the nonconforming use. 4A Williams, American Land Planning Law, § 115.11. A period of inactivity between the departure of a lessee and the commencement of a new occupancy has been held not to evidence an abandonment, Rathkopf, § 51B.02(5), as has nonuse because of inability to fmd a tenant. 4 Rathkopf's, § 51B.02(5); Anderson, § 6.66, p. 685. See Magnon v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Etc. Conn. 449 A.2d 148 (1982) (marketing property for nonconforming use sustained finding of no discontinuance). Dobbs v. Board of Appeals of Northhampton, 62 N.E.2d 32 (S. Ct. Mass. 1959) (attempts to rent); Derby Refining Co. v. City of Chelsea, 555 N.E.2d 534 (S. Ct. Mass. 1990). In attempting to predict how a court might rule, it is well to bear in mind that the burden of proof of abandonment is on the party asserting it. Anderson, § 6.65, p. 683. The context in which the issue of abandonment is raised also has a bearing on the ultimate decision of a court. Appellate courts in Minnesota have shown a marked disposition to favor the establishment of so called group homes. See, Costley v. Caromin House, Inc., 313 N.W.2d 21 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (In upholding a grant of a permit by the City of Two Harbors for a group home, the court discussed the strong public policy of favoring such facilities for those purposes); Northwest Residents v. City of Brooklyn Center, 352 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. App. 1984); Good Neighbor Care Center v. City of Little Canada, 357 N.W.2d 159 (Minn. App. 1984). However, a finding of abandonment of multifamily use does not preclude group home uses of this property as group homes are allowed in single family districts. CONCLUSION The case for abandonment of the nonconforming use is based primarily upon three factors: 1. The non-use of the property since the middle of 1994 for a group home facility. 2. The listing of the property for sale as a single-family residence in April, 1997. 3. The rental of the property to a single person in August, 1997. The lack of use as a group home, the listing of the property for sale as a single-family residence and the rental to a single person evidence an intent on the part of the owner to abandon the nonconforming multifamily residence use of the property. Continued efforts to market the property for group home purposes after April, 1997 when it was listed for single-family purposes and the explanation of Mr. Scheib that the listing as a single-family residence was done to attract more interest from group home users, does not necessarily demonstrate a continued intent to utilize the property for nonconforming use purposes. As stated above, group home uses are -5- allowed in single family residential districts. Likewise, the apparent understanding that Mr. Scheib had with the single occupant of the property that it was the subject of an ongoing interest by a potential buyer to be used for group home purposes does not negate a finding of abandonment, as group home uses are allowed in single family residential districts. Similarly, maintenance of the facility, its use for meetings, and maintaining an office phone does not evidence an intent to continue to use the property for multifamily purposes. These actions are not inconsistent with abandonment of the use of the property as a multifamily residence. Although the answer to the issue raised is not absolute, it is our opinion that if presented with the facts as now known it is more likely that a court would find that the use had been abandoned. rap\ep\solid\zonenf.119 -6- AFFIDAVIT OF OWNER, RICHARD J. HAEFELE, IN SUPPORT OF NON-ABANDONMENT OF MULTI-FAMILY USE OF 7170 BRYANT LAKE DRIVE STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) Richard J. Haefele, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states as follows: 1 . That Affiant acquired the property as investment property in 1986± following approval by the City of Eden Prairie for the operation of a Group Home. Affiant spent in excess of $100, 000. 00 in remodeling the home, installing a fire protection system, installing a commercial kitchen, placing a foundation under the structure and bringing the structure up to the requirements of the City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County and State of Minnesota for the operation of a state licensed facility. A group home was operated from 1986 and rent paid through December, 1995 . Affiant was not aware that the tenant had lost state licensing in 1994 . 2 . When rent ceased in January, 1996, Affiant contacted Brad Scheib of Century 21 Luger Realty and listed the property for sale as a group home. The property was appraised (copy in file) in the fall of 1995 in anticipation of a sale to the group home operator. The sale never occurred. Affiant at all times sought to sell the property as a group home (multi-family use) . From January of 1996 through July, 1997, Luger Realty and Brad Scheib, the agent, made diligent efforts to locate a buyer or tenant for the group home use (see letter from realtor in file) . In March, 1997 (after one year of non-use as group home) , it was suggested by the realtor that a change of the listing to "Single f 1 1 Family" might reach more potential users looking for large single family homes rather than investment property. A verbal agreement was reached to list the property in the single family category rather than investment category. Shortly thereafter Affiant located a potential group home user, Solid Foundations, operated by Jennifer Coughlin, but the approval of the program and the requalifying of the structure was expected to take six to eight months . The listing was ended at the time the real estate agent changed employment about August 21, 1997. Thus the single family listing lasted only five months. (See Exhibit A) 3 . Shortly before the listing was terminated, Thomas Braun, a relative of the "Solid Foundations" owner, Jennifer Coughlin, contacted the realtor and asked if he might rent the home until a program could be located. Mr. Braun was always told and knew that his occupancy was temporary until a group home could obtain all the necessary approvals to operate. Mr. Braun contacted Affiant and informed him that he owned a home in the neighborhood but was going through a family separation and wanted to be near his children. Affiant agreed to permit Mr. Braun to rent the home on a temporary basis if he was willing to cut the lawn and do routine maintenance. Mr. Braun agreed and moved into the home. 4 . During the months from July to December, 1997, the Solid Foundations program was taking necessary action to obtain all approvals and licenses to operate. An 18-month lease was entered into by Affiant and "Solid Foundations" based upon an October letter from the City of Eden Prairie indicating the zoning was proper for a 16-bed group home. In December, 1997, a group of neighbors contacted the City Attorney and first raised the abandonment issue. The City never raised the issue in 1996 or 1997 through November! A neighbor contacted Affiant and asked if I would sell to them so they could eliminate the group home use from the neighborhood. Affiant explained that we had invested substantial sums of money in improvements and had an 18-month lease to the Solid Foundations program owner. It was clear to Affiant that the only issue was eliminating the group home from "the neighborhood" . This group of neighbors did nothing while the property was marketed from January 1996 through August 1997 until the group home was leased and scheduled to open in February-March of 1998 and then they raised the issue of abandonment . 5 . Abandonment is clearly defined as an intention on the part of the owner (not the realtor) (see legal memo by City Attorney) . All of the reasoning by those individuals supporting abandonment is based upon non-use, a realtor' s suggestion to list as single family and occupancy by an individual . None of these factors are inconsistent with continued use as a group home. Affiant has over $250, 000 . 00 invested in the home and the group home use improvements. Sale of the home as other than a group home would likely result in a substantial out of pocket loss. Affiant never abandoned what is clearly the "highest and best use" of the property - a group home. The law clearly favors the use of properties such as this in a social service capacity in city attorney' s memo. Numerous cases exist which support a non- abandonment finding in situations where the factors found are consistent with a finding either way. No cases could be found by Affiant which supported abandonment based upon one year of non- use where continuous efforts were made to reestablish the use, and where the other factors were simply temporary or marketing efforts. Affiant states clearly and without hesitation that abandonment was never considered at the time I sought to help a neighbor and to reach more possible users. Abandonment would have been a devastating economic decision. 6 . Affiant asks the City Council to recognize that abandonment was never an option nor ever considered by Affiant . Further Affiant Saith Not . 1 Richard J. Ha e Subscribed and sworn to before me this ;? ),/jj day of a c , 1998 . 1012 d id----.6. Notary Public ill AAMAAAAMAAAAAAAANNAMAAAMMA w Ma_LOBES A.BEUSSMAN NOTARY FUBL lC-h1lN'JESOTA a SCOTT C UNTY My Comm-Expires Jan.31.2c00 e r► a A v' AFFIDAVIT OF BRAD SCHEIB, LISTING REAL ESTATE AGENT, LUGER REALTY STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss . COUNTY OF CARVER Brad Scheib, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states as follows : 1. That in January, 1996, Affiant was contacted by Richard Haefele, the owner of the group home at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive and asked if the property could be listed and marketed by Luger Realty. Affiant and Haefele signed a written listing agreement for the property and placed the listing on Multiple Listing Service under the category of "investment property" (Exhibit A) . Affiant suggested this category as it had been operated as a group home licensed for 16 beds and had been recently (fall 1995) appraised as a group home. It was Affiant' s strong opinion that the property' s best value was as a group home and that it was worth significantly more as a group home with a special use permit than as any other use. 2 . Affiant marketed the property as a group home From January of 1996 through July of 1997 . The numerous contacts made are listed in detail in the letter provided to the city attorney. As of March 5, 1997, Affiant suggested to Mr. Haefele that the property be changed on the MLS to "Single Family" for the purpose of increasing the market awareness of smaller group home providers who are looking for large single family homes. At no point did Mr. Haefele indicate that he would accept an offer from a buyer who would not continue to operate the property as a group home. Affiant had a change of employment beginning in August of 1997 and deactivated his real estate license on or about August 26, 1997 . Affiant informed Haefele of the change and it was agreed that the listing would be terminated as Haefele was working with "Solid Foundations" to set up a program. The listing was not removed from the multiple listing service due to an oversight on the part of Affiant and Century 21 Luger Realty. It was clearly understood by Affiant and Haefele that the listing was terminated and the property was off the market as of August 21, 1997 . 3 . Shortly before Affiant left Luger Realty, I was contacted by Thomas Braun, a neighbor who asked if he might rent the home. Affiant clearly advised Mr. Braun on several occasions that the home was going to be occupied by a social service provider as a group home and that any occupancy would be temporary. Affiant informed Mr. Braun that the property would be shown to group home providers. Affiant then spoke with the owner, Richard Haefele, who agreed that a temporary occupancy would fill some of the time necessary to get the City, County and State approvals and license for a group home. Mr. Braun was informed by both the owner and myself that he could only occupy the home until we obtained the necessary approvals to operate the group home. 4 . At no time was the intent to use the property for group home purposes abandoned. Further Affiant Saith Not . Brad Scheib Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 1998 . /Notary Public CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE VARIANCE REQUEST :.:P0J11.1011711PS111111111111111111-111111 PROJECT NAME NAME 12. CA;IML ---Z•e.CAN\ COJCNN-lik,‘ AND LOCATION LOCATION "1 0 r-.. .C\-‘‘Ne• -• IAN•"."‘ APPLICANT/ APPLICANT: -7Z-k-"•\ .‘ . PHONE: FEE OWNER INFORMATION FAX: ADDRESS: e. 1Y\• STATE ZIP FEE OWNER: TSVkIP'Ava‘' PHONE:'4-4 FAX: dr-A-b .\ ADDRESS: I C C Zç CITY: C..14-(21%\c. . STATE M:6 /1" 0,t REQUEST AND RESIDENTIAL .(Includes building.additions, FEE: $275.00 REOUEST: Th FEES ecks and Code interpretations ••-•.•.) 1-74 individual lots) 20,•••-•\ Cr,443V - OTHER-(Includes variances associated with FEE: $450.00 REOUEST: residential developments,office,industrial, commercial property and variances associated with new construction) REQUEST AND FEES SIGNED BY:1 fri . DATE: ," 0 (1('Y AND: DATE: lb; er) SUBMISSION SEE REVERSE SIDE REQUIREMENTS RECEIVED BY S DATE RECEIPT NUMBER _55 r 612-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 501 P10 APR 20 '98 07:20 1_X To: Ruth Tice From: Brad Scheib---g442 /OS* I Re: Cancellation of Listing at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive Date: August 21, 1997 Please remove the listing at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive from the MLS. The listing has been mutually canceled between myself and the owner of the property Mr. Rick Haefele. The original listing agreement had expired quite some time ago and the owner had requested that I continue my marketing efforts. No new listing agreement wwas put in place upon the expiration of the original listing. I have removed the lock box from the property and turned it in with joEllen at the front desk. Also, I removed the sign from the post as it was falling off. That sign is in the garage- Please order the posts to be picked up from the property. I have been working somewhat with Barb and Mickey Gardner who may have an interest in continuing with this property. You might want to talk with them to see if they have reached any agreement with the owner. Please let me know if you have any questions. My license will be deactivated August 26th, 1997_ Thanks Brad 612-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 501 P08 APR 20 '98 07:19 18-APR-1998 10:55: 15 - #1 LISTING # 1161840 ---- CANC 7170 BRYANT LAKE DR TYP: IV AR : 392 OLP: 390, 000 Major Area: 392 LDR: 01/11/96 MT : 427 LP : 325, 000 Second Area: LD : 01/09/96 FIN: SP : OMD: 03/05/97 LO : 5433 LAG: 17961 XD : 07/03/97 SO : SAG: BCD: M CTM: 325, 000 LAM: PTS: $ 0 STY: BUS OpP TX OTHER EXT: MV NRA: ONE WAT: CONNECT NRE: ONE SEW: CONNECT HEA: FA USE: BSV FUE: GAS PRK: COOT OEX: OTHER INC: ROF: PITCHED,SHINGLE SIN BUILDING,LAND LTY: ER RRF: PER MONTH TRM: CON,CIN,CSH BSM: C EXF: CON LAK: CREEK ASM: N UTL: HEATING COM,ELECTRIC COM,HOT WTR COM MIS: D/P,PRM,HWF co c tip' -r- P 1/5/hi 612-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 501 P09 APR 20 '98 0?:20 18-APR-1998 10: 55: 15 #2 LISTING # 1248175 -- EXP 7170 BRYANT LAKE DR TYP: SF AR : 392 OLP: 298, 000 MAJOR AREA; 392 LDR: 03/05/97 MT : 368 LP : 249, 000 SECOND AREA: LD : 03/05/97 FIN: Sp OMD: 03/05/98 LO : 5433 LAG: 17961 XD : 03/05/98 SO : SAG: BR : 6 TBA: 3 FBT: 3 TBT: HBT: QBT: FP: N BCD: M CTM: 249, 000 LAM: PTS: $ 0 LTY: ER LAK: CREEK STY: 2STORY EXT: M/V AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: N GAR: 2,D DIN: SEP DIN RM,EAT IN KIT BSM: C SBA: MAIN FULL,UPPER LEV WAT: CONNECT SEW: CONNECT ASM: N TRM: CON,C/D EXF: CON SPS: HANDICAP AC, 4 BR 1 LEV INl: IN2: BUS,p/p -.gUl'AeY) \f -'6 ‘b. Wh-) 'Fora_ I *Aiz.. . Di., exptizeD 3/ 5-frc3 L RICHARD J. HAEFELE ATTORNEY AT LAW 1059 STOUGHTON AVENUE P.O. BOX 85 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 TELEPHONE(612)448-2200 FACSIMILE(612)448-7187 March 5, 1998 FAX 949-8390 Mr. Steve Durham Zoning Administrator 8080 Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 RE: 7170 Bryant Lake Drive Eden Prairie, MN Dear Mr. Durham: Please consider this letter our request to appear before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on April 9, 1998 . We are asking the City of Eden Prairie to reconsider the decision by the City Attorney/City Staff to revoke our multifamily classification for the residence at the above captioned address in the City of Eden Prairie. Your office provided us with a "Variance Report Application" but the form does not seem appropriate for the situation. Please let me know if you need further information. I am in the process of obtaining detailed statements from Tom Braun, the man who occupied the home this past summer and fall; from Brad Scheib, the realtor who marketed the property; and Jennifer Coughlin, the program director for Solid Foundations, the proposed program for the location. I will forward these statements when I receive them. BACKGROUND It is my understanding that the structure located on the above described premises was a "stage coach stop" on the Eden Prairie - Shakopee Route at the turn of the century. The premises was later used as a small general store and ultimately a multifamily residence until it was purchased by me in 1986 . The purchase was contingent on approval by the City of Eden Prairie for the operation of a 16 bed group home. No time limit was Page 2 RE: 7170 Bryant Lake Road March 5, 1998 imposed for operation of the group home. Approval was obtained in 1985± inspite of opposition by many of the neighbors who felt that "handicapped people should be in someone else' s neighborhood" . The structure was remodeled at a cost of over $100, 000 . 00 . The building was lifted and an entire foundation installed. A commercial kitchen, a handicapped bathroom and wheelchair accessible shower were installed. A fire monitoring system, magnetic closing doors and fire dampers in the HVAC system were installed. The interior of the building was resheetrocked for fire protection and new wiring and plumbing installed. We contemplated that the building would be used for many years as a group home. I have been in frequent contact with the Sutton family who live next door and whose family owned the property for many years. Over the ten years of operation, I was not aware of any significant problems related to the operation of the group home. The tenant who occupied the property from 1985 to 1996, Welcome Home, Inc. , lost their license to operate projects of this sort in 1995 or 1996 . They continued to pay rent and conduct meetings of various sorts until the fall of 1996 . When it became clear that this tenant was unable to get another program, I listed the property in 1996 and began the search for another program or a buyer with a similar use. We had the property appraised as a group home (copy of appraisal in file) and always marketed the property as a group home/multifamily use. The property is probably worth $150, 000 .00 less as a single family residence and the amount invested could only be justified with continued operation as a group home. Accompanying this review request is a copy of a letter prepared by Brad Scheib, the realtor, indicating the substantial efforts made by his company to locate a program and/or group home buyer. After having limited success marketing as a group home, we expanded the market exposure by including the listing in single family homes . We hoped to reach potential buyers who were looking for large homes to convert to a group home/multifamily use. We had no intent of abandoning the multifamily use. In the spring of 1997 we were working with ReEntry Services and Solid Foundations to set up a program which would be operated on the location. The time to establish the program and obtain all necessary State and County approvals was about six months . At about the same time, a neighbor who was separated from his family Page 3 RE: 7170 Bryant Lake Road March 5, 1998 contacted the realtor and asked if he could occupy the home to be close to his family until we were ready to open the group home. I agreed and he moved in on a month to month basis. He knew he was a temporary occupant to protect the property until the program approvals were received (see Affidavit) . Jennifer Coughlin received a copy of a letter dated last fall indicating the City approved the use of the property as a group home (see Exhibit attached) . Based upon numerous representations by the City Staff over a period of many months that we could operate, Jennifer and I contracted for numerous repairs, updating and equipment for operation of a group home. Based upon the representations of the City Staff, we have invested an additional $15, 000 . 00± to remodel and get the necessary approvals from the State of Minnesota and Hennepin County for the operation of the Solid Foundation group home. Finally, after all the work has been contracted for, an 18 month lease entered into and approvals obtained from both County and State officials, enter the same neighbors who opposed the program in 1985 . I have spoken to some of them and they cannot relate any problems that have occurred over the last ten years of operation. Their position seems to be the same as it was in 1985 . "We don' t want handicapped people in our neighborhood" . These neighbors seem to have persuaded the City Attorney to reach a conclusion that is contrary to most of the case law cited in his memorandum. We never abandoned the use approved by the City in 1985, we spent in excess of $100, 000 . 00 to meet all state and county requirements. The basis given by the City Staff for abandonment: non-use, occupancy by a single man and listing by a real estate company were all consistent with continued use as a group home. • Social Service programs are carefully structured and carefully monitored to make certain goals are met . These programs cannot be moved overnight as can single families. A significant time delay is to be expected in the transition from a ten year program to a new long term program. The listing was designed only to reach more people in the hopes of getting the best program available. We all recognize the problems with vacant buildings. We rented to Mr. Braun to protect the premises and to provide him a location near to his family. We should not be criticized and penalized for using common sense and compassion. We request that the Board of Appeals not accept the recommendation of the City Attorney and permit the continued use Page 4 RE: 7170 Bryant Lake Road March 5, 1998 of the property as it has been used for almost 100 years - as a multifamily location serving the community. Very truly yours, j4I1 Richat) . Haefele RJH/dab Enclosures AFFIDAVIT OF JENNIFER COUGHLIN Program Director - Solid Foundations Affiant first contacted the owner' s realtor in July, 1997 . Brad' Scheib, of Lugal Realty, told me the house was on the market as a group home. I then contacted Haefele in July of 1997 . I believe we met in person the first week or so in August. You asked me to double check with city' s zoning which I did. I contacted Steve Durham. He asked me to send a letter which he would forward to Roger Pauly. He stated to me that he did not see any problems with zoning because it had been zoned and licensed for 16 residents for the last eleven years. I also contacted the building inspector (John) and the fire inspector (Chuck) to go through the house. The building inspector stated "everything was fine" . The fire inspector wanted me to install a fire monitor system which I have completed. Once I received the okay from zoning, I had the Health Department out and received a list of things needing to be done. I hired a fire safety alert company to update extinguishers and another company, Fairmont Fire Systems, to do my hood fire system in the kitchen. I then contacted the State Fire Marshall who came out and inspected. He gave me a couple of things to complete and have my system tested. I have completed this, the State Fire Marshall has given me 100% go ahead. I hired KNR Communications to install a monitoring system and to check the complete system. I contacted Wooddale Church whom Solid Foundations is using as their primary church. The Youth workers from there are going to provide my boys with Bible Study and an hour of questions one time per week at the group home. I contacted Eden Prairie High School and talked with a woman from the Special Education Department because some of my boys will have IEP' s (having special needs for their learning disabilities) . I let her know I hoped to open in February or March 1998 . I also contacted Lori Gerval who is the head of Healthy Communities Healthy Youth in Eden Prairie. Solid Foundations implements Search Institutes Healthy Communities, Health Youths 40 Developmental Assets, 1 that youth need to be successful into our program. I was interested in the resources available and the opportunities to do community service, as Solid Foundations Youth will do two to four hours community service per week. I hired a company to paint the walls and spray the ceilings and to clean the upstairs carpet. I hired another company to replace 150 yards of carpet in the main level at a cost of $1, 600 . 00 . I hired a couple of restaurant companies to do work on the commercial kitchen equipment. Following this work, the city first indicated some neighbors had objected to the "group home" use. I had three of the neighbors contact me, Brian Duoos was one. He called and asked me all about my program. He stated that he felt the neighbors were in support of this but had questions and asked if I would be willing to meet with a few or all neighbors. I stated "Yes" at any time. I then called Brian back asking when I could do this. He stated he was going to the neighborhood Christmas party and would talk with the neighbors . I never heard from him again. I was also contacted by Don Sorenson. He questioned me but was much more defensive and turned every positive thing I stated into a negative one. He called me three to four times, never pleasant . The third neighbor was Mary Clay. Mary Clay called and was very pleasant . She explained that the neighbors wanted to know more about . Solid Foundations and that they wanted to hear my side and all about the program. She said Brian Duoos never had any answers for them only negative things that he shared with them. They felt Mary Clay would give an educated objective opinion. We met, 'all went well, Mary Clay told me she felt I needed to go ahead with the program and wanted me to drop off a copy so that she could make copies for all of the neighbors . I did this. I also told her I was excited to meet with anyone to answer questions . None of the neighbors indicated any objection tot he intended use of the property as a group home. 2 • I have advertised in the paper for Employees which again changes as my occupancy is reduced to six from ten to sixteen. The change hinders my ability to hire and staff a program as I had originally planned. This zoning change decrease by occupancy and is costing me a lot of money. I have spent over 1200 hours restructuring my program and getting the building ready based on the representation of the City Staff. I have. driven over 6, 000 miles for various appointments and for remodeling arrangements . I have approximately $42,476 . 00 invested in this program. The cost difference for my company from ten boys to six boys is $167, 900 . 00 a year. The acceptance of the opinions of some disgruntled neighbors by the City of Eden Prairie seems contrary to law and seems based more on politics then common sense or law. Community based social service programs are strongly supported by the case law and by Hennepin County. Solid Foundations is committed to Healthy Communities, Healthy Youth, an initiative which is a national campaign to help make positive changes for Youth and their and our future. I did everything by the book and in the right order. The City of Eden Prairie told me I was zoned for multi-residential use. I built my corporation and program around this reliance. Further Affiant saith not . 1---L J ni f elf Coughl i Subscribed and sw. • to before me thi., %O.' i . _ . _ , h, 1998 . 1111 Notary Pu• i s ii0 NOA y MENS OTA HENNEPIN COUNTY M Commission Expires Jan.31,2000 r r 3 \L`=iJL ICJ RICHARD J. HAEFELE _ ATTORNEYATLAW ' 1: 1059 STOUGHTCN AVENUE P.O. BOX 85 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 553 1 3 TELEPHONE(612)448-2200 FACSIMILE(612)448-7187 . a__.-.a_y 5 , 1999 Mr. Roger Pauly Attorney at Law 650 Third Avenue Souza 1600 IBM Building Minneapolis, MN �55402 Re: 7170 Bryant Lake Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Mr. Pauly: Following our discussion on Friday, January 9, 1998, regarding our non-abandoning the use of the above captioned property as a group home, I contacted the Century 21 agent, Brad Scheib, who prepared a summary of his efforts to locate a program for the location. I also discovered the he was in frequent contact with City of Eden Prairie staff on various programs he located. See enclosed memo and exhibits . In 1995, Mr. Just had approached me about purchasing the, property himself for continued use as a group home. I obtained an appraisal as of August 14, 1995, in anticipation of a sale to Jim Just (copy enclosed) . The appraisal was of "Special Use Property" and clearly was based upon group home use . The sale did not occur. I then listed the property in. January, 1996 . I worked with several possible tenants or buyers in 1997 including Re Entry Services which is mentioned in Mr. Scheib' s summary. Also enclosed is a letter dated April 25, 1997, to the Federal Emergency Management people. They contacted me asking if the property might be available to house flood victims from Grand Forks. The letter was my response and clearly states that the "group home sleeps 16 legally" . We have always maintained the group home intention and have kept the City of Eden Prairie informed of our intentions . Pace 2 Mr. Roger Pauly January 5 , 1998 At about that time we began working with Jennifer Coughlin and Solid Foundations . We recognized that the time lag involved in aetting approval of her program was at least six months . A neighbor asked me if he could occupy the premises to cut our insurance cos: and be near his family during a tough time for him. I agreed and Tom 3raun has been residing in the hcme since sur-:er 1997 . He is well aware that his use was only until we found a grout home use. If anything further is required, please advise . trul \ you_s . i Richard . Haefele RJH/dab Enclosures Memorandum To: Rick Haefele From: Brad Scheib '� � Date: January 7, 1997 Re: Marketing efforts for the property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive It is my understanding that you have been asked to provide a summary of Century 21 Luger Realty's and my, as agent to Century 21 Luger Realty, efforts to market the property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive as a group home since 1995. In January of 1996, under the brokerage of Luger Realty entered into an agreement with you to market the property for sale. Prior to entering into that agreement, I researched the situation of this group home by talking to Steve Durham,Zoning Administrator for the City of Eden Prairie and Markus Klimenko, Housing Coordinator at Hennepin County Mental Health Division. Following that research it was my determination that the highest and best use of the property as it stood was as a group home use. It was also my understanding that the previous program operator, Welcome Home, was attempting to reestablish a program for the property. In January, the property was entered into the Multiple Listing Service as an investment property with a description of a group home use. Throughout winter and spring of 1996, I contacted by phone and followed up by mail to several group home providers,program operators, foundations, and government organizations that could put me in touch with a group home user(see exhibits 1 and 2). I was also occasionally in contact with Steve Thomas, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Steve Durham and Markus Klimenko to remind them this group home property is available should anyone express an interest. Throughout 1996 and into 1997, classification of the property as an investment property in the Multiple Listing Service generated very little interest in the property. Don Rasmussen,Edina Realty, and Ted Field, Counselor Realty are two agents who showed the property to prospective group home clients during 1996. Through discussions with some of the providers,it was discovered that several agencies were looking to the MLS for large single family homes that could be converted to group homes. When searching on the MLS,your property was not identified because it was classified as an investment property not a single family property. In discussing this with you we decided to change the MLS classification from investment property to reflect single family classification in hopes of increasing the market awareness. Through the remainder 1997, I continued to contact group home providers and professionals in the group home industry to further establish leads(see exhibit 3). I also received assistance from Barb and Mickey Gardner who were associates at Century 21 Luger Realty and showed the property to a client in 1997. `l In August of 1997, we mutually canceled the listing agreement because I took a new job that required I cancel my real estate license. It was also my understanding the you had a potential client that you were in discussion with who was interested in the group home. Prior to this, I had been closely working with a licensed group home organization that expressed an interest in the property. Bruce McManus at Re-entry services was informed of the property by Steve Thomas whom I had previously contacted. Mr. McManus and I had several discussions which led to Mr. McManus and his colleagues visiting the property. After see the home and looking at his alternatives,he opted not to proceed. this activity approximately took place between the months of March and August in 1997. Also at that time, Tom Braun a neighbor inquired about temporarily renting the facility for a place of residence. I informed Mr. Braun that I had a prospective client that showed high level of interest in Mr. McManus and that he would have to leave upon any sale for a group home use. I then put Mr. Braun in touch with Mr. Haefele. This memo accurately reflects my marketing efforts for your property. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. see attached exhibits Lr APPRAISAL REPORT of Special Use Property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55344 AS OF: August 14,1995 PREPARED FOR: • Richard Haefele - Box 85,1059 Stoughton Ave Chaska,MN 55318 PREPARED BY: Aspen Appraisal Service fachael Ittel Box 47214 Plymouth,MN 55447 • • 9...„ Table of Contents Ref: 95034 Small Income Property, page 1 1 Small Income Property, page 2 2 Comment Addendum 3 Comment Addendum 4 Income approach 4 Reconcilation of Value 4 Group Home Income Approach Spreadsheet 5 Legal Description 6 Property Form 6 Gross Building Area of the Subject 7 Floor Plan of the Subject, Main Floor 8 Floor Plan of the Subject, Second Floor 9 Location Map 10 Flood Map 11 Subject Photographs 12 Environmental Addendum 13 Appraisal Engagement Letter 14 City Ordinance Section 11.66 15 Family Care Homes 16 Family Care Homes 17 Family Care Homes 18 Opinion of State Attorney General 19 Opinion of State Attorney General 20 Opinion of State Attorney General 21 Opinion of State Attorney General 22 Statement of Limiting Conditions 23 Appraiser's Certification 24 1. Disclaimer Form "' 25 Minimum Required Appraisal Standards 26 Supplement, Page 1 27 Supplement,Page 2 28 . Aspen Appraisal Service • SMALL RESIDENTIAL INCOME PROPERTY APPRAISAL REPORT File No, 95034 Property Address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive city Eden Prairie State MN ZIP Code 55344 • Legal Description See attached County Hennepin • s Assessor's Parcel No. 12 116 22 22 0002 Tax Year 95 R.E.Taxes$ 5,124.36 Special Assessments s 735.38 BNeighborhood or Project Name Bryant Lake/Eden Prairie Map Reference Census 17 l-�t J Borrower N/A ( Current Owner Richard�}Haefele l 1 Occupant [,owner 1]Tenant LX]Vacarrt c Property rights appraised X[Fee Simple I 1 Leasehold I Project Type l i PUD I 1 Condonmi lump HOAS /Mo. . T sales Prices N/A Date of Sale N/A Description and$amount of loan charges/concessions to be paid by seller N/A Leatler/Crmn t Richard Haefele Address Box 85.1059 Stoughton Ave.Chaska,MN 55318 Appraiser Michael Ittel Address Box 47214.Plymouth.MN 55447 Location Urban X Sublaban Rural Predominant Single family housing Predominant 24 family housing Built up Over 75% © % Under 25% Single Family moat a AGE s) 2.4 Family pq AGE Ms) Occupancy s(oo0) (ye) Occupancy $(cool pus) Growth rate Rapid ©Stable Slow X Owner 95% 95 tow 2 owner Low Property values Increasing ©stable tag Tenant 290 High 30 Tenant Demand/supply ©In balance Over supply X Vacant(0.5%) Predominant X Vacant(0-5%) fb 'Predominant .�'. . .• Marketing time time X Under 3 mos. 3-6 mos. 1 Over 6 nos. Vacant toyer VA) 160 3-15 Vacant(over 5%) Typical 2-4 family bldg. Type Townho e No.stories 1+ No.units 2+ Age 10 yra Present land use% Land use change Typical rents$ 550 to s 50 El Increasing Stable El Declining One family 70 X❑Not Italy ❑Dimly Eat.neighborhood apt vacancy5.1 % ii Increasing ❑X Stable ❑Declining 2-4 family 5 ❑In process to: Rent controls ❑Yes ©No U likely If yes or likely,describe Muth-family 5 Commercial 10 • ( Parks ) 10 • Note:Race and the racial composltlon of the neighborhood are not appraisal heron. . Neighborhood boundaries and characteristics:The neighborhood the subject is specifically located in is roughly bounded by: Hwy 212 to the East and South. Interstate 494 to the West. and Hwy 62 to the North. The area is the Bryant's Long Lake area. Generally the neighborhood area would be the Eden Prairie area. The neighborhood is middle class, primarily single family. Office space, retail, and light industrial uses also exist in the general area. Factors that affect the marketability of the properties in the neighborhood(proximity to employment and amenities,employment stability,appear to market,etc.): The subject is uniquely located. It provides privacy from the surrounding area with landscaping and-a topographical lot arrangement that has it lower than the surrounding properties. The access that is provided by the Freeways in the area to the surrounding metro area is excellent. Shopping, retail. health care, and Government services are .. close to the subject. The property provides privacy and ample parking. This special use property is located in an . E area that should be amenable to a well run group home program. The city has granted a variance in the.past and =- c _probably needs a facility such as this in the area to alleviate the pressure from the county about assimilating . H clients/residents into the community. 0 The following available listings represent the most current similar.and prodmate competition properties to the subject properly in the subject neighborhood.This analysis is Wended to R evdmmete the inventory cogently on the market competing with the subject property in the subject neighborhood and recent price and marketing time trends effecting the subject property. p Listings outside the subject neighborhood are not considered apptteablel The listing comparables can be the rental or sale comparables if they are currently for sale. 0 ITEM I( SUBJECT COMPARABLE LISTING NO.1 COMPARABLE LISTING NO.2 COMPARABLE LISTING NO.3 D • Address Prordnhity to smiled - `Q .9.0.r et UstkgPrice S _ �hd 1 1 Fum$ F-Tht TINT.S Flat. IFum. $ Apprormnate GeA 3.518 Data course f Units/Tot m RIBA I I T I I I ► 1 1 I I I Approximate year built _ Apprcrc days on market comparison of listings to subject property: Comparable listings, sales, and rentals were not used due to the subject being a "special use"property thatprimarily has its "value in use"and no similar properties were known to be available for • comparison within the area that met the requirements for a "good sale". Market conditions that affect 2-4 family properties In the subject neighborhood(including the above neighborhood Indicators of growth rate, property values, demand/supply,and marketing time)and the prevalence and Impact In the subject market area regarding loan discounts,Interest buydowns and concessions,and identification of trends in listing prices,average days on market and any change over past year,etc.: See comment addendum. Dimensions See attached legal description Topography Flat/Atypical sae area .93 acre milComer lot ❑X No L;Yes Size Typical Specific zoning cbasshfleation and description Rural:Lot size is below st�(j�"randfathrd) Shape Irregular rectangle Zoning compliance ❑Legal 0 Legal nonconforming(Grandfatered use) LI illegal El No Mining Drainage Gentle slope/Appears adequate Highest hest a best use as Improved: X❑Present use ❑Other use(sprain) view Neighborhood Landscaping Complete/Typical Utilities Pub Other off-slte Improvements Type Public Private Dnh'eway Paved lxar+ay X NSP street Asphalt X Apparent easements None apparent Gas Minnegasco Curb/gutter No/No Normal uUT easements Water Q Sidewalk No FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area Yes X No • sehRery,hewec X Street lights Yes X FEMA zone A-C Map Date 17 Jan 1986 Storm sewer I X I Alley No FEMA Map No, 270159 0005 C Comments(apparent adverse easements,encroachments,special ments,slide areas,illegal or legal nonconforming zoning,use,etc.):NO apparent adverse easements or encroachemnts were noted. It is assumed to be free and clear of the same. Typical Public Utility Easements to serve the site. Special assessments are: Supplemental Trunk Sewer and Water$30.59 per annum 51-382 Lateral Sewer and Water 466.23. er annu . The total outstandin s ecial ssessment a off for the ear 1996 and be and is 1490 37. a subject is below the minim m roe stds for rural zonin but is grandfathered because it was in existence at the time of the re-zoning. A variance #85-26 was also approved for Fedde Moe Farm 721044 CD:WORMS Real slab Appalled Soswane by Bradford and Robbins(BOO)622d727 4 Pendell"Fern t0251044 Page I . vw..-...a. r.C.VIVG17 I I/iL IiYt.JIvlu rr(urLisi a MI'i-a%mr..ML I.LI'Ott I File No. 95U34 General description Exterior description (Materials/condition, Foundation Insulation (R-value if(mown) .. thmslbldgs. 1 / 1 Foundation Concrete Blk/Good Slab No ❑Roof stodes 2 Exterior wars Mtl like sling/Good Crawl space Yes X Ceufng Unknown Type(devatt) Detached Roof surface Shingles/Good sump Pump No ❑walls Unknown Design(style) Standard Gaiters s dwnspts. Painted metal Dampness None apparent X Floc. Unknown Fxaang/proposes Existing Widow type Crkout Dbl-Hng/Gd Settlement None apparent None Under construction No stormsasms«eens Partial infestation None apparent Adequacy Year Brat Unknown Manufactured housing* L]Yes LX]No Basement 0 %of let floor area Energy efficient items:Non Efective age(yrs.) 30 '(Compres with the HUD Manufacturing Housing Basement finish N/A Construction and SafetyStandards.) Units Level(s) Foyer Living Dining Kitchen _ Den Family inn. Bedrooms ft Baths Laundry Other Sq.It/unit Total D 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 1 1.00 1 3 1.855 1.855 S 2 _ 6 2.00 1.663 1,663 C R I T Improvements contain: 11 Rooms; 6 Bedroom(s); 3.00 Bahn(s); 3,518 Swore feet or GROSS BUILDING AREA i GROSS BUILDING AREA(GBA) IS DEFINED AS THE TOTAL FINISHED AREA(INCLUDING COMMON AREAS) OF THE • IMPROVEMENTS BASED UPON EXTERIOR MEASUREMENTS. _ O Surfaces (Materials/condition) Heating Kitchen equip. (t I unit-cond.) Attic Car Storage No.Cars 2+4 F Floors Cot.Crmc/AvaGd Type FA Refrigerator 1/Good _ None Garage El I Wails Shtrock/Good Fuel Gas Range/oven 1/Good Stairs Carport • a Tdm fadah Wood/Good Condition Good Disposal Yes Drop stair Attached R Bahr floor Cermic Tile/Good Instlid Tempstr 10/92 Dishwasher No X Scuttle Detached la o Bathmainscot Cermic Tile/Good cowing Fanrnood 1 Gaylord/Good Floor Adequate U E Doors Mti Firedrs/int/Gd Central Yes Compactor No Heated Inadequate El E Kitchen Restaurant type other washer/slyer 1/1/Yes/Gd Finished afatreet ni T Dn Bath Fully hdcpd acc coh essiion Good Microwave No X Unfinished None U - S Fireplace(s) No a Intercom No Paved driveway Condition of the Improvements,repairs needed,quality of construction,additional features,modernization,etc.:The unit appears to be in good _ condition. The exterior is clad in metal like maintenance free siding, some minor deferred maintenance has taken place by the eaves, soffits. and fenestration. Paint would cure the problem. The interior appears to be in very good repair and condition. New sheetrock has been installed throughout the building. Metal ftredoors with magnetic releases have been installed where appropriate to meet firecode. The kitchen is institutional quality with ceramic floor tile and wainscot. stainless steel sinks. gas range with large capacity hood. and stainless steel - appliances. The downstairs bath appears to be fully handicapped equipped with a wheelchair shower,wide door and wheel chair sink. The upstairs baths are vinyl or ceramic floor tile with ceramic tile wainscotting. The Property has been ungraded to 200 Amp electrical service 012/87. The exterior of the building appears to be in good repair. The interior of the building appears to be in good repair with no settling or cracking of the walls observed. There is a laundry room with a washer and dryer. A bedroom could be converted (See comment below) Depreciation(physical,functional,and external inadequacies,etc.): Physical depreciation of the property is atypical for a property of its actual age. The property is probably in better shape than it would have been otherwise. had no improvements to its exterior and interior been accomplished to upgrade it to a group home. No external inadequacies were noted. A DD Conditions of improvements continued: from office space to a bedroom on the main floor to accommodate low - T ambulatory residents to take advantage of the handicapped accessible restroom. There is abundant staff office I space on the main floor. 0 N A Adverse environmental conditions (such as, but not limited to, hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.)present In the improvements, on site, or in L the Immediate vicinity of the subject property:Lead based paint may be associated with the structure due to its age. Inspection Of o the interior of the unit did not reveal any chippino or flaking paint. New sheetrook was installed @1985. The Ni chance of finding leatgaint is very low in the opinion of the appraiser. All interior paint and sheetrock appeared to E be in good repair. No other adverse environmental conditions were noted. See environmental addendum. N T S VALUATION ANALYSIS ' ESTIMATED SITE VALUE =$ 65,000 Comments on Cost Approach(such as, source of cost estimate, site value. ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION COST-NEW OF IMPROVEMENTS: square foot calculations and, for HUD and VA, the estimated remaining 3,518 Sq.FL(0 S - 51.92 =s 182,655 economic lire on the property):The cost estimates used were 1,855 Sq.FLQs 0.66 =s 1,224 taken from the Marshall & Swift cost book. Appraiser 3.100 sa n.ct s _ 1.90 =s 5,890 files, quotes from suppliers. Good quality was used. 143 Sq.FLaS 13.36 =s 1.910 Two story, metal /vinyl siding. • C 736 Sq.FL ft s 4.75 =s 3,496 • 0 s Plumbing fixtures 4 x 690 =s 2.760 Regulatory compliance in this specia use building was T Appliances&sinks+A/C =s 11.300 critical to meet sanitary, fire code, and other A Garage 576 x 19.05 =s 10,970 regulations. A new building would incur these costs. P Fire doors(3 x 4251+(3 x 390) =s 2.445 o Regulatory compliance =s 20.000 The remaining economic life of the property is estimated c Special M Energy =s at py 0ears. H Porches,Patios,etc. Wood Ock 220 x 9.40 =s 2.068 Tow Estimated Cost New =$ 244.718 Physical Functional External Less 20 Depreciation 48,9441 0 I 0 =s 48,944 Depreciation value or Improvements =$ 195.774 'As is'Value of Site improvements =s 6.500 INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH =s 267274 Fradde Mac Eons 721044 QMiffORMS Real E.Mb Appr.eal Shcware by Bradford.nd Robbins fade)622-727 Furls Mee Fain 10251094 Pape 2 COMMENT ADDENDUM Fiie No. 95034 ' Borrower N/A Property Address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive • city Eden Prairie County Hennepin State MN Zip Code 55344 Lender/Client Richard Haefele Address Box 85,1059 Stoughton Ave,Chaska,MN 55318 The appraisal of the property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive is in the opinion of the appraiser and the owner a"special use"property that has"value in use". Unique problems are generally presented when appraising special use properties and in this appraisal specific problems will be addressed. General special use problems that arise are a lack of comparable properties that have sold Within the area and are fairly recent in time. Other uses the property may have available to it are not feasible without significant changes to the strucure of the building involving extensive remodeling. Possible use changes may not comply with the zoning code. Specific problems that are related to this property are: 1) The owner did not run the facility,but had an individual lease the property and run it. The individual that ran it may also be a buyer of the property, therefore a conflict may arise if the appraiser would inquire into the books of the business when the group home was a going concern. 2) The rent was based on covering the mortgage payment, not on what the market rent would be. 3) Comparables are rarely bought and sold in an"at-arms-length" transactin with market finacing. Properties are closely held, rarely sold, and if they are sold private grant money may be involved,below market financing and other incentives that make it extemely difficult to sort out a true sales value. 4) The program that the subject was being used for is in transition. To address the above problems the following will be used to appraise the property. 1) Comparables will not be used due to the property being a"special use"property and it having a"value in use", comparables may be misleading as to the value of the property in this unique circumstance,and if they were available the value may be misleading due to the frequently encountered special financing arrangements. 2) Programs that may be acceptable to the location and nature of the group home will be used to arrive at the income approach. 3) The Triple Net Lease arrangement will be used to value the property when it was a going concern based on the assumption that the tenant would not operate a program at a loss. The following assumptions will be used to value the group home: 1) The city ordinance that allows for group homes in the community will be superseded by state law. This will allow the group home to use its 16 bed maximum occupancy. 2) The entity that buys the group home may be"for profit"or "non-profit". Both scenarios will be looked at. 3) Funding levels will be based upon the"residents" being highly functioning and needing a minimum of supervision. The ratio may be 1:8. 4) Where possible actual reveunues and expenses will be used vice average or projected revenues or expenses. The cost approach was used to evaluate what it would cost to build a structure similar to the subject in the same area. The theory being a person would not sell a property for less than what it cost to purchase and improve the property to its present"special use"and that a buyer would not pay more than what it would cost to build a similar"special use"property in the area. The value that was arrived at to construct the property was$267,274.00. The income approach is in the opinion of the appraiser the best approach to value, The income approach will provide a better indication of value for the property. The Triple Net Lease that was in existence during 1991, 1992 and 1993 for$36,000.00/year is an indication of value for the property as the tenant would not run a program and lose money. The indicated value of the building using the previous program is $371,134.00. To compute other income approachs to value an income must be computed, occupancy calculated, and expenses figured. The facility would qualify as a Class"A"facility,this would be basic care. The subject has a license that has since lapsed with the loss of the last program. Income for the property is based on programs that are being run by government agencies and discussion with owners of similar properties. The average per diem for most programs that would have a probability of being used with the subject is @$35.00 with minimum supervision to @$55.00 per day with increased supervision. Occupancy for the group home allows for a maximum of 16 beds based on state law and the subject being previously classified as a duplex. 8 people per unit are allowed. This provides for a potential �. capacity of 16 people. The vacancy that would be likely is a low number based upon conversations with government agencies and owners. The programs are generally well utilized. A 10%-20% vacancy is realistic,and will vary based upon the stability of the residents and the type of program. t:0 CIlraFORMS Real Estate Appraisal Software by Bradford and Robbins(800)822.8727 • COMMENT ADDENDUM Fae No. 95034 Borrower N/A Property Address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive City Eden Prairie County Hennepin State MN Zip Code 55344 Lender/Client Richard Haefele Address Box 85,1059 Stoughton Ave,.Chaska,MN 55318 Expenses are; Real Estate Taxes,Insurance,Maintenance,Management fees,Vacancy,Payroll, and Utilities. Real Estate Taxes may,or may not be involved. There is a roughly a 50/50 split between profit and non-profit organizations that run different programs in Group Homes. RE taxes are actual. Insurance is an estimate of$8000.00 for the structure and General Liability. Maintenance is based on projected costs to repair and maintain the property. Management fees are calculated at 10%to manage the property. Vacancy is figured at 15%. Payroll is calculated at 3 people working 40 hour weeks, at 6.50/HR,x 130%. Cost for food is calculated at$7.75 per diem x 16 (14 residents and 2 staff) people. ALL REVENUES AND COSTS USED BY THE APPRAISER,IN THE OPINION OF THE APPRAISER,ARE CONSERVATIVE NUMBERS. A MORE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION MAY BE POSSIBLE. See the attached Spreadsheet for the Income Approach calculations. The profit and non-profit approach to value will leave a value in the opinion of the appraiser of $415,000.00. • Market Value Defined Market value is the major focus of most real property appraisal assignments. Both economic and legal definitions of market value have been developed and refined. Continual refinement is essential to the growth of the appraisal profession. The current economic definition of market value is defined on the "Statement of Limiting Conditions and Appraiser's Certification Form. Many of the legal definitions of market value are based on the following: The highest price estimated in terms of money which the land would bring if exposed for sale in the open market,with reasonable time allowed in which to find a purchaser,buying with knowledge of all the uses and purposes to which it was adapted and for which it was capable of being used. (Definition is from: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 8th Ed., Pages 194-195 printed October 1987, Chicago, 33 CORRELATION The value estimates by the three valuation approaches are as follows: Estimate of value by Cost analysis: $267,274.00. Estimate of value by Market Data analysis: N/A Estimate of value by Income Data analysis $415,000.00. Ordinarily all three approaches to value would be utilized. The market data analysis is not useful because enouth data does not exist to provide a good indication of value, and other reasons that have been enumerated in the comment addendum. The cost approach will provide an indication of value but is not the most representative of the worth of a property that has a"value in use". The Income Data analysis is the may provide the best approach to value for this property,and in the opinion of the appraiser provides the greatest indication of its value. Personal property was valued. Kitchen appliances were valued at $7,800.00. • FINA STI TE OF VALUE AS OF THIS DATE: $415,000.00. August 14, 1995 ��yrJ tt �b rW r en Appraisal Service evie ppraiser MN Lic#20026094 MN License#4001278 Exp Dt 8/31/95 Exp Dt 8/31/95 OOckFORMS Red Estate Appraisal Software by Bradford and Robbins(800)822A727 • Group Home Income Approach 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, Eden Prairie Cap Rate 9.70% Residents Per Diem PD total Days/Year Yrly Income Income: 16 $35.00 $560.00 365 I$204,400.00 Profit Non-Profit 5694 Expenses: Vacancy: 15.00% Food Allowance $44,128.50 $44,128.50 MaintenancE$300.00/mo RE taxes $5,124.00 $0.00 Insurance $8,000.00 $8,000.00 12 Utilities: Mgmt Fee $20,440.00 $20,440.00 $516.00 $43.00 Gas Maint Exp $3,600.00 $3,600.00 $576.00 $48.00 Electric Vacancy 15% $30,660.00 $30,660.00 $420.00 $35.00 Sewer&Wtr Utilities $1,884.00 $1,884.00 $372.00 $31.00 Trash Payroll $52,728.00 $52,728.00 $1,884.00 $166,564.50 $161,440.50 Payroll: 3 NOI $37,835.50 $42,959.50 $17,576.00 $52,728.00 Value $390,056.70 $442,881.44 COMMENT ADDENDUM FueNo. 95034 Borrower N/A Property Address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive City Eden Prairie County Hennepin state MN Zip Code 55344 Lender/CBent Richard Haefele Address Box 85,1059 Stoughton Ave.Chaska,MN 55318 Legal description: Commencing at a point in the Westerly line of State Hwy 169, Distance 153 feet Northeasterly from the South line of NW1/4 of the NW1/4;Thence Westerly to a point in the center line of Old Eden Prairie Road a distance of 204 feet Northwesterly from the South line of the NW1/4 of the NW1/4;Thence Northwesterly along the said center line 232 feet;Thence Southeasterly to a point in the Westerly line of the Hwy a distance of 191 feet Northeasterly from begining;Thence Southwesterly to the beginning. Property Rights Appraised "Fee Simple": The subject real estate will be appraised by estimating the market value of the fee simple interest of the Real Estate. For use in this appraisal,the definition of fee simple interest shall conform to the following definition obtained from page 123 of the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers published in 1984. Fee Simple Interest- "Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate;subject only to the limitations of eminent domain, escheat, police power, and taxation." Zoning: This property is zoned Rural; Single Family Residential use is allowed with 10 acres or more. The property was grandfathered in 1982 when the new ordinance was put in place. The property may be on the fringe of FEMA flood zone "A"which is in the 100 year flood zone. Location/Landscaping: The subject property is located within the city limits of Eden Prairie. The subject is almost an acre lot. The landscaping is complete. There is a large 78'x 66'asphalt parking area in addition to the asphalt drive. Ample parking is available. Utilities: This site has city sewer and water. Natural gas is installed. • Land Value Analysis: I have concluded a survey of land sales close to the subject property that are also classified as"Land Only,Residential Single Family"sales. These sales have been compared to the subject property and are the most similar comparable sales available in location,topography,access,improvements,and size,etc. As a result of the study,it is my opinion that the land has a value of$65,000.00 United States dollars. No environmental hazards have been noted at the time of inspection. See environmental addendum. Value to be estimated is Fair Market Value, based on a cash only sale. Highest and best use is: Present use, Group Home. Subject is being appraised for:Fair Market Value, Sales price. Date of inspection was: August 1, 1995 Date of final preparation was: August 14, 1995 Building site(s): One. Ingress and egress are from city streets. Michael Ittel -#20026094 Aspen Appraisal Service Box 47214 Plymouth,MN 55447 CII bFORMS Red Estate Appraisal S by&adMrd and Robbins(e00)872.8727 SKETCH ADDENDUM File No. 95034 • Borrower N/A Property Address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive City Eden Prairie County Hennepin state MN Zip Code 55344 Lender/Client Richard Haefele Address Box 85.1059 Stoughton Ave,Chaska,MN 55318 • • SKETCH CALCULATIONS l N Al:15.0x3.0= 45.0 A2 A2:28.0x4.0= 112.0 A3:30.0 x 11.0= 330.0 A4:42.0x6.0= 252.0 A5:46.0 x 6.0= 276.0 A4 A6:42.0 x 2.0= 84.0 As A7:36.0 x 21.0= 756.0 fro • A7 First Floor 1855.0 1 As A8:15.0x3.0= 45.0 As A9:28.0x4.0= 112.0 A10:30.0 x 25.0= 750.0 A11:36.0 x 21.0= 756.0 A10 All Second Floor 1663.0 Total Living Area 3518.0 Al2:24.0 x 24.0= 576.0 At2 Garage -576.0 Total Garage -576.0 ClbkFORb1S Red Estate Appaiaal Software by Braarad a (e00)e22A727 • .' • SKETCH ADDENDUM File No. 95034 Borrower N/A Property Address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive City Eden Prairie County Hennepin State MN Zip Code 55344 Lender/Client Richard Haefele Address Box 85,1059 Stoughton Ave,Chaska,MN 55318 Wood Deck\ •f �° Ni IIII1I 111` Kitchen C 7 Living Room Dining Room Bedroom \Entrance Way _ \ Office Bath la Laundry - I di Room n Furnace Room Closet Closet x 0 o rn Office Area c \ Entry L I l i.1 i I _ Clst / , Main Floor (/ ClIckFORMS Rest Estate Appraisal Software by Radford and Robbins(800)8224727 SKETCH ADDENDUM File No. 95034 Borrower N/A Property address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive City Eden Prairie County Hennepin State MN zip Code 55344 Lender/Client Richard Haefele Address Box 85,1059 Stounhton Ave.Chaska,MN 55318 • r l Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bath nM C Bath Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Stairs Second Floor • t • CpelcFORMS Real Estate Appraisal Software by Bradford and Robbins(800)8224727 LOCATION MAP ADDENDUM File No. 95034 Borrower N/A Property Address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive State MN Zip Code 55344 City Eden Prairie County Hennepin Lender/Client Richard Haefele Address Box 85.1059 Stoughton Ave.Chaska,MN 55318 11 I 12 ' 13rs fs;1r• 'rt3lEL? i �,.:4.. ,,. _ A, ``. A.log ,, s nyl �` , 04 e qe t.er„u p v lir'355 . 43 1 3' 1 + ''�?jQ y 3'ap'A• 54 `ft eoI ., ' f? nx'F1:;81L. 1¢ `Ili A o a 1' lin: f'* i ( .. . . . . •I vi, Ad II "4,0,4c",,'' i 1 e^`Ark s •• ' >er No �Aw. t••� m Llror-u - .: -7".,as. 7.- • i` � /� '• 'ro.M n.urcl°alb •• e ` r IPad VT SIM.141, , 4;0...;t c.:„..• 1.I E 1 V. c,,.a o 1 II lor 1 l S' .. 4141,1)004:,,,,i‘s , ! IL 43 ltj 1;:31. ,El If itri 1' ,..mrem rm . # .( .8 A �FeI , �/ wsom si '�*2 ' . . el ` ' .. .I. ., 1r �ii1�•w,:1 ` Bryant •'= t. R. O W Lake Jam`n NOS l„ano+wl�l .1114411 WI rya. a niv. 000011 On 11, �y 4ti [] firoxi9,16. 4 . .,.,............•..,,,..,.;;,,,,.,..„:„:„:„.....:,....._:.; //w Edenvin�~ II' I i 4• 4 1315 C) .. . . ' i. r. , a m _ ':.,,V...f.4,t•r:• i of eek v . is \ � <r. c".• wioa-,4,.�l, '• T� r «coon«xer �,,i rnr `i� I Leo r•; ram IIAOrOOT CI . :u't /l0r101OOr� I•, •:f-.• •„ll-,.w,t Ci�, '/pP. N In AT HU .,I t.t ir e r„lo .�-•©� �-^�. IAke �.3 Smetan6 ... SlpiwOCD Y Idlewild� �� ` � �� C 1 PRAIRIE I cs.C° it _-�. .. © -'y" G , li ,e°' s 5344 ,.b,n„Illl I° '''�. ..t .. ,-' ..,.,y.s. s C k'�. �2 NORTHWEST I .{ 4i�YI ... TECHNICAL � 212 9N�WIF ` �'''t� I �• '' �' +' < c, �c mu ITV10 SIK)""' • N. Nl•<y .1AflderWn:•y li •:Ai r 6 •• d waa„ld„II.11 r1Nn1 /� `k'I t e,,prl*wile ^•' ',. CW101100 CI _ ' ... XOICM M Ct 0 r { ,,.•`, 11 , (C^nj•��G�. w a moo. INC \_ ... _i FFURIE W. CS' t ,.� �7. a{ M41' h Y a t,. -**: le- - 1136-14, - iiV • 11 12 13 . . I, w m'k e,,. Joins map on page y0( Joins map on page 103 eh ,lba. FLOOD MAP ADDENDUM File No. 95034 Borrower N/A Properly Address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive City Eden Prairie county Hennepin State MN Zip Code 55344 Lamer Richard Haefele Address Box 85.1059 Stousthton Ave.Chaska,MN 55318 CORPORATE _ LIMITS .\ _ a o \_ N.._.._____.._, N CITY 1. Pc I '''.------\, O C•WIANO \q9,f. .. 0 < DO 3. NO q0 c•------/ / X .,----// \90,0 / ( \\ C. I \` �BEACH N� V O \\\ j i� ZONE C I�o s .4tt,/ I o '' 1f G6, a Id \ s. �cg, ! r )qV .1 \\\\ ., it 1 �i,} / 'f .. E \\` I t I OD / t �. ip ' 1! : rc0 k. r i. ZONE r \ � ; wt I ILOW /'.P _ W000 ii V•EW r -;.--V ti/ 7( --.,----------------------4111 ,,,,,_,I___.e -------7- -....••„:4:..... X' \ - \--,--------T ( -,,,,. ' 14 c f SUBJECT PHOTO ADDENDUM Fite No. 95034 Borrower N/A Property Address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive City Eden Prairie County Hennepin State MN Zip Code 55344 Lender/Client Richard Haefele Address Box 85,1059 Stoughton Ave,Chaska,MN 55318 FRONT OF • SUBJECT PROPERTY . • , . Address .. 7170 Bryant Lake Drive 1: y f,>-.' :,; ►. . • .' Eden Prairie h�, :'3"' Appraisal Date June 23,1995 ,. ,.. .� t..s'. ..., "�yy+""�.. Appraisal Value Site 63x125/7875 4 . "}�`""M View Neighborhood n j �' yW..c. Design/Appeal Rambler tt — Const.Quality Good Square Feet 1,344 N tt 11 Total Rooms 4 .Y r�jr • !� ..! a -, .tom - .ivv. ` YT"�.;Ir' .*r'' ,, 4 .r..r ?';', "..t jz -• 7 Bedrooms ,, d - . :a� 1, 'T r.-`.Y.�1; r'j rig µ4: 7`,. Bathrooms ' _, *x� ' r 'F 1* Y .ei 7,x nr fit! 2 Basement 'C' L V .''�',J"- ' .i- ,S' .r7` .ti gc My '.i.-,`liL f !`a.� .' y+- �f' . -,a: a '� �,` ,y: _, b. REAR OF ,', .... o,• SUBJECT PROPERTYg '. rl "� r a ' y,: .�yR f - +a --.�-.,.I -;,, '---.4 .`S.;t • : iie'': . `k- 1 w 7.4 ',: STREET SCENE11.70 .. « it - y 2,�� '%*t!�+ ,5 • 4 }a1yvY 7 1., f s gyp •' 1 _ • �tirf x 4 „PAP M -r.-. S,' ,�p•fig`.. a -ja1K 0.:'!'.. • .�i"`i rrx1,r�a, f �^ tub ,, ` m 1. •T EJ. IUV.. -a" h-.�i� � r4• n ♦ • �a Cow Cs • 's} ��x , a^'1 t .' i`P `'i'y"'y 3 1 , .'.• '''i fa r- ;:iV. 5,.iZVS.' as • �`'rr. a �� 'fib+s tY ' -t;; ysue„" C s• 14 Y a Pam. - j.r" i l ti. + ..'�t 'k't4�.;: �`ti. _ ;ya -<' w ' x "�..,. i .y.,a ,.�..,'.F-.i9fvri5t3lY .ion -. " .auz..:K -.:. ,. .._..._ APPARENT' HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND/OR DETRIMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Borrower/Client Richard Haefele Address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive City Eden Prairie County Hennepin State MN Zip code 55344 Lender N/A Apparent is defined as that which is visible,obvious,evident or manifest to the appraiser. This universal Environmental Addendum is for use with any real estate appraisal. Only the statements which have been checked by the appraiser apply to the property being appraised. This addendum reports the results of the appraiser's routine inspection of and inquiries about the subject property and its surrounding area. It also states what assumptions were made about the existence (or nonexistence)of any hazardous substances and/or detrimental environmental conditions.The appraiser is not an expert environmental inspector and therefore might be unaware of existing hazardous substances and/or detrimental environmental conditions which may have a negative effect on the safety and value of the property.It is possible that tests and inspections made by a qualified environmental inspector would reveal the existence of hazardous materials and/or detrimental environmental conditions on or around the property that would • negatively affect its safety and value. DRINKING WATER —�Drinking Water is supplied to the subject from a municipal water supply which is considered safe.However the only way to be absolutely certain that the water meets published standards is to have it tested at all discharge points. -Drinking Water is supplied by a well or other non-municipal source.It is recommended that tests be made to be certain that the property is supplied with adequate pure water. _..Lead can get into drinking water from its source,the pipes,at all discharge points,plumbing fixtures and/or ap- pliances.The only way to be certain that water does not contain an unacceptable lead level is to have it tested at all discharge points. -X_The value estimated in this appraisal Is based on the assumption that there Is an adequate supply of safe, lead-free Drinking Water. Comments - SANITARY WASTE DISPOSAL - Sanitary Waste is removed from the property by a municipal sewer system. - . - Sanitary Waste is disposed of by a septic system or other sanitary on site waste disposal system.The only way - to determine that the disposal system is adequate and in good working condition is to have it inspected by a - qualified inspector. _X.The value estimated In this appraisal is based on the assumption that the Sanitary Waste is disposed of by a municipal sewer or an adequate properly permitted alternate treatment system In good condition. Comments SOIL CONTAMINANTS • —2_There are no apparent signs of Soil Contaminants on or near the subject property(except as reported in Com- ments below).It is possible that research,inspection and testing by a qualified environmental inspector would reveal existing and/or potential hazardous substances and/or detrimental environmental conditions on or around the property that would negatively affect its safety and value. . _X-The value estimated in this appraisal Is based on the assumption that the subject property Is free of Soil Contaminants. Comments ASBESTOS • .__X_All or part of the improvements were constructed before 1979 when Asbestos was a common building material. The only way to be certain that the property is free of friable and non-friable Asbestos is to have it inspected and tested by a qualified asbestos inspector. -The improvements were constructed after 1979.No apparent friable Asbestos was observed(except as re- ported in Comments below). _X_The value estimated in this appraisal Is based on the assumption that there Is no uncontained friable Asbestos or other hazardous Asbestos material on the property. Comments Fxtnnsive rernnrinling of the huikling has take' ane PCBs(POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS) _ • —X_There were no apparent leaking flourescent light ballasts,capacitors or transformers anywhere on or nearby the property(except as reported in Comments below). • There was no apparent visible or documented evidence known to the appraiser of soil or groundwater contami- nation from PCBs anywhere on the property(except as reported in Comments below). _-X_The value estimated In this appraisal is based on the assumption that there are no uncontalned PCBs on or nearby the property. Comments -RADON . - The appraiser is not aware of any Radon tests made on the subject property within the past 12 months(except as reported in Comments below). . .The appraiser is not aware of any indication that the local water supplies have been found to have elevated levels of Radon or Radium. — The appraiser is not aware of any nearby properties(except as reported in Comments below)that were or currently are used for uranium,thorium or radium extraction or phosphate processing. )(_The value estimated in this appraisal is based on the assumption that the Radon level is at or below EPA recommended levels. Comments Test Version 2c FW-70F2 a Forms&Worms.Inc.315 Whitney Avenue New Haven.CT 06511 1-800-243-4545 Item#115050 JANUARY 1991 National Association Environmental Risk Auditors J • • • USTs(UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS) X There is no apparent visible or documented evidence known to the appraiser of any USTs on the property nor any known historical use of the property that would likely have had USTs. X There are no apparent petroleum storage and/or delivery facilities(including gasoline stations or chemical manufacturing plants)located on adjacent properties(except as reported in Comments below). There are apparent signs of USTs existing now or in the past on the subject property.It is recommended that an inspection by a qualified UST inspector be obtained to determine the location of any USTs together with their condition and proper registration if they are active;and if they are inactive,to determine whether they were deactivated in accordance with sound industry practices. X The value estimated in this appraisal is based on the assumption that any functioning USTs are not leaking and are properly registered and that any abandoned USTs are free from contamination and were properly drained,filled and sealed. Comments NEARBY HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES _X There are no apparent Hazardous Waste Sites on the subject property or nearby the subject property(except as reported in Comments below).Hazardous Waste Site search by a trained environmental engineer may deter- mine that there is one or more Hazardous Waste Sites on or in the area of the subject property. _X_The value estimated In this appraisal Is based on the assumption that there are no Hazardous Waste Sites on or nearby the subject properly that negatively affect the value or safety of the property. Comments UREA FORMALDEHYDE(UFFI) INSULATION —X All or part of the improvements were constructed before 1982 when UREA foam insulation was a common building material.The only way to be certain that the property is free of UREA formaldehyde is to have it inspected by a qualified UREA formaldehyde inspector. The improvements were constructed after 1982.No apparent UREA formaldehyde materials were observed - (except as reported in Comments below). - The value estimated in this appraisal Is based on the assumption that there is no significant UFFI insulation or other UREA formaldehyde material on the property. Comments Extensive remodeling of the building has taken place. LEAD PAINT • ____X-All or part of the improvements were constructed before 1980 when Lead Paint was a common building material.There is no apparent visible or known documented evidence of peeling or flaking Lead Paint on the floors,walls or ceilings(except as reported in Comments below).The only way to be certain that the property is free of surface or subsurface Lead Paint is to have it inspected by a qualified inspector. The improvements were constructed after 1980.No apparent Lead Paint was observed(except as reported in Comments below). _X-The value estimated in this appraisal is based on the assumption that there is no flaking or peeling Lead Paint on the property. Comments Due to structures age lead based paint may be present.New sheetrocking.No flaking paint observed. • AIR POLLUTION _X There are no apparent signs of Air Pollution at the time of the inspection nor were any reported(except as reported in Comments below).The only way to be certain that the air is free of pollution is to have it tested. X The value estimated in this appraisal Is based on the assumption that the property Is free of Air Pollution. Comments WETLANDS/FLOOD PLAINS - The site does not contain any apparent Wetlands/Flood Plains(except as reported in Comments below).The only way to be certain that the site is free of Wetlands/Flood Plains is to have it inspected by a qualified envi- ronmental professional. The value estimated In this appraisal is based on the assumption that there are no Wetlands/Flood Plains on the • property(except as reported in Comments below). Comments C:nnciit RCS flNR,City of FdPn Prairie MISCELLANEOUS ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS There are no other apparent miscellaneous hazardous substances and/or detrimental environmental condi- tions on or in the area of the site except as indicated below: _Excess Noise Radiation + Electromagnetic Radiation -Light Pollution _Waste Heat -Acid Mine Drainage Agricultural Pollution Geological Hazards -Nearby Hazardous Property Infectious Medical Wastes Pesticides ' Others(Chemical Storage + Storage Drums,Pipelines,etc.) _X_The value estimated in this appraisal Is based on the assumption that there are no Miscellaneous environmental Hazards(except those reported above)that would negatively affect the value of the property. 111. are not correct,the estimated value in this appraisal may not be valid. Aspen Appraisal Service Circle 6 Appraisal Service Bus/Fax: (612) 551-9424 Bus l Fax(612)983-6397 P.O. Box 47214 Route 3 Plymouth, MN 55447 Milaca, MN 56353 • Appraisal Engagement Letter Date: 1 i12 , I(3�5 Date need appraisal: Ftrom: teed mny iferricrIAC Ordered by: 1O 1011 . Phone: (G�(Z ) �1y8 -- ZZCO eMailing addressss�' ,� �'r�7 area code o,bx (JkO rid I f V $3 S Fax: (area code) Client name: K 12 !4c ! ek Property Type: Single family ( ) Property address: 7/70 02 2-4 Family ( ) ,, r !' Condominium ( ) M Y n i NJ/1 I 3 sc3`l9 Agricultural ( ) Commercial ( ) Other ($) tse_ Legal description:,Awee`a),A s !agar descnplon Property tax: Lase_aUttl.lent _1 Loan amount/Sale price/Owner estimate of value: $& I )` . tikk)t OkS2— PurposePurpose of Appraisal: LJ� s=� p(—tC9�. Comparison photographs required: Yes No ( ) Special instructions: Please attach any information that may be helpful -Thank you r y iness !!!! Authorized by: Si nature: F�easd not ame, d ve r3 al—es ordered by Signature: • 11-82 AUG 04 '95 10:12 T0:9-5519424 FROM:CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE T-600 P.02 • C. There shall be no external alteration of the dwelling in which a home occupation is conducted, and the existence of a home occupation shall not be apparent beyond the boundaries of the site,except for a name ' plate not to exceed 1 square fool D. This occupation shall be carried on or conducted only by members of a family residing in the dwelling and no more than one non-resident of the dwelling. Source: Ordinance No.9-87 Effective Date: 5-7-87 E. No motor shall exceed one horse power. F. A home occupation shall not create any radio or television interference or create noise audible beyond the boundaries of the site. G. No smoke,odor,liquid,or solid waste shall be emitted. H. Not more than one truck of not more than 3/4 ton capacity and no semi-trailers incidental to a home occupation shall be kept on the site. 1. A home occupation shall not create pedestrian, automobile,or truck traffic significantly in excess of the normal amount in the district. SECTION 11.66. FAMILY CARE HOMES. Subd. 1. Objectives. To provide a high quality of residential opportunities for all people. Subd.2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: 1. 'Family' -A family shall consist of not more than six unrelated adults or children who are residing in a 'Family Care Home:under the trained supervision of two or more adults whose expressed purpose is to create a family home environment. A 'Family Care Home` shall be licensed by the State of Minnesota. Federal Government, or other governmental licensing agencies, and meet all required conditions of this Section. 2. 'Family Care Home" -A residential structure typical of those in the neighborhood having s maximum of six residents needing the adult care and supervision of a"Supervised Residential Program"or'Social Rehabilitation Program'plus a minimum of two or more adults who operate the dwelling unit as a family home. The'Family Care Home"typically may be a single family detached dwelling,attached townhouse,rental or owned apartment,or similar unit to those of the immediate neighborhood where it is located. The unit must be acceptable to the licensing requirements of the State of Minnesota, Federal Government or other governmental licensing agency and meet the requirements of the State Building Code. 3. 'Family Care Home Ratio"-The percentage produced by dividing the number of"Family Care Home" units existing and proposed by the total units in the neighborhood as defined on the Neighborhood Sector Map adopted by the Council where the'Family Care Home'is proposed. 4. 'Supervised Residential Programs" -Programs which provide the supervised care in a family home environment for a permanent or temporary residency for those adults and children(referred by medical or trained counselors)who are in need of supervised care. Supervised Residential 11-82 u�� AUG 04 '95 10:13 T0:9-5519424 FROM:CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE T-600 P.03 Programs are exclusively for individuals with these disabilities:(a)mentally retarded;(b)mentally ill;(c)physically handicapped; (d)elderly. A Supervised Residential Program shall be licensed by the State of Minnesota, Federal Government or other governmental licensing agencies. 5. 'Social Rehabilitation Programs"-Programs which provide supervised care and rehabilitation services in a family home environment to individuals who have demonstrated behavior patterns not consistent with society's norms and laws. Residents in the program shall be referred by medical experts, courts, or trained counselors as the individuals who will benefit from the rehabilitation programs and family home environment. The following programs providing supervised care and rehabilitation opportunities to adults and children with the following problems are included in Social Rehabilitation Programs:(a)chemical dependency including alcoholism;(b) juvenile delinquency;(c)runaway children;(d)women's emergency residential program;(e)single parent residential program. A Social Rehabilitation Program shall be licensed by the State of Minnesota,Federal Government,or other governmental agencies. Subd.3. Additional Purposes. The following purposes are in addition to the Purposes of the Rural District,R-1 Single Family Residential District,and RM Multiple Family Residential District: A. To i.rovide opportunities for individuals participating in Supervised Residential Programs and Social Rehabilitation Programs to share with others the benefits or normal residential surroundings consistent with the requirements of the zoning category where the Family Cam Home is located, who should not be excluded therefrom because of their disabilities or rehabilitation treatment. B. To provide Family Care Home opportunities on a dispersed site basis in the community and prevent , concentrations of such specialty housing in any neighborhood defined on the Neighborhood Sector Map. Subd.4. Additional Purposes. A. The following permitted uses are in addition to the Permitted Uses of the Rural District and the R-1 Single Family Residential District: 1. Single family detached dwelling units used for a Family Care Home by a Supervised Residential Program which meet all the requirements established in Subdivision 5 of this Section. 2. Single family detached dwelling units used for a Family Care Home by a Social Rehabilitation Program which meet all the requirements established in Subdivision 5 of this Section. B. The following permitted uses are in addition to the Permitted Uses of the RM Multiple Family Residential District: 1. Multiple family residential dwelling units used for a Family Care Home by a Supervised Residential Program which meet all the requirements established in Subdivision 5 of this Section. 2. Multiple family residential attached dwelling units for Family Care Home by a Social Rehabilitation Programwhich meet all the requirements established in Subdivision 5 of this Section. 4 11-83 (00 • • AUG 04 '95 10:14 T0:9-5519424 FROM:CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE T-600 P.04 Subd.5. Family Care Home Requirements in Additicn to Those Set Forth in Section 11.03 Relating to the Rural,R-1 and RM Districts. A. Family Care Homes for Supervised Residential Programs shall be given an occupancy permit by the City Manager or his designate if these conditions are achieved: 1. Certified written proof of State.Federal. and other governmental licensing agency approval. 2. That any building modifications to the existing structure or the design of a new structure will be compatible with surrounding units in size and visual character. 3. Detailed descriptions of the proposed program including but not limited to: (a) Number,training and experience of supervisory personnel. (b) Number and experience of supporting personnel,i.e.counselors,physical therapists,etc. (c) Transportation,shopping and special service needs. (d) Outside home activities, requiring written agreements with community resources providing programs required by license regulations: (1) With school districts to provide education classes for children ages 5 to 21. (2) With day activity centers, work activity centers, vocational rehabilitation facilities, etc., to provide formal programs to adults and young people. (3) With community churches and synagogues to provide religious education and services, etc. (4) With recreation programs such as parks,United Fund Agencies,YMCA,etc., to provide opportunities for recreation and leisure time activities. • 4. An affirmative plan for community involvement including but not limited to: (a) Advisory Board as required by Minnesota Licensing Rule 34 which represents professions,home residents,and/or parents of home residents,and concerned community members. (b) Community Based Services Board whose purpose is to assist all Supervised Residential programs or Social Rehabilitation Programs by providing a conduit for resolving problems and integrating the homes into the community. Such Board shall be created by the Council. 5. That the Family Care Home Ratio shall not exceed 3% of the total dwelling units of the neighborhood defined on the Neighborhood Sector Map where the proposed Family Care Home is to be located. 6. That the proposed Family Care Home is not to be located closer than 500 feet from any other Family Care Home whether in the same neighborhood or an adjacent neighborhood as defined on the Neighborhood Sector Map. 1144 AUG 04 '95 10:15 TO:9-5519424 FROM:CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE T-600 P.05 • B. Family Care Home for Social Rehabilitation Programs shall be reviewed by the City Manager or his designate and a report submitted to the Council for their consideration at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. 1. In reviewing the application for Social Rehabilitation Programs the Council shall: (a) Give written notice to all residents within the Neighborhood Sector of the proposed site at least 10 days prior to the Council meeting. (b) Consider the six requirements of Subparagraph A above applicable to Family Care Homes for Supervised Residential Programs. (c) Consider the objectives of this Section. (d) Consider all standards and requirements of the Rural District, R-1 Ono Family Residential District, and RM Multiple Family Residential District, whichever is applicable. (e) Consider the health,safety and general welfare of the neighborhood as defined on the Neighborhood Sector Map in which the Family Care Home is located. (f) Consider the health,safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City. 2. The Council shall base its decision upon these considerations and shall draft a resolution approving or rejecting the application for a Family Care Home for Social Rehabilitation Programs for specified reasons. The resolution must be passed by a majority of the Council. Source: Ordinance No. 18-82 Effective Date: 9-17-82 (Sections 11.67 through 11.69,inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) SECTION 11.70. SIGN PERMITS. Subd.1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Section is to protect and promote the general welfare,health, safety,and order within the City through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations and procedures governing the erection,use and/or display of devices.signs or symbols serving as visual communicative media to persons situated within or upon public right-of-way or private properties. The provisions of this Section am intended to encourage creativity,a reasonable degree of freedom of choice,an opportunity for effective communication,and a sense of concern for the visual amenities on the part of those designing,displaying or otherwise utilizing needed communicative media of the types regulated by this Section:while at the same time assuring that the public is not endangered, annoyed or distracted by the unsafe, disorderly, indiscriminate or unnece.mary use of such communicative facilities. Subd.2. Definitions. The following terms,as used in this Section,shall have the meanings stated: 1. "Accessory Sign"-An identification sign relating in its subject matter to or which directs attention to,a business or profession,or to the commodity,service or entertainment sold or offered upon the premises where such sign is located, or to which it is attached. 2. 'Address Sign"-Postal identification numbers and/or name,whether written or in numeric form. 11-85 • AUGER '95 13:33 T0:9-5519424 FROM:CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE T-609 P.02 • oger A. Pauly eage 5 April 25, 1985 that the defendant was entitled to continue his present nonconforming use in the same manner and to the same extent that it was operated at the time the zoning ordinance went into effect. 203 N.W.2d at 327. • The facts which you have outlined bring this case within • the purview of the Claussen decision, rather than the Miller decision, su ra. Where a property owner has abandoned one • non-conforming use for another completely different one, as in Miller, it is logical to infer that the earlier non-conforming use has been abandoned. However, where, as here, the property owner has ' enlarged a two-family unit to a three-family unit, it is not logical to infer that the two-family use has been abandoned. QUESTION 2 Do Minn. Stat. S 245.812, subd. 4 and S 462.357, subd. 8, require a municipality to permit the use of a lawful non-conforming multi-family residence (which is situated in a zoning district which otherwise permits only single-family dwellings) for a licensed residential facility serving from seven to 16 persons? • OPINION We answer your question in the affirmative. .Relevant portions of the Public Welfare Licensing Act (hereinafter "Act") Minn. Stat. S 245.812, subd. 4, together with its sister provision, Minn. Stat. 5 462.357, subd. 8, state that "a licensed residential facility serving from seven through sixteen persons . shall be AUG 07 '95 13:34 T0:9-5519424 FROM:CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE T-609 P.03 • zoger A. Pauly page. 6 April 25, 1985 considered a permitted multi-family residential• use of property for purposes of zoning." If this property constitutes a lawful non-conforming multi-family residence, the city of Eden Prairie must allow its use as a residential facility for the mentally ill. Had the Legislature intended to restrict the ambit of this provision to multi-family zones, it could have so stated. Instead, it has designated such facilities as multi-family residential uses of property "for purposes of zoning," a designation that is, in our view, applicable to the entire body of local zoning law, including that pertaining to permitted non-conforming uses. This means that any permitted multi-family dwelling may be used for a residential facility licensed under the Act, regardless of whether it is in a single family district. The structure of the statute supports this reading. Under Minn. Stat. 55 245.812 and 462.357, residential facilities licensed under the Act are permitted in both single and multi-family zoning districts. See subds. 3 and 7 respectively. Thus, the statute draws no distinction as to where such a facility should exist. Rather, the distinction is drawn simply in terms of the number of residents. . If a single family district contains a permitted multi-family use which could meet the state licensing requirements pertaining to space and sanitation for seven to sixteen mentally disabled persons, it would be an absurd result if state law only allows the building to house up to six such individuals. ',iie AUG 07 '95 13:34 TO:9-5519424 FROM:CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE T-609 P.04 A. Pauly • 7 .1 25, 1985 slature avoided this result by establishing facilities housing n seven to sixteen persons as permitted multi-family uses 'for ?oses of zoning,' rather than as permitted uses in multi-family eS. This reading of the statute is also consistent with its is intent: to effectuate "the policy of this state that ;dicapped persons and children should not be excluded by municipal zing from normal residential surroundings" and "to facilitate :eptance of geoup homes in residential communities." See lectively, Minn. Stat. S 245.812, subd. 2a, Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6a, Costle v. Caromin house, Inc. , 313 N.W.2d 21, • (Minn. 1971) . See also Good Neighbor Care Center v. Little = nada► 357 N.W.2d 159 (Minn. App. 1984). • QUESTION 3 If the answer to 2 is in the affirmative, may i. the. City restrict the number of persons who may reside in a licensed residential facility to less than 16, e.g. , 10? OPINION We answer your question in the negative. While the city . luld enforce neutral zoning ordinances that prohibit in excess of 5 persons, see Northwest Residence, supra► the statute makes clear hat, once a residential facility is established as a permitted ti-family use, it may house 7 through 16 persons. Minn. Stat. 245.812, subd. 4 and 462.357, subd. 8. See also, Op. Atty. 3 AUG 07 '95 13:35 TO:9-5519424 FROM:CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE T-609 P.05 Roger A. Pauly 'age 8 April 25, 1985 Gen. 477b 34 (April 26, 1982) . The city cannot reduce the number of persons permitted without violating the statute. The city can, however, require a conditional or special use permit "in order to assure proper maintenance and operation" of the facility. Minn. Stat. S 245.812, subd. 4. In so doing, it cannot impose conditions on the facility "which are more restrictive than those imposed on • other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in the same zones" Id. The City's ability to impose conditions "for the health and safety of residents" under this provision is restricted to site characteristics. See Northwest Residence, Inc, 352 N.W.2d at 773. Sincerely, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, III Attorney General • MARY ANN BERNARD Special Assistant Attorney General 515 Transportation Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Telephone: (612) 297-4003 LLo DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale,the buyer and seller, each acting prudently,knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:(1)buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2)both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; (3)a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4)payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and(5)the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions'granted by anyone associated with the sale. *Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market;these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions.Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the property or transaction.Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the markets reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgment STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND UMITING CONDITIONS: • The appraiser's certification that appears in the appraisal report is subject to the following conditions: 1. The appraiser will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the title to it.The appraiser assumes that the title is good and marketable and,therefore,will not render any opinions about the title.The property is appraised on the basis of it being under responsible ownership. 2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch is included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the property and understanding the appraiser's determination of its size. 3. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources)and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject site is located in an identified Special Flood Hazard Area.Because the appraiser is not a surveyor,he or she makes no guarantees,express or implied,regarding this determination. 4. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal of the property in question, unless specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand. 5. The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the cost approach at its highest and best use and the improvements at their contributory value.These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used. 6. The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions(such as,needed repairs,depredation,the presence of hazardous wastes,toxic substances, etc.)observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or she became aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes,toxic substances,etc.)that would make the property more or less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties,express or implied,regarding the condition of the property. The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist Because the appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of of the property. 7. The appraiser obtained the information,estimates, and opinions that were expressed in the appraisal report from sources that he or she considers to be reliable and believes them to be true and correct The appraiser does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties. 8. The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that is subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed In a workmanlike manner. • 10. The appraiser must provide his or her prior written consent before the lender/client specified in the appraisal report can distribute the appraisal report(including conclusions about the property value,the appraiser's identy and professional designations,and references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with which the appraiser is associated) to anyone other than the borrower; the mortgage or its successors and assigns;the mortgage insurer; consultants; professional appraisal organizations;any state or federally approved financial institution;or any department,agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia;except that the lender/client may distribute the property description section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s)without having to obtain the appraiser's prior written consent.The appraiser's written consent and approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising,public relations,news,sales,or other media. Freddie Mac Form 439(6-93) ClickFORMS Real Estate Appraisal Software by Bradford and Robbins(800)6228727 Fannie Mae Form 10048 (6-93) fp 9 APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees that 1. I have researched the subject market area and have selected a mimimum of three recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to the subject property for consideration in the sales comparison analysis and have made a dollar adjustment when appropriate to reflect the market reaction to those items of significant variation. If a significant item in a comparable property is superior to, or more favorable than, the subject property, I have made a negative adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales price of the comparable and, if a significant item in a comparable property is inferior to, or less favorable than the subject property,I have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable. 2. I have taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of market value in the appraisal report. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and I believe,to the best of my knowledge,that all statements and information in the appraisal report are true and correct. 3. I stated in the appraisal report only my own personal,unbiased,and professional analysis,opinions,and conclusions, which are subject only to the contingent and limiting conditions specified in this form. 4. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject to this report, and I have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with respect to the participants in the transaction. I did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appraisal report on the race,color,religion,sex, handicap,familiar status,or national origin of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property. 5. I have no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property,and neither my current or future employment nor my compensation for performing this appraisal is contingent on the appraised value of the property. 6. I was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client or any related party,the amount of the value estimate,the attainment of a specific result,or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal.I did not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation,a specific valuation,or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan. 7. I performed this appraisal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as of the effective date of this appraisal, with the exception of the departure provision of those Standards, which does not apply. I acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market is a condition in the definition of market value and the estimate I developed is consistent with the marketing time noted in the neighborhood section of this report,unless I have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section. 8. I have personally inspected the interior and exterior areas of the subject property and the exterior of all properties listed as comparables in the appraisal report. I further certify that I have noted any apparent or known adverse conditions in the subject improvements,on the subject site,or on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject property of which I am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of the property value to the extent that I had market evidence to support them. I have also commented about the effect of the adverse conditions on the marketability of the subject property. 9. I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were set forth in the appraisal report.If I relied on significant professional assistance from any individual or individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the preparation of the appraisal report, I have named such individual(s)and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them in the reconciliation section of this appraisal report. I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in the report therefore,if an unauthorized change is made to the appraisal report,I will take no responsibility for it SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: If a supervisory appraiser signed the appraiser report,he or she certifies and agrees that:I directly supervise the appraiser who prepared the appraisal report,have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the statements and conclusions of the appraiser, agree to be bound by the appraiser's certifications numbered 4 through 7 above,and am taking full responsibility for the appraisal and the appraisal report. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: 7170 Bryant Lake Drive,Eden Prairie,MN 55344 APPRAISER: SUPERVISORY APP R (only if required) Signature: Signature: Name: i ellttel Name: Ro Wanner Date Signed: 8/14/95 Date Signed: 8/14/95 State Certification#: State Certification#: or State License#. 20026094 or State License#. 4001278 State: MN State: MN Expiration Date of Certification or License: 8/31/95 Expiration Date�of Certification or License: 8/31/95 El f Did I I Did Not Inspect Property Freddie Mac Form 439 6-93 Fannie Mae Form 10048 6-93 COI • Borrower N/A Property Address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive city Eden Prairie county Hennepin State MN Zip Code 55344 Lender/Client Richard Haefele Address Box 85.1059 Stoughton Ave.Chaska,MN 55318 Disclaimer The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate market value,as defined, for use in a federally related mortgage loan. The scope of the appraisal is intended to characterize the extent of the basis of my value estimate. I personally inspected the subject property on the effective date indicated in the appraisal. Market data on comparable sales were taken from Multiple Listing Service or County Records unless noted otherwise. Sale prices and closing dates were verified through county records or with listing brokers. The land value estimate for the subject site was based on one or more of the following methods:comparable land sales, extraction,or the allocation method. Construction rates on the cost approach were derived from the Marshall and Swift Residential Cost Handbook which is updated quarterly. All appropriate valuation methods were considered, analyzed and reconciled, and are the basis of my final opinion of value. Exceptions,if any, are discussed on this supplement. I believe my analysis for the subject's value was thorough and complete, but this appraisal is by no means an exhaustive market study of the property. COMMENTS ON THE INSPECTION PROCESS: My interior and exterior inspection of a typical residence takes about one hour to complete. My inspection is for valuation purposes only and is not intended for code compliance. Please be aware that I did not inspect unfinished attic areas nor any foundation crawl space, if such areas required access through scuttle doors or were otherwise not readily accessible. My inspection was limited to areas which would be considered part of the Gross Building Area (GBA). In regards to insulation,please be aware that I did not verify the presence,nor the amount of insulation in the ceiling or walls unless the insulation was readily visible from the gross building area. My inspection and comments on furnace,and so forth,should not preclude the opinion of an expert building inspector, if so desired. All legal descriptions used in this appraisal have been obtained from either the owner of the property, or an agent for the owner,financial institutions, realtors, or County records. The appraiser makes no declaration that these descriptions are accurate and exact and recommends that the legal descriptions used in this appraisal be verified by _ an attorney,or some other person of similar expertise prior to being used for the drafting of a deed or a mortgage or similar instruments. Further this appraiser has not located property lines as to their geographical exactness and therefore assumes no responsibility for any disputes with adjoining property owners over property line location. Appraiser recommends that in the event of a property line dispute that a certified survey be done to determine their exactness. Michael Ittel -#20026094 Aspen Appraisal Service Box 47214 • Plymouth, MN 55447 ClickrORMS Real Estate Appraisal Software by Bradford end Robbins(800)e7I-0727 f �' COMMENT ADDENDUM Rre No. 95034 Borrower N/A _ Property Address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive • city Eden Prairie County Hennepin State MN Zip Code 55344 Lender/Client Richard Haefele Address Box 85,1059 Stoughton Ave,Chaska,MN 55318 Minimum Required Appraisal Standards 1.Conformance to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP),NOT including its "Departure Provision". 2. Disclosure of the manner in which the appraiser satisfies the"Competency Provision"of USPAP. 3.The report must be based upon"Market Value". The definition of"market value"is the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale,the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected,by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. both parties are well-informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests; 2, a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 3. payment is made in U.S.dollars; 4. buyer and seller are typically motivated;and 5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. 4. The report must be written and in narrative format descriptive enough to lead the client to a determination of estimated "Market Value" and an understanding of the basis upon which such an estimate is made,and detailed enough to reflect the complexity of the appraisal. Some forms okay. 5. Analyze and report any prior sales of the property;one year prior for 1-4 family residential properties, or within three prior years for all other properties. 6. For income producing properties,an analysis of current or expected GROSS revenues, vacancies,and expenses (even though the property may be encumbered under a triple net lease). 7. The report must include a reasonable marketing period for the property. 8. The report must include mention of current market conditions and trends that may affect projected absorption and income as they, in turn,affect the Market Value of subject property. 9. The report must discuss any appropriate deductions or discounts for any proposed construction, partial leases, below economic leases, or tract development with unsold units. 10.There must be a statement in the certification that the appraisal assignment was not based upon a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation,or approval of any proposed financing. 11.There must be sufficient documentation to support the appraiser's logic reasoning,judgement, and analysis to enable the client to determine the reasonableness of the final Market Value estimate. 12.The report must include a legal description of the property in addition to the description required by USPAP. 13. Identify and separately value any personal property,fixtures, or intangible items that are not real property but are included in the appraisal,and discuss the impact of their inclusion or exclusion on the estimate of Market Value. 14. Follow a reasonable valuation method that addresses the direct sales comparison, income , and cost approaches to Market Value, reconciles those approaches,and explain elimination of each approach not used. 15. The final report must contain an executed copy of the Appraisal Engagement Letter,together with all exhibits and attachments which reflect the appraiser's acknowledgement, understanding, and acceptance of all instructions contained herein. 20026094 1/ � r� Mic ael License# / Date CBd,FORMS Real Estate Appraisal Software by Bradford and Robbins(B00)821b727 `� FOR FEDERALLY RELATED TRANSACTIONS 95034 eonoweicuent N/A wopenv Address 7170 Bryant Lake Drive City Eden Prairie County Hennepin state MN ztpCode 55344 Lender Richard Haefele This Multi-Purpose Supplemental Addendum for Federally Related Transactions was designed to provide the appraiser with a con- venient way to comply with the current appraisal standards and requirements of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation(FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of Currency(OCC), The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and the Federal Reserve. This Multi-Purpose Supplement Addendum is for use with any appraisal.Only those statements which have been checked by the appraiser apply to the property being appraised. -1 `PURPOSE&FUNCTION OF APPRAISAL The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject property as defined herein.The function of the appraisal is to assist the above named Lender in evaluating the subject property for lending purposes.This is a Federally related transaction. • ' ,EXTENT OF APPRAISAL PROCESS ❑X The appraisal is based on the information gathered by the appraiser from public records, other identified sources, inspection of the subject property and neighborhood,and selection of comparable sales within the subject market area.The original source of the com- parables is shown in the Data Source section of the market grid along with the source of confirmation,if available.The original source is presented first The sources and data are considered reliable.When conflicting information was provided,the source deemed most reliable has been used.Data believed to be unreliable was not included in the report nor used as a basis for the value conclusion. • ❑X The Reproduction Cost is based on Marshall and Swift Residential Cost Handbook supplemented by the appraiser's knowledge of the local market ❑X Physical depreciation is based on the estimated effective age of the subject property. Functional and/or external depreciation, if present is specifically addressed in the appraisal report or other addenda.In estimating the site value,the appraiser has relied on personal knowledge of the local market The knowledge is based on prior/or current analysis of site sales and/or abstractions of site • values from sales of improved properties. . • ❑The subject property is located in an area of primarily owner-occupied single family residences and the Income Approach is not consi- • dered to be meaningful. For this reason,the Income Approach was not used • - ❑The Estimated Market Rent and Gross Rent Multiplier utilized in the Income Approach are based on the appraiser's knowledge of the subject market area.The rental knowledge is based on prior and/or current rate surveys of residential properties.The Gross Rent Multiplier is based on prior and/or current analysis of prices and market rates for residential properties. ❑X For income producing properties,actual rents,vacancies and expenses have been reported and analyzed.They have been used to pro- ject future rents,vacancies and expenses. la SUBJECT PROPERTY OFFERING INFORMATION According to Richard Haefele the subject property. X has not been offered for sale in the past 30 days. Is currently offered for sale for$ . was offered for sale within the past 30 days for$ . Offering information was considered in the final reconciliation of value. Offering information was not considered in the final reconciliation of value. Offering Information was not available.The reasons for unavailability and the steps taken by the appraiser are explained later in this addendum. El SALE HISTORY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY According to County records the subject property. ❑ has not transferred in the past twelve months. ❑X has not transferred in the past 36 months. has transferred in the past twelve months. ❑ has transferred in the past 36 months. ❑All prior sales which have occurred in the past months are listed below and reconciled to the appraised value,either in the body • of the report or in the addenda. Date Sales Price Document# Seller Buyer FEMA FLOOD HAZARD DATA Subject property is not located in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. Subject property/s located in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. Zone FEMA Map/Panel# Map Date Name of Community A-C 270159 0005 C 17 Jan 1986 Eden Prairie ❑The community does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. ❑ The community does participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. • ❑ It is covered by a regular program. (i It is covered by an emergency program. FW-70M November 1991 C0ek FORMS Real Estate Appraisal Sa6ware by Bradford and Robbins(800)622-8727 Page 1 • CURRENT SALES CONTRACT • A ` The subject property is currently not under contract. Li The contract and/or escrow instructions were not available for review. The unavailability of the contract is explained later in the addenda section. The contract and/or escrow instructions were reviewed.The following summarizes the contract: Contract Date Amendment Date Contract Price Seller HThe contract indicated that personal property was not Included in the sale. The contract indicated that personal property was included. It consisted of Estimated contributory value is$ . ❑ Personal property was not included in the final value estimate. ❑ Personal property was included in the final value estimate. RThe contract indicated no financing concessions or other incentives. The contract indicated the following concesslonsor incentives: ❑ If concessions or incentives exist,the comparables were checked for similar concessions and appropriate adjustments were made,if applicable,so that the final value conclusion is in compliance with the Market Value defined herein. 111 MARKET OVERVIEW Include an explanation of current market conditions and trends. months is considered a reasonable marketing period for the subject property based on © ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION The Appraiser certifies and agrees that (1) Their analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed,and this report was prepared,in conformity with the Uniform.Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice('USPAP'),and in accordance with the regulations developed by the Lender's Federal Regulatory Agency as required by FIRREA,except that the Departure Provisions of the USPAP do not apply. (2) Their compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client,the amount of the value estimate,the attainment of a stipulated result,or the occurrence of a subsequent event (3) This appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan. ©. ADDITIONAL(ENVIRONMENTAL)LIMITING CONDITIONS The value estimated is based on the assumption that the property is not negatively affected by the existence of hazardous substances or detrimental environmental conditions unless otherwise stated in this report. The appraiser is not an expert in the identification of hazardous substances or detrimental environmental conditions.The appraiser's routine inspection of and inquires about the subject property did not develop any information that indicated any apparent significant hazardous substances or detrimental environmental conditions which would affect the property negatively unless otherwise stated in this report.It is possible that tests and inspections made by a qualified hazardous substance and environmental expert would reveal the existence of hazardous substances or detrimental environmental conditions on or around the property that would negatively affect its value. • ADDITIONAL COMMENTS • -APPRAISER'S SIGNATU!:E S.I-.ICENSEICERTIFICATION Appraiser's Signature _ rit�� Effective Date 8/14/95 Date Prepared 8/14/95 Appraiser's Name(print) Ail Michael ittel Phone#( 612 )551-9424 State MN ❑X Lice U Certification #20026094 Tax ID# 468-80-6673 FA CO-SIGNING APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION ❑X The co-signing appraiser has personally inspectedthe subject property,both inside and out,and has made an exterior inspection of all comparable sales listed in the report.The report was prepared by the appraiser under direct supervision of the co-signing appraiser. The co-signing appraiser accepts responsibility for the contents of the report including the value conclusion and the limiting condi- tions,and confirms that the certifications apply fully to the co-signing appraiser. Rthe co-signing appraiser has not personally inspected the interior of the subject property and: has not inspected the exterior of the subject property and all comparable sales listed in the report ❑X has Inspected the exterior of the subject property and all comparable sales listed in the report. X The report was prepared by the appraiser under direct supervision of the co-signing appraiser.The co-signing appraiser accepts responsibility for the contents of the report, including the value conclusions and the limiting conditions, and confirms that the certifications apply fully to the co-signing appraiser with the exception of the certification regarding physical inspections. The above describes the level of inspection performed by the co-signing appraiser. ❑The co-signing appraiser's level of inspection,involvement in the appraisal process and certification are covered elsewhere in the addenda section of this appraisal. ©' : CO-SIGNING APPRAISER'S SIGNATURE&LICENSE/CERTIFICATION Co-Signing Appraiser's Signature Effective Date 8/14/95 Date Prepared 8/14/95 Co-Signing Appraisers Nam nnt) Roper Wagner Phone#( 612 )983-6397 State MN n License Ce rcatlon # LJ0, l z 7fi Trainee Tax ID# FW-70M November 1991 CPckFORMS Appraisal Software by Bradford and Robbins(800)622-8727 Page 2 7 f I--- Memorandum To: Rick Haefele i From: Brad Scheib Date: January 7, 1997 Re: Marketing efforts for the property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive It is my understanding that you have been asked to provide a summary of Century 21 Luger Realty's and my, as agent to Century 21 Luger Realty, efforts to market the property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive as a group home since 1995. In January of 1996, under the brokerage of Luger Realty entered into an agreement with you to market the property for sale. Prior to entering into that agreement, I researched the situation of this group home by talking to Steve Durham, Zoning Administrator for the City of Eden Prairie and Markus Klimenko, Housing Coordinator at Hennepin County Mental Health Division. Following that research it was my determination that the highest and best use of the property as it stood was as a group home use. It was also my understanding that the previous program operator, Welcome Home, was attempting to reestablish a program for the property. In January, the property was entered into the Multiple Listing Service as an investment property with a description of a group home use. Throughout winter and spring of 1996, I contacted by phone and followed up by mall to several group home providers, program operators, foundations, and government organizations that could put me in touch with a group home user(see exhibits 1 and 2). I was also occasionally in contact with Steve Thomas, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Steve Durham and Markus Klimenko to remind them this group home property is available should anyone express an interest. Throughout 1996 and into 1997, classification of the property as an investment property in the Multiple Listing Service generated very little interest in the property. Don Rasmussen, Edina Realty, and Ted Field, Counselor Realty are two agents who showed the property to prospective group home clients during 1996. Through discussions with some of the providers, it was discovered that several agencies were looking to the MLS for large single family homes that could be converted to group homes. When searching on the MLS,your property was not identified because it was classified as an investment property not a single family property. In discussing this with you we decided to change the MLS classification from investment property to reflect single family classification in hopes of increasing the market awareness. Through the remainder 1997, I continued to contact group home providers and professionals in the group home industry to further establish leads(see exhibit 3). I also received assistance from Barb and Mickey Gardner who were associates at Century 21 Luger Realty and showed the property to a client in 1997. In August of 1997, we mutually canceled the listing agreement because I took a new job that required I cancel my real estate license. It was also my understanding the you had a potential client that you were in discussion with who was interested in the group home. Prior to this, I had been closely working with a licensed group home organization that expressed an interest in the property. Bruce McManus at Re-entry services was informed of the property by Steve Thomas whom I had previously contacted. Mr. McManus and I had several discussions which led to Mr. McManus and his colleagues visiting the property. After see the home and looking at his alternatives, he opted not to proceed. this activity approximately took place between the months of March and August in 1997. Also at that time, Tom Braun a neighbor inquired about temporarily renting the facility for a place of residence. I informed Mr. Braun that I had a prospective client that showed high level of interest in Mr. McManus and that he would have to leave upon any sale for a group home use. I then put Mr. Braun in touch with Mr. Haefele. This memo accurately reflects my marketing efforts for your property. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. see attached exhibits • rr, 4"" Rick Pavek, ��- phone: • ' . Cedar Valley Services, Inc. 2111 4th Street NW Austin, MN 55912 J. Q.,. Jeff Merdith ??, phone: Broken Wing Outreach • 1515 East 66th Street Minneapolis, MN 55423 Sam Lindh, phone: 631-6133 Presbyterian Homes of Minnesota 3220 Lake Johnathan BLVD Arden Hills, MN Allan Scheibe, phone: Homeward Bound, Inc 4741 Zealand Ave N New Hope, MN 55428 Dave Pills, phone: 645-7271 Accessible Space, Inc 2550 University Ave W, Suite 330 N St. Pual, MN 55114 Jim Rudolph, phone: Catholic Charities 1730 Seventh Avenue S d/ St. Cloud, MN 56301 Denise Mueller, phone: 291-1086 l Association Of Residence -_M _ _ ____--_ Craig Brett, phone: 871-3320 Tasks Unlimited Mental Health Services 2419 Nicollet Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55408 Ted Field , REALTOR phone: 921-0914 Counselor Realty Jeff Taylor, phone: 699-6050 Don Garcia, Inc 690 South Cleavland Street St. Paul, MN • John Gilmore, COO phone: 422-4150 Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center Anoka, MN 55303 Don Rasmussen, REALTOR phone: 927-1668 Edina Realty 4015 West 65th Street Edina, MN 55435 Bruce McManus, phone: 222-4488 Re-Entry Services, Inc. 357 Oneida Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Steve Thomas, phone: 376-8934 Corporation for Supportive Housing Thresher Square on 3rd Street Minneapolis, MN Leslie Meyer, Program Director phone: 938-3439 CIP, Passageway 4735 Clear Spring Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 Rand Adams, Program Director phone: 888-5611 Carlson-Drake House 5414 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, MN 55437 Glen Albert, Program Director phone: 536-8134 Breckinridge House 7314 Bass Lake Road New Hope, MN 55428 Renee Svoboda, Program Director phone: 871-4183 Bristol Place Corporation 202 Ridgewood Ave Minneapolis, MN 55403 Frances Slagle, Program Director phone: 529-2040 Anchor 1622 Hillside Avenue N Minneapolis, MN 55411 Karen Hovland, Administrator phone: 535-6069 Northwest Community Support Program 5510 West Broadway, Suite 112A Crystal, MN 55428 Glenn Anderson, Executive Administrator phone: 521-2116 Brite Lites on Broadway 1501 West Broadway Minneapolis, MN 55411 Paula Psick, Program Director phone: 333-0331 Seward Community Support Program 2105 Minnehaha Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 Glenn Goski, Coordinator phone: 348-8914 Regional Community Support Program Charlie Lentz, Administrator phone: 881-4646 Charaka 7830 Fifth Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55420 Markus Klimenko, Housing Coordinator phone: 348-7934 Hennepin County Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, MN Mary Jo Dick, phone: 3355 Trading Post Trail Afton, MN 55001 Johnathan Farmer, phone: 362-8934 Community Involvement Programs 1600 NE Broadway Street Minneapolis, MN 55413 Bob Tunning, President phone: 431-1443 The Christopher Foundation P.O. Box 1793 Burnsville,MN 55337 Wayne Larsen,Administrator phone: 474-5974 Rolling Acres Victoria, MN r Community Action for Suburban Hennepin County phone: 933-9639 American Baptist HOme of Midwest phone: 941-3175 St. Lukes Group Home phone: 884-0782 Buzz Stagg, Executive Pastor phone: 944-6300 Woodale Church 6630 SHady Oak Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Archie Givens, CEO phone: 831-1448 Legacy Management and Development Corp. 7151 York Avenue South Edina, MN 55410 Todd Bertelson, phone: 220-3846 14051 Vale Court Eden Prairie, MIN 55346 z . fts,e11•111- IV Luger Realty 4536 France Avenue South Minneapolis. Minnesota 55410 (612) 925-3901 January 18, 1996 Mr. Gardner Gay ABC Foundation 6754 Valley View Road Edina, MN 55439 Dear Mr. Gay: Thank you for expressing an interest in the property located at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. I have put together the following information to help you in deciding to further pursue any interest. If after reviewing the enclosed information you would like to make an appointment to discuss this property in more detail, or set up a time to view the property, please call me at 612-925-3901. If I am not available please leave a message with the time or times that would most appropriately fit your schedule and I will try to accommodate. For your convenience my office extension is 305. You may also reach me at home in the evenings at 612-906-9617 if needed. Thanks again for your interest in the property and I look forward to possibly doing business with you in the near future. Sincerely, -t-e,4 - -j. t • Brad Scheib Century 21 Luger Realty Enclosure 9/ Farh C)ffire Is Independently Owned And Operated FAX MEMO CENTURY 21 LUGER REALTY 4536 France Avenue South Edina, MN 55410 phone: 925-3901 fax: 925-0019 TO: Denise Mueller COMPANY: Association of Residents FAX: 293-9389 DATE: March 21, 1996 FROM: Brad Scheib, Sales Associate Following up on our conversation from last Tuesday, March 19th, I have put together the following piece for your monthly newsletter publication. If you need the information in a different format or any other method please let me know. Please feel free to format it in any way that works for you. Also I would be interested in receiving a copy of the newsletter for my own records. Let me know if there is a fee. Thanks for assisting me with this advertisement. "16 person group home for sale: over 3,000 square feet: $390,000" "prime Eden Prairie location just off 9 Mile Creek and Hwy 212" "Call Brad Scheib at 925-3901 ext. 305 for more information" Thanks!!! yG.q. luCc i ih-wd 1--I? c OntLI- -0( Luger Realty CENTURION Office, 1995 4536 France Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410 i (612) 925-3901 j °fa October 14, 1996 1995 Office Rick Dettloff '995 A-1605 Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, NEN. 55487 Dear Mr. Dettloff: Thank you for speaking with me regarding the operations of group homes, their licensing, and the current trends in the business. The information you provided me and the referral to Markus Klimenko, Housing Coordinator, was and will be very helpful in the future. Specifically regarding the property previously occupied by Welcome Home, Inc. at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, I am continually left with the impression that this property is or is becoming functionally obsolete. I hope that my future discussions with Markus Klimenko will prove me wrong and produce some creative solution to putting this facility back into operation. Again I thank you and greatly appreciate you giving me the time and opportunity to discuss my situation and needs. Attached is some general information regarding the property. If you have any questions or ideas please call me at 925-3901 extension 305. Sincerely, Brad Scheib Sales Associate 3 Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated Luger Realty !�ii CENTURION'Office, 1995 't 4536 France Avenue South tit Minneapolis. Minnesota 55410 11 (612) 925-3901 .L s November 8, 1996 Q 1995 Mr. Markus Klimenko Hennepin County A-1605 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 - Dear Mr. Klimenko: Thanks for taking the time to speak to me regarding the use and marketing of the property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive. Your information was very much appreciated. I have enclosed some detailed information about the property including parts of the appraisal and a summary of the site. When I have an interested party, I prepare a more detailed marketing package; therefor, if someone requests more information let me know and I can put something together. Again thanks for your help and if you have any questions let me know. I will keep you informed as to any activity. Sincerely, échei ' -7 1 iy r) Sales Associate Enclosure Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated ant:UV ,.sse.oes . _1 j l r ti Luger Realty CENTURION'Office, 1995 4536 France Avenue South $ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410 - .��' -} 1 (612) 925-3901 1'' \V, �.i V. Office 5 November 11, 1996 w‘., Office Mr. Jonathan Farmer _I•�� w 1600 NE Broadway Street Minneapolis, NliN 55413 ` % Dear Mr. Farmer: Thanks for taking the time to speak to me regarding 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, a.k.a. Welcome Home property. I have enclosed some general information about the property, including parts of the appraisal, a location map and some information from the City of Eden Prairie. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call. You can reach me with a voice mail message at 925-3901 extension 305. If I am unavailable you may also contact Nick Klatt at extension 202. Nick is a Senior Associate who is familiar with this property. I look forward to discussing this opportunity again in the future. If you have any other real estate needs please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, /6 I i ./,-7. , irell-41 Brad Scheib Associate Enclosure Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated s., fs r Luger Realty `11 CENTURION°Office. 1995 4536 France Avenue South i' Minneapolis. Minnesota 55410 (612) 925-3901 J:ct ;995 December 11, 1996 .�'. Ms. Mary Jo Dick cY:� 3355 Trading Post Trail Afton, ivLNt 55001 Dear Mary Jo: I recently attended a computer training class with your daughter, Monica. In our conversations we discovered some common interests to some extent. In my real estate practices I have obtained a listing of a property that is a group home (Rule 36 Category II licensed facility) located in Eden Prairie. I believe Monica spoke briefly to you about this property. She mentioned that you might know some people who may have an interest in a group home facility. I have enclosed some general information about the property, including parts of the appraisal, a location map and some information from the City of Eden Prairie. Please feel free to copy and distribute it. If you have any questions please give me a call. You can reach me with a voice mail message at 925-3901 extension 305 and I will promptly return your call. I am also available in the evenings at 512-1008. If I am unavailable you may also contact Nick Klatt at extension 202. Nick is a Senior Associate who is familiar with this property. Thanks again for any help and if I can ever serve any of your real estate needs, please give me a call. Sincerely, /46—. Brad Scheib Associate Enclosure Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated VIP Real Estate 5378 Beachside Drive Minnetonka.MN 55343 Fax Cover Sheet DATE: March 31, 1997 TIME: 5:06 PM TO: Ludy Berganthal PHONE: [936-0238] [Company Name] FAX: [936-0238] FROM: Brad Scheib PHONE: 925-3901 [Century 21 Luger] FAX: 925-0019 RE: 7170 Bryant Lake Drive CC: Number of pages including cover sheet: 18 The attached pages are from an appraisal for 7170 Bryant Lake Drive that was done by a certified appraiser in August of 1995. The appraisal contains a lot of specific information about the property. If your client is further interested in this property and would intend to use it as a group home they should contact the City of Eden Prairie (planning and zoning, Mr. Steve Durham) to ensure that the use is compatible with the zoning and the special use permit for 7170 Bryant Lake Drive. The file at the City of Eden Prairie is#84-53. I will try to get a summary of that file for you if you wish to pursue this. I do not have convenient or immediate access to a plat map; however, I will get this and fax it to you tomorrow or Wednesday at the latest. A legal description is included in the appraisal. Please give me a call if you have any questions. From our conversation this afternoon, it appears as though you are working with investors, not necessarily a housing provider. Please correct me if I am wrong. My client is selling the real estate and not a business. The group home business was run by Welcome Home, Inc. Originals to follow in mail. Fax Memorandum To: Markus Klimenko, Hennepin County Housing Coordinator Fax: 348-8736 From: Brad Scheib, Century 21 Luger Realty Phone: 925-3901 Date: April 28, 1997 Subject: 7170 Bryant Lake Drive As you may recall,we have had previous conversations regarding the property that was previously occupied by Jim Just and Welcome Home Properties at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive. My purpose for contacting you again is two-fold. First, I would like to inform you that, for anyone you know who may be interested,the price has been reduced to $249,000. The seller of this property is highly motivated and interested in looking at all options. I have been in contact with a few housing providers;however,I am reasonably sure you know more than I do. The second purpose of contacting you is to try and track down a few pone numbers of potential buyers of this property. I know that a gentleman named Archie Givens (sp?) has at one time expressed an interest in the property to the owner,who lost his number. In a previous conversation you mentioned that you worked with him or know of him. Would you be able to provide me with a phone number or mailing address or company name? I appreciate any help you can offer regarding the sale of this piece of real estate. I am open to any and all thoughts or suggestions. I realize (and I think the seller does now also)that the price has been to high: however, now that he dropped it to $249,000 there have been several interest from parties wanting to convert it back to a duplex or single family home. These users would of course offer less money because they now it has been on the market for so long. Thanks in advance for taking the time to respond to this letter. You can reach me at my day work phone: 421-6630 or leave a voice mail message at 925-3901 extension 305 with any helpful or non-helpful information. Brad Fax Memorandum To: Leslie Meyer, Program Director, Passageway Fax: 938-2715 From: Brad Scheib, Century 21 Luger Realty Phone: 925-3901 extension 305 Fax: 925-0019 Date: April 28, 1997 Subject: 7170 Bryant Lake Drive You had contacted me sometime last year regarding a group home that was for sale at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive in Eden Prairie. I wanted to let you know that the property has not sold yet and that the asking price has dropped from$350,000 down to $249,000. The owner is anxious to sell. As you may recall the property was licensed as a rule 36 category II residential treatment facility. The City of Eden Prairie has granted a special use permit that allows occupancy for up to 16 unrelated persons. The property has over 3,000 square feet, 6 bedrooms on the upper level, ample office space, a commercial kitchen, central air conditioning, and is located less than a mile to a MCTO park and ride lot. If you think you might have further interest in the property please feel free to give me a call at the above phone numbers. Thanks for your consideration and let me know if you would like further information or if you know someone who might be interested in the facility. Brad • j .i am• • /;Q 1 i xl Lf Fax Memorandum To: Steve Thomas, Corporation for Supportive Housing Fax: 376-8934 From: Brad Scheib, Century 21 Luger Realty 1 Re: Group Home For Sale ' r Date: May 5, 1997 You may recall I have talked to you before about the property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive which used to be occupied by Welcome Home, Inc. The last time I spoke to you regarding this piece of real estate, the price was at $325,000. The owner has dropped the price to $249,000 and is interested in looking at any and all offers. The owner also said that he would be willing to hold a contract, or lease the facility with the rent going towards a purchase. I thought I would send this information to you to keep you informed should you know of any group looking for a facility. Please feel free to contact me at 925-3901 extension 305, or on the weekends at 512-1008. Thanks. Brad May 27, 1997 Mr. Bruce McManus Re-Entry Services, Inc. 357 Oneida Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Bruce: Thank you for inquiring about the group home in Eden Prairie at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive. Attached are a few pages out of an appraisal that was done in August of 1995. Also attached is a one page summary that highlights the essentials of the property. As we discussed on the phone last Friday, the home has a special use permit from the City of Eden Prairie. That permit allows up to 18 unrelated persons to occupy the facility. The price has been dropped from the upper$300,000's down to $249,000. Please take a look at the information enclosed and give me a call if you have any questions. The owner of the facility will consider alternative financing options: 10% down Contract for Deed, conventional financing, lease with an option or cash. Please let me know if you have an interest in taking a look at the facility. I will probably need a couple of days to set up a showing. If you think there may be further interest,you can reach me at my day phone at 421-6630 extension 163. My Voice Mail number is 925-3901 extension 305 and I check it frequently. Sincerely, Brad Scheib Sales Associate Enclosures 11/ 11;.7 . . (Elf Company Addressl • City State PostalCode Phone Boston I-Iealth Care 563 Payne Ave St. Paul MN 55101 771-3578 Systems, Inc. Minneapolis Urban 2000 Plymouth Minneapolis MN 55411 League Ave N Hammer Residences, 1909 E Wayzata Wayzata MN 55391 473-1261 Inc Boulevard Home Away Centers, 2119 Pleasant Minneapolis MN 55404 Inc. Avenue Mains'1 Services, Inc. 4900 N Highway New Hope MN 55428 531-0330 169 Opportunity Partners 5500 Opportunity Minnetonka MN 55343 938-5511 Court Thomas Allen, Inc. 450-1802 Shelter Care, Inc. 823-8483 Bill Kelly House 3104 East 58th Minneapolis MN 55417 726-1502 Street PHS, Inc. 536-8128 Mary T., Inc. 1555 118th Lane Coon Rapids MN 55448 754-5712 NW 861-3456 Supportive Living 5615 Brooklyn Brooklyn Center MN 55429 537-6612 Services Boulevard, #200 Community Options 5384 NE 5th Street Fridley MN 55421 572-0009 Community housing 4925 Minnetonka St. Louis Park MN 55426 927-0460 & Services Corp. Boulevard Breckinridge House 7314 Bass Lake New Hope MN 55428 536-8134 Road 4408 69th Avenue Brooklyn Center MN 55429 566-2650 N FirstName LastName Company Addressl City State Postal WorkPh Code one Michael O'Keefe McKnight 121 S Eigth Minneapolis MN 55402 333-4220 C crJ Foundation Street. : w... ,-I" Suite 600 Humphrey Doermann The Bush E-900 First St. Paul MN 55101 /�227-089� 1 t1 p Foundation Bank , 2 i-u.r.. c 'A-7 4)c-,�vz, /"A-`.41—— Building ` 7\'�;. Dee Henry Williams Dayton 777 Minneapolis MN 55402 370-6553 \4 Hudson Nicollet Foundation Mall y\ Reatha — 'lark- Ge al P.O. Box ilJi expo MN 55440 540-7890.,{to King Mills 11 3 ��� Yl.� Foundatio " R.E. Hanson 3/v1 3M od MN 55144 733-8335 Foundation Building , ti '& 1 U 1 �lL b�c" L `� if Foundation - Carolyn L/Roby Norwest Norwest Minneapolis MN 55479- 667-7860 .,1r`c , - ,.,It 1 Corp. and Center, 90 1055 V ‘.i y,,,; j•`z,: Foundation S. 7th Street Emmett Carson The A200 Minneapolis MN 55402 339-7343 C ics.,.6:t7 Minneapoli Forshay s Tower,821 Foundation Marquette Ave. Terry Saario Northwest E-1201 St.P _ D101- 224-9635 2107 ' \'"'�`�� Area First :: Foundation - onal Bank Building . A 0524 • Mary Pickard The St. 385 St.Paul '_vLN 55102 221-7757/, ,ivy '` Paul Cos. Washingto ,.`y;,` n Street John Kostishack Otto 445 St. Paul MN 55101- 227-8036 Bremer Minnesota 2107 �'Z-`'�0 Foundation Street, Suite 2000 _ . / Jan Lapp First Bank P.O.Box Minneapolis NN 973-24 0 55480 .,;_,. - System 522 VI,D . YitA. Foundation Jennr Anderson Deluxe P.O.Box St.Paul '_vL'1 55164- 483-7842 Foundation 64399 0399 \'1 \. and Corp. • Paul Verret F.R. 600 St.Paul 'N./N 55101 224-5463 Bigelow Norwest \ I ` i Foundation Center, 55 , FirstName LastName Company Addressl City State Postal WorkPh Code one East Fifth Street The 200 S. Minneapolis MN 55402 330-5434 t1 Pillsbury=�--rid-c l Sixth Company Street, Foundation MS37X5 Penny _ Hunt The 7000 Fridley MN 55432 574-3024 vt,+- JG4.'...; -s Medtronic Central v; 1,.;z�, , • Foundation Avenue NE L=rt Turi Whiting Lutheran 625 Fourth Minneapolis MN 55415 340-5821 Brotherhoo Avenue i.`LL d South L`" •'y"•-."_) Patricia Cummings Jay and 10 Second M. o is MN 55413 6 3-1654� Rose Street i �` ��""'� l `i1 Phillips Sy' 00 Fanuly�,�'� Marie Tobin American IDS Tower o is MN 55440 671-3321 Express 10 ,i Minnesota ,.; 1 1 f ` , .t 3 L 12,, 1 0 1 t,:X 1.4 , ` 4 w- iv' 'i i .� Q ' J N \ '' ,,zg-6i72-ritys ..5e0 - /// 1 2i 6-24.1, fi(/41-r Llev -i)4o. -ob- i\ -rs0:7-- •5-Er4.0 kl:€ r(-t-,Lr D1.9.-ig 1-g0 , al'41- / t tAke--z.s-sS c-L4 z.,cp ) (?-67-1-ut I -( ci,) i'- /A.:t' kid\l'oAZ .:.• ---- 5L)7e-Al/ L i'd t4A l:A. 1A-r---1--=A-i 12 ' -4 71. i6P1-1,0 711a(if-- (1 $ ;27(l - ---:.S ,---------- '1)AV.-1.36 Lcnikr:LIHtf 61\s ) 04 \ i ) r tv\.c.v,- ,C c-.0,;,v•-c-1,\A-42Ap, ) ,.....----------, 5 7 414 ) A-ii iz-e- C . v\fiv.1, 6r7,-- —T IL L5 511 IL'- (01)./(Vt-{ . e(: LA--rL8K.(_: pt t,Lszos2› ca7vAppv,ikti , ..1 -; Group Home For Sale 7170 5ryant Lake Prive _ ren Prairie, Minnesota i r- • ' A-1......r • •`. 14 �: ':-.. ) L ant .Jt r Marketed by: Brad Scheib , Century 21 Luger Realty 4536 France Avenue South, Edina, MN 55410 phone: 925-3901 ext. #305 fax: 925-0019 1. iS 7 1 '.1.)/21 Luger Realty 7170 Bryant Lake Drive CENTURIONP Office, 1995 1 4536 France Avenue South !? 6f12) 925 I3901Minnesota 55410 LIST 7 PRICE: S325,000 L 1 i Cthc z Group Home Use O This home was originally used as a duplex up until 1984 when it was converted over ,"; to a group home. In order to comply with the City Zoning ordinance, the owners 195 applied for and received a variance from the City code allowing up to 16 unrelated adults to reside in the same residence. (file #84-53 from City of Eden Prairie). The property could easily be converted back to a duplex. O A vast amount of remodeling and rehabilitation took place to accommodate the use. The property had a foundation put in place. It was completely rewired and now has a 200 amp electrical service which also services a central air cooling unit. Solid core doors with a magnetic release were installed to meet fire code regulations and the home had new sheetrock installed as well. In addition, a commercial kitchen and a handicap accessible bathroom were installed on the main floor. O The main floor has a large meeting room with abundant space for a reception or managerial desk, a room that could be used for staff bedroom or a more private office, a laundry room, and good closet space. O The second floor has a total of 6 bedrooms: two 4-person and four 2-person rooms. There also are two full bathrooms. Convenient location O Immediate neighborhood is a predominantly middle to upper income residential area with homes ranging in value from 200-450 thousand dollars. O Proximate neighborhood consists of business areas with office buildings and even some corporate headquarters, commercial shopping area with major market and convenient stores, abundant restaurants etc.... O Bryant Lake Road is a frontage road to Highway 212. Access to Highway 212 gives you immediate access to other major arterioles such as Interstate 494, Highway 62 and Highway 169. MCTO bus stop close by. • O This property has a preserve type setting nestled on 9 Mile Creek. Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated RICHARD J. HAEFELE ATTORNEY AT LAW 1059 STOUGHTON AVENUE P.O. BOX 85 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 TELEPHONE(612)448-2200 FACSIMILE(612)448-7187 April 25, 1997 VIA FAX TO 970-3190 Mr. Willie Padilla OR FEMA Human Services Re: Housing TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I have a group home located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, which is furnished and vacant . It has a commercial kitchen and sleeps 16 legally. With permission, it could accomodate 25+ . It is for sale. Your office called regarding rental space in the West Suburban Area. Very truly yours, A 't Richard J. Haefele 448-2200 - Office 471-7628 - Home RJH/dab To: Eden Prairie Board of Adjustments and Appeals Committee Members From: Mary Clay TheeAll U 6-1 7041 Crowne Oaks Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3535 Telephone (home)-944-9404 (office)-626-1905 Date: April 7, 1998 RE: Opposition for the appeal of Richard Haefele and Solid Foundations of a City Staff finding regarding the property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive Due to an out of town business commitment, I am unable to attend the April 9 public hearing to obtain input from the neighborhood about the above named action. However, I would like to formally record my opposition for Richard Haefele's and Solid Foundation's desire to appeal a decision of the City Staff which found that the multifamily nonconforming use of the property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive has been abandoned. When my husband and I moved to Eden Prairie in November of 1994, we were informed that the house was for sale as a single family home. Since then, to the best of my knowledge, the house has been either unoccupied or utilized as a single family rental property. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals uphold the City's classification for the use of this property as a "single family home". Thank you for your consideration of this request and the opportunity to express my opinion about the appeal in question. q MEMORANDUM To: The Board of Appeals From: The residents of Crown Oaks and Willow Creek rd_ Subject: The abandonment of the non conforming use Date: April 2, 1998 This signed pattion supports the view of the residents,that this properity has been abandend of the non conforming use. It has also been viewed by our attorneys and witnessed by us as neighbors. The City Attorney has also came to the same conclusion. • Tn; 11'iaynr Harris, City Council memhers,—Roger Pauly. Re: 717i Rryant Lake i!riye Iisage if hliildingfnr a grf]]p llnme housingimfre than 6 residents= We, the undersigned residents of the Willow Creek neighborhood, support the premise that there has been abandonment(discontinued use) of the above mentioned property — and therefore its non-conforming use status =- for multi-family use because of the following facts: 1. The former group facility(Welcome Home) received its last payment from Hennepin County in June of 1994. 2. The building had no residents for over 3 years after that date. 3. The property has been rented to a single person (ie. 1 family) for 6 months. 4. Case law(County_of!santi_v_Peterson.and 1looper-v-City_of SlJ attl). In Peterson, the Court of Appeals held that the county could terminate a nonconforming use that had been discontinued for more than a year. In I lnoper the Minnesota Supreme Court held that uses existing at the time of an adverse zoning change may continue to exist until they are removed or otherwise discontinued. Other supporting cases have been provided to Eden Prairie City attorney Roger Pauly. 5. As recently as December of 1997 the property was listed for sale as a single family 6 bedroom home. • 6. The stnicture is no longer split up into'2 or 3 rental.units as it was in the mid 1980's prior to Welcome home residing there. We would hope that the above facts will assist the city in determining that there has been discontinued use of the'property as a group home. • S 70.64 u`E, C ca. gy( -vs/ y' 10.tialotee-10ec1 ta'N� e�'e,t. -72_?l lJ;(.tt 61.4a , z t?s7D . --- �_ ri ._ .— ------- ----- -------—)Tra-(76 7/ / zad(4)G4 t,-,766s. • _ $ Auti_b_h_w-ottLCrreet .- 99)-66 on 7i d 60/ C ki. / 7_.L 414 11/1 /14 1 0 4l 6 tJ,�c n G t:40 tolaWeeac • 40 4),// �,� 6� 9w/a s-- 72)b-,( 4 ,/4, ,, 01). ;j�c� 9v/-/SAS xi.pf,,wUtia.t.2 ?oz. (Adeat.,,./ Lfcg3 , 1n t�. 1�%Lid 1.0 ��rlv C a Zk RA s 7-01 - RZ ace, 103 0 VJrL • 61 l -MID (id r I/ Ovdc 114 l-27 z,6:, 761640/a gL (J.ti C 9ww-6,98S. 103-1KIIOW CI & 905-5i�5 103 o LA I i lb 1A) G L1 %63-d i e A'; f ✓I //.��Y (� vwoeI `j cl/.1 /33 CLUS cAitrx.,12-) IOU To: Mayor Harris,City Council members,Roger Pauly Re: 7170 Bryant Lake Drive Usage of building fora group home housing more than 6 residents. We,the undersigned residents of the Crowne Oaks neighborhood, support the premise that there has been abandonment(discontinued use) of the above mentioned property -- and therefore its non-conforming use status—for multi-family use because of the following facts: 1. The former group facility(Welcome Home)received its last payment from Hennepin County in June of 1994. 2. The building had no residents for over 3 years after that date. 3. The property has been rented to a single person(ie. 1 family)for 6 months. 4. Case law(County of 1santi v. Peterson and Hooper v. City of St. Paul) In Peterson,the Court of Appeals held that the county could terminate a nonconforming use that had been discontinued for more than a year. In Hooper the Minnesota Supreme Court held that uses existing at the time of an adverse zoning change may continue to exist until they are removed or otherwise discontinued. Other supporting cases have been provided to Eden Prairie City attorney Roger Pauly. 5. As recently as December of 1997 the property was listed for sale as a single family 6 bedroom home. 6. The structure is no longer split up into 2 or 3 rental units as it was in the mid 1980's prior to Welcome Home residing there. We would hope that the above facts will assist the city in determining that there has been discontinued use of the property as a group home. gtti'vei.4e44 (..e1 7 I 1 2- C vvo e 4, 1k v ��.,.0 , , �ti eizAN,.<<L L.77/G/ ` z. . ,, � _ ,c.t.r.,t,, _,/,(, , , -3iii..e.e..0,_/bL6v,,x (R‘e - 1 '`� g . ......... . _...:; ,.c , L, , `t -1-�,-- ml u ) Zen /ate-/ttie:1 Ill 3 m-04v O!t V . Triffiri— ,--I /(0.io - CePk d AI& 0-0-/ 71)57 C &.itP Of pri- ti, 1-- ge%G% 76 0?D d/-vzn .e pa/< Rot` Cyr, M. 0 Ll I Q r o cJ n,Q_ O A 441afildei e. ,.r l., 00.6 tz caha q hd -01-(2.1,0 ofrrxAND, ..cita-12 eAtf "2_4- 16 1--914.-;., ewr---715C-t• 07e_orS S'k_c;Ko& 17 I Co <{ Oro_w �.t O ra 1<s 20/1-� anS Inn c o ca D gozS CrowNe Ors«s Rona R1577 Ya / qn, pe,L0-1,-A S K A 17b4,0 e ro tAml- 01. 4, ed. iO2- City of Eden Prairie City Offices eate 8080 Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 prairie Phone (612) 949-8300 • TDD (612) 949-8399 • Fax (612) 949-8390 March 6, 1998 Richard J. Haefele 1059 Stoughton Avenue P.O. Box 85 Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Subject: Variance Application for 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Mr. Haefele: I received your fax yesterday, of letters dated March 5, 1998. I understand you are requesting the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to review the decision by the City Attorney, dated February 13, 1998, related to the abandonment of a multiple family dwelling at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive. Along with this letter I will need a completed Variance Request Application form submitted to this office along with the fee for code interpretations. A signature is required by the property owner, in this case yourself. I understand the application may not provide you with the room to completely describe your case. In this instance the letter you provided is appropriate. The signed variance application would be required by Thursday March 12, 1998. Once this signed application and fee is received the application would be considered for the next scheduled Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting. I will be available to meet with you to review any aspect of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals process. My number is 949-8491. Sincerely Steve Durham Zoning Administrator c: Ric Rosow, City Attorney G:,STEVE\VL97\97451 LL.WPD IRecyU t rarea v City of Eden Prairie City Offices 8080 Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 prim no Phone (612) 949-8300 • TDD (612) 949-8399 • Fax (612) 949-8390 December 17, 1997 Minnesota Department of H»man Services 444 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Attention: Julie Sailor SUBJECT: Solid Foundations - Proposed location at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Ms. Sailor: Subsequent to my letter to Sheree Kieffer from the City of Eden Prairie dated October 14, 1997, the City Attorney and the Office of Community Development have received a letter from Donald Sorenson dated December 11, 1997, regarding the above-captioned property. This letter was copied to you. Several issues in the letter have been raised pertaining to abandonment of a non- conforming use of property at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive. In light of this new information, the City is investigating whether the nonconforming use has been abandoned. This issue is critical since the present zoning (Rural) does not permit the property to be used for multi-family purposes, unless such use constitutes a legal nonconforming use. Until the investigation has been completed and the issue resolved, the City is unable to confirm that the proposed use of the property by Solid Foundation would be a permitted use of the property. Should you have any question please call me at 949-8491. Sincerely, Steve Durham Zoning Administrator c: Richard Haefele Jennifer Coughlin Roger Pauly Sheree Kieffer g:\steve\v1\97451 " Fer/c!ed Paper City of Eden Prairie City Offices 3080 Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie, MN 65344 2230 -ft,- N Phone (612) 949-8300 • TDD (612) 949-8399 • Fax (612) 949-8390 October 14, 1997 Minnesota Department of Human Services 444 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Attention: Sheree Kieffer SUBJECT: Solid Foundations - Proposed location at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Ms. Kieffer: The Office of Community Development is in receipt of the Zoning Notification of Application for Department of Human Services Program License for Solid Foundations at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, Eden Prairie. Minnesota. The proposed use is to provide residential care and group home services fro 16 males - 14 to 18 years old. Based on state statutes (245.11 and 462.357) and the historical use of the facility at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive, 7-16 persons may be served in a residential carei group home facility. The City understands a license for operation may be issued based on state statutes and subject to meeting_ all Minnesota State and Hennepin County License requirements, building code and fire code regulations. Should you have any questions please call me at (612) 949-8491. Sincerely, ,--. Steve Durham Zoning Administrator c: Roger Pauly, City Attorney g:'Stevewi\9745 I c JUN. -UL 98 (TUE) 14: 11 LAW OFFICE TEL:612 448 7187 P. 002 RICHARD J. HAEFELE i ATTORNEY AT LAW 1059 STOUGHTON AVENUE P.O.BOX 85 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 TELEPHONE(612)448-2200 FACSIMILE(612)448-7187 June 2, 1998 Mayor Jean Harris City Hall 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 and Eden Prairie City Council c/o Steve Durham Zoning Administrator 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re ; 7170 Bryant Lake Drive Dear Mayor Harris and Council : Please consider this letter a brief summary of my position on the abandonment of the group home use of the above described property. The law as set out in the City Attorney' s opinion letter and in Anderson §6 .65 p. 683 seems to be that the persons asserting abandonment have the burden of proof of facts sufficient to justify the findings. The City of Eden Prairie staff has never asserted the abandonment, only the neighbors . The staff in fact informed us on numerous occasions throughout 1997 that our anticipated use was acceptable. In reliance on those representations by the City both the operator of the Solid Foundations program and I spent thousands of dollars in improvements to make the property suitable for the group home use. These improvements included updated commercial kitchen, fire protection/security system and numerous cosmetic changes including carpet and tile, etc. Once the lease had been agreed upon in November 1997 and the changes had been planned and some completed, a group of neighbors including many of the same people who opposed the original project in the mid 80' s, contacted the city attorney. Apparently in December, 1997, after about eight months of developing the - II